http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/23/business/detroit-is-now-a-charity-case-for-carmakers.html?ref=business&_r=0
This article is mainly about the fall of the city of Detroit. Detroit, Michigan used to be considered the Motor City, the capital of automobile production in America, but now it is nothing more than the largest municipal bankruptcy in American history. Its central high rises no longer offer the jobs but instead offer a bird's eye view of the desolation for miles, and suburbs blemished by abandoned houses and empty factories.
Detroit recently received a check for ten million from Ford as aid to help bring back a community center. It seems awfully ironic to me that car markers who once defined the job market for the city are now making charitable efforts for the place. 10 million dollars is hardly anything to call life support for a city where the budget deficit is one million dollars a day, and is merely a 'Band-aid' according to the author of the article.
The problem with Detroit is that for years it has been plagued by corruption in its city government. Fraud, racketeering, extortion, excessive taxes, high crime rates, poor management and poor infrastructure create an unfavorable environment for everyone, especially corporations. According to Thomas J. Sugrue, “Detroit’s fate is the result of decades of job flight.” It is much easier for corporations to either expand or move different aspects of their business elsewhere. In Detroit's case, auto makers have been moving production out of the city and even out of the country for years, because it is easier and cheaper for them elsewhere.
Sunday, September 22, 2013
Sunday, September 15, 2013
Socialism In Other Countries
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/03/19/opinion/l-socialism-makes-everybody-equally-poor-301292.html
The issue this article discusses is Socialism, which is relevant to our current study of the different types of economic systems and their characteristics in economics class. Socialism is an extremely complicated type of economic system that includes many variations and doesn't necessarily fall under a single category of economic systems. The basic definition is that socialism is "an economic theory or system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community collectively, usually through the state. It is characterized by production for use rather than profit, by equality of individual wealth, by the absence of competitive economic activity, and, usually, by government determination of investment, prices, and production levels." (Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003 http://www.thefreedictionary.com/socialism)
There's no question that these days socialism is a huge topic of often heated debate. The main assertion made in the article I posted is that socialism is bad and would hurt our system of capitalism that has defined this country since its genesis over two hundred years ago. The author is responding to another article, claiming that the other author "does not know what real poverty is." His supporting evidence is a personal account of his life in Russia for 35 years, and the adverse conditions his neighbors lived in. He tells us about a widowed mother of six who lived without a bathroom or running water, couldn't afford shoes for her children or even enough food, and on top of that shared the space with four other tenants. The family did not receive any welfare. Part of Karl Marx's philosophy was that "If you do not work, you do not eat." The author concludes that we have too much socialism in the world and that it makes everyone equally poor, rather than wealthy.
This is a powerful statement to make. The problem with socialism is that by trying to redistribute wealth, it can impair a wealthy person's ability to operate a business in a market economy, and a possible consequence is a loss of jobs that we can't always rely on a central government to produce. In a world where it seems as if more and more people demonize the wealthy, I want to remind people of the incredible contributions and developments for society that have come from private money. For example, Thomas Edison's inventions were developed and backed through the support of the Vanderbilt family and financier J.P. Morgan. This is hardly feasible through a socialistic economy that can't even provide welfare for an extremely impoverished like the one mentioned in the article?
If all of this is true, there is no question in my opinion that socialism would severely hurt everything we stand for regardless of political opinions.
The issue this article discusses is Socialism, which is relevant to our current study of the different types of economic systems and their characteristics in economics class. Socialism is an extremely complicated type of economic system that includes many variations and doesn't necessarily fall under a single category of economic systems. The basic definition is that socialism is "an economic theory or system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community collectively, usually through the state. It is characterized by production for use rather than profit, by equality of individual wealth, by the absence of competitive economic activity, and, usually, by government determination of investment, prices, and production levels." (Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003 http://www.thefreedictionary.com/socialism)
There's no question that these days socialism is a huge topic of often heated debate. The main assertion made in the article I posted is that socialism is bad and would hurt our system of capitalism that has defined this country since its genesis over two hundred years ago. The author is responding to another article, claiming that the other author "does not know what real poverty is." His supporting evidence is a personal account of his life in Russia for 35 years, and the adverse conditions his neighbors lived in. He tells us about a widowed mother of six who lived without a bathroom or running water, couldn't afford shoes for her children or even enough food, and on top of that shared the space with four other tenants. The family did not receive any welfare. Part of Karl Marx's philosophy was that "If you do not work, you do not eat." The author concludes that we have too much socialism in the world and that it makes everyone equally poor, rather than wealthy.
This is a powerful statement to make. The problem with socialism is that by trying to redistribute wealth, it can impair a wealthy person's ability to operate a business in a market economy, and a possible consequence is a loss of jobs that we can't always rely on a central government to produce. In a world where it seems as if more and more people demonize the wealthy, I want to remind people of the incredible contributions and developments for society that have come from private money. For example, Thomas Edison's inventions were developed and backed through the support of the Vanderbilt family and financier J.P. Morgan. This is hardly feasible through a socialistic economy that can't even provide welfare for an extremely impoverished like the one mentioned in the article?
If all of this is true, there is no question in my opinion that socialism would severely hurt everything we stand for regardless of political opinions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)