Wednesday, December 4, 2013
China's Industrialization and the Depletion of the Commons
Estefania Velez
December 4, 2013
GVPT
Throughout
the decades China has evolved into one of the most industrialized and wealthy
nations in the world. They take the lead with about 19% of the world’s
population all living in the southern half of Asia. These things however, come
with negative consequences. China may be well known for having many factories,
but it is also known for having the greatest environmental issues in the world.
In his article “The Tragedy of the Commons”, Hardin argues that free access to
non-permanent resources that are needed for survival (e.g. oceans, the
atmosphere) will end up affecting humanity as a whole because these sources
will quickly diminish if they are not regulated wisely.
China
is a prime example of this because although industrialization has provided a
large boost in their economy, the smog levels in Beijing alone surpass the
levels that the World Health Organization declares hazardous. The amount of
cars that travel through that city alone and the factories that let smoke out
every day are enough to affect the atmosphere in ways that will end up hurting
the us in the near future. In a way, pollution goes hand in hand with excessive
energy use because every steel factory that causes the smog in the air uses and
takes up large amounts of energy from natural resources. Hardin claims that we try so hard to be
independent and successful that we end up “fouling our own nest” without
realizing that we are doing nothing but setting ourselves up for failure (349).
Hardin
also believes that over-population is one of our greatest flaws because
everyone is born believing that we have unlimited rights to the commons
therefore making us take them for granted. China is known for having the
largest population in the world and although they limit each family to having
only one child, that does not take away from the fact that as any population
enlarges, chemical and biological recycling begin to overload, more welfare
laws need to be created, and people become so caught up in their lives that
they forget not to pollute the water and not to liter. What is worse is that
not only are us humans hurting ourselves, we are affecting the wildlife and the
habitats of many animals that live in the rivers and grasslands that are being
contaminated and being cut down. In China, many of the rivers have become
factory sewers and many of them cannot be purified for human consumption.
Unfortunately,
China is not the only country that has issues with global warming, pollution
and all of the other consequences that come from depleting our natural
resources. In the long run, this all interferes with international relations
because there are nations who may not agree with China’s ways and could cease
trade with them, or threaten them to set laws for their regulations. As Hardin
describes these issues in his article, I begin to see what can happen not too
long from now and it is time for the government to regulate the use of the
commons and for people to speak up about protecting the world we live on because
if we continue to follow China’s footsteps, there will not be a world to live
on.
Yasemin Unal: Globalization
Yasemin Unal
Professor Mark Shirk
GVPT200FC4 December 2013
There is no denying that we are in
an era of mass globalization. A time of interdependence on other states for the
well being of our own economic and
social prosperity. Undoubtedly, globalization has had copious positive impacts
on the states and citizens around the world, bringing opulence. Yet, one cannot
be oblivious to the undesirable effects globalization has brought as well. My
argument will be centered around the theme that with globalization there has
been a loss of culture for states, there are increased ethnic clashes, and that
it is an indirect relationship with environmental problems.
To begin, globalization is slowly
homogenizing the unique cultures around the world, forming a type of culture
that is based off of consumerism and commercialization. This is creating an
international society with the same values and desires. This may seem as
harmless and even attractive, since the international community will have more
in common. However, with globalization there is also the spread of unwanted
social ideals. For example, with the spread of mass media commercialization around
the world consumerism is becoming targeted around the unattainable ideals of
beauty and thinness. I would argue that globalization is also spreading the American
culture, causing the individual cultures of states to become diluted. For
instance, English is slowly becoming the global language. While this is not necessarily
a drawback for businesses and English speaking citizens, it does causes the individuality
of national languages to slowly lose their importance for the younger
population, who strive to become Americanized. Moreover, this weakening cultural factor that globalization brings causes more ethnic tensions, leading to more violence. This violence does not have to directly translate into war and mass murder. In fact, this tension can be relevant between citizens of different states or even citizens within a single, diverse state. Like mentioned in the book "How Soccer Explains the World", globalization often results in "hooliganism" because of the loss of masculine roles, due to outsourced industrial labor. This hooliganism is translated into clashes between different ethnic groups. Like I mentioned previously, this violence can be present within a state with many different ethnicities ,or it can even transcribe over boundaries. One could also make the argument that the diluting of specific cultures causes the citizens of that state to feel an ontological threat, since it is their identity that is in danger. Thus, they resort to violence to defend their individual cultures and ethnicities against the threats they perceive.
On a final note, globalization has an indirect role with increased environmental problems. This is due to the fact that, third world countries are being exploited for their natural resources and labor during the process of industrialization. In rapidly industrializing third world countries, there are no strict pollution laws that have been enacted. The overwhelming desire to industrialize as soon as possible, in order to be a part of globalization, has resulted in increased CFC pollutants that contribute to global warming. These industrializing countries know that with globalization, there is a link with economic affluence. Consequently, they do not put their priorities is producing outputs in a way that does not mass pollute.
In the final analysis, globalization
does have its negative impacts on the international community. Even though
there are benefits, globalization causes the diminishing of diverse cultures,
increased tensions due to loss of identity, and increased environmental
problems.
Lauren Wilhelm
December 2, 2013
GVPT 200
Prof Shirk
Columbus: Courageous Discoverer
of Worlds, or Self-Serving Maverick
While some view Christopher Columbus to be an extraordinary hero and discoverer
of new
worlds, others see him as a manipulative, egocentric explorer out to
fulfill his own goals even at the expense of others. Columbus is viewed as the
father of the Americas, and expander of the world, yet most people don’t
realize he was not as understanding and open-minded as many think. When
children learn about Columbus in grade school, they hear of a great explorer
who wanted to discover a quicker trade route to India. They also learn of the
courageous man who sailed into uncharted waters when the world was thought to
be flat, so he could sail over the edge at any minute. Upon further research
however, it is revealed that Columbus was in fact a man of many contradictions
with self-interested incentives and a superiority complex. His journals are
additional proof that his interactions with the Indians were not honorable and
acceptant, but were actually exploitative. Although Columbus did set out
on an unknown journey to make discoveries, upon arrival in the Americas he took
advantage of the Indians and the resources around him and was not the hero
explorer many Americans today believe he is.
Christopher
Columbus is a household name all throughout America, and while he did open up
the Americas to colonization by happening upon them, he is not as wholesome and
deserving of praise as is typically assumed. It is known that Columbus voyaged
west in 1492 to find a more direct route to India for trade, yet he was much
more imperialist than most people believe. It can be learned from his journals
that upon landing in the Americas, he believed the land to be part of Asia and
actually believed he landed where he intended. His interactions with the
natives there, as recorded in his journals, reflect his imperialistic nature.
During his interactions with the Indians who inhabited the Caribbean, he learned
their names for the islands. Yet, he renamed them all and claimed them for
Spain. In doing this he was also showing a complete disregard for their
languages, and had no desire to learn the linguistics of the natives at all.
Columbus took the same entitled approach to the resources the natives shared
with him. He took and used as much as he could, believing he deserved it. He
justified it by saying it was a sign from God that the resources were shown to
him and because of that they essentially belonged to him and the Spaniards. He
claimed everything for himself and Spain, and took advantage of the generous
but naïve natives to accomplish this.
Many
believe that Columbus’s interactions with the natives were originally
peaceable, however, even in the beginning he was not as well intentioned as
most would think. On one of his first days there he writes to Queen Isabella
about how the Taino people will make great slaves for trade and he will bring
her as many as she wishes. Due to their generosity he believes they are perfect
for the slave trade because as Columbus puts it, they can be made to do
whatever you want of them. Columbus further writes to the monarchs on how if
the Indians do not comply he will torture and kill them, all the while allowing
his men to commit heinous acts such as rape and murder anyway. The entire time,
Columbus justifies his actions by claiming he does all of this with the end
goal of converting the Taino people to Christianity to save their souls. His
pre-conceived notions that the natives are savages, causes him to have a
complete disregard for their lifestyle and allows him to justify any actions he
takes by claiming he is helping to progress them. Columbus uses his advantages
of knowledge and power to take advantage of the natives of the Americas, and
treat them with contemptible hostility. Although Columbus is taught to be the
brave, noble explorer who discovered the Americas, he was actually a cruel,
manipulative opportunist, who took advantage of the natives of the Americas and
all of the resources they had to offer in order to advance his own objectives.
Cosmopolitanism in an Era of Globalization
Shiran Zecharya
GVPT200
Blog #5
Cosmopolitanism
in an Era of Globalization
The past decade has allowed citizens from all parts of
the world to feel both the blessings and burdens of globalization. The phenomenon
has physically changed global politics by means of increased trade,
interdependence, growth of the mass media, greater cultural acceptance
and widespread technological innovation. As a result, new generations of
citizens have begun to embrace a more cosmopolitan outlook on international
politics where they are more willing to engage and sympathize with The Other
and actively endorse the idea that all people are “citizens of the world” and that
it is their duty to defend the rights of all people, not just individuals that
live within the confines of their nation’s boarder.
A growing number of critics, however, censure
cosmopolitanism because they argue that it favors more powerful nations over
less influential ones. Skeptics believe that more powerful nations such as the
United States, China and Germany would have more say in the terms of the unity
and global citizenship that cosmopolitanism entails than less influential
states. This account, however, fails to take into consideration the fact that
cosmopolitanism is not always a political ideology and formula for world order,
but a shift in the way citizens of the world perceive each other. This change
is a result, not of a newly unified world that skeptics of cosmopolitanism and
internationalism depict with no political boarders, but a world where
acceptance, understanding, and cooperation flourish throughout these boarders.
While the overall impact of globalization may be difficult
to assess, the effect of cosmopolitan mindsets is not. Society, as a whole,
must learn to embrace this generation’s thirst for cooperation and desire to help
all people of the world. As individuals, we must continue to deny excuses of
patriotism and what is in our “national interest” as justification for taking a
blind eye to the misfortunes and suffering of others, we must castigate all
those who continue to use these excuses in the 21st century, because
they are steering humanity away from progress and mutual understanding and
toward divisiveness and brutality, and we must begin to adopt a more holistic
definition of what makes us humans and abandon our nationalistic
predispositions.
Monday, November 11, 2013
Lauren Wilhelm
November 8, 2013
GVPT 200
Prof Shirk
Risky Business:
Manipulation of CDOs and the Housing Market Crash
In
his book The Signal and the Noise, Nate Silver looks into and analyzes the
contributing factors for the housing market crash which led to the U.S.’s most
recent recession. In studying the inner workings of banks, loan sharks, debt
raters, NRSROs and so on, it can be discovered that their greed for money and
overall ignorance led to them overlooking many warning signs on the housing crash,
contributing to the crash in the housing market and recession. The corporate
workers in these industries wanted so badly for the system to work because of
the revenue it would bring in that they used confirmation bias, and built their
statistical data and proof around their ideas so it would support them. This
system of buying and selling debt may have seemed like a profit maximizing one
in the beginning, but eventually the false premise it was built on was bound to
catch up with it and take it all tumbling down.
The selling of
default rates and securities is wrong for more reasons than the simple fact
that the system failed. It was made more wrong by the fact that it was
essentially gambling. Gambling with debts and the possibility of risk may seem
exciting to those who can afford to lose money and take that risk, but when it
affects the livelihoods of others who need these loans and depend on them, it
is not okay. The system involved rating agencies predicting the probability
that someone would default on a loan and they predicted the nations 5-year rate
at .12%. This rate was considerably low so they saw only small risk and with
that sold and allowed for the trade of debt backed securities and CDOs as if
they were stocks. They tried to create a market for them because they saw the
possibility to bring more investors in on something they didn’t think existed
to sell in the first place. This prospect was propelled by greed and the hopes
of Wall Street’s new and young associates. The only problem with gambling is it
is almost always taken too far because no one knows when to quit, and
eventually, you lose it all.
The statistical
model these ratings were based on ended up being faulty in the end, and causing
the whole idea to fail because it was based on assumptions and not historical
data. In fact it caused the prediction rate to be wrong by more than 200%.
Those in charge were unapologetic and did not take responsibility for their
actions. Instead they claimed they were just unlucky and never could have foreseen
the housing bubble. They continued to blame external forces never truly taking
accountability for what they had caused. In essence they just passed the debt
around and spread it out more so that they could continue to reap the benefits
of being a big corporate laborer. They made assumptions using faulty world
models and instead blamed the fallout on a faulty world.
This goes to show
that Wall Street workers may not necessarily commit what is defined as
white-collar crime, but they do take actions that have larger repercussions on
the public and so they must be held accountable. There will always be greed in
the world just like there will always be those who believe business should be
left to itself and unregulated. However, something needs to change or else the
rich will continue to get richer by manipulating the system by creating these
entities that don’t really exist, and in the long run have huge fallout.
Why did Lehman Brothers not get bailed out?
Jason ye
11/11/2013
GVPT200
The financial crisis of 2008, which is
also known as the Global Financial Crisis is considered by many people the
worst financial crisis since the 1930s Great Depression. It resulted in
bankruptcy of financial institutions, high rate of unemployment, collapse of
the stock market and bailed out from the U.S government to some of the biggest
financial institutions in the U.S. So why did the U.S government bailed out
American International Group, Bear Stearns and nationalized Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac but did not help out
Lehman Brothers and let it fail.
Frist
reason, in my opinion, the U.S government bailed out American International
Group instead of Lehman Brother is all about the impact on financial markets.
American International Group is the largest insurance company in the world, it insures
not just millions of people but also corporations around the world as well. It
also insures millions of dollars issued by the financial institutions’ lenders
and borrowers. If American International Group collapse, it will have a
tremendous effect on those financial institutions that are insured by the
American International Group, which may result in collapse of those financial
institutions too. The American International Group is like an ignorant kid playing with matches, he could harm not only
himself, he could have burn down the entire block, the Fed stepped in not just
to save him but also save the entire block, on the other hand, Lehman Brother is
more like a kid who pulls the tail of a dog and got attacked by the dog,
himself is harmed by the dog but nobody is harmed because of that, so nobody
really care about it that much.
Second reason I think why Lehman Brothers did
not get bailed out by the U.S government is because its lacked collateral for a
loan. During the 2008 financial crisis, before the Troubled Asset Relief
Program (TARP) was established, it was illegal for the government to inject
capital into Lehman Brothers. Unlike the American International Group, which
had insurance addendum that can be evaluative, the Lehman Brothers lacks of ancillary
resulted in the Federal Reserve deiced not to bail out Lehman Brothers. Lacked
collateral is also a reason why the two potential buyers – Bank of America and
Barclays decided to back out at the last moment. Also, there were concerns of
“lending into a run”, some top government officers feared giving Lehman
Brothers loan can cause its customers to flee away which will ensuring its
bankruptcy.
The last reason why the U.S government did
not bail out Lehman Brothers is that the risk to taxpayers is high, like Bernanke said, “Lehman's status as a going concern was
"melting away" as trading partners pulled back from the firm amid
questions about its capital position and access to cash. The Fed couldn't have
lent to Lehman without risking a large loss.”
Overall, the reasons why the
U.S government didn’t bail out Lehman Brother are reasonable, but it might be
better for the economic if the U.S government had bailed out Lehman Brother.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)