Economic philosophies Essay Example for Free

Economic philosophies Essay This paper will focus on the contributions of John Maynard Keynes and Milton Friedman to economic philosophies. Keynes is considered by many as the most famous and influential economist. Though having that veneration, a number of economists had been in opposition to the Keynesian school of thought. Among the forefront oppositions to the Keynesian economic philosophy is Milton Friedman, along with his accounts on monetarism. In his â€Å"General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money,† Keynes laid out the foundations of his framework, which nearly all macroeconomists make use of today. This framework finds its basis on spending and demand, the factors that determine the components of spending, the liquidity-preference theory of short-run interest rates, and the necessity of the government to make strategic but powerful interferences in the economy in order to keep it on balance and avoid the extremes of depression, as well as manic excess (Delong, 2006). Keynes’ theory was said to be incomplete as it only deals with interest employment and money. There was no mention on the theory about prices. Friedman introduced the principles of prices and inflation to Keynes’ framework, based on the idea that there exists a natural rate of unemployment. Friedman also made mention of the limitations of government policies have with regard to the stability of the economy, taking into consideration the trend of its long-run growth. Friedman considered these as limits beyond which an intervention from the government would trigger an inflation of uncontrollable and destructive nature (Delong, 2006). The events that took place during the Great Depression made Keynes and his orthodox followers to underestimate the influence and role monetary policies have in making a viable solution (Delong, 2006). Keynesians are inclined to prefer fiscal policy to monetary policies as a tool to influence production and employment. They believed that money has no direct influence. Moreover, they question the power of monetary policies to influence employment and production (McCain, 2007). The Great Depression was indeed considered to be a unique event in history, which called for explanation in terms of events rather than in pursuit for a new line of economic theory. One of the events that took place during the Great Depression was the failure of the money and banking system. Thus, the Great depression illustrates the influence of changing monetary conditions (McCain, 2007). Keynes and Friedman both agreed on the necessity of a superb macroeconomic management. The private economy, when on its own, might be subjected to unbearable instability and that there is a necessity for a powerful, strategic, but limited intervention coming from the government in order to maintain stability within the economy (Delong, 2006). Though having these ideas in agreement, Friedman had been a staunch opposition to some of Keynes’ economic principles. According to Keynes, the key to maintaining economic stability is to keep government spending and private investments on stable grounds. Friedman, on the other hand, opined that the key to economic stability is keeping money supply, i. e. the amount of purchasing power, which are readily available to be spent by businesses and households stable (Delong, 2006).

Ehrlichs Population Bomb :: essays research papers

Ehrlich's Population Bomb "People are realizing that we cannot forever continue to multiply and subdue the earth without losing our standard of life and the natural beauty that must be part of it. these are the years of decision- the decision of men to stay the flood of man." Ehrlich here explains the one of the most pressing problems facing man in the 20th century. In Population Bomb, Ehrlich explains that pollution, shortages, and an overall deterioation of the standard of living is all due to overpopulation. In chapter one Ehrlich explains the pressing problems facing modern civilization and how these problems are directly or indirectly linked to overpopulation. Ehrlich explains situation using various examples of how mass starvation is inevitable if population continues to increase the way it is currently. In third world countries their food supplies are becoming increasingly scarce because of their increasing populations. In these third world countries the rich-poor gap is increasing creating the potential for large parts of the population to starve. Paraphrasing Ehrlich's ideas in chapter can be explained as; there is only so many resources and as population increases those resources will soon be depleted. Ehrlich uses historical population research to lead to the conclusion that in 90 years the population could be well over the earths carrying capacity. In third world countries where population control is rarely used population, pollution, and scarcity are becoming ever increasing problems. Roughly 40% of the population in third world countries are children 15 years or older. Ehrlich explains that if population growth continues at this rate older generations will find themselves without adequate food and medicine. Near the end of the chapter Ehrlich explains the cause of the massive increase in population growth; as he explains that science and medicine have decreased the death rate exponentially while the birth rate has not decreased. In "Too Little Food" Ehrlich starts off with the assumption that about 50% of the people in the world are in some degree malnourished. He uses statistics from "New Republic" and the Population Crisis Committee to put the number of deaths to around four million people dying each year of starvation alone, not disease caused by starvation. Ehrlich explains that sometime around 1958 population growth exceeded the available food supply. When this happened the laws of supply and demand took over and caused massive inflation in food costs and causes marginal farm land to be put into production. All of these signs caused a period of time with severe shortages in food. In 1966 alone the world population increased by 70 million while food production remained

Is space exploration worth the cost?

Editor’s Note: On January 11, the New York Times blog â€Å"Freakonomics† published a lengthy post titled â€Å"Is Space Exploration Worth the Cost? A Freakonomics Quorum†. The post featured comments provided by a number of people, including David Livingston, in response to the question. The part attributed to Dr. Livingston was just a highly-edited version of what he originally submitted to the Times. What follows is the full article that Dr. Livingston submitted on December 31 in response to their invitation to answer the question, â€Å"Is manned space exploration worth the cost?Why or why not? † As the host of a nearly seven-year-old radio talk show, The Space Show, designed and devoted to furthering space development and manned space exploration, I hear this question often. It is challenging to answer because I find often that I am left wanting for a better response, even from some of the guests and listeners to The Space Show. In general, I do think that collectively we, in the space community, do a lousy job of letting people across America know why manned space exploration is important and worth the cost.I would like to see NASA and those members of Congress most supportive of the manned space program convincingly let the public know that the value is there, where the value comes from, and why it is there. But then, I have a long wish list for what I would like to see our government do, say, and explain regarding this and other issues. In my opinion, the manned space exploration program is absolutely worth the cost. But first, consider the following because understanding the following points is crucial to understanding what manned space exploration affords us in so many areas:1. The money spent on manned space exploration is spent right here on Earth and most of it is spent in the US. We do not yet have a Bank of the Milky Way, the First International Bank of Mars, or a Lunar Mutual Savings and Loan. The money that is spent g oes to manufacturing, research and development, salaries, benefits, insurance companies, doctors, teachers, scientists, students, blue- and white-collar workers, and corporations and businesses both large and small. The money disperses throughout the economy in the same ay as money spent on medical research, building houses, or any other activity we engage in with government or even private spending. |In general, I do think that collectively we, in the space | |community, do a lousy job of letting people across America know| |why manned space exploration is important and worth the cost. | 2. Whenever we look at government spending (or any spending for that matter), it is important that we understand what is being purchased and whether there is a value for that investment.We should also ask if the value benefits a narrow group of people or a special interest, or does it have the potential to benefit large groups, even humanity. Clearly, several types of public expenditures can be con sidered investments and they can benefit large groups of people and humanity. So I also look for qualitative factors, such as the ability to inspire others to do hard work, to go the next step, to push the envelope for the next level of advancements for all our benefit.I also look to see if the public expenditure can change lives for the better and, if so, over what period of time. There are several types of public expenditures that can do some of this, but manned space exploration is able to do it all. 3. The space age is 50 years old if we calculate using the launch of Sputnik as the beginning point. Manned flight began with Soviet cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin on April 12, 1961, thus manned spaceflight is almost 47 years old.A good portion of our space technology, development, and know-how was developed here on Earth when the two space powers of the time, the USSR and the US, were making treaties to work together in space, prohibit weapons in space, to rescue each other’s astrona uts/cosmonauts if necessary, and to treat celestial bodies in a way that prevented territorial ownership while allowing room for resource development for all mankind. Mankind worked together to prevent conflict in space and these efforts now have a proven and unparallel track record.Today, we have an International Space Station (ISS) with multiple countries working together for its completion, support, science, and management. The ISS Station Agreement is a model agreement that works and the two former Cold War enemies are working together to be the best we humans can be. This has always been the case with manned space exploration, as well as with all of space exploration. Did we have competition? Yes. Do we have conflict and tension? No . No other discipline, activity, venture, or multinational effort has a track record equal to manned space development.While there may be challenges ahead for our space behavior, so far we are doing fine in space, certainly much better with each oth er than we are doing back here on Earth. This is all fine, but how does this translate to manned space exploration being worth the cost to millions of taxpayers when there are other competing and important priorities for a finite amount of taxpayer money? Of course, we say that the entire NASA budget is less than 1% of the entire US budget, but I have found that saying that does not resonate with most people.Still, according to the GPO budget information, the US 2007 budget was about $2. 784 trillion and NASA got a little more than $16 billion. This means all of NASA’s spending is marginally more than half of 1% of the total US budget. In contrast, social programs receive about 98 times the amount of money spent on NASA. Another way of looking at this would be to understand that a 1% reduction in government social expenditures could just about double the NASA budget for any given year. When I started this piece, I said I hear this question a lot.So a few years ago, I decided to see what really happened to a public dollar spent on a good space program in comparison to spending that dollar on an entitlement program as well as a revenue-generating infrastructure program. I used the school breakfast program for the entitlement program. I chose Hoover Dam for the revenue generating infrastructure program. The space program I chose was the manned program to the Moon consisting of the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs. Let me briefly summarize what I discovered.All of these programs or other similar programs, if properly managed, can produce benefits in excess to the original invested dollar. There is no guarantee that a program will be properly managed and this includes a space program. Properly managed implies many things, but I don’t think space is any more or less likely to be well managed than anything else the government does. Not all of our space programs made the short list, as I looked at several public space programs for this study before d eciding that our Moon program was the best. A mismanaged space program wastes money, talent, and time just like other programs the government does. I decided to see what really happened to a public dollar spent | |on a good space program in comparison to spending that dollar | |on an entitlement program as well as a revenue-generating | |infrastructure program. | What happened to the dollar invested in each of the respective programs? The school breakfast program was successful, increasing the number of kids getting breakfast. However, when funding for this program or this type of program stops, as soon as the last of the funds goes through the pipeline, the program is over. It has no life past government funding.There was no residual benefit lasting years after the demise of the program. I was unable to find an inspirational or motivational quality for the program leading to downstream business, economics, science, or other advancement and development. One could make the case that kids who benefited from the program went on through school to accomplish great things and I don’t doubt that. I simply could not document it in my research. Hoover Dam was very interesting. This project paid off its bond cost early, was a major contributor to our winning World War 2, and has been a huge economic factor for development in the western part of the country.It’s a major wealth builder for the United States. However, Hoover Dam requires overhead and maintenance investment on a continual basis. It needs repairs, updates, modernization, security, and it employs a labor force. Were we to stop investing in Hoover Dam, over time it would lose its effectiveness and cease to be the value to our nation that it is at this time and has been during its history. Its value to us depends on our willingness to maintain, protect, and update it as necessary.Hoover Dam and Lake Mead have given birth to thousands of private businesses, economic growth for the region, and much more. However, as with the entitlement program above, I could not find an inspirational or motivational aspect to Hoover Dam. I’ve not heard anyone say they wanted to be an engineer because of Hoover Dam. I’m sure this factor exists to one degree or another, but I could not document it either. What I discovered about our manned lunar program was different. When I did this study, it was 34 years after the last dime had been spent on Apollo, the last of the manned Moon programs.Thirty-four years later, when I would ask guests on The Space Show, students, and people I met who were involved in science, engineering, and space-related fields and businesses about what inspired or motivated them to start a space business or pursue their education, over 80% said they were inspired and motivated because of our having gone to the Moon. Businesses were started and are now meeting payrolls, paying taxes, and sustaining economic growth because the founder was inspired by the early d ays of the manned space program, often decades after the program ended!This type of inspiration and motivation seems unique to the manned space program and of late, to some of our robotic space missions. Interestingly, I found the same to be true when I asked the same question to Space Show guests from outside the United States. Thirty-four years after all funding had stopped for the Apollo program, investment and wealth building, both for our nation and others, was still going on as a result of our manned space exploration years earlier. This was a standout feature when comparing manned space exploration to other two types of government spending.As for the return we received on the dollars spent going to the Moon, the results are often controversial and inflated depending on the source. Some specific narrow segments such as medical and other technical fields have returns several hundred times the dollars invested. In fact, one bit of research I found said that the Office of Managem ent and Budget (OMB) had to refute some of very high returns because at the time they could not do the computer work to determine an effective multiplier with so many variables leading to such high outcomes.Overall, the return was probably more modest, perhaps four to seven dollars returned to the taxpayers for each dollar invested. This return outperformed the other investments as well, though in many ways my project was like trying to compare apples and oranges. However, I can accurately report that manned space exploration has the potential to return to the taxpayer many times the dollars initially spent on the program. Since we spend this money right here, employing our own people to do cutting-edge as well as traditional workforce projects, our people and our nation benefits from the manned space program.This means we build wealth for our nation and our people. Equally important, we inspire millions of school children to do the hard schoolwork in math, business, science, engine ering, and finance so they can work in space and related scientific and technical fields. This is important to us all as these disciplines are needed to lead us to new and better ways of living right here on Earth, now and in our future. Finally, we must not forget the spinoff technologies from our entire space program, but especially from manned exploration, and the fact that the manned space rogram continues to generate wealth and investment long after the program has ceased and its federal funding has been terminated. |It’s not just about what we learn out there in space, or about | |ourselves, or how to be a better steward of precious Earth. | |It’s about how we live here on Earth together and what type of | |future we want for ourselves and children. | We have our work cut out for us as we move forward in this new century. We don’t seem to get along well with each other here on Earth, but we do quite well in space.Space is our model for all nations. Notice how many more nations are talking about and wanting to get into the manned space act. India, Russia, China, Japan, and the European Space Agency, for starters, all want a manned mission to the Moon and it won’t stop there. These countries and agencies know that manned space exploration builds wealth for their nation, solves problems and enhances life for their people right here on Earth, and shows us the way for how we can all live together in peace.Manned space exploration is absolutely worth the investment. It’s not just about what we learn out there in space, or about ourselves, or how to be a better steward of precious Earth. It’s about how we live here on Earth together and what type of future we want for ourselves and children. Manned space exploration is the path to how we build a better life for ourselves here on Earth, and how we can give hope and provide inspiration for our youngsters to grow up, do the schoolwork, and accept the challenges that await them to make our world even better.Whatever we spend on manned space exploration is a bargain and our investment will be returned to us many times over, both quantitatively and qualitatively. From my perspective, we are getting this value at a bargain, as if we were all going to the dollar store for an end of the year sale. [pic] Dr. David Livingston ([email  protected] com) is host and founder of The Space Show, the only radio talk show dedicated to expanding space commerce, understanding the importance of becoming a spacefaring culture, and how best to achieve that status.The Space Show’s interviews with national and international space business, development, and science leaders are streamed online and podcasted. All programs are available for free download through The Space Show website. Dr. Livingston holds a Masters and Doctorate in Business Administration and has nearly 40 years of experience managing and starting various types of businesses. David is also a business, financial, and marketing consultant and holds a position as an adjunct professor in the Space Studies Department at the University of North Dakota.

The law on adverse possession - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 5 Words: 1508 Downloads: 11 Date added: 2017/06/26 Category Law Essay Type Critical essay Level High school Tags: Act Essay Did you like this example? Critically discuss this statement. ANSWER Introduction Adverse possession is known in popular parlance as squatters rights. The law on adverse possession concerns the process by which title to real property owned by another party is acquired without the payment of compensation, by, as its name suggests, occupying the property in a manner that conflicts with the true owners rights for a minimum specified period of time. Mackenzie and Phillips define the concept as follows: the process of acquiring title to land by dispossessing the previous holder and occupying the land until his right to recover it is time-barred.[1] As cases such as Powell v McFarland [1977][2] and Buckingham County Council v Moran [1990][3] confirm, adverse possession requires the co-existence and proof of three elements in regards to the occupation of the property in question.. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "The law on adverse possession" essay for you Create order These elements are physical, mental and temporal. Generally speaking, this means that any party seeking to claim the property occupy it exclusively (preventing the occupation of others) and openly to the world at large just as if it were their own. Openly hostile possession must be continuous[4] in nature without the permission of or challenge from the legitimate owner, for a fixed statutory period in order to permit the acquisition of title. Adverse possession has been governed by section 15 of the Limitation Act 1980[5], since 1981.[6] Section 15(1) of the 1980 Act the limitation period for the adverse possession of land is 12 years. The statement under discussion suggests that the Law Commission, Parliament and the European Court of Human Rights have indicated a negative disposition towards adverse possession because none of those bodies takes sufficient account of the significant public interests supported by the doctrine. This paper discusses the nature of adverse possession against the backdrop of recent trends in the law, which throw the concept of squatters rights into critical sharp focus. Analysis of Adverse Possession Prima facie, the concept of adverse possession appears to go against the grain of certain fundamental principles of English common law, basic socio-economic policy and the conventional political paradigm which sustains our property-owning democracy. In simple terms an adverse possessor is nothing more than a trespasser, which is itself a tort against the owner of the property, although according to ancient law, if he or she can perpetrate the tort unchallenged for long enough they may be rewarded by being allowed to acquire ownership of the property in question without the knowledge or consent of the rightful landowner. In almost all other circumstances the law has a word for property which is removed from its owner without consent and that word is theft. Perhaps it comes as little surprise therefore that in recent times the historical anomaly of adverse possession has fallen under critical review.[7] In recent times Parliament has substantially improved the position of a registered landowner without actually abolishing the doctrine of adverse possession. Impetus for recent legislative reform came in part from the Law Commission and its influential report Land Registration for the Twenty-First Century: A Conveyancing Revolution (2001)[8]. The report proposed new rules for the adverse possession of registered land which, it is submitted, effectively neutered the rights of squatters. Produced in response to the 2001 Law Commission report, the Land Registration Act 2002[9] now stipulates that where land is registered, if an adverse possessor wishes to take an interest in land he must apply to be registered as owner after a minimum period of 10 years of adverse possession. Significantly the Land Registry must then give notice to the true owner of this application. This procedure offers the landowner a p eriod of time 65 business days to object to the adverse possession.. Once objection has been made the true owner will usually have a further two years in which to effect the eviction of the adverse possessor. It is submitted that this legislative reform effectively drives a knife into the heart of adverse possession by preventing the removal of a land ownerà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s right to property without their prior knowledge. It could be argued however that this policy fails to give proper emphasis to the contended benefits of adverse possession. In terms of a utilitarian socio-economic analysis one could assert that given that land is a finite commodity it should be used in such a way as to produce the maximum societal benefit. If a landowner has ignored property for such a long period of time, perhaps it is contrary to social justice to deny another party, who has committed himself to the land, its use and enjoyment. In the recent cases of Beaulane Properties Limited v Palmer [2005][10] the law of adverse possession received further, and possibly fatal, body blows.. The High Court ruled that the law of adverse possession in relation to registered land is not compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998[11] and Article 1 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights[12], which provides for the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions. This decision is consonant with another recent case before the European Court of Human Rights JA Pye (Oxford) Land Ltd v United Kingdom [2005][13], it was held (although only by a 4:3 majority) that the doctrine of adverse possession was indeed a violation of Article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention. Moreover, the Court of Human Rights found that it was disproportionate for the true owner both to lose his land and to receive no compensation for it and that adverse possession interfered with the fair balance between the public interest and the true owners right to the peaceful enjoyment of his posse ssions.[14] The decision was appealed by the UK Government to the Grand Chamber of the Court Europes highest court, in November 2006. At the time of writing (24 February 2007) this ruling is still awaited.[15] It is submitted that the Grand Chamber is likely to endorse the ruling of the Court of Human Rights given that to do otherwise would necessitate jurisprudential gymnastics around the fundamental right enshrined in Article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention. Concluding Comments There is an old saying that à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“Possession is nine-tenths of the law  and this was never more true than in the context of the law on adverse possession.. The most ancient principles of land law based ownership on possession called seisin, with title awarded to the person who could show he had been seised of the land at the earliest date. However, it is submitted that adverse possession, while deriving certain theoretical social benefits and consonant with basic tenets of uti litarian principle, is essentially a relic of the past and incongruous in application in the modern context. It is a trite observation that conceptual utilitarianism is sidelined in modern courts and legislatures given that proliferation of hard, sovereign law. The polemic concerning the law on adverse possession can be summarised as a conflict between mediaeval pragmatism supported by peripheral social equity, and modern property interests buttressed by progressive human rights. It is submitted that this is no contest. Adverse possession will soon be no more than a footnote in legal history. THE END GLOBAL DOCUMENT WORD COUNT : 1326 (excluding footnotes) BIBLIOGRAPHY Chronicle, Council for Licensed Conveyancers, Edition 46, February 2007 European Convention of Human Rights: https://www..echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/D5CC24A7-DC13-4318-B457-5C9014916D7A/0/EnglishAnglais..pdf European Court of Human Rights: https://www.echr.coe.int/ECHR/ Human Rights Act 1998: https://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1998/19980042.htm Land Registration Act 2002: https://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2002/20020009.htm Land Registration for the Twenty-First Century: A Conveyancing Revolution (2001) Law Com No 271 (published on 10 July 2001) Limitation Act 1980: https://www.lawcom.gov.uk/docs/cp151apa.pdf Mackenzie J., and Phillips M., A Practical Approach to Land Law, (2001) Blackstone Press Ltd à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“Swat the squatters. Owners to be protected from home hijackersà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ , Daily Mail, 2 September 1998 Cases as footnoted, verified against original law reports. Footnotes [1] Mackenzie J., and Phillips M., A Practical Approach to Land Law, (2001) Blackstone Press Ltd, p.362 [2] 38 P CR 452. [3] Ch 623. [4] Generally speaking possession must be continuous but where the property in question is of a type typically only occupied at certain times (for example a summer holiday cottage), it may be that the party seeking to assert rights of adverse possession only needs to be in exclusive, open, hostile possession during those successive periods of normal use. [5] See for full text https://www.lawcom.gov.uk/docs/cp151apa.pdf. [6] Section 41(2) Limitation Act 1980. [7] See inter alia: à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“Swat the squatters. Owners to be protected from home hijackersà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ , Daily Mail, 2 September 1998, p.4. [8] Law Com No 271 (published on 10 July 2001). [9] For full text see: https://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2002/20020009.htm. [10] All ER (D) 413. [11] For full text see: https://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1998/19980042.htm. [12] See for full text: https://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/D5CC24A7-DC13-4318-B457-5C9014916D7A/0/EnglishAnglais.pdf [13] European Court of Human Rights [2005] 47 EG 145 (CS). [14] For further comment see: Chronicle, Council for Licensed Conveyancers, Edition 46, February 2007, page 5. [15] As of 24.2.2007 this case is listed as pending before the Grand Chamber: https://www.echr.coe.int/ECHR/EN/Header/Pending+Cases/Pending+cases/Cases+pending+before+a+Grand+Chamber/.