+1(209) 348-9544
order@myessayservices.com
+1(209) 348-9544
order@myessayservices.com
Are you in High School, College, Masters, Bachelors or Ph.D and need someone to help write your essay or research? We offer premium quality essay writing help. All our papers are original, 0% plagiarized & uniquely written by our dedicated Masters specialists. My Essay Services is an experienced service with over 9 years experience in research writing of over 97,000 essays over the years. You will receive a plagiarism check certificate that confirms originality for any essay you order with My Essay Services. Fill the calculator on your right to begin placing your order now!
The era we live in is complex. The problems that we have are daunting and also challenging and a right solution calls for us to abandon dogma so as to favor pragmatism. This has greatly underscored current debate between conservatism and liberalism. This is where, a conservative thought has always made a reflection like a thirteen year old viewing the world: a more dualistic, darkness-and-light morality fable that is full of heroic patriots and freedom defenders contending against slithering forces which pull liberal evil.
Though it seems hyperbolic and witty, there is grain of truth in it, at the conservative ideology core there are heroes and villains thirst, visceral resistance to change, traditional adherence that is rigid, fear of unknown, tribal tendency of chastising those that seem different, and encapsulation into simplistic principles of complex realities. There are several economic philosophies that are in use around the world. They include economic conservatism, liberalism and radicalism.
Economic conservatives promote an economy that is laissez-faire with little government intervention. Ideological division between liberal and conservative viewpoints has consumed the U.S health policy. Liberal philosophy based on utilitarian arguments as well as moral principles attempts to have a balance in the individual’s needs with the entire population concerns (Robinson, n.d). The liberal healthcare perspective elements include the belief that indeed health care is an all people equal right.
Implementation of this right through social insurance system which provides health coverage that is universal, financing healthcare equitably, and commitment to healthcare equality today, conservatives differ from liberals not only about proper role of government but more fundamental on how wealth and power is to be produced and in the process have an equal right advancement to freedom.
According to liberals the government without sacrificing freedoms of individual can take on broader functions so long as there is provision by law of strong safeguards against any arbitrary power. They believe in an achievement of equality for all and equal opportunity through government action (Robinson, n.d). It is the government’s duty to alleviate any social ill and at the same time protect civil liberties and human and individual rights.
In Liberalism, the government role is to guarantee that no individual is in need. There is a general emphasis by liberal policies on the need of problem solving by the government. In conservatism there is a belief on personal responsibility, free market, limited government, individual liberty, traditional values as well as national defense. Conservatives therefore believe that the government role is providing the people with the freedom necessary in pursuance of their own goals. Its policy emphasize generally on empowering individuals to solve problems.
In healthcare, liberals support low-cost or free government controlled healthcare. Millions of people in America cannot afford health care making them to be deprived of the particular basic right (Robinson, n.d). Every American for example have a right to health care that is affordable and therefore it is the duty of the government to provide equal health care for all without considering their ability to pay. Conservatism on the other hand supports health care system which is competitive and free market.
According to conservatives, all Americans are able to access health care and the debate is on who is to pay for it. Government programs that are low-cost and free like socialized medicine result to higher costs and every individual tend to receive similar poor-quality health care. In as far as conservatism is concerned, health care should be privatized. The uninsured individual’s problem need to be addressed and a solution gotten within the health care system’s free market-the government according to conservatism, need not to control health care.
Ideological division between liberal and conservative viewpoints has consumed the U.S health policy. Liberal philosophy based on utilitarian arguments as well as moral principles attempts to have a balance in the individual’s needs with the entire population concerns. The liberal healthcare perspective elements include the belief that indeed health care is an all people equal right. Implementation of this right is done through social insurance system which provides health coverage that is universal, financing healthcare equitably, and commitment to healthcare equality.
In economic perspective, liberalism supports a market system where the economy is regulated by the government. Citizens must therefore be protected by the government from the big business greed. The government unlike the private sector is motivated through public interest and the government regulation across all areas is necessary in order to have a playing field that is leveled. In conservatism, competitive capitalism, free market system, and private enterprise bring about great opportunity and high living standard for all. More jobs, more economic growth, and high living standards are produced by free markets than the systems that are burdened by government regulations that are excessive.
Originally the word radical meant seeking the root of a problem and not in any way shrinking from the action that follows as a logical consequence of the different findings. There are several radical streams of economic thought; they argue that there is a need to take a holistic approach towards economics (Harris & In Darity, 1989). They argue that the basic premise of human nature is flawed and it is subject to recurrent economic breakdowns and it produces increasing degrees of inequality that are inherently organized.
The radical school of thought argues that workers are alienated from the products that they create and also from the processes of production that they have no control of. According to the Marxist current that exists in radical economics, these tendencies can at best be moderated but they can never be completely reversed by reforms in the institutions that currently exist in the capitalistic economy.
Marxism advocates a communistic approach in terms of organization where the class formations that are purely based on private ownership of the industry are completely eliminated. Radicalism advocates for economy-wide planning where there is production for need as compared to profit as the operating principle. The radical though states that there is a need for worker control at the point of production and community control when it comes to investment decisions where goods and services are produced.
It is clear that in liberalism the belief is that there is collective responsibility by individuals for the entire community welfare therefore programs of helping the entire community require bigger government intervention in such programs. Contrary in conservatism there is personal responsibility by individuals on their own and the corresponding individual effort results to an overall benefit by the community. Thus the goal is less programs by the government and less taxes. Radicalism on the other deals with increased worker control and production because of need as compared to production because of profits.
References
Harris, A. L., & In Darity, W. A. (1989). Race, radicalism, and reform. New Brunswick, N.J: Transaction Pub.
Banerjee, A. V., & Duflo, E. (2011). Poor economics: A radical rethinking of the way to fight global poverty. New York: PublicAffairs.
Robinson, J. (n.d.). Economic philosophy. S.l: s.n.
The Espionage Act of 1917 is a federal law of the United States that was passed on June 15, 1917. This was done shortly after the entry of the United States in World War I. The act has undergone amendments a few times, which explains why the act is found in Title 18 while it was originally found in Title 50. The act aimed at prohibiting interference during the army recruitment process, to prevent rebellion in the army and to prevent the support of the United States enemies during war. Under the Act, some people were charged with offences, and they include newspaper editor and German –American socialist congressman Victor Berger, communists Ethel and Julius Rosenberg and NSA contractor Edward Snowden.
The Espionage Act was passed together with the Trading with the Enemy Act. The Act had some very stiff penalties that include the death penalty. The act was a result of President Woodrow Wilson in State of the Union address of December 7th, 1915. In this speech, the president asked the congress to enact a law that will punish those who are disloyal to their nation as soon as possible (Rudanko, 186). In the creation of the Act, President Woodrow Wilson viewed this as a move to save the honor and self-respect of the United States. The President was angered that his nation; America offers general naturalization laws and freedoms to all citizens.
The people who are offered with this advantage then turn their backs and become disloyal. The act was created as a way to curb traitors from selling out their mother nation. The act also gave the president unlimited powers that include press censorship. The provision, however, aroused opposition since it gave the president unlimited powers. The press censorship provision was, however, scrubbed off after the congress debated the issue, with a one-vote margin. However, President Woodrow Wilson still insisted that there was a need for the censorship of the press for public safety.
The Sedition Act of 1918 was an extension of the Espionage Act of 1917, enacted on May 16, 1918. The Sedition Act was created to cover other offenses like limitation of speech and expression of opinion when it comes to war. The Act forbids the use of profane or abusive language regarding the United States Government, the United States Flag or the United States Army. Those convicted and charged under the act are eligible to a sentence of imprisonment for a period ranging from five to twenty years (Rudanko, 202). Under the act, the Postmaster General also had the power not to deliver mail to those that were guilty of abusive speech or opinion. The act, however, only applied during the times when the United States was in war. The Act was later repealed on December 13, 1920.
In conclusion, the two laws played a very big role in salvaging the American interests during the war. Their use was to fight any resistance that would bite the nation from the inside. The Acts, however, faced a lot of oppositions before they were passed. Especially the provision on press censorship was met with public outcry. This is because the press is considered the eyes and ears of the public. Therefore, if the press is controlled by the government, then the information that the public will receive is only what the government wants them to know. This leads to many of the secrets being withheld by the government.
References
Rudanko, Martti J. Discourses of Freedom of Speech: From the Enactment of the Bill of Rights to the Sedition Act of 1918. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012. Internet resource. Pg 186, 202.
Trickle-down economics is the idea that tax cuts often provided to big businesses as well as upper income levels will help the middle income earners and poor persons in the society because it improves the economy as a whole. This is because there will be more money by the big companies and the rich which will consequently ‘trickledown’. It is important to note that the trickle-down effect theory is more of a political theory as compared to an economic theory.
The trickle-down economics was majorly introduced by Ronald Reagan who gave huge tax cuts to the rich and upper class, and the middle class in the hope that there will be a trickle-down effect and people will have money to spend and save which will therefore expand the economy.
The trickle-down economics has often been referred to as supply side economics and was also used by Margaret Thatcher government to help trickle down money to the middle class persons.
There have been significant changes on the global economy that has been attributed to technology, product type, corporate developments, and complex societies. For instance, consider the case of global economy driven with the advances in technology. A striking exemplar is Japan scenario, especially after the economy dipped during the mid 20th century.
Japan suffered an economic blow after the war, and decided to focus on technology and advancement in machines. In their campaign, Japan focused more on automobiles manufacturing and production in the middle Class. Without changing the amount of resources available to the country, Japan decided to gain a mark in the global economy by advancing in technology, especially automotive and machines. The country invested in the education of its middle class instead of focusing on the Upper class for the trickle-down effect.
Further, the country eliminated export barriers and sought friendly markets in the developing countries that would liberalize trade. The nation relied on superior technology and a strong middle class in order to create the vast wealth and economic efficiency in the country.
In the contemporary business environment, organizations are adopting strategic management aimed at increasing production while ensuring that resources remain constant or minimized in usage.
For instance, the introduction of the wage bill in the American society meant that labor had become expensive in the country. These posted a threat to major production companies that viewed the wage bill as an inevitable means of increasing the production costs.
Therefore, in a bid to cut down on costs, most American companies shifted their production to China so that they would tap onto the cheap labor. The organizations realized that the resources were constant, and the market was dynamic with the demand, and need for superior products and services increasing over time.
The most logical and economic means of ensuring that the objective was achieved was to outsource for labor. This move ensures that the US economy remains superior to any other. However, the middle class missed Jobs from the big companies as most of them have gone abroad and therefore, the trickle-down effect theory that applies to big companies does not apply now.
Absolute advantage is an inherent function of the complex nature of different societies. For instance, in the US the concept of the American dream pushes individuals to strive for economic success by increasing their productivity. This mainstream cultural norm defines the American society, which in turn influences individual productivity.
This notion leads to the concept of the economy being guided, as though by an invisible hand, which was posited by Adam Smith. However, US cannot make numerous economic growths due to their sensitivity to humanitarian laws and culture (Quiggin, 2010).
For instance, the creation of the wage bill was aimed at improving the purchasing pose parity of the citizens by ensuring that employer hands citizens lucrative pays and protecting the middle class.
Consider the Chinese society where humanitarian laws come second to production and economic growth. People are overworked but underpaid. Therefore, organizations cut significantly on labor costs, but still manage to increase productivity. Ultimately, China will have more exports than other developed nations, but it would require a market to boost the economy through the exports.
Therefore, China collaborates with developing nations and promises to finance development projects. In exchange, the developing countries must drop trade embargoes and export from China. This ensures that China always has ready and available market.
The concept of absolute advantage affects an ethnographical factor, like humanitarian sensitivity to labor, but countries perfecting it as opposed to comparative advantage will experience economic efficiency and growth but hurt the middle income class.
Pros of trickle-down economics to Middle Class
The trickle-down economics assumes that often assumes that with tax cuts, a certain proportion of each dollar will be saved by the rich and the upper class. The middle class with the tax cuts will also have something that they can save; this is often referred to as the marginal propensity to save.
In fact, it is important to understand that many studies that have marginal propensity to save are often considerably higher among wealthier people. This might explain the reason as to why most wealthy people are considered for these tax cuts in order to enable the trickle-down effect. By saving, most people often put their money into banks, and the banks in almost all cases often invest the money.
Cons of trickle-down economics to middle-class
It is important to note that the trickle-down economics often makes job growth to suffer badly. It is important to understand that the trickle-down effect often involves the reducing the taxes on the rich and being able to get the government out of the way in order for the private job creators to create some voodoo that they often do in order to create jobs (Quiggin, 2010).
The Middle class has therefore, to wait for trickle-down effect to reach them. Most at times the time the trickle down effects do not reach the middle class. Therefore, they are the ones that suffer as the burden of tax still remains on them and they do not have a way out.
It is of the essence to understand that the middle class are the people that are highly taxed and consequently, without the trickle-down effect, they really feel the heat that comes with increased taxes on them (Waligorski, 1997).
Further, the trickle-down economics has been said to be more self serving to the rich as compared to the benefits that comes to the Middle class. Most big companies advocate for this method of economics as well as the rich. This goes far to show that indeed there is a problem as the rich and the big companies are the ones that get the most benefit out of the trickle-down voodoo economics.
Further, it is no secret that the biggest benefactors are the rich because the rich are the ones that benefits from the tax cuts and they are the ones that therefore, make the rules about whether the money will trickle down to the middle class or not (Gupta, 2000).
The trickle-down effect has led to more inequality; the term income inequality refers to the difference between populations or individuals in the distribution of their wealth, income, or assets (Waligorski, 1997). This term usually refers to inequalities among individuals as well as groups within society, although it can also be used to refer to inequalities among countries.
Income inequality is caused by different factors. Some of the main causes of income inequality are globalization and increased educational requirements.
Since the end of the Cold War, the world has experienced many changes (Waligorski, 1997). The mobile phone and the internet have opened up many new possibilities that did not exist before.
Industries have become very high tech, and they no longer have to be bound by their national borders or access by limited access to restricted resources. This has brought about economic differences between those who have access to these technology and resources and those who do not.
Over the past twenty years, there has been a steep increase in income inequality all over the world. This trend reversed the prior equalizing trend. There is increasing concern all over the world over the effect of the trickle-down effects. Many of these concerns often surface in response to the falling labor income shares in the total national income data.
However, the data may not tell much on the underlying income distribution based on disposable incomes in households. In most industrialized countries, inequalities appear to have increased as the rich with their cuts keep on getting richer and the poor and middle income continue paying high taxes as compared to their incomes (Persky, 2004). Although the trickle-down effect has sometimes appeared to have impacted positively on economic growth, it has also resulted in unequal distribution of wealth.
Income inequality has continued to increase in many of the advanced economies in the past twenty years. However, in some continental European nations, inequality rose only slightly or even declined. This inequality upswing was larger in the United States and the United Kingdom (Burman & Slemrod, 2013). In the U.K., inequality increased by about 30 percent in the past two centuries. In advanced economies, trends income inequality trends are quite high and continue to get higher and this might be blamed on most persons still believing the trickle-down effect.
References
Persky, J., Felzenshṭain, D., & Carlson, V. (2004). Does "trickle down" work?: Economic development strategies and job chains in local labor markets. Kalamazoo, Mich: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
Sowell, T. (2012). Trickle down theory and tax cuts for the rich. Stanford, Calif: Hoover Institution Press.
Quiggin, J. (2010). Zombie economics: How dead ideas still walk among us. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Gupta, S. P. ( 2000). Trickle down theory revisited: The role of employment and poverty. Indian Journal of Labour Economics, 43, 1.)
Waligorski, C. (1997). Liberal economics and democracy: Keynes, Galbraith, Thurow, and Reich. Lawrence, Kan: University Press of Kansas.
Burman, L., & Slemrod, J. (2013). Taxes in America: What everyone needs to know. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Browse More Essay Topics 24/7/365 Support 11+ Yrs in Essay Writing Pay for Quality not Quantity Score that A+ Grade
