We have been talking extensively about what Friedman thinks the government's role should be within the business world, or the economy as a whole. We concluded that Friedman believes that the goverment should simply serve the economy, this in terms of simply serving as an "umpire", to ensure that the rules are being followed and contracts are being upheld; therefore, he believes that the government should not serve any other purpose besides simply "overlooking" the business to ensure they are "playing by the rules". Freidman also mentions that we need to have economic freedom and political freedom to be truly "free". I came across an article on CNSNews.com, written on September 2, 2009 by Penny Starr, titled "Childhood Obesity Report Calls For Government Regulations to Limit Access to "Unhealthy" Restaurant Chains", which raises an interesting application of Friedman's ideas on government interferance in the business world.
The article speaks about a recent report released about childhood obesity, and how the government wants to come up with strategies to combat what they call an "epidemic of childhood obesity". The article mentions that the government should take steps towards combating this growing problem, and among the steps being proposed is "enacting zoning and land-use regulations that would "restrict fast food establishments near school grounds and public playgrounds" (Starr). This, I would argue, would infuriate Friedman because the government would be restricting our freedom on two levels. One would be that they will be limiting the public's freedom to spend their money, or in other words their economic resources, on what they want to buy, which makes us not free. Also, this would be coercing within the market, as Friedman would say, because they are forcing one to eat something other than what one might want. Yes, it is evident that it would be for a better cause, this being health, but Friedman would definitely not agree with the government prohibiting the fast food restaurants from establishing their businesses where they please. I think that this article is a clear example of what Friedman would say should not be the role of goverment within the economy.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Monday, February 15, 2010
Marx In The News
We have been talking extensively about Marx's ideas about wage and wage labor, as well as the minimum wage and cost of living. We have reached an understanding that, according to Marx, the wage is determined by the cost of living and for reproduction. Having said this, I came across an article on the Voice of America news website from January 18, 2009. The title of this article is "Nigerian Labor Unions Seek Minimum Wage Increase", written by Abuja.
The article speaks about how the two labor unions in Nigeria were attempting to increase the minimum wage from 5,500 naira, or $40, to $350. It speaks about how at the current minimum wage in Nigeria, which is $40 and has not been changed or reviewed for the past 8 years, is not enough to even fulfill their "basic necessities of life" (Abuja). This aspect relates to the Marx reading "Wage Labour and Capital" because here we see that with the minimum wage, Nigerians are not even being paid what is needed for their cost of living, which I think in turn would not facilitate their ability to reproduce if they are not able to secure their own basic needs to continue living, nontheless another person's.
The article also goes on to mention that "thousands of Nigerians have already lost their jobs in recent months, and government officials warn there could be further layoffs across all sectors if unions ask employers for more money" (Abuja). This quote, in my opinion, strengthens the idea that Marx argues in the reading about the creation of competition amongst the workers. I think that given this quote, we can infer that these layoffs will create more competition among these workers, as we spoke about in class, and will cause the employers to attempt to pay them less since there will be more people willing to depreciate their labor to simply get some sort of income. This is an interesting issue though because, in my opinion, in the unions trying to get a higher pay for the workers, they can also give rise to the amount of unemployment increasing, as well as competition, just as Marx mentions.
So, we know that as Marx mentions, the minimum wage is determined by the cost of living and reproduction, which, according to this article , is not being met with the minimum wage because they can not even secure their own basic neccessities with this amount in Nigeria because of the inflation going on and the "devaluation of the local currency" (Abuja). To finalize, I feel that Marx would be upset at the fact that the minimum wage does not cover even their cost of living, but also the labor union aspect of it, because as we mentioned in class, he would be a supporter of Co-op environment as opposed to the corporation, because yes you are negotiating your terms of work through your union, but even if you are getting paid more, as Marx would say and as we mentioned in class, you are still a slave just a better paid one.
The article speaks about how the two labor unions in Nigeria were attempting to increase the minimum wage from 5,500 naira, or $40, to $350. It speaks about how at the current minimum wage in Nigeria, which is $40 and has not been changed or reviewed for the past 8 years, is not enough to even fulfill their "basic necessities of life" (Abuja). This aspect relates to the Marx reading "Wage Labour and Capital" because here we see that with the minimum wage, Nigerians are not even being paid what is needed for their cost of living, which I think in turn would not facilitate their ability to reproduce if they are not able to secure their own basic needs to continue living, nontheless another person's.
The article also goes on to mention that "thousands of Nigerians have already lost their jobs in recent months, and government officials warn there could be further layoffs across all sectors if unions ask employers for more money" (Abuja). This quote, in my opinion, strengthens the idea that Marx argues in the reading about the creation of competition amongst the workers. I think that given this quote, we can infer that these layoffs will create more competition among these workers, as we spoke about in class, and will cause the employers to attempt to pay them less since there will be more people willing to depreciate their labor to simply get some sort of income. This is an interesting issue though because, in my opinion, in the unions trying to get a higher pay for the workers, they can also give rise to the amount of unemployment increasing, as well as competition, just as Marx mentions.
So, we know that as Marx mentions, the minimum wage is determined by the cost of living and reproduction, which, according to this article , is not being met with the minimum wage because they can not even secure their own basic neccessities with this amount in Nigeria because of the inflation going on and the "devaluation of the local currency" (Abuja). To finalize, I feel that Marx would be upset at the fact that the minimum wage does not cover even their cost of living, but also the labor union aspect of it, because as we mentioned in class, he would be a supporter of Co-op environment as opposed to the corporation, because yes you are negotiating your terms of work through your union, but even if you are getting paid more, as Marx would say and as we mentioned in class, you are still a slave just a better paid one.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Locke In The News
In the past week, we have been discussing John Locke's ideas about labor and property. The concensus that was reached seemed to be that Locke is a strong supporter of acquiring as much property as one wants, and we established that property can be classified as anything that one can take from the earth and mix our labor into it, which in turn makes it our own. This can also be said in regards to money, Locke believes that money represents one's own stored labor, which can be used in the purchase of goods, or simply stored, since money is not something that can spoil; therefore, we can acquire as many posessions and as much money as we please.
There was an article on the New York Times website titled "Exxon Grew as Oil Industry Contracted", written by Jad Mouawad. The article speaks about Exxon taking advantage of the fall in the oil industries profits in 2009, due to the fall in oil prices "as consumers cut spending and businesses shed jobs" (Mouawad). Even though Exxon Mobil Corp was also hurt by the fall in oil prices, they were not hurt as much as some of their smaller rivals in the industry; therefore, they took advantage of the weaknesses and bought out many of these small rivals in order to expand their company and "acquire promising assets" (Mouawad). They hope that this will in turn produce bigger profits once the economy bounces back. They also mention that due to new drilling technology, they have found new oil reserves and have begun new projects in countries like Africa, Iraq, and Ghana, which can produce promising profits in the future. This article, in my opinion, strengthens Locke's argument about acquiring property and money because, in regards to Exxon, they are using their money to acquire these smaller oil companies and growing their industry, which according to Locke is permissible since anything that one acquires through money can be called our own because money represents one's own labor. Locke would also be in agreement with Exxon expanding their assets to generate more profit, because Locke would be in favor of acquiring money and property without limit. In this case, I would agree that the expansion of the Exxon is permissible because they are a corporation and therefore, making profit is their sole purpose. But on the other hand, can we really be content with allowing corporations to acquire as much land, money, and any other assets, without limit?
There was an article on the New York Times website titled "Exxon Grew as Oil Industry Contracted", written by Jad Mouawad. The article speaks about Exxon taking advantage of the fall in the oil industries profits in 2009, due to the fall in oil prices "as consumers cut spending and businesses shed jobs" (Mouawad). Even though Exxon Mobil Corp was also hurt by the fall in oil prices, they were not hurt as much as some of their smaller rivals in the industry; therefore, they took advantage of the weaknesses and bought out many of these small rivals in order to expand their company and "acquire promising assets" (Mouawad). They hope that this will in turn produce bigger profits once the economy bounces back. They also mention that due to new drilling technology, they have found new oil reserves and have begun new projects in countries like Africa, Iraq, and Ghana, which can produce promising profits in the future. This article, in my opinion, strengthens Locke's argument about acquiring property and money because, in regards to Exxon, they are using their money to acquire these smaller oil companies and growing their industry, which according to Locke is permissible since anything that one acquires through money can be called our own because money represents one's own labor. Locke would also be in agreement with Exxon expanding their assets to generate more profit, because Locke would be in favor of acquiring money and property without limit. In this case, I would agree that the expansion of the Exxon is permissible because they are a corporation and therefore, making profit is their sole purpose. But on the other hand, can we really be content with allowing corporations to acquire as much land, money, and any other assets, without limit?
Monday, January 18, 2010
Aristotle In The News
It seems to be that in our current economic world, the public has become obsessed with the idea of getting ahead and acquiring money. We seem to have a distorted idea that money is necessary and essential for our well-being, and that the more money we have the better off we are. So then this raises the question of the ethical aspects in the means through which corporations, and also individuals, are making money.
Aristotle mentions that money should be used as a means and not as an end, which directly relates to an article found on The Guardian's website titled "Uganda oil contracts give little cause for optimism", written by Taimor Lay. The article speaks about the oil company's argument that their presence in Uganda will turn the country's economy around because of the large revenue that would come in. On the other hand, the article also mentions that the deals being presented by the oil companies are "designed for profit, not development..." (Lay). This contradicts Aristotle's idea of money, because these companies are aiming to simply profit and keep bringing in money at any cost, which Aristotle would say distorts and perverses the true value of money. This meaning, that these corporations and industries are willing to go to any extent to profit, even when this means that there will be harm in extracting the natural resources in the region and harming the population in the country. So, should these industries and corporations have the right to harm the overall environment and population of the country simply for their own gains?
Furthermore, Aristotle mentions that the art of acquisition should, in essence, be limited and not limitless. So, having said that, the article also contradicts Aristotle's beliefs about the limits of acquiring wealth because it mentions that "as the oil price rises, investors will make a higher and unlimited profit, taking close to one quarter of oil revenues, whether each barrel is fetching $70 or $200" (Lay). Therefore, Aristotle would say that this perverses our want to make money, because there are no limits nor boundries.
So, knowing that these oil companies will be ignoring the environmental protective measures needed, and simply are concerned with making profit, I ask, when is it safe to say that enough is enough? Since Aristotle also mentions that we should only acquire what is needed to live well, is there ever such a limit for corporations, and in particular oil companies?
Aristotle mentions that money should be used as a means and not as an end, which directly relates to an article found on The Guardian's website titled "Uganda oil contracts give little cause for optimism", written by Taimor Lay. The article speaks about the oil company's argument that their presence in Uganda will turn the country's economy around because of the large revenue that would come in. On the other hand, the article also mentions that the deals being presented by the oil companies are "designed for profit, not development..." (Lay). This contradicts Aristotle's idea of money, because these companies are aiming to simply profit and keep bringing in money at any cost, which Aristotle would say distorts and perverses the true value of money. This meaning, that these corporations and industries are willing to go to any extent to profit, even when this means that there will be harm in extracting the natural resources in the region and harming the population in the country. So, should these industries and corporations have the right to harm the overall environment and population of the country simply for their own gains?
Furthermore, Aristotle mentions that the art of acquisition should, in essence, be limited and not limitless. So, having said that, the article also contradicts Aristotle's beliefs about the limits of acquiring wealth because it mentions that "as the oil price rises, investors will make a higher and unlimited profit, taking close to one quarter of oil revenues, whether each barrel is fetching $70 or $200" (Lay). Therefore, Aristotle would say that this perverses our want to make money, because there are no limits nor boundries.
So, knowing that these oil companies will be ignoring the environmental protective measures needed, and simply are concerned with making profit, I ask, when is it safe to say that enough is enough? Since Aristotle also mentions that we should only acquire what is needed to live well, is there ever such a limit for corporations, and in particular oil companies?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
