Essay on economics crisis - effects of bullying essay


 

Manage



 
 

Search

 
 
 

News

 

Comments

essay on economics crisis

essay on economics crisisEssay on economics crisis -What the above highlights then, is that in some countries, discourse on these topics may appear to fit into left-right balance, but when looked at a more global scale, the range of discourse may be narrow.Even before this though, there were indications that the world economic order was headed this way: the majority of wars throughout history have had economics, trade and resources at their core.One would then need to ask if free trade is really possible.Back to top The modern system of free trade, free enterprise and market-based economies, actually emerged around 200 years ago, as one of the main engines of development for the Industrial Revolution.acronym suggested that There Is No Alternative to this. Then, neoliberalism as an ideology for how to best structure economies is explained.The idea that the market should be allowed to make major social and political decisions; the idea that the State should voluntarily reduce its role in the economy, or that corporations should be given total freedom, that trade unions should be curbed and citizens given much less rather than more social protection — such ideas were utterly foreign to the spirit of the time.Unfortunately, that cooperation was not for all the world’s interests primarily, but their own.an entirely state-planned economy) is neo-liberalism (i.e. neo-conservatives, with their commitment to high military spending and the global assertion of national values, tend to be more authoritarian than hard right.Susan George, A Short History of Neoliberalism: Twenty Years of Elite Economics and Emerging Opportunities for Structural Change, Conference on Economic Sovereignty in a Globalising World, Bangkok, 24-26 March 1999.Occasionally one powerful country would overwhelm another through interception of its wealth though a trade war, covert war, or hot war; but the weaker, less developed countries usually lose in these exchanges.trade, of protests around the world, and many others angles are discussed on this section’s subsequent pages.Because World War II left the empires weak, the colonized countries started to break free.As a result, their influence, power and control was also threatened. To the home populations, the fear of communism was touted, even if it was not the case, in order to gain support.More about this in the next section on this site.) And so, a belief system had to accompany the political objectives: When the blatant injustices of mercantilist imperialism became too embarrassing, a belief system was imposed that mercantilism had been abandoned and true free trade was in place.The obvious answer was to expand European and American power overseas, particularly into areas that remained relatively untouched by capitalist expansion — Africa, Asia, and the Pacific.For both these nations (as well as others) to succeeded and remain competitive in the international arena, they had a strong foundation of imperialism, colonialism and subjugation of others in order to have access to the resources required to produce such vast wealth. However, even during its prevalent times before the Second World War, neoliberalism had already started to show signs of increasing disparities between rich and poor.Neoliberalism, in theory, is essentially about making trade between nations easier.In most textbooks and classrooms, not only are these three fields of study separated, but they are further compartmentalized into separate subfields, obscuring the close interconnections between them.In 1776, British economist Adam Smith published his book, . First, a distinction is made between political and economic liberalism.essay on economics crisisThe history of neoliberalism and how it has come about is worth looking at first, however, to get some crucial context, and to understand why so many people around the world criticize it.In some places, where countries had the potential to bring more democratic processes into place and maybe even provide an example for their neighbors to follow it threatened multinational corporations and their imperial (or former imperial) states (for example, by reducing access to cheap resources).(Hence, there is no surprise that some of the main World War II rivals, USA, Germany and Japan as well as other European nations are so prosperous, while the former colonial countries are still so poor; the economic booms of those wealthy nations have been of most people around the world.) Thus, to ensure this unequal success, power, and advantage globalization was backed up with military might (and still is).Cecil Rhodes, one of the great figures of England’s colonization of Africa, recognized the importance of overseas expansion for maintaining peace at home.It encourages the importation of the materials of manufacture, in order that our own people may be enabled to work them up more cheaply, and thereby prevent a greater and more valuable importation of the manufactured commodities.World War I was, in effect, a resource war as Imperial centers battled over themselves for control of the rest of the world.Global inequalities on various indicators are sharp.The free market created a new type of economy in which prices of all goods, including labour, changed without regard to their effects on society.Under free enterprise, there have been many innovative products. Unfortunately, for most people in the world there has been an increase in poverty and the innovation and growth has not been designed to meet immediate needs for many of the world’s people.It is about freer movement of goods, resources and enterprises in a bid to always find cheaper resources, to maximize profits and efficiency.Paradoxically, the "free market", in neo-con parlance, also allows for the large-scale subsidy of the military-industrial complex, a considerable degree of corporate welfare, and protectionism when deemed in the national interest.Hence, even with what seemed like the end of imperialism and colonialism at the end of World War II, and the promotion of Adam Smith free trade and free markets, mercantilist policies still continued.Lastly, for important context, there is a quick historical overview as to how this ideology developed.Its objective was to free economic life from social and political control and it did so by constructing a new institution, the free market, and by breaking up the more socially rooted markets that had existed in England for centuries.But free trade as practiced by Adam Smith neo-mercantilists was far from fair trade.Yet, a reading of Adam Smith’s would reveal that today is a far cry from the free market capitalism he suggested, and instead could still be considered monopoly capitalism, or the age-old mercantilism that he had exposed!But from a global perspective, this free trade was accompanied by geopolitics making it look more like mercantilism. Smith notes above, this was hardly the free trade that Adam Smith suggested and it seemed like a continuation of mercantilist policies.World War II was another such battle, perhaps the ultimate one.It was conducted in social markets — markets that were embedded in society and subject to many kinds of regulation and restraint.In the past economic life had been constrained by the need to maintain social cohesion. essay on economics crisis In 1895 Rhodes said: and on my way home I pondered over the scene and I became more than ever convinced of the importance of imperialism.…This evolved into nations designing their trade policies to intercept the wealth of others (mercantilism).Starting from the University of Chicago with the philosopher-economist Friedrich von Hayek and his students such as Milton Friedman, the ideology of neoliberalism was pushed very thoroughly around the world.They show Left and Right as an economic scale, with Authoritarian and Libertarian making up the political scale, crossing the economic scale resulting in quadrants:despite popular perceptions, the opposite of fascism is not communism but anarchism (ie liberal socialism), and that the opposite of communism (i.e.As summarized here by Elizabeth Martinez and Arnoldo Garcia: can refer to political, economic, or even religious ideas. It is presented to poor and working people as progressive compared to conservative or Right wing. Conservative politicians who say they hate The web site, Political Compass, also highlights these differences very well.is always the same, to enrich the country [city or state] by an advantageous balance of trade.These are viewed by neo-libs as impediments to the unfettered market forces that they champion.For this to work, social traditions had to be transformed.Free markets were not inevitable, naturally occurring processes. John Gray, professor of European thought at the London School of Economics, a prominent conservative political thinker and an influence on Margaret Thatcher and the New Right in Britain in the 1980s, notes: Mid-nineteenth century England was the subject of a far-reaching experiment in social engineering.However, less discussed is the the issue of power and how that can seriously affect, influence and manipulate trade for certain interests.The world was defined as known and finite, a principle agreed upon by science and theology.The depression was not the first economic crisis [as there had been many for thousands of years] but the financial collapse of 1873 revealed the degree of global economic integration, and how economic events in one part of the globe could reverberate in others.…Hence the chief way for a nation to promote or achieve its own wealth and happiness was to take them away from some other country.At least in the Western countries, at that time, everyone was a Keynesian, a social democrat or a social-Christian democrat or some shade of Marxist.When the injustice of mercantilism was understood, it became too embarrassing and was replaced by the supposedly just Adam Smith free trade.The Depression of 1873 revealed another big problem with capitalist expansion and perpetual growth: it can continue only as long as there is a ready supply of raw materials and an increasing demand for goods, along with ways to invest profits and capital.The goal of the experiment that was attempted in mid-Victorian England was to demolish these social markets, and replace them by deregulated markets that operated independently of social needs.Today then, neoliberal policies are seeing positives and negatives.But this distinction is usually not articulated in the mainstream. political liberalism has been a strategy to prevent social conflict.He then proposed free market capitalism as the alternative. essay on economics crisis For example, Joseph Stiglitz, former World Bank Chief Economist (1997 to 2000), Nobel Laureate in Economics and now strong opponent of the ideology pushed by the IMF and of the current forms of globalization, notes that economic globalization in its current form risks exacerbating poverty and increasing violence if not checked, because it is impossible to separate economic issues from social and political issues.From a power perspective, trade in reality is seen by many around the world as a continuation of those old policies of plunder, whether it is intended to be or not.extreme deregulated economy).3) It is also interesting to see how the three main British political parties have changed over time, as Political Compass shows:4) The last US elections (2004) show the political spectrum between John Kerry and George W. By contrast, neo-liberals, opposed to such moral leadership and, more especially, the ensuing demands on the tax payer, belong to a further right but less authoritarian region.So long as weak nations could be forced to accept the unequal trades of Adam Smith free trade, they would be handing their wealth to the Free trade formed the basis of free enterprise for capitalists and up until the Great Depression of the 1930s was the primary economic theory followed in the United States and Britain.The net effect was that everyone fell into line, as if it were, allowing a form of globalization that suited the big businesses and elite classes mainly of the former imperial powers.Given this situation, if you were an American or European investor in 1873, where would you look for economic expansion?However, we do not usually hear such discussions in the mainstream media, even though thousands have protested around the world for decades.They may well be, but unfortunately, reality seems different from theory.In 1945 or 1950, if you had seriously proposed any of the ideas and policies in today’s standard neo-liberal toolkit, you would have been laughed off the stage at or sent off to the insane asylum.This required holding on to, and expanding colonial territories in order to gain further access to the raw materials and resources, as well exploiting cheap labor. Concessions obtained by financiers must be safeguarded by ministers of state, even if the sovereignty of unwilling nations be outraged in the process.Colonialism had become, in fact, a recognized solution to the need to expand markets, increase opportunities for investors, and ensure the supply of raw material.One cannot separate economics, political science, and history. History, when accurately and fully recorded, is that story.Many explanations were given for wars between the imperial nations when there was really one common thread: All this is proven by the inequalities of trade siphoning the world’s wealth to imperial centers of capital today just as they did when the secret of plunder by trade was learned centuries ago.If you want to avoid civil war, you must become imperialist.Those who resisted were often met with brutal repression or military interventions. Colonies must be obtained or planted, in order that no useful corner of the world may be overlooked or left unused.In reality the same wealth confiscation went on, deeply buried within complex systems of monopolies and unequal trade hiding under the cover of free trade.For many economists who believe in it strongly the ideology almost takes on the form of a theology.It is the military power of the more developed countries that permits them to dictate the terms of trade and maintain unequal relationships.The want for access to cheap resources to continue creating vast wealth and power allowed the imperial empires to justify military action, imperialism and colonialism in the name of The wealth of the ancient city-states of Venice and Genoa was based on their powerful navies, and treaties with other great powers to control trade.To help accomplish this, neoliberalism requires the removal of various controls deemed as barriers to free trade, such as: The underlying assumption then is that the free markets are a good thing. essay on economics crisis One would then need to ask if free trade is really possible. essay on economics crisis




Status: FreeWare
OS: Windows|Mac OS
Autors 2569
Update: 26-Nov-2017 18:06
Cat: Home »