This paper concentrates on the primary theme of how other people feel about a particular law that is being passed, they consider one point of view and that is their personal point of view. in which you have to explain and evaluate its intricate aspects in detail. In addition to this, this paper has been reviewed and purchased by most of the students hence; it has been rated 4.8 points on the scale of 5 points. Besides, the price of this paper starts from £ 45. For more details and full access to the paper, please refer to the site.
look at attachment for work
PLEASE
provide RESPONSES to EACH post (9 total)
must be at least 150 words
POST
ONE
During the financial crisis of 2008 Germany seemed to weather the proverbial
storm better than other European states. The global recession of 2008 was
caused because of an increase in globalization. All nations are linked to
one another. When the American economy faltered, it had a ripple effect
throughout the world. Germany was able to make it through the recession
unscathed for a few reasons. First, Germany has maintained a strong
independent economy. Second, they have used their strong economy to
influence those around them, rather than by being influenced. Finally,
their reaction to the recession allowed them to succeed, particularly in resisting
the urge to lay off skilled employees.
Germany has always been considered to be a trading state. With the advent
of globalization Germany was faced with a number of new competitors (Kesselman,
Krieger and Joseph, 2013, 156). They were used to being a global leader
and were now threatened. Germany had a variety of ways they could react
to this thread. In order to stay on top of their game they reinvested in
their own economy by focusing on increasing education in order to produce better
skilled workers. Thus, their manufacturing exports could continue to
dominate. They did this through the promotion of technical schools and
paid internships (Kesselman, Krieger and Joseph, 2013, 156). The German
economy promoted their citizens in getting better jobs, and thus ensured their
skills would continue to be needed and marketable, rather than expendable
during times of economic strife. No other nation within Europe promoted
this line of economic thinking.
The second reason Germany weathered the storm better than other nations was
because they chose to take a position of leadership within the European
economic community, rather than being told what to do. Germans were
starting to feel the pressures of globalization and the European Union and felt
it was beginning to challenge their high standard of living and their well-paid
workforce (Kesselman, Krieger and Joseph, 2013, 158). In a reaction to
this pressure, the German government signed into constitutional law,
legislation they were not going to become economically any further linked with
the EU than they already were. This meant they would allow their economy
to remain relatively independent. They then used what economic
integration that did exist to their advantage. They used the linkages in
order to increase their exports to the European markets, and also allowed them
to take advantage of new eastern European markets (Kesselman, Krieger and
Joseph, 2013, 159). They also helped to establish the Euro through the
strength of the Deutsch Marke prior to the recession. The Euro regularly
trades above the American dollar and thus allowed the economy to remain strong
(Kesselman, Krieger and Joseph, 2013, 161).
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, was the reaction of the German government
to the recession itself. Rather than laying off employees in the advent
of economic downturn the government continued to promote their social market
economy. It established a general framework of regulations rather
than giving detailed standards and engaged employers and unions (Kesselman,
Krieger and Joseph, 2013, 161). By working with the unions and employers,
rather than laying off skilled workers they cut back their hours, thus avoiding
high levels of unemployment. This kept the economy moving, and people
continued to maintain their high standard of living. Because their
economy was succeeding, they then used their position of economic leadership
within the EU. They promoted strict fiscal responsibility in regards to
any bailout money that was given to nations. They wanted to ensure
nations were committed to reducing public spending and to not allow inflation
to rise (Kesselman, Krieger and Joseph, 2013, 160). Though Germany was
criticized for being rather harsh in their judgement of other nations, clearly
they were doing something right in order to make it through the downturn
without any major ill effects.
As of today, the Chinese economy has started to falter, once again causing
another ripple effect throughout the world. The German economy, however,
is poised to weather this storm relatively unaffected as well. This is
because exports to China only account for 6.6% (Reuters, 2015). It is
critical to remember that Germany is also an export based economy, thus, it
makes sense that they possess an economy based off of manufacturing and are not
as dependent upon China as other nations are for the import of goods.
Time will tell if they are once again going to be able to maintain a leadership
role in the global economy. The link to the brief article is provided
below.
Bibliography
Kesselman,
Mark, Joel Krieger and William A Joseph. 2013. Introduction to
Comparative Politics.6th ed.
Boston: Wadsworth
Reuters.
2015. “Germany Sees Limited Fallout From China Economic Slowdown” New York
Times.August 24. Date Accessed August 24,
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2015/08/24/business/24reuters-germany-economy-china.html?_r=02015.
POST TWO
Germany
has tended to sustain its economy and standard of living through a set of
fairly unique moral attitudes than could be realized in other parts of the
world. First off, the nation and her citizens carry a sort of “All for One, One
for All” mentality that was proved in the wake of the 2008 market collapse.
Companies in Germany “held onto their workers rather than laying them off…the
government paid part time wages of workers who moved temporarily to
part-time…[and] German firms were willing to accept lower profits” (Kesselman
et al. 2013, 140-141). This would never have been allowed to happen, nor
tolerated, in the United States. German outlooks and actions reinforce the
belief that their national wellbeing is interwoven with the wellbeing of one
another personally.
How
globalization affects Germany is a matter of duality; as are many other measuring
points for the state. Our text states, “Germany has often been at the heart of
the best and the worst of European history” and nothing could be stated better
(Kesselman et al. 2013, 142). Seventy years ago, Hitler’s Third Reich came to a
close after a period of German brutality throughout Europe, yet today she
stands as “the economic motor of the EU…[whose] standard of living is among the
highest in Europe, and…the world’s second-largest exporter” (Kesselman et al.
2013, 151-152).
As
globalization occurs and the world’s various economies intermingle, Germany is
both helped and hurt. Because “German firms are often world leaders in [many
industries]” who focus on product quality; their employees, mainly
“highly-skilled blue-collar workers” of the globe’s second largest exporting
nation, are able to “drive expensive cars, obtain high-quality medical care,
and enjoy six weeks of paid vacation each year” (Kesselman et al. 2013,
154-155). However, with 27 member states in the European Union (EU) of varying
economic status and organization, problems will inevitably spread load to
sister states, such as Germany. In order to become EU member states, “most feel
that [fellow] European governments…manipulated economic data to appear to
comply with the euro rules [leaving] many Germans feel[ing] they have already
sacrificed while other countries borrowed their way into trouble” (Kesselman et
al. 2013, 182-183). In light of these feelings, “there is little sympathy for
the Greeks and the Portuguese” who have borrowed into extreme debt and have
become failed or failing states, like Greece has recently (Kesselman et al.
2013, 183).
Kesselman,
Mark, Joel Krieger, and William A. Joseph. 2013. Introduction to Comparative
Politics. Boston, MA: Wadsworth.
POST
THREE
Germany
is a capitalist state but by virtue of geography it is part of the European
Union. It is a very powerful state in the region, in fact, considered the most
powerful with regard to its economy. Why, because Germany capitalizes on other
countries but providing exports. This puts Germans to work and at the same time
it creates the needs from other countries. One of the biggest signs of this is
the popularity of BMW vehicles here in the United States. By pointing this
specific example out we see that they are at least partly connected with the
US, which means they have some influence on the global market. This also means
that they will in fact get “hit” at some point. Perhaps when
Americans stop buying the BMW’s.
I
cannot help but notice that there is limited government interaction over the
economy in Germany. According to Kesselman, “German economic policy is
flexible and encourages private actors to cooperate to devise their own
solutions.” (Kesselman, Krieger and Joseph, 2013) I would say this is
different from the other countries that we have studied. Most of the time
especially in Europe the state and the economy is typically very connected.
Its
not there is no government interaction, but what is interesting is the notion
of “semipublic institutions”. This sounds like a great concept to
have in my opinion. This takes sectors that are in high interest to the
government and shares it with the public. These include, health, education and
social programs. And again according to Kesselman, “Cooperation between
firms and the government requires compromise and thus helps sustain political
moderation.” (Kesselman, Krieger and Joseph, 2013) I feel that this can
help the average citizen to feel less of the massive power that may occur in
any system.
To
answer the question directly, Germany does benefit from globalization because
of the large amounts of exports. The only thing is having so many exports
assumes that other countries are going to continue to need the exports. This
can also be a bad thing because of what happens when other countries do not
need the exports anymore.
This
may take a bit to get to and to figure out what it says but the link below will
bring you to an article that shows that Germany is the ONLY country in Europe
that has a balanced budget. Be sure to select the debt tab in the interactive
map if you check this out..economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/08/european-economy-guide?zid=295&ah=0bca374e65f2354d553956ea65f756e0″>http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/08/european-economy-guide?zid=295&ah=0bca374e65f2354d553956ea65f756e0
Kesselman,
Mark, Joel Krieger, and William A Joseph. 2013. “Introduction to
Comparative Politics.” 6th ed. Boston: Wadsworth
POST
FOUR
Germany
does benefit from globalization. In fact, Germany benefits from globalization
more than most countries do for a few reasons. One, Germany’s economic fortunes
are linked to globalization allowing the nation to benefit tremendously on its
exports both in terms of jobs and profits and two; Germany has great economic
strength due to its cooperative and organized form of capitalism (Kesselman,
2012, p162). Both of these reasons have allowed Germany to remain as one of the
world’s top economic leaders today despite the financial crises of 2008.
Germany
was able to whether the financial crises of 2008 better than most countries,
because unlike the United States and the United Kingdom Germany was less driven
by the rising profits in the financial sector. However, this does not mean that
Germany was left completely unaffected by the recession. As the recession swept
through Europe Germanys exports began to decline and shortly after so did their
economy. Germany is a nation that relies on its exports. This allows Germany
the benefits as a competitor in the global economy. So when the recession hit
Germany’s gross domestic products fell below five percent (Kesselman, 2012,
p141).
Despite
the decline in its economy Germany was able to recover quickly. However, just
when Germany was staring to recover from their economic decline they were faced
with another problem. Germany’s role became increasingly difficult when other
nations like Portugal, Ireland, and Greece needed emergency financial
assistance from the EU. This put exert pressure on Germany. On one hand if
Germany did not agree to help bailout these countries then it could encourage
more spending which then might lead to upset German voters and might even
threaten European currency (Kesselman, 2012, p160). On the other hand if
Germany did help bailout these countries’s then it could save its economy from
another decline. Nevertheless, a 2009 decision by the EU decided that they
would limit German integration and restrict German money being used to bailout
other European nations.
Overall,
Germany has greatly benefitted from its integration with the rest of Europe. In
addition, Germany’s ability to adapt to the unfamiliar economic free market has
also led it to emerge with one of the strongest economies in the EU. However,
Germany still faces twenty first century problems like globalization,
unification and the finical burdens from the rest of Europe. Nevertheless, time
and time again Germany has managed to pull itself through the challenges it has
faced (Troianovski, 2015). Therefore, when it comes to the strength of its
state Germany is clearly a leading contender in the EU for its ability to
resolve its governmental and economic issues.
Current
Article-.wsj.com/articles/germanys-power-polarizes-europe-1436231408″>http://www.wsj.com/articles/germanys-power-polarizes-europe-1436231408
Reference:
1.Kesselman,
Mark, Joel Krieger, and William A. Joseph. Introduction to Comparative
Politics, 6e, 6th Edition. Cengage Learning, 2012. VitalBook file..vitalsource.com/#/books/9781305332591/pages/109002438″>http://online.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781305332591/pages/109002438 (accessed August 24,
2015).
2.Trovianovski,
Anton. “Greek Crisis Shows How Germany’s Power Polarizes Europe.”.wsj.com/articles/germanys-power-polarizes-europe-1436231408″>http://www.wsj.com/articles/germanys-power-polarizes-europe-1436231408 (accessed August 24,
2015).
POST
FIVE
One of the most significant efforts by
IGOs and NGOs to prevent and contain international nuclear arms races is the
treaty of Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which was accompanied by
the United Nations Security Council Resolution 255. This treaty took two
years to be signed into effect and was in force by 1970 and includes 191 states
parties. It is an indefinite treaty that has review conferences every
five years with a preparatory conference for each review done each of the three
prior years of the review. The treaty’s main objective is to stop the
spread of nuclear weapons and it’s three main ways of achieving this are as
follows: First, states that do not already have a nuclear weapon will not
acquire one. Second, states that do already have nuclear weapons will
work towards disarmament. Finally, any state has the right to pursue
peaceful nuclear power for energy. This treaty has been ongoing and
depends on other IGOs like the International Atomic Energy Agency for
verification of the conditions that have been set forth and agreed upon.
(UN Security Council Resolutions)
The Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI) is
an NGO that works to increase global security through nuclear security.
NTI has done what it can to reduce the threats of nuclear, biological,
and chemical weapons in various ways, they even made a few movies that aired on
HBO. One significant product that NTI produces to help in the cause is
what’s called the Nuclear Materials Security Index. This publication is
produced biennially and is an accounting of weapons-usable nuclear material in
176 different countries. This index has received global attention and
some states use it to track their own nonproliferation goals and to create
stronger commitments to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons. (NTI
Website)
In regards to the UN having a
peacekeeping mission within states that violate international treaties, such as
NPT, I believe that they should have a responsibility to put forces in place to
punish those who violate treaties. The UN is a representation of 193
states, if a state enters a treaty then violates that treaty and the UN does
nothing, does the UN have any credibility at that point? I would say no.
I believe that the UN should have the ability to put military forces,
monetary and trade constraints, and whatever tools necessary to punish those
who violate agreements they made. States must be held accountable and
punished when they violate treaties. What’s more powerful than 193 states
acting together?
“UN Security Council” UN News
Center. Accessed August 27, 2015.
http://www.un.org/en/sc/documents/resolutions/1968.shtml.
“Nuclear Threat Initiative.”
NTI. Accessed August 27, 2015. http://www.nti.org.
POST SIX
Since their very creation, nuclear
weapons have been a topic of many debates, treaties, conflicts, etc.
Having nuclear weapons, from a realists perspective, automatically gives
a greater voice to the state who has them. However, there are systems and
organizations in place to try and prevent any further states from obtaining these
weapons. There are currently nine states that are “nuclear”,
and ideally that number would only shrink.
There are a number of ways that
Intergovernmental and nongovernment organizations help to achieve the goal of
removing nuclear weapons from all states. One way is through education
and awareness. There are many agencies that seek to provide current
research on nuclear stockpiles, the risk of the weapons themselves, and
information on treaties and agreements. The Arms Control Association is
one of these agencies. They look at current research and present possible
solutions to the problem (armscontrol.org).
Another way that IGOs especially can
have an effect on nuclear reduction, is through imposing sanctions in order to
push states towards abandoning their nuclear programs. An obvious example
of this is the current deal with Iran. BBC News states, “Since
Iran’s nuclear program became public in 2002, the UN, EU and several individual
countries have imposed sanctions in an attempt to prevent it from developing
military nuclear capability” (2015). Iran has spent this last year
in talks over a deal that would lessen and remove these sanctions.
Depending on how the deal plays out, this is an example of the power IGOs
have in limiting the development of nuclear weapons. One major player in
the deal is another agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency, which seeks
to maintain the use of nuclear energy but without an ability to weaponize the
products involved. They work as an objective party that regulates atomic
energy and will be monitoring Iran’s nuclear program.
Lastly, there are treaties in place that
states have agreed upon to limit their nuclear development. One of
these treaties is the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which according to the United
Nations Office for Disarmament Affair there are 183 signatory countries
(http://disarmament.un.org/treaties/t/ctbt). If, however, these treaties
are broken there must be consequences. As far as the role of the United
Nations, they have the ability to impose heavy sanctions on both leaders and
states as a whole. These sanctions are the best mode of peacekeeping.
References:
Armscontrol.org. Nuclear Weapons: who
has what at a glance. 2015. accessed
on http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohaswhat
BBC.com. Iran nuclear crisis: What
are the sanctions? 2015. Accessed
on http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-15983302.
UNODA. Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban
Treaty. Accessed on http://disarmament.un.org/treaties/t/ctbt
POST
SEVEN
A fitting post on the heels of the
Hiroshima and Nagasaki anniversary. With the power to release massive
ammounts of energy to push a nation to the negotiating table, nuclear weapons
have the capability to end a war on its own. This devastating power is a
force multiplier for nations and will weigh heavy on the minds of leaders of
opposing countries. With the United States and the former USSR, MAD or
Mutual Assured Destruction was one of the biggest factors during the Cold
War. Each nation knew that once the firing started, the entire world
would be destroyed from the after effects of nuclear fallout. MAD works
between Nuclear Weapon States but not with countries (DPRK, Iran)
and non-state actors that welcome death and destruction like Al Quaeda and
Da’ish. IGO’s such as the UN with the IAEA and NGO’s such as ICAN
(International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear weapons), ISIS (Institute for
Science and International Security), Etc. strive to prevent such power into the
wrong hands.
Through
the the Department of Safeguards in the IAEA (International Atomic Energy
Agency) the Non Proliferation Treaty is enforced through education, safeguards,
and inspections performed to stop the spread of nuclear weapons (IAEA).
This action arm for the UN provides a vital tool in order to ensure countries
that are signatories continue to abide by the treaties that have been laid
out. To lower the overall nuclear threat from vast stockpiles the
Safeguard Department also assists in training and support to disarmament work
put forth by Nuclear Weapon States (IAEA).
ICAN is a
global group that can be characterized as a grassroots organization. They
use the support of famous actors, figures, etc. to bring together a body of
local population support to bring preasure on governements into negotiations
and treaties by highlighting the devastating effects and harm nuclear weapons
bring (ICAN). With ICAN gathering the local support against nuclear
weapons, ISIS provides the scientific analysis to the public forum. ISIS
is a gathering of scientists with expertise in nuclear studies and use various
resources to bring to light the materials, countries buildup, and illicit trade
of nuclear components to countries and media (ISIS).
The UN has
no real authority or sovereignty over nations that have signed the NPT and are
found in violation. That being said nations hold a great responsibility
when it comes to the ownership of nuclear weapons. The UN inspectors that
ensure states are abiding by the laws and treaties should be given full access
to all locations and the ability to report findings without any
interference. The action piece would be held on the global stage through
sanctions and embargos to preasure that country back to compliance. The
multiple accounts of misleading and lying by state leaders require active
inspections of weapons that have the ability to not only destroy a country, but
the entire world we live in.
Works Cited
1. “International Atomic Energy
Agency | Atoms For Peace.” International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Accessed August 27, 2015..iaea.org/”>https://www.iaea.org/.
2. “No More Hiroshimas, No More
Nagasakis.” ICAN. Accessed August 27, 2015..icanw.org/”>http://www.icanw.org/
3. “Institute for Science and
International Security (ISIS).” Institute for Science and International
Security. Accessed August 27, 2015..org/”>http://isis-online.org/.
POST EIGHT
Distributive justice appears to be an
ongoing battle, and the views of Rawls and Nozick are rivals. Both arguments
are valid. Though not exactly the same, their ideas seem like a major
difference between American Democratic and Republican politicians. This paper
will only focus on the difference between Rawls and Nozick.
The base of Nozick’s theory of
distributive justice stems from his belief in self ownership. This “is
just the claim that individuals own themselves – their bodies, talents and
abilities, labor, and by extension the fruits or products of their exercise of
their talents, abilities and labor. (Feser). Nozick has “three principles
of justice in holdings.” (Feser). Acquisition is basically owning
something that someone else has not owned. A good example of this is finding
oil, gold, or any other natural resource. The principle of transfer is a person
willingly giving something to another person. Rectification is giving something
up because it is owed. This could be considered paying a fine or even going to
jail. Nozick’s overall aim is to uphold individual rights. It should be a
persons own choice to give up what they earned. It is also the responsibility
of the individual to earn what they receive.
Rawls simply believes in fairness. Why
do actors and athletes make millions, while teachers and Soldiers make
thousands? Rawls does not wonder this, and we should not confuse his difference
principle with principles of strict equality. He says it is fair as long as
those millions benefit the least advantaged. For
Rawls, “All social goods are to be distributed equally, unless
an unequal distribution would be to everyone’s advantage.”
(Wenar). He believes the system “…will increase the
total wealth of the economy and, under the Difference Principle, the wealth of
the least advantaged.” (Lamont). ?
The question of whether Rawls or
Nozick’s theory is more fair is very intricate. As an individual, I believe
that Nozick is more fair. I believe that I am entitled to everything I have
“in accordance with the principles of acquisition, transfer, and
rectification.” (Feser). As a member of society, I agree
more with Rawls. This is because I believe in the saying that you are only
as strong as your weakest link. At the same time, I see how dangerous Rawls
beliefs can be.
For this purpose, the least advantaged
members of society are considered the weakest link. I will use a personal
example, from being in the Army, to discuss this. In my experience, it is not a
Soldiers fault that they are mentally or physically weak. They had a poor
upbringing from their parents or basic training. At first, I will take time
from the stronger Soldiers, to help the weaker ones. If the weaker Soldiers
does not become more like the strong ones, I will eventually remove the weak
Soldier. If I do not remove him, other Soldiers will think that it
is alright to be weak.
References
Feser, Edward, “Robert Nozick
(1938-2002)”, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ISSN
2161-0002, http://www.iep.utm.edu/, today’s date.
Lamont, Julian and Favor, Christi,
“Distributive Justice”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy(Fall
2014 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =.stanford.edu/archives/fall2014/entries/justice-distributive/”>http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2014/entries/justice-distributive/.
Wenar, Leif, “John Rawls”, The
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy(Winter 2013 Edition), Edward N.
Zalta (ed.), URL =.stanford.edu/archives/win2013/entries/rawls/”>http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2013/entries/rawls/.
POST NINE
I
think that the center of Rawl’s Veil of Ignorance is basically how we see other
people or take the other persons point of view into consideration. “Behind the
veil of ignorance, we do not know our own particular degree of wealth, status,
or background.” (APUS) The veil of ignorance is kind of exactly what it says it
is… it is sort of a veil we put up and imagine ourselves in another persons
shoes. For an example with if we were a white land owner before the civil war
we would be all for slavery, however if we were in the opposite shoes and were
a slave, we would be completely against slavery. “In taking up this point of
view, we are to imagine ourselves in the position of free and equal persons who
jointly agree upon and commit themselves to principles of social and political
justice.” (Stanford.edu)
I have to agree I do think that the veil of ignorance
should be applied when formulating a good and just well-ordered society
regarding laws and policies. “This original position would be an acceptable
starting point for deliberating justice in the ordering of the basic structure
of society.” (APUS) I think that everyone should have their basic rights unless
they do something entirely unjust to have them taken away. I think that society
today has no fairness and I do not think that our government officials think of
how other people feel about a particular law that is being passed, they
consider one point of view and that is their personal point of view.
“For
a society to be conceived as a well ordered it must be a society in which:
everyone accepts and knows that everyone else accepts the very same principles
of justice and its citizens must have an effective sense of justice that
would allow them to comply with the general institutions which they regard as
just.” (APUS) I feel as though we should put the veil up from our real world
and look at how other people live. For example I may make $30,000 per year and
live on my own with no children so I have plenty of money to buy groceries but
the woman across the street makes $35,000 per year and has 2 kids to support
she can not afford groceries. I am looking at regulating a law that adjusts the
income cap to be able to receive food stamps. My new law is just going to look
at the income and not the number of dependents in the household, that is
entirely unfair.. I think there are numerous instances where people should put
the “veil” up and look around before making such huge changes.