The Chapter of Depression and Other Stuff

     Reading this depressing chapter from what im sure is a depressing book, I learned a few eye opening facts about Economic Bungee Jumping. For one, it's pretty tough for economists to predict the buisness cycle due to the fact that there are many levels to the business cycle. "Business cycles are an unavoidable and largely unpredictable feature of market economies." (2 IP) The future is something that no one knows, it's unpredictable and it can certainly throw you some curve balls, and "...these decisions often depend as much on gut feeling as cold calculation." (2 IP)

     Another thing that I learned reading this very depressing article, is the definition of a Bull Market and a Bear Market. FACT: Bear Markets are more viloent than Bull Markets and unemployment rises more quickly than it falls. (3 IP) The true definition of a Bull Market however is, a market in which share prices are rising and encouraging buying. While on the other hand, a Bear Market is, a market in which prices are falling, and encouraging to sell.

     The cause of these economic patterns have truly differed over the years and they haven't differed from bad to better, only bad to pretty much the same. This Depressing Book states that "in nineteenth-century America, it was often a natural disaster, a crop failure, or a bank panic" (3 IP). After this statement, this very depressing chapter listed a bunch of failures and disasters: "2001-Technology investments crashed. 2007-House values plummeted." (3 IP)

     How does one know that a recession has occured? Well most people today just usually watch the news and find out from those people sitting at a desk with a coffee mug that I'm sure is empty. Never the less, there is actually a logical explanation: a press release. In 1920 a group was formed called the NBER which promote better economic analysis. Some people might ask, "How does this turn into a depression?" Well, back in 1930, "a depression was the term used for what we now call a recession." (4 IP) Financial crisis' don't always produce depression, but they often lead to severe recessions with unusually weak recoveries- and that my friend, is what produces depression, which later comes out in people.

The Underground Economy

     The underground economy or the shadow economy, is a system composed of those who can't find a full-time or regualr job. Some workers turn to anything that pays them under the table, with no income reported and no taxes paid-especially with an uneven job picture. A professor stated that he thinks "the underground economy is quite big." He goes on to say that even though "it is using undocumented workers or those legally, it is still pretty large."

     This hidden economy can be beneficial due to the fact that, even though it can be related to drug dealers and other not so good things, it supports the personal and domestic workers such as housekeepers and nannies. It also includes firms that hire hourly or day construction labor, information technology specialists and web page designers. Many people in this category have a job, but take another due to the fact that they don't get paid enough from their original job.

     For the people who have certain underground jobs, it can be great, but there can also be some bad side effects. The result of these hidden jobs, "is less tax money paid to the various levels of government." What does that mean to the average working human? It means that, "those working and not paying taxes puts the burden on those who pay the tax."

     Another side effect is that those who are not in the books, don't gte Social Security or Health Benefits. "People who do these types of jobs run the risk of getting exploited with lower pay or not being paid at all."
All and all, the underground economy can truly only be judged by you and you alone. There are pros and cons, but it's you who has the final say.

Net Neutrality

     Net Neutrality is "the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source...". In a more simplified version, it states that regardless of the source the Internet is coming from, the Internet should be equal to everyone everywhere.

    Major companies would completely benefit without having Net Neutrality because that would mean that the buyers would have to pay more to get faster and more reliable Internet. With Net Neutrality today, people pay a certain amount for a certain Internet service, and they receive the Internet that they pay for.
   
     It's important to us (consumers), to have Net Neutrality because if we didn't, then we would have to pay our provider more then what we are paying now. With Net Neutrality, we have an equal and easy way to get to the Internet without all these complications.

     In 1934, the FCC voted to regulate the Internet under Title II of the Communications Act. That ruling enabled the FCC to enact new rules that would prevent Internet service providers from manipulating how quickly or slowly sites are transmitted along their networks. All and all, the FCC has total control of the providers and how much Internet service is delivered to the consumers.

System vs System

     The "spoils" system, was a system that brought greater rotation in the office. Andrew Jackson thought that is was healthy to clear out the government workers who had worked for predecessors, lest they become corrupt. Andrew Jackson is regarded as the President who entrenched the patronage...following this, he brought in a whole new group of "Jackson Democrats" into office.

     It was in 1881 when the Spoils System was diluted when Charles Guiteau, a disappointed office seeker, killed President James Garfield because he was not granted a government job. After he was killed, Congress passed the Pendleton Act or also known as the merit system. This brand new system required exams for federal employment. In order to do this, the act created a three-member Civil Commission.

     I do think that the spoils system is still part of the government today. Back when president Obama was running for office, there was an article written about his campaign team. It is a tradition that the president throw jobs to supporters. The Washington Post states, "Obama had doled out ambassadorships, at the same rate as the Bush administration (24 in total). Despite all those promised by the former in 2008 to enact "the most sweeping ethics reform in history." It was no surprise when Obama handed out posts, today it is common for the presidential candidate to break their promises. "Especially if that candidate promises not to do something all his predecessors have done."

Technology: Curse or a Blessing?

     After reading this article, I defiantly think that the police should need a warrant in order to search your phone. Of course there can be exceptions where your phone could save a life or bring justice to a criminal, but in everyday cases, the police should need a warrant. Having an authority figure take away your phone will always cause chaos. Just look at high school situations, whenever one hears about a teacher taking a students phone away from them, it usually ends with the student in the office and the teacher acting like nothing happened.

     The Fourth Amemdment states that there shall be no unreasonable searches and or seizures. Today though, people will say that the Fourth Amendment states something about their privacy and how in ANY case they don't have to give up their phone. That's true in some way, but when it comes down to saving a life or bringing justice to a criminal, that's pretty reasonable.

     In the case of Riley v. California, I would have to agree with the supreme courts ruling. What David Riley did was of course terrible and he should no doubt be punished, but one can not just simply go back in the past to do things differently. "The Justices ruled that police need a warrant from a judge to search someone's phone-just as the police need permission to search inside someone's home." Phone and home are totally different (obviously) but there are people who are not for having their personal items being searched with no permission. 

     "...This is the latest example of how the courts are trying to apply the basic rights enshrined in the Constitution to life in the 21st century." Back in the 1700's, the four fathers didn't expect the "...smartphones, Facebook, and Google-or how much of the worlds interactions today, from socializing to conducting business, would take place digitally." The world is constantly changing everyday and every second, there's no stopping it. 

     "...the police hadn't obtained a warrant (permission granted by a judge) or Riley's permission before searching his phone, they have violated his Fourth Amendment right to privacy." This statement explains pretty much mine and many others stance on this topic. Police need a warrant to search someones private things-they need one for searching a house, why not searching a phone? 

Current Event

     Today it was announced that President Barack Obama will no longer be meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the visit of March 3 to Washington. The White House announced, a meeting could be in discussion as an attempt by the administration to influence Israel's March 17th elections. 
     
     "The president will not be meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu because of the proximity to the Israeli election, which is two weeks after his planned address to the U.S. Congress," National Security Council spokeswoman Bernadette Meehan said in a statement.

     

     “As a matter of long-standing principle, we do not see heads of state or candidates in close proximity to their elections, to avoid the appearance of influencing a democratic election in a foreign country," said Meehan. 

     Netanyahu's visit has already sparked difficult relations between the Israeli leader and Obama. Republican House Speaker John Boehner invited Netanyahu to address a combined meeting of Congress for the purpose of challenging the president's approach to Islamist extremism and negotiations with Iran over that country's nuclear program. The White House, which only found out about the visit from Boehner's office, accused Israel of breaching the diplomatic protocol.

     It is no secret on how Netanyahu feels about the opposition with ongoing talks with Iran, saying that Tehran cannot be trusted to abandon it's ability to build a nuclear weapon that could threaten Israel.

     "The president has been clear about his opposition to Congress passing new legislation on Iran that could undermine our negotiations and divide the international community," said Meehan. "The president has had many conversations with the Prime Minister on this matter, and I am sure they will continue to be in contact on this and other important matters.” Only time will tell if they keep I'm contact to discuss certain issues. 

An Electoral College Isn't an Actual College

     In the past couple of months, American Governtment has taught me so many different things that I didn't even know existed. Most recent though, would be that an Electoral College isn't a college in which kids go for 4 or plus years and get a degree, but something totally different. So I guess what they say is true, you learn something new everyday.

     The Electoral College was created as an function of Federalism, which means allowing the Feds and the States to conduct the election. The states handle the voting as they fit to see it. It also has the Feds mandating the electorates. In case someone needed a complete outline of what the Electoral College is, then I would direct them to article 2 of the constitution. Another term that people could connect an Electoral College with is, indirect democracy. - presidential voting funneled through a system - All in all, to some it up clear and fast, it protects the elite (wealthy) from the poor.

     The whole thing came to be due to the fear of factions. Some of the rules or regulations that it comes with is that it prohibits the largest faction (group of people) from being able to unfairly or (in reality) protect the people with money and power. Of course within any new rule, there was some fear from the forefathers such as, fearing masses of poor and the security of private property.

     I think that the Electoral College is fair because without it, we wouldn't be living in the world that we know today. Over the past few blogs that I have written, I have come to the conclusion that without some of the rules and regulations that we have today, the way we live would be totally different. Some people would like to know what the world would be like without some of the rules in our country, but do they think about the consequences that might follow? There would be many different problems without the Electoral College and one of the main problems would be that the President could win with the popular vote and that would cause even more problems. In the end, not having the Electoral College would cause our country many problems, problems in which people would rather not deal with.