Creating Relationships With Food

I recently read an article in the New York Times about a farmer from Main who has carried on his family tradition of farming. Unlike his great - great grand parents Jason has dedicated his life to growing organic fruits and vegetables. Jason much like the slow food movement is supporting an organic way of life that promotes Slow Food as one would call it. Slow food is defined as “Slow Food is an idea, a way of living and a way of eating. It is a global, grassroots movement with thousands of members around the world that links the pleasure of food with a commitment to community and the environment” (Slow).  

Slow foods movement is a movement that has arisen over the last 30 years in efforts to combat corporate farming and genetically modified foods. Genetically modified food has exploded into American food markets in efforts to monopolize on profits and decrease waste. In the midst of this transition we have essentially lost the value of food and its benefits as well as the impacts that our food system can have on the environment. Hence this answers the question on what social problem evoked this movement that attempts to fight corporate farming and genetically modified food.   

Slow foods main goal is to protect the heritage of our food, as well as to protect the tradition and culture. Culture and tradition are interconnected with food threw cooking. Seeing cooking food is something that is passed down generation to generation.  Culture is tied into this because it is something that varies from country to country and even family to family.  Slow foods fundamental beliefs are biased upon good, clean, fair food. When they talk about good food they are talking directly about food that is full of nutrients that are good for you. Clean obviously means food that has not been produced with chemicals that may harm you. Finally when they talk about fairness they are talking about food that is good for you and the environment as well as at a cheap fair price. People who promote slow food are your everyday people; they are farmers who care about you and your well being. They have a love for what they do and they care about the quality of goods they produce. Farms aren't like your average supermarket. There people, care it means something to them. It’s not just producing foods it’s a way of life. Now these are the people I would want to invest my money in and trust.

Slow food supports regional biodiversity meaning the diversity of food based on regions. Super markets now don’t have seasons they don’t have regional differences in food. They are superficially uniform. Thusly providing convince to consumers that hides the importance of having a relationship with food. This basic attribute that super markets provide is essentially what Slow Food attempts to combat.  Negative result of having no seasonality in our super markets results in having no relationship with food. Slow food focuses on creating relationships between consumers and their food. Also it is essential in the slow food movement to establish a relationship with the farmer and the consumer. In doing so it helps to show people how important the land and soil is in producing their food.

Slow food helps to promote tradition and culture by promoting regional difference in food. It also promotes the tradition and culture of cooking. By creating relationships with the food we eat we begin to understand not only more about our food by understand ways to cook it and prepare it. When you by a cheese burger form McDonalds you are not only losing the relationship between the consumer you are not acknowledging the tradition and culture of the food you are eating, mainly because a cheese burger form McDonald lacks all of this traits. If we look at the preparation of food and traditionally how it was done we can see major differences in what is eaten here in Massachusetts and what is eaten in Mexico or Canada because the food that is available is different during different times of year. Eighty years ago you could not find apple pie in New Mexico because apples did not grow there. You could not find organs in Main or pumpkins in Florida.

 It is because of our industrialization of food we see the migration of food over far distances and with the migration of food we see the dissipation of tradition, culture, and relationships in concerns to food. Hence slow food to promote the tradition, culture and value we need in food.     

Here are two videos related to slow food

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECzTRG7tjV0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-ljW5YEdao&feature=related

Here is the News article on the farmer form Main.

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/25/from-a-farm-stand-new-and-old-insights/?ref=organicfood

Work Cited

Slow Food International - Good, Clean and Fair Food. Web. 01 Nov. 2011. <http://slowfood.com/>.

The Cost of Sexuality

Sexual preference towards the same sex, or in other word homosexual, has become quite the controversial subject over the last decade or so. As more and more people are becoming open about their sexuality it is thus contributing to the massive up rise against the gay community.  Ones sexuality has become as controversial as abortion. While we may ponder how this has become such a hot topic we need not look too far to find pure evidence of this unsettling truth, as we can see the pure hatred that is put forth onto the gay community. As I pursued threw massive amounts of articles written about sexuality I came across one that was quite upsetting. The story was about a 15 year old boy who killed himself due to the immense bulling he suffered at school, due to his sexual preference. It was startling to me that a boy of only 15 would be tormented to the point of death just because he was a little different than everyone else.  Which thus evokes the question why our society has an immense hatred towards the gay community? We also may question to what degree is this social problem amongst our community and to what extend is it negatively affecting our society?

As we begin to explore how sexual preference has become such a vast social problem we must understand fully what being gay really means to be homosexual. Homosexuality is defined as “of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex” (Homosexual). We can see a large movement against gay rights much like the movement against black rights as well as women’s rights. Hence we can understand how homosexuality and the acceptance of gays in our society is a social problem. We can see to a vast degree that the masses of our society are disillusioned by the gay movement.

While the internet is filled with loads of information on why it is not right to be gay or why gay people should not be allowed to get married we can understand how an issue such as gay rights would be a social problem. I came across one sight that was quite alarming it was a Christian site and the article was titled “10 reason Why Being Gay is Wrong” (Sarah).  The article stated “allowing gay marriage would cause more people to want to be gay…. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior…People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract” (Sarah). What we can establish here is that the counter argument against gay marriage is quite harsh and unrealistic. The claim that is we allow gay couples to become legally married will thusly cause a rise in human in pet marriages is not only not likely but also foolish.

Social implications of such rhetoric portrayed above cause countless problems. One primary social problem is the hatred of gays which consequently causes them to act on their emotions, actions such as seen in the news article about the young boy who took his life due to bulling. There is a common understanding that being gay is a controversial issue seeing we see it in the news all the time while the question of what causes this hatred towards the gay community remains. It may be due to a lack of knowledge, of understanding, or the fear of the unknown. While some may support feelings due to religious beliefs or political views the question still remains to why one would presume these hatful views are just. As it is clear that the hatred towards gays causes many problems in society the general understanding of where all this hatred comes from and why is still up for debate.

Works Cited

"Homosexual - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary." Dictionary and Thesaurus - Merriam-Webster Online. Web. 18 Oct. 2011. <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homosexual>.

"Jamie Hubley, 15, Commits Suicide After Bullying." Advocate News. 17 Oct. 2011. Web. 18 Oct. 2011. <http://news.advocate.com/post/11580677515/jamie-hubley-15-commits-suicide-after-bullying>.

Sarah. "10 Reasons Why Being Gay Is WRONG!!! - Debating Mums! - Circle of Moms." Circle of Moms - Online Mom Groups, Mom Blogs, and Parenting Resources around Motherhood, New Moms, Pregnancy, Babies, Toddlers, Parenthood, and More - Circle of Moms. 02 Mar. 2010. Web. 18 Oct. 2011. <http://www.circleofmoms.com/debating-mums/10-reasons-why-being-gay-is-wrong-495045>.

Behind the Mythological Veil of Economic Structures

While many feel that racism is a thing of the past this is far from the truth. Racism not only is just as present in our society as it was 60 to 70 years ago, but even worse it is masked by our economic structure. A current article I found was based out of Acton Ma where a mother was suing the Raymond school district for negating to protect her son again racial harassment. What struck me about the article that I found online was the outlandishly nature of this case merely based on the fact that a 16 year old would have so much hatred towards a black fellow student to lash out on him in school. Now it must be the case that the parents have plaid some role as well as the community around this young child as he/she has not experienced much of life to develop these hatreds of his own.  Therefore we come to question why a community or society as a whole has racism to the extent that it is effecting its youth population to act out on this hatred, and how is this racism a social problem.

 First off we must establish in essence what racism really it. Racism is known as the “a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race” (Racism).  What is apparent here is that racism is as we understand it involves the belief that our ethnicity determines whether we will be a millionaire or living in the slums. What is quite strange about this definition is the popular belief that whether someone is a black or white it will thus effect what they do in their lives. While we live in a nation that claims all men are free and equal. Equal to achieve and become whatever we want this racist belief contradicts everything we portray our society to be. One might question how this is and why it is.

We can see racism as it is something that dominates our society but what we need to understand how it has become a social problem. A social problem is defined as “is a condition that at least some people in a community view as being undesirable” (What Is). Undesirable is an interesting aspect of what we claim a social problem to be. Herbert J. Gans a sociologist well rounded in racism. He claims that racism is a “Judgments of the poor as undeserving are not based on evidence, but derive from a stereotype, even if, like most others, it is a stereotype with a ‘kernel of truth’” (Gans, 217).  What we can see here is that the understanding of racism as a social problem is that it is a stereotype, created by the majority, that deems the poor (black, immigrants, and so on) as undeserving. The nature of racism as a social problem is the idea of racism being a stereotype for the unworthy or undeserving. Therefore we can see that the understanding of racism is the idea of worthiness, worthiness in a since of wealth.

We can recognize how racism cost or in some cases a benefit to the society. For those who are not amongst the poor Gans states that racism is beneficial, “Poor is good for you” (217). In a since having racism that promotes the idea of the poor being undeserving is not necessarily a cost to those who are not amongst the poor it is a benefit in which allows the wealthy to blame the poor for any short comings of the society.  Thus we are creating a situation in which those who are not amongst the poor benefit from their short comings as they become the scapegoats of society. On the other hand as we look at this cost from the undeserving we unveil a very different truth. A truth that depicts a very upsetting reality reality worthlessness, struggle and exploitation set upon the poor. It is a strange truth for those amongst the undeserving class as they are stuck between a rock and a hard place. As they seek to move out of the ghetto to become a part of the worthy class they meet yet another problem. A problem such as the boy in the Acton school meet and this is the problem of overcoming the ideology of their stereotype of undeserving. At this point we can begin to understand the causes of this problem.

             Racism is cause due to the understanding of this stereotype that we established earlier, a stereotype that creates a since of fear and aggravation for both the worthy and unworthy. Racism in itself creates a self promoting feature. Where it allows the poor to be put into a situation in which they must beak the norm to survive thus the worthy then become fearful and angered by their behavior due to their shortcomings. It is an unruly truth in which persists in our society Gans also states that “The undeservingness of the poor is an ancient stereotype and like all stereotypes, it vastly exaggerated the actual dangers that stem from the poor….” (230). Gans here establishes the idea the racism evolves from the creation of the poor. As the poor persists in our society so will the racism. Whether or not people generally agree with this assumption is yet to be distinguished seeing that for much of the society racism does not exist. This is due to the facade of our economic structures.

            We can thusly conclude that as long as we have wealth and an upper class we can count on racism to persist whether it is acknowledged or not. For with wealth comes the ideology of the undeserving class (poor). So we can comprehend that if a society is to eradicate its poverty it consequently will eliminate its racism. Thusly it would create a classless system with no class conflict or racism.

Works Cited

Gans, Herbert J. "Uses of the Under Class Pages 217-230." Scribd. Web. 14 Oct. 2011. <http://www.scribd.com/doc/21224236/Uses-of-the-Under-Class-Pages-217-230>.

"Lawsuit Filed Over Racial Harassment At Massachusetts High School | Racism Daily." Racism Daily | News On Racism | Racism News | Race News | News On Race. 12 Oct. 2011. Web. 14 Oct. 2011. <http://racismdaily.com/2011/10/12/lawsuit-filed-over-racial-harassment-at-massachusetts-high-school/#more-7545>.

"Racism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary." Dictionary and Thesaurus - Merriam-Webster Online. Web. 14 Oct. 2011. <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism>.

"What Is a Social Problem." Project LEGAL. Web. 14 Oct. 2011. <http://www2.maxwell.syr.edu/plegal/TIPS/sp.html>.

The Haves and Have Not’s

Economic inequality is something that has loomed over our country for centuries. What was interesting about the article that I found on “The Street.” What caught my attention was that it was titled “Income Inequality? Americans Don’t see it”. Basically what the article begins to unfold that 52% disagreed that American has a problem with economic inequality. I was shocked by this statistic. To me it seems clear that there is an economic divide between that haves and have not’s. Especially because this divide has become larger and larger over the last 20 to 30 years.  

            What we might ask is how Economic inequality is a social problem when 52% of the society feels that it is not an issue. First we must establish what economic inequality is, it is defined as “comprising all disparities in the distribution of economic assets and income. The term typically refers to inequality among individuals and groups within a society” (Social problems).  Hence economic inequality is a social problem mainly because it affects a large majority of the population. Seeing that the “richest 20% of Americans earn 10 times the amount of the poorest 30%. Now one might see that the richest 20% would probably disagree with the fact that economic inequality is a social issue seeing they are not negatively affected by these inequalities, which is true in one aspect but if we begin to look at the social cost we can see it affects all citizens including the rich. 

            As we begin to evaluate the cost of this social problem it becomes a little frightening that 52% of America do not recognize these costs. Steve Pressman a professor of economics states that “inequalities hurt the economy but decreasing productivity as well as reducing efficiency” (Bernasek). Thus we see with the decline of productivity we see a drop economic growth consequently producing recession. Recession then promotes more inequality seeing that we see an increase in unemployment and an increase in governmental assistance. We also see as a result of economic inequality an increase in crime. Crime increases due to the fact that people are frustrated with the inequality amount the society and it is an attempt to fight the inequality.

            While we understand the wide ray of cost of economic inequalities the causes of this social problem are a little more complex. Common dreams establishes three fundamental reasons for the economic inequality spur from “capitalism, government, and pay” (Gutman). This becomes more clear if evaluate the fact that in order to have capitalism you must have capital thus capitalism has a built in tendency to reward those who work hard for what they have. The government plays a large role in economic inequality seeing that they tax (take money away from one group) and redistribute that money (to other groups). Pay also becomes an underlying cause of economic inequality due to the earnings of workers. Business Week sates “the CEOs of large corporations earn, in salary and other compensation, five hundred times what their average workers make” (Gutman). While we can probably assume that the worker is working much harder and longer hours than the CEO.

            What may be confusing is if the American people generally agree with the causes of Economic Inequality. As we have seen in the news clip about Americans not seeing economic inequality we may assume that if 52% of Americans don’t think there is an economic gap, but for those that do know about the economic inequality the causes seem clear, seeing that our economic system is based on capitalism. We can also see that society understands that governments are partly to blame due to the reaction to fair taxation of the upper class. Pay on the other hand may not hold as much precedence in the cause of economic inequality seeing that most people do not know how muck the wealthy make and this is for a reason. Although what is understood is the economic inequality is a social problem that become worse and worse over the years.

Works Cited

Bernasek, Anna. "Income Inequality, and Its Cost - New York Times." The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. 25 June 2006. Web. 04 Oct. 2011. <http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/25/business/yourmoney/25view.html>.

Brownell, Matt. "Income Inequality? Americans Don't See It - TheStreet." Stock Market Today - Financial News, Quotes and Analysis - TheStreet. The Street, 04 Oct. 2011. Web. 04 Oct. 2011. <http://www.thestreet.com/story/11266530/1/income-inequality-americans-dont-see-it.html?cm_ven=GOOGLEN>.

Gutman, Huck. "Economic Inequality in US." Home | Common Dreams. 1 July 2002. Web. 04 Oct. 2011. <http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0701-05.htm>.

"Social Problem." Google. Web. 04 Oct. 2011. <http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab>.

Pointing the Finger

Corporate Responsibility is a topic that is covered in chapter 14 is at large a huge controversial issue in today’s business world. Corporate responsibility is refers to “consideration of, and response to, issues beyond the narrow economic, technical and legal requirements of the firm to accomplish social benefits along with the traditional economic gains which the firm seeks”.  Seeing that BP’s disaster with the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico incorporated so much of corporate responsibility I figured it would be the perfect example of the lack of corporate responsibility. While the oil began to spill into the Gulf of Mexico BP stated that only 1000 barrels of oil where spilling into the ocean, where individual scientist where stating that number was merely not accurate and stated that it must be at least 70,000 barrels. BP refused to allow scientist to test the spill to establish an accurate number of what was actually spilling into the gulf. While Tony Hayward stated that “I think BP’s response to this tragedy has been a model of good social corporate responsibility. It has mounted an unprecedented response”.  All the while they refused to release video of the spill to the news. Not to mention BP continued to blame others for the spill where they stated that they well, equipment, and employees where all Transocean’s. They refused to take responsibility for not being responsible for the mishap. Not to mention Tony Hayworth gain 18million dollars after leaving BP and BP refused to put money toward the people who where effected form the spill until everything was said and done. BP claimed that they where a perfect model of corporate responsibility. If BP is the model for corporate responsibility then we are all in a bit of trouble because there lack of care and willingness to cooperate with common laws is unacceptable.  

Corporate Control, What Happens to those Who have nothing?

“The purist of profits is an old story” Although there was at one point a time when things that were seen as to secrete and to indispensable to human life and the public good to be seen as privatized by any given person or business. We really begin to see where this privatization has begun in the modern age if look at the 1400^th and 1600^th century. During that time period people and communities worked with a collective responsibility where people belonged to the land the land did not belong to the people. Stating then in Europe we began to see the enclosure of commons. Commons such as the grand land masses of the worlds which were reduced to private property. Thus we began to see the privatization of our oceans of the world where we created laws and regulations that allow counties and even corporations to claim a certain amount of water out of their country. After these we see air being privatized were it is divided and could be bought and solid buy airplane companies. With deregulations privatization is an enclosure of the commons as privatization takes hold. We begin to question what creates wealth. Is wealth is only created when it is owned by someone? In essence privatization causes a usurpation of wealth. What we now see is that we do not give so publicly owned property it to some nice person, we see it being sold to the high-test bidder and the highest bidder is in most cases an unaccountable tyranny. It sounds out idiotic to think that the world’s most powerful companies would like everything to be owned by someone but this is essential what is happening and what they want. Now I understand the reasoning for this is that if everything is owned there would be someone that was help to preserve if for their own wealth. But that leaves the question of what do those that do not own anything.

Now with this said many of you may be thinking what any of that has to do with corporate control. So what we know can speak on the idea that 2/3 of the world will not have access to fresh drinking water in 2025. An a idea such as this which has provoked a the preliminary confrontations of control over the world’s most basic resources. When Bolivia sought to refinance the public water service the World Bank required it be privatized. Thus we have the Bechtel corporations which gained control of all Copacabana’s water even the water that falls from the sky.  

Now the problem with this is that citizens of Copacabana are not allowed to collect rain water or even use any type of water without paying a fee for it. Seeing most Copacabana citizens live on one dollar a day it is easy to see how this privatization of an essential human need is disastrous to the Bolivian people.  Bechtel even takes it to the extreme of confiscating Copacabana’s citizen’s homes for payment of water use. When citizens decided to fight for their right to use water without being charged the government enforced Bechtel’s regulations on the city and a war brook out where citizens where being shot and killed.

This leaves on to question how far Corporate Control will go and who really wins, not the citizens of Copacabana that is for sure. “Water has been characterized as the oil of the 21st century. Blue gold. It is essential to life, and yet humanity faces a growing water crisis as a result of severe mismanagement in water and sanitation, which will be exponentially exacerbated in the coming decades by population growth combined with declining resources”  (Coha). Seeing the breakdown of privatization and neoliberal policies in Latin America have taken place it should not come as a surprise that the people are objecting to the privatization of this basic human need, because what happens to those who don’t own anything at all?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLhvhW55c_s

http://www.coha.org/water-for-sale/

Exporting Intermediaries

I decided to write my blog on export intermediaries which are somewhat like a middleman of international trade. They are known as a “firm that acts as a middle man by linking domestic sellers and foreign buyers that otherwise would not have been connected” (Peng 138). I found a website of a more in depth look at exporting intermediaries which are known as indirectly exporting.  Essential this site is instilling the idea that exporting intermediaries are used in efforts to decrease the risk of entering into foreign markets. Vices such commission agents, exporting management, exporting trading companies, exporting agents, and piggyback marketing.

Commotion agents are used to find firms that want to purchase domestic products. Exporting management projects act as an exporting departure for several products. Exporting trading company are used as facilities to exports of domestic goods and services. Export agents, merchants, or remarketers maintain the job of packaging and marketing products to the manufacturer’s specifications. Piggybacking marketing is an arrangement where one of the manufacturers or firm distributes the other firms services and even products to another country where they know and understand the culture and the markets demands.

http://www.bizmove.com/export/m7e.htm

World Trade Organization or Trade Regime

I decided to surf the internet for thing on the WTO and a happened to stumble upon an interview with Noam Chomsky on the WTO and what began to unfold in this interview was how the WTO essential devalues humans and focus on the well being of corporations. In essence the WTO has become a Trade Regime which consequently pushes free trade and thus we see the loss of democracy.

What is the WTO according to the WTO’s website which states that “The World Trade Organization (WTO) is the only global international organization dealing with the rules of trade between nations. At its heart are the WTO agreements, negotiated and signed by the bulk of the world’s trading nations and ratified in their parliaments. The goal is to help producers of goods and services, exporters, and importers conduct their business.”

The WTO is portrayed as in organization that protects all countries interest in regards to trade but in actuality it essentially only protects the interest of big corporations and banks. Chomsky speaks on how the WTO emphasizes trade as the superior values and in turn disregards human value. He states that WTO undermines the environment as well as the wealth and prosperity of third world nations. We see this taking place particularly when it comes to food security which is known as the availability of food and ones access to it. The problem with the WTO in regards to food securities is that when the WTO established free trade throughout nations of the world it opens up foreign markets to foreign imports. In countries such as the United States and Europe this is not necessarily a huge problem but for the third world counties. These foreign imports of food which is highly subsidized form the first world creates many problems. Seeing that food such as corn and soy are subsidized food which are produced and thus shipped to the third world. When this food is put onto the markets of the third world it can be sold at a much cheaper price than those who locally grow the same products thus driving local farmers out of the market. These food imports also have negative effects on the environment seeing that it is corporately grow with chemicals, and then shipped to other countries to be sold. This process denies the third world from cultivating their own food consequently driving these counties to become reliant on the developed world.

Another major aspect of the WTO that Chomsky speaks on is it negative effect on the world. Seeing that it establishes a one fits all motto.  When a regulation is are put into place all counties and their governments must abide to these regulations. One might ask how they decide on what regulations should be established and what ones should not. All nations involved in the WTO are at conferences and listen to speeches on different regulations that should be established. The countries that vote on what regulation become law and what do not are those that have the most trading power therefore any country that is not a major power player will not decide on whether a new regulation should become law. This plays into the hands of those who are in power and remain in power.

Chomsky also focuses on how the WTO promotes privatization as well as deregulation of corporations. It protects the interests of corporations and undermines the values of humanity. We see now a transfer of human rights away from people and into the hands of corporate entities. Corporations where granted the rights of people, thus they became private tyrannies where corporations have more rights than individual people. This is seen when a corporation goes into another country they are looked at as a business of that country and all laws thus apply to it in their favor.  With this we see wealth become much more highly concentrated then in the past. Chomsky states the free capital flow undermines democracy and unless a country can control its own capital the decisions on how the country will be run are under the control of international capital.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLWXmUKzZWY

http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/whatis_e.htm

Here lies a country of fools who traded away their future.

In Chapter 5 Peng discusses International Trading. In particular he discussed the Theories of International Trade. Two of these theories spiked my interest, the Absolute Advantage theory and the Comparative Advantage theory. Both of which are very different. The Absolute advantage theory suggests that under free trade, each nation gains by specializing in economic activities in which it is the most efficient process. While Comparative Advantage suggest that a nations gains by specializing in production of one good in which it has comparative advantage.

Two very different and interesting suggestions of what exactly is the most beneficial for to a country in regards to trading. I found an interesting article on the Freemans ideas of liberty where Dwight R. Lee discusses how comparative advantage is overall more beneficial to a nation’s wealth on a global scale. He states that “The most straightforward case for free trade is that countries have different absolute advantages in producing goods (Lee).” With this said Lee goes in to distinguish how it is imperative to have comparative advantage seeing that “A country can have an absolute advantage in the production of a good without having a comparative advantage. Comparative advantage is what determines whether it pays to produce a good or import it (Lee).” What we see here that in essence Lee distinguishes that it is imperative to have a Comparative advantage in order to be the most efficient in production and trade. If we take an example it become more clear how this is evident. While in American let’s say it is very efficient in producing coats and can produce 5 coats in 1 hours. While in China it is not as efficient in producing coats where it China can only produce 3 coats an hour. It would seem that with the absolute advantage it would be more efficient for American to make coats and not import them from China. Although if you take into account that it cost more money to produce a coat in American then it does in China then it would be more efficient for American to import coats from China which thus allows for a cheaper product and a cheaper cost. This example involves both and Absolute Advantage in which American can produce at a quicker rate than the Chinese can, although China has the comparative advantage which is that it can produce coats at a cheaper rate than in American thus driving down the cost of the good.

Even more interesting below Lees article was comments on in particular that caught my eye was the comment made by Ron O where he indicates that while Lee does bring forth some interesting point it is only a hypothetical that he compares international trade to with this car and computer example that is much like my coat example. He states that there are many other factors to account for when discussing Comparative advantage. He attaches the idea that Lee states that Comparative Advantage does not account for lower wages and unemployment. His basis for this argument is that if like in Lee’s hypothetical everyone who was in the computer industry, in American, who lost their job because of the importation of computers, would not get jobs in the car industry just because that is where the works is. Ron argues that these people who were in the computer industry would not necessarily be able to get a job working on cars. Seeing that Lee does not know what the market demand for American cars will be, Lee also does not know if these computer techs if employed by international companies would make the same wages as they did previously. Ron states that “The mistake that comparative advantage makes is that it assumes that there is some kind of ‘invisible hand’ that will create an infinite amount of demand for any product or for the world. Does it even account for the price of oil in all of this or to the limits of economic activity the world can handle? Not everyone can be middle class. As a matter of fact, look at how the middle class is disappearing throughout the world (Ron).” Ron makes a interesting point here which displays the weakness in Lee’s argument as well as in the Comparative Advantage theory. He establishes the idea that no economy can survive without borders.

            On a large part I would have to agree with Ron and his arguments against the Comparative advantage as well as Absolute advantage, seeing that there are so many aspect of the economy that are unpredictable and over looked when it comes to applying these theories to real life. As we can see over the last few decades the American economy has become very unstable seeing that we rely highly on other countries for our goods putting us and our futures in the hand of others. It is in my opinion that free trade opens countries up to many unforeseen issues that can arise and as we have seen recently that it exactly what happens. With an ever so connected world much vulnerability occurs. It leaves us the people, the working class at the mercy of something that is uncontrollable and unforeseen. A bargain I don’t feel is in our best interest.  

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/comparative-advantage/

Standardization of Culture

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnca-FDLN-0&feature=related

I placed a short video above because it is extremely relative to what I am going to be talking about and that is Culture. What is Culture really, we hear it all the time in school, we read about it in books, and see it on TV but what is it really? Culture is the “inherited ideas, beliefs, values, and knowledge, which constitute the shared bases of social action” (Dictionary). Now that we have defined culture we can examine why it is so essential for international businesses to respect common cultures when spreading businesses around the world. International Business has take the world by storm with companies such as McDonalds, Starbucks, Walmart, and many more. It is ever present to understand to effects of globalization and international business on culture for two reasons. One being to keep large businesses in check form overstepping there bonds ethically and culturally and two to understand the importance culture has on people and society.

Culture is inherited ideas, beliefs, and values. These ideas, beliefs, and values are past down from generation to generation. It is important to understand that these core values that distinguish people to a particular group are fundamentally important to societies. Culture is what brings people together, it allows them have a sense of belonging. It also in some cases allows outsiders to understand others better, due to the engagement of the exchange in cultural knowledge.

Now when it comes to International business we can see how this can become a difficulty because when you establish a business take for instance McDonalds in another country, where let’s say they don’t eat beef, such as Iran (A Muslim country). There is a cultural issue here seeing McDonalds sells beef products. For those who live in this country and do not eat meat they would not purchase products form McDonalds due to the cultural back lash. Seeing many native Iranians would not be purchasing any products from this store McDonalds would thus not be making money and the point of a business is to make money. On the other side of the spectrum you would have natives of this country in arms seeing that it goes against their cultural values. It is not right for McDonalds to place a restaurant that sells meet in a country such as this unless it does shift to abide by their cultural values, which in fact is exactly what McDonalds has done in Muslim countries.

International Businesses deal with issues of cultural differences on a daily basis. It is a part of expansion.  A problem that still lies here for me is that although McDonalds may have shifted to cultural values in Iranian it has still done damage on cultural traditions. If we look from the transformation of companies spreading throughout the world we can begin to distinguish a common pattern and that is the pattern standardization. Which is in itself a whole other issue but standardization does have a major impact on culture because standardization slow begins to take away from traditional norms and replace them with new ones that are more standardized. Now I am not saying that International Business is a bad thing I am merely just stating that there are major negative effects of International business when it comes to the standardization of culture and societies and this is what need to be evaluated. Evaluated in the since of whether or not international business is an overall positive to societies and cultures or negative.

Are we to Dumb for Democracy

Chapter two in out books discusses at large Democracy and the finer details of it. As we know democracy is the citizens elect representatives to govern the country on their behalf. I have never fully understood how a democracy was run effectively, seeing that it is in my opinion that America does not run our democracy in a positive manner. While watching the State of the Union Address I began to feel even more disillusioned about America and democracy. As some of you may have watch the president speech on national concerns and so forth. It began apparent that the house was divided strongly due to partly lines. As the camera viewed representatives through the entire speech it was clearly seen that on many issues party members were not clapping while other member stood in applause. Not only was this division troubling but the fact that most representatives that where typing away on their phones during the closing of Obama’s speech. If was as if they cared less about what Obama was speaking about. Seeing that there opinion have already been formed and there is no changing their minds.

This is significant to what I really wanted to talk about seeing I am discussing how Americans are to dumb for democracy. I recently read an article by the Boston Globe about threats to democracy. This article being about how our brains are the biggest threat to democracy due to something known as “Backfire” Backfire is known as “Natural defense mechanism to avoid cognitive dissonance.” Cognitive dissonance “is the feeling of uncomfortable tension which comes from holding two conflicting thoughts in the mind at the same time.”

The article also on how democracy thrives on voters being blank states. A blanks state does not mean being ignorant it means being free of strong beliefs. Seeing most if not all voters have a strong form of beliefs it hinders our ability to distinguish fact from fiction. This is not to say that we do not understand some fact what we see in this article is that human base their beliefs on fact but in many cases these facts that we assume are true are misinformed information because of this out beliefs are formed about information that is misconstrued.

Joe Keohane the author of this article states “in reality, we often base our opinions on our beliefs, which can have an uneasy relationship with facts. And rather than facts driving beliefs, our beliefs can dictate the facts we chose to accept. They can cause us to twist facts so they fit better with our preconceived notions. Worst of all, they can lead us to uncritically accept bad information just because it reinforces our beliefs.”  

Thus when we do here facts that are true we are not likely to accept it as truth seeing it goes against our beliefs. Other things such as motive reasoning also are discussed in this article. Motive reasoning is understood as when a human has once adopted an opinion draws all things else to support and agree with it.

This thus effects democracy because it creates a situation here beliefs interfere with the facts, thus creating a populations that is self delusion holds precedence over all else.  

  http://changingminds.org/books/changingminds_book.htm

I attached the article below. I also attached a short video done by PBS on Threats to Democracy. Its only 3 minutes but it is a good video to help show how true this article really is. Take notice to Matt Bar a journalist as well as Congressmen Tom Feeney.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkeIsQQXVJs