Program Evaluation Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Program Evaluation - Research Paper Example eir programs strengths and weaknesses, provide recommendation for improvement and opportunities to excel in providing an excellent, safe and healthy environment for all. Their quality of doing business and quality of providing a safe and healthy environment for their workers and their customer alike would be evaluated in this report. Keywords: Procter & Gamble – P&G, Occupational Safety and Health Association – OSHA, The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health – NIOSH, Health, Safety & Environmental – HS&E, Fast moving consumer goods – FMCG, policies, employee safety, product safety. Procter & Gamble (P&G) is a globally recognized name of a multinational FMCG company. Fortune Magazine has given it a ranking of No. 6 amongst the â€Å"Global Most Admired Companies†, further it ranks No. 2 among â€Å"Top Companies for Leaders†. Bloomberg Businessweek has ranked P&G as No. 12 amongst the â€Å"World’s Most Innovative Companies†. When it comes to sustainability it is amongst the top ranks from 2000 to 2010 consecutively at the Dow Jones Sustainability Indexes and in 2011 it ranked No. 13 as the â€Å"Most Sustainable Corporations in the World† (www.Pg.com, 2011). P&G takes pride in it diverse workforce which lay standards for its unique culture and has been a source of its recognition and success. P&G seeks to be the best consumer products and services company in the world. P&G’s current Safety and Health policy includes having safe and healthy operations around the world, protecting the life and health of its employees and surrounding communities, protecting its assets, ensuring business continuity and engenders public trust (P&G, 2009). P&G’s Environmental Quality Policy states that they strive to improve the environmental quality of their products, packaging and operations globally. As per their Environmental Quality Policy P&G has always strive to achieve clean, safe and incident free operations at all of its globally spread

Why Fast Food Essay Example for Free

Why Fast Food Essay There are numerous fast food companies emerging around the world, such as McDonald’s, Jack in the Box, Taco Bell, Subway and others. It is reported that China has already had 3000 branches of KFCs and 1100 branches of McDonald’s that set up by December, 2010. What’s more, McDonald’s spreading out among 121 countries with over 30,000 restaurants and 47 years of sustained profitability. It’s universally acknowledged that fast food is not healthy, especially for children. If you have it often, your health will be badly affected. However, it has become a trend nowadays. Obviously, people are keen on fast food because it is time-saving, a variety of choices, and tempting. As the society develops rapidly, time is the most valuable thing for everybody. In order to keep up with the high-paced life, people work very hard. Ever be engaged in their daily work, people have little time left to cook or they just feel exhausted after a day’s work that they don’t want to cook. Fast food really helps to cut down the time people spend on eating and cooking. Therefore, they prefer to go to McDonald’s or Jack in the Box to have a burger, some fries and a cup of coke as their dinner instead of making dinner by themselves. After all, having dinner in Jack in the Box, all they need to do is to wait for a few minutes then they can be satisfied savoring after a long day’s work, which definitely saves a lot of time from cooking. Housewives, for instance, spend lengthy time everyday thinking about what to eat is healthy and balanced-nutritious. And then they go to the supermarket to buy the ingredients. After all of this stuff, they still need to cook for the whole family through tedious process. Fortunately, a housewife doesn’t need to work, or they won’t live an easy life. In addition, fast food offers plenty of choices for people to choose what to eat. It exist a large amount of choice, for people to choose what to eat while the food can meet all kinds of people’s need. They have meat, like pork, chicken, and beef. They also have a variety of drinks and ice-cream. And the most popular might be the fries, more specifically, fried chicken and burger. Sandwiches, as well as hamburgers, contain both vegetables and meat which really have a balanced-nutritious. Moreover, various kinds of choices can make every meal diversified. So far as I discovered, Americans like to make big dinner, therefore, they can keep it as leftover for several days. But, if you go to McDonald’s, every meal could be different. You can have hamburger as lunch and fried chicken as dinner. One of my cousins, for example, who is very picky and eats little, always, makes my aunt angry and upset. Picky as she is, she can eventually find some food in a fast food restaurant, like fries, mashed potato, or chicken. Fast food is also tempting that almost no one can refuse it. Fried food, ice-cream, burgers and so on are exactly aiming at being attractive. Especially the fried food, which smells so tempting, stirs up people’s appetite. Children like to get stuck in the front of the fast food restaurant, staring at the delicate coating of the fast food and being captured by the smell of the food. Even some adults cannot help walking into the restaurant as they pass by. Apart from that, it’s also full of flavors, which to some extent satisfy comprehensive needs and possesses a group of stable consumers, leading to the fact that barely anyone can refuse the taste of the fries. As a result, there is always a long queue with anxious people ordering masses of food to satisfy their appetites. Fast food has already become an irresistible trend. People’s appeal towards fast food and the progressive development benefit each other. Some people may think it lacks of nutritious, making people gain weight easily, thus causing cancer or some other closely-related disease. Nevertheless, I am strongly in favor that fast food is of more advantages. It is convenient, favorable, and possesses a large scale. And what is most significance is that fast food co-responds with the high-pace life. That is the fundamental reason people are fond of fast food. Even though they are conscious that it is unhealthy, they can’t get rid of it. Since a large quantity of people love fast food, it is prone to develop rapidly. As indicate from above, fast food has become a trend nowadays for its considerateness, hasn’t it?

Impact of Tariffs on U.S Trade and Economy

Impact of Tariffs on U.S Trade and Economy Abstract This paper analyzes current trade tariffs in the United States and their impact on trade and the overall economy.   It notes that the United States has, over the past three decades, engaged in more open approach to trading with trading agreements like NAFTA.   Although such agreements have had negative effects in jobs losses in certain economic sectors, it has been beneficial in growing trade among the signatories of the agreement.   The paper also notes that the United States has some of the lowest tariffs overall with trade-weighted import tariff at 2% for industrial goods which constitutes 90% of all imports.   The consequences of the liberal trade approach have been the continued increase in American trade deficit that topped $811 billion in 2017.   In spite of the growing trade deficit, the United States has remained has the largest economy and has grown robustly over the decades with the exception of considerable slowdown after the financial crisis. There are ongoing concerns as noted in regard to the trade spat with China that could lead to the imposition of tariffs and counter-tariffs potentially leading to full-scale trade war which would negatively affect the economies of both nations. Existing uncertainty also impacts investment in sectors that are geared towards exports and could lead to lower than projected economic performance.  Ã‚   Impact of Import and Export Tariffs on U.S. Trade and Economy A trade tariff is one form of trade protectionism that is employed by nations creating a barrier to trade.   There are a range of reasons including encouraging local product that prompts governments to impose trade barriers including trade tariffs.   This paper evaluates existing trade tariffs in the United States (U.S.) and their impact on the country’s trade and economy.   It utilizes practical examples of the application of the concept of trade tariffs and economic impact. Current Trade Tariffs on U. S. Imports and Exports Trade barriers are imposed for several reasons. Some of the reasons are: protecting local jobs, protecting newer industries, encouraging local production, reducing reliance on foreign suppliers, reducing payment problems, and promoting exporting (Collinson, Narula, & Rugman, 2016).   There are a range of trade barriers including: price-based barriers, quotas, and tariffs. Each of these trade barriers is applied relative to efficacy in meeting intended consequences.   There are other measures such as: international pricing (cartels like OPEC), non-tariff barriers via rules and regulations, foreign investment controls, and exchange controls (Collinson, Narula, & Rugman, 2016, 2012).   A tariff is a tax on goods that are shipped internationally (Collinson, Narula, & Rugman, 2016, 2012, p.177). It is a commonly utilized trade barrier.   It serves the purpose of anti-dumping and protecting specific industries. Tariffs that can be imposed include: import tariff, export tariff (least used), transit tariff, specific tariff, ad valorem tariff, and compound (combines specific and ad valorem tariffs) tariffs (Collinson, Narula, & Rugman, 2016, 2012).   Ad valorem and specific tariffs are the most commonly used trade tariffs.   The intention is largely to regulate import volumes.   Trade flows are impacted by: inflation, national income, government policies, and exchange rates (Madura, 2011).   Ã‚  According to United States Trade Representative [USTR] (2018), approximately 96% of all imports are industrial goods which are non-agricultural.   The country has a trade-weighted import tariff of 2% on all industrial goods (USTR, 2018).   It mostly employs either specific or ad valorem tariffs; more than 50% of all industrial goods imports enter the country duty free (USTR, 2018).   The United States has largely maintained open markets to international trade. Ad valorem tariffs are based on the percentage of imported goods value with specific tax based on number of shipped items (Collinson, Narula, & Rugman, 2016, 2012).   Industrial goods imported into the United States include: machinery, chemicals, autos, clothing and textile, leather and footwear, and petroleum among others (USTR, 2018).   A significant proportion of the goods are imported due to trade agreements.   There are multiple bilateral and multilateral agreements. The country has multiple bilateral trade agreements with countries like Korea, Peru, and Singapore.   It has multilateral trade agreements including Central America/Dominican Republic FTA (CAFTA/DR) and NAFTA.   They are designed to expand opportunities for United States workers/businesses globally and reduce tariff and non-tariff barriers.   The country is able to impose limited specific tariffs with the advantage being greater access to export markets.    According to World Bank (2018), the value of United States exports was $1.45 trillion and total value of imports was $2.25 billion in 2016.   The country exported 4,563 products to 223 countries and imported 4,558 products from 220 countries (World Bank, 2018).   Consumer goods were the largest imports followed by capital goods, intermediate goods, and raw materials. The bulk of the country’s (96%) were industrial goods (USTR, 2018).   The country’s top five export markets are: Canada, Mexico, China, Japan, and United Kingdom (World Bank, 2018).   The top five import markets are: China, Mexico, Canada, Japan, and Germany (World Bank, 2018).   Canada and Mexico are members of NAFTA along with the United States.   The economic syndicate was established with the intention of reducing trade barriers between the three nations and is currently being reviewed by of the United States. NAFTA eliminated most non-tariff barriers and gradually reduced import and export tariffs between the three countries (Komar, Uniiat, & Lutsiv, 2016).   By 2008, all trade tariffs existing between the three NAFTA members were eliminated.   In addition, agricultural exports that attracted 12% customs rate became duty free (Komar, Uniiat, & Lutsiv, 2016).   It led to massive increase in trade between the nations and boosted inter-country relationships.   There is obligation on each member to maintain the principles of the agreement with few exceptions that would allow for imposition of tariffs (Komar, Uniiat, & Lutsiv, 2016).   Canada and Mexico have since become among the three largest trading partners for United States.   China is the largest trading partner of the United States (Romei, 2018).   The size of trade relates to the $506 billion in exports to the United States (Ip, 2018). The bulk of Chinese imports including: cellular/wireless phones, portable computing equipment, and communication products that are imported duty free.   The recent move to impose tariffs on Chinese imports does not affect the top five imports (Romei, 2018).   United States imposed varying tariffs on 1,333 goods from China with China retaliating by imposing 25% specific tariffs on 106 American-made products (Romei, 2018).   In 2017, the value of Chinese exports to United States totaled $506 billion or 4% of GDP while United States exported goods worth $130 billion to China representing 0.7% of GDP (Ip, 2018).   The American tariffs on the 1,333 imports goods was about 25% for total goods valued at $50 billion are pending trade negotiation (Davis, Zumbrun, & Wei, 2018).   They come on top of previous 25% tariffs on Chinese steel imports and 10% tariffs on aluminum (Davis, Zumbrun, & Wei, 2018). United States has signaled the intention to levy further tariffs.   The administration has threatened to impose an additional $60 billion worth of tariffs (Davis, 2018). In addition, it also intends to tighten restrictions on technology transfers and acquisitions (Davis, 2018).   These measures are geared towards reducing the $375 billion trade deficit by at least $100 billion (Davis, Zumbrun, & Wei, 2018).   The United States has preferential trade arrangements with the European Union with Germany and United Kingdom being its largest trading partners in the economic alliance.   However, the current American administration has also threatened to impose tariffs on a range of European imports (Bershidsky, 2018).   The goods that United States has threatened to impose a 25% import tariff on are: steel, cars, and aluminum (Bershidsky, 2018).   European Union threatening counter-tariffs with ad valorem tariffs at 25% on cosmetics, Harley Davidson motorcycles, bourbon, and jeans (Bershidsky, 2018).   The United States has refrained from imposing import tariffs until recently. The current moves have been politically motivated, presumably to address trade imbalance. It has an effective trade-weighted import tariff of 20% with 50% of imported goods entering the country duty free (USTR, 2018).   United States has leveraged on bilateral and multilateral trade agreements largely to enable its firms and people access more markets.   The recent administration has upended previous trade policies and in addition to imposing tariffs on selected products from China in particular, and is currently renegotiating NAFTA.   The progress of the renegotiation will be evident in the next few months and potential application of tariffs. Impact of the Trade Tariffs on U. S. Trade and Economy Free trade has led to significant trade deficits with most of the largest trading partners. The more noticeable trend is the widening deficit that the United States has experienced in trading with China.   Since 1998 with the exception of 2010, the trade deficit has continued to widen to reach $375 billion in 2017 (Davis, Zumbrun, & Wei, 2018).   The United States only have a trade surplus with Africa and South and Central America with low trading volumes between them (Romei, 2018).   According to Romei (2018), the United States had a trade deficit of $811 billion in 2017 and was up $59 billion year-on-year.   China accounted for $376 billion or 46.4% of the trade deficit (Romei, 2018).   Pierce & Schott (2016) noted that reducing of trade tariffs between United States and China after the latter’s ascension to WTO led to significant reduction in manufacturing employment.  Ã‚   The implication is that China has greater access to the American market. Industries exposed to changes following the elimination of tariffs shifted towards more Chinese imports with gradual shift towards less labor-intensive production (Pierce & Schott, 2016).   There was accelerated mechanization and automation of production.   A similar pattern was not experienced with policy stability with the European Union.   Thus, proliferation of free trade agreements has had varying effects on depending on particular trading relationships.   Cherkashin et al., (2015) noted that trade preferences including reduction of tariffs offered by one country had positive spillover effects to others in reference to trade between the United States and Bangladesh.   They noted that counterfactual agreements promoted exports of intermediate goods especially when applied at later stages of production.   In the case of trade with Bangladesh, there was the strengthening of production capabilities of the country.   China has had significant advantage in the size and cost of labor impacting manufacturing in the United States. Trade barriers like tariffs and quotas are additive and increase the median price by up to 14% according to Irarrazabal, Moxnes, & Opromolla (2015).   They noted that â€Å"an additive import tariffs reduces welfare and trade by more than an equal-yield multiplicative tariff† (Irarrazabal, Moxnes, & Opromolla, 2015).   Tariff changes impacts how industries operates. American firms took advantage of cheaper production costs in China to increase imports at lower costs.   In China, the reduction in import tariffs following its entry to the WTO changed the structure and organization of ordinary exports and processing trade (Brandt & Morrow, 2017).   It has been a contributing factor in the ballooning trade deficit between United States and China.   Cut in input tariffs increased Chinese content in exports (Brandt & Morrow, 2017).   There was the realization that the country could not only produce intermediate goods but finished goods as well. Some firms produce intermediate products in certain markets and then re-export them for finishing (Manova & Yu, 2016; Bai, Krishna, & Ma, 2017; Jà ¤kel & Smolka, 2017).   Increasing importance of factors of production influenced international trade.   Factor abundance from free trade policies and factor prices change via policies such as trade tariffs influence trade structure in different countries (Jà ¤kel & Smolka, 2017). Thus, the impact varies from country to country.   Economic policies have significant economic impact, such as fast growth of South Korea through reduction in trade tariffs and bilateral FTA with the United States (Connolly & Yi, 2015).   Trade policy uncertainty impacts investment even in low tariffs trade regimes (Handley, Kyle, & Limà £o, 2015).   Posturing among countries during negotiation creates such uncertainties. The current trade squabble between the United States and China is one such example. The posturing between United States and China as well as other trading partners threatens to reduce investment in the economy.   Ã‚  Handley, Kyle, & Limà £o (2015) noted that the level of export investment during periods of uncertainty was lower. Free trade agreements have had positive impact from an overall perspective in promoting trade (Cooper, 2014).   The influence of having bilateral and multilateral FTAs is that it creates certainty that promotes investment.   In the United States, there has been concern about the impact of FTAs on employment. According to CoÅŸar, Guner & Tybout (2016)   the trade-off in regard to open economies is higher national income and higher unemployment.   Higher unemployment is countered by labor market reforms reducing aggregate job turnover (Guner & Tybout, 2016).   Despite losing jobs in certain industries, the United States has gained in overall employment boost. In analyzing the Brazilian economy, Dix-Carneiro & Kovak (2017) noted that regions that had significant cuts in trade tariffs experienced declines in formal employment and lower earnings.   Liberalization is generally positive from a national perspective but adversely affects certain areas relying specific commodities.   It informs the need for countries to have the ability to impose specific tariffs.   The United States has applied such tariffs to protect the steel industry.   Therefore, there are counter-effects that are specific to different regions depending on the structure of trade relationship.   Trade liberalization has also been positive for enhancing corporate social responsibility (Flammer, 2014).    The United States having liberalized its economy with few import tariffs has experienced significant increase in trading deficits with major trading partners. Even with the ballooning trade deficit with China, it has greater leverage (Ip, 2018).   The driving factor with the increased trade deficit that United States has experienced with China is driven by American consumers.   However, the comparative size of the imports relative to each country’s GDP favors United States at 0.7% compared to China’s 4% (Ip, 2018).   In the event of imposition of widespread trade tariffs, China is likely to be impacted more.   The current situation creates uncertainty for both countries in the industries that have been targeted. There are worries notably in the automotive industry about NAFTA renegotiation and trade issues with China. The negative impact of trade tariffs is that they increase the cost of goods which directly impacts the consumers.   The level of trade imbalance that has been created by liberalization of trade has been significant in the context of the trade between United States and China.   The country has trade deficits with close trading partners in NAFTA due to factors of production.   It has created political concerns about trade fairness and potential negative economic impact.   Mexico is a cheaper production alternative to American automakers which has been the bone of contention in the renegotiation of NAFTA.   The current standoff between United States and China is likely to persist.   China has indicated that it will only make the tariffs effective in circumstances where the United States does the same (Romei, 2018).   Therefore, the measured approach to the trade now could simmer for some time prior to any settlement negotiations.   China is waiting for the signal from United States prior to actualizing the tariffs creating uncertainty.   There are existing discrepancies in the trade deficit with the European Union due to skewed bilateral agreements (Bershidsky, 2018).   The reality is that the trade deficit could slow down due to imposition of tariffs. There could beneficial negotiations that eliminate the tariffs.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Conclusion The United States has accumulated significant trade deficits with its largest trading partners.   The deficit has been increasing but has not negatively impacted economic growth.   The threat of trade tariffs could upend relationships, creating uncertainty and impacting global value chains.   In the end, the United States remains as the most important consumer markets.   The purposed tariffs by the U.S. and from the U.S will have a huge effect on the economy of the United States and China but also the rest of the globe. References Bai, X., Krishna, K., & Ma, H. (2017). How You Export Matters: Export Mode, Learning, and Productivity in China. Journal of International Economics, 104, pp. 122 – 137. Bershidsky, L. (2018). The Effects of Tariffs and Counter-Tariffs would be smaller than the Bilateral Discrepancies in EU – U.S. Trade Statistics. Retrieved 24 April 2018 from https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-03-06/trump-s-trade-war-ignores-basic-eu-us-trade-statistics Brandt, L., & Morrow, P. M. (2017). Tariffs and the Organization of Trade in China. Journal of International Economics, 104, pp. 85 – 103. Cherkashin, I., Demidova, S., Kee, H. L., & Krishna, K. (2015). Firm Heterogeneity and Costly Trade: A New Estimation Strategy and Policy Experiments. Journal of International Economics, 96 (1), pp. 18 – 36. Collinson, S., Narula, R., & Rugman, A. M. (2016). International Business (7th Ed.). Harlow, UK: Pearson Education Limited. Connolly, M., & Yi, K-M. (2015). How Much of South Koreas Growth Miracle Can Be Explained by Trade Policy? American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, 7 (4), pp. 188 – 221. Cooper, W. H. (2014). Free Trade Agreements: Impact on U.S. Trade and Implications for U.S. Trade Policy. Current Politics and Economics of the United States, 16 (3), pp. 425 – 445. CoÅŸar, A. K., Guner, N., & Tybout, J. (2016). Firm Dynamics, Job Turnover, and Wage Distributions in an Open Economy. American Economic Review, 106 (3), pp. 625 – 663. Davis, B., Zumbrun, J., & Wei, L. (2018). U.S. Announces Tariffs on $50 Billion of China Imports. Retrieved 24 April 2018 from https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-announces-tariffs-on-50-billion-of-china-imports-1522792030 Dix-Carneiro, R., & Kovak, B. K. (2017). Trade Liberalization and Regional Dynamics. American Economic Review, 107 (10), pp. 2908 – 2946. Flammer, C. (2014). Does Product Market Competition Foster Corporate Social Responsibility? Evidence from Trade Liberalization. Strategic Management Journal, 36 (10), pp. 1469 – 1485. Handley, K., & Limà £o, N. (2015). Trade and Investment under Policy Uncertainty: Theory and Firm Evidence. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 7 (4), pp. 189 – 222.   Ip, G. (2018). Leverage Will Determine if China or the U.S. Come Out on Top in Trade Conflict. Retrieved 24 April 2018 from https://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2018/04/05/leverage-will-determine-if-china-or-the-u-s-come-out-on-top-in-trade-conflict/ Irarrazabal, A., Moxnes, A., & Opromolla, L. D. (2015). The Tip of the Iceberg: A Quantitative Framework for Estimating Trade Costs. Review of Economics and Statistics, 97 (4), pp. 777 – 792. Jà ¤kel, I. C., & Smolka, M. (2017). Trade Policy Preferences and Factor Abundance. Journal of International Economics, 106, pp. 1 – 19. Komar, N., Uniiat, A., & Lutsiv, R. (2016). Efficiency of the North American Free Trade Zone. Journal of European Economy, 15 (3), pp. 280 – 292. Madura, J. (2018). International Financial Management (13th Ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning. Manova, K., & Yu, Z. (2016). How Firms Export: Processing vs. Ordinary Trade with Financial Frictions. Journal of International Economics, 100, pp. 120 – 137. Pierce, J. R., & Schott, P. K. (2016). The Surprisingly Swift Decline of US Manufacturing Employment. American Economic Review, 106 (7), pp. 1632 – 1662. Romei, V. (2018, April 5). US – China Trade Tariffs in Charts. Retrieved 23 April 2018 from https://www.ft.com/content/e2848308-3804-11e8-8eee-e06bde01c544 United States Trade Representative (2018). Industrial Goods. Retrieved 23 April 2018 from https://ustr.gov/issue-areas/industry-manufacturing/industrial-tariffs World Bank. (2018). United States Trade at a Glance: Most Recent Values. Retrieved 23 April 2018 from https://wits.worldbank.org/CountrySnapshot/en/USA/textview

The Island Move Analysis

The Island Move Analysis In the beginning of the film Lincoln 6 Echo is very inquisitive, reminding me much of a child whos favorite question is why. He wants to know why he has to wear white, why he has to package vitamins, why survivors are being found, why people are drawn at random to go to the island, why he cant eat certain things and the list goes on and on. He has a friend who can do these things, that he visits by faking a shortage in his identity bracelet, unknown to him, this man is an actual human, while Lincoln 6 Echo and his friends are clones of extremely wealthy individuals who pay many millions of dollars to have themselves duplicated should they ever need an organ, skin, or want a surrogate to carry their child. Lincoln, goes exploring one day and realized that there is no island, those who supposedly win the lottery are killed shortly after giving birth, or having organs removed. Jordan 2 Delta, had won the lottery the evening before, and he goes and convinces her to run with him. They esc ape the under ground bunker and realize there is an entire world on the outside with people. They find out that they are clones, created with the sole purpose of keeping their human counterparts alive for many years longer then a natural life. They go in search of their counterparts to show them that they are too living, feeling, thinking individuals and not kept in a vegetative state, as they were lead to believe. Jordans counterpart had been in a car accident so they went in search of Lincolns counterpart an extremely wealthy man named Tom Lincoln, who resided in Los Angeles. They are being hunted by the institution to be brought back before the general population learns the truth of how human they are and what the institution actually does. They eventually find Tom Lincoln and tell him the story; he agrees to take them to the news station to tell their story. Jordan realizes that the original Tom is lying, because his eyes get the same look as Lincolns. Lincoln convinces her to s tay behind, so she doesnt get captured when he double-crosses them. Tom does in fact call the institution because he is not ready to die, and Lincoln is his insurance policy. Lincoln pretends to be the original Tom and the real Tom gets shot, with the mercenary thinking he is the clone. The institute offers Tom a replacement insurance policy. Jordan is captured the next day while Lincoln is going to the institute under the disguise of Tom; his goal is to save all of the other clones. During this time the institute realized that there was a defect in the clones from the echo generation on, giving them the human curiosity personality characteristic, to get rid of this problem they decide to do damage control and kill all of the clones. Jordan and Lincoln intervene and ultimately stop the institution from killing everyone. They save their friends, and the institution is destroyed and prevented from causing any further destruction. I love how this plays in with organ donation and harvesting organs from cadavers as we learned about in class, I think it is such and interesting solution that I hope our society never turns to. The public was lead to believe that the clones were kept in a vegetative state, not feeling, or thinking, or having emotions, which allowed them to be more at ease with the concept. I cant say if I had the money and I was promised that my clone would always be vegetative, that I would say no to that. I can see why it was such a popular concept from the public, I do think that if the public had known about the clones living and breathing, and feeling and being human in everyway except having a natural birth and a childhood, that some would still pay for this privilege. Many people are so scared of death that it doesnt matter how they survive, it just matters that they do. I loved that an underlying theme of the movie was not to trust anyone; humans are manipulative, and only care about their b est interests. This really hit true to me, that we lose so much of our innocents, and our trust as we age because we become so self serving, you could see that happen with Lincoln as he and Jordan spent more time in the human world. He was so trusting and willing to do anything for any one, yet he sacrificed his original counterparts life to save his own. I dont think it is a bad thing, but I think that in the beginning of the movie, it is not something he would have done. When he said, Im not ready to die either, I think it had come full circle that he was starting to become more human, and more self-serving. I think this also played very well into the end of life stages, really focusing on how far would you go to prevent your own death? My main issues with the concept of cloning for organ use are all ethical, is it ethical to clone? What will cloning lead to? What is okay to clone? Not ok? Animals? Adults? Children? Why would people need or want to clone for use other than to use organs and or other body parts? My next issue is the issue of creating life to suit and ulterior need. To me this is using life as a means to achieve a goal, and life should not be a tool to help succeed in other areas, a life should be enough to just be lived and enjoyed. My last concern is that after the clone in the movie has served its purpose, whether it be give birth or donate a kidney the clone is killed, and I cannot grasp making killing the clone ok. Cloning, the act of creating something in the exact form that already exists; to me this alone is unethical there is no need or reason in my mind why society needs to do this. I see no good or benefit for society that can come from cloning, I think it creates unnecessary temptations to do just what was done in the movie, by allowing the wealthy to clone themselves to serve a purpose. If we make cloning a common practice I see no reason why this will not become a reality, and that to me is frightening. The clones in the movie thought, felt, loved, and had all human emotions and to imagine being a clone and knowing you were created to eventually die, so someone else could live makes me ill. I would not choose to prolong someone elses life at the expense of my own unless I truly loved this person. I imagine a clone would feel the same way since they have human emotions. In this situation I think the golden rule applies, do unto others as you would want done to you. My next issue is creating life to serve an ulterior purpose. This reminds me of the book My Sisters Keeper, by Jodi Pullcott. Where the youngest daughter was conceived to ultimately save the elder daughters life. Not only does this make the produced person feel like a means to the end, but also it creates an issue of individual rights. Does the Produced person have the right to refuse to help save the life of the person needing saved? Do they have the right to put their health above the other person? I think that they should. Whether or not you were born out of the desire to create a life to love that person, or created out of the desire to save someone else, that the person who is ultimately being used should given the right to the most important issue in donation, free will in the form of informed consent. If we are going to create people to serve a purpose of saving other lives what is to stop society from breeding slaves? No there isnt the same promise that the organs will be as good of a match, but it would be a lot cheaper. My last issue is that the clones were killed after surgeries they could have easily lived through. I can maybe, in so stretch make it okay, if the clones were only being used to donate organs that they could survive with out, and if they were being compensated for them. Or if they were being treated as real surrogates, but killing them after routine operations amazed me. It seemed almost too cruel to do that just to protect the rest of the clone population from learning the truth. The killing seemed senseless and completely unnecessary. All in all I thought this was an amazing movie and I really enjoyed watching it. It was not something I would have picked to watch on my own but I am very glad that I did.

Who is Arafat? :: Politics Political

Who is Arafat? Now more than ever President Bush is pushing Israel for a withdrawal from the Palestinian-occupied territories in order get the cease-fire in effect. President Bush once said that one cannot negotiate with terrorists; the question now is whether Arafat is a terrorist or a peacemaker. The answer is simple: Arafat is a terrorist, and President Bush should not force Prime Minister Sharon to negotiate with a terrorist. If Arafat is not a terrorist then why are Fatah and Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade (terrorist groups) headed by Arafat (Kalman 1)? President Bush must face the truth about the Arab terror against Israel; he has to "see that the goal of the Arab world has always been, and still is, to destroy the state of Israel"(Podhoretz 2). The fact is that after the Oslo peace accords in September 1993, Palestinians killed more Israelis than in the 15 years that preceded the accord (Kelly 2). If there was no peace as a result of that accord, why should anyone expect peace after any other accord that Arafat is in charge of, as he was in Oslo? How can a man that won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1993, now urge Palestinians to "sacrifice themselves as martyrs in jihad (holy war) for Palestine"(Kalman 2)? Is this a man that anyone can negotiate with? Reuters reports that on April 1, 2002 "one of Lebanon's most prominent Shiite Muslim cleric [gave] his blessing to female suicide bombers, like [the] one who struck in Jerusalem on Friday (March 29, 2002), calling them authors of a 'new, glorious history for Arab and Muslim women.'"(Par. 1) President Bush must see that: "there is no moral difference between the terrorists operating out of the PA and the al-Qaida network. He will recognize that to sponsor the establishment of a state run by the thugs and murderers of the PA would be tantamount to putting the Taliban back into power in Afghanistan" (Podhoretz 4). To assail Israel now and make Sharon pull Israeli troops out of Palestinian territory without fully completing their task of rooting out the terrorists would be like telling Bush that he has to pull out American troops from Afghanistan because our troops are invading their land. After Prime Minister Sharon announced war on terrorism and began sending Israeli troops into Palestinian territories, there have been fewer suicide bombings. While Israel was occupying the major Palestinian towns, there were no suicide bombings for about eight days, but as soon as Israel started pulling out, suicide bombings began again. Who is Arafat? :: Politics Political Who is Arafat? Now more than ever President Bush is pushing Israel for a withdrawal from the Palestinian-occupied territories in order get the cease-fire in effect. President Bush once said that one cannot negotiate with terrorists; the question now is whether Arafat is a terrorist or a peacemaker. The answer is simple: Arafat is a terrorist, and President Bush should not force Prime Minister Sharon to negotiate with a terrorist. If Arafat is not a terrorist then why are Fatah and Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade (terrorist groups) headed by Arafat (Kalman 1)? President Bush must face the truth about the Arab terror against Israel; he has to "see that the goal of the Arab world has always been, and still is, to destroy the state of Israel"(Podhoretz 2). The fact is that after the Oslo peace accords in September 1993, Palestinians killed more Israelis than in the 15 years that preceded the accord (Kelly 2). If there was no peace as a result of that accord, why should anyone expect peace after any other accord that Arafat is in charge of, as he was in Oslo? How can a man that won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1993, now urge Palestinians to "sacrifice themselves as martyrs in jihad (holy war) for Palestine"(Kalman 2)? Is this a man that anyone can negotiate with? Reuters reports that on April 1, 2002 "one of Lebanon's most prominent Shiite Muslim cleric [gave] his blessing to female suicide bombers, like [the] one who struck in Jerusalem on Friday (March 29, 2002), calling them authors of a 'new, glorious history for Arab and Muslim women.'"(Par. 1) President Bush must see that: "there is no moral difference between the terrorists operating out of the PA and the al-Qaida network. He will recognize that to sponsor the establishment of a state run by the thugs and murderers of the PA would be tantamount to putting the Taliban back into power in Afghanistan" (Podhoretz 4). To assail Israel now and make Sharon pull Israeli troops out of Palestinian territory without fully completing their task of rooting out the terrorists would be like telling Bush that he has to pull out American troops from Afghanistan because our troops are invading their land. After Prime Minister Sharon announced war on terrorism and began sending Israeli troops into Palestinian territories, there have been fewer suicide bombings. While Israel was occupying the major Palestinian towns, there were no suicide bombings for about eight days, but as soon as Israel started pulling out, suicide bombings began again.

Consumer Equilibrium and the Law of Equi-Marginal Utility :: Business Economics

Consumer Equilibrium and the Law of Equi-Marginal Utility Introduction The Law of Equi-Marginal Utility is an extension to the law of diminishing marginal utility. The principle of equi-marginal utility explains the behavior of a consumer in distributing his limited income among various goods and services. This law states that how a consumer allocates his money income between various goods so as to obtain maximum satisfaction. Assumptions The principle of equi-marginal utility is based on the following assumptions: (a) The wants of a consumer remain unchanged. (b) He has a fixed income. (c) The prices of all goods are given and known to a consumer. (d) He is one of the many buyers in the sense that he is powerless to alter the market price. (e) He can spend his income in small amounts. (f) He acts rationally in the sense that he want maximum satisfaction (g) Utility is measured cardinally. This means that utility, or use of a good, can be expressed in terms of "units" or "utils". This utility is not only comparable but also quantifiable. Principle Suppose there are two goods 'x' and 'y' on which the consumer has to spend his given income. The consumer’s behavior is based on two factors: (a) Marginal Utilities of goods 'x' and 'y' (b) The prices of goods 'x' and 'y' The consumer is in equilibrium position when marginal utility of money expenditure on each good is the same. The Law of Equi-Marginal Utility states that the consumer will distribute his money income in such a way that the utility derived from the last rupee spent on each good is equal. The consumer will spend his money income in such a way that marginal utility of each good is proportional to its rupee. The consumer is in equilibrium in respect of the purchases of goods 'x' and 'y' when: MUx = MUy Where MU is Marginal Utility and P equals Price Px Py If MUx / Px and MUy / Py are not equal and MUx / Px is greater than MUy / Py, then the consumer will substitute good 'x' for good 'y'. As a result the marginal utility of good 'x' will fall. The consumer will continue substituting good 'x' for good 'y' till MUx/Px = MUy/Py where the consumer will be in equilibrium. Thus this is also known as the law of substitution. Table Let us illustrate the law of Equi-Marginal Utility with the help of a table: The side table shows marginal utilities of goods 'x' and 'y'.

Economy of US Essay

President George W. Bush, in a speech before his economic team on August 8, 2007 talked about the nation’s thriving economy. President Bush said: â€Å"I just finished a productive meeting with members of my economic team. We discussed our thriving economy and what we need to do to keep it that way. We care a lot about whether our fellow citizens are working, and whether or not they’ve got money in their pockets to save, spend, or invest as they see fit. We talked about America’s role in the global economy. † (President Bush Meets) Looking at some major economic indicators, the President’s claim on the growth of the economy has some sense. For this paper, the following indicators will be discussed: the Gross Domestic Product – which measures overall economic productivity of the nation; Inflation rate – which measures the rise in the general level of prices; Unemployment or employment rate – which reflects the number of people with jobs; and Balance of Payments – which reflect the relationship between exports and imports. The United States Government uses two sets of tools that affect the American Economy. These tools are Monetary Policy and Fiscal Policy. The first one deals with how the government controls the supply of money and therefore the general stability of prices. The second one deals with government expenditures specifically how much the government is earning (taxes and revenues) and where will it spend the money (budget). Monetary policy is executed by the Federal Reserve System through its Board of Governors while Fiscal policy is carried out by Executive branch with or without the support of Congress. The U. S. Economy in Review The U. S. Economy is the largest and most powerful economy in the world. By the end of the third quarter of 2007 its Gross Domestic Product was close to $14 Trillion. Starting in 2004, the U.  S. economy was hit by significant events that tested its resiliency. The aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks led to major shifts in national resources to fight global terrorism. The costly war in Iraq led to a more costly U. S. occupation in Saddam Hussein’s country. Huge investments were made by the country for the war – investment in budget, resources and human capital. During the same period, Hurricane Katrina caused extensive damage in the Gulf Coast. Resources were diverted to aid those who suffered from the natural calamity. Oil prices soared between 2005 and 2006 also threatening the economy. Despite these setbacks, the U. S. economy posted strong growth during the period 2004-2007. Gross Domestic Product The U. S. Gross Domestic Product recorded growth rates of 2. 9 percent in 2004, 3. 2 percent in 2005 and 2006 and a leap to 4. 2 percent at the end of the third quarter of 2007. According to the Bureau of Economic Accounts, the increase in GDP primarily reflected increases in consumer spending, investment in equipment and software, federal government spending, and residential fixed investment. The President, in his State of the Economy address in January 2007, highlighted the strong and dynamic economy, and discussed the challenges faced in keeping the economy growing. The President stressed that the U. S. economy is resilient and responsive, adding more than 8. 3 million jobs since 2003 despite numerous challenges including a recession, corporate scandals, the 9/11 attacks, and the worst natural disaster in American history. Inflation Inflation is generally reflected through the rise and fall in the Consumer Price Index. CPI measures the average change over time in the prices paid by consumers for a market basket of consumer goods and services. During the period 2004 to 2006, CPI rose at a manageable level – indicating inflation is under control. No data was shown for 2007. In 2004 – CPI rose 3. 3 percent over the previous year. In 2005, the rate was at 3. 4 percent and in 2006 it slowed down to 2. 5 percent. The recent behavior of inflation shows it remains low and stable and has minimal impact on the economy (U. S. CPI) Unemployment and Employment  The number of unemployed persons was 7. 2 million in October 2007 according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. A year earlier, the number of unemployed persons was 6. 7 million, and the jobless rate was 4. 4 percent. Also according to the BLS, total employment was at 146 million in October. Job gains occurred in professional and business services, health care, and leisure and hospitality. Manufacturing employment continued to decline, and construction employment was little changed. The employment-population ratio was at 62. 7 percent. The civilian labor force was at 153. million and the labor force participation rate was at 65. 9 percent. Balance of payment The country’s balance of payment particularly the relationship between the country’s exports and imports still show a deficit. The deficit decreased to $190. 8 billion in the second quarter of 2007 from $197. 1 billion in the first quarter. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, a decrease in net unilateral current transfers to foreigners and increases in the surpluses on services and on income more than accounted for the decrease. Monetary Policy The Federal Reserve System, the independent U. S. central bank, manages the money supply and use of credit (monetary policy), while the president and Congress adjust federal spending and taxes (fiscal policy). The government’s monetary policy is governed by the Federal Reserve System Board of Governors. The Federal Reserve’s monetary policy has stressed preventing rapid escalation of general price levels which usually leads to inflation. The Federal Reserve acts to slow economic expansion by reducing the money supply, thus raising short-term interest rates. When the economy is slowing down too fast, or contracting, the Federal Reserve increases the money supply, thus lowering short-term interest rates. The most common way it effects these changes in interest rates, called open-market operations, is by buying and selling government securities among a small group of major banks and bond dealers. A particularly tricky situation for monetary policy makers, called stagflation, occurs when the economy is slowing down and general price level (inflation) is rising too fast (U. S. Monetary Policy). The Federal Reserve’s recent monetary policy is towards keeping the overall economy on an adjustment path where growth is moderate and sustainable. As Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke mentioned in his Testimony Before the Committee on Financial Services, U. S. House of Representatives on July 18, 2007: â€Å"At each of its four meetings so far this year, the FOMC maintained its target for the federal funds rate at 5-1/4 percent, judging that the existing stance of policy was likely to be consistent with growth running near trend and inflation staying on a moderating path† (Bernanke). Given these conditions, the Committee decided to leave its target for the federal funds rate unchanged at 5-1/4 percent. The Committee further stated in its policy statement that some inflation risks remained and that additional action would depend on changes in the outlook for both inflation and economic growth (Monetary Policy Report 6). According to Janet L. Yellen, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco in her speech on The U. S. Economy and Monetary Policy, â€Å"I think the current stance of policy is likely to foster sustainable growth with a gradual ebbing of inflationary pressures† (2). However, Yellen further stated that â€Å"a sustained moderation in inflation pressures has yet to be convincingly demonstrated† (15). Policy Actions taken by the Federal Reserve The Federal Open Market Committee in its meetings on June 27 and 28 and voted to hold the federal funds rate, the Federal Reserve’s main policy tool, unchanged at 5? percent (Monetary Policy Report 6). At the time the report was made to Congress, the funds rate has been kept at that level for the last twelve months. According to the Committee, this decision would avoid exposing the economy to the risk of a recession, while, at the same time, hoping that this policy will produce enough slack in goods and labor markets to relieve inflationary stresses. This direction will enable the Federal Reserve to achieve its dual mandate—low and stable inflation and maximum sustainable employment. In the past year, then Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan wrapped up an eventful 18-year career Tuesday with a final interest rate hike and cleared the way for his successor Bernanke to bring the long credit-tightening campaign to a close. Acting on Greenspan’s final day in office, Federal Reserve Board raised the benchmark overnight lending rate another quarter-percentage point to 4. 5 percent, pushing up borrowing costs for consumers and businesses in their ongoing bid to keep a lid on growth and inflation (Wolk). In the months after that, the Board came up with a series of cuts in interest rates to address the prevailing economic condition. This balancing act is in line with the Federal Reserve’s responsibility of trying to maintain full employment (generally considered to be around 4 to 5 percent unemployment) while keeping inflation low. One can imagine the risks and uncertainties involved in such act. Alan Greenspan once said, â€Å"Policymakers often have to act, or choose not to act, even though we may not fully understand the full range of possible outcomes, let alone each possible outcome’s likelihood. As a result, risk management often involves significant judgment as we evaluate the risks of different events and the probability that our actions will alter those risks (Greenspan). † . This delicate balancing act is done by using interest rates as a tool. When interest rates are low, capital is easier to acquire. Left unchecked, however, this leads to inflation. If interest rates are too high, however, the result can be a recession and, in extreme cases, deflation; the result of which can be economically devastating. There are two ways as to how the Federal Reserve influences the direction of interest rates: by raising or lowering the discount rate or by indirectly influencing the direction of the Federal funds rate. The discount rate is the interest rate banks are charged when they borrows funds overnight directly from one of the Federal Reserve Banks. The Federal funds rate is the rate that banks charge each other for overnight loans (U. S. Monetary Policy). Fiscal Policy When President George W. Bush first stepped into the Whitehouse in 2001 he promised several things to the American public. Among his list of promises which was an ambitious $1. 3 trillion tax cut. President Bush promised that â€Å"whoever pays taxes gets a tax break. † Campaigning for his second term in office in 2004, President Bush promised to make tax cuts that were earlier adopted in 2001 permanent. In his August 8 speech the President said: â€Å"Real after-tax income has increased by an average of more than $3,400 per person since I took office. † The President further stated: Tax cuts let Americans keep their own money. It stimulates entrepreneurship. † The President emphasized that he is against the plan to increase taxes and turn them into additional government programs and said: â€Å"We want the people to keep more of their own money because we understand that the American economy, entrepreneurs and small business owners are the ones who create jobs. † However, there is a growing opposition to his fiscal policies. Some say these cuts were distributed disproportionately. Higher income tax payers got the biggest breaks they say as opposed to lower income individuals. It is also important to note that during the first term of President Bush, federal spending increased by 26 percent. This seems to go in a different direction with the tax cut measures. On one hand tax cuts mean lesser revenue for the government, on the other, more money is needed as more money is being spent. It will not take a genius to figure out that the tax cuts, and significant increases in spending will have effect on the budget deficits during the Bush administration. From a surplus of $127 Billion when President Bush assumed office, the budget went to a deficit of $929 billion. Future impacts of these fiscal policies have been also widely discussed. Shapiro and Friedman believe: â€Å"Over the next 10 years, total tax-cut costs will equal $3. 9 trillion, reaching nearly $600 billion or 3. 3 percent of the economy in 2014 alone. The resulting higher deficits will slow future economic growth, saddle future generations with sizable interest payments, and leave the nation ill-prepared not only for the retirement of baby boomers but also for responding to potential future crises from security matters to natural or environmental disasters the particulars of which are unknown today. Even Former President Clinton went on record to criticize President Bush’s fiscal and tax policies: â€Å"Tax cuts are always popular,† Clinton said. â€Å"But about half of these tax cuts since 2001 have gone to people in my income group, the top 1 percent. I’ve gotten four tax cuts. Now, what Americans need to understand is that that means every single day of the year, our government goes into the market and borrows money from other countries to finance Iraq, Afghanistan, Katrina and our tax cuts,† Clinton added. We depend on Japan, China, the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia and Korea primarily to basically loan us money every day of the year to cover my tax cut and these conflicts and Katrina. I don’t think it makes any sense. I think it’s wrong† (Stephanoupoulos, 2005). Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan also had a few words to say about President Bush’s policies. Greenspan criticized President George W. Bush for pursuing an economic agenda driven by politics rather than sound policy, with little concern for future consequences (Benjamin. 2007). Greenspan was quoted as saying: â€Å"The Bush administration turned out to be very different from the reincarnation of the Ford administration that I had imagined. Now, the political operation was far more dominant. † (Benjamin 2007). Comparing past presidents and the current Chief Executive, Greenspan said Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton were the most intelligent; Ford the most normal and likeable; Ronald Reagan was the most devoted to free markets; George H. W. Bush, the current president’s father, was very cordial. However, Greenspan saved his harshest criticism for Bush. `Little value was placed on rigorous economic policy debate or the weighing of long-term consequences,† he wrote. (Benjamin 2007). Still President Bush remains steadfast saying: â€Å"When people earn money, tax revenues go up. This year, tax revenues are expected to be $167 billion higher than last year’s, because the economy is growing. Growing tax revenues combined with spending restraint has helped us drive down the federal deficit, and we were able to do so without raising the taxes on the people who work, or without raising taxes on small business owners or farmers. Estimates show the deficit will drop to $205 billion this year. That is well below the average of the past 40 years as a percentage of our economy. † (President Bush Meets) Conclusion Not too many believed that the U. S. economy can rebound so fast from the series of unfortunate events of 2004 to 2007. Yet the number one economy in world has proven its resiliency and durability by weathering these storms. Much of the credit should go to the managers of the economy. The adoption of effective policies and strategies were the keys to sustaining the growth even in the midst of uncertainties. However, the growing opposition to the President’s Fiscal Policies needs to be given more attention. The clamor does have its points. Tax cuts, everyone must understand, have side effects. Remember, it is from taxes that the government generates revenues. Revenues that are badly needed to fund the operations of the government. These are the same revenues that run schools, hospitals, provides welfare to the poor, and funds homeland security and the war against terror. Without revenues where does the government go? What does it do? It borrows money. Huge amounts of money that, in the end, would be marked as owed by every individual in this country to some bank or foreign government. Overall, greater challenges loom ahead. The economy still faces long-term problems including inadequate investment in economic infrastructure, rapidly rising medical and pension costs of an aging population, sizable trade and budget deficits, and stagnation of family income in the lower economic groups. The country will call on again the time tested policies to deal with these adversities. As President Bush said â€Å"Our economy is on the move and we can keep it that way by continuing to pursue sound economic policy based on free-market principles. â€Å"