Tuesday, June 5, 2012
A new well informed 21st century citizen
My definition of a well informed citizen was very basic; forms ideas, assesses media, is a citizen of the united states of america. My new definition includes the facts of government structure, knowledge of law, and internet prowess. So here goes, a well informed citizen is someone who not only can look into media and form an opinion from it, they are able to tell you the exactly how something is affected and by which branch of the government (judicial, executive, legislative), they can easily drop into a conversation of what is right and wrong because they know the law and constitution, and they are able to easily navigate the internet because let's face it America runs on the internet. The internet is where we buy our clothes, search out our entertainment, it's wear we learn about topics that really interest us (it isn't limited like a book or the real world), it's where you are reading this, and if you can't use it properly then you aren't a well informed citizen.
Gov. Issue: What economic practice is best
What economic practice is more prevalent to the survival of America, a country in a new growing world market, which side of the economy will get the job done, Keynesian or classical. The two polar economic (actually macroeconomic but it's not worth going into) practices, are Keynesian economics which trusts that lowering wages will lower prices, and the other practice is Supply side economics and it relies on government action. Historically, the most apparent example of how well our country is being run we look to our President, so they will act as examples to show which is better-Keynesian or supply-side.
To start us off, Richard Nixon declared to the public "We are all Keynesian now" which meant that he was going to start saving income and increased taxes for two quarters until he would finally start stimulating the government with "bailouts". The economy was in a full turn around until he made it nose dive after that whole Watergate fiasco. Point is that he was making America money, he had restored trade with most of our Asian trade partners, China and Taiwan. You might think that Keynesian is the best option for America, but that is only one special case for how that kind of economy is good.
Second, while he hasn't really come out as one, he has made many economic decisions based on what appears to be Keynesian economics. President Barack Obama has made strides in the economic field and no one has made heads or tails of the actual practice he is committed to. He has made a drive to reduce gov. spending, increase minimum wage, and bail out businesses and the country which put us a little bit more in debt but it also allows for an era of increased economic growth. Those laws or bills he has had passed recently have given the population ample space to start expanding businesses and increase our marginal propensity to consume(spend on what we want), the only issue is that since the recession outlook is bleak and financial security is the main pill to swallow. While today that seems all fine and Keynesian, 40 or 50 years ago Obama would have a couple million less people to worry about and that would mean that these reforms or actions he has taken would label him as a Reaganomic acolyte. Allow me to explain with a brief paragraph on Reagan's practices.
President Ronald Reagan is the flagship example used to represent Supply side economics, or as it was coined after he ran it- Reaganomics. He was one of the only other presidents to stop the decline of the economy, and he was the only one to make it start turning a profit so America could pay off debts. He rode a horse. His reign as emperor of our great nation and setting its economy included, what may sound familiar; decreased government spending, raised taxes and interest rates(prompting many to start saving money), and on top of all that the job market was still thriving and all that went on for almost two years before he: increased government spending to help big businesses, decreased the interest rates and taxes (so people would start spending again), and while he really didn't raise minimum wage he gave stimuli or tax cuts to those that did.
Reagan had many Keynesian economic practices, but they only worked because of his supply side economics, during those first two years the government was making many cuts and pumping money into different organizations trying to save the country, it didn't work. Used correctly either one can save the economy but personally i believe that Reaganomics is the more appropriate practice to have in effect because, it stimulates the sub-economoy (where our money goes) which is in banks and the stock market and big businesses that provide jobs to thousands. It prompts us to save at points and get back to spending at others. I do believe that the president should at least be running a Keynesian amongst their advisers though, like Reagan had done.
Pictures:
Video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBrHkxqNT7s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk
Cite: http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/02/29/keynesian-economics-goes-out-of-style-for-americans
http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/richardnixon
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/Reaganomics.html
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/07/22/fatal-flaws-of-keynesian-econo
To start us off, Richard Nixon declared to the public "We are all Keynesian now" which meant that he was going to start saving income and increased taxes for two quarters until he would finally start stimulating the government with "bailouts". The economy was in a full turn around until he made it nose dive after that whole Watergate fiasco. Point is that he was making America money, he had restored trade with most of our Asian trade partners, China and Taiwan. You might think that Keynesian is the best option for America, but that is only one special case for how that kind of economy is good.
Second, while he hasn't really come out as one, he has made many economic decisions based on what appears to be Keynesian economics. President Barack Obama has made strides in the economic field and no one has made heads or tails of the actual practice he is committed to. He has made a drive to reduce gov. spending, increase minimum wage, and bail out businesses and the country which put us a little bit more in debt but it also allows for an era of increased economic growth. Those laws or bills he has had passed recently have given the population ample space to start expanding businesses and increase our marginal propensity to consume(spend on what we want), the only issue is that since the recession outlook is bleak and financial security is the main pill to swallow. While today that seems all fine and Keynesian, 40 or 50 years ago Obama would have a couple million less people to worry about and that would mean that these reforms or actions he has taken would label him as a Reaganomic acolyte. Allow me to explain with a brief paragraph on Reagan's practices.
President Ronald Reagan is the flagship example used to represent Supply side economics, or as it was coined after he ran it- Reaganomics. He was one of the only other presidents to stop the decline of the economy, and he was the only one to make it start turning a profit so America could pay off debts. He rode a horse. His reign as emperor of our great nation and setting its economy included, what may sound familiar; decreased government spending, raised taxes and interest rates(prompting many to start saving money), and on top of all that the job market was still thriving and all that went on for almost two years before he: increased government spending to help big businesses, decreased the interest rates and taxes (so people would start spending again), and while he really didn't raise minimum wage he gave stimuli or tax cuts to those that did.
Reagan had many Keynesian economic practices, but they only worked because of his supply side economics, during those first two years the government was making many cuts and pumping money into different organizations trying to save the country, it didn't work. Used correctly either one can save the economy but personally i believe that Reaganomics is the more appropriate practice to have in effect because, it stimulates the sub-economoy (where our money goes) which is in banks and the stock market and big businesses that provide jobs to thousands. It prompts us to save at points and get back to spending at others. I do believe that the president should at least be running a Keynesian amongst their advisers though, like Reagan had done.
Pictures:
Video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBrHkxqNT7s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk
Cite: http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/02/29/keynesian-economics-goes-out-of-style-for-americans
http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/richardnixon
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/Reaganomics.html
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/07/22/fatal-flaws-of-keynesian-econo
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)