Global economy

Selling Polution

I happen to be listening to NPR, (Nashville Public Radio) and they were covering a story on governmental policies regarding air pollution. Despite all the bad press, the air condition currently is a lot better than during my pubescent period during the mid 1990’s. Nevertheless, it is apparent to the masses now that our planet and the earth-sphere, as mentioned in The Next One Hundred Years by Jonathan Weiner, is encountering some issues. Isn’t it human nature to deal with a catastrophe only after it has run it’s course or after the event horizon? In the course of the story covering the purposed bill to limit the amount of CO2 and CFC’s companies are allowed to output, it occurred to me, is it the right of the government to regulate what companies due with their land and their ‘air space’? Don’t get me wrong, I totally agree that all things are shared, the air I breathe may have come from a tree near a river in Hong Kong. What begs the question is whether polluting should be seen as a commodity to be sold or exchanged? Obviously, it will happen and has been happening, but should it be seen as a moral imperative, an ethical taboo to profit from pollution in a direct means because the government allows a company to sell its ‘pollution rights’? Where does one’s moral compass have to be pointing to make this right or wrong? If you allow someone to purchase the rights to pollute more than what they are suppose to but buy more ‘pollute time’ is there any benefit other than more tax revenue for the government. Just food for thought.

Read More

Economic Victims and Tent Cities

In recent weeks, American societies and global economies for that matter have become accustom to hearing financial figures in the multi-billion dollar range if not the trillion dollar range. With all the talking begin done in the American government a few actions have been invoked that require American societies and cultures to understand what is valued by each individual independently; sacrificing has become common place (Keilar, Sherman & Walsh, 2009). Although the story is not overtly stereotypical or heavy in cultural stigma as it concerns diversity, the news story is still a broad representation of the view of young adults of African and European descent and represents these individuals lacking social motivation to spend every waking hour to secure financial stability. In a converse view, Nashville tent cities have sprung up as refuges for individuals that have lost financial security and were evicted from their homes or apartment (Neiwert, 2009). These individuals are ‘colorless’, men and women from every culture, diverse societies, and economic level. Even so, all these individuals are equal in an economic culture in the grips of turmoil. As presented, the world economy is in a true downward spiral and although no one in government can see the future, as far as the laymen know, infusing the suffering communities with financial resources is seen as the answer. Diversity plays into this decision not only from the accepted belief that economic culture demands financial rescue, but also that the diverse cultures of an American society will reap the benefit. Nevertheless, the article investigated does not explore the true diversity of American culture nor does it touch on the impact that it has on the lower classes, mainly the inhabitants of Nashville’s tent cities. It may seem like throwing money at the communities offered an answer to economic woes, but who is truly able to catch these financial fast balls? Channel 5, News Kirchhoff, Sue Keilar, Brianna, Sherman, Emily, & Walsh, Deirdre. Neiwert, David. (2009, March 9)...

Read More