RS: THE END

I enjoyed watching the Feyman video. Despite it being only 30 seconds, he made me realize that even the most complex of things can be explained and we can have fun learning it as well . We have to take notice of the things around us, even the smallest things because they help explain a lot. If this theory his father had explained is used to explain economic events today, I would not be surprised. We need to learn to read into things with "no pressure". That is the best way to learn, because then we are ready to learn. One thing I wish I could have done better this semester would be: 1. being on time with my work 2. Applying more macro theory to my RS 3. Reading more of the text-book Although, I enjoyed this classed. It was refreshing and I experienced no pain, so I guess it was a lie when they say that no pain, no game, because I learned a lot and experienced to pain at all (lol). I plan on making a reading list for this summer so that I can prepare my self not only for the next school semester, but for the journey I plan on taking. My reading list will be books on global/local development, economy,etc. This semester was different and I enjoyed it... especially the video's showed in class. I think I'll continue with this blog, because it seems that after reading an article and writing about it helps me to be more intuitive and critical. It also helps with memory, so thanks Prof. R. P.S. if you know of any books you want to refer to me that you know I would find interesting email them!: jeanlouisf@sacredheart.edu

RS: Reflection

After the interviews I realized that the state of the economy presents different opportunities for every individual. Each of the people I interviewed experienced during their time some type of economic distress, a moment when the economy was robust, or financial failings. You can say that our economy subsists by cycling. However, just because two people lived at the same time when the economy was at a certain point, that does not mean they experienced the same thing. Every one lives in different conditions. Some better than others and that plays a bigger role on how someone describes their experience. Also, values play an important part in this as well. After taking the interview, I analyzed my results and realized that some people would find reagan as the best president because of the policies he implemented. Both of my interviewee's found him as the best of all presidents they have known, because at that time the economy was robust, businesses and people were thriving. Although, this may be true, I did not live during the Reagan era. The only thing that I find as a result to his work is the current condition of our society. What I see is a hotbed for capitalist destruction because of Reagan's deregulation on businesses and banks. Again, my values are different, so it makes much more sense tha I would prefer FDR as my favorite.

We also share a common concern as to whether the the economy should be regulated by the government or not. One of my interviewee's grew up around communist ideals and makes sense for him to see that a government regulated economy as not ideal. While the other raised around capitalist ideals believes that the government should regulate the economy. This is not to say that all born in America has the same notion, because we don't. However, the reason for the differences are apparent. how a person perceives the time they live in, how they go about describing their economy and their leaders wil never share the same reason.

Interview: On Economic Generations

1. What president you thought was the best only in terms of economy?
IM1.Clinton
IB2.Ronald Reagan
Me.FDR

2. First memory you have of the economy that effected your life?
IM1.Gas lines in the late 70s
IB2.Late 70's when the price of gas became a problem and inflation was high
Me.Mortgage interest increase

3. Price of gas when you got your first car?
IM1.I remember gas at .79, but it was probably more like .95 when I started driving (in 1986).
IB2.Around 0.50 a gallon
Me. Never had a car. When I first started driving gas went up by 2 and half dollars.

4. When you were young (0-16) did your family rent or own
IM1.Owned
IB2.Owned
Me. Rent

5. What city changed the most both good and bad?
IM1.I suppose NYC changed the most. Detroit—I’m from Michigan—hasn’t changed for the better at all.
IB2.Los Angeles
Me.NYC

6. Do you know anyone who joined the military because they could not get a job?
IM1.No
IB2.Yes
Me.No

7. What is the price change in your life you considered to be good?
IM1.Anything related to music—listening, recording.
IB2.Price changes for personal computers
Me. I do not have one, but Borders Marketplace is a life saver though since the used books are significantly cheaper than the new ones

8. What was your best year? and how well was society doing?
IM1.The mid-90s were a breeze, and things seemed to be looking up in the summer of 2008.Now—not so much.
IB2.1981. We could get 20% returns on CD's
Me. early 2006 and 2009

9. When did you get your first credit card?
IM1.1988, when I was 18, most likely.
IB2.1979
Me.2009


Likert Scale questions: ( yes, some-what, I don't know, no)

1. Government should regulate the economy:
Interviewee M1: Yes
Interviewee B2:Some-what
Me:Yes
2. In 6months the economy will get better:
Interviewee M1: Some-what
Interviewee B2: NO
Me:No
3. The recession personally effected me:
Interviewee M1: No
Interviewee B2:Yes
Me:Yes
4. We should invade Iran:
Interviewee M1: No
Interviewee B2:No
Me:No
5. I am well informed about economic news:
Interviewee M1: Yes
Interviewee B2: Yes
Me:Some-what

RS: Gold Standard

After listening to the pod cast, I realized that there are flaws with both the gold standard and the modern use of money. Back then gold had a real face value. It was not a representation of anything, but its gold value. However, with paper money, we can print out as much as we deem necessary with out the sufficient amount to back what we make. But I found that route inevitable because of globalization. There is only so much gold to go around the world and I assume that eventually (like any fate of an economy) people began to look for efficiency. Paper money not only allowed people to multiply there wealth it allowed people to promise to others what they did not have. So the supply of money will only increase as the demand for it increase and this only leads to an unavoidable dilemma-- recession. However, there is a bit of contardiction here. The podcast mentioned that the transition from gold to paper was to increase living standards, yet when the Fed decides to play with money by devaluing it, standards do increase, but it becomes ideal. It does not become a standard we can acheive but a standard we want to achieve.

I now understand what is meant by a global recession. Imagine the entire world buying and selling on paper money knowing that they do not have enough gold to back what is being loaned. The demand goes up, we print out more money, produce more commodities, and go on thinking life can't get any better, but things can only get worse. Our dollar has lost it's value, we can't pay back our debts, business operations halt. We are experiencing a perpetual stagnation. A little dramatic, but I can see this happening in little cities and town we thought never existed. Knowing that everything is connected, it wouldn't take long for it to have a national or even international effect. This isn't news of course, since we are amidst one of these recessions today. Now I'm asking how come no body ever saw it coming?

RS: The Warning: A War on Regulation

Watch The Warning on PBS. See more from FRONTLINE.

The role and function of the institutions that are an integral part of the systems that aid the operation of the government are to protect society, as Born puts it. However significant these institutions are. the people who leads their daily operations are infact fallible. The men on Wall street are called Geniuses and Wizards, yet they move and influence according to ideologies that puts society on a threshold for failure. Today, we have more reason to be afraid of these agencies. It's really frightening to find out that an extension to our current market structure exists and that it not only operates in total darkness, but has the power to stagnate and cripple our financial and economic structure. The dealings of ODC derivatives are not only unregulated, that market purposely and obviously makes the entire system vulnearble to fraud and injustice. It makes it possible for one company to lie and indirectly steal, to better their positions. There are no ethics

             The problem is that the government is afraid to deal with something that it is uncertain of. They do not understand the intricacy that lies between the dark market and the one we operate in daily. No ne one is willing to be a "Born" again.  Under common and criminal law, if a seller sells a defunct product, lies, and purposely misleads the buyer knowing fully well the buyers expectations are improbable, the seller stand to be legally dealt with and fined. The derivative market operates like this and needs to be dealt with in the same manner. The thing with this is that, with banks opearting unethically, the effects are a hundred times worse. And the question now seems to be who will cover the mess? yes Ayn Rand and her pupile Greenspan were wrong. When the public fails the government intervenes. The new agenda of the government is to further the ambitions of the rich, since they are the ones sitting in congress, head of councils and agencies. This is America's fight and has always been. A fight between those with influencing wealth and power to shift policitics and macro-policy and those who wants to protect public's wealth.

RS: Regulators Mount Up: Commanding Heights

How an economic system operates in a society and how the functions aid shaping external events are due to current conditions. All systems are fallible, what truly matters is those in power to change it and operate it. If the country passes a policy that has an adverse effect, it is our fault for not learning the intricacies of a system that enables us to further our ambitions as a nation and individuals of society. Capitalism is not perfect. In the capitalistic society we find contradictions left and right. Power straddles the side of those who have money and political influence. The poor remain poor until luck catches up with them and others become wealthy through the struggles and loses of other.

Marx was a benefactor of the whole "Down-with-capitalism" thought. Marx, was a socialist and he abhorred the thought that people were suffering in a capitalist soicety because power and money layed in the hands of a small and selected few. His remedy to capitalism was socialism. Marx forsaw the consequences of capitalism, but failed to prophesy the failings of a communist state. A state where wages and prices are fixed at the governments discretion, he failed to notice that while wealth and power was distributed according to the government, no system can curb the natural and innate behavior of men with money and power. Thus, a communist society gave the government too much power and the government in affect capitalizes off the wealth of the state.

According to Keynes, Capitalism can not grow and subsist with out equal spending and investment. Years ago before the Western world latched onto Keynes theory of aggregate demand, we rested our hopes on doubitable economic theories such as Say's law, blindly followed Smithonian theories and Marshall law until Keynes offered his theory to the quailing world. In 1914, WWI was the effect of kingdoms expanding and changing, turning into nation-states vying for power. The world went to war, but everyone was ignorant to the economic affects of war. After the war, the great powers meant and decided the faith of Germany (Treaty of Versailles). This treaty was meant to strip Germany naked. As Keynes had put it before he left the treasury,we cannot expect a nation that is practically collapsing to produce nor give more than what it has left. A failing nation has nothing to offer; Germany lost its security, defense, the confidence of its people (people dying and barely living, and resources.

Thus, the hoarding among the few nations against Germany was what brought about WWII, Germany we find would not be defeated. Although, Keynes believed that war was a great way to prime an economy, I do not think he would be against another war. His answer as to how to aid those who took the heavier blows of any war would be government intervention

Throughout history, we find something of economic value in every event taken place. For example the cold war, a war (non-physical) between the U.S. and the USSR over ideologies that determines the functions of not only the economy but the government. To the communists, Capitalism was seen as a system meant to steal from its own people, hoard the wealth, and further the United States imperialistic ambition under the umbrella of capitalism. Capitalists viewed communism as an atheistic notion, a threat to democratic ideals.

Vladimir Lenin (Russian Leader) had believed that all conflict was the outcome of imperialistic ambition. He had thought that by building a communist state it would stop imperialism. Vladimir Lenin’s ideology:

1. Capitalism leads to unlimited competition
- An economic system in which wealth & means of producing wealth are
privately owned (Government interference is very limited/Free Market Economy) eventually this wealth would be too concentrated
- In international society unlimited competition necessitates Expansion of
Markets;in which more countries are required to market products, which leads to imperialism

To have access in other countries markets, countries Imperialize and that leads to

Communism: Egalitarian state (based on all are equal). It is a classless and stateless society. Based on common ownership and controlled of the means of production.


These two supreme theories shaped our world and everyday decisions. There has always been a misconception on both parts. In the end both would try to expand there elite notions for political notions and especially economic. Globalization connects us all, it connects us in so many ways that we fail to realize how one act can have a ripple affect. Globalization has allowed nations to thrive through the aid and political connections we have with each other.

RS: Not Everything Sucks

Peter Diamandis mentioned that the world is in fact getting better and stronger. With the growth of technology, lower childhood mortality, etc we are progressing, yet the human race consistently tries to redefine wealth and poverty. Although I think this is true, I believe that progress in the human world is proven by how we use and react to newer and better technology. If things are better why are standard increasing? as he said it's a matter of perception; he is right in that and so I believe that in reality that standards change because economies and politics change. For example if the currency in Africa inflate, we will see the "real" affect of that. Thus, poverty increase, investment decrease, people save less, this effects development, and this leads onto a chain of affects (internationally). That is real.

In comparison to a century ago things have optimistically change, but I do not entertain the notion of the world reaching the pinnacle of greater health and wealth (this includes underdeveloped countries). I believe that the world in the near future will experience a severe duality. Meaning that while we try to move away and lean less on the natural economy, while be put our efforts on subsisting through technology, we cannot fully disentangle our selves from the consequences of our action towards nature/resources, lives, etc. I don't mean that we will fail and never see the rays of the sun, but that there are things that we can never fully disentagle ourselves from, due to the intricacies of the the systems we built.





Hans Rosling's video is amazing. Although, I think it went by too fast and it was oversimplified, he used the graph to explain the growth of countries from what they were to how they are today by naming the point of change for them. Basically in one whole paragraph he tried to name all the possible factors that affect the growth,the conflicting factors that stall some countries from moving at the same rate or up than some.