On Wednesday 28th November, the news editor of 5 News was the guest editor and we were told to review the 5 News bulletin from the previous day.
I thought that the opening link about the floods was good, it was before the other links and seemed to stand out in my mind afterwards. I thought it opened the bulletin rally well and drew my attention as well.
One thing I picked up on in the links was the link to the Sports Personality 2012 piece, what I found strange was the length of the zoom to Chris Hoy's face, it was too long for me.
When the presenter first appeared on screen and I saw the laptop in front of her I assumed that she would sit behind a desk and present the programme, but she stood up behind the laptop for the whole bulletin. This is something I haven't really seen before on a news bulletin so maybe this is why I thought it was strange.
First flood VT
In the link to the first story about the floods, the presenter spoke about North Wales, but the reporter Peter Lane was in Yorkshire. The package was good but I was expecting the reporter to be in Wales, not Yorkshire.
The on screen map of the UK was really good. It didn't just show where the flood warnings and alerts had been given out, but also the roads that been closed. This is helpful for 'real people' and I got an overall sense that the programme cared about 'real people'.
Second flood VT
In the second flood package, the reporter basically told the viewers what it looks like when a river bursts its banks. The interview with the man trapped in his own home was something I have never seen before, the reporter interviewed him from the side of what had become a river bank. It showed the extent of the flood and gave the story a human element.
Noro virus VT
The choice of music in this VT was quite strange, it was kind of morbid in a way and I don't think it fitted the piece that well. When I first saw the bulletin, I was taken aback by the use of the same footage at the start and end of the VT as we've been told to never use the same footage twice. Geoff Hill explained that they would never use the same footage twice but as it was a graphic of the Noro virus bug, it was OK as it 'bookended' the VT.
After the advert break, the presenter reminded us of the top story. I assume this is for people who have tuned in before the end of the adverts and who had missed one or both flood VTs.
Bill Tarmey VT
I liked the way this VT was done. Although it was about his funeral, the reporter provided the story wiht some 'light' by interviewing current Coronation St cast members and I thought that the VT did what a funeral is partly about - celebrating the life of the one who has passed away.
Sports Personality 2012 VT
The VT was good overall especially the use of vox pops, but the way these were done took me aback slightly. First off, the gun mic was in shot - a definite no no! Secondly, the reporter was always in shot alongside the person being interviewed, maybe this is just a 'done thing' on 5News.
Something I saw in the VT was that the video of Ellie Simmonds being interviewed had been flipped as the British Gas logos on her polo shirt were the wrong way round, maybe this was done so that the brand name wasn't shown or so that she was in the left field (and the interview was shot with her in the right field)
Overall, the bulletin was good. There were some things I hadn't seen in a bulletin before and maybe I'd see them if I were to watch 5News bulletins more!
One thing I learned from the bulletin and from what Geoff Hill said was that every story you do should have some form of human interest and some type of relevance to the audience.
Thursday 29 November 2012
Friday 23 November 2012
HCJ3: Freud
Sigmund Freud lived in Vienna in the 1850s and died in London. At the time he was a celebrity, a cocaine addict and an atheist.
Overview
His work is important for the media, Daily Mail yesterday – all Freudian.
We are defined by childhood, sexuality etc.
His work addresses a problem, the misery of the human
condition. We are alienated from ourselves. Same starting point as Marx – no
pleasure from work, relationships and don’t know what we need. We are miserable
and then die.
Freud’s entire career was about finding the answer to the
problem of misery, he found the answer –psychoanalysis. It has had a big
influence, whether you agree or disagree with it’s ideas. It is inescapable.
WH Auden said Freud is an outlook, not a person.
“We all speak Freudian now” – Freudian biographer.
We live in a Freudian world, whether we like it or not.
Huge amount of artefacts in a museum in London – believed
that he discovered in psychoanalysis (Freudian slips, dreams and neurotic
symptoms).
Dreams are the “royal road to unconscious” – Freud.
He is seen as a sexual renegade – damaged our ideas of
ourselves as noble creatures – “man is the measure of all things”. He
challenged the Enlightenment. (David statue etc...)
To Freud, sex is the centre of everything we do.
He was very pessimistic. He said when you think of my ideas
think of Rembrandt’s art – a little light and a lot of darkness. His theories
are a dark vision of humanity. Very fearful for humanity and according to him,
things were falling apart.
Attack on Plato
He followed Plato’s idea of the tripartite self – reason,
spirit, desire.
The crucial difference is that Plato thought that reason
could rule spirit and desire, but Freud believed reason was the weakest because
people are irrational. We don’t even know that we aren’t in control.
Attack on Marx
Marx thinks of the self also in via the tripartite self,
natural, alienated, species self. Marx believed that in a communist society the
needs of the species would finally become dominate. He believed in the power of
human nature, its ability to evolve.
Freud rejects this – too idealistic and our basic needs are
not benign.
Our deepest needs are aggression, the wilful desire to hurt
others and ultimately to seek out our own destruction in the ‘Death Wish’.
HOBBES. Freud takes Hobbes’ view of Machiavelli’s view in terms of human
nature. Where does he find the confidence to dismiss Plato and Marx.
THE FREUDIAN PERSONALITY
The reality of human nature is pain. We can’t find peace
with ourselves as we are always at war.
Freud’s tripartite system:
Id: the Id is our core from birth. “Reservoir of the
unconscious”. “A cauldron of seething excitations”. Spoilt child is the Id –
want everything and want it now.
Ego: the least powerful part of the personality – the voice
of reason. Moderation and common sense. It is turned towards reality. It is
hopelessly embattled and besieged. Never the winner, always the loser.
Superego: not present when born (unlike other two). The
superego comes from the outside e.g. police, teachers etc… It develops after
birth through socialisation. Impossible standards of
perfection. It punishes you with guilt of not fulfilling the superego’s wishes
e.g. your parents want you to do well in a test and then you fail. Morality principle – often uses religion as an
example.
Society is full of suffering because it is full of pain.
We are decaying in body and nature is too.
The external world – the slings and arrows of outrageous
fortune.
The greatest pain is the interaction with other people.
“Hell is other people” – JP Satre. People are out to get us and to hurt us, but
as irrational people we are inclined to hurt others.
Freud said that we don’t see family and friends as nice, but
as people out to hurt us and they think we are out to hurt them as well.
He thinks the answer is psychoanalysis – not open to
everyone (needed to strengthen the ego) and the masses will continue on their
destructive paths. We can contain our urges by intoxication (temporary),
isolation (only for a few people), religion (mass delusion), and sublimation
(finding socially acceptable releases for our aggression. These include sport
or work, too mild compared to the instinctive urges. Destroying an enemy, will
give us real satisfaction.
Civilisation is a collective superego – imposing moral
limits on the Id. “Love our neighbour as ourselves”. Man is a wolf to man.
Religion puts extreme demands on us.
Psychoanalysis
Freud claimed he had found a way to deal directly with the
unconscious, the Id.
Methods include hypnosis, pressure method, free association
and dreams (“royal road to unconscious”).
Not many accepted his methods as a way to heal you. He was
highly influential for society. Part of modernist movement, influential to
James Joyce (Ulysses) – no punctuation is his work, streams of consciousness.
Chapter on Cerci.
Books such as biographies and fiction obsess about childhood
and sexuality. Freud said we are defined by childhood.
Attacks on Freud
Popper: He said we are unable to check anything he did
(falsification principle). Has been found that research Freud did was faked.
Did he really discover unconscious? Many would say no.
Wilhelm Reich: He wanted people to get it out (screaming and
physical activity). Human beings would flourish if underlying sexuality was
released.
Saturday 17 November 2012
Sorry Fernando but Vettel's got this one in the bag.
With only 2 races to go in the 2012 F1 season, Sebastian Vettel leads the championship by 10 points with Fernando Alonso in second place. Although the gap isn't that big, I can't see how Alonso can win the title now.
The Spaniard has had mixed fortunes since winning back to back world titles in 2005 and 2006, he was involved in the 'Crashgate' scandal in 2008 when Nelson Piquet deliberately crashed into the wall in Singapore and Alonso won the race after qualifying in 15th after the crash brought out the safety car.
In 2009, Alonso and all of his talent couldn't save Renault from finishing 8th out of 10 teams and the Spaniard subsequently left for Ferrari.
The 2010 season saw Alonso pipped to the world title by Sebastian Vettel. Alonso really should have won the championship but was held up by Vitaly Petrov for most of the final race and the Ferrari driver was only able to finish 7th.
2011 was a season to forget, Vettel won the world championship with 4 races to go and his Schumacher style domination wasn't very enjoyable to watch.
This season has been magnificent, with 7 different winners in the first 7 races. No driver has had a huge lead in the championship and Vettel's lead over Alonso is only 10 points with 2 races to go, but Vettel has won the last 4 and doesn't look like stopping. With his championship rival Alonso starting in 9th tomorrow, unless Vettel retires from the race, I can't see how Alonso can be the championship leader come the end of the race.
If the German driver wins the race, Alonso has to finish 5th to have any chance of winning the title, so I wouldn't be at all surprised if Vettel wins his 3rd world title tomorrow.
Could we really see the Spanish driver do what Vettel did in 2010 and come from behind to win the world title? If he does, it'll probably go down as one of the great comebacks in F1 history. Even if that doesn't happen, this season has been one of the best in recent times.
TB 2012.
The Spaniard has had mixed fortunes since winning back to back world titles in 2005 and 2006, he was involved in the 'Crashgate' scandal in 2008 when Nelson Piquet deliberately crashed into the wall in Singapore and Alonso won the race after qualifying in 15th after the crash brought out the safety car.
In 2009, Alonso and all of his talent couldn't save Renault from finishing 8th out of 10 teams and the Spaniard subsequently left for Ferrari.
The 2010 season saw Alonso pipped to the world title by Sebastian Vettel. Alonso really should have won the championship but was held up by Vitaly Petrov for most of the final race and the Ferrari driver was only able to finish 7th.
2011 was a season to forget, Vettel won the world championship with 4 races to go and his Schumacher style domination wasn't very enjoyable to watch.
This season has been magnificent, with 7 different winners in the first 7 races. No driver has had a huge lead in the championship and Vettel's lead over Alonso is only 10 points with 2 races to go, but Vettel has won the last 4 and doesn't look like stopping. With his championship rival Alonso starting in 9th tomorrow, unless Vettel retires from the race, I can't see how Alonso can be the championship leader come the end of the race.
If the German driver wins the race, Alonso has to finish 5th to have any chance of winning the title, so I wouldn't be at all surprised if Vettel wins his 3rd world title tomorrow.
Could we really see the Spanish driver do what Vettel did in 2010 and come from behind to win the world title? If he does, it'll probably go down as one of the great comebacks in F1 history. Even if that doesn't happen, this season has been one of the best in recent times.
TB 2012.
Friday 16 November 2012
HCJ3: Bentham, Mill and Schopenhauer
These are the notes that I made for the seminar on Thursday.
Jeremy Bentham
He identified happiness with pleasure. Pleasure is the supreme spring of action and happiness is maximised the same way as pleasure is. Plato discussed the thesis that virtue consists in the correct choice of pain and pleasure. Aristotle distinguished between happiness and pleasure but refused to identify happiness with the pleasure of the senses. For Aristotle, happiness is the effect of all good things e.g. eating well = health.
Bentham also regarded pleasure as a sensation, pain and pleasure are what everybody feels to 'be such'. He said that the acquisition of wealth, kindness and giving to others gives us pleasure, not just just sex, drinking and eating. The relationship between an activity and its pleasure was one of cause and effect and the value of each pleasure is the same no matter how is was caused. So does Bentham mean that if I am for example walking along a riverbank and see 3 children drowning in the river, if I jump in to save the kids, I can only save 2 as by the time I take 2 of them to safety, the other one will have drowned. If I save child A and child B, I will most likely feel pleasure for saving the children, but the other child has died. Is Bentham really saying this? I'm going to feel pleasure after a child has died, am I? That sounds a bit off to me. Bentham was a strict utilitarian though.
This brings me to the difference between happiness and pleasure. Certain things give us pleasure but don't necessarily make us happy. For example giving to charity, when we give to charities we feel pleasure for helping a worthy cause but are we actually happy? Philanthropists probably don't feel happy because they are giving away large sums of money, but they must be feeling pleasure as they help out worthy causes. Some would argue that people only give to charity to boost their public profile and/or egos.
The quantification of pain and pleasure is very important for utilitarians. Bentham said that we must consider the fecundity and purity, an action is fecund if it is likely to produce a series of pleasures and pure if unlikely to produce a series of pains. 'Extension' is also an important consideration we must make, will our decision affect the wider society?
A number of criticisms have been made about utilitarianism. The first is that 'the greatest happiness of the greatest number' is ambiguous. Is 'number' males, females, plants? The second is should those following the greatest number principle limit who gains happiness? The third is how much happiness should be delivered? Finally, who is to decide how happy certain people feel when a decision is made? Other criticisms of utilitarianism include the consequences of an action can't be controlled, what will they be, will they occur when they are intended to occur and how can the causality be limited.
JS Mill
Mill said that it is foolish to deny that humans have higher faculties than animals. This means we can distinguish between different pleasures in terms of quality as well as quantity.
According to Mill, happiness doesn't just involve being content, but a sense if dignity. The 'greatest happiness' theory needs to be restated. Mill said that any action that promotes happiness is good/right. Everyone should seek happiness as an end goal to life. 'Means to an end' - the end is overall happiness, for example you work hard to get a uni degree, get a job related to the degree, the job pays well, you buy a nice house, you fill the house with nice things, those things make you happy. All the previous actions (the means) have led up to your overall happiness (the end).
Schopenhauer
He believed that the world of experience is an illusion and the true reality as as the thing in itself is the universal will. The root of the will is need and pain, we suffer until we are satisfied, but when we are satisfied we lack objects of desire and life becomes a burden. We can overcome this by intoxication, but we can't be in this state forever. To be intoxicated, we don't just drink lots of alcohol or take drugs, but immerse ourselves in art. The most pure form of art being music.
TB 2012.
Jeremy Bentham
He identified happiness with pleasure. Pleasure is the supreme spring of action and happiness is maximised the same way as pleasure is. Plato discussed the thesis that virtue consists in the correct choice of pain and pleasure. Aristotle distinguished between happiness and pleasure but refused to identify happiness with the pleasure of the senses. For Aristotle, happiness is the effect of all good things e.g. eating well = health.
Bentham also regarded pleasure as a sensation, pain and pleasure are what everybody feels to 'be such'. He said that the acquisition of wealth, kindness and giving to others gives us pleasure, not just just sex, drinking and eating. The relationship between an activity and its pleasure was one of cause and effect and the value of each pleasure is the same no matter how is was caused. So does Bentham mean that if I am for example walking along a riverbank and see 3 children drowning in the river, if I jump in to save the kids, I can only save 2 as by the time I take 2 of them to safety, the other one will have drowned. If I save child A and child B, I will most likely feel pleasure for saving the children, but the other child has died. Is Bentham really saying this? I'm going to feel pleasure after a child has died, am I? That sounds a bit off to me. Bentham was a strict utilitarian though.
This brings me to the difference between happiness and pleasure. Certain things give us pleasure but don't necessarily make us happy. For example giving to charity, when we give to charities we feel pleasure for helping a worthy cause but are we actually happy? Philanthropists probably don't feel happy because they are giving away large sums of money, but they must be feeling pleasure as they help out worthy causes. Some would argue that people only give to charity to boost their public profile and/or egos.
The quantification of pain and pleasure is very important for utilitarians. Bentham said that we must consider the fecundity and purity, an action is fecund if it is likely to produce a series of pleasures and pure if unlikely to produce a series of pains. 'Extension' is also an important consideration we must make, will our decision affect the wider society?
A number of criticisms have been made about utilitarianism. The first is that 'the greatest happiness of the greatest number' is ambiguous. Is 'number' males, females, plants? The second is should those following the greatest number principle limit who gains happiness? The third is how much happiness should be delivered? Finally, who is to decide how happy certain people feel when a decision is made? Other criticisms of utilitarianism include the consequences of an action can't be controlled, what will they be, will they occur when they are intended to occur and how can the causality be limited.
JS Mill
Mill said that it is foolish to deny that humans have higher faculties than animals. This means we can distinguish between different pleasures in terms of quality as well as quantity.
According to Mill, happiness doesn't just involve being content, but a sense if dignity. The 'greatest happiness' theory needs to be restated. Mill said that any action that promotes happiness is good/right. Everyone should seek happiness as an end goal to life. 'Means to an end' - the end is overall happiness, for example you work hard to get a uni degree, get a job related to the degree, the job pays well, you buy a nice house, you fill the house with nice things, those things make you happy. All the previous actions (the means) have led up to your overall happiness (the end).
Schopenhauer
He believed that the world of experience is an illusion and the true reality as as the thing in itself is the universal will. The root of the will is need and pain, we suffer until we are satisfied, but when we are satisfied we lack objects of desire and life becomes a burden. We can overcome this by intoxication, but we can't be in this state forever. To be intoxicated, we don't just drink lots of alcohol or take drugs, but immerse ourselves in art. The most pure form of art being music.
TB 2012.
Southampton City Council job cuts package 14/11/12
My 4th package for WINOL (Winchester News Online). It was in the bulletin.
Thursday 15 November 2012
HCJ3: Nietzsche
Nietzsche has been described as the philosopher of music, although it is quite bold to call someone that, it stems from Kantian theories of never knowing the noumenal significance of music. Kant explained that we find a certain piece of music good or bad, but we can never know the perfect piece of music or the perfect note. This links to Plato's theories on the forms and the cave.
Nietzche said that music is unknowable and music is unquantifiable as there is no scientific method, chemical reactions or neurology to explain the link between 'proper' music and the reactions that humans have towards certain music. For example I would consider bands such as The Who, Beatles and Oasis as 'proper' music, because that is the sort of music I've been brought up on, there is no scientific way to show why I like those bands or certain types of music - I just do.
The 1800s saw Napoleon expand into India and Egypt, the modern world and modern thinking then looks into Hindusim and Buddhism. Schopenhauer also looked at the 2 religions as well as Kant's idea of 'The Will', his 'World as Will and Representation' looks at the processes behind Hinduism and Buddhism and brings about the Kantian influenced idea of 'The Will'. This is the idea that the universe itself is one noumena. It is thought that everything links to Brahma (creator of the universe) and that everything in the world is connected.
Using Buddhist teachings, Schopenhauer explained that by overcoming desire, we can cure our apparently painful existence . You can imitate being happy by buying luxury itemsbut this is not achieving a state of happiness, only emulating one. Schopenhauer teaches that to overcome desire we must intoxicate ourselves in our addiction.
He believed a better avenue to take would be towards the arts, poems and paintings open up the mind a lot more than any intoxicant. Schopenhauer believed the best way to overcome desire is to drive oneself into a trance using music.
Nietzsche was against Schopenhauer's links to Buddhism and Hinduism. He believed that desire is what is the best thing about life because if we achieve our desires, we will be happy. Desire doesn't have to be the desire for alcohol, drugs or sex, but can be the desire to do something or to achieve something. You should never ignore a desire, but you must overcome it.
Nietzsche also believed that due to all empirical evidence of 'God' being a bit of a joke, there simply can't be a God. This is where Nietzsche is quite contradictory, he refutes the idea of there being a God, but uses Apollo and Dionysis as examples in his work 'The Birth of Tragedy'. Nietzsche says that without a God or religion, there are two moral grounds to take. These are Apollo and Dionysis, the 2 sons of the Greek God Zeus. An Apollonian is an individual who is 'in control' all the time, they don't do anything silly or 'out there' and prepare for all occasions and possibilities. A Dionysian is a free spirit, lets things 'take their course' and ignores the goings on in the world.
Nietzche said that music is unknowable and music is unquantifiable as there is no scientific method, chemical reactions or neurology to explain the link between 'proper' music and the reactions that humans have towards certain music. For example I would consider bands such as The Who, Beatles and Oasis as 'proper' music, because that is the sort of music I've been brought up on, there is no scientific way to show why I like those bands or certain types of music - I just do.
The 1800s saw Napoleon expand into India and Egypt, the modern world and modern thinking then looks into Hindusim and Buddhism. Schopenhauer also looked at the 2 religions as well as Kant's idea of 'The Will', his 'World as Will and Representation' looks at the processes behind Hinduism and Buddhism and brings about the Kantian influenced idea of 'The Will'. This is the idea that the universe itself is one noumena. It is thought that everything links to Brahma (creator of the universe) and that everything in the world is connected.
Using Buddhist teachings, Schopenhauer explained that by overcoming desire, we can cure our apparently painful existence . You can imitate being happy by buying luxury itemsbut this is not achieving a state of happiness, only emulating one. Schopenhauer teaches that to overcome desire we must intoxicate ourselves in our addiction.
He believed a better avenue to take would be towards the arts, poems and paintings open up the mind a lot more than any intoxicant. Schopenhauer believed the best way to overcome desire is to drive oneself into a trance using music.
Nietzsche was against Schopenhauer's links to Buddhism and Hinduism. He believed that desire is what is the best thing about life because if we achieve our desires, we will be happy. Desire doesn't have to be the desire for alcohol, drugs or sex, but can be the desire to do something or to achieve something. You should never ignore a desire, but you must overcome it.
Nietzsche also believed that due to all empirical evidence of 'God' being a bit of a joke, there simply can't be a God. This is where Nietzsche is quite contradictory, he refutes the idea of there being a God, but uses Apollo and Dionysis as examples in his work 'The Birth of Tragedy'. Nietzsche says that without a God or religion, there are two moral grounds to take. These are Apollo and Dionysis, the 2 sons of the Greek God Zeus. An Apollonian is an individual who is 'in control' all the time, they don't do anything silly or 'out there' and prepare for all occasions and possibilities. A Dionysian is a free spirit, lets things 'take their course' and ignores the goings on in the world.
Saturday 10 November 2012
WHU blog: A possible defensive crisis
After a superb performance from West Ham against Manchester City, the Hammers could be facing a crisis in defence ahead of tomorrow's game at Newcastle United.
James Tomkins was injured in the warm up at Upton Park on Saturday and James Collins went off 6 minutes before full time. The only senior centre back West Ham definitely have available for their game against Newcastle tomorrow is Winston Reid, meaning that players will have to play our of position. Joey O'Brien or Jordan Spence will have to fill in at centre back and the other will have to play at right back. Seventeen year old Leo Chambers will most likely be on the bench again, unless Sam Allardyce takes a gamble and starts him, which seems unlikely considering Big Sam's usual policy of not starting youth players. The exception to this is 19 year old striker Rob Hall.
This brings me to the issue of why Sam Allardyce didn't bring in more defenders. There were rumours flying around after the summer transfer window had closed that West Ham were going to sign ex-Sunderland defender John Mensah on a free transfer (permissable after a transfer window). This would have provided cover for Tomkins, Collins and Reid should more than one of them get injured. I also don't understand why a left back wasn't brought in, McCartney was great last season in the Championship but he's getting on a bit and he might struggle against some of the pacier wingers.
As for the game tomorrow, I think Newcastle United will be too good for the Hammers, but only just. If both Cisse and Ba start for the Magpies, then the make shift defence could struggle, but the attacking options available to Big Sam will trouble the Newcastle defence as well. I predict 2-1 to Newcastle.
TB 2012.
James Tomkins was injured in the warm up at Upton Park on Saturday and James Collins went off 6 minutes before full time. The only senior centre back West Ham definitely have available for their game against Newcastle tomorrow is Winston Reid, meaning that players will have to play our of position. Joey O'Brien or Jordan Spence will have to fill in at centre back and the other will have to play at right back. Seventeen year old Leo Chambers will most likely be on the bench again, unless Sam Allardyce takes a gamble and starts him, which seems unlikely considering Big Sam's usual policy of not starting youth players. The exception to this is 19 year old striker Rob Hall.
This brings me to the issue of why Sam Allardyce didn't bring in more defenders. There were rumours flying around after the summer transfer window had closed that West Ham were going to sign ex-Sunderland defender John Mensah on a free transfer (permissable after a transfer window). This would have provided cover for Tomkins, Collins and Reid should more than one of them get injured. I also don't understand why a left back wasn't brought in, McCartney was great last season in the Championship but he's getting on a bit and he might struggle against some of the pacier wingers.
As for the game tomorrow, I think Newcastle United will be too good for the Hammers, but only just. If both Cisse and Ba start for the Magpies, then the make shift defence could struggle, but the attacking options available to Big Sam will trouble the Newcastle defence as well. I predict 2-1 to Newcastle.
TB 2012.
Thursday 1 November 2012
HCJ3 seminar paper: Keynes General Theory of Economics and Marxist Economics.
Keynes’ theory and criticisms.
John Keynes' General Theory of Economics has four basic ideas, the first is that economies will suffer from a lack of demand for products being made, this leads to a rise in unemployment as companies can't afford to pay their staff as people do not want to buy the products being made, therefore the company isn't making money. The second is that an economy's attempts to correct shortfalls will work slowly. The third idea is that government policies to increase demand will lead to a quick reduction in employment, but might not be sustained. The fourth is that increasing the money supply may force the government to spend more as the private sector might not always want to spend more when supply is increased.
The crucial innovation in The General Theory is the demolition of Say’s Law (basically Laissez-Faire or 'do nothing' economics, this was advocated by President Hoover is the 1950s. It also described how production of goods creates the demand for them, not just the supply).
Some have denied what Keynes realised, he said that that Say's Law is at best a useless tautology, when individuals have the option of accumulating money rather than purchasing real goods and services. The General Theory mostly offers a static model and paints a picture of an economy that is stuck in depression and not telling us how it got into the state it’s in.
Keynes made it clear that his scepticism about the effectiveness of monetary policy (the idea that the money supply should be controlled by the government) wasn't a statement of a general principle. In the past he believed that things had been otherwise. He also believed that monetary policy had worked in the past – but not now.
Keynes had mistaken an episode for a trend. He wrote his book in the 1930s, a time of great depression and economic turmoil in the UK and USA. He explained the trap that the Bank of England and Federal Reserve had got themselves into - they were unable to increase employment, even when they increased the money supply by huge amounts. He knew that things had not always been this bad. He wrongly believed that the monetary environment of the 1930s would be the norm from then on.
The turmoil of the 1930s has not made a reappearance. In the United States, very low interest rates ended in the 1950s and have never returned. It has been similar in the UK, although there is large-scale unemployment in continental Europe, that unemployment seems to have more to do with supply-side issues than with sheer lack of demand, for example factories being unable to produce goods.
Keynes didn’t foresee a future of persistent inflation. This meant that he was pessimistic about the future prospects for monetary policy, it also meant that he never addressed the policy problems posed by inflation. It is arguable that his failure to address problems nobody imagined would occur in the 1930s shouldn't be considered a flaw in Keynes’s analysis, as nothing of that sort had really happened before.
Although Keynes' idea that spending more will help the economy works in the short term, it is not a realistic long term solution. If everyone begins spending lots of money on food for example, then the food producers will be able to keep up with the huge demand for their goods for a short while, but if people keep spending for an extended period of time, it is bound to result in food producers being unable to supply the food that people want to splash out on.
Doing the opposite and spending less will result in less money in the economy. Food producers may not be able to afford to keep supplying the food to people, not necessarily because of the huge demand for it, but because the producers themselves are unable to make the food and supply it to people.
A compromise between the two must be found for an economy to survive, in this I mean being able to supply goods and services to people at a price that they want to pay, but also making sure that the companies that produce the goods are making enough money to stay afloat so they can continue producing.
As an intellectual work, it is argued by Krugman that Keynes' work is up there with only a handful of other works in economics. He said that he holds works in the highest regard if they change people's perceptions of the world. Adam Smith did that in The Wealth of Nations, people began to view the economy as not just a collection of people getting money and spending it, the system he devised was a self-regulating system in which each individual “is led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.” The General Theory is in the same league, says Krugman, the idea that mass unemployment is the result of inadequate demand, became completely clear.
Krugman adds that The General Theory is unique because it combined intellectual achievement with immediate practical relevance to the global economic crisis of the 1930s. Until The General Theory, mass unemployment was regarded as a problem with complex causes and no easy solution other than the replacement of markets with government control. Keynes showed that mass unemployment had a simple cause, inadequate demand.
Marxist economics
Marx saw the economy as a machine that made products and that the factories and workers who made the products were the lifeblood of society. He believed that a new economic system was needed -socialism. Once private property is abolished, communism would take hold and no divisions would exist in society, these divisions were caused by the capitalist system according to Marx.
Karl Marx's economic theory surrounds an idea that was the foundation of Adam Smith and David Ricardo's works, the labour theory of value. This says that the value of a commodity is the labour time/effort to make the product In this model, capitalists do not pay their workers the full value of the commodities that they produce, but they compensate the worker for the necessary labour only (the worker's wage, which only cover the necessary means of living).
Marx supposed that the labour is only a fraction of a full working day - the rest is the surplus-labour and would be pocketed by the capitalist. Marx theorised that the gap between the value a worker produces and his wage is a form of unpaid labour, known as surplus value. Marx also argues that markets tend to obscure the social relationships and processes of production.
John Keynes' General Theory of Economics has four basic ideas, the first is that economies will suffer from a lack of demand for products being made, this leads to a rise in unemployment as companies can't afford to pay their staff as people do not want to buy the products being made, therefore the company isn't making money. The second is that an economy's attempts to correct shortfalls will work slowly. The third idea is that government policies to increase demand will lead to a quick reduction in employment, but might not be sustained. The fourth is that increasing the money supply may force the government to spend more as the private sector might not always want to spend more when supply is increased.
The crucial innovation in The General Theory is the demolition of Say’s Law (basically Laissez-Faire or 'do nothing' economics, this was advocated by President Hoover is the 1950s. It also described how production of goods creates the demand for them, not just the supply).
Some have denied what Keynes realised, he said that that Say's Law is at best a useless tautology, when individuals have the option of accumulating money rather than purchasing real goods and services. The General Theory mostly offers a static model and paints a picture of an economy that is stuck in depression and not telling us how it got into the state it’s in.
Keynes made it clear that his scepticism about the effectiveness of monetary policy (the idea that the money supply should be controlled by the government) wasn't a statement of a general principle. In the past he believed that things had been otherwise. He also believed that monetary policy had worked in the past – but not now.
Keynes had mistaken an episode for a trend. He wrote his book in the 1930s, a time of great depression and economic turmoil in the UK and USA. He explained the trap that the Bank of England and Federal Reserve had got themselves into - they were unable to increase employment, even when they increased the money supply by huge amounts. He knew that things had not always been this bad. He wrongly believed that the monetary environment of the 1930s would be the norm from then on.
The turmoil of the 1930s has not made a reappearance. In the United States, very low interest rates ended in the 1950s and have never returned. It has been similar in the UK, although there is large-scale unemployment in continental Europe, that unemployment seems to have more to do with supply-side issues than with sheer lack of demand, for example factories being unable to produce goods.
Keynes didn’t foresee a future of persistent inflation. This meant that he was pessimistic about the future prospects for monetary policy, it also meant that he never addressed the policy problems posed by inflation. It is arguable that his failure to address problems nobody imagined would occur in the 1930s shouldn't be considered a flaw in Keynes’s analysis, as nothing of that sort had really happened before.
Although Keynes' idea that spending more will help the economy works in the short term, it is not a realistic long term solution. If everyone begins spending lots of money on food for example, then the food producers will be able to keep up with the huge demand for their goods for a short while, but if people keep spending for an extended period of time, it is bound to result in food producers being unable to supply the food that people want to splash out on.
Doing the opposite and spending less will result in less money in the economy. Food producers may not be able to afford to keep supplying the food to people, not necessarily because of the huge demand for it, but because the producers themselves are unable to make the food and supply it to people.
A compromise between the two must be found for an economy to survive, in this I mean being able to supply goods and services to people at a price that they want to pay, but also making sure that the companies that produce the goods are making enough money to stay afloat so they can continue producing.
As an intellectual work, it is argued by Krugman that Keynes' work is up there with only a handful of other works in economics. He said that he holds works in the highest regard if they change people's perceptions of the world. Adam Smith did that in The Wealth of Nations, people began to view the economy as not just a collection of people getting money and spending it, the system he devised was a self-regulating system in which each individual “is led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.” The General Theory is in the same league, says Krugman, the idea that mass unemployment is the result of inadequate demand, became completely clear.
Krugman adds that The General Theory is unique because it combined intellectual achievement with immediate practical relevance to the global economic crisis of the 1930s. Until The General Theory, mass unemployment was regarded as a problem with complex causes and no easy solution other than the replacement of markets with government control. Keynes showed that mass unemployment had a simple cause, inadequate demand.
Marxist economics
Marx saw the economy as a machine that made products and that the factories and workers who made the products were the lifeblood of society. He believed that a new economic system was needed -socialism. Once private property is abolished, communism would take hold and no divisions would exist in society, these divisions were caused by the capitalist system according to Marx.
Karl Marx's economic theory surrounds an idea that was the foundation of Adam Smith and David Ricardo's works, the labour theory of value. This says that the value of a commodity is the labour time/effort to make the product In this model, capitalists do not pay their workers the full value of the commodities that they produce, but they compensate the worker for the necessary labour only (the worker's wage, which only cover the necessary means of living).
Marx supposed that the labour is only a fraction of a full working day - the rest is the surplus-labour and would be pocketed by the capitalist. Marx theorised that the gap between the value a worker produces and his wage is a form of unpaid labour, known as surplus value. Marx also argues that markets tend to obscure the social relationships and processes of production.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)