Business Morals and Social Responsibilities Essay

Business Morals and Social Responsibilities - Essay Example Business organizations through the code of ethics benefit in enhancing their reputation and winning the trust of its clients. For instance, Nike’s code of ethics has assisted the organization to regains its reputation that was ruined by activities carried out by its contractors in Asia. However, like in the case of Nike, the code of ethics may influence the profits of business organizations. For instance, Nike developed its code of ethics following criticism over the unethical activities carried out by their contractors in Asia. The contractors unethically used labor from the poor communities in Asia to, cheaply, produce products for Nike. Nike’s high profits came from utilizing these activities that were orchestrated by their contractors in Asian countries (The Blake project 2008). Since the creation of the code of ethics, Nike’s profit reduced since they have to observe and adhere to the contents of that code of ethics. Society’s expectation for corporat e social responsibility may only change for the better. Corporate social responsibility affects the business’ profitability in a great manner. For instance, Nike’s major corporate social responsibility is to produce quality footwear for its customers. Compromising the quality of its products will lead to great losses and tarnishing the image of the company (Kidd 2008). It also has a social responsibility to produce its products without harming the eco-system. It is evident how business organizations work towards achieving their corporate social responsibilities. For instance, Nike has developed Nike environmental design tool to produce products with higher sustainability standards (Nikebiz).

Radioactivity experiment Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Radioactivity experiment - Essay Example This also goes to the extent of explaining the practical sense involving radioactivity in the conclusions and recommendation segment. It clearly brings out the sense of radioactive decay in that, it ascertains on the fact that it indeed has to do with spontaneous disintegration of atomic nucleus that leads to release of matter and energy from the entire nucleus. This form of radioactivity experiment might seem simple but the logic behind it is very critical. The main objective behind the lab experiment was the aspect whereby I was investigating the radioactive decay concept by use of coins to simulate the decaying nuclei. Here, tossed coins were taken to have decayed when they came up as tails. The other objective and conclusion that was arrived at was on the importance of using coins in such an experiment, as well as the aspect of coin variations in terms of numbers with regards to both experiments. Radioactivity generally refers to the emission of particles or substances from the nuclei mainly due to nuclear instability. On the other hand, radioactive decay  refers to spontaneous disintegration of atomic nucleus that leads to release of matter and energy from the entire nucleus. Radioisotope has got unstable nuclei with little binding energy for holding the nucleus collectively (EDUCATION RESOURCES, 2014). Radioisotopes often experience constant motions with the ultimate verge of trying to gain stability. That kind of process often leads to release of matter and energy, hence leading to a sort of transformation into a new substance. This entire process is known as  transmutation, and has to do with the aspect of transformation of one element to another due to nucleus change. The transmutation process and radioactive decay will persist until new elements with more stable nucleus are formed. This process can either occur naturally or artificially. There exist three main categories of

Population Control Essay Example for Free

Population Control Essay INTRODUCTION The myth of overpopulation is one of the most pervasive myths in Western society, so deeply ingrained in the culture that it profoundly shapes the cultures world view. The myth is compelling because of its simplicity. More people equal fewer resources and more hunger, poverty, environmental degradation, and political instability. This equation helps explain away the troubling human suffering in that ‘other’ world beyond the neat borders of affluence. By procreating, the poor create their own poverty. We are absolved of responsibility and freed from complexity. The population issue is complex. Hartmann (1995) asserts that to put it into proper perspective requires exploring many realms of human experience and addressing difficult philosophical and ethical questions. It entails making connections between fields of thought that have become disconnected as the result of narrow academic specialization. It demands the sharpening of critical facilities and clearing the mind of received orthodoxies. And above all, it involves transcending the alienation embodied in the very terms ‘population bomb’ and ‘population explosion’. Such metaphors suggest destructive technological processes outside human control. But the population issue is about living people, not abstract statistics. PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH POPULATION CONTROL The myth of overpopulation is destructive because it prevents constructive thinking and action on reproductive issues. Instead of clarifying our understanding of these issues, it obfuscates our vision and limits-our ability to see the real problems and find workable solutions. Worst of all, it breeds racism and turns womens bodies into a political battlefield. It is a philosophy based on fear, not understanding. Now this picture both the population predictions and the social predictions are challenged by those who argue especially against compulsory population controls. It is argued that we do not have accurate figures showing the number of people now existing in the world, that we have no reliable way of forecasting future population growth, that there is no acceptable standard prescribing optimum population size, and that although the pressures of population may contribute to some social ills, they are not the primary cause of them. Those who respond to the population problem in this way point the finger in other causal directions to account for environmental decay to our economic system, which encourages environmental destruction, to our technology which is responsible for high-polluting individualized transportation, and to our minimal emphasis on public or mass transit and so on. They also point to the fact that some nutrition experts give us assurance that food resources exist which would permit the feeding of the worlds population even if it doubled. ALLEVIATING SOCIAL ILLS THROUGH POPULATION CONTROL The point is, this argument continues, that a number of voluntary moves can be undertaken to mitigate whatever causal influences population growth has on our social ills. We can produce more food, redistribute people, provide meaningful jobs for women outside the home, provide family planning programs, contraceptive information and services, early abortions, voluntary sterilization, and so on. Anything short of government coercion. Anything short of violating or overriding what is taken to be a fundamental moral and constitutional right the right to procreate and to have as many children as one wants. Gordon (2002) relates in her book that population control measures would alleviate certain local pockets of poverty, as population excess was relative, not just to the means of subsistence, but also to the system of control over the means of subsistence. In the same light, population control has always been closely associated with economic, moral and feminist issues in the United States. Many had also become aware that development by itself was not a magical solution to rapid population growth. The idea of social reform in early twentieth-century America was embedded in the larger understanding that scientific principles could and should be applied in an effort to alleviate social ills. The great social ills we face today: poverty, war, hunger, disease and ecological degradation are clearly rooted from the sheer effects of population excess to the global situation, which is why the direct solution to the problem, which is population control, is the first and most potent step to take towards lessening the evil impacts of said social ills to the global community. Although many critics claim that overpopulation has been the famous scapegoat for society’s ills, the fact that population could be controlled to a manageable degree could and would facilitate a general ease in the social inequalities being experienced by the world over due to the scarcity of resources available to the privileged few who has the means and the power to be in charge of the distribution or even the consumption of such scant resources. The growth of population very rapid in the less-developed countries, but not negligible in most developed countries, either will continue to compound the predicament by increasing pressure on resources, on the environment, and on human institutions. Rapid expansion of old technologies and the hasty deployment of new ones, stimulated by the pressure of more people wanting more goods and services per person, will surely lead to some major mistakes actions whose environmental or social impacts erode well-being far more than their economic results enhance it. This gloomy prognosis, to which a growing number of scholars and other observers reluctantly subscribes, has motivated a host of proposals for organized evasive action: population control, limitation of material consumption, redistribution of wealth, transitions to technologies that are environmentally and socially less disruptive than todays, and movement toward some kind of world government, among others. Implementation of such action would itself have some significant economic and social costs, and it would require an unprecedented international consensus and exercise of public will to succeed. Throughout its history, the emphasis and primary concern of the population control movement has been the welfare of the family; it has stressed the economic, educational, and health advantages of well-spaced, limited numbers of children. Population control cannot be achieved in a social or economic vacuum, of course. To formulate effective population control measures, much greater understanding is needed about all peoples attitudes toward reproduction, and how these attitudes are affected by various living conditions, including some that seem virtually intolerable to people in developed countries. Even more, it is essential to know what influences and conditions will lead to changes in attitudes in favor of smaller families. OUTLINE INTRODUCTION PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH POPULATION CONTROL ALLEVIATING SOCIAL ILLS THROUGH POPULATION CONTROL WORKS CITED Hartmann, B. (1995). Reproductive Rights and Wrongs: The Global Politics of Population Control. Boston, Massachusetts: South End Press. Gordon, L. (2002). The Moral Property of Women: The History of Birth Control Politics in America. Chicago, Illinois: University of Illinois Press.

How Aerial Travel and Cabin Pressure Adversely Affects the Human Body Essay Example for Free

How Aerial Travel and Cabin Pressure Adversely Affects the Human Body Essay The idea of humans traveling to the Moon or other areas out side of the Earths orbit is mostly scientific. However, when astronauts remain in space, having to re-balance the body to suit less or no gravity compared to the Earth could bring about many changes to the body. Scientists have found that the time required for recovery depends on the time spent in zero-gravity conditions. The longer one stays off of the Earths surface, the more damage can be caused. Strictly speaking, even a trip in an Airplane would require safety precautions to minimize damage to the body of this. For example, cabin pressure increased to maintain balance and prevent feeling different to a lower pressure. This essay will consist of two sections. The first will be of flight effects within the Earths hemisphere, and how to perhaps prevent damage to the body. The second, and longer section deals with space travel through Zero-gravity and effects of weightlessness on the body and the counter-measures to prevent damage to the body. Section 1, flight effects on the passengers, specifically dealing with cabin pressure: Airplanes fly at the cruising altitude of around 33000 feet, or approximately 10000 meters. Because the cruising altitude has a cabin pressure lower than air pressure on ground or even under sea-level, the oxygen availability is less and gases within the body expand. This causes the oxygen saturation level of the blood to reduce, which can lead to mild hypoxia, the reduced supply of oxygen to the tissues around the body. Due to the effects of hypoxia, alcohol consumption would affect the brain much more than it would on Earth. As the aircraft makes its decent back to Earth, air must be allowed to flow into the middle of the ear to equalize pressure differences. Passengers often can feel this change in air pressure. People with ear, nose and sinus infections are usually advised to avoid flying because of these changes in air pressure. Air travel in airplanes has less thank 20% humidity. This causes discomfort to the eyes, mouth and nose but does not risk the passengers health. This discomfort can be prevented by drinking liquids (water recommended) before and during the flight, and using skin moisturizers. Also passengers with short-sightedness or long-sightedness are advised to wear eye-glasses rather than contact lenses during flight as the contact lenses may dry out. In order to avoid de-hydration, passengers should drink non- alcoholic beverages. Section 2, how traveling through space affects humans Astronauts often experience Zero- Gravity during their travels through space. This zero gravity or micro gravity can bring about health concern to the body if astronauts remain in space for a long period of time. It would be much healthier for crews to live under artificial gravity. In order to prevent any biological changes in the body when experiencing zero gravity, scientists recommend a force of artificial gravity equal to a third of the Earths level of gravity. However, scientists still havent research affects of artificial gravity on humans but they know for a fact and there is an imbalance in the body due to the shifts of gravity levels. Artificial gravity prevents physiological changes from occurring. In zero-gravity, the body deteriorates. It takes less muscle to move around, so after a long period of time in space, muscles weaken so the body bends. Because there is no tension in space, muscles relax and after a while they atrophy as a result of disuse and eventually disappear. To prevent the fracture of bones, limbs and muscles, all space shuttles give the opportunity for astronauts to do rigorous exercise everyday to keep the muscles strong. Staying in Zero-gravity for months causes bones to lose mass and get thinner, as they are not carrying any weight. This means astronauts must go through rigorous trainings in the spacecraft everyday in order to keep muscle and bone strength. When a great deal of the crews precious time in space is spent exercising rather than doing science, money and potential knowledge are being squandered for the sake of health. It is a sacrifice, but a necessary one1 In space, receptors in the inner ear allow humans to sense direction. In space, ear receptors dont receive the same cues and the mind gets used to ignoring the inner ears feelings about balance. Hand-eye coordination, posture and balance are all affected by the disorientation of the mind. When astronauts return to earth, they are often overwhelmed by dizziness and have difficulty in maintaining balance. An example of the mind adapting to the new gravity less surroundings would be with Shannon Lucid, who was on board the Russian space Station MIR for six months. The astronaut said You just sort of get used to floating around but we also know that floating around is not all that astronauts do- they must resist the effects of micro gravity on the body. Also, no gravity means no resistance from growing, so some astronauts return to earth some 6 inches taller than when they left. It is only after a few months that they grow down/ shrink back to normal height. This is because of the unloading of spinal discs- because of lack of gravity, the discs in the spine are not holding up or don anything, so they tend to stretch rather than contract. Traveling through micro gravity causes bodily fluids to shift from the lower body to the cephalic area (head), and so peoples faces tend to swell and become rounder than they are on earth. When the brain senses a higher amount of blood than usual, it interprets the situation that there is now an overall increase in the total volume of fluids in the body. The brain responds by triggering the excretion of fluids, making astronauts prone to dehydration. Also, the fluid redistribution can shrink legs as the bones are weaker. These fluids pass through the kidneys, causing kidney filtration rate to increase, bone loss can cause Kidney stones. Fluids that leave the body include calcium loss and bone demineralization. The loss of blood plasma causes temporary Anemia upon the return to Earth. Some crew members get space anemia. Scientists are concerned about the affects of catching this disease on over all crew performance. Blood volume may decrease by 10 percent. The increase of fluids in the head causes the same feeling as when one has a cold and feels blocked in. in space astronauts begin to lose their sense of taste, causing the craving for strong flavorings in the food such as horseradish, mustard and taco sauce. Fluid loss, lack of exercise and diminished appetite cause weight loss as astronauts tend not to eat as much as they would on earth. Meals and exercise are planned to prevent excessive loss. Zero-gravity affects the cardio-vascular system. On earth we must cope with gravity, which sustains or slows down the blood-flow. In zero gravity, there is no gravity force, causing the heart to slow down due to the decreased demands of blood as it travels more freely. The immune system in the body is also affected by weightlessness. In space, one is exposed to illness as the immune response lowers and numbers of anti-bodies decrease after a long exposure to micro gravity. Approximately half of all astronauts are affected by this unpleasant syndrome which affects nausea, headache, lethargy and sweating (taken from NASA sources). Also, minor effects of weightlessness on the body include puffiness in the face, flatulence, weight loss, nasal congestion and often sleeping disturbances. Upon returning to earth, recovery time depends on the duration of stay in space. Muscles are weak and the body is not used to gravity forces, (causing them to feel dizzy) and so some astronauts are taken back in stretchers. This shows why astronauts need to be at the peak of fitness. If in the near future the human race would build space stations as tourist resorts, some would prefer hotels with zero-gravity and some would want partial gravity, which would bring about competition like hotels on earth, which would drive prices low. As gravity affects all biological, physical and chemical processes on earth, building an International Space Station gives new opportunity to study a world without gravity and its affect on animals and other living organisms. Observing the weightlessness effect on these living organisms could teach scientists about biological processes on earth, such as aging and osteoporosis. In the end, we can see that human travel through space is safer under artificial gravity when compared to astronauts being exposed to weightlessness, micro gravity or zero gravity (all three mean the same). Most of the problems mentioned such as fluid loss and muscle deterioration would not cause problems as long as the crew remained in a weightless environment. Remaining in a zero-gravity environment for over a long period of time could cause problems, however. In 1987, in the later stages of his 326-day mission, Russian Yuri Romanenko was fatigued both physically and mentally due to traveling through space. The majority of his day was spent sleeping regaining strength, in the meantime his bones were deteriorating. Some say if many like Romanenko stayed in space for much longer, he may not have survived re-entry to the Earth. Returning to Earth could cause problems as the body is much weaker due to demineralization and atrophy of the bones and shortage of red blood cells. Ones balan ce must now again be readjusted causing many astronauts to feel dizzy when back to a strong g force gravity on earth. Whether or not the large amount of time and money spent on keeping astronauts fit during space flight is worth the scientific findings is debatable. Physiological effects need to be prevented as much a possible. Again, this is usually prevented by rigorous exercise and micro gravity could still be a danger to the astronauts health. Many scientists believe that the benefits of transporting/sending out machines (robots) and humans to space, despite the health issues, are nothing compared to the huge benefit that society will receive. Humans will not be perfectly suited to living in a weightless environment, but that wont stop Astrobiologists and many other research firms like NASA from exploring space. The many benefits of space exploration such as technological knowledge and inspiration easily outweigh the negative aspects. Bibliography: Sources were from Newspapers, CDs, web sites and a large extract of a book in one of the web-pages. Most web sites accessed on the 11th December 2003 and 9th January 2004. 1) http://library.thinkquest.org/C003763/index.php?page=adapt02 2) www.permanent.com/s-nograv.htm 3) http://library.thinkquest.org/C003763/index.php%3fpage=adapt02 4) www.spacefuture.com/habitat/zerog.shtml 5) http://mos.org/cst/article/77/6.html 6) http://school.discovery.com/schooladventures/spacestation/basics/why.html 7) www.relaxincomfort.com/zerogravity_benefits.html 8) http://experts.about.com/q/2540/2677459.htm 9) www.uclas.ac.uk/facs/science/physastr/courses/space/ssyear1/sc1201.htm 10) http://www.who.int/ith/chapter02_01.html 11) Definitions from Microsoft Encarta 2003 Premium Suite CD 12) http://library.thinkquest.org/2606/Environmental_problems/water_pollution_-_effects.html (used for first idea of project) 1 http://library.thinkquest.org/C003763/index.php%3fpage=adapt02

John Kenneth Galbraith Biography

John Kenneth Galbraith Biography Archibald Galbraith, a Canadian schoolteacher, once climbed onto a platform atop a  steaming pile of manure to address a group of Liberal party voters before the coming Ontario  elections. â€Å"Before I begin,† he said, â€Å"I must apologize for speaking from the Tory platform.†Ã‚  Later on, his teenage son, John Kenneth, would congratulate him on the dig, to which he  [Archibald] would respond, â€Å"It was good. But it didn’t change any votes.† (Arthur Scheslinger,  1984, p. 7) So, from an early age, John Kenneth Galbraith was between the world of politics and  pragmatism.   John Kenneth Galbraith was born in 1908. His father’s involvement in politics had a  profound impact on the young John Kenneth, politicizing him at an early age. He originally  studied Agricultural Economics at the Ontario Agricultural College, but would eventually say  that he took his first â€Å"real† economics course at UC Berkeley, and that the economics instruction  in Canada was â€Å"very poor† (Dunn, 2002, p. 350). As a graduate student at UC Berkeley, he  continued his study of agricultural economics and worked as a research assistant for a â€Å"very zany  old man by the name of Edwin Voorhies† (Kreisler, 1986). He stated that it was his study of  agricultural economics that left him with a strong feeling that â€Å"social science should be tested by  its usefulness,† an idea inspired by Veblen’s dichotomy between exoteric knowledge (knowledge  that is valuable and applicable) and esoteric knowledge (knowledge tha t has no practical  application, but because of that, is considered more â€Å"prestigious†). Galbraith believed that social  sciences should be exoteric, not esoteric. In his book Economics and The Public Purpose,  Galbraith develops this idea further, saying, â€Å"The ultimate test of a set of economic ideas is  whether it illuminates the anxietes of the time† (Galbraith, 1973, p.198). In the 1930’s, while Galbraith was studying to receive his Ph. D, it was clear that  economic theory was not addressing the anxietes of the time. Economists were struggling to  explain how free markets had led the United States to economic ruin. One in four Americans  were jobless. Production had all but ground to a halt. Obviously, there were egregious errors in  the accepted dogma, which stated that free markets left to their own devices would bring about  efficiency and employment. Galbraith said that his method of coming to an understanding was to  Ã¢â‚¬Å"for years†¦start with [Alfred] Marshall, see the world as it is, and make the requisite  modifications† (Dunn, 2002, p. 351). Upon graduating, Galbraith traveled to Washington D.C.  and took a position assisting with the implementation of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, before  taking a position as a tutor at Harvard. At Harvard, he made speeches supporting the reelection of Roosevelt, cement ing his initial ties with the Democratic party. Not long after, he was offered  a fellowship at Cambridge, where the discussions centered around Keynes, who had just published his General Theory of Employment, Money, and Interest (Dunn, 2002, pp. 350-355).   Galbraith returned from England to his tutor position at Harvard a confirmed Keynesian. He spent a few more years tutoring at Harvard (where he met John F. Kennedy) and then took a  job as resident economist for the American Farm Bureau Federation in Washington. Galbraith’s  observation of the farm industry solidified his belief in the power of government to move  industries forward. In 1930, farm households accounted for a quarter of the population, whereas  today they account for only 1% of the population and yet on the whole, they now produce more  than they did in 1930. This is due to strong government support of the farming industry. That  national planning could â€Å"transform a weak, disorganized, and poverty prone sector of the  economy into America’s most spectacular productive success†¦preserved his political concerns†Ã‚  (Arthur Schlesinger, 1984, p. 8). Galbraith became head of the Office of Price Administration in  1941 during World War II, and at the same time began his long career as a ghostwriter, penning  spe eches for Samuel Rosenman and Robert Sherwood (Arthur Schlesinger, 1984, p. 8). Galbraith then became editor of Fortune magazine, where he worked directly for Harry  Luce, founder of Time Inc., whom he called â€Å"one of the most ruthless editors I have ever known,  or anyone has ever known† (Kreisler, 1986). Galbraith has credited Luce with dramatically  improving his writing via ruthless editing. Galbraith credited Fortune with giving him a  Ã¢â‚¬Å"marvelous introduction to the corporate mind,† because the focus of the magazine at the time  was â€Å"the anatomy of the big corporations† (Dunn, 2002, p. 353). The decision making processes  of major corporations would be a recurring phenomenon that he would write about in many of  his publications. Galbraith returned to Academia in 1948, having spent five years as editor of Fortune. He  was nominated to a position teaching economics at Harvard. However, members of Harvard’s  board of overseers regarded him as a â€Å"dangerous Keynesian,† and as a result, â€Å"took the step,  almost unprecedented in modern times, of blocking the appointment† (Dunn, 2002, p. 353). However, Galbraith had many political allies, and among them was Harvard’s president, James  B. Conant. Conant was such a fan of Galbraith that he threatened to resign unless the board of  overseers backed down. Eventually they did, and Galbraith became a tenured professor at  Harvard. It was then that he began work on his first major bestseller, American Capitalism: The  Concept of Countervailing Power. Galbraith begins his discussion of capitalism in America by pointing out the following  conundrum: Mainstream economic theory asserts that in the case of monopoly, prices will rise,  business will screw consumers, fail to innovate, and as a result, the economy will be in bad  shape. He then notes the work of Joan Robinson in developing the idea of monopolistic and  oligopolistic competition, noting that oligopolistic industries behave in the same way as  monopolies would, and through informal agreements can have the exact same effect. Then, using  the actual data collected by the American government, he shows that the majority of industries  are in fact oligopolistic. But he goes even further than that, saying that almost all industries will  eventually become oligopolistic for the following reasons: At the birth of an industry,  competetion is necessary and possible, as no firms have clear and significant advantages yet. But  over time, it will become increasingl y difficult to enter the industry because of the barriers to  entry created by high capital requirements and increasing returns to scale. At the same time that  increasing returns to scale start to set in (as they inevitably do), existing firms will also gain the  advantage of experience and prior organization. The convergence of these factors leads, in most  cases, to an industry with a few power players and a larger but still relatively small number of  hangers-on, who exist by filling niches that aren’t worth the time of the large firms. Galbraith poses a question in American Capitalism, and before getting to that question, it  is important to get a sense of the context in which he asks it. After World War II, America was  experiencing incredible prosperity. But underlying this prosperity was the fear of depression. The  Great Depression was still fresh in the collective consciousness, and the average man’s faith that  capitalism would bring about efficiency and full employment was shaken. And yet, as the years  after the war progressed, things were stable and employment was plentiful. It is also important to  note that the era of non-depression Keynesianism was beginning, and much to the chagrin of the  business community, government was becoming a much more participatory force in markets. The business community was reacting violently against this expansion of government, claiming  that it was a complete disaster, wasteful to the very extreme and bound to cripple growth. The  state of the American economy in the 1950’s then was that of big government, near-ubiquitous  monopoly or oligopoly, and an underlying fear of depression. Yet, by almost any measure, the  economy was a success. The problem, according to Galbraith, was that, â€Å"in principle, the economy pleased no  one; in practice it satisfied most. Social inefficiency [government spending], unrationalized  power [monopoly and oligopoly], intrusive government [regulation], and depression were all  matters for deep concern. But neither liberal nor conservatives, neither the rich nor all but the  very poor, found the consequences intolerable† (Galbraith, 1954, p. 85). What fascinated  Galbraith was how an economy which was so flawed in theory could work so well in practice. The question he asked was: Why are things so†¦well†¦good? Thus, he states that his aim in  American Capitalism is to â€Å"examine in turn the circumstances that have kept social inefficiency,  private power, government intervention, and unemployment from ruining us in the recent  present† (Galbraith, 1954, p. 85). The first answer that he gives is that oligopoly is much more conducive to techonological  innovation than classical competetion. â€Å"There is no more pleasant fiction than that technical  change is the product of the matchless ingenuity of the small man forced by competition to  employ his wits to better his neighbor. Unhappily, it is a fiction,† he says. â€Å"Technical  development has long since become the preserve of the scientist and engineer† (Galbraith, 1954,  p.86). His argument is that due to the costliness of development, it can only be undertaken by a  firm with considerable resources. In highly competitive industries, no one firm has considerable  resources. Moreover, because innovations can easily be imitated, it is not economical for a small  competitive firm to bear the research and development costs for an entire industry. Galbraith then turns his keen eye to the idea of inefficiency. He deals with this issue by  asserting that America’s relative opulence shields us and is moreover a cause of such  inefficiency. At the time that the classical economists were writing, an opulent economy had yet  to be observed. For Malthus and Ricardo, â€Å"inefficiency was, indeed, an evil thing. It denied  bread to the hungry and clothing to the naked† (Galbraith, 1954, p.102). The true power of  Galbraith’s insight is his ability to point out the obvious. He criticizes his fellow economists for  bringing the mentality of the nineteenth century, with all its poverty and degradation, to the  opulent twentieth century. Galbraith finds this error both amusing and absurd, saying, â€Å"He [the  mainstream economist] worries far too much about partially monopolized prices†¦for tobacco, liquor, automobiles, and soap, in a land which is already suffering from nicotine poisoning and   alcoholism, which is nutritionally gorged with sugar, which is filling its hospitals and cemeteries  with those who have been maimed or murdered on its highways, and which is dangerously  neurotic about body odors† (Galbraith, 1954, p.102). His point is that these inefficiencies are in  fact a sign of the wealth of America. They are the symptom of a wealthy economy, and thus we  ought not to worry so much about them. He also discredits the idea of intrusive government,  noting that, â€Å"alarm over pending action by government on economic matters, which frequently  reaches almost pathological proportions when the decision is pending, almost invariably  evaporates completely once the action is taken. One of the profound sources of American  strength has been the margin of error provided by our well-being† (Galbraith, 1954, p.106). But the most significant reason that monopoly has failed to capsize the American  economy, according to Galbraith is the exercise of what he calls countervailing power. The  assumption always made by economists, when they would consider the case of markets, was that  the check on an individual firm’s power wold come from the supply side of the industry. Galbraith disagrees. He admits that the existence of monopoly power in a competitive market  does in fact encourage the entry of more producers to appropriate some of that power for  themselves. â€Å"In other words,† he says. â€Å"Competition was regarded [and is] a self-generating  regulatory force† (Galbraith, 1954, p. 112). But in a market that is not competitive, the incentive for some economic agent to  approptiate that power still exists. But it need not come from the supply side. That power is, in  practice, usually appropriated by strong buyers or coalitions of buyers, who can sometimes take  even more than their share. Because of the tendency of power to be organized in response to  existing power, â€Å"countervailing power is also a self-generating force† (Galbraith, 1954, p. 113). According to Galbraith, it is the large retailers who, by way of their absolute power over  manufacturers, bargain for the consumer and protect the consumer from the high monopoly  prices that would otherwise result. Likewise, the considerable market power of large firms is  checked by trade unions for a simple reason, there is something to be bargained for Galbraith  notes that trade unions are most powerful in the least competitive industries. This is because the  surplus that a company derives from monopoly power acts as an incentive to unions. In the very  competitive industries, producers and workers are operating at bare minimum profit and the  incentives to organization insignificant. These are the basic ideas laid out in American Capitalism. The book in many ways lays  the framework and tone for the books he would publish in the sixties and seventies. But while  American Capitalism was Galbraith’s first major bestseller, it was The Affluent Society that  skyrocketed him to fame. The Affluent Society builds on many of the concepts introduced in his  first book, but with several key differences. Though Galbraith could not suppress his urge to  social commentary, The Affluent Society is a much more prescriptive book, growing out of his  chapter on technical development in American Capitalism. To his original analysis he adds a  significantly moral component. The Affluent Society concerns itself with the policies that ought  to be undertaken once the basic needs of the people have been met. Galbraith’s main argument is  that our ratio of private good (cars, televisions, automobiles) to public goods (schools, roads) is  inequitable an d ridiculous. The premise of his argument is that once our basic desires such as  food, clothing, and shelter have been satisfied, large corporations employ advertising to concoct  new demand for products. The traditional economic and utilitarian argument for goods qua  goods falls on its face if consumer demand is not sovereign. What is really necessary is the use  of society’s productive resources in the public realm in juxtaposition with growth in the private  realm. He calls this idea â€Å"social balance,† saying, â€Å"the problem of social balance is ubiquitous,  and frequently it is obtrusive. As noted, an increase in the consumption of automobiles requires a  facilitating supply of streets, highways, traffic control, and parking spaces† (Galbraith, 1958, p.  193). He also confronts the existence of poverty in an affluent society as being the result of  outdated nineteenth century attitudes. â€Å"A poor society,† he says,  "had to enforce the rule that  someone who did not work could not eat. An affluent society has no similar excuse for such  rigor† (Galbraith, 1958, p. 251). But he admits that, â€Å"nothing requires such a society to be  compassionate. But it no longer has a high philosophical justification for its callousness†Ã‚  (Galbraith, 1958, p. 251). In the 50’s, America was in the midst of the cold war and attempts at engineering a better  society were very suspect. Galbraith throughout The Affluent Society understands the inherent  and ideological opposition to big government and social policy, but he is adamant in stating,  Ã¢â‚¬Å"that cities’ residents should have a nontoxic supply of air suggests no revolutionary dalliance with socialism† (Galbraith, 1958, p. 191). In fact, Galbraith eventually finds socialism and central planning to be in many ways  similar to the kind of capitalism that developed in America in the latter half of the 20th century. 9 In The New Industral State, Galbraith focuses his effort on understanding what he calls the  Ã¢â‚¬Å"technostructure.† In an era when the division of intellectual labor is so overwhelming, the  management or even management team of a powerful corporation doesn’t actually make most of  the decisions. The decisions are instead made collectively by teams of experts. Galbraith coins  the term technostructure as, â€Å"embracing all who bring specialized knowledge, talent or  experience to group decision-making. This,† he says, â€Å"not the management, is the guiding  intelligence, the brain, of the enterprise† (Galbraith, 1967, p.71). Many of Galbraith’s ideas resonate to this day. Unfortunately, most do not. It would be  tempting to end this essay optimistically, expounding poetically on the way Galbraith’s ideas  continue to influence national policy. In reality, although he was a well-respected and powerful  man, many of his ideas continue to be ignored by mainstream economists and politicians. Rarely  does one hear a contemporary economist talk about countervailing power, or reference the  Ã¢â‚¬Å"technostructure.† While as a society we owe much to Galbraith and his ideas, the discipline of  economics has for all intents and purposes laid his practical ideas by the wayside. But whether or  not his continued influence on economics is felt by the mainstream, his contribution to the  discipline remains poignant and accessible for those who choose to seek it out on their own. Galbraith’s main contribution to economic thought was his tackling of the problem of  power. He was convinced that the most glaring, most significant, and most ignored problem in  the field of economics was the effect of power on economic activity. Understanding why  Galbraith was so affixed by this idea of power is actually quite simple; he was surrounded by it. Through his political work, Galbraith knew not only Kennedy, but several other presidents and  all the most powerful officials in the democratic party. Through his work at Fortune he became  acquainted with the heads of the largest and most powerful corporations in the world. He saw,  10 clearly, the extent to which the decisions of these men (and the technostructures supporting  them) affected the direction and performance of the economy of the whole. Given that he was an  astute man, for him to ignore the influence of power on economies, in order to advance a series  of aesthetically pleasing models and equations, would have been not only unthinkable but  dishonest. Galbraith wanted badly to be useful, to â€Å"change votes,† as his father would have said. To him, sitting in a room concocting theories did not qualify as usefulness. He longed to be in  the thick of policy-making. Later in life, he wanted badly to avoid what he called â€Å"Belmont Syndrome†1 Thus, his struggle to be relevant was not only ideological but moral. John Kenneth Galbraith died peacefully at home in 2006. He left behind not only an  extensive body of economic work, but two novels. His first novel, The Triumph, written in 1969,  was about U.S. foreign policy disasters in Latin America. His second novel, A Tenured  Professor, written in 1990, was about an eccentric Harvard professor, and lampooned the elite  institution. He lived ninety-seven years, almost all of them (excepting the first few) were  preoccupied with upending the â€Å"conventional wisdom.† He remains one of the most famous and  controversial economists of the twentieth century, and a fine novelist.

Describe a Person who has influenced you in either a bad or good way Es

Describe a Person who has influenced you in either a bad or good way Bright blue paint was chipped off the tarnished wooden siding. The glassy images were blurred, and their sills seemed to be decaying under the large collections of dust. There was a young girl playing by herself in the unkempt front lawn. This dwelling always caught my attention; it attracted me in a peculiar way. Whenever I walked down my block, my awareness was drawn to this particular house. Its run-down look set it apart from the rest of the houses on Tuttle Street, but I soon realized the contents within this house were priceless. â€Å"We have a new student today,† Mr. Kurys ecstatically said. She seemed familiar, but I couldn’t pinpoint exactly why. It didn’t matter to me anyway; I already had my group of friends. â€Å"Wait a minute†¦. What’s her name?† That’s impossible! I have never met another Justyna before. From that day on, I looked at this girl from a completely different perspective. Just because we had the same name, I began to pay a little more attention to her. Before I knew it, two years passed and we were now in sixth grade. Justyna & Justyna BFF was written on practically anything we could think of. Her move from catholic school to our small public school became a huge impact on the next few years of my life. I was always over her house, if she wasn’t over mine. Having different classes was fine; we always managed to meet in the bathroom or by the water fountain to d...

Essay --

For years, media companies have being manufacturing baby learning products and they make claims that they produce specific developmental benefits. Parents have believed that their babies can learn just from watching a video repeatedly for a long time or when they are reading baby books to their babies. This lead parents to always obsessively look for ways to prove that their babies are the best among their peers. So for these parents to accomplish this, they subject their babies as early as 3 months to different baby learning products that claims to boost up a baby’s learning abilities. Learning is a â€Å"change in an organism’s behaviour or thought as a result of experience† (Lilienfeld, Lynn, Namy, Woolf, Cramer, & Schmaltz, 2013 p.210). An example was a research carried out by (Neuman, Kaefer, Pinkham, & Strouse, 2014) on randomly assigned 61 of 117 babies between the ages of 9 to 18 months with a program called Your Baby Can Read, which included flashcards, DVDs and word books. This research was carried out for seven months and the researchers found out there is no difference between...