Couples kissing in front of the Tower Bridge view line Sacré-Cœur Basilica, at Montmartre The Eiffel Tower, while cruising on the Siene River Jungfraujoch, the Top of Europe Pietà

2013년 6월 6일 목요일

Euro Debt: Should the euro zone's debt be mutualized?



Paul De Grauwe and Ansgar Belke both agree that debt mutualization would bring along certain dangers, such as morality issues and the burden put on creditor countries through the increase in costs. They also agree that it’s important for European countries to pull weak banks and sovereigns from a vicious cycle. However, they differ in terms of solving the problem itself. Mr. De Grawe believes the problems brought along with debt mutualization could be avoided through careful measures, such as imposing conditions on the beneficiaries of debt mutualization. In addition, he believes joint-issued debt would solve the problem of weak sovereigns with the richer countries guaranteeing the debt of the weaker ones to a certain extent. He defines the main threat to the Eurozone as being mere fear and panic that can lead to a sudden increase in borrowing costs. On the opposing side, Mr. Belke believes that the flaws of mutualization are unavoidable and so the European Union should not resort to such methods. Instead, the E.U. should start with saving banks through stronger central management and shared-liabilities among certain banking sectors. His definition of the main threat also differs from Mr. De Grauwe. He claims it is the untimely removal of market pressure and talks about how debt mutualization will only add on a political backlash, related to the disproportionate liabilities put on creditor states.

Arts Funding: Should governments fund the arts?



With the government incapable of sufficiently funding the basics such as education and health, there has been a major decrease in public, as well as private, funding for the arts. While those in the art industry have been expressing their grief in many extreme ways, the general opinion is that the government does not have a responsibility over funding of the arts. Most simply assume that it would be better to use tax on street lights and hospitals rather than art shows and galleries. However, Alan Davey, who is the current chief executive of the Arts Council in Britain, takes on the opinion of its founder, John Maynard Keynes. Keynes’ belief that public funding in arts would bring economic and cultural benefits is what brought the council about. Such movements to bring about public spending are what enabled Britain to be a hub of top quality museums and theatres with affordable prices. Public support also brought about more private funding as well. In the end, it all boils down to increase in cultural export, quality of neighborhoods, number of jobs and tourists, and an abstract sense of pride in each citizen. However, Peter Spence of the Adam Smith Institute argues that government interference in arts rather does more harm than good. With the government involved, the censorship brought along would put a limit to the creativity of artists. It gives the government the power to choose which type of artists to root for, leading to a situation where artists are merely trying to satisfy government donors and their political beliefs. There is much debate about this topic and the question still remains, could we leave the future of arts up to the market during a time of economic difficulty?

Offshoring & Outsourcing: Do multinational corporations have a duty to maintain a strong presence in their home countries?



An outsourcing trend had spread among the multinational corporations with not only basic manufacturing work, but also crucial functions such as R&D being moved to fast-growing markets. However, the Great Recession’s impact has caused many to hold grudges against such trends. Therefore politicians are pressuring firms to keep operations within the borders or bring them back home. With so much objection expressed toward corporations going overseas, they have started a kind of trend called “reshoring,” in fear of further public dispute. Now, even chief executives are emphasizing the importance of staying, rather than expanding. They proclaim that firms have a duty to their home country and that it’s also in the best interest of the corporations as well. Among such supporters is Harry Mosers, who is the president of GF AgieCharmilles and claims that the firms have a responsibility to pay back to the state that have granted them privileges right from the beginning. He also states that merely going offshore due to the bandwagon appeal and with no correct measuring rather damages the firms. On the other hand, professor of economics and law at Columbia University, Jagdish Bhagwati, says we should tilt our head toward reality, in which multinationals do make profit from foreign investment.

Affirmative Action: Is affirmative action a good idea?



Many different governments have carried out policies of affirmative action to compensate for past discrimination of racial minorities. Supporters declare that it shatters the glass ceiling, allowing certain ethnic group to enter higher economic and social status. Adding on, affirmative action creates a classroom of diverse ethnicities and makes up for the pure luck involved in birth by providing more opportunities to those who aren’t so lucky. On the other hand, opposing views point out how such policies only benefit the powerful and wealthy households of such ethnicities that have been historically discriminated. Further on, affirmative action cannot be justified as it’s merely an extension of discrimination by ethnicity and race. Professor Ashwini Deshpande further supports Affirmative Action by talking about how it will have a trickle-down effect with social minorities in decision making positions and how it will level the playing field. She also rebuts to a few points, such as the criticism that AA only further stigmatizes these minorities. She points out that AA counters the current stigma that exists independently and that critics should shift their focus to successful cases like the castes of India. She claims that the criticism about AA being regressive is merely a myth. On the opposing side, professor Lino A. Graglia states that AA is inconsistent with an important value that humanity upholds, equality. He claims the actual problem is that certain ethnic groups lack in certain abilities and that the society is merely trying to cover this fact up.

2013년 6월 3일 월요일

Monthly TOEFL Essay #2



The 21st century has begun. What changes do you think this new century will bring? Use examples and details in your answer.


             Change is what has brought development to the human race. It is also what has brought dispute and doom to our race as well. Change takes such a huge part of our society that one could say the course of history itself is a train of continuous changes. Even the simplest behavior or mistake that one individual makes could lead to a trail of events that could end up changing how the entire human race thinks. This is especially so in the 21st century with developed technology and fast exchange of information worldwide. We are now capable of so much more than a century before and hold even more possibilities and potential for further development. Therefore, people expect the twenty-first century to become a breaking point for mankind with all different kinds of accomplishments, such as exploring the space frontier. However, what people fail to notice is that there is also a negative side to change. Just as much how we’ve created potential for development, we’ve also made ourselves vulnerable by creating new threats that we’ve never seen before. Therefore, in the new century, we can expect new discoveries to be made, but also extreme changes that will critically damage our race.

             One that’s expected to have the biggest impact in the twenty-first century is climate change caused by global warming. The start of this problem roots all the way back to the industrial revolution. The industrial revolution has always been known as the number one tipping point in human history that has allowed us to strive. However, it’s because of the industrial revolution that we have become so heavily dependent on fossil fuels, emitting thousands of tons of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. Consequently, the Earth’s temperature has been steadily rising and the rate has increased during the last twelve years in the twenty-first century. Scientists say that we have to keep within the threshold of two degrees above pre-industrialization temperature. The general consensus is that two degrees is when the Earth’s is knocked of its natural cycle and so we have to act before it’s too late. In addition, the threat seems to be imminent as scientists claim that we have to reduce our emissions by a significant amount until 2015 or we won’t be given another chance. The most dangerous aspect of global warming is that it’s a change that occurs on a long period of time. As the human species have evolved to deal with direct threats, such as a raid, dangers that occur on a wide time horizon are not easily perceived. In addition, in order for one to live an eco-friendly life, he or she has to give up the industrialized way of life and the profits it may bring. With a lack of a clear harm or an absolute profit, people tend to push the idea of global warming to the corners of our brain. When climate change hits our society in such conditions, the results would be catastrophic.

             Another disastrous change in the 21st century is the lack of resources. There are several aspects that have contributed to the development of this problem. One is the increase in population due to the development of medical technology and increase in quality of life. Another is consumerism. Now, people no longer think carefully before buying a certain object or throwing it away. Instead of weighing the costs and benefits, they consume depending on their logos or popularity and throw away even if it’s still good for use. Not only that, but also the pollution brought along by industrialization has poisoned the air we breathe in and the water we drink, causing certain resources to be unfit for use. Such phenomenon wouldn’t have been a problem during the pre-industrialization times. Even during the very beginning of industrialization, these problems were hard to notice. However, as the rate at which these problems grow increases and the intensity becomes hard to fully grasp, it’s now time for Mother Nature to retaliate. During the first decade of the twenty-first century, we have seen scientists and the media showing a sudden concern in the decrease in resources. We have also seen Mother Nature suffer from incurable symptoms, incapable to support as anymore and oil prices skyrocket to the roof. This is just the beginning. Many predict that within the twenty-first century, the accumulated rate in which we consume and contaminate would end in a catastrophe.



             Of course, there is still much controversy over the effects of global warming and climate change. Some believe it’s merely another step in the cycle of nature. However, the crucial fact that nobody can ignore is that the human race is clearly taking up a big part in this process and that the Earth is not reacting so well until now. Glaciers are melting, sea levels are rising, the four seasons seem to forget at which time to arrive, and parts of the Earth are literally dying. In the end, it’s inevitable that these two critical changes will happen within the twenty-first century, looking at the rate at which the problems are developing. However, it’s also crucial to believe in the power of man. The power to pull out all there is inside of oneself and display god-like abilities when put in a rather abysmal situation has saved our race from many apocalypses. The same could apply in this case as well. In addition, we cannot ignore what we’ve achieved until now and the positive changes awaiting us in the twenty-first century. Another ninety years awaits us, and there is much we will accomplish.