Politics and Wealth

Lately in class we have been talking about economics and wealth. Yesterday group had questions on their handout about is up to the government to make people happy base on wealth or should wealth be shared. I personally believe that the government controls the wealth and determines where people in the United States fall in the class system. I feel it is harder for people from the lower class to achieve compare to the upper class. After watching the movie " A Capitalism Love Story" directed by Micheal Moore it is sad how corrupt and greedy our government and companies are. In the movie it showed how members of the upper class are corrupted and infiltrating the political system so they can be on top for ever. In the movie former CEO's of Goldman Sachs and other companies had positions in former President Bush and Clinton administration. While in their administrations' they use their power to control the taxes so the rich can't be taxed as much and increase their money. Also during the movie President Regan was addressing the nation and a member from his administration who was a former CEO of Goldman Sachs told him to hurry up in the speech. I didn't know someone can tell the President of the United States to hurry up. There is always going to be corruption in our politics and Americans need to realized they set up a fake image for us of achieving the American Dream because they control how we can achieve the American Dream.

What is economics?

According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy of Economics, the Philosophy of Economics is the following:

“Philosophy of Economics” consists of inquiries concerning (a) rational choice, (b) the appraisal of economic outcomes, institutions and processes, and (c) the ontology of economic phenomena and the possibilities of acquiring knowledge of them. Although these inquiries overlap in many ways, it is useful to divide philosophy of economics in this way into three subject matters which can be regarded respectively as branches of action theory, ethics (or normative social and political philosophy), and philosophy of science. Economic theories of rationality, welfare, and social choice defend substantive philosophical theses often informed by relevant philosophical literature and of evident interest to those interested in action theory, philosophical psychology, and social and political philosophy. Economics is of particular interest to those interested in epistemology and philosophy of science both because of its detailed peculiarities and because it possesses many of the overt features of the natural sciences, while its object consists of social phenomena.

With that definition given, I was wondering, from a philosophical viewpoint that is, how one would define the term "economy." That is to say, is the term "economy" an actual tangible thing we can measure, engage, and impact, or is it more of an idea (e.g. a triangle is an idea; there are only representations of triangles in the real world, no real, pure triangles), something we label and think we can inquire to but never really know? Moreover, if either of these, how do laws and jurisprudence come into play? I think, definitely, choices we make, from both an law and economic level, have impact on our and others lives.

More on Animal Rights Activists as Terrorists

While agree with the previous post that it is a bit extreem to label animals rights activists such as PETA as terrorists, what they do is clearly disruptive to the animal processing industry. I have absolutely no problem with the legislation passed that makes illegal "any actions that physically interfere with the operation of any animal enterprise, or that cause physical or economic damage to the said enterprise, regardless of motive or reason". While some may claim that this should not be labeled as terrorism (and I agree that in this day and age this word should be reserved for true acts of terror, and not used as a scare tactic for the American public) it does come close to meeting the definition of it. Terrorism is defined as "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes". I am failry certain that no one not belonging to PETA would argue that what they do does not often have the purpose of intimidation. Additionally, the main goal of this organization is to serve a political purpose, theirs being to protect animal rights to an extreme measure. With the extreme nature of this activist group and the measures that they have shown they are willing to take for the good of their cause, I have no problem with the strict nature of legislature passed to keep them out of the animal processing industries in our country. The reporting that they would do if allowed in these plants would certainly NOT be unbiased and would tarnish the reputations of succesful animal processing plants that provide food for the millions of people living in this nation. There are already enough people going hungry in the world, lets not continue to make it harder on food processors to efficiently get their product out. I agree with this legislation and its strict policies, however the title of terrorism may be taking it just a step too far.

Marxism and Economics

I suppose no discussion of economics and philosophy would be complete until some discussion on Marx was held. Now the Communist Manifesto, probably the most notable and well-known of Marx's works, puts for the following: Class struggles have driven history and modern capitalistic society has the bourgeoisie (basically the rich) versus proletariat (basically the poor, menial workers). Now capitalism, for Marx, is alienating individuals from themselves (or finding meaning, purpose), which, Marx thinks, will eventually lead to some type of proletariat revolution. In other words the dichotomy between the rich and poor in such a political system will eventually grow so large that a revolution must take place.

Now I am certainly not a Communist (I do like America) but I think Marx has truly been misinterpreted by many individuals in our country. You see, when all individuals hear are things of a "red scare" and all the negative propaganda from such "communist" endeavors, you never really can understand the heart at what he was saying. Now I am no Marx expert, but from the little that I do know, I believe Marx had good intentions and was truly trying to help other people with the idea of Communism. Who wouldn't want to live in such a utopia of a society? Still, in my opinion, Marx ultimately fails--and not because what he is saying is bad, but rather, it's simply not practical; communism (though there has never been one; all we have come close to are "crude communisms," aka socialism) is more of an idea than an actual workable system.

I think one things that does interest me though is healthcare. I believe with nearly 40-50 million American individuals not having healthcare (and the dichotomy growing) some type of revolt or revolution (from the people) will take place. Whether you believe in universal healthcare or simply want reforms, I think something has to be done or the people do something about it.

To Aid or Not to Aid.

Posner lays out the idea of Wealth Maximazation for us. Within it is the principle that the wealthy will gain more from this form of economics. In a society where the wealthy only get wealthier- how can we encourage competition amongst the lower classes? Sure we give financial help to those who are underprivledged, but is it really helping? Are the benefits of programs such as Welfare and TANF enough to foster normal development in our society? The argument has been raised hundreds of times as to whether or not we should even provide these services, but maybe that isn't the argument that we should be making. People receive these benefits because they are genuinly in need. Yes, there will be some people who take advantage of this wrongfully, but such is every aspect of life. If you do any research on the topic, or simply talk to someone who makes his living soley on governmental aid, then you would surely find that the aid that we are giving is not very much at all. As the wealthy continue to get wealthier, and as inflation continues to plague our nation these people living from day to day from government aid are being left by the sidelines. Once you are put in a position of such inferiority it is hard to get the gumption to get back on the horse and try to compete again. People receive aid because they are in a time of need, but the aid that they receive is lower than their need. This makes people down, and less likely to be competitive. Should we provide more aid to those in need so that they have the ability to compete in our society, or would giving more aid simply encourage people to not try to work harder, because they are making it by on what the government gives them?

Secrets and the Economy

The fact that the concealment of information is the backbone behind certain industries such as the meat industry makes Posner’s theory invalid. Most thriving businesses thrive because some aspect of their business is a secret. If the secrets of the meat industry were revealed, then it would probably plummet. One of the reasons, it is so easy to be a carnivore is that most people don’t know where and how the animals are prepared on an assembly line. Americans and the economy can benefit from ignorance, on certain issues. If some people knew how chickens were treated and tortured, then less people would eat it. A few years ago, 20/20 did a special on the poultry factories and how the chickens were tortured, unnecessarily and the poultry industry took a major hit in profits. On an episode of The Oprah Show, Oprah revealed some of the processes beef go through and publicly declared that she was giving up beef. So many people followed her example that the beef industry in Texas took a major hit in profits and tried to sue Oprah. Another example, when certain people find out that their clothes and shoes come from a sweat factory, their profits suffer. So I don’t agree with Posner’s theory because there are too many examples of the contrary.

Animal Rights Activists are Terrorists

There may be some truth to that statement, but for the most part, it is asinine. In the article linked in a previous blog, "Trade Secrets and Right to Privacy," the author stated that the legislators in California tried to pass a bill that would make anyone who tried to enter an animal research facility a terrorist, i.e. animal rights protesters. Granted, I am not a fan of P.E.T.A. or throwing blood on people who wear fur, and I don't really care what people wear, but I would not consider these people terrorists. For the most part, I would just consider them annoying rather than evil. I can see how trespassing in a closed factory would be a crime, but there is already a name for that crime and it is not terrorism...it's trespassing. It seems the word 'terrorism' is being thrown around a lot to persuade people lately, if you want someone to believe something just say "the terrorists believe the opposite, you're not a terrorist are you?" Surprisingly, and sadly, this technique, along with anything else anti-terrorism associated, is how many bills past in the post-9/11 society. After all, it is a well known fact that Osama Bin Laden loves his mink-fur coat.