Evaluating The Theory Of Socialist Economy Politics Essay

Evaluating The Theory Of Socialist Economy Politics Essay If one wants to examine the experience of socialist economies of the twentieth century, one need must examine the socio-economic meaning of the term socialism. This ought to be subject to a scientific analysis, primarily with respect to increasing problems in the socialist countries and to discussions and reform efforts that have been underway at various points in time over the last century in those countries. In this context, the analysis in the essay must restrict the notion of socialism to that of a social system whose characteristics have been molded both by specific theoretical works and by practical political, legal and economic institutions and measures in socialist countries. This has to be limited a little further and the essay will therefore primarily focus on the socialist economic system and its crucial connection with the political system. Proceeding from this framework, this essay shall first deal with the theoretical and practical evolution of the general basic charact eristics that are typical of the socialist economic system. Subsequently, it will examine the economic results or rather the recurring deficiencies caused by the socialist system. This will then lead to a detailed analysis of how these deficiencies may have had their earliest roots in errors contained in the very theory that was the starting point of communist practice. The genesis of the socio-economic meaning of the term socialism has its roots in theoretical works of Marx, Engels and Lenin. How this concept has satisfied the fundamental criteria of the development of socialism in the course of its practical realization in Soviet Union, China, Yugoslavia, Cuba and other socialist countries must be examined, and whether it has resulted in the socio-economic development expected by the above-mentioned theorists. After the shock and disillusionment from the collapse of the Eastern bloc, the disasters of neoliberal economic policies, East and West, have given new urgency to rethinking the socialist alternative to capitalism. Whatever one says about the feasibility of socialism, however, at some point the collapse of `actually existing socialism has to be explained. The centrally planned economy was certainly successful for a period, based on extensive growth with ample supplies of labour power and raw materials. The system collapsed when it attempted to shift toward a more intensive mode of growth. Permanent consumer goods shortages and the alienation of workers sealed its fate. In attempting to broaden the debate on the feasibility of socialism, the essay shall embark with the origin of the concept in Marx. To begin with, it must be made amply clear that the term socialism refers to the social system which Marx referred to as the first and last phase of communism  [i]  . Marx inferred the characterization of this lower form from the historical necessity of the development of communism, and from the fact that communism would directly emerge from capitalism and would be therefore characterized by capitalism for a relatively long time- the first phase. Marx and Engels substantiated the historical necessity of the development of communist society by saying that capitalism would increasingly impede the further development of productive forces and only new economic and social conditions, that is, socialist conditions, would cause productive forces to evolve at a substantially faster rate than they could under capitalism. This historical materialist perspective gave rise to the fundamental criterion for the development of the socialist economy also held by Lenin. He was convinced that the expropriation of capitalists would result in an immense extension of social productive forces and in a higher degree of labour productivity. Following the nationalization and redistribution of land consequent upon the Bolshevik revolution of 1917, a brief period of workers control was realized in the Soviet Union. However, state ownership and control of industry and financial institutions were rapidly extended, along with a ban on private trade, and the whole economy moved towards an economy in kind, a moneyless economy. These eventualities could again be traced back to Marxs conceptualization of socialism as an associated set of producers. In modern capitalist society, according to Marxs analysis, the social relations of production, which establish the framework of a distinct mode of life, are constituted by the capitalist ownership of means of production and by wage labour; and the essence of the socialist alternative had always been the transformation of private ownership into so cial ownership which Marx expressed by referring to a future society of associated producers. This associated mode of production  [ii]  was not treated in the socialist literature of the nineteenth century as having only an economic significance, but as a vital element in the constitution of a new form of society in which individuals would no longer be dependent upon the dominant minorities, but would be able to develop freely in a social environment which they took a full and equal part in creating. Socialism, therefore, was meant to obviate its fundamental opposite, capitalism, by substituting social ownership of the means of production for their private ownership. Market relations would have to be eliminated, and production as a whole would have to be oriented towards future developments of demand with the help of economic planning. Direct social labour on the part of the working population would result in a faster growth of labour productivity than under capitalism. This preoccupation with rapid increase in economic growth had its genesis in several factors. The advent of socialism in countries which were for the most part economically backward, agrarian and peasant societies, and the perceived need for extensive and rapid industrialization was the first of these. Next, the rapid post-war expansion of organized capitalism, characterized by large-scale state intervention, partial planning and very high rates of growth and the need for socialist countries to compete effectively with capitalism in the provision of high material levels of living ensured that an extraordinary stress was laid on rapid economic growth through industrialization. Lenin also pointed out that the economy is something like a giant enterprise owned by the people, who are represented by the socialist state. The activity of all the parts, the overall production by all enterprises, as well as the distribution of the means of production and the labour force among them would have to be determined with the help of one single overall plan. Although Lenins shift towards the New Economic Policy (NEP) resulted in the reintroduction of market relations in the economy, it did not change the idea of substituting systematic planning for market relations in socialism. Lenin justified the reintroduction of market relations on the strength of the existence of private producers, chiefly farmers, during the transition to socialism.  [iii]  The old bourgeois producers had to be transformed in the new socialist economy. This could be done by socializing the populace, an act which needed active state-intervention. Stalin, however, understood economic retention of market relations only in terms of formal commodity- money relations, and eliminated market mechanisms. During Stalins rule, some characteristic features of the socialist economic system developed, whose theoretical reflections bordered on being dogmas. According to him, the means of production must not be in private ownership. Rather they must be in state ownership to a decisive extent. The development of production must not be determined by market mechanisms. Rather, it must be fixed with the help of central plans. Prices must only be retained for the exclusive purposes of formal planning and calculation. They must, however, be fixed by a central state authority and must not be changed by enterprises in accordance with market conditions. Such and further fundamental dogmas were meant to preclude the reappearance of capitalist ownership and the re-emergence of economic anarchy, while ensuring the fast, effective and proportionate development of socialist production determined by pla nning. The communist parties began to label such a system organized along such economic lines as real socialist. However, not one of the objectives ever aimed at by a socialist development process was reached. This was not chiefly a consequence of subjective mistakes made by party and state leadership with regard to economic policies, rather, it was the result of defects inherent in the conceptualization of the system, which had already been embodied in Marxist-Leninist theory. In comparison with capitalist production, socialist production in Soviet Union and Yugoslavia suffered from several deficiencies which caused them to lag behind. The production showed a lower degree of efficiency than a free-market system. The production grows in a predominantly extensive manner while its intensive growth (through technological progress and the qualitative development of the production factors) is absolutely inadequate. Here, there is an assumption at work which is evidently a capitalist construct- that of measuring productivity by taking recourse to such accepted yardsticks as GDP (Gross Domestic Produc t) rates. The GDP rates are a criteria adopted by intensively capitalist countries to measure productive economic growth, not the ideal parameter to judge the growth in a country with accepted socialist status. Nevertheless, if the material levels of living in the socialist and capitalist countries be taken as a uniform criterion, the socialist nations do demonstrate the relative inefficiency of the state to meet these needs on parity with capitalist countries. Another set of deficiencies in the socialist economies of the twentieth century concerns the nature of production. Production was not sufficiently geared to demand; on the one hand it produced quantities of non-required goods, while on the other, it did not satisfy concrete demand to any large extent. Moreover, production supplied few high quality and fashionable consumer goods, and the technological standards of capital goods were far behind those of capitalist countries. The proportion of consumer goods in production was substantially smaller than Western free-market economies. The official economic theory or more accurately, the ideological propaganda of the USSR and Yugoslavia, as well as of other socialist countries, ignored or concealed these economic defects for years. They only worked with the fast growth rates of production volumes in the initial years, overlooking the losses in efficiency which were increasing from the beginning. Ever since its inception, the planning system prevented a highly efficient investment development, not only because of slow technological progress, but also because it rendered impossible a selection of the most profitable investment projects which are numerous in a free-market economy. Central investment planning and the allocation of investment funds is affected by means of a primitive accounting of input and output without, crucially, an optimal profitability selection.  [iv]  Most important, however, is the fact that the planning system from the start prevented consumers from influencing the development of productio n through the market and from assessing the performance of individual enterprises with the help of market selection. Both in the free-market and in the planned economy systems, lack of balance between supply and demand is inevitable with regard to certain commodities. In a free-market system, however, producers are compelled to overcome these imbalances as soon as possible if they are to achieve profits rather than sustaining losses. In a planned economy system, the extent of the imbalance is substantially greater, and is overcome considerably slowly- if at all. It is at this crucial juncture that one needs to realize that there is a great difference between those societies in which the greater part of productive resources are publicly owned and central planning has a major role, and on the other hand, the societies in which there is only limited public ownership and planning and the construction of a socialist economy involves some extension of planning in diverse forms, along with restrictions on market mechanisms.  [v]  It is the former group of countries that includes the Soviet and Yugoslavian experience that this paper posits as a contrast to the latter Chinese experience with socialism. Even within the group of socialist countries in Eastern Europe (Soviet Union and Yugoslavia) there are important differences arising from distinctive economic, social and cultural conditions, which are revealed in a very different course of post-war development. Two socialist countries in the last century undertook a fundamental and complete restru cturing of the economy- Yugoslavia (where the phase of centralized management was very brief, and hence provides a contrast of sorts to the Soviet experience) and Hungary. The economic system that Yugoslavia adopted provided the model for several economies. The theoretical framework which the Yugoslav is based on is clearly formulated by Horvat who, after rejecting the eclecticism of a mixed economy, continues: We wish to preserve essential consumer sovereignty because socialism is based on the preferences of individuals who control the society. We also wish to preserve the autonomy of producers, since this is the pre-condition for self-management. When these are taken together, we need a market. But not a laissez-faire market. We need a market that will perform the two functions just stated, neither less or more. In other words, we need the market as a planning device in a strictly defined sphere of priorities and planning as a precondition for an efficient market in order to increase the economic welfare of the community.  [vi]   Yugoslav society, thus, unlike Soviet socialism, was constantly caught in a dilemma between the plan and the market, which not only reflects the unclearly defined principles and aims of economic policy, but also is a manifestation of the actual balance of forces in society; that is to say of the clash between advocates of centralized planning and those who uphold the absolute validity of market laws. The dilemma is irreconcilable and the question which remains to be explored is whether the Yugoslav experience demonstrates that there are formidable difficulties in achieving the integration of planning and markets in any regime of public ownership, or more broadly, in a socialist society. In considering this crucial question, one should remember that for two decades the Yugoslav system functioned quite effectively, producing high rates of economic growth and an impressive development of social and cultural life. The turning point, as it were, came, theorists believe, with the rise in o il prices and the Western recession of the early 70s. It may also be argued that the subsequent economic decline was due in large measure to the failure of planning to deal effectively with the consequences of these events, and in particular with the massive growth of external indebtedness. It is certain, therefore, that the economic development of Yugoslavia and other socialist societies had been adversely affected by the their close links with the capitalist world, and by the failure of policy-makers to take a due account of the cycle of growth and recession in capitalist societies which is, after all, at the heart of Marxist economic analysis. As Golubovic claims, Socialism with markets is here to stay  [vii]  . The countries in Western Europe, which could be labeled Socialistic or tending towards being socialist, faced problems which were very different from those faced by socialist ones. Nevertheless, some issues were of common concern, highlighting certain universal facets of a socialist economy as it took shape in the twentieth century. The common concerns were centered on the particular forms which public ownership of productive resources, and economic planning should take in the future. In these countries the movement towards socialism got retarded by the advent of conservative governments. And, going by the experience of Yugoslavia one would imagine that treading a middle path between plan and market was indeed the only way to go for countries claiming to be socialist. The Chinese experience with socialism, however, not only contrasts with the Yugoslav experience, but it seems to be hinged on lessons learnt from the experience of the Soviet Union under Lenin and Stalins rules. The Chinese and the Cuban methods alert us to Marxs central issue: the proletariat must not only change the relations of society but in the process change itself. Here, the present analysis calls for a contrast between the Soviet and Chinese experiences. The Cuban experience shall be scrutinized later. The October Revolution proved the validity, under conditions existing in Russia in 1917, of the first half of the Marxist-Leninist theory of transition to socialism. The industrial proletariat was able, under resolute revolutionary leadership, to overthrow the bourgeois regime which had come to power in the erstwhile February revolution. However, with regard to the second half of the theory- the capacity of the proletariat to lead the way in the construction of socialism- the Russian experience is at best inconclusive. One must remember that small to begin with; the Russian proletariat was decimated and dispersed by the four years of bloody civil war, hunger and chaos which followed th e revolution. The Bolshevik government was forced to rely on the erstwhile antisocialist bureaucratic administration, overrun as it was with problem of survival and economic recovery. Under the circumstances, revolutionizing practice tending to produce socialist human nature almost totally disappeared. Instead the reconstituted and expanded proletariat which came with forced industrialization was repressed and atomized, deprived of all means of self-expression, and terrorized by an omnipresent secret police. The notion that abolition of exploitative private property in the means of production ushers in an essentially classless society which, given a sufficient development of the forces of production, will evolve in a harmonious way towards communism is exploded once and for all through the Soviet experience. As Nicholas Poulantzas points out, in a society divided into classes, the relations of production consist of a double relation which encompasses mens relations to nature in material production- economic ownership and possession. The first of these relations, that of economic ownership, is the real economic control of the means of production. In the socialist countries, formal, juridical ownership of the means of production belong to the state, which is held to be the peoples state, but real economic control rests in the hands of the directors of enterprises and the members of the party apparatus.  [viii]  Socialist ownership by the whole people has degenerated into ownership by a privileged stratum. It is a privileged stratum- what Charles Bettelheim has called a new state bourgeoisie  [ix]   which controls the means of production and thereby decides how the fruits of production are to be utilized. This unholy collusion at the highest levels of governance killed the revolutionary urge of the proletarians who had effected the revolution a decade back (1917). While the Russian experience thus throws light on the positive side of constructing revolution (a real revolution of the proletariat), it does provide devastating proof of the impossibility of infusing seemingly socialist forms with genuine socialist content unless the process, as Marx delineated, goes hand-in-hand with the formation of socialist human beings.  [x]  It also alerts us to the undesirable effects of bureaucratization that took the wind out of the sails of the socialist regime. A different choice of means could have yielded drastically contradictory and possibly, favorable, results f or the Soviet Union under Stalinist rule. More equality and fewer privileges to the bureaucracy, lesser incentives for the erstwhile bourgeois class, more trust and confidence in the masses, greater inner party democracy are some factors which could have been the steering principles of a course which could have ensured the survival of socialist Soviet Union. It wasnt just these negative lessons from the Soviet experience that impelled the Chinese to pioneer a different path to the construction of socialism. The situation and the proletarian background in China formed the basis of these differences. For one thing, the Chinese proletariat, though smaller than the Russian counterpart, was never plagued by economism. This is explained by Mao who wrote, Since there is no economic basis for economic reformism in colonial and semi-colonial China as there is in Europe, the whole proletariat, with the exception of a few scabs, is most revolutionary.  [xi]  Moreover, the prolonged civil war in China, combined with the war against Japanese invaders fostered a vast growth in both size and the maturity of the revolutionary forces, while a much shorter period of civil war and resistance to foreign invaders in the Soviet Union seriously weakened the revolutionary forces there. The result was China was much more socialised, in as much as the people were more imbued with the ideals of socialist revolutionary fervor than in Russia. When one has to evaluate the Chinese experience, it may well be stated at the outset that its most important contribution to the advance of Marxist thought was to suggest an alternative to the Soviet and east European experience with socialism. In the first years after they came to power, the Chinese Communists set out to follow the Soviet model of collectivization of farms but soon discovered that it put demands on the agricultural sector which could not be met. In the 1920s the Russians decided to squeeze the needed surplus out of the peasants, with the fearful consequences of a decimated and atomized proletariat. This option did not even exist for the Chinese. With a reordering of priorities under Maos regime, industry was to be geared to the needs of agriculture and developed not only in the cities but especially in the countryside, beginning the process of introducing the peasantry to modern technology. This meant the capital needed to develop the Chinese economy was to come from a general increase in the productivity of the Chinese labour force. This in turn, required a vast and historically unprecedented innovation in the form of the agricultural communes and the introduction of a Chinese version of the Green Revolut ion. The economy thereafter worked really well by world standards: China became essentially self-sufficient in agricultural production; and industry developed, in terms of both rapidity and geographical distribution. In recent decades China has opened its economy to foreign investment and to market-based trade, and has experienced strong economic growth. It has carefully managed the transition from a planned socialist economy to a market economy, officially referred to as the socialist market economy, which has been likened to capitalism by some outside observers. As a result, centralized economic planning has little relevance in China today. The current Chinese economic system is characterized by state ownership combined with a strong private sector of privately owned enterprises that generate about 70% of GDP.  [xii]   The Cuban experience with socialism was also illuminating as it highlighted the role of national integrity, nationalization of the populace and the cultivation of the spirit of patriotism in the masses as prime factors leading to a socialist revolution along the lines Marx postulated (1986). The revolutionary government under Fidel Castro found socialism to be the most viable means for freeing Cuba from domination by capitalist countries, guaranteeing in a way Cubas sovereignty. The mission also involved mobilizing and educating the populace even as anti-capitalist changes were vibrant in the party apparatus (again, as in Marx, the ideal ground for a socialist revolution and consolidation of the means of production after the revolution was the party apparatus). Socialism, through the Cuban alternative, has been demonstrably shown to be a process that is premised on unleashing the power of the people, who learn how to change themselves under circumstances and able leadership.  [xiii ]  This consensus and subsequent legitimization of the Cuban state has been shaped by the revolutionary, patriotic and political behavior of the masses. The power of the state is, in the Cuban experience with socialism, shown to be the one with appropriate means to produce change. The way there are deficiencies as with any other socialist regime but these are being tackled in Cuba are paradigmatically different. The debates with respect to deficiencies in Cuba do not reflect the need to replace the regime, but the need to improve it by deepening its ideals and the socialist project. This desire to stand by the ideology of socialism is what sets the Cuban experience apart from all others. It was thereby shown, through the Chinese experience, and the ideologically successful (not equally economically successful, however) Cuban experience that the Soviet and East European experience with socialism, far from being an embodiment of the laws of socialism, was merely one possible path to economic development and as history has demonstrated, one which is in irreconcilable contradiction with the requirements of a socialist transition to communism. Nevertheless, it was only after the creation of the first socialist society in 1917 consequent upon the Bolshevik revolution that central planning (with the concomitant, unintended consequence of bureaucratisation) came to occupy a central place in the definition of the socialist economy. The importance of the Bolshevik revolution is thus paramount. The optimum mix of planning and markets, however, has not been demonstrated neatly by any socialist economy till date. Yugoslavia came close but the dilemma whether to opt for a centralized plan or market mode was irreconcilable to say the least, as demonstrated in the essay. This general sense of disillusionment with the origin and evolution of socialist economies in East Europe has given rise in the countries burdened with it to search for new models of a socialist economy. The chief factors contributing to the disillusionment were probably three: the increasing recognition that a socialist organization of production would be not more but much less productive than private enterprise; an even clearer recognition that, instead of leading to what had been conceived as greater social justice, it would mean a new arbitrary and more inescapable order of rank than ever before; and the realization that, instead of the promised greater freedom, it would mean the appearance of a new despotism. A significant development, hence, was the presentation of the decentralized model whereby the decisions regarding current economic operations would be largely decentralized while the government would retain control over new investment.  [xiv]  This model constituted a p artial departure from Marxian socialism (For in Marxs terms, market socialism is a contradiction in terms), since it allowed some elements of the market to slip into the regulation of current production. Nevertheless, the problems involved in restructuring the socialist economies are multiform and complex. What assumes pre-eminence in such a remedy is not the question of ownership or the excessive promotion of competition, but the decentralization of economic decision-making by giving enterprises greater independence in a controlled environment of market relations. Developing new, indirect modes of planning the economy as a whole have to be devised simultaneously. Economic changes in a socialist economy are thus closely bound up with political manouevres. Political reforms are necessary which require for their success the holistic socialization of the populace, a new spirit of individual enterprise, responsibility to production and administration. Public ownership of the major productive resources is essential for the construction of a socialist economy and then a socialist society. This is so because on one hand is the need to eliminate domination by a capitalist class or a privileg ed bureaucracy as a necessary precondition of classlessness; and on the other hand is the need to extend democratic participation as widely as possible, which is simply another aspect of classlessness or egalitarianism. The postulation of participation in decision-making, however, is accompanied by a controversy concerning the conflict between goals of participation and efficiency. This is primarily with regard to publicly owned enterprises concerning their efficiency and ability to innovate, which is related in most discussions to the question of incentives for both management and workers. This criticism is not totally fair for two reasons. Firstly, it should be amply clear that what is being dealt with is a relative inefficiency  [xv]  and that too not in all cases, as this essay has demonstrated. Moreover it is a fact universally acknowledged that socialist countries as a whole (with a few exceptions) were very successful in the earlier periods in achieving rapid industrializ ation and major technological innovation in some spheres. The central message of the paper is that there is no single ideal model of socialism. Once capitalism is overturned and there is public ownership of the means of production, people will be free to choose democratically among a variety of models of socialist organisation of the economy- as has demonstrably happened in the countries chosen for analysis. Options could range from the completely centralised state rationing of all products (Stalinist Russia) to market socialism (Yugoslavia and later China) with an integral role for money. But a socialist society could also opt to let the full product of peoples labour accrue back to them (Early China after the revolution and Cuba), taxing workers appropriately in order to effect redistribution and investment. Or it could allow only part of the total product to accrue directly to workers, at th

The Passionate Shepherd to His Love and The Nymph’s Reply to the Essay

The Passionate Shepherd to His Love and The Nymph’s Reply to the Shepherd: A comparison ‘The Passionate Shepherd to His Love’ was written by Christopher Marlowe. The poem describes a shepherd’s plea to someone he loves urging them to live with him. Marlowe uses imagery to describe the scenery around the shepherd and his love. The shepherd tries to convince her how happy they will be, surrounded by â€Å"mountain yields† and â€Å"groves† in stanza one. Marlowe does not only use imagery in his poem but he also describes the aroma ‘And a thousand fragrant posies.’ He creates a tranquil atmosphere by describing the harmonious sound in the second and third stanzas. ‘Melodious birds sing madrigals.’ In the third stanza the shepherd tells his love that he will give her anything she wants if she lives with him. The shepherd names beautiful clothes in an attempt to persuade her, ‘Fair lined slippers for the cold, With buckles of the purest gold.’ In the fourth stanza the shepherd believes that he has succeeded in convincing his love to live with him. He describes what he believes to be a vision of their future, pulling wool from pretty lambs together conveying a sense of unity. The beginning of stanza five is realistic as the shepherd offers to give his love ‘a belt of straw and ivy buds’. However towards the end of the stanza he says that he will give her ‘coral clasps and amber studs’ which is completely unrealistic as he is a shepherd who would not be able to afford such gifts. In the shepherd’s desperation, he resorts to materialism as he believes this is the only way his love will be returned. The second poem ‘The Nymph’s Reply to the Shepherd’ written by Sir Walter Ralegh is the reply t... ...s beautiful scenery and clothes as a method of persuasion, whilst ‘The Nymph’s Reply to the Shepherd’ tries to express a sense of realism to the shepherd informing him that things do change like spring to autumn and youth to old age. In my opinion ‘The Passionate Shepherd to His Love’ does deserve a reply. After reading the poem the reader assumes that ‘his love’ will go and live with him as he offers her everything she may want. It is quite unpredictable that she would refuse this offer and so the reply gives the story a conclusion. Even though the reader feels empathy for the shepherd as he is prepared to do anything for the nymph, we appreciate the nymph’s point of view that nothing will stay the same forever. Although the poems are both structurally similar, they express contrasting sentiments, a contrast which I feel makes these poems a success.

Philosophy :: essays research papers

Many philosophers said that the philosophy is almost in the end. It ¡Ã‚ ¦s  ¡Ã‚ §the death of philosophy ¡Ã‚ ¨. Maybe because most of the people only focus on how to make a living nowadays, besides, no work, no pay, I don ¡Ã‚ ¦t blame them. Also the dominating trend of science, people are tend to be more realistic and practical thinking, more incline on material satisfation. Although many top scientists know the importance of philosophy and the existence of the unseen dimension but most of the people don ¡Ã‚ ¦t bother much on that, they just want to aquire a practical living skill which allow them to make a living, they don ¡Ã‚ ¦t bother to try to think in another philosophical way, after all they don ¡Ã‚ ¦t want much, just to make a living. That ¡Ã‚ ¦s what they want a new kind of philosophy simplicity. People who want to study philosophy may feel suffocated sometimes, but they continue to treat it another philosophy lesson I guess. Philosophy will never, it just exist in another form in another time as long as we still see ourselves as human. In my opinion, I think the appearance of a person is not the most important thing. We can ¡Ã‚ ¦t judge people by appearance. A good- looking person will not be a nice person actually. I have seen a very good movie called  ¡Ã‚ ¨Shallow Hal ¡Ã‚ ¨. I could understand that truth from it. Most of people are like the character in the story, a shallow guy. He finds beauty only in supermodels and centerfolds. The first thing he looks for in a woman is looks. Throughout history, few concepts have been pondered as much as the nature of beauty. Philosophers, poets, scientists, and theologians have contemplated and been inspired by its many forms and mysteries. Some find it in the wonders of natural, others in the simple, enigmatic smile. There are even those who have traveled to the ends of the earth and beyond in search of beauty. I say the beauty is a person who has a warm heart. In the pass, I will judge a person from his or her looking. But now I know it ¡Ã‚ ¦s a wrong thing. What we see on the surface is not always the truth. I should see everything from many points. Then I will understand more principles of many things. Many people think money is the most important thing of life. I always think about one question: If I were a millionaire but with a serious

Delinquency Deterrence Response Essay

It is said that the human mind can be a very complex web of thoughts. Thoughts that can sometimes lead to good or bad actions. Does the actual threat of punishment deter or does it encourage juvenile delinquency? This question happens to hold two answers one being yes and the other no. Juvenile delinquency has existed for years but as we all know it is not a problem that blooms overnight. Juvenile delinquency is a manifested state that is learned and its causes are manifested from in the home (dysfunctional or broken), school (pressure to succeed), friends (peer pressure) and family (need to scape for some reason or another). According to Thomson Learning Inc. Juvenile Delinquency: The Core (2005), for some children and teenagers the threat of punishment is so realistic that this method provides an opportunity for those individuals to do right. This may be because the individuals rational thought process and the enforcement of punishment either has been already enforced or the fear of being caught is too high of a price for the individual to accept. On the other hand there are children and teenagers who do not ear punishment or any other consequences that may come from their bad actions. Furthermore, for some individuals the thought of being punished only enrages and encourages some individuals to continue their bad ways. It s said that in order for a plant to grow and bloom it has to be fed and nurtured. This process is no different when it comes to raising children and teenagers. When children or teenagers are raised in dysfunctional homes with parents that encourage bad behavior and no discipline enable these individuals to do wrong. Living in a home ith parents that consume alcohol, do drugs, steal and party on a regular basis encourages these individuals to become delinquent. A child or teen being raised in that type of environment may assume and be encouraged to think that it is okay to live that way. Being encouraged by peers to do wrong is not right but to be encouraged by ones own parent is considered an act that deems detrimental to any child or teenagers life. The reason for this is because consequences and correction for their bad actions does not exist (Thomson Learning Inc. 005). Some examples of general deterrence, specific deterrence and situational crime prevention strategies are as followed. General deterrence basically is if an individual believes that they will be caught in an act for example like holding up a convenience store and their punishment will be executed to the fullest for that crime. There is the possibility that the crime will not be committed because the punishment far outweighs the crime. Specific deterrence is used to lessen the probability of having a repeat offender. An example of specific deterrence is the three strike law. This method plainly states that a person who is tried for the same offense will go to jail for committing the same crime on a third offense. There are no breaks or excuses due to the fact that the three strike laws were implemented from a previous offense. Situational crime prevention is the ability to reduce and curb the tendencies of criminals by making their actions harder to commit. This can be done by having neighborhood watch groups in conjunction with police patrol at simulated times of the day. Store owners can have cameras placed in inconspicuous areas of their stores along with having tampered proof glass or window bars on their stores. The key in situational awareness is to make the offender thinks twice about their actions and how will it benefit them if they are caught (Thomson Learning Inc. , 2005). As kids growing up we were always told that prevention was always better than a cure. We were also told that for our bad choices made there will always be consequences for those actions. Knowing our boundaries we always stayed within them. My parents taught us right from wrong and they guided us through our childhood right into our teenage and adolescent years. It is in my observation through their hands on ways and always being active in our lives we stayed away from trouble. It is my belief that crime prevention strategies are always the best to start with. When an individual realizes that it is harder to commit a crime whether it is through parental involvement or because of the elements that are in place they may find something that will be more beneficial than getting into trouble. .

Joint-Stock Company Essay

Joint-Stock Company means that, a partnership or corporation between two parties. Stocks are issued the parties in return for each contribution. The shareholders are allowed to transfer or sell their investment interest at any point in time by selling their stock to another party. Apple, INC. depicts this form of company. Limited Liability Company (LLC) means that, the investors are only limited liable in case the business, the investors invested in, goes bankrupt. The creditors can only take what each investor has initially invested. The creditors must not take outside an investor’s investment, no personal monies that are not part of the investment. Let us say I would invest into a company. That company would go bankrupt after five years, because the company was an LLC, Limited Liability Company, the creditors can only take what I have initially invested into the company. Partnership means that, a group of skilled professionals can fuse their talents and expertise together to form one successful company. Only these professionals are the owners and stockholders for the company. Each professional will than be a partner of that particular company and receive a percentage which is based on how much money the partner invests into the company, the significance and importance of the partners skill and experience, and so on. Jane, Joe, and Daphne open a sandwich store. All parties invest 33.3%, own equal parts of the company, and receive the same amount of revenue. Jane is in charge of the marketing, Joe orders the supplies, and Daphne is in charge of accounting. Sole Proprietorship means that, a business owned by only one person. The person would not have any partners, nor would the business be â€Å"public†. The owner is 100% liable if the business would fail. A lawyer would consider opening a law firm with sole proprietorship. The lawyer would be accountable for all financial parts connected with the law firm. If the lawyer would loose the firm, he or she would loose 100% of his or her investment.

Rheumatoid Arthritis Exercises Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Rheumatoid Arthritis Exercises - Essay Example The onset of the disease is most frequent in fourth and fifth decades of life (Luqmani et al., 2006). The aetiology of the disease is not specifically known and has been suggested to be multifactorial. The class II major histocompatibility complex allele HLA-DR4 and related alleles are known to be major genetic risk factors for RA. It has been suggested that RA might be a manifestation of the response to an infectious agent in a genetically susceptible host. Activation of autoimmune mechanisms is the key aetiologic event in sustaining the chronic inflammatory process so characteristic of RA (Scott et al., 2000). The main event in pathophysiology is inflammatory synovitis. Subsequently through a cascade of multiple immune events through mediation of a host of immune cells, the synovial fibroblasts are activated. Added to cartilage degradation, osteoclasts are activated that leads to erosion of bone. The chemokines and cytokines lead to synovitis, cartilage and bone damage, and systemic manifestations of RA (Luqmani et al., 2009). Altman (2008) notes that these immunologic abnormalities arise from various immune complexes, which originate from the inflamed synovial cells that serve as a target for such immune injuries. The plasma cells that are recruited produce antibodies known as rheumatoid factors. These actively contribute to these complexes which ultimately lead to joint destruction. With further inflammation chemotaxis ensues leading to recruitment of macrophage cells with associate vasculitis. Primarily CD4+ lymphocytes infiltrate the synovial cells. These together produce inflammatory cytokines and chemokines, namely tumor necrosis factors, granulocyte-macrophage colony stimulating factors, interleukins, and gamma-interferon. These are known inflammatory mediators leading to further joint inflammation and systemic manifestations of the disease. When the disease is chronic, the synovial membrane is very much thickened and is projected into the joint cavity. The synovium is the seat of inflammation, which produce collagenase and stromelysin leading to further degeneration of joint cartilage. Interluekin-1 and tumor necrosis factor-alpha contribute to this process and stimulate osteoclasts, thus leading to bone erosion. Prostaglandins are released. With the maintenance of inflammation, fibrous tissue is deposited within the joint. The synovial tissue appears very much proliferates and highly vascular, leading to pannus which further potentiates release of inflammatory chemokines leading to all round erosion of the joint structures such as cartilage, bone, articular capsule, and the periarticular ligaments. Most of the inflammatory cells are neutrophils. In some patients rheumatoid nodules develop (Altman 2008). Clinical Features Clinically RA presents as chronic polyarthritis of symmetrical synovial joints of hands, wrists, knees, and feet with an insidious onset of fatigue, generalised weakness, and vague musculoskeletal symptoms for weeks or months. Pain, tenderness, and swelling in the affected joints get aggravated with movement. Generalised stiffness of joints noted in the mornings for about duration of greater than 1 hour is invariable. Swelling and tenderness in the joints lead to motion limitation and hence impairment of physical function. These lead to fibrous or bony ankylosis of the joint leading to fixed deformities (Scott et al., 2000).

Strategic Management and Finance Research Paper

Strategic Management and Finance - Research Paper Example 1,670,000 Net cash flow per year 690,000610,0001,350,0001,505,0001,670,000 Net Present Value: Present Cash Flows PV Factors Value Year 1 690,000 0.8929616,071 Year 2 610,000 0.7972486,288 Year 3 1,350,000 0.7118960,903 Year 4 1,505,000 0.6355956,455 Year 5 1,670,000 0.5674947,603 Salvage return 700,000 0.5674397,199 Total 4,364,519 Investment (10,000,000) Net Present Value (5,635,481) Payback Period: Net Remaining Cash Flow Investment Payback period is Longer than the project life of 5 years Investment 10,000,000 Year 1690,0009,310,000 Year 2 610,0008,700,000 Year 3 1,350,0007,350,000 Year 4 1,505,0005,845,000 Year 5 2,370,0003,475,000 Scheme 2 Net Cash Flow per Year Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Expected annual cash receipts from sales2,600,0002,800,0003,000,0003,200,0003,500,0003,500,000 Expected annual costs of new product Cash expenses 1,550,0001,620,0001,720,0001,810,0001,930,0002,060,000Depreciation expense 583,333583,333583,333583,333583,333583,333 Net income 466,667596,667696,667806,667986,667856,667 Net cash flow per year 466,667...The reduction in the inventory turnover resulted from the significant increase in the stocks. This increase might be a result of the company's hedging for foreseen price increases. The Board should accept Scheme 2. Based on NPV, it has a much lower negative NPV than Scheme 1. Moreover, it has a shorter payback period than Scheme 2, which according to the above calculations will never be able to pay back the company's 10,000,000 investment. PT Trada Maritimes debuted in the Indonesia Stock Exchange on September 2, 2008 (Trada Maritime 2008). Right after its debut, the stock price reached as high as 27 per cent of its IPO price. The company went public as a result of its additional capital requirements on its expansion plan for 2009. Trada Maritimes plans to spend as much as $315 million to purchase additional vessels over the next five years (Trada Maritime 2008). Globus Maritime Limited received the International IPO of the Year on February 1, 2008 at the Quoted Company Awards (Reuters 2008). Globus was first listed in the London Stock Exchange under its AIM index in June 2007 at an IPO price of 300 pence (www.timagenislaw.com; www.investegate.co.uk). Right after its debut, the price of the company's stock skyrocketed as show in the graph below. Reuters 2008, 'Globus Maritime Limited Receives the 'International IPO of the Year' at the Quoted', Reuters, [Online] Retr