The space program is all right, but unless we think of something fast, I believe there is not really too much of a purpose for us to be wasting our tax money on space. If God wanted us to go deeper in to space, he will do so when the time is right. So the time shouldn’t be with our tax money. The power grid on the other hand is something worth while. It will not only benefit us now, but also in the future. It will help us out, so that we do not have power shortages like we had in the recent month.

        

If the whole United States had decent electricity outlets that were newer, and would stand some test over time, we would not have to worry about them breaking down as often and the like. Plus if the whole U.S. got new sources for power, that would mean we need more people to fix, inspect, and all that good stuff, thus creating new, and more jobs. Hopefully giving our economy a little boost. If the power grid was updated no one should have to worry about wasting their money, so that their meat would spoil overnight, and that they wouldn’t have to live hours, or even days in darkness.

Rebuilding and updating will benefit the entire U.S. people will have a new sense of security I’m guessing. My opinion is the space program is junk, yeah we got to the moon, and we have satellites. But really, if your going to put money into technology, they should put the money into technology that would help us now, and in the future, not just the “ifs” of space. We might run into another planet or something, and tick off the aliens and then the whole world would get blown up, all because of our tax money. Thus making it the US’s fault that the world is in pieces. I feel fixing the power grid, would be a lot safer, and more beneficial. Not only will it seem our country is more technologically advanced than others are, it will be more technologically advanced in a sense. If we had light everywhere we needed it, I’m sure it would bring the crime rate down. Dark alleys are no more, now they can be lighted simply. But if we don’t want to get to rational and waste all of our energy, we could look for alternate sources. Not to mention we could have rebuilt efficient energy, wherever the government thought it was needed. Sort of like it is now, except we won’t have the mishaps like we have had before.

Concluding, I believe the space program is unsafe to humanity, and a waste of our time and money. Rebuilding the power grid would be so more beneficial to all of the U.S. right now, and in the future.

        

The earliest form of globalization existed in the colonial expansion of world powers such as Britain, Spain, Portugal, France, Italy, and Germany. The goals of these nations were to expand into larger areas such as Africa, South America, the United States, Canada, and countless Caribbean Islands in an effort to acquire capital generating resources of land and labor. Many ventures proved successful and facilitated trade routes optimizing the transport of goods creating an effective means of acquiring profit. Essentially this commerce paved the future and fortification of world dominance both financially and militarily. Ultimately, the colonized people who were subjected to relocation, humiliation, death, poverty, and religious missions incurred the largest expense. Consequently, the birth of capitalism developed and has since changed the course of economic history.

The fear of every historian and layman alike is that history tends to repeat itself as a consequence of ignorance and an inability to see past the restraints of profit. Today, as in the time of colonial expansion, ease in trade and commerce established by the World Trade Organization, The World Bank, and the European Union has spawned incredible discrepancies in global distribution. In economics, some would infer that the overall standard of living has increased, and that continuing a similar course of action will ultimately yield healthier, happier and a more educated people. Conversely, evidence has proven that globalization has also spawned mass destruction of non-renewable resources jeopardizing the sustainability of Earths eco-structure. In addition, detrimental effects are occurring on developing countries and their indigenous peoples. These range from controversial labor practices by protected corporations, to the possible elimination of political structures as a result of prevailing economic systems.
Globalization has had an incredible impact on the future sustainability of the earth due to an increase in total world population. Since 1950 the world population has increased from two and a half to six billion people . Each individual generates a pattern of consumption demanding scarce resources allocated by large multi-lateral corporations. Globalization aids the process of allocative and technical efficiency in order to satisfy these wants. Acclaimed economist Hazel Henderson states, ?humans now consume forty percent of all net photosynthesized biomass produced on our planet. This process is extremely destructive to earths natural resources because it forces the depletion of green space and the ecosystems within, promotes destructive resource extraction by mining for items such as coal, precious gems, and gold, and pollutes a countless number of water supplies.

Unfortunately, powerful corporations in control of production perpetuate this resource depletion. Powerful firms have a discretionary ability to decide on what to produce and where to produce it. International laws orchestrated by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) are implemented to raise the standard of living in struggling countries reinforce this reality. For example, the logging trade has developed into a huge facet of developing countries economic, or lack there of, growth. Katie Sjursen states, Boise Cascade has a plan to send twenty million board feet of tropical hardwood to the United States?The international paper corporation helped push for passage of Mexicos Forest Reform Law, which eases environmental restrictions and provides for privatization of industrial forests. South America has seen the horrible effects of the resulting self-interest of corporations that hinder sustainability and growth.

Beyond South America, similar practices of corporate global destruction impede on other national economies as well. Mining practices of late practically disregard the environment in daily practices such as extracting gold, coal, and precious gems. Katie Sjursen again states, Gold Mining in the Philippines has cut large swaths of destruction in tropical rainforests, and many have charged that it is contaminating water sources. These unethical practices and blatant disregard for the environment are imposing on the basic human physiological needs of people on a global scale. What is more interesting to note are the effects globalization has had on indigenous people and developing and socialist countries as a whole.

The crisis of logging tropical rainforests has reached astronomical heights in areas where tropical wood can be extracted. In South American countries, such as Bolivia, indigenous people are experiencing a cycle of forced economic survival having no choice but to clear-cut their virgin forest to support their families. In the lowlands of Bolivia in South America the Chimanes Indians comprise a large population of illegal loggers. They are forced to break ineffective governing laws of forest conservation to satisfy an international demand. Nathan Williamson, an anthropologist who documents and describes this predicament with professional care states, The Chimanes are self-sufficient in many ways, but they still need to make money. Although the work is hard and the proceeds are meager, illegal logging is the easiest way to increase income. Much of this income goes directly to goods that cannot be bartered, such as school supplies and books for their children. This element of globalization creates a paradox between those that need and those that already have.

Another contradiction lies in the fact that many developed countries supporting the WTO and World Bank establish free trade zones in developing countries. This is seemingly appropriate to stimulate growth and progress, but many of these countries (including the U.S.) do not open their economic system of accepting goods. Joseph E. Stiglitz, a former member of President Clintons Council of Academic Advisors indicates, The Western Countries have pushed poor countries to eliminate trade barriers, but kept their own barriers, preventing developing countries from exporting their [products] depriving them of desperately needed export income. The irony here is ever prevalent and continues a cycle of destructive co-dependency that underdeveloped countries have with developed countries.

Following the example set forth of an increasing hypocrisy between developed and underdeveloped countries, it is extremely interesting to recognize the opinions of socialist countries that have no free trade zones. Perhaps the most fascinating example of the effects of globalization on socialist countries is Cuba. In the late 1950s the U.S., under President John F. Kennedy, implemented a trade embargo in response to Fidel Castros alliance with the Soviet Bloc. This embargo essentially stopped the import and export exchange of Cuban and American goods while espousing travel between countries. Aside from these policies based on American trade, Cuba still remains a communist country that doesnt participate in the global free market. Castros position on globalization reflects the gradual economic destruction Cuba has incurred in the past forty years. He states for all similar countries, There are countries enduring such poverty and unemployment that they have had to establish dozens of free-trade zones. It is this, or not having even free-trade zone factories and jobs with certain salaries, even if these amount to only five percent or less of the salaries those factories have to pay in the countries they come from. Essentially Castro indicates the plight and self-defeat of accepting free-trade zones encouraged by globalization because labor is so inexpensive, thus resulting in an unequal distribution of income. Castro believes that participating in globalization is ultimately detrimental to the sustainability of the earth and her inhabitants.

Globalization has also spawned extreme discrepancies in labor practices through corporations that violate basic human rights. Often, in an underdeveloped country the only solidarity workers have is their common purpose. Corporations have grown incredibly alert to these occurrences and work extremely hard to make sure that union oriented programs cannot be conducted. If indeed workers proved successful in unionizing, than the potential for a proletariat uprising would be eminent; shifting power from the bourgeoisie business owners. Activists Kimberly Elliot and Richard Freeman indicate, At the Gaps Mandarin supplier in El Salvador, the struggle began when management fired union organizers to prevent workers from forming a union. This unfortunate occurrence signifies the on-going struggle of workers in underdeveloped countries due to the accepted global practices of large corporations such as Gap Clothing. Because of the cheap labor and lack of strong legal restrictions, sweatshops are an intricate part of underdeveloped countries economies. Again the activists state, The vast majority of sweatshops are located in underdeveloped countries. In 2000, 85 percent of US consumption of foot wear and more than 50 percent of apparel was imported. This clearly indicates that most global clothing corporations manufacture goods in their own self-interest, disregarding indigenous people.

Aside from these blatant violations of human rights, corporations have additionally employed children as laborers. These children are forced into work because their socio-economic status is so low that families have come to depend on their income as a means of survival. This perpetuated cycle is occurring as generations of children are missing their opportunity for an education. Fidel Castro espousing these practices states, The low income of the third world countries population and the high percentage of households depending on only one income are one of the main reasons why child labor is higher in the underdeveloped world than elsewhere. Fidel Castro reinforces the idea that wages are not nearly enough to sustain a prosperous and meaningful life in the third world.

The final piece of globalization that is detrimental to the world at large is the growing influence on political decisions that world economics asserts. Today, foreign policy is usually directed by the amount of monetary gain that can be attained by engaging in diplomacy. Many African states have been the product of this methodical cost-benefit strategy implemented by economically developed nations. US foreign policy is heavily dependent on this system, and is motivated to prevent any possible losses that may be incurred do to poor policy objectives. Attached is a table reflecting the IMF investment in African states between 1982-1994. It is more than clear that the states with the highest investment are those that are fairing better than states that are currently in chaos. This proves that economic investments are carried out on the basis of the return on investment. Ultimately, this portrays the importance of economics over politics, indicating the unfortunate change of focus in globalization. Conversely, it is speculated that the political system of human representation will eventually cease to be, and the new direction will be based upon the interest of the global economy. Acclaimed economist Robert Gilpin states, For critics of globalization, victory of the market means the end of the state as the protector of the economically weak against the economically strong, and the supremacy of ruthless market forces and those who control such forces. Consequently, the rich become wealthier and the poor become even more desolate.

In conclusion, globalization is a force that cannot be reckoned with. It is with us in every aspect of our lives ranging from clothing, food, automobiles, and any other good we have come to depend on. In the end, the person who produces the goods by working countless hours receives a marginal amount of the actual profit derived by the corporation. The detrimental aspects of globalization include questions of the sustainability of the Earths environment, the effects on indigenous people and developing countries, and whether or not the economic forces contributing to this global economy will ultimately replace political structures that reflect individual choice. It is very difficult to say whether or not we will benefit from globalization in the long-term. Clearly one goal remains, this is assuring that human society as a whole learns to chose consciences decisions when making consumer purchases; and more importantly, elected officials change their priorities to promote the welfare of all of humanity and its global environment.

        

Lily Bart is the main character that throughout the entire novel is caught between the economic strain in her life and happiness. Lily Bart has never been around a lot of money while she was growing up, but the entire story is about her trying to be something she is not. This is a huge irony in the story because Lily thinks she has freedom when she meets a man that is wealthy, but she is really hurting herself because she will never be truly happy with someone like that. The other side to this irony is that when Lily gets farther and farther into debt she feels that she enslaved. This comes when she meets men that are not up to the standard of living that she wants them to be at.

The best example of this is when Lily meets Seldon and does not marry him because he does not flaunt his money like other men she has met. Wharton shows that during this day and age the females depend on males to give them a great lifestyle so that they are not known to be apart of the poor half of the society.

The biggest theme in this book is how Wharton paints the picture of women being totally dependent on the men in their lives. Wharton definitely expresses this through Lily Bart and how she deals with money. The fact that Lily cannot even recognize when she is extremely far in debt and that marrying someone that has a lot of money will not solve all of her problems. Another example of the female sex being dependent on the male sex is when Wharton brings the Trenor’s and Dorsett’s to the reader’s attention. These two families, actually couples, are very wealthy people in this society. These are the people that always have the lavish parties and invite only the other most wealthy and well known people from town to their gatherings. Mrs. Trenor shows at many times during parties she throws that the most important reason she married her husband is because she is able to throw these magnificent parties. She likes to have the most expensive and best items at her dinners.

The last example of women’s economic values in the Gilded Age is the way that Lily was raised as a child. Lily’s family views money in different ways. Lily was always given whatever she wanted and asked for from her father. This was the same for Lily’s mother. For example Wharton shows at one point that Lily’s mother always wanted to have the best flowers and fresh ones every day in their house. These two women never knew what it was to work for money and use their own to buy goods they wanted; they always had it handed to them. On the contrary Lily’s father always worked for what he got. Lily and her family were not the wealthiest family in town and her father could not really afford to give her and her mother everything they wanted, but the never said know to them.

The other side of women being dependent on the man in their life is how Wharton paints the picture of Lily’s aunt. Lily’s aunt has always worked for everything in her life and there has never been a man that she looked to, to buy he things. Lily’s aunt is the extreme difference of all the other women in the novel. She has quite a lot of money to her name but does not flaunt it to others around town. Wharton is showing that money is not the most important thing in the world through this character. Lily’s aunt also falls into Lily’s scheme of debt. Lily keeps piling up bills with dressmakers and playing bridge at parties, that she is not able to pay for all of these expenses by only the money she receives from men she has met. She turns to her aunt and asks her to help her relieve herself of some stress of her debt and Lily’s aunt helps her for awhile. She finally realizes that Lily is not paying off her debts and cuts her off. This is the exact opposite of a woman depending on a man for survival. This shows that women are capable of holding their own in this society but would rather not do anything and let their husbands keep them on their feet.

        

The founder of Keynesian economic theory was John Maynard Keynes. He made many great accomplishments during his time and probably his greatest was what he did for America in its hour of need. During the 1920’s, the U.S. experienced a stock market crash of enormous proportions which crippled the economy for years. Keynes knew that to recover as soon as possible, the government had to intervene and put a decrease on taxes along with an increase in spending. By putting more money into the economy and allowing more Americans to keep what they earned, the economy soon recovered and once again became prosperous. Keynes ideas were very radical at the time, and Keynes was called a socialist in disguise. Keynes was not a socialist, he just wanted to make sure that the people had enough money to invest and help the economy along.

As far as stressing extremes, Keynesian economics pushed for a “happy medium” where output and prices are constant, and there is no surplus in supply, but also no deficit. Supply Side economics emphasized the supply of goods and services. Supply Side economics supports higher taxes and less government spending to help economy. Unfortunately, the Supply Side theory was applied in excess during a period in which it was not completely necessary.

The Supply Side theory, also known as Reganomics, was initiated during the Regan administration. During the 1970’s, the state and local governments increased sales and excise taxes. These taxes were passed from business to business and finally to the customer, resulting in higher prices. Along with raised taxes for the middle and lower classes, this effect was compounded because there was little incentive to work if even more was going to be taxed. People were also reluctant to put money into savings accounts or stocks because the interest dividends were highly taxed. There was also too much protection of business by the government which was inefficient and this also ran up costs, and one thing the Supply Side theory was quite good at was reinforcing inflation.

The two opposites of the Supply Side and Keynes’ theories are well matched theories, but it was the time of use that made them good and bad. Keynes’ theory was used during that aftermath of the Great Depression, a catastrophe America will never forget and will never be able to repay Keynes for the economic assistance in recovering from it. The Supply Side theory was used after a long period of prosperity, and although seeming to continue the practices of the past administration, was the cause of a fearful recession. The success of those or any economic theory is based on the time at which it is implemented.

Consumer surplus is the amount that a buyer is willing to pay for a product minus the amount the buyer actually pays while producer surplus refers to the difference between the price that a producer is willing to accept and the actual price. As we can see from figure 1, consumer surplus is the area below the demand curve and above the market price. However, producer surplus is the area above the demand curve and below the market price. Needless to say, the sum of the two parts is called economic welfare. Economic welfare will change while the market structure changes. In this essay, I will analyze how economic welfare changes if a market structure changing from perfect competition to a monopoly. However, whether the monopolist charges a single price or a multi price will affect the outcome.

        

Generally speaking, perfect competition is a market structure where there are a large number of firms and any individual firm, or any individual consumer, will have no effect on market price. It can exist in a market only if the following conditions are satisfied. Firstly, there are a lot of buyers and sellers. Secondly, buyers have perfect knowledge. Furthermore, units of the good sold by different sellers are identical and last, there are no barriers to entry into or exit from the market. Every firm is a ?price taker and thus had no influence on the market price. However, a firm in a competitive market, like most other firms in the economy, tries to maximize profit. As we know, at the profit maximizing level of output, marginal revenue and marginal cost are exactly equal. This is a general rule for profit maximization. Though in the short run, firms in the perfect competitive market may make a supernomoral profit or loss, in the long run, all the firms just can make a normal profit at an equilibrium price which is determined in the industry by the intersection of MC and MR curve. The reason is clear. In the long run, if firms are making supernomoral profits, new firms will be attracted into the industry as there is few barriers to enter. Thus firms have to reduce their price to ensure output. The price will fall until it gets to the equilibrium point where the market price is just equal to the firms long run average cost. I.e. firms can just make normal profit to cover their cost.

By contrast, a firm is considered a monopoly if it is the only seller of a good or service with no substitutes. A monopoly firm is a price maker while a competitive firm is a price taker.

The fundamental cause of monopoly is barriers to entry. It has three sources *Ownership of a key resource.
*Government gives a single firm the exclusive right to produce some good, such as patent and copyright laws.
*Costs of production make a single producer more efficient than a large number of producers.

Like a competitive firm, a monopoly maximizes profit by producing the quantity at
which marginal cost and marginal revenue are equal. Nevertheless, unlike a competitive firm, its price exceeds its marginal revenue, so its price exceeds marginal cost.

As we can see, perfect competition and monopoly are two absolutely different types of market structure. Which is more efficient? Which has more economic welfare? Firstly, have a look at figure 2 above.

There are two types of efficiency we should pay attention to—productive efficiency and allocative efficiency. Productive efficiency is achieved when the output is produced at a minimum average total cost. Clearly, from figure 2, we can easily get the conclusion that firms in perfect competition are more productively efficient.

However, economic welfare has a close relationship with the other type of efficiency—allocative efficiency. It is achieved when the value consumers place on a good or service equals the cost of the resources used up in production. (Price=Marginal cost) When this condition is satisfied, total economic welfare is maximized. Again, from figure 2, we may get the conclusion that allocative efficiency is maximized under perfect competitive conditions. As can be seen in figure 2, part of consumer surplus is transferred to producer surplus from the perfect competitive market to the monopoly situation. Monopolists control the quantity they produce in order to charge a high price. So they have not allocated the scared resources efficiently. What makes monopoly inefficient is the existence of the area that is a wedge between the consumers willingness to pay and the producers cost. It is called deadweight welfare loss. In monopoly, the price is higher; the consumer surplus is lower and the producer surplus is higher than a competitive industry. Moreover, the output is lower; the monopoly will lead to a lower overall level of economic welfare. Marginal cost is less that price, so there is allocative inefficiency.

Economics has championed the notion that the best guarantee of social welfare is competition, and perfect competition has always been its ideal

All of the above seems to imply that a monopoly necessarily leads to higher price, lower quantity, and deadweight losses relative to perfect competition. But this may not be true, because a monopoly may be able to achieve cost saving unavailable to smaller firms. Consolidation to serve larger number of consumers can allow the firm to take advantage of greater specialization, moving to a lower ATC and corresponding MC. A typical example is natural monopoly that exists when one firm can produce at a lower ATC than can two or more firms because of economies of scale. So we have two effects of greater concentration (fewer firms with greater market share each) in an industry. First, competition is reduced, which tends to drive price up. Second, cost savings may be realized from economies of scale, which tends to drive price down. Which effect dominates? This is an empirical question and highly relevant to many policy questions. Anyway, MC under monopoly is not always the same as under perfect competition. If it is lower, the economic welfare in monopoly will be much more that it is in perfect competition. Because the monopolist in this stage has lower cost thus they charge lower price and produce larger quantity.

In order to gain more profit, monopolists practices price discrimination. It is defined as charging different prices of a same product to different consumers on the basis of non-cost-related characteristics of the consumers.