Have we reached the end of globalization

Link to article: CNN


From 1998 to 2007, global trade has increased twice the pace of the global economy. We sitting inside our home in American Fork Utah, watching a European program on our Japanese television, while talking on our Korean phone. But in the last two years global trade has dropped significantly. The article suggests that we are heading in a direction that minimizes globalization for us.

I think globalization will continue. We will continue to develop new technologies across the world that we want and need and I don't think will stop anytime soon. The article did suggest however that we could advance in technology in a way where we wouldn't need to buy products from other countries, like a 3D printer for example. Instead of going to a store and buying a product you could just print out what you need. I don't see that in the near future but who knows, I'm sure my grandpa our technological advances like the 3D television, iPhones, ever in his future.

There are some political roadblocks that are the reasons for the drop on global trade. Anti-trade policies are the highest they've ever been since the 2008 financial crisis. Protectionism is also on the rise. Globalization/trade has been very beneficial, especially for the poor in a faster, growing global economy. The World Trade Organization has made some efforts to cut the "red tape" between countries and promote global trade. Politicians can help influence globalization by increasing global trading efforts.

No, Rand Paul, There's No Reason to Cut Unemployment Benefits

Link to article: The Atlantic


This article is of economist Rand Ghayad's reply to Rand Paul's citation of him to support Paul's claim that unemployment benefits should be cut. Rand Paul says, "that the longer you have it [unemployment benefits], that it does provide some disincentive to work and that there are many studies that indicate this." He then refers to Ghayad's work to support his claim. Ghayad subsequently replies that in fact his work implies the exact opposite.

In another paper Ghayad had authored in collaboration with a cowriter William Dickens, he had said that the longer someone is unemployed, the lesser chance a company will hire them. Ghayad believes Paul came to the conclusion that extending benefits will hurt the chances of unemployed people because they will choose to stay unemployed longer. That is why Paul cites Ghayad to support his claim. But Ghayad does not support Paul's claim, and refutes it by saying that just because companies discriminate against the long-term unemployed does not mean that long-term benefits are to blame for it. Ghayad goes on to explain that long-term unemployment isn't caused because people prefer getting benefits but that long-term unemployment is caused because there still isn't enough jobs.

I agree with Ghayad, the majority of long-term unemployed people aren't in their situation because of extended long term unemployment benefits, its simply because cant get a job. Once you become unemployed for a long time the chances of getting a job considerably diminish. Companies don't want to hire people who have been unemployed longer than 6 months. You obviously aren't getting paid when unemployed so you have little resources to go look for a job across the country let alone across your own state. Lastly, there are just not enough jobs still, especially in certain occupations where getting a job is near impossible. Getting a job is hard, and finding a supporting job is even harder. This is why people stay unemployed. So no Rand Paul, there is no reason to cut unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed. The long-term unemployed are the ones who especially need the benefits to go and get a job. Once they use their benefits to go get a job they wont need the benefits anymore. This means less people unemployed which also means less people needing unemployment benefits, and thats a win-win.

Why Other Countries Teach Better

Three Reasons Students Do Better Overseas

Link to article: NY TIMES

The article gives three reasons, more like examples, of why education is better overseas. The three examples are Shanghai's fighting against elitism, Canada's school funding, and Finland's teacher training.

Shanghai, one of China's most industrialized cities, took major steps to repair the disparity between strong and weak schools. They have closed or merged poor schools with higher-level schools. Money as well as teachers were transferred to the weaker performing schools. This allows for the city to move away from an elitist system where the greater resources and better instructors were given to wealthy favored schools. Shanghai has shifted education toward a more egalitarian approach, and gives students with diverse backgrounds and abilities the same high-level education. Today, their students test first in the world in math, science, and literacy on international exams. The US trailing miles behind in certain categories.

Canada, specifically in Ontario, British Columbia, and Alberta, has significant differences with the US over how they fund their schools. US relies on property taxes which means wealthy areas will bring in more money than poor ones. Then state tax money is used to fill in the gaps in poorer districts. Canada has moved towards province-funding formulas based on district's size and need. The system is meant to distribute money evenly to schools. This idea is similar to Shanghai's strategy to fight against elitism within the education system. Canada students are testing better and is on a rising trend.

Finland, though much smaller and less diverse than America, has for years been globally of the top rankings in mathematical and literacy skills. Their focus has been to improve teaching, but have also invested energy in providing high quality education for the poor and the wealthy. They even have gone as far as to provide health and dental services, psychological counseling, as well as other services for families and children. Finland has improved their teaching by moving teacher preparation from teacher colleges into universities, where it is more rigorous. Teachers are valued more in Finland, though their pay isn't monumentally different from teachers in America, and their programs accept the top quarter of the graduating high school class. Their teaching programs are renowned for across the globe,

The United States is falling behind the ranks of education. Some American workers have already felt the heavy pressure from job seekers across the globe and it has and will in no doubt affect the US economy. Our country needs to be able to compete with those around the world, but China, Canada, Japan, Finland, are currently crushing us. According to international tests the US scores around 28th in education and is slightly below the global average in the following categories; reading, science, and math.

I believe the our country needs to do something to heighten the quality of our education. Under the current circumstances, it is evident that the US will need to step up its game somehow in order to continue to compete globally. However, it is hard to imagine that the United States will adapt to such a disparate system like Finland. I could see the United States adopting a system similar to Canada's and possibly Shanghai's. Increasing the quality of education is a good investment for a country, and equality in education seems to have proven itself to work. It will be interesting to see what America will do (hopefully in the near future) to better the quality of our nation's education system.

Judge rules NSA collection of phone records is legal

Link to article: CNN


The NSA won a victory in court after a series of setbacks over the legality and usefulness of its massive data collection program. A federal judge in New York ruled that NSA's bulk collection of data on almost every phone call made in the U.S. is legal.

A judge who ruled on the case a week ago was very much opposed against the NSA's bulk collection program calling it "almost Orwellian" and likely unconstitutional. The term Orwellian is used as an adjective to describe a situation that is destructive to the welfare of a free, open society.

I would agree with the latter judge in saying that this program is "almost Orwellian". I don't believe that it is necessary to be snooping around everyone's cell phone's looking for a suspecting terrorist. It is an irrational and arbitrary invasion of privacy, and I believe it infringes upon our Fourth Amendment rights over our a degree of privacy. The controversy over it's usefulness is just as monumental as the controversy over its legality. The real assumed life threatening terrorists don't live in the United States. We spend so much resources and willingly give up our liberties in a search for terrorists that are in America, only to scantly find a few petty, probable suspects.

If you play the numbers game, it just doesn't make sense fight terrorism this way. My question is, cant our war on terror be over yet? We've played the big bad wolf long enough haven't we? What is the real threat we face with terrorist groups today? If there really is a major threat, I could understand the desire for passing a Patriot Act or the NSA's bulk collection program. I also understand there are well intended reasons in watching and suppressing potentially violent terrorist groups, but I think our country is going  overboard with the mass surveillance and data collection over America's citizens. So while we may have well-intended reasons for such programs, I believe it is detrimental to our free, open society, and such programs should not be passed unless under more threatening circumstances.

Lawmakers pass more blame than bills in do-nothing Congress

Link to article: CNN


This article says that if Congress doesn't pick up the pace, this will become the least productive Congress in at least the last 40 years. The House passes the blame on the senate, and vice versa. So far, 56 bills have been signed into law in the first session of the 113th Congress.

But is the fact that fewer bills are being passed in Congress necessarily a bad thing? That depends on your point of view, but both representatives and senators readily acknowledge that some major issues have not been addressed. One of the problems maybe that the Democrats and Republicans are growing more ideologically distant by the day, a recipe for gridlock.

I think the passing of fewer bills is a symptom and precursor of political gridlock. The government shut down in October exemplifies this. Among other examples, Congress hasn't passed budget, new farm bill, and none of the 12 annual spending bills have made it too the president's desk. Immigration reform has been held up along with tax and entitlement reforms.

It's unhealthy for the government be as unproductive as it is. Hopefully there will be changes made and issues addressed within Congress that promote its productivity.

The Obamacare question: Can the website handle the volume?

Link to article: CNN

 

The Saturday's self-imposed deadline approaches for President Barack Obama's signature health care reforms, yet he still needs to get the website to work properly for most users. The website continues to have many problems and can't handle the traffic of people trying to enroll. There are transmission of data problems with people trying to sign up for coverage, and small businesses are now excluded from availability.

Luke Chung, president of Virginia-based software developer FMS Inc., called the administration's prediction that HealthCare.gov would work at 80% capacity on or around November 30 an impractical threshold in the software world.

"I don't know how to build something that's only 80% complete," Chung told CNN. "I don't even understand how that works."

The enrollment period runs until March 31, and officials have said the target for the first year was 7 million people. To ensure they have coverage starting on January 1, consumers must sign up by December 23, the administration recently announced. 

I'm not very confident in the accomplishment of their goals. The whole website has given a bad face to the Affordable Care Act (ACA), whether the ACA is good or bad. October 1st was a huge mess, leaving many people unable to access the website, and doubting the viability of the ACA. We talked about in class how important public perception is, and I think it will play an important roll with what happens with the ACA.

Some say these problems were unavoidable, I don't entirely agree. Of course, President Obama, doesn't know much about how to fix the website problem himself, though could he have hired better more experienced company to be in charge? Maybe he could have avoided much of the website woes. Some say these problems are exaggerated. Maybe, and probably by some conservative republicans who want to do away with the ACA entirely, but in reality there are a lot of problems with it, and public perception of the ACA is eroding. (TIMES article)

Link to article: TIME

$1 coins: Unwanted, unloved and out of currency

Link to article: CNN

The article talks of the how the $1 coin is so reviled when the lowly, tarnished penny is so revered. Pennies are everywhere, but where are the those $1 coins? The answer is in the federal banks. The Federal reserve banks hold about $1.4 billion in $1 dollar coins. That is enough to meet the demand for the next 40 years. 

Much over half of $1 coins ever minted lie in government banks

The government's stockpile in $1 coins actually grew. Last year more coins were returned to the Federal Reserve than were paid out, and many businesses were returning these coins than asked for them.

The article then goes on to say how useful the $1 coin could be to the US. They much more durable than paper money, and can far outlast them. With respect to public preference however, "paper beats rock", though the public preference of paper money over coin money comes at a cost. The federal government would save $4.4 billion within the next 30 years, or about $150 million a year if Congress decided to go with metal according to the GAO, which would like to see $1 paper notes phased out.

Despite this, the Treasury Department limits the number of minted $1 coins and declares that "it is not a prudent use of tax payer resources". The Federal Reserve continues to mint pennies and nickels which cost more to make then they are valued, yet it denounces $1 coins.

Many countries use $1 or more coins, like Japan, France, Germany, Canada, and the United Kingdom. Canada, in order to combat the public's preference of paper money, did away with $1 paper notes entirely. In Canada, the federal government experienced cost savings ten times their initial estimate.

Link to Dollar Coin website

Currently a Senate bill seeks to improve the circulation of $1 coins. GovTrack.us gives the bill a 1% chance of making it out of the committee.

This has to do with what we talked about in class when we talked about what a bill has to go through in order to become a law. This bill looks like it it will come to a short stop in its first few steps of existence at the Senate Committee.

As for my opinion, I very much agree with a shift to $1 coins instead of paper money because of its lasting money benefits it has for our country. I would be fine with giving up the convenience of $1 paper notes for the efficient production our currency. It worked out great for Canada, and so many countries find it an thrifty, economical choice.