My third package for WINOL, it was made into an OOV for the bulletin.
www.winol.co.uk
Sunday 28 October 2012
Friday 26 October 2012
HCJ3: Economics
It's something that's in the news every day, something that people are employed to study and in terms of the theoretical side of it, I haven't got much clue about. I know a bit about how it works in a practical way, like how inflation effects how much money I have left in my pocket after a night out or after doing a weekly food shop.
Adam Smith
He wrote 'Wealth of Nations' which asked the question of why one country is richer than another. There is one clear reason to this, liberalism. Almost all countries across the world are free, people can do what they want and go where they want, obviously there are consequences for illegal actions, but people can do as they please. Free trade plays a big part too, for example a British company can buy goods from a company in Asia, sell the goods on and make a profit. The system of capitalism works and whether you agree with the system or not is another matter.
An example of a country where free trade is a relatively new thing is China. The Great Wall of China was built to prevent the Mongolians from attacking the country. This also prevented the economy from growing. In the early 1980s, China opened itself up to the rest of the world in terms of trade, links have been greatly improved since then and now China is financially one of the world's biggest countries.
Adam Smith believed that the 'hidden hand of the market' would make people richer. Smith assumed that individuals will always try to maximise their own good and through entrepreneurship, society as a whole is better off. He also thought that people calculate what they can get out of a particular situation, especially financially, but this can lead to unintended consequences that can damage the market.
David Ricardo
He set out of the 'Labour Theory of Value', which said that an object is more valuable because of the labour that has gone into producing that object e.g. diamonds are more valuable than matchsticks because the amount of work to excavate diamonds than it does to make matchsticks. If diamonds were as readily available as matchsticks, they wouldn't be particularly desirable.
Thomas Malthus
His view of the world was pretty bleak, he said that one day humans will starve to death. It's probably true and could well happen in my lifetime, which is pretty scary!
Karl Marx
His ideas on society are closely linked to the economy. He said that wages paid to employees of a company will go down as more people are employed, a pretty fair statement consdiering that if a company has fixed amount has to pay workers, then the amount an employee earns will obviously go down as more people are employed. He also said that people who work in a factory, for example it makes tables, each worker makes one table each day worth £10. The factory owner takes £5 profit from each table being sold, a worker now only has £5 to spend. If he or she wants to buy one of the tables they have made, they can't because they only have £5. The problem with the capitalist model of society and the economy is over production and under consumption.
Another example of this is the MG Rover car company. One of the reasons it went bust was that it was making more cars than it could sell, therefore spending a lot more money than it was making.
Factories now use machines to do the job a person previously did, the job might not get done as well, but it gets more tables (for example) off the production line and this means more money for the factory owner. Capitalism has revolutionised the global economic system, but some would argue that it has gone too far.
1844
Robert Peel nationalised the money supply by creating the Bank of England, this was the world's 1st central bank. This allowed for the expansion of paper currency.
1848 & 1849
After the French Revolution, a economic crisis in Britain was averted because markets were expanded, people emigrated and the process of electrification took place.
New supplies of gold from Australia and South Africa kept the monetary system sufficient. Gold is central to the classic economic policy of 'sound money' as it allows the price system to be purely nominal value. It has no 'money effect' on the economic system.
Basics of the Keynesian system of economics
When you hoard some cash rather than spending it, income in the rest of the economy goes down by the exact same amount, which then has a knock on effect on your income. A recession ensues, this is a period when we work and produce less than we would like, and as a result get paid less too.
My understanding of it is this: There are two people in the world, person A makes £100 a week by selling bread to person B at £1 a loaf and person B makes £100 a week by selling chocolate to person A at £1 a bar. The total income in this economy is £200, which corresponds to 100 loaves of bread and 100 bars of chocolate.
If person B decides to save £20 out of his £100 and keep it in cash. As a result, person A's income falls to £80 and the total income in the economy is now £180 - with the economy producing 20 chocolate bars fewer than before. In the following week, person A only has £80 to spend which means that person B's income also falls to £80 and they end up buying fewer of my loaves.
In the end, both person A's and B's incomes are lower and they both produce and consume less than their potential. The economy is in recession.
The problem with the Keynes model
Keynes' model would allow the Government to dabble in the economics of the private sector, a scary thought for some individuals in free market economies. The system would alos let politicians spend moneyon projects that would try and correct economic conditions. In my opinion, an economy needs to dip in order to get stronger. Another problem with the Keynes model is that it calls for specific govt spending, but polticians may ignore this and spent money on anything.
TB 2012.
Adam Smith
He wrote 'Wealth of Nations' which asked the question of why one country is richer than another. There is one clear reason to this, liberalism. Almost all countries across the world are free, people can do what they want and go where they want, obviously there are consequences for illegal actions, but people can do as they please. Free trade plays a big part too, for example a British company can buy goods from a company in Asia, sell the goods on and make a profit. The system of capitalism works and whether you agree with the system or not is another matter.
An example of a country where free trade is a relatively new thing is China. The Great Wall of China was built to prevent the Mongolians from attacking the country. This also prevented the economy from growing. In the early 1980s, China opened itself up to the rest of the world in terms of trade, links have been greatly improved since then and now China is financially one of the world's biggest countries.
Adam Smith believed that the 'hidden hand of the market' would make people richer. Smith assumed that individuals will always try to maximise their own good and through entrepreneurship, society as a whole is better off. He also thought that people calculate what they can get out of a particular situation, especially financially, but this can lead to unintended consequences that can damage the market.
David Ricardo
He set out of the 'Labour Theory of Value', which said that an object is more valuable because of the labour that has gone into producing that object e.g. diamonds are more valuable than matchsticks because the amount of work to excavate diamonds than it does to make matchsticks. If diamonds were as readily available as matchsticks, they wouldn't be particularly desirable.
Thomas Malthus
His view of the world was pretty bleak, he said that one day humans will starve to death. It's probably true and could well happen in my lifetime, which is pretty scary!
Karl Marx
His ideas on society are closely linked to the economy. He said that wages paid to employees of a company will go down as more people are employed, a pretty fair statement consdiering that if a company has fixed amount has to pay workers, then the amount an employee earns will obviously go down as more people are employed. He also said that people who work in a factory, for example it makes tables, each worker makes one table each day worth £10. The factory owner takes £5 profit from each table being sold, a worker now only has £5 to spend. If he or she wants to buy one of the tables they have made, they can't because they only have £5. The problem with the capitalist model of society and the economy is over production and under consumption.
Another example of this is the MG Rover car company. One of the reasons it went bust was that it was making more cars than it could sell, therefore spending a lot more money than it was making.
Factories now use machines to do the job a person previously did, the job might not get done as well, but it gets more tables (for example) off the production line and this means more money for the factory owner. Capitalism has revolutionised the global economic system, but some would argue that it has gone too far.
1844
Robert Peel nationalised the money supply by creating the Bank of England, this was the world's 1st central bank. This allowed for the expansion of paper currency.
1848 & 1849
After the French Revolution, a economic crisis in Britain was averted because markets were expanded, people emigrated and the process of electrification took place.
New supplies of gold from Australia and South Africa kept the monetary system sufficient. Gold is central to the classic economic policy of 'sound money' as it allows the price system to be purely nominal value. It has no 'money effect' on the economic system.
Basics of the Keynesian system of economics
When you hoard some cash rather than spending it, income in the rest of the economy goes down by the exact same amount, which then has a knock on effect on your income. A recession ensues, this is a period when we work and produce less than we would like, and as a result get paid less too.
My understanding of it is this: There are two people in the world, person A makes £100 a week by selling bread to person B at £1 a loaf and person B makes £100 a week by selling chocolate to person A at £1 a bar. The total income in this economy is £200, which corresponds to 100 loaves of bread and 100 bars of chocolate.
If person B decides to save £20 out of his £100 and keep it in cash. As a result, person A's income falls to £80 and the total income in the economy is now £180 - with the economy producing 20 chocolate bars fewer than before. In the following week, person A only has £80 to spend which means that person B's income also falls to £80 and they end up buying fewer of my loaves.
In the end, both person A's and B's incomes are lower and they both produce and consume less than their potential. The economy is in recession.
The problem with the Keynes model
Keynes' model would allow the Government to dabble in the economics of the private sector, a scary thought for some individuals in free market economies. The system would alos let politicians spend moneyon projects that would try and correct economic conditions. In my opinion, an economy needs to dip in order to get stronger. Another problem with the Keynes model is that it calls for specific govt spending, but polticians may ignore this and spent money on anything.
TB 2012.
Saturday 20 October 2012
WHU blog: Not a bad start at all...
The football season is well under way and the Premier League is proving to be as exciting as it always is, for one team in particular it's been one of their best starts to a season.
Obviously I am talking about the team that I've followed through thick and thin - West Ham United. Last season, I criticised the manager Sam Allardyce on this very blog, but to be honest what he's done this season is absolutely brilliant. From inheriting a pretty awful squad when he took over in June 2011, to "just scraping promotion" according to one TV 'pundit', to being joint 6th in the Premier League is quite a fine achievement.
Almost every West Ham fan and football pundit expected West Ham to go up automatically last season, but as usual with West Ham, things are never simple. The club went to Wembley and beat Blackpool 2-1, ensuring an instant return to the Premier League.
Big Sam was a bit ambitious in the transfer market, buying Matt Jarvis from Wolves for £10 million and loaning in Andy Carroll from Liverpool. He brought in nine other players, as well as selling nine. Most of the 11 players he brought to the club have been integral to the success the team has enjoyed so far and unlike QPR's summer signings, West Ham's new signings have gelled with the existing members of the squad very well and I believe that is why West Ham have been so good in their first 8 matches.
West Ham have stormed ahead of Reading and Southampton - the 2 other teams promoted along with West Ham last season. There is one simple reason why this has happened - West Ham are a 'Premier League team' and Reading and Southampton are quite clearly not.
Things have changed dramatically for both Reading and Southampton. Reading are currently 19th in the Premier League with 3 points, without a win and lacking any sort of threat in front of goal.
Nigel Adkins' men have the opposite problem - they let in too many goals. The defence is woeful and although the Saints have scored 4 against both Manchester teams this season, they conceded 6 against them and in total they've conceded 24, which simply isn't good enough in the Premier League.
It's totally different for West Ham, they have a strong defence, which you would expect from an Allardyce team, as well as having an attack that is capable of scoring goals. Today's game at home to Southampton proved that.
Bringing back the combination of Andy Carroll and Kevin Nolan was a masterstroke from Allardyce, the two players are good friends and Carroll's decision to go to Upton Park msut have been heavily influenced by Nolan. They feed off each other really well, as we saw in the 3-0 win over Fulham in September and Andy Carroll moving to West Ham permanently isn't out of the question.
The start West Ham have had has come as a surprise to many, but what isn't suprising is that Gary Lineker and co aren't making too much of a fuss about it all.
TB 2012.
Obviously I am talking about the team that I've followed through thick and thin - West Ham United. Last season, I criticised the manager Sam Allardyce on this very blog, but to be honest what he's done this season is absolutely brilliant. From inheriting a pretty awful squad when he took over in June 2011, to "just scraping promotion" according to one TV 'pundit', to being joint 6th in the Premier League is quite a fine achievement.
Almost every West Ham fan and football pundit expected West Ham to go up automatically last season, but as usual with West Ham, things are never simple. The club went to Wembley and beat Blackpool 2-1, ensuring an instant return to the Premier League.
Big Sam was a bit ambitious in the transfer market, buying Matt Jarvis from Wolves for £10 million and loaning in Andy Carroll from Liverpool. He brought in nine other players, as well as selling nine. Most of the 11 players he brought to the club have been integral to the success the team has enjoyed so far and unlike QPR's summer signings, West Ham's new signings have gelled with the existing members of the squad very well and I believe that is why West Ham have been so good in their first 8 matches.
West Ham have stormed ahead of Reading and Southampton - the 2 other teams promoted along with West Ham last season. There is one simple reason why this has happened - West Ham are a 'Premier League team' and Reading and Southampton are quite clearly not.
Things have changed dramatically for both Reading and Southampton. Reading are currently 19th in the Premier League with 3 points, without a win and lacking any sort of threat in front of goal.
Nigel Adkins' men have the opposite problem - they let in too many goals. The defence is woeful and although the Saints have scored 4 against both Manchester teams this season, they conceded 6 against them and in total they've conceded 24, which simply isn't good enough in the Premier League.
It's totally different for West Ham, they have a strong defence, which you would expect from an Allardyce team, as well as having an attack that is capable of scoring goals. Today's game at home to Southampton proved that.
Bringing back the combination of Andy Carroll and Kevin Nolan was a masterstroke from Allardyce, the two players are good friends and Carroll's decision to go to Upton Park msut have been heavily influenced by Nolan. They feed off each other really well, as we saw in the 3-0 win over Fulham in September and Andy Carroll moving to West Ham permanently isn't out of the question.
The start West Ham have had has come as a surprise to many, but what isn't suprising is that Gary Lineker and co aren't making too much of a fuss about it all.
TB 2012.
Friday 12 October 2012
Glass recycling package 10/10/12
My first package for Winchester News Online (WINOL), the news bulletin made by journalism students at the University of Winchester.
TB 2012
HCJ3: Karl Popper
After a rather confusing 1st lecture, the stuff I'm about to blog about focuses on one man - Karl Popper, this is much easier for me to understand than all that science business that we looked at last week.
Popper's 3 most famous books are 'Logic of Scientific Discovery' which attacks Empiricism and Logical Positivists. 'Open Society' attacks Plato and Marx. 'Poverty of Historicism' this questioned the theory that social and cultural phenomena are determined by history.
Popper and Logical Positivism?
The philosophers of the Vienna Circle wanted to clean up philosophy. They tried to distinguish between statements that said something meaningful and those that didn't, these statements couldn't be verified and were called nonsense. Descartes is rejected by Logical Positivists as they were unable to prove his theories right or wrong. Ayer re-wrote Descartes' work to say 'there are ideas' instead of the Cogito - 'I think therefore I am'. Ayer did this so that Descartes work was verifiable, unless solipsism (theory that the self is all that can be known to exist) applies.
Popper didn't see himself as a Logical Positivist and thought that scientific theories couldn't be proved to be true because of induction theory. He also said that science had a mark on it as it could be disproved. Otto Neurath (a leading figure in the Vienna Circle) even gave him the nickname 'The Official Opposition'.
Popper and Einstein
Einstein's theory of relativity was severely tested, Eddington conducted the first test of this theory in 1919 and proved that Einstein's theory was correct and at one time, was hailed as conclusive prove over Newton's theory. Einstein took the best confirmed knowledge that humanity possessed and said that most of it was wrong.
Popper realised that every theory and idea that people thought were true could actually be wrong because of Einstein's work. According to Popper, we can never know what corrections are needed to a theory as all knowledge is fallible. He also said that science worked by induction, but observations are always selective e.g. when you buy a new car you tend to see that model of car a lot more than you did when you had another car.
Popper's book 'Open Society'
In this book, Popper challenged the ideas in Plato's 'Republic' and that claims to knowledge were actually justification for the authority of rulers. He also said that power and rulers should be removable, but without violence. He said that there was a 'paradox of democracy' - it can destroy itself because the ruler has to choose between the majority decision and the consequences of that decision coupled with the moral dilemma that goes with it.
States need to minimize suffering, so instead of thinking of building a utopian state, it is best to try and solve the existing problems. Attempting to create a utopia may end up causing more problems than it solves.
Popper said that people are easily won over by conspiracy theories that explain 'everything'. Once this is the case, the world is full of verifications of that theory.
TB 2012.
Popper's 3 most famous books are 'Logic of Scientific Discovery' which attacks Empiricism and Logical Positivists. 'Open Society' attacks Plato and Marx. 'Poverty of Historicism' this questioned the theory that social and cultural phenomena are determined by history.
Popper and Logical Positivism?
The philosophers of the Vienna Circle wanted to clean up philosophy. They tried to distinguish between statements that said something meaningful and those that didn't, these statements couldn't be verified and were called nonsense. Descartes is rejected by Logical Positivists as they were unable to prove his theories right or wrong. Ayer re-wrote Descartes' work to say 'there are ideas' instead of the Cogito - 'I think therefore I am'. Ayer did this so that Descartes work was verifiable, unless solipsism (theory that the self is all that can be known to exist) applies.
Popper didn't see himself as a Logical Positivist and thought that scientific theories couldn't be proved to be true because of induction theory. He also said that science had a mark on it as it could be disproved. Otto Neurath (a leading figure in the Vienna Circle) even gave him the nickname 'The Official Opposition'.
Popper and Einstein
Einstein's theory of relativity was severely tested, Eddington conducted the first test of this theory in 1919 and proved that Einstein's theory was correct and at one time, was hailed as conclusive prove over Newton's theory. Einstein took the best confirmed knowledge that humanity possessed and said that most of it was wrong.
Popper realised that every theory and idea that people thought were true could actually be wrong because of Einstein's work. According to Popper, we can never know what corrections are needed to a theory as all knowledge is fallible. He also said that science worked by induction, but observations are always selective e.g. when you buy a new car you tend to see that model of car a lot more than you did when you had another car.
Popper's book 'Open Society'
In this book, Popper challenged the ideas in Plato's 'Republic' and that claims to knowledge were actually justification for the authority of rulers. He also said that power and rulers should be removable, but without violence. He said that there was a 'paradox of democracy' - it can destroy itself because the ruler has to choose between the majority decision and the consequences of that decision coupled with the moral dilemma that goes with it.
States need to minimize suffering, so instead of thinking of building a utopian state, it is best to try and solve the existing problems. Attempting to create a utopia may end up causing more problems than it solves.
Popper said that people are easily won over by conspiracy theories that explain 'everything'. Once this is the case, the world is full of verifications of that theory.
TB 2012.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)