Consumerist.com unveiled an idea today that I haven't seen before: a national credit card.
I'm really torn to be honest.
On one side, you have the massive savings, lack of hidden fees that are meant to screw you, and who knows what other missing piece of capitalist dog policies.
But on the other, you have a concept that could be catastrophic. The government's role is to protect the country through creating and enforcing laws throughout the nation. If the government is providing the service itself, who would you have enforce you if someone made a mistake?
This is prevalent in places such as the police. If you were NOT speeding in an area, but a police officer trying to make quota pulls you over and wrongly accuses you of this, who do you call? You can't call the police. Why would they trust you more than their own officer?
Also, from what I know, this would destroy what little umph our economy has left. Moving everyone over to a public credit system would invalidate the private system we have, causing way more layoffs and market drops. That is -- unless they're nationalized a la Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac. But tell me this. Since when has the government had better results at running things than normal private institutions that are NOT taking advantage of their power?
There are a million things to question and ponder with this idea. What do you think?
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Gender Role Compression
I apologize for my extreme tardiness, but I must assert that I am only comfortable providing my best material for this blog. It's important to only share quality, and I will not let a deadline hinder me. Again, I'm sorry for the lack of brain food for everyone as of late, but allow me assuage you with this nugget of discussion.
Today a friend of mine linked this poorly written (at best) article about Rhianna and Chris Brown. It took me a few minutes to even take it seriously, but I surprisingly found a delicious firing of synapses after giving it a chance.
On first read, I thought this woman was batshit. The use of ineffective polls and ignorant phrases like "false pay gaps and oppression that doesn't exist" only dissuade me from believing anything she has to write. But on second read, I discovered there was a valid issue lying between the lines.
That issue is: Have the converging gender roles upset the way we conduct relationships?
No wise person can deny that over the past century women have attained an enormous amount of independence and liberty. Some things gained are: voting rights, public influence (showcased by the near vice presidency), smaller pay gaps (though still not equal), and the ability to get esteemed jobs. I think that's great, as women are people too.
But here's the kicker -- by changing society norms, you change society. As women gain salaries increasingly closer to those of men's, how can we expect the continuance of traditionalist values such as men paying for dates? Simple economics point toward a new type of oppression over men by women if those values are expected. Not to say they will, but pay close attention to the possibility.
On the aspect of women finding masculinity in women because they can't find it in men, I have one question. What is current masculinity? If the previous point of payment on dates is NOT expected, that's one strike out of a man's playbook to impress his mate. What will replace it? Will there be a replacement? Gender roles are slowly disappearing, and most don't believe it is a bad thing. Whether the change is a step toward chaos or liberty, how will we adapt?
And with all this said, remember -- like all human beings -- all relationships are different in style, shape, and priority. Even as human beings move liberally as each day goes by, there are still couples dating in the style of 19th century, as well as couples dating in a fashion no historical trend has shown. It all boils down to attempting the impossible -- pairing two individual humans who don't even understand themselves to understand and care for each other.
Love is complicated.
Today a friend of mine linked this poorly written (at best) article about Rhianna and Chris Brown. It took me a few minutes to even take it seriously, but I surprisingly found a delicious firing of synapses after giving it a chance.
On first read, I thought this woman was batshit. The use of ineffective polls and ignorant phrases like "false pay gaps and oppression that doesn't exist" only dissuade me from believing anything she has to write. But on second read, I discovered there was a valid issue lying between the lines.
That issue is: Have the converging gender roles upset the way we conduct relationships?
No wise person can deny that over the past century women have attained an enormous amount of independence and liberty. Some things gained are: voting rights, public influence (showcased by the near vice presidency), smaller pay gaps (though still not equal), and the ability to get esteemed jobs. I think that's great, as women are people too.
But here's the kicker -- by changing society norms, you change society. As women gain salaries increasingly closer to those of men's, how can we expect the continuance of traditionalist values such as men paying for dates? Simple economics point toward a new type of oppression over men by women if those values are expected. Not to say they will, but pay close attention to the possibility.
On the aspect of women finding masculinity in women because they can't find it in men, I have one question. What is current masculinity? If the previous point of payment on dates is NOT expected, that's one strike out of a man's playbook to impress his mate. What will replace it? Will there be a replacement? Gender roles are slowly disappearing, and most don't believe it is a bad thing. Whether the change is a step toward chaos or liberty, how will we adapt?
And with all this said, remember -- like all human beings -- all relationships are different in style, shape, and priority. Even as human beings move liberally as each day goes by, there are still couples dating in the style of 19th century, as well as couples dating in a fashion no historical trend has shown. It all boils down to attempting the impossible -- pairing two individual humans who don't even understand themselves to understand and care for each other.
Love is complicated.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Destructive Stimulus
With the markets' seemingly interminable drop, citizens rioting across the globe, and nations vowing to protect themselves at all costs, the world has transformed into a powder keg. One simple spark -- intentionally or otherwise -- could begin the Third World War that all of humanity has feared for half a century. But will WWIII be something of good versus evil like the last? Will it be as... convenient?
The Second World War began during what some say was the United States' worst era: The Great Depression. During those dark days, even the New Deal's drastic reform and employment stimulation could not fully satisfy the country's financial predicament. Only the gargantuan mobilization that was requisite to fight the Axis powers proved sufficient.
Could the same be true for today’s economic crisis? What if the drastic conflicts in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act doom the legislation to failure? Without a doubt, the US would seek other means to restoration, as would any other country suffering the same fate. The tensions already present do not console the situation. Even worse, developed nations' patience wears thin with terrorist-cell styled militant activity. Because of the no-holds-barred approach these camouflaged aggressors bring, NATO has taken one step deeper into the escalation pool.
But the worldwide economic crisis lacks one thing for such a catastrophic turmoil to emerge: a valid, moral reason. Without The Holocaust, Pearl Harbor, or the annexing of Poland, the Allies would have never engaged in WWII. Any population would be highly resistant to take up arms unless threatened. So what tragic event would provide a war-faring incentive? The Western world has already suffered several 9/11 copies within the last few years, and the Israeli tension in the Middle East remains extremely volatile. Chances for such a violence enticing lure are plenty.
So, as the world braces for impact, hoping and praying for the best, it must remain wary of the dreadful possibility that may unfold -- a global economic boom of devastation aimed at one thing: destructive stimulation.
The Second World War began during what some say was the United States' worst era: The Great Depression. During those dark days, even the New Deal's drastic reform and employment stimulation could not fully satisfy the country's financial predicament. Only the gargantuan mobilization that was requisite to fight the Axis powers proved sufficient.
Could the same be true for today’s economic crisis? What if the drastic conflicts in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act doom the legislation to failure? Without a doubt, the US would seek other means to restoration, as would any other country suffering the same fate. The tensions already present do not console the situation. Even worse, developed nations' patience wears thin with terrorist-cell styled militant activity. Because of the no-holds-barred approach these camouflaged aggressors bring, NATO has taken one step deeper into the escalation pool.
But the worldwide economic crisis lacks one thing for such a catastrophic turmoil to emerge: a valid, moral reason. Without The Holocaust, Pearl Harbor, or the annexing of Poland, the Allies would have never engaged in WWII. Any population would be highly resistant to take up arms unless threatened. So what tragic event would provide a war-faring incentive? The Western world has already suffered several 9/11 copies within the last few years, and the Israeli tension in the Middle East remains extremely volatile. Chances for such a violence enticing lure are plenty.
So, as the world braces for impact, hoping and praying for the best, it must remain wary of the dreadful possibility that may unfold -- a global economic boom of devastation aimed at one thing: destructive stimulation.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Individual or National: America's Defining Predicament
Whether discreetly or in plain view, every United States citizen fantasizes about it: The American Dream. Build a secure, comfortable home in an isolated yet genial part of Suburbia, raise an educated and jubilant family, and attain the financial freedom to never worry about bills at the end of the month. This notion is certainly achievable in the nation's prosperous times, but what about now -- when the desires of individuals could implode the very foundation of the country?
The US Government has called upon the nation to adopt a "Buy American" doctrine in order to stimulate the country's economy, but unlike in previous situations -- like World War II for instance, when danger was in the form of a foreign invasion -- the US now faces a creeping, complicated and convoluted foe. Because the entire nation is not facing a crisis inches from immediate catastrophe, it remains hesitant to change the way its wallet is handled.
Talks have sprung over a gas tax in America in order to steer consumers away from gas guzzling cars, but how would Americans react? Saturday, a friend and I were discussing the replacement of his current malfunctioning car. When asked on about buying a hybrid to take advantage of the new tax breaks included -- Chevrolet's new Volt for example -- he explained "I don't want a hybrid car." Though somewhat stubborn, he had a valid point. The American Dream entails doing what the individual wants rather than needs; inner desires trump public necessities. Though the US Government, especially through President Obama's vociferous popularity has called for nationalism, the responsibility remains on businesses to generate a product that Americans want. Because without the psychological and monetary benefits, US citizens will continue with their own dreams until the country's time terminates.
Since the presidential election, the word "socialism" has rivaled four-letter profanities in every right-wing -- and some left-wing -- households. What makes people so disgusted? Socialism implies that citizens must make sacrifices of their own wealth and opportunity so that others may acquire the same accomplishments. Such an act negates The American Dream. But at what cost will Americans step over the threshold to humility? When will they realize that in order to keep the possibility of the dream, they must place it on hold for a few years?
Possessing the power to fulfill ambitions is a wealth far greater than money can provide, and in dire times like this, that ability teeters in existence. It is the Americans' deicision whether they want to postpone their lives in order to aid the nation that enables them, or they want to individualize until they are no longer united. So make the choice. At this point in history, which is more important -- the American citizen's endowed dream, or the United States of America?
The US Government has called upon the nation to adopt a "Buy American" doctrine in order to stimulate the country's economy, but unlike in previous situations -- like World War II for instance, when danger was in the form of a foreign invasion -- the US now faces a creeping, complicated and convoluted foe. Because the entire nation is not facing a crisis inches from immediate catastrophe, it remains hesitant to change the way its wallet is handled.
Talks have sprung over a gas tax in America in order to steer consumers away from gas guzzling cars, but how would Americans react? Saturday, a friend and I were discussing the replacement of his current malfunctioning car. When asked on about buying a hybrid to take advantage of the new tax breaks included -- Chevrolet's new Volt for example -- he explained "I don't want a hybrid car." Though somewhat stubborn, he had a valid point. The American Dream entails doing what the individual wants rather than needs; inner desires trump public necessities. Though the US Government, especially through President Obama's vociferous popularity has called for nationalism, the responsibility remains on businesses to generate a product that Americans want. Because without the psychological and monetary benefits, US citizens will continue with their own dreams until the country's time terminates.
Since the presidential election, the word "socialism" has rivaled four-letter profanities in every right-wing -- and some left-wing -- households. What makes people so disgusted? Socialism implies that citizens must make sacrifices of their own wealth and opportunity so that others may acquire the same accomplishments. Such an act negates The American Dream. But at what cost will Americans step over the threshold to humility? When will they realize that in order to keep the possibility of the dream, they must place it on hold for a few years?
Possessing the power to fulfill ambitions is a wealth far greater than money can provide, and in dire times like this, that ability teeters in existence. It is the Americans' deicision whether they want to postpone their lives in order to aid the nation that enables them, or they want to individualize until they are no longer united. So make the choice. At this point in history, which is more important -- the American citizen's endowed dream, or the United States of America?
Monday, February 9, 2009
A Misplaced Faith
Of the myriad of issues that presently plague humanity across the planet, there is only one so dire to affect even the most developed states with a furor that could topple the globe. The global financial crisis grips the entire world by the throat, without any intention of backing down. Every state from Iran, Russia, Bolivia, Germany, the United States, and everywhere in between is suffering the precursors of potentially the greatest international economic meltdown in history.
Naturally refusing to collapse without a struggle, every state has established or is currently in the process of establishing some type of recovery plan. But are the plans working? Will they work? From the feedback shown by economists such as 2008 Nobel Prize winning Paul Krugman, optimistic results are unlikely. Differing ideas – for instance in the US Senate, republicans vying for tax cuts while democrats profuse government spending -- hinder the productivity toward the optimum solution. Now, before the bickering begins on who is right or wrong, why does any government carry differing opinions?
Balanced solutions call for two imbalanced ideas to communicate the pros and cons of each thought, falling in a central, ideally perfect spotlight. While in democratic societies this opposite attraction format is believed to work, and often does, the current time depicts that this is not always the case. There is no middle ground when dealing with economics. The science is just that – a formulaic paradigm bound by a set of rules rather than opinions, of historically proven methods without the freedom to alter. Where does this lead? The answer is in the form of a question. But first, a historical tidbit…
In the educational series “Cosmos” first shown during the 1980s, renowned astronomer Carl Sagan asked the question “Who speaks for Earth?” pondering the situation that extra terrestrials make their way to the planet. With the division between the states of the world, there is currently no single sponsor who would stand up and speak. Sagan went on to say, after an enormous amount of thought, that scientists were the only humans capable of speaking peacefully and knowledgeably, mainly due to their absence of agenda; there are no constituents to satisfy with their findings. Wouldn’t the same outcome ring true for the current economic crisis? The mathematical nature of the situation calls for those that are knowledgeable and wise, without the pressure from non-expert opinions around them. Rather than bi-partisanship which US President Obama stands steadfastly upon, economists form a sort of non-partisanship – which brings this inaugural blog to its finish line.
Why is the world relying on politicians to solve a financial crisis? Why not place the reins into those hands that know what is required: economists?
Naturally refusing to collapse without a struggle, every state has established or is currently in the process of establishing some type of recovery plan. But are the plans working? Will they work? From the feedback shown by economists such as 2008 Nobel Prize winning Paul Krugman, optimistic results are unlikely. Differing ideas – for instance in the US Senate, republicans vying for tax cuts while democrats profuse government spending -- hinder the productivity toward the optimum solution. Now, before the bickering begins on who is right or wrong, why does any government carry differing opinions?
Balanced solutions call for two imbalanced ideas to communicate the pros and cons of each thought, falling in a central, ideally perfect spotlight. While in democratic societies this opposite attraction format is believed to work, and often does, the current time depicts that this is not always the case. There is no middle ground when dealing with economics. The science is just that – a formulaic paradigm bound by a set of rules rather than opinions, of historically proven methods without the freedom to alter. Where does this lead? The answer is in the form of a question. But first, a historical tidbit…
In the educational series “Cosmos” first shown during the 1980s, renowned astronomer Carl Sagan asked the question “Who speaks for Earth?” pondering the situation that extra terrestrials make their way to the planet. With the division between the states of the world, there is currently no single sponsor who would stand up and speak. Sagan went on to say, after an enormous amount of thought, that scientists were the only humans capable of speaking peacefully and knowledgeably, mainly due to their absence of agenda; there are no constituents to satisfy with their findings. Wouldn’t the same outcome ring true for the current economic crisis? The mathematical nature of the situation calls for those that are knowledgeable and wise, without the pressure from non-expert opinions around them. Rather than bi-partisanship which US President Obama stands steadfastly upon, economists form a sort of non-partisanship – which brings this inaugural blog to its finish line.
Why is the world relying on politicians to solve a financial crisis? Why not place the reins into those hands that know what is required: economists?
Sunday, February 8, 2009
And so it begins...
Facebook is too personal, Myspace for fourteen-year-olds, and Twitter too curt. That means my blog has found a home here.
With my sudden fascination in Journalism, I've decided to establish a spot to release all that I'm processing at the moment. There is a lot of information, looping to and from the past and present, but with some dedication this will prosper. I'll update this timely with world events, what they mean, and questions for everyone to fill the blanks in themselves. Interactivity is key, and like the title states -- perception is everything. Everyone has a different view on the world, and only by recognizing all stances will we find true objectivity. Hope everyone enjoys!
Cheers,
Sam.
With my sudden fascination in Journalism, I've decided to establish a spot to release all that I'm processing at the moment. There is a lot of information, looping to and from the past and present, but with some dedication this will prosper. I'll update this timely with world events, what they mean, and questions for everyone to fill the blanks in themselves. Interactivity is key, and like the title states -- perception is everything. Everyone has a different view on the world, and only by recognizing all stances will we find true objectivity. Hope everyone enjoys!
Cheers,
Sam.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
