Debate whether downloading of music through the internet is ethical or not Essay Example for Free

Debate whether downloading of music through the internet is ethical or not Essay Music is one of the countless arts that represent the world as it is and sometimes much better- what it should be. Aside from this cliche, the world of music is being torn between legal issues of piracy and what others claim to be the inherent natural rights of individuals who would want to listen to music- free access. The internet provides one of the most free access portals for those who would want to have the music of their choice, but the question remains- is it ethical to get something for free when it is legally established to have a tendering value? In more simple terms- is it ethical to steal music online? Joseph, Francis, Angelo, Kairos, Karina and Angelina have been friends for almost a decade now. They met in their high school years, now they have decided to pursue different paths for their college education. Joseph entered college under a program of business administration; Kairos pursued a similar course under the program of economics. Karina and Angelina who both shared undying passion specialized in two major art subjects. Karina studied arts and letters; while Angelina enrolled in a program of music. Angelo, the techno savvy of the group enrolled to be an information technology specialist someday. And lastly, Francis the most authoritative of them all enlisted in the police academy to become a member of the police force someday. All of them are happy in their pursued lives, but there are things that remain the same –their friendship and their enthusiasm to listen to music. It became a habit for them to meet up during weekends to catch up over dinner, share a couple of laughs and go back to their mishaps and fun times when they are still in high school. In one of their dinner at Kairos’ place, they chose to play a concert video of Alicia Keys; but then something happened to Angelina†¦ (against) Angelina: Kairos, this is a nice DVD where did you get it? I did not know that they have already released this one. (pro) Kairos: They already have that one in Danton’s record bar down the street, but it is pretty expensive. I did not bought it, Angelo got it, (joking) it is no secret†¦our friend has pretty cool tricks in front of a computer. (pro) Angelo: Hey man, stop bragging about it. I might end up downloading whole day for these guys. It is pretty boring man, if it’s not free, I won’t bother at all. (pro) Kairos: Hey Angelina, are you ok? Do you feel something wrong? Or are you just too mesmerized with the glories of downloading? (against) Angelina: You’re unbelievable†¦ (pro) Karina: Hey Kairos, I think you hit a wrong†¦very wrong button. (pro) Kairos: huh? (against) Angelina: You are unbelievable! You are to busy computing how much you can save you became a common thief. (pro) Kairos: Are you serious? What did I do? (against) Angelina: You have practically stolen something and yet you act as if nothing happened. You and Angelo you both favor convenience without its obligations. (pro) Kairos: I did not steal anything; do not put that on me. Angelo is the one who downloaded. But still, I cannot see your point why you are overacting. (against) Angelina: Ok, I will indulge you and downloading accomplice in the implications of what you have done, shall I get started? Downloading is stealing because- (Angelo interrupts). (pro) Angelo: It’s free, get a computer and link it to the internet. You will find there it’s free; you cannot steal something which is free. That’s the glory of it, free downloading it is FREE and logically it will be free even from your so- called obligations . (against) Angelina: That is not the point, the point is just like any other form of art Alicia Keys’ concert is the result of her hard work and even painstaking attempts to create something exemplary beautiful. You stole that from her by not buying the original copy of her concert and opting to download a mere duplicate of her work. (pro) Kairos: Last time I checked recording companies, reap off a lot from the original copies, not the artist. The competition between record labels is too superficial for ordinary citizens, just like me and Angelo to purchase the original copy. Original copies are too expensive; it is like a monopoly of record labels, prices do not compete . And with what I learned, the recording industry without competition is no longer viable as a form of market. (against) Joseph: Excuse me, but I think the likes of you and Angelo are the reason for the increase in the prices of original copies. Companies compensate for their losses from free downloads and other forms of piracies . Kairos, above everyone else in this room you should know that, your studying economics right? (pro) Kairos: Yes I am, what you are saying is profit making. I am standing on the notion of free. (against) Francis: Come one man, what you claim to be free as contested by Angelina is not free at all; I think, you are using the word in a wrong way. (against) Angelina: You cannot financially categorize the works of others for your benefit. It is true that the music industry is highly privatized. And it has a very good reason to do so; music is private in the sense that it is the fruit of the musician and singer. The prices are high simply because music is an innovation in its simplicity . The creation of an innovation is one thing, but guarding and protecting it from the likes of you and Angelo is another thing. (pro) Karina: I don’t know for music which is highly commercialized, I think individuals who want to access into a form of art should be allowed to do so as long as it is permitted by the artist. I doubt that a real artist would deny such privilege. (against) Angelina: Karina, you are an artist yourself or at least someone who is aspiring to be. How can you reach your dreams if your early first steps are being trampled by piracy such as that experienced by starting out musicians in free music downloading? (pro) Karina: Pirated works are usually that of already â€Å"made† stars, free downloading has minimal effects to starting musicians since their works are not there in the first place . Websites do not host unpopular music files. As a matter of fact, only 1% of websites have more than 50% of the general traffic in the internet . In short, starting bands are usually and probably exempted. (pro)Angelo: What Karina told is true in both statistics and even in logic. Angelina, some starting bands even welcome the idea of being pirated simply because it is a good venue to be established in the music industry which is dominated by bigger music labels . (against) Angelina: No matter what statistics you would use, it is unethical because it is stealing in the first place and will forever be stealing. (against) Francis: It is true that it is stealing but only through a different way such as the internet . That difference makes some individuals assume that they are doing nothing wrong, but actually they are. (pro)Kairos: Well, we can look at this issue through multi perspectives and that what makes it problematic. We can argue regarding this issue for a long time, but nonetheless we will never arrive at a common ground. (against) Angelina: So guys, since the topic can be debated indefinitely can we just leave the topic alone and continue to live according to our principles and promise to compromise in the presence of another contradicting principle? (against) Angelo: Hey, what friends are for? All agreed to give up on the debate and just enjoy the rest of the night with stories that would allow them to catch up with each other. Their circle of friendship grew stronger after such a healthy debate; all of them without exemption learned to compromise. Impact Statement: The issue of free downloading music through the internet can be debated on different point of views and starting points. Due to this nature, up to date the debate whether music should be a free enterprise at some levels is still questionable. Issues on it being ethical are not solely debatable in the light of being a free enterprise or a private intellectual property; it can also be debated on the perspectives of economics and profiteering. There are countries that allow free downloading of music such as China, so in terms of citizenship in relation to the issues on ethics behind free downloading of music the countries ruling are still the end of it all. No matter how long debates can be, it can only affect public opinion; nonetheless the law will still hold. After watching this group of friends argued on the topic. It can be said that the main question is wrong and prejudicial. â€Å"Is it ethical to STEAL music online? † should be replaced by â€Å"Is it ethical to DOWNLOAD music online? † Bibliography 123HelpMe. com. Copyright Laws, Napster and Personal Ethics. www. 123HelpMe. com. 30 April 2010 http://www. 123helpme. com/view. asp? id=21092. Albert, Pete. Music Piracy: Is downloading music ethical? 2010. 30 April 2010 http://www. helium. com/debates/68480-music-piracy-is-downloading-music-ethical/side_by_side? page=42. Arrington, Michael. Stealing Music: Is It Wrong Or Isnt It? 31 March 2009. Techcrunch. com. 30 April 2010 http://techcrunch. com/2009/03/31/stealing-music-is-it-wrong-or-isnt-it/. Easley, Robert. Ethical Issues in the Music Industry Response to Innovation and Piracy. Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 62, No. 2 (2005): 163-168. Johnson, Eric J. , et al. On the Depth and Dynamics of Online Search Behavior. Management Science, Vol. 50, No. 3 (2004): 299-308. Storey, Michael. Music Piracy: Is downloading music ethical? 2010. 30 April 2010 http://www. helium. com/debates/68480-music-piracy-is-downloading-music-ethical/side_by_side? page=42.

Critical Analysis of William Wordsworth and Samuel Taylor Coleridge Ess

Critical Analysis of William Wordsworth and Samuel Taylor Coleridge William Wordsworth and Samuel Taylor Coleridge spearheaded a philosophical writing movement in England in the late 18th and early 19th century. Although Wordsworth and S.T. Coleridge are often considered the fathers of the English Romantic movement, their collective theologies and philosophies were often criticized but rarely taken serious by the pair of writers due to their illustrious prestige as poets. The combined effort in the Lyrical Ballads catapulted their names into the mainstream of writers in 1798 and with this work; they solidified their place in English literature. Although, most people fail to note that the majority of Coleridge's and Wordsworth's work was him simply bending and breaking particular rules of poetry that were in place during his time and in order to fully understand his work, one must fully understand his views of poetry itself. Wordsworth was often arrogant in response to negative criticism, in this case, there was his response to Sara Hutchinson's comments on his work, 'the Leechgatherer': "I am exceedingly sorry that the latter part of the Leechgatherer has displeased you, the more so because I cannot take to myself (that being the case) much pleasure or satisfaction in having pleased you in the former part" (Hanley). This particular scolding by Wordsworth clearly shows how important it was to him that the criticism only came from someone whom he greatly respected. Her letter to Wordsworth has since been lost but in my estimation, Hutchinson?s comments could not have been all that degrading, just merely perpendicular to what Wordsworth thought of his own work. There were two particular events that helped to give William a newfound sense of direction in his work and career. In January of 1795, a close friend of William died and in his will, he granted Wordsworth a legacy of 900 pounds; this money helped him to devote more time to his poetry. That same August, he met S.T. Coleridge and they quickly became close friends. In July of 1797, Wordsworth and his sister Dorothy moved to Alfoxden House, which was only a few miles from Coleridge's home in Nether Stowey. Speaking of Coleridge, himself and Dorothy, Wordsworth said, "we were three persons with one soul" (Hanley). Each day, Wordsworth and Coleridge would work on their poetry, discuss their ideas o... ...dly had a profound effect on poetry during their celebrated writing careers. They took a new direction to poetry, which in short, brought it to the mainstream. In this regard, they opened the door to poetry for many people who had never been exposed to it. The Romantic ?Revolution? sparked numerous writings and forever changed the way poetry was written. In essence, what Wordsworth and Coleridge did was make poetry more about himself or herself rather than the epic style of Dante or Homer. They wrote about what they knew best, their own personal experiences. Works Cited Bennett, Andrew. ?Wordsworth Writing. (Critical Essay).? Wordsworth Circle, Winter 2003 v34 i1 p3 (6). April 15, 2004 Coleridge, Samuel Taylor, Wordsworth, William. Lyrical Ballads. November 4, 1995. University of Oregon. April 17, 2004 Fulford, Tim. ?Apocalyptic economics and prophetic politics: radical and romantic responses to Malthius and Burke.? Studies of Romanticism, Fall 2001 v40 i3 p345(25). April 15, 2004 Hanley, Keith. ??Things of which I need not speak?: between the domestic and the public in Wordsworth?s poetry.? Wordsworth Circle, Winter 2003 v34 i1 p39(5). April 16, 2004

American International Competitiveness

Since the beginning of the 1970s, the United States has experienced a virtual trade revolution. Trade has increased much faster than the economy as a whole. Both imports and exports expanded during the past 15 years. In the late 1970s, imports started outstripping exports by historically large margins. A merchandise trade deficit has been present every year since 1976. Moreover, this deficit has increased dramatically in the 1980s. What economic changes underlie the shift in U. S. competitiveness evidenced by the recent trade deficits?While economists who have addressed this question have employed different approaches, most have examined changes in macroeconomic variables to see if they generated the economic pressures that led to the recent trade deficits. Economists who have employed this approach have generally concluded that macroeconomic changes probably are the cause of the recent deficits. Although macroeconomic theory suggests that trade deficits may be associated with a wide variety of factors, two events in the late 1970s and early 1980s have received particular attention: the rise in U. S.aggregate demand relative to foreign aggregate demand and the increase in U. S. interest rates relative to foreign interest rates. Both may have been spurred by the U. S. government's budget deficit. The excess of spending over income provided a powerful expansionary fiscal policy while higher interest rates had to be used to attract foreign and domestic investors to finance the growth in debt. A relative increase in aggregate demand, whatever its source, is expected to lead to a trade deficit because a country's demand for imports is positively associated with the level of its aggregate demand.In this instance, the theory predicts that U. S. demand for imports will rise relative to foreign demand for U. S. exports as U. S. aggregate demand grows relative to foreign aggregate demand. A relative increase in U. S. interest rates can also lead to trade deficits by incr easing foreign demand for U. S. financial assets. The link between financial flows that respond to interest rate changes and trade deficits is evident in standard balance of payments accounting relationships.The accounting relationships used in defining trade deficits require that a nation's current account (comprised of the merchandise trade balance, the balance of trade on services, and net unilateral transfers) equals in size, but with opposite sign, the capital account. In other words, if there are capital inflows, then there must be a trade deficit. Given this accounting relationship, the inflow of foreign capital that is attracted by relatively high U. S. interest rates must lead to a trade deficit to satisfy the fundamental accounting identities that underlie balance of payments accounting (McCulloch, 1978).While explanations of recent trade deficits that are based on fundamental macroeconomic relationships are attractive to economists, many commentators have advanced alterna tive explanations that are rooted in microeconomic relationships. These commentators believe that the microeconomic characteristics have changed in ways that explain the relatively sudden substantial increases in imports and net imports. In addition, public opinion, for one reason or another, has not fully accepted the power of the macroeconomic explanations for the trade deficits.We shall therefore investigate these explanations that have been offered by various sources. The logical connections between these microeconomic changes and trade deficits have not been clearly drawn. In particular, supporters of these microeconomic-based hypotheses have ignored the fact that (absent macroeconomic adjustments) changes in the exchange rate could compensate for shifts in microeconomic relationships, leaving trade flows in balance (Tarr, 1985). While the link between alleged microeconomic changes and trade deficits is unclear, empirical analysis of the microeconomic explanations can still be very useful.Specifically, if we find that the alleged microeconomic changes in the structure of trade have not occurred, then we will be in a position to reject the microeconomic explanations directly. For advocates of the microeconomic explanations, this approach may be more convincing than one that evaluates the microeconomic explanations indirectly through the use of general equilibrium or macroeconomic models. The microeconomic explanations have focused on identifying three types of microeconomic changes. First, there may be technological changes that alter trade flows.For example, changes in an industry's technology may alter factor intensities so that particular inputs are less important to successful international competition. Second, policy changes may alter trade flows through their effect on the openness of U. S. or other economies or through their effect on the relative cost structure of U. S. manufacturers. Changes in tariff, quotas, or government subsidies clearly can h ave this effect, but other government policies may also be important. Third, the availability of needed inputs may change so that the competitive position of U.S. firms is altered. For example, when abundant mineral resources continue to be key for production, the U. S. position will change as the United States exhausts its relative supply of these needed resources. According to some commentators, any or all of these types of microeconomic changes might lead to growth in the manufacturing trade deficit. As a result, they have received substantial public attention. If changes in microeconomic factors are the source of recent trade deficits, we should observe a recent and major shift in the pattern of U. S.trade, since some industries will be more sensitive to changes in particular microeconomic factors than other industries or experience bigger changes in these factors. For instance, if relative U. S. wage rates have become more important in international competition, we should obser ve a particularly large rise in net imports in industries that employ relatively large amounts of high-cost labor or have experienced particularly large increases in labor costs. In contrast, if macroeconomic variables underlie the recent deficits, this type of structural shift in trade flows is less likely to be present (Drucker, 1985).As a result, we can reject many of the microeconomic explanations of recent trade deficits that have been advanced if we observe that economic relationships that traditionally have advantaged some industries over others in international trade have been stable and that key industry characteristics, such as labor intensity, have also been stable. In the case of U. S. wage rates, if the relationship between wage rates and imports has not changed over time, and U. S. wage rates relative to those in other countries have not changed significantly, then wage rates are unlikely to have contributed to the increased trade deficit.Of course, if we do find that the alleged microeconomic changes have occurred, the growth in the trade deficit can not be attributed to them unless logical causal relationships can be identified that are consistent with international trade accounting identities. Factors associated with U. S. competitiveness in trade appear to have been relatively stable throughout the 1970s and early 1980s. Manufacturing operations located in the States retain their traditional competitive advantage in production that requires sophisticated know-how and continue to experience a competitive disadvantage in production that uses unskilled labour intensively.Moreover, it appears that, to the extent change has occurred, these relationships have strengthened over time (Marston 1986). Yet, as others have pointed out, the competitive performance of many U. S. industries appears to have declined (Landau and Rosenberg, 1986). Can these two observations be consistent? The competitive performance of U. S. industries can decline because of c hanges that do not affect the relationships between trade flows and the industry characteristics. First, the characteristics of particular industries, such as their factor intensities, may have changed so that net imports increased.The higher unionization is associated with more imports, thus if unionization increased and this relationship remained stable, then unionization could be one cause of increased imports. Shifts in the relative competitiveness of an individual industry may reflect adjustments in the characteristics of the industry, within the context of stable comparative advantage relationships. For example, if strong R&D efforts are associated with strong exports, but industries reduce their R&D expenditures, export performance would be expected to decline even though the relationship between exports and R&D was stable.Put slightly differently, when relative factor abundancies are stable, changes in industrial input requirements will be reflected in shifts in the trade ba lance of particular U. S. industries. The rankings of industries with respect to their trade flows have been quite stable. While there have been some shifts in position during the last decade, statistical tests indicate that the shifting has not been substantial. The rank order of manufacturing industries by the level of net imports in 1975 is highly correlated with the rank order that existed in 1984.Industry characteristics available in time series have also been quite stable. The values for industry characteristics in 1975 are highly correlated with their values in 1981. Moreover, the changes in mean values for these variables are relatively small, especially for the variables that are most directly related to the seven proposed explanations of the trade deficits that we analyze. The variables available in time series include the primary variables used in traditional trade models. Simple macroeconomic relationships suggest that the rise in the trade deficit is likely to be associ ated with changes in macroeconomic variables.If this is true, then one would expect that many industries experienced a rise in their trade deficits (Benvignati, 1985). Consistent with this prediction, nearly all U. S. industries experienced declining international competitiveness to some degree between 1981 and 1984. In addition to this general confirmation of the macroeconomic explanations for trade deficits, there is direct support for the view that recent inflows of foreign capital, attracted by relatively high U. S. interest rates, and increases in U. S.aggregate demand relative to foreign aggregate demand are responsible for recent trade deficits. Specifically, exchange rates rose during the period studied and this led to an increase in net imports, as the macroeconomic theory of international financial flows predicts. Also there appears to be a positive association between recent increases in relative U. S. aggregate demand and net imports, as the aggregate demand theory sugge sts. According to the macroeconomic theory of international financial flows, higher U. S. interest rates will attract foreign capital. Since U. S.financial assets are denominated in dollars, this will lead to an increase in the demand for dollars. Because increases in the value of the dollar make U. S. goods more expensive relative to foreign goods, there will be a reduction in the international competitiveness of U. S. manufacturers. This decrease in competitiveness is expected to be reflected in higher net imports, causing the trade deficit to equal the surplus on the capital account. There is empirical support for this argument. U. S. industries appear to have been under severe competitive pressure because of the relatively high value of the dollar.For example, in the automobile industry, it has been argued that about $700 of the roughly $2,000 cost disadvantage of U. S. automobile manufacturers in 1983 was due to the unusually high exchange rate (Detroit Battle, 1983). Similarly , in steel, machine tools, textiles, and many other industries, analysts have pointed to exchange rates as an important source of the U. S. competitive disadvantage. As a result, it is not too surprising that the increase in the value of the dollar between 1980 and 1985 was associated with a decline in the U. S. trade balance.While the adverse effect of the increased value of the dollar on the competitive position of U. S. industries seems to have been quite widespread, the effect has been larger in some industries than others. In particular, it appears likely that the effect will be largest for products where the demand for U. S. exports and imports was quite elastic, since these products are most sensitive to changes in relative prices. For example, estimates of price elasticities by Baldwin (1976) indicate that these elasticities are particularly large (between 3. 20 and 4.4) in the case of metal working machinery and office/computing machines. According to macroeconomic theory, imports are likely to vary positively with the level of aggregate demand, other things being equal. Specifically, as U. S. incomes rise, the U. S. demand for imports is likely to rise. Moreover, if U. S. incomes rise relative to foreign incomes, the U. S. demand for imports should rise relative to the foreign demand for U. S. exports. As a result, macroeconomic theory predicts that, during these periods, U. S. demand for imports will rise relative to foreign demand for U. S.exports and growing trade deficits are more likely. At the end of 1982, the U. S. balance of payments deficit appears to have been reduced by aggregate demand effects, since the U. S. demand was falling relative to foreign demand. However, in 1983 and 1984 the U. S. economy grew relative to the economies of its trading partners (Economic Report of the President 1986). The relatively strong U. S. recovery and the general worldwide recession were associated with a sharp rise in the U. S. trade deficit (Economic Rep ort of the President 1985). There is no conflict between the observation that U.S. trade deficits have risen and the finding that U. S. comparative advantage relationships have been relatively stable over the last decade. Evidently, there have been shifts in macroeconomic variables that have increased the level of imports in most industries, without shifting trade patterns across industries significantly. While other types of changes, such as shifts in omitted microeconomic variables or changes in the magnitudes of included variables, would also make the two observations consistent, these alternative explanations are not nearly as important.Moreover, simple macroeconomic theories and available empirical evidence suggest strongly that macroeconomic forces underlie the growth of recent trade deficits. Changes in most microeconomic variables have either been gradual or narrowly focused. As a result, they are unlikely to generate the large trade deficits that are observed. Only the chan ges in international capital flows (with associated changes in exchange rates) and, for part of the period, changes in the relative levels of aggregate demand, have been large enough and sharp enough to explain the sudden rise in net imports. The growth of direct foreign investment by U.S. firms during the last decade reflects, in part, the exploitation of their advanced technological and organizational know-how. This stability in the fundamental comparative advantage relationships is inconsistent with widely held views linking microeconomic changes to the growth in the trade deficit during the 1980s. Macroeconomic models provide explanations that are much more consistent with empirical observations. We conclude, as have macroeconomists, that changes in macroeconomic factors, rather than any of the many microeconomic explanations that have been advanced, underlie recent U.S. trade deficits. The comparative advantage structure that determines a country's trade patterns changes only s lowly. For the United States, comparative advantage forces have meant, and still mean, that the country is a net importer of commodities that are efficiently produced with relatively large amounts of unskilled labour and a net exporter of commodities that require the relatively intensive use of skilled labour. These basic relationships have not changed significantly during the 1970s or early 1980s.Similarly, the United States continues to be disadvantaged in industries that are energy-intensive, use depleting natural resources, or are heavily unionized. Higher minimum efficient scale requirements and higher R&D intensity continue to be associated with both higher imports and higher exports. Only weak relationships exist between capital intensity or industry concentration and the strength of the U. S. trade position. The relationships between industry characteristics and trade flows are evident despite the presence of tariff and nontariff barriers and other government trade policies. Moreover, the effects of trade policies appear to be weak relative to the economic forces that result from differences in comparative advantage. Nonetheless, trade policies do have identifiable effects. As one would expect, U. S. tariff and nontariff barriers are associated with lower net import levels. However, the statistical findings for foreign trade barriers are less clear. We attribute this to the fact that U. S. exporters face different trade barriers in different countries. It may be the case that strong U. S.exports continue in many countries although these exports face substantial barriers in other countries. In addition, foreign trade barriers and industrial targeting efforts may arise as a reaction to U. S. export successes, yet not be strong enough to make a substantial reduction in U. S. exports in foreign markets generally. Analyses of U. S. imports and exports test the competitiveness of the States as a geographical unit. However, these analyses do not capture fully the competitiveness of U. S. -controlled firms, since many U. S.firms are multinationals. To measure the competitiveness of U. S. -controlled firms, output manufactured abroad using U. S. know-how must be considered (Marston, 1986). Similarly, U. S. output must be adjusted for output produced by foreign-controlled multinationals in the United States. To a large extent, the additional perspective offered by the analysis of the adjusted trade flow data simply confirms the findings based on the unadjusted data. The United States remains relatively strong in the same industries where it was strong in the previous decade.However, when the trade flow data are adjusted to reflect the presence of multinational corporations, some structural changes in trade patterns become evident. Basically, these changes evidence a strengthening of the relationships that have traditionally shaped U. S. trade flows. Apparently U. S. firms have increasingly exploited their more mobile competitive strengths b y investing abroad. There is some evidence that this effort has been undertaken to overcome historical comparative disadvantages associated with producing in the States.Most notably, there is some evidence that this foreign investment is increasingly prominent in industries that are heavily unionized. Together, the analyses of adjusted and unadjusted trade flow data indicate that U. S. firms are not losing their relative competitive strengths. The adjusted data suggest that some changes are occurring in international direct investment, but these changes have not been echoed in changes in the composition of U. S. net imports. The gradual nature of any changes that are occurring highlights the basic stability of the structure of U. S. trade flows.The structural stability that we observe is consistent with the view that shifts in microeconomic relationships are not an important source of recent trade deficits. Absent evidence of changes, there is no reason to believe that these potenti al microeconomic issues contend with macroeconomic factors as the real explanations for the large observed increases in the U. S. trade deficit. Turning to the first two microeconomic explanations (high labor cost explanation and union work rule explanation), traditional relationships between labor market variables and trade patterns still hold.The United States continues to be at a comparative disadvantage in labor-intensive industries. To the extent there has been change, it has been gradual and statistically insignificant. Moreover, the United States appears to be doing well, and has slightly improved its performance, in high-wage industries. Evidently, the advantage continues in industries where human capital is important. While union activities have affected the structure of U. S. manufacturing industries, this impact has been different from that suggested in the second explanation.No change in the relationship between unionization and U. S. trade flows has taken place. However , various studies do suggest that multinational corporations in unionized industries have shifted larger and larger shares of their output overseas. Apparently, this direct investment has added to U. S. -controlled output, rather than entirely substituting for exports from unionized industries located in the States. The third and fourth explanations (foreign government trade practices explanation and OPEC cartel explanation) involve actions taken by foreign governments.Foreign governments do not appear to have uniformly targeted â€Å"U. S. industries†Ã¢â‚¬â€œthat is, industries where the United States has had a competitive advantage. While foreign government interventions are evident, these efforts vary from country to country and do not appear to have a significant effect on overall U. S. trade patterns. This does not mean that particular foreign tariffs, nontariff barriers, or targeting subsidies could not disrupt natural trade flows. However, it does mean that currently t hese effects are limited among our major trading partners (Maskus 1981).Actions by foreign governments that may have supported OPEC's efforts to raise energy prices did not significantly alter the structure of U. S. manufacturing trade, as the fourth proposition contends. The increases in world energy prices during the 1970s were dramatic and clearly had a significant effect on the overall balance of payments. However, only when trade flows are adjusted to recognize the presence of multinationals is there a significant change in the comparative advantage structure across manufacturing industries. Turning to the fifth microeconomic explanation (declining R&D explanation), U. S.firms have not lost their comparative advantage in R&D-intensive products. While U. S. imports of high-technology products have increased over time, so have exports. Moreover, the overall structural relationships that determine U. S. comparative advantages with respect to R&D do not appear to have changed signi ficantly. To the extent change is evident; it appears that the growth of U. S. multinational firms has allowed them to exploit their comparative advantages in high technology through their foreign affiliates. The remaining explanations (inadequate investment explanation and antitrust explanation) involve policies of the U.S. government. According to these two explanations, high taxes on capital formation and overly aggressive antitrust enforcement efforts have undermined the competitiveness of U. S. firms. The notion that relatively high taxes on capital, and resulting lower U. S. investment rates, have led to a growing U. S. disadvantage in capital-intensive industries is not confirmed by the statistical tests. While some earlier studies using 1958 to 1976 data found that the United States had a growing comparative disadvantage in capital-intensive industries, this trend did not continue in the late 1970s and early 1980s (Maskus 1981).The United States was a strong exporter in indu stries where economies of scale (MES) are important. Moreover, we did not find substantial advantages of concentration beyond the levels associated with these plant- level scale economies. There also was no sign of significant changes in the comparative advantage relationships with respect to scalerelated or concentration-related variables. Conclusion Given the stability of U. S. comparative advantage relationships over time, why has the U. S. trade deficit increased by so much?For some industries, the rise in net imports may simply reflect the fact that the characteristics of the industry have changed, so U. S. firms no longer have a comparative advantage. In particular, when the know-how needed to produce a commodity becomes standardized and cheap labour becomes a relatively more important input, we should expect that U. S. manufacturers will lose share to foreign manufacturers. As is suggested by simple macroeconomic models, much of the rise in net imports appears to be attributa ble to macroeconomic forces that have more than offset the advantages that U.S. firms have traditionally had in some industries. In fact, most industries have experienced increased levels of imports, suggesting that economy-wide changes underlie the problem. Examination of macroeconomic variables that could produce this type of shift in trade flows confirms that the rise in interest rates with the associated increase in the value of the dollar and, during some recent periods, the relatively rapid growth of U. S. aggregate demand appear to have stimulated net imports generally.Generally, there has been relatively little shifting in either comparative advantage relationships or in industry characteristics that affect imports and exports. Indeed, the growth in direct foreign investment, which appears to support the most dramatic changes that have occurred, has been associated with the exploitation of traditional U. S. advantages. Moreover, the shift in the overall position of the Unite d States relative to its trading partners has been fairly general, which is consistent with the argument that individual microeconomic explanations are unlikely to explain much of the recent rise in U.S. trade deficits. Given this finding, it is probable that the U. S. recent loss in competitive position is largely attributable to macroeconomic forces. In particular, it appears likely that changes in relative interest rates and levels of aggregate demand best explain most of the recent increases in the U. S. trade deficit. Both of these may be related to large increases in the government's budget deficit. The rise in trade deficits during the 1970s and 1980s led to substantial concern about the competitiveness of U. S. firms.Many of the microeconomic explanations that have been advanced to explain the recent deficits do not appear to be supported by available empirical evidence. Because these microeconomic explanations do not explain the recent trade deficits, policy prescriptions b ased on shifting microeconomic variables are a poor bet to change trade flows fundamentally. In particular, wage restrictions, trade restrictions, subsidization programs, and policies that promote market concentration are unlikely to alter the trade deficit substantially. Indeed, efforts to implement these policies are likely to hurt U. S.competitiveness, as interest groups attach riders to legislation that promotes their special interests at the expense of the broader economy. Focusing the public debate on microeconomic factors rather than macroeconomic factors seems to be, at best, ill-advised. It tends to distract the public from the real, difficult issues of government deficits, international investment, and economic growth. More likely, it provides a convenient cloak in which to wrap the costly protections so fervently sought by special interest groups that ultimately increase costs, retard productivity growth, and harm consumers.Since the strategic use of trade policies can di sadvantage one country at the expense of another, it is better to view findings as indicating that care must be taken in responding to recent trade deficits. Specifically, policy makers must be careful that they are not so caught up in the dramatic deficits that they accede to special interest groups that have inappropriately linked their troubles to those of the economy as a whole (Krugman, 1986). History provides very little reason to believe that such objectivity is possible in trade policy. Failure to exercise caution has its risks.Not only can the improper protectionist policies cause sizeable immediate losses, but they may also lead to longer term losses as well. For example, it may be short-sighted to impose import restraints on products that are key inputs into subsequent production activities, since this can have adverse effects on domestic producers that use these inputs. Indeed, protectionist policies of this type may have long-run adverse effects on the protected industr y, since potential customers may choose to locate abroad and, as a result, not be well-positioned to purchase the input from U. S.suppliers even after protection is no longer necessary. In addition, poorly designed protectionist efforts can trigger trade wars, as foreign governments retaliate to unjustifiable U. S. trade restraints. Indeed, the threat of spiraling beggar-thy-neighbor policies continues to be a key reason for supporting free trade, even in a world that offers strategic opportunities. Reference: â€Å"Detroit Battle: The Cost Gap,† New York Times, May 28, 1983, pp. 35, 37. Baldwin R. , U. S. Tariff Policy: Formation and Effects,† study prepared for the Bureau of International Labor Affairs, U. S.Department of Labor, June 1976. Benvignati A. , â€Å"The Commodity Composition of U. S. Intra-firm Exports,† FTC, unpublished, 1985. Drucker P. , â€Å"Where Union Flexibility's Now a Must,† Wall Street Journal, September 23, 1985, p. 30. Economic R eport of the President, U. S. Council of Economic Advisers. Washington, D. C. : U. S. Government Printing Office, annual editions from 1972 to 1987. Landau R. , and N. Rosenberg (eds. ), The Positive Sum Strategy, Washington, D. C. : National Academy Press, 1986. Landau R. , and N. Rosenberg (eds. ), The Positive Sum Strategy, Washington, D.C. : National Academy Press, 1986. Marston R. , â€Å"Assessing Japanese Competitiveness,† NBER Reporter, Winter 1986/ 1987, pp. 12-16. Maskus K. , The Changing Structure of Comparative Advantage in American Manufacturing, Ann Arbor, Mich. : UMI Research Press, 1981. McCulloch R. , â€Å"Research and Development as a Determinant of U. S. International Competitiveness,† Harvard Economic Research Discussion Paper 609, March 1978. Tarr D. , â€Å"Trade Deficits, Trade Policy and the Value of the Dollar,† paper for conference, Trade Policy: Free or Fair? , November 19, 1985.

The Definition Of Risk Management - 1773 Words

1. What is the NCPI definition of risk management? The definition of risk management which is given by the NCPI is the expectancy, identification, and assessment of a possible risk where a process is started to help take away any possible risks that can be associated with something or to help lower the amount of risk in which could be used to bring it down to a place which is deemed to be at more of a tolerable level. What this is doing is showing us that as we place certain control over risks any type of risk that is similar to these are then associated with each other. These risks are more easily controlled due to having them all in more of an organized fashion leading to our efforts to combat these risks to become more effective. This then helps these risks from becoming increased or even having other risks as a result. The whole notion of risk management is by acting on these risks before they become more serious we can prevent these actions from happening ultimately widening our control over them. 2. What aspects of crime analysis should the crime prevention practitioner (CPP) consider when conducting a risk assessment? What questions should the CCP ask of the location in an effort to understand the needs of the customer and the location? The aspects of crime analysis that the crime prevention practitioner should consider when conducting a risk assessment is that the practitioner should make sure not to infringe on the customers special interests and should not tryShow MoreRelatedIs4550 Week 5 Lab1611 Words   |  7 PagesWeek 5 Laboratory: Part 1 Part 1: Assess and Audit an Existing IT Security Policy Framework Definition Learning Objectives and Outcomes Upon completing this lab, students will be able to complete the following tasks: * Identify risks, threats, and vulnerabilities in the 7 domains of a typical IT infrastructure * Review existing IT security policies as part of a policy framework definition * Align IT security policies throughout the 7 domains of a typical IT infrastructure as partRead MoreProject Risk And Risk Management1412 Words   |  6 Pages1- Abstract: Project Risk is an undefined event that, if it occurs, has a positive or negative impact in the project’s results. There are two types of risks can affect the project, they are threats and opportunities. The first affects negatively and the second affects positively. These risks can be individual risks or overall project risk. The project risk management includes six process: 1- Risk Management Planning: Deciding how to plan and execute the activities. 2- Risk Identification: DeterminingRead MoreUnrealistic Schedules And The Toc With Project Management1423 Words   |  6 PagesUnrealistic schedules and the TOC with project management. Using the TOC in conjunction with the best practices of project management (TOC PM) is a methodical holistic systems approach to integrating stakeholders, products, and processes that must be completed to meet project objectives (Goldratt Cox, 2004). The TOC PM was introduced in the late 1970’s and later adopted into project management as a methodology in 1997 (Goldratt Cox, 2004; Leach, 2005). The TOC PM is viewed as a method thatRead MoreThe Current Service Level Agreement1223 Words   |  5 Pagesreviewing the current Service Level Agreement (SLA) between Finman Account Management, LLC, Datanal Inc, and Minertek, evidence was found that security standards necessary to protect all parties were not addressed within the body of document. The following information technology security stan dards are recommended to protect all parties involved and should be applied to the SLA in this case. For Finman Account Management, the chief concern is to provide guidelines within the SLA that address dataRead MoreDefinition Of Clinical Governance And Accountability1551 Words   |  7 PagesIntroduction: Within this assignment, the definition of clinical governance and accountability will be explored and discussed using a literature search. A case example will be used and briefly discuss the accountability of the nurse and other health professionals of professional standards, local polices and law. Confidentiality has been maintained within the use of the case example. A literature search was carried out for clinical governance using the British Nursing Index (BNI). Results originatedRead MoreThe Accounting Software Installation Project Case Study1680 Words   |  7 Pages EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT SUBJECT OUTLINE Subject Number: Emergency Management Credit Points: 6 Subject Coordinator: Dr Jaya Kandasamy Subject Lecturer: Peter Garland Semester/Year: Spring 2007 Prerequisites: Completed a degree course Co-requisites: Nil, but a basic knowledge of local government procedures is helpful Anti-requisites: Nil, although some previous experience in local government and emergency management is useful. Read MoreIntroduction. After Reading Over The Current Service Level1064 Words   |  5 Pagesreading over the current Service Level Agreement (SLA) between Finman Account Management, LLC, and Datanal Inc, and Minertek, evidence was found that none security standards necessary to protect all parties are addressed within the document. The following information technology security standards are the recommended to protect all parties involved and should be applied to the SLA in this case. Finman Account Management, the chief concern is to provide guidelines within the SLA that address data protectionRead MoreTaking a Brief Look at Crisis Management967 Words   |  4 Pagesdisruptive and damaging if not tackled with effective management plans (Linsley and Slack, 2012). This brief literature synthesis focuses on three major areas related to crisis management. It will first analyse the meaning and mapping of crisis; next, it will consider the processes, models and complexity of crisis management; finally, it will highlight the concept and the role of risk management. Meaning and mapping of crisis Several definitions for crisis are available in the literature. Carmeli andRead MoreWhat Determines Success Or Failure Of A Project? Essay1508 Words   |  7 Pagesusing a reasonably detailed project management methodology, as compared to a loose methodology, improves productivity by 20 to 30 per cent. Moreover, the research indicates that 85 to 90 per cent projects fail to deliver on time, on budget and the quality of performance expected. It should be emphasized that the causes of failure to deliver on time, on budget and to the quality of performance expected could be addressed by the application of project management practices. Roberts, J.P. and FurlongerRead MoreThe Business Impact Analysis ( Bia ) And Risk Assessment1246 Words   |  5 Pagesimpact analysis (BIA) and risk assessment are foundational elements of every effective business continuity program; however, in our experience, many business continuity planning participants experience a lot of confusion regarding the definitions, relationship, and expected outcomes between the two processes. This confusion often results in outcomes that fail to drive preparedness. Avalution acknowledges that there are many different ways to design and execute BIA and risk assessment processes, depending