Today, march 1st 2010 I am reading an article in the "breaking news" section of Chicago Tribune. The article is called "Personal spending jumps, but incomes stuck." It is very important to understand that the issue we are presented with relates to economic freedom. According to the article, personal spending jumped in january more than expected for Americans, and this poses a problem because income has been almost unchanged. If income would increase, then people would be able to buy more products, and the personal spending budget would increase. This is what social economic freedom represents. The power to buy things because of your economic independence, and financial self-sufficiency.
You may be asking how this relates to Friendman and his theories discussed in class. Well, Friedman presents the issue as economic freedom leading to total freedom from a "state" point of view. But from a personal point of view, we can see that economic freedom leads to more choices and less worries about the spending budget, therefore more freedom. Now if economic freedom leads to TOTAL freedom, that is another matter.
By analyzing the meaning of "total freedom" I have come to the conlcusion that economic freedom can lead to total freedom when it comes to the well-being of a country. But when talking about individual human beings, economic freedom becomes simply a tool or an instrument in achieving total freedom.
So could "economic freedom" be understood as a self-sufficient independent status of a country? What about when it comes down to population, which constitutes a big part of the country? Is the meaning of "economic freedom" the same for individual people as it is for a country?
Here is the link to the article:
http://www.chicagobreakingbusiness.com/2010/03/personal-spending-jumps-but-incomes-stucks.html
Monday, March 1, 2010
Monday, February 15, 2010
Marx in the news
On february 1, 2010 there was an article in the Chicago Tribune with the title "Owners skeptical of Obama plan." The article presented the issue that president Obama brought up a plan that would help small businesses develop more in order to stimulate the economy.
The small business owners are in fact a little skeptical about this because the money that they should receive from the federal government is not going directly to them, but rather to big business. Small businesses express their hope to receive the aid necassary in the near future just as the president has in mind.
In my opinion, this article ties in perfectly with Marx's theory of a never-ending gap between the worker and the owner of a business. But could this be the case where small businesses can't catch up with big business in this poor economy? As the article says, Obama's plan includes $30 billion for community banks to lend money. But the problem still persists in that banks need to loosen up their lending policies.
Another point in the article is that the plan tries to stimulate small businesses to hire new workers. In return, the business will receive tax breaks and other benefits. But the problem is that a business owner will hire people if he/she needs employees. But if there is no need for extra labor, then the small business will not make new hires.
If they start to hire people only to receive a tax break, then the new employees will be paid for nothing. Their production isnt required at the moment, nor is their labor or time. As Marx puts it, in a capital society businesses pay people for the time they work, and not for the production. But I think the new Obama plan will make businesses hire people and not pay them for time or for labor. They will pay the new employees just to get the tax break. What do you guys think?
Here's the article:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/la-fi-smallbiz1-2010feb01,0,6538633.story
The small business owners are in fact a little skeptical about this because the money that they should receive from the federal government is not going directly to them, but rather to big business. Small businesses express their hope to receive the aid necassary in the near future just as the president has in mind.
In my opinion, this article ties in perfectly with Marx's theory of a never-ending gap between the worker and the owner of a business. But could this be the case where small businesses can't catch up with big business in this poor economy? As the article says, Obama's plan includes $30 billion for community banks to lend money. But the problem still persists in that banks need to loosen up their lending policies.
Another point in the article is that the plan tries to stimulate small businesses to hire new workers. In return, the business will receive tax breaks and other benefits. But the problem is that a business owner will hire people if he/she needs employees. But if there is no need for extra labor, then the small business will not make new hires.
If they start to hire people only to receive a tax break, then the new employees will be paid for nothing. Their production isnt required at the moment, nor is their labor or time. As Marx puts it, in a capital society businesses pay people for the time they work, and not for the production. But I think the new Obama plan will make businesses hire people and not pay them for time or for labor. They will pay the new employees just to get the tax break. What do you guys think?
Here's the article:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/la-fi-smallbiz1-2010feb01,0,6538633.story
Monday, February 1, 2010
Locke in the news
I was just reading an interesting article about a bank robbery. It seems that the robber took money from a credit union, and ran away while shooting at the police. You may ask yourselves how this relates to Locke, and the idea of labor and property. Well, as I was reading the article I stopped to ask myself "Is the robber the new owner of the stolen money according to Locke?" I mean, the guy worked up through a good deal of trouble in order to steal that money, and so according to Locke, he should be the rightful owner. Or not?
As Locke says, we own our bodies, therefore we own the work that comes out of us and that energy is embodied in "labor." Also, by putting our labor into something, we have made it private property. It is obvious that the bank robber instilled alot of labor into stealing the money, and therefore why shoudln't he become the rightful owner of it?
Now I understand that stealinng is not right, and of course as of today's society and its standards, the guy should be punished. But if we lived in a world according to Locke's rules, how would these actions be described? Would we still punish people for stealing or would it be ok since they put their labor into stealing?
Is it possible that Locke would disagree with this practice because it does not lead to productivity? Althogh this could be argued because Productivity is achieved anyway for one person or another, depending on the definition.
Link: http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/02/police-gurnee-bank-robber-shot-at-cop.html
As Locke says, we own our bodies, therefore we own the work that comes out of us and that energy is embodied in "labor." Also, by putting our labor into something, we have made it private property. It is obvious that the bank robber instilled alot of labor into stealing the money, and therefore why shoudln't he become the rightful owner of it?
Now I understand that stealinng is not right, and of course as of today's society and its standards, the guy should be punished. But if we lived in a world according to Locke's rules, how would these actions be described? Would we still punish people for stealing or would it be ok since they put their labor into stealing?
Is it possible that Locke would disagree with this practice because it does not lead to productivity? Althogh this could be argued because Productivity is achieved anyway for one person or another, depending on the definition.
Link: http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/02/police-gurnee-bank-robber-shot-at-cop.html
Monday, January 18, 2010
Aristotle in the news
As I was looking for interesting news, I came across an article on January 18 which definately caught my attention. It talks about how the price of gold has remained steady at around $1,130/ oz. Now, I don't know if you realize this but the price of gold 3 years ago was very different than it is today. Because of this, there is a "gold rush" hitting cities across the globe, where companies such as cash4gold are trying to buy as much gold as possible only to sell it to refineries and get more money for it. This catches my attention in the sense that it relates to what Aristotle is talking about in our reading. This way of using money to buy gold and turn it into more money, sounds alot like the kind of usury that Aristotle describes, which is using money to make money. Also, this cycle represents an "artificial art of acquisition" because it is improper and ultimately unlimited in its reach.
The proper use of gold would be to make products like jewelry and luxury items, for the benefit of others. But when gold is used for making money, and that money used for buying more gold in order to acquire more money, it becomes a vicious circle where people start fetishizing money, and turns into a perversion. Just as we discussed in class, the "natural art of acquisition" is the best for Aristotle, because it involves the "proper" use of an object (which is to obtain something other than the object), and it is limited because it satisfies biological need.
The way i see it, this is not what is happening with the gold buying/selling industry, and it is the complete opposite of what Aristotle would agree with.
Here is the link:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTOE60G01H20100118?type=goldMktRpt
The proper use of gold would be to make products like jewelry and luxury items, for the benefit of others. But when gold is used for making money, and that money used for buying more gold in order to acquire more money, it becomes a vicious circle where people start fetishizing money, and turns into a perversion. Just as we discussed in class, the "natural art of acquisition" is the best for Aristotle, because it involves the "proper" use of an object (which is to obtain something other than the object), and it is limited because it satisfies biological need.
The way i see it, this is not what is happening with the gold buying/selling industry, and it is the complete opposite of what Aristotle would agree with.
Here is the link:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTOE60G01H20100118?type=goldMktRpt
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)