Friday, November 7, 2008
INTERVENTIONISM: A REAL NECESSITY -Argumentative Essay-
Any affectation of economic activity by the State is seen as interventionism. In any modern society there is some kind of state intervention in the economy: all governments provide some public goods and regulate, through laws and decrees, certain aspects of economic activity. Nowadays, there is much controversy about the relevant of state intervention in the market to face the actual financial crisis of the world. Some people believe that the market is which should correct the crisis without the intervention of the state. However, under certain circumstances must be precisely that the state develops certain economic activities that protect the rights and welfare of the majority of the population. This essay will examine some arguments on behalf of government intervention to overcome the global financial crisis.
First of all, there are cases where it is imperative to defend interventionism, as it becomes necessary and appropriate. Such is the case with the interventionist position that has had to assume the United States Government faced to the financial crisis that began 14 months ago and that promises devastating effects on the market and society in general. In the last decade countless abuses were committed, in which the real estate sector and the entities that financed it won a lot of money, while citizens are indebted far beyond their possibilities due to interest rates set below the minimum. The excess of confidence coupled with the inefficient controls did that almost anyone acknowledged that there was a monstrous accumulation of risk, and now this concept of risk has paralyzed everything, so that banks do not trust on anybody, not even in themselves, and they do not lend money between them, and the interbank system has collapsed. Thus, cases like this expresses the imperative need to do something quick and effective to try to prevent that economy enters into a disastrous recession and that the debts of thousands of employees and families finish in the crumbling of financial system. This need for a rescue plan merely alluded to the need for state intervention.
Moreover, the crisis has put the interventionism fashionable. The recapitalization is an option that is being considered by Germany, France, Italy, Austria or Spain, but those which planned to allocate more money to nationalize the banks are paradoxically the United States and United Kingdom, two countries that historically have fled over state intervention in markets. Here is denote the importance it has taken interventionism in recent days, as even the administration of George W. Bush has decided to implement it.
Furthermore, there are cases where the use of interventionism was not only appropriate but also has yielded effective results. In wartime, in 1917, the U.S. government did not hesitate a minute to take control of the railways to ensure supplies of food to the population and the transport of troops and weapons. In 1920, these assets were returned to their owners, with compensation. During the Second World War again were temporarily expropriate the railways, a dozen companies and several coal mines. More recently, either the government or the Federal Reserve (Central Bank) have come to the rescue of Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Merrill Lynch and AIG. So, the nationalization of one part of banking system in the United States represents a very good option for the sector to capitalizes itself and then it eliminates the market's concerns about the solvency of the financial system and it could be the beginning of the end of the financial crisis.
Additionally, the interventionism of the state is vital to ensure the welfare of the majority of people in crisis situations. Either way, the public intervention of a government like Bush’s Government that afraid of the word socialism is simply the result of the despair that involves the biggest financial crisis and people know that if they do not take cards in the problem, it will lead us to an economic crisis in which the impact would be reflected negatively in the whole society. In those cases the experts consider very important intervention of the state, in other words, the state is not letting that the market plays their freedom and autonomy to solve its problem, because it is a big problem that affects the most of the world population and therefore it is necessary to take drastic solutions.
First of all, there are cases where it is imperative to defend interventionism, as it becomes necessary and appropriate. Such is the case with the interventionist position that has had to assume the United States Government faced to the financial crisis that began 14 months ago and that promises devastating effects on the market and society in general. In the last decade countless abuses were committed, in which the real estate sector and the entities that financed it won a lot of money, while citizens are indebted far beyond their possibilities due to interest rates set below the minimum. The excess of confidence coupled with the inefficient controls did that almost anyone acknowledged that there was a monstrous accumulation of risk, and now this concept of risk has paralyzed everything, so that banks do not trust on anybody, not even in themselves, and they do not lend money between them, and the interbank system has collapsed. Thus, cases like this expresses the imperative need to do something quick and effective to try to prevent that economy enters into a disastrous recession and that the debts of thousands of employees and families finish in the crumbling of financial system. This need for a rescue plan merely alluded to the need for state intervention.
Moreover, the crisis has put the interventionism fashionable. The recapitalization is an option that is being considered by Germany, France, Italy, Austria or Spain, but those which planned to allocate more money to nationalize the banks are paradoxically the United States and United Kingdom, two countries that historically have fled over state intervention in markets. Here is denote the importance it has taken interventionism in recent days, as even the administration of George W. Bush has decided to implement it.
Furthermore, there are cases where the use of interventionism was not only appropriate but also has yielded effective results. In wartime, in 1917, the U.S. government did not hesitate a minute to take control of the railways to ensure supplies of food to the population and the transport of troops and weapons. In 1920, these assets were returned to their owners, with compensation. During the Second World War again were temporarily expropriate the railways, a dozen companies and several coal mines. More recently, either the government or the Federal Reserve (Central Bank) have come to the rescue of Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Merrill Lynch and AIG. So, the nationalization of one part of banking system in the United States represents a very good option for the sector to capitalizes itself and then it eliminates the market's concerns about the solvency of the financial system and it could be the beginning of the end of the financial crisis.
Additionally, the interventionism of the state is vital to ensure the welfare of the majority of people in crisis situations. Either way, the public intervention of a government like Bush’s Government that afraid of the word socialism is simply the result of the despair that involves the biggest financial crisis and people know that if they do not take cards in the problem, it will lead us to an economic crisis in which the impact would be reflected negatively in the whole society. In those cases the experts consider very important intervention of the state, in other words, the state is not letting that the market plays their freedom and autonomy to solve its problem, because it is a big problem that affects the most of the world population and therefore it is necessary to take drastic solutions.
Nevertheless, some people fiercely defend the free market because they believe that markets should correct its own imbalances. To a certain extent they are right, the policy of free market ensures the existence of real competition in the market, that is, markets that go wrong are forced to improve their deficiencies to remain their place. However, statistics show that this would be a slow solution that could take a quarter-century and governments like the Bush’s Government urgently need a solution that avoids recession. So that, interventionism is necessary to quickly alleviate the crisis and the high cost of rescue, which involves investing around 700.000 million dollars.
In addition, some people think that any intervention will lead them towards more central planning of society, that is, toward socialism. Notwithstanding, economic theorists argue that there is a big difference between socialism and interventionism. They speak of interventionism only when almost all economic activity in a nation is directed and carried out by the State covering the entire range between free market economy and socialist economy. Besides, if the State affects all economic activity in the nation they speak of a socialist economy, in other words, the experts believe that interventionism reduces autonomy but it do not mean that interventionism eliminate completely autonomy. Thus, after seeing this evidence, there is no way we can agree with what people think against interventionism.
To sum up, in situations of crisis, the state should continue using the interventionism to ensure the rapid welfare of the majority of people. In my opinion, governments are willing to break all the rules and ideologies, in order to they save the system because in these cases they do not understand about economic theories and much less about policies of free market, then, the future of interventionism is written.
Friday, October 10, 2008
CAUSES FOR THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION (Cause – Effect Essay)
Every day is more common to find machines doing the work that some years ago was done by humans, technological innovations, use of several energy sources, the insatiable need for capital and division of work like a support for the business' success, but maybe you never think about the origin of all things that have improved our business and also our quality of life, all this thanks to the speed with which we can produce products and provide services. Certainly what most of us know is that these interesting facilities available to us today were provided by the event known as the Industrial Revolution, however, what few people know is the reasons that promoted this event. Thus, the purpose of this essay is to analyze the three main causes of the Industrial Revolution, such as population’s increase, expansion of foreign trade and the need to develop efficient means of transportation.
The first cause for the industrial revolution and, in my opinion, the most important is the population's increase. Since the XVIII century, epidemics of plague were disappearing and the development of agriculture allowed the growth of food production and then there was a decline in catastrophic mortality (hunger, wars and epidemics). In addition, population’s increase amplified demand for goods and services. It promoted technical innovations that increased production and profits. These inventions began in England in the textile sector, at the beginning they were very simple inventions, they were built of wood and made by artisans and people without scientific preparation, but after that, this technological development in the industry made possible the emergence of what today we know as factory, it is a place where a high production is achieved through the division of labor because each worker took charge only in a portion of the process.
The second cause for the industrial revolution has to do with the expansion of foreign trade. The foreign trade let to get cheap and abundant raw materials and achieved broad market for industrial products. So, people were faced with the possibility of increasing its revenues through reducing of production costs and expanding of their market, take advantage of that opportunity was unquestionably the best option. Although initially the countries of northern Europe had organized a global trade for their benefit and their privileged status was delaying the industrialization of the rest of the world, the discovery of the optimization of profits through the purchase of raw materials in other markets led to countries realized that it was essential to establish stable relations with markets elsewhere in the world.
The third and final cause for the industrial revolution is the need to develop efficient means of transportation. The increase of population and agricultural production and also the development of trade had created large markets in which it was necessary to bring the products from one place to another. To that end, it was imperative to develop and improve means of transport. Besides, improving the means of transport was not an easy task because it was a slow and tortuous process. Nevertheless the growing need for efficient and effective means of transport, it led to the invention of railways and steamboats. Thanks to these inventions, large cities were able to stock up on food without problems, investments produced great benefits, employment increased and also increased the demand for the steel for the construction of rails and locomotives. All these aspects unquestionably strengthened the development of the industrial revolution.
The first cause for the industrial revolution and, in my opinion, the most important is the population's increase. Since the XVIII century, epidemics of plague were disappearing and the development of agriculture allowed the growth of food production and then there was a decline in catastrophic mortality (hunger, wars and epidemics). In addition, population’s increase amplified demand for goods and services. It promoted technical innovations that increased production and profits. These inventions began in England in the textile sector, at the beginning they were very simple inventions, they were built of wood and made by artisans and people without scientific preparation, but after that, this technological development in the industry made possible the emergence of what today we know as factory, it is a place where a high production is achieved through the division of labor because each worker took charge only in a portion of the process.
The second cause for the industrial revolution has to do with the expansion of foreign trade. The foreign trade let to get cheap and abundant raw materials and achieved broad market for industrial products. So, people were faced with the possibility of increasing its revenues through reducing of production costs and expanding of their market, take advantage of that opportunity was unquestionably the best option. Although initially the countries of northern Europe had organized a global trade for their benefit and their privileged status was delaying the industrialization of the rest of the world, the discovery of the optimization of profits through the purchase of raw materials in other markets led to countries realized that it was essential to establish stable relations with markets elsewhere in the world.
The third and final cause for the industrial revolution is the need to develop efficient means of transportation. The increase of population and agricultural production and also the development of trade had created large markets in which it was necessary to bring the products from one place to another. To that end, it was imperative to develop and improve means of transport. Besides, improving the means of transport was not an easy task because it was a slow and tortuous process. Nevertheless the growing need for efficient and effective means of transport, it led to the invention of railways and steamboats. Thanks to these inventions, large cities were able to stock up on food without problems, investments produced great benefits, employment increased and also increased the demand for the steel for the construction of rails and locomotives. All these aspects unquestionably strengthened the development of the industrial revolution.
In conclusion, the industrial revolution was caused by population’s increase, expansion of foreign trade and the need to develop efficient means of transportation. On the other hand, I have to say that we should appreciate the succeeded things by Businessmen of the XVIII century, we must be aware that the goals are not achieved easily but they are worth do a lot of work and effort!...
Thursday, September 11, 2008
ABOUT ME!...
Hi, my name is Tatiana, I am 20 years old, I was born in Villavicencio City, I finished mi high school in Institución Educativa Colegio Juan Pablo II, but I traveled to Bogotá to start my career in Universidad de La Sabana.
I am studying International Business Administration and although I am just beginning (Second Semester) I am enjoying it very much.
In my free time, I like reading, skating or only being whit people that I love.
This website is the result of my learning in a foreign language; English, then, I hope that it is clear, agreeable, and that it is be able to overcoming the expectations of anybody who consults it!.
I am studying International Business Administration and although I am just beginning (Second Semester) I am enjoying it very much.
In my free time, I like reading, skating or only being whit people that I love.
This website is the result of my learning in a foreign language; English, then, I hope that it is clear, agreeable, and that it is be able to overcoming the expectations of anybody who consults it!.
MY OWN VOCABULARY
Science: Is the systematized knowledge, developed through observations, reasoning and evidence methodically organized. Science uses different methods and techniques for the acquisition and organization of knowledge about the structure of a set of objective facts that are accessible to several observers. The application of these methods and knowledge leads to the generation of more objective knowledge in the form of specific, quantitative and verifiable predictions related to facts from past, present and future. Often these predictions can be made through reasoning and also these predictions can be structured as universal rules or laws. One prediction can explain the behavior of a system and predict how this system will act in certain circumstances.
Invention: Is an object, technique or process that has novel features. It can be related to any idea, collaboration or prior innovation. Its process requires the knowledge of a concept or of an existing method that can be amended or transformed into a new invention. However, some inventions also represent an innovative creation without background in science or technology. Those inventions expand the limits of human knowledge.
Inventor: Person who has created or conceived something that did not exist before. Inventor also can be the person engaged of inventing things in order to satisfy people’s desires and needs.
Invention: Is an object, technique or process that has novel features. It can be related to any idea, collaboration or prior innovation. Its process requires the knowledge of a concept or of an existing method that can be amended or transformed into a new invention. However, some inventions also represent an innovative creation without background in science or technology. Those inventions expand the limits of human knowledge.
Inventor: Person who has created or conceived something that did not exist before. Inventor also can be the person engaged of inventing things in order to satisfy people’s desires and needs.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
TAYLOR VS. FAYOL (Compare-Contrast Essay)
TAYLOR VS. FAYOL
Compare – Contrast Essay
The administrative thinking is characterized by its diversity of approaches and its current status is complex and dynamic, especially when it wants to respond the questions related to management organizations. Two of the most important administrative theories are the Frederick W. Taylor and Henri Fayol’s theories, so, in this essay I will show you some differences and similarities between these two theories.
There are some similarities between the theories of Taylor and Fayol. For instance, both men wrote during the same time period, at the beginning of the XX century. In addition, both belonged to the same school of administrative thinking: The Classical Theory, so, both are focused on increasing productivity of the company with the efficiency and rationalization of workforce. And the most important similarity is that both made important contributions to the administrative thinking that today are used by the most of managers.
On the other hand, there are also differences between the theories of Taylor and Fayol, such as, while Taylor was concerned with first-line managers and the scientific method, Fayol's attention was directed toward the activities of all managers in general. Besides, another difference is that Taylor emphasized on the tasks, implementing methods and techniques of engineering to replace empirical methods and increase worker productivity, whereas, Fayol emphasized on the functionality and organizational structure, dividing the work in functional areas and executing the general principles of any organization: Planning, Organizing, Leading, Coordinating and Controlling.
In conclusion, these two men and their theories in some ways opposing but complementary, show as the classic approach of the administration and teach us that the particularity and proper integration of both theories depend on each organization and the context in which it operates.
Compare – Contrast Essay
The administrative thinking is characterized by its diversity of approaches and its current status is complex and dynamic, especially when it wants to respond the questions related to management organizations. Two of the most important administrative theories are the Frederick W. Taylor and Henri Fayol’s theories, so, in this essay I will show you some differences and similarities between these two theories.
There are some similarities between the theories of Taylor and Fayol. For instance, both men wrote during the same time period, at the beginning of the XX century. In addition, both belonged to the same school of administrative thinking: The Classical Theory, so, both are focused on increasing productivity of the company with the efficiency and rationalization of workforce. And the most important similarity is that both made important contributions to the administrative thinking that today are used by the most of managers.
On the other hand, there are also differences between the theories of Taylor and Fayol, such as, while Taylor was concerned with first-line managers and the scientific method, Fayol's attention was directed toward the activities of all managers in general. Besides, another difference is that Taylor emphasized on the tasks, implementing methods and techniques of engineering to replace empirical methods and increase worker productivity, whereas, Fayol emphasized on the functionality and organizational structure, dividing the work in functional areas and executing the general principles of any organization: Planning, Organizing, Leading, Coordinating and Controlling.
In conclusion, these two men and their theories in some ways opposing but complementary, show as the classic approach of the administration and teach us that the particularity and proper integration of both theories depend on each organization and the context in which it operates.
By: Tatiana Romero
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)