Category: Economic Problem

On May 26, 2015, Bernie Sanders, one of the runner ups for presidential candidacy, holds his “kickoff” event in his hometown Burlington,Vermont. On that day, Sanders discusses the overall being of the American people and the economic problem that hovers over the nation today. The problem is the economic inequality among social classes in America, in which is making the middle class of this country disappear and shrink for the last forty years. In his attempt to run for presidential candidacy, Bernie Sanders values the actions of everyday Americans in order to shift the attention towards the economic and social problem in the United States in order to overall benefit the well being of the nation.

At the beginning of the speech, Sanders strives to achieve the support and participation of the audience to establish the building blocks of his presidential campaign by controlling his tone and mood of the audience. When he begins his speech, Sanders repeats “today” and “time” to his audience. Although both words connote a sense of presence and urgency, Sanders also declares in reference to the nation’s economic and social development that there is “no time” to either “[think] small” or have the “same old ideas,” but “the time” for families to unite. When he asks for unity among families, Sanders portrays the economic problem to be more critical and urgent than any other in American history. He must seize the attention of his audience, and address the problem to create pressure for a new economic solution. The pressure provokes people to support Sanders and participate in the fight for ‘economic and social justice.’ As Sanders calls for the working families to come together, he employs patriotism for a sense of national pride that the United States is the leader in “the fight for justice.” The patriotism motivates the audience to vitally participate in the “fight” that makes the United States best known for qualities like “health, prosperity, security and joy” that separate the United States from other nations. All in all, Sanders tries to obtain the support of his audience in order to develop the premise of his campaign with a critical yet urgent tone and a sense of national pride.

In the middle of the speech, Sanders personally sacrifices his campaign to acknowledge the needs, individuality and power of the American people to support him and economic revolution. When Sanders clarifies who the campaign is for, he personally sacrifices his candidacy for “the needs of the American people” and the “ideas and proposals” that address those needs. Sanders’ personal sacrifice causes the American people to actively support Sanders, and encourage economic revolution through the power and value of each American to act against the ideals on economic inequality and wealth. After addressing who the campaign is for, Sanders repeats his “hope” of desperation and willingness to reform American economy. The repetition notifies the audience of Sanders’ interest of supporting the working class, predisposing the people to trust his campaign in restoring American economy and society. Sanders includes repetition in his speech to have larger members of society like the media realize the needs of the American people by acknowledging their decisions and actions. In conclusion Sanders’ sacrificial campaign values the American people’s needs, individuality and power that results in his support and economic reformation.

At the end of the speech, Sanders rallies the audience by sharing his experiences to collaboratively fight alongside him for a nation that benefits the working class. As Sanders shares his background to his audience, he includes a sense of patriotism when he “have seen the promise of America.” The patriotism stirs the audience’s national pride in an effort to restore the economy, motivating the audience to fulfill the ‘promise’ to discourage economic inequality among the different social classes. The previous use of patriotism discusses at an international level while this use of patriotism narrows the discussion to further support economic and social development within the United States. After Sanders finish his background, the anecdote shares a “lesson” that nothing cannot be accomplished if “people stand together and prepare.” The anecdote demonstrates Sanders’ experience with his ‘lesson’ about collaboration and achievement which motivates the American people to collaborate in order to build a future that works for everyone, not only the rich. Sanders includes an anecdote to make himself relatable to his audience; that he also experiences the same ideals about collaboration to gain support due to his experiences. To sum up, Sanders’ anecdotes inspires the audience to collaboratively participate in his campaign to benefit the American people.

In his run for presidential candidacy, Bernie Sanders values the decisions and actions of everyday Americans in order to shift the attention toward the economic and social revolution in the United States. Throughout his speech, Sanders interacts with his audience by valuing, supporting, and working with them in order to gain the support that results in an economic and social reform. Overall Sanders’ technique to gain the support for his presidential candidacy is to hand down collaboration and responsibility to the audience in order to resolve the economic and social problem of wealth inequality.

Economy is a region of the creation, dispersion, or exchanging, and utilization of products and enterprises by various specialists. Comprehended in its broadest sense, ‘The economy is characterized as a social space that stresses the practices, talks, and material articulations related with the generation, utilize, and administration of resources. Economic operators can be people, organizations, associations, or governments. Monetary exchanges happen when two gatherings consent to the esteem or cost of the executed great or administration, generally communicated in specific cash. In any case, money related exchanges represent a little piece of the monetary space. Moreover, the real GDP which is gross domestic product is one the best ways to determine an economy. It is a region of the creation, dispersion, or trade, and utilization of products and enterprises by various specialists. Comprehended in its broadest sense, ‘The economy is characterized as a social space that stresses the practices, talks, and material articulations related with the generation, utilize, and administration of resources. Economic operators can be people, organizations, associations, or governments. Monetary exchanges happen when two gatherings consent to the esteem or cost of the executed great or administration, generally communicated in specific cash. In any case, money related exchanges represent a little piece of the monetary space.

Turkey is among the world’s produced nations as indicated by the CIA World Factbook. Turkey is likewise characterized by financial specialists and political researchers as one of the world’s recently industrialized nations. Turkey has the world’s seventeenth biggest ostensible GDP, and thirteenth biggest GDP. The nation is among the world’s driving makers of agricultural items, materials, engine vehicles, ships and other transportation equipment and home machines. Therefore, Turkey’s GDP is 17th on the whole world in 2017. According to trading economy said that turkey has been increased its GDP from 2004 until 2013. In 2014, Turkey reached the heights GDP which is 950 billion, so we can say that Turkey worked vey hard to develop and improve its GDP. Then, GDP decreased from 2014 until 2017, so we will describe why this happened and how to solve this issue. This graph below shows the data of the GDP is going on from 2008 to 2017.

There are some important steps or points that Turkey follow to improve its economy and GDP to improve. First, increment in national income throw capital development, rise proceeding, and the growth of the generation stations by foundation new projects, particularly industry. For example, turkey has been increasing in industry and it exports these industries to whole world. Second, ascent in the stander of living of populace toss expanded yield of purchaser merchandise, changes in arrive residency, redistribution of national pay by monetary and social arrangement and change in security and instruction condition. Third, enhancements to be determined of exchange and installment. at last, development of the financial freedom of the nation. Consequently, Turkey focuses on the industry, agricultures, tourism, and education. If people come or travel to Turkey, they can see that there is a lot of tourist and company to investment, so all these help Turkey to improve and develop its GDP and economy. However, there are some of issues that made its GDP to decrease in last five years.

Turkey has been facing some problems or issues. One of these issues is inflation, and it caused to drop consumption, so the GDP of Turkey will decrease. Turkish buyers or consumers value expansion rose to 15.39 percent year-on-year in June 2018 from 12.15 percent in the earlier month. The expansion came in path over the national bank’s objective of 5 percent and hit the most elevated amount since January 2004 on the back of industrious money shortcoming (Trading Economic). According to the statistic below, we can publish that Turkish purchaser value inflammation rose to 15.39 percent year-on-year in June 2018 from 12.15 percent in the earlier month. The expansion came in route over the national bank’s objective of 5 percent and hit the most elevated amount since January 2004 on the back of tenacious money shortcoming.

Turkey has stellar economic progress. However, the problem is that it has been driven by fast credit development, including to the weight the nation’s present record deficiency the contrast between the estimation of merchandise and enterprises it imports and those it sends out. After a downturn following an endeavored upset in 2016, the economy is currently tearing along at more than 11 percent year-on-year – its speediest extension in six years. Moreover, management of government has issue with balance problem. Unlike to other rising economies, Turkey has not figured out how to get it together on its enormous current record shortage. Trading Economic supported that recorded shortage flowed to $7.1 billion in January from $2.7 billion multiyear earlier. As Turkey depends vigorously on outside financing to plug the hole, speculators have voiced worry about the kind of inflows, indicating a decrease in “stickier” financing, for example, long haul advances and remote direct venture. As a result, all these main issue or problem that Turkey government has been facing, but Turkey is trying very hard to correct these situations to improve its economy again like in 2014.

In Turkey, there has been a substantial increment in the dynamic working populace, however an extremely humble ascent in the interest for work. Therefore, labor force investment rates have continually diminished amid the most recent decades and work in the casual part has developed. Issues, for example, underemployment, an inadequate youthful populace and the development of the casual segment absolutely exist, however their answer appears far off because of interior and outside financial conditions. Despite the fact that more dynamic work approaches are earnestly required in the nation, they are left off the motivation. Be that as it may, sensible arrangements must be accomplished in Turkey, and without a doubt around the world, by radical changes in monetary and social understanding which may realize worldwide justification.

To solve these problems and issues, we need to follow some steps and points. First, we need to fix inflation issue by monetary policy, fiscal policy and supply policy. For monetary policy, we should expand loan fees increment the cost of acquiring, disheartening customers from obtaining and spending, so it expands loan costs make it more alluring to spare cash. Increased financing costs reduce the discretionary cashflow of those with contracts, and higher financing costs extended the estimation of the exchange scale instigation lower prices and more imports. For fiscal policy, this is another request side strategy, comparable in actuality to financial arrangement. Monetary arrangement includes the administration changing expense and spending levels keeping in mind the end goal to impact the level of Aggregate Demand. To decrease inflationary weights the legislature can expand assess and diminish government spending. Moreover, supply side policies purpose to increase long term competitiveness and productivity. For example, it was hoped that privatization and deregulation would make firms more productive and competitive. Therefore, in the long run, supply side policies can help reduce inflationary pressures. However, supply side policies work very much in the long term; they cannot be used to reduce sudden increases in the inflation rate. Also, there is no guarantee government supply side policies will be successful in reducing inflation.

For unemployment, Turkey needs to return to basic changes, and it likewise need to see more good examples picking to take their risks as business visionaries, in spite of the extreme conditions. It also needs to open new private sectors in order to provide new spaces for labors. As we know, Turkey is one of the most touring countries in the world, so it can open new touring places that occupy many labors to work in.

Poverty is a situation wherein human beings aren’t able to afford basic needs. Its definition is short and sweet, but its implications are vast and complex. President Kennedy’s inaugural remarks remind us that “The challenge of global poverty is not new.” Historically, poverty has been an epidemic, killing thousands of people year after year. Over the past several decades, however, there have been very impressive improvements in some parts of the developing world. The United States has witnessed a flourishing of new activists, who provide a compelling example that poverty-reduction goals transcend national borders and political divides. For the people of America, their conscience and faith demand that they tackle this pressing issue because it is the right thing to do. The American people feel pride by helping the poor gain access to quality education, and plenty of opportunities to grow. The intervention of the United States in the global project to reduce poverty is crucial, as it is one of the most influential agenda-setters and has one of the biggest economic and military forces. There are several ways the U.S. is already tackling the issue, such as investing $500 billion in developing countries. This effort to increase economic output in developing nations helps people to improve their living standards. Furthermore, In June 2015, The United States passed the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015 (TPEA) to renew some of the preference programs. These preference programs have largely contributed to the reduction of poverty, by alleviating hunger in a large number of developing countries. Since the preference act was first implemented, poverty has fallen drastically worldwide, especially in the last couple of decades, with rates of undernourishment dropping as well. The World Bank estimates that the total number of people living in absolute poverty has fallen from 1.96 billion people in 1991 to 702 million people in 2015. Global rates of absolute poverty have fallen at an even faster rate, from 37 percent in 1991 to 9.6 percent in 2015.

Poverty is a situation wherein human beings aren’t able to afford basic needs. Its definition is short and sweet, but its implications are vast and complex. President Kennedy’s inaugural remarks remind us that “The challenge of global poverty is not new.” Historically, poverty has been an epidemic, killing thousands of people year after year. Over the past several decades, however, there have been very impressive improvements in some parts of the developing world. The United States has witnessed a flourishing of new activists, who provide a compelling example that poverty-reduction goals transcend national borders and political divides.

For the people of America, their conscience and faith demand that they tackle this pressing issue because it is the right thing to do. The American people feel pride by helping the poor gain access to quality education, and plenty of opportunities to grow. The intervention of the United States in the global project to reduce poverty is crucial, as it is one of the most influential agenda-setters and has one of the biggest economic and military forces. There are several ways the U.S. is already tackling the issue, such as investing $500 billion in developing countries. This effort to increase economic output in developing nations helps people to improve their living standards. Furthermore, In June 2015, The United States passed the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015 (TPEA) to renew some of the preference programs. These preference programs have largely contributed to the reduction of poverty, by alleviating hunger in a large number of developing countries. Since the preference act was first implemented, poverty has fallen drastically worldwide, especially in the last couple of decades, with rates of undernourishment dropping as well. The World Bank estimates that the total number of people living in absolute poverty has fallen from 1.96 billion people in 1991 to 702 million people in 2015. Global rates of absolute poverty have fallen at an even faster rate, from 37 percent in 1991 to 9.6 percent in 2015. During the same period, according to estimates by the UN Food and Agricultural Organization, the global rate of undernourishment has fallen from 18.6 percent to 10.9 percent of world population.

But as one of the most advanced agenda-setters and biggest economic and military forces, The United States is obliged to do much more. The goal is for developing nations to be able to rely on The United States during times of poverty and economic crisis. This can be achieved by passing Bills like the Electrify Africa Act and the Global Food Security Act. This bill would help provide electricity to 50 million people in Africa, along with better security, health care and housing for families in need. This is a very vital step in pursuit of ending global poverty and inequality. Luckily, the Electrify Africa Act has already largely been successful on the floor of the House of Representatives and was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. It Now moves on to the Senate, where it has already been read and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

The U.S. ranks 19th in the world in terms of Foreign aid provision. However, only 1.5 percent of the federal budget goes toward international affairs. In order to effectively and permanently end global poverty, the U.S. is starting to increase their foreign aid supply, predominantly by increasing the budget of the U.S. Agency on International Development (USAID), which overlooks all international humanitarian efforts the United States is involved in. The words of President Barack Obama are indispensable, who says that “Foreign Assistance is not an end in itself. The purpose of aid must be to create the conditions where it is no longer needed.” Therefore, the primary purpose of this Financial aid is to assist developing nations, and not to increase their dependence on the Foreign aid. Additionally, in the past few decades, USAID, which is the U.S. powerhouse for international assistance projects, has worked closely with UNICEF and other international aid organizations on many programs that tackle with issues like poor nutrition in African countries and social development in Nigeria. A stronger alliance between The U.S. and international organizations through the USAID allows the U.S. to have a greater role in reducing poverty in developing nations.

As President Franklin D. Roosevelt rightly said, “The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.” By continuing to provide aid developing nations, whilst making them independent, the United States can help make poverty history.

“What is poverty?” by Jo Goodwin Parker may be a denotative interpretation of poverty. UN agency the poor area unit and the way the society’s stereotype is injustice. Parker with success describes the poor people’s issues and also the purpose of read that society has for those who sleep in poorness. Apparently, in Seventies the socio-economic condition people was awful and also the indisputable fact that Parker wrote the essay in 1971 may be altogether relatable to the socio-economic conditions people at that point. There was the increase of poorness, inflation, state and energy shortage throughout the 70s that turned the socio-economic condition people into a terrible mess.

During the 70s, the war had simply ended and also the U.S. Economy was symptom. The golden age is over and also the U.S. Entered a recession. Several issues were commencing to pop and it absolutely was overwhelming the yank individuals. The energy shortage occurred owing to a worldwide oil shortage. Nations round the world began to conserve their non-renewable oil provides in hopes to own some still out there within the close to future. Nations began to rely upon the center East for oil owing to their sheer abundance of it. Throughout this oil shortage, the Arab and Israel states had a war known as the Day of Atonement War. The Arabs would lose as a result of the west had helped out the Israelis. Thanks to this, out of frustration, the Arabs place and oil embargo on the west known as the ‘Arab Oil Embargo.’ Of the participants were the globe were the most important oil producers like Asian country, Iraq, and Kuwait. The gas costs would sky rocket, quadruple even. This ravaged the western economy as well as the Americans economy. This could result in solid ground having rising prices. Rising prices may be a portmanteau wont to describe a amount with a high rate of inflation combined with AN economic recession. This could bring the U.S. Gas costs to travel from thirty five cents a gallon within the starting of 1970 to around ninety cents close to the tip of the 70s. The embargo would finish but a year later in March of 1974 however the results would keep until the tip of the century.

The inflation of the Seventies was terrible. There was a combination of a high demand and a coffee offer of things like jobs, houses, cars etc. The explanation for this high inflation was as a result of nobody wished to require workplace because the central bank chairman. Conjointly many folks beneath calculable the results of the inflation issues. Nobody very had a mandate to prevent the inflation either. Thus what happened was that the costs unbroken on rising and rising. Another factor that caused inflation was that the investors and creditors had no confidence within the bank system. The dearth of believability and commitment cause inflation to rise. The 3 main reasons toward inflation area unit as follows.

1. The u. s. had a burst of inflation within the Seventies as a result of till the Eighties no powerful policy manufacturers till Paul Volcker became Chairman of the central bank UN agency placed a sufficiently high priority on stopping inflation.
2. The policies of the Nineteen Sixties left policy manufacturers of the Seventies with painful dilemmas. They were ‘Dealt with unhealthy cards’ These ‘bad cards’ mixed with unhealthy luck diode to high inflation.
3. The last cause was that the good depression created it arduous to believe that the trade cycle was a fluctuation around instead of a shortage below potential output and potential employment.

Another reason for the poor economy was the high state. The high state was a results of the ladies men and a mix of returning troopers from Vietnam. In 1869 the utilization was around eighty million staff. By the tip of the 70s, it absolutely was over ninety six million staff. This was a rise of over sixteen million additional staff. It went from three p.c state to around eight p.c state, nearly reaching another depression. The economy of the seventies was terrible. Dubbed with AN oil embargo ANd a combination of different issues diode the yank nation to an virtually depression state. The energy shortage was the beginning followed by high state and inflation. The economy of the United States throughout the seventies was a tough time for everyone in America. It wasn’t sensible and it simply got worse and worse till the 80s.

It is true that such poorness like delineate in Parker’s essay did exist. The autumn within the socio-economic condition people was the explanation behind the poorness and plenty of different issues in Seventies. The center and socio-economic class communities had been suffering from this rising rate of poorness over the social class community. It absolutely was the dark time for America that diode the country into despair and misery.

According to the Syrian Network for Human Rights 206,923 civilians have been killed during the span of Syria’s civil war. It is estimated by the SNHR that 57% of these deaths are due to aerial bombardment. Those that are lucky enough to live through the air raids experience many after-effects, the largest one being P.T.S.D. If they so happen to be injured during the bombings they would be forced to try and make it to one of few makeshift hospitals located around Syria. During all of this there have been countries who refuse to take in any refugees. If these nations were to openly accept Syrian civilians trying to escape death we would almost immediately see a decline in the death toll.

Airstrikes are a common form of death when living in Syria. There is believed to be a total of 8,052 airstrikes on Syrian soil in which airwars says it is going up daily. Airwars also states that with these 8,000+ airstrikes there have also been a total of 76,649 bombs and missiles dropped. An airstrikes is considered any form of attack that requires the use of an aircraft. Before an airstrikes launches there are steps that must be thought through before any advancements. Sharon Weinberger explains that there are six steps the U.S. and other coalition countries use before initiating these strikes.

Step one is “Objectives, Effects, and Guidance” (Weinberger, “How it Works: A U.S. Military Airstrike”). According to Sharon these are actually three separate steps, but all equivalent in a linked area. Many people believe that an airstrike is as simple as picking a target and destroying it, but that is not the case. There are planners that determine what goals these strikes are looking to achieve. Once these goals are found they must determine how to proceed to have the effect they want. Weinberger says that step two is “Target Development” this is when a group of people create a list of targets using reports from outside sources in order to find out the potential for any collateral or innocent civilians that may be killed or injured. For the past several months airstrikes from coalition and Russia have been ignoring this step, taking numerous lives in the process.

Sharon named step three “Weaponeering and Allocation”. This is where another team of analysts review the amount of weaponry needed to get the job done. The bigger the job the larger the weapons, smaller jobs need less weapons. This will devise the “perfect” plan for airstrikes. Step four is explained by Sharon as “Air Tasking Order Production and Dissemination”. Simply put this is just the submission of all instructions from prior steps sent to current allies in the area. The previous step is just a preliminary in order to make way for step five and six, Sharon has named them “Execution Planning and Assessment”. Execution planning is just the pilot taking off and completing the mission that he was assigned. Assessment is just created to see if they accomplished what they set out to achieve. These are the steps to a successful airstrike, sadly a few of them have been overlooked every so often.

There are many countries that bring in Syrian refugees and others that avoid harboring any due to the economic problems that may occur. Those that are refusing to help these innocent civilians are in turn letting them die. If countries were to bring in a few more Syrian citizens we would have a lot less death on our hands as opposed to what is currently happening. When there are less innocents in Syria there are less lives to put at risk during airstrikes. The main targets of many of the coalition strikes have been terrorist organizations like The K.G.B or I.S.I.S. problem with this being that many of the cities that these organizations are found in contain many civilians stuck between a rock and a hard place. The proposal of having countries take in a few civilians will make it easier for these airstrikes to continue, with a lower chance of civilian casualties we can see a higher amount of coalition bombs with less devastating consequences. Some places like Germany have 300,000 refugees, but other places like the U.S. will only take 10,000, even then some states won’t allow any in (Jon Stone, “Syrian refugee crisis: How different countries have responded”).

If we were to increase the amount of refugees per country most of the Syrian problems would be minimized. With a lack of civilians roaming many of the terrorist infiltrated cities there will be less worry. Airstrikes will be more effective as there will be less in the way of taking down the actual target. The death toll of Syria would decrease as there aren’t people to kill between these strikes, the government, and terrorists meaning that more lives will be saved. Daily the people of Syria live in fear as they are unsure of whether or not it will be their last day on Earth, no one should have to live with that type of fear.

According to the Cambridge English Dictionary, scarcity is the lack of certain resources, making it hard to achieve. In the context of economics, the lack of resources leads to the inability to meet the demands of the market. The reason scarcity exists in the first place is due to the consumption of the resource itself. The usage of the resources eventually leads to a shortage of resources. The higher the consumption, the faster the supply runs out, causing demand-induced scarcity.

Scarcity of water due to the increase of water consumption by 40% and the lack of water to satisfy the needs of people.

Scarcity of food. This happens because food consumption is expected to increase by 35%, but because food is a limited resource and there is not enough food to satisfy all the constantly increasing population’s demands.

The scarcity of energy is the lack of electricity to support the expanding network infrastructure of the growing population. In an age where technology is present in daily life, electricity becomes a vital source of energy in order to uphold a nation to a standard of living.

Describe the nature of the basic economic problem through the perspective of the growing middle class. [5 marks]

The basic economic problem exists because, although the needs and wants of people are endless, the resources available to satisfy needs and wants are limited. This problem gets major part due to the growing population of the middle class, as the increased number of people leads to an increased number of needs and wants, thus making the limited resources deplete at a faster rate.

The economic problem occurs when the demand for resources grows. Free-trade pacts, pro-open markets, pro-trade policies, and less global conflict are all vital principles that have led to a massive spike in economic growth, resulting in one of the fastest migrations out of poverty the world has ever seen. 5.3 billion people are expected to be part of the global middle class, which means 2 billion more new entrants. This number will be rising throughout the years as the population of developing countries is growing at a constant rate. The rapid increase in the number of adolescents means that the increasing demand cannot be met using the limited resources available, leading to scarcity. For example, over the course of 11 years: food consumption is expected to increase by 35%, water by 40%, and energy by 50%.

Therefore, the basic economic problem refers to the problem of economizing scarce resources or making the best use of those limited resources to satisfy the needs and wants of the increasing population.

First of all, before talking about the economic problem and what follows it will be better to start with what is the economy as such. So, economics is a term we hear everywhere and is present in all human societies. It is a discipline that studies the description and also analyzes the production, the exchanges, and the consumption of the goods and services of a society. It simply means that economics is a science that analyzes and describes how people living in society provide themselves with what they need in order to survive. Since the dawn of time, we know that different human societies are made up of people having the same custom, culture, and almost similar behaviors and are also constituted of different social classes. All human societies are distinguished from each other according to their geographical location and also their history. Among these societies, however, are the rich and the poor. From where emerges the universal problem which is the economic problem. This is a hidden reality that all human societies have in common.

The economic problem according to Heilbroner is “the way we manage the unlimited needs of all members of society by providing them with material welfare, with limited resources available” (Robert L Heilbroner, 2011). He argues that individuals in poor nations (underdeveloped countries) have some economic independence although they are in poverty. This is because individuals in poor nations are self-sufficient and provide the necessities for their own survival. Individuals living in poor nations are self-reliant because they do everything themselves, they do not depend on another person to do the work for them and their survival depends on their own ability. These individuals are born, raised, and have lived all their lives in that environment so they are used to this mode of life and they don’t have any problem to continue living so. On the other hand, individuals from wealthy nations, lack independence in the sense that they rely on other people for their survival. These individuals use people who have certain skills to do the work that they cannot do themselves. So, with this separation of labor, and the dependence of the individuals of the rich nations on others, there is an advantage for the individuals of the rich nations but if the people doing their work in their place can no longer be able to do it. Individuals from wealthy nations will be clueless because they are just not prepared to do this kind of work and they do know not how to do it.

Therefore, by economic problem, we mean the way in which society distributes materials and resolve them through production and distribution. In terms of production and distribution, these are the two main tasks found in any society. The first task, which is production, consists in guaranteeing a sufficient production of goods and services for one’s personal survival, and the second, which is distribution, consists in distributing the results of its production to generate even more production. However, it is difficult for societies to fulfill these two tasks, firstly to the unlimited need of individuals and secondly for the limited amount of available resources. The society also faces production and distribution difficulties due to a lack of good remuneration to push workers to do a good job or sometimes due to the fact that production is not fully distributed. So, they have to find people to do the job effectively and make sure that people produce the goods and services that society needs. We note then that these two distinct tasks are closely related. To ensure the continuous supply of material, society must ensure that its production is distributed in order to maintain continuous production and the desire to continue working.

These two tasks are at the head of the economic problem that we find everywhere. Therefore, to stabilize this economic problem and accomplish these tasks, we distinguish three solutions that are: by tradition, by command, and finally by the market. For centuries, various societies have used these three solutions to accomplish tasks and solve the economic problem. The first one: is tradition is the oldest technique and the main stabilizing force of societies. It consists in making sons follow the same career as their fathers. This succession allows the transfer of skills from generation to generation and also ensures society has enough working force to perform the tasks required for production and also solve the distribution problem. Heilbroner argues that even in societies that do not necessarily use tradition, custom plays an important role in solving the economic problem. Because of the customs, people have a specific type of work they want to do.

Then we have the second method which is by command. It is a method that started back several centuries and consists of a leader in charge of the economy, who dictates on the tasks to be performed. So, the leader is the one who decides everything, the different people who perform different tasks to provide the goods and services that society needs. This solution is very effective to solve economic problems, especially in difficult times. This solution can have a positive impact and a negative impact in the sense that there is a possibility of improving or reducing the economic efficiency of society. Finally, we have the third method which is the market. This method allows society to secure its own supply without having much recourse to tradition and command. That is, this method allows the economy to regulate itself through the mechanism of supply and demand.

Heilbroner came up with the conclusion that economics is not a physical and technical problem with nature, nor a problem of scarcity and a problem just for individuals but is a human problem. This is because members of society have unlimited needs because they always want more and more. Indeed, society also has non-fixed desires that change all the time. We also note that the performance varies according to the human skills and also according to the energy with the production and the distribution are carried out.

When we hear the word economy, we all tend to think that it is related to the wealth of individuals or nations and that its main purpose is to maximize wealth. But in reality, the main objective of the economy is not to maximize wealth but rather, to provide the goods and services that society needs and also to solve the economic problem by archive production and distribution tasks. As far as human nature is concerned, we are used to thinking that human beings are powerless as an economic individuals, but contrary we understand that they are the ones who have control because they are the ones who constitute a demand for goods and services, and it also because of them and how they decide to perform the work that the production and distribution result varies. Finally, in the case of the history of human beings, we tend to believe that people in developing countries live better and have economic independence, whereas it is quite the opposite. These people rely on other people to do their work; therefore, they lack autonomy. This is why I believe that the people of underdeveloped countries live better in the sense that they have a certain economic independence.

“What is meant by the neoclassical (free-market) approach to business and how does it differ from a Socialist school of economic thought? Discuss their implications for people in contemporary economies.”

Today, the approach a business should take in order to be successful is often debated as it can have an impact on the contemporary economy. It could be said that businesses are the principal driving force in any economy as they encourage growth through job opportunities and the trading of goods and services. Using a range of diversified sources, this essay aims to explore two of the most dominant approaches to business and their significance on the economy. The essay is divided into three parts with the focus of the first part on defining the economic problem of scarcity and the two approaches. The second part of the essay addresses how the two approaches attempt to solve the economic problem of scarcity, whilst the third part investigates the implications that both approaches have on the economy.

A comprehensive definition of economics is ‘the social science that studies the choices that individuals, businesses, governments, and entire societies make as they cope with scarcity’ (Bade and Parkin, 2002 as cited in Backhouse and Medema, 2009). The economic problem of scarcity is a basic yet indispensable challenge for all societies. Scarcity in economics can be defined as ‘the excess of human wants over whatever could be produced’ (Sloman and Norris, 2010 as cited in Osman, 2020). This definition is further supported by Wetherly and Otter (2018) who state that the wants of human beings are unlimited, but at any one moment in time, there is a limit to the resources available to produce the goods and services to satisfy demand. It is regarded as a problem because a society must make decisions about how to allocate resources efficiently. Some examples of scarcity include water, land, gas, and labor.

The neoclassical (free-market) approach is concerned with Adam Smith’s theory of economic activity, specialization of goods, and division of labor. Smith used the metaphor of an invisible hand to represent the instincts of human nature that direct behavior (Wight, 2014). According to Prateek Agarwal (2020), a free-market economy is a type of economy that promotes the production and sale of goods and services with little or no government involvement. Agarwal (2020) also highlights that in a free-market economy order and power are decentralized, with individuals making their own voluntary economic choices. Therefore, society controls the production, allocation, and distribution of goods. Based on the work of Karl Marx, a socialist school of economic thought is quite dissimilar to the neoclassical (free-market) approach. In a socialist economy, the government has control over the production, allocation, and distribution of goods. A key difference between the two approaches is that in a neoclassical (free-market) economy individuals and companies own resources such as land and factories which are known as private ownership, whereas in a socialist economy, there is public ownership of utilities and transport.

In order to create an efficient economic environment, goods and services must be allocated, produced, and distributed correctly. Once all three issues have been addressed appropriately, the economic problem of scarcity will have been improved but not resolved as the desires of society are unlimited. The neoclassical (free-market) system aims to tackle the problem of scarcity by allocating scarce resources to where the highest amount of profit is expected. As a result of more profit being generated, businesses can encourage economies of scale which can lead to lower prices for consumers. Lower prices are incentives for customers to spend more and consequently more wants and desires are fulfilled. The buying habits of consumers impact which goods and services should be produced through their preferences and tastes. On the other hand, a socialist school of economic thought would struggle to identify a solution to the problem of scarcity as there is a lot of government involvement which means that the government would intervene when markets are failing for example. Government intervention is often regarded with contempt as it is susceptible to government failure leading to a counterproductive allocation of scarce resources.

An implication of the neoclassical (free-market) approach for entrepreneurs is that it allows business owners to innovate at any time in order to satisfy the ever-changing needs and wants of consumers. This is due to there being limited government involvement meaning that there is more freedom and an increase in opportunities for private companies to compete against one another. Furthermore, an implication of the free-market approach is that market failure is possible, and without engagement from the government, calamitous consequences can not be ruled out. An example of market failure is the 2008 banking crisis; there was a surge in unemployment as an appreciable amount of businesses collapsed which lead to an escalation in homelessness. On the contrary, a prime implication of the socialist school of economic thought is that individuals are not exploited. Under a socialistic economy, each member of society has access to basic food, healthcare, and education, thus a reduction in poverty levels. However, unlike the free-market approach, socialism lacks innovation. Competitiveness and entrepreneurs are not rewarded resulting in slow economic growth.

In conclusion, the two approaches differ rather a lot with the primary focus of the neoclassical (free-market) approach being on profit and the focus of the socialist approach being on equality. For the purpose of the economy, the neoclassical approach is the preferred system as it stimulates rapid growth and it is the approach that is most likely to improve the economic problem of scarcity.

References

1. Agarwal, P. (2017). Free Market: Advantages & Disadvantages. [online] Intelligent Economist. Available at: https://www.intelligenteconomist.com/free-market/.
2. Backhouse, R.E. and Medema, S.G. (2009). Retrospectives: On the Definition of Economics. Journal of Economic Perspectives, [online] 23(1), pp.221–233. Available at: https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.23.1.221.
3. Osman, K. (2020). The economic problem. [online] Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344780754_The_Economic_Problem.
4. Wetherly, P. and Otter, D. (2018). The business environment : themes and issues in a globalizing world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
5. Wight, J.B. (2007). The Treatment of Smith’s Invisible Hand. The Journal of Economic Education, 38(3), pp.341–358.

The Brusilov Offensive, which lasted from June to September 1916, was the straw that broke the camel’s back for Russia. The war was lost when Russia signed the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk following the 1917 revolutions. This essay will argue that the ‘June Advance’ was not necessarily a military failure since it inflicted enormous losses on the Central Powers; however, when the Russian Imperial army also suffered heavy casualties, the campaign became a disastrous moral failure. Nevertheless, this was only one of the many factors that caused the downfall of the Tsarist regime. Extreme food shortages coupled with devastating economic problems made most Russians very miserable and very hungry. In this situation, one would usually look to the top for aid and inspiration, but all the Russian people could look up to was an incompetent Tsar accompanied by equally inept associates. Hence, the population began to oppose the war, and when the Bolsheviks promised to end the conflict, the people were all too happy to support them and overthrow the Imperial government. This essay will find that the Brusilov Offensive, although significant, was not the main reason Russia lost the war: its failure, however, was a severe blow to an already drained and unhappy population.

Firstly, the Brusilov Offensive of 1916 was one of the bloodiest conflicts in the First World War due to the sheer number of casualties. Brusilov, along with Evert, was responsible for executing the offensive; however, while the former adapted to modern warfare by attacking in smaller, better-trained units, the latter still fought in the conventional form, with human wave attacks: this was futile and caused considerable casualties. Hence, many believe that the Brusilov Offensive was a disaster for Russia.

In terms of leadership, Russia lost the war because the Tsar and his close associates were very inefficient: Nicholas II had removed the capable Grand Duke Nicholas Nikolaevich and made himself the supreme commander of all Russian forces. The Tsar, who had no experience in war, only acted as a figurehead for the army: thus, he assumed that his presence would boost morale on the battlefield. On the contrary, Nicholas II was blamed for every military defeat since his self-elevation, shattering the divine infallibility many thought he had.

Due to his new post, Nicholas also abandoned the home front, and his wife, Tsarina Alexandra, took over the domestic government. One modern source explains that ‘the Tsar had taken over at this point [on September 15, 1915,] ignoring warnings that he could not be both soldier and statesman’. The Tsarina, who, as historian Jonathan Bromley put it, was an ‘awkward figure’, and was not popular with the people: Alexandra’s German origin did not gain many citizens’ trust (she was often known as ‘nemka’, meaning ‘German woman’). Furthermore, chaos ensued in the Russian government because Alexandra gave people positions based on their loyalty to the regime rather than their competence, so the administration effectively ground to a halt. The Tsarina employed four different Prime Ministers and three different Ministers of War in 16 months which caused inadequate responses to problems such as shortages of material. Hence, many believed that the Tsarina was trying to damage the war effort, and the people began to grow suspicious of Alexandra and the Russian regime more generally.

Therefore, the Tsar’s failures caused the people to be discontent with the government and contributed to Russia’s loss in the East. Support for the Petrograd Soviets skyrocketed since the majority of people wanted stronger leadership. Ultimately, this caused the revolutions of 1917 and the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. Although the army’s defeat in the Brusilov Offensive made the Tsar even more unpopular, the campaign did not affect how the Russian imperial regime acted.

Economic problems such as food shortages also contributed to Russia’s downfall: a war economy made fewer consumer goods available because most resources went to the war effort. Since most commodities were in short supply, peasants in the countryside hoarded their food: after all, money was practically worthless, so exchanging grain for cash was nonsensical.

Recruitment also affected food supplies as the army had conscripted many peasant farmers, who accounted for 82% of the population. The shortage of workers on the farms caused consumable commodities to be harder to obtain, especially in towns and cities.

Poor infrastructure contributed further to the problem since Russia’s underdeveloped rail system had to transport troops to the front lines and simultaneously keep the cities supplied. The inadequate railways could not keep up with the demand, and there were severe food shortages in many shops.

Therefore, food was difficult to obtain in the cities as less grain was available: Moscow required 120 freight cars of grain a day to sustain itself, but at the start of 1917, the city received just one-sixth of this amount. Food rationing due to the shortages led to protests which sparked the Revolutions of 1917.

The Brusilov Offensive played no part in this as the lack of grain originated from infrastructural and administrative issues rather than from one particular event.

Another economic problem that weakened Russia’s ability to fight in the war was inflation. Initially, the government started to print more money since it lacked funds: this worked out in the short term but was disastrous in the long. The price of goods increased dramatically, whilst wages stayed the roughly same. By late 1916, inflation was up by almost 400 percent, and the rouble was worth a quarter of its pre-war buying power. Life became very challenging for ordinary citizens. The economic problems fuelled discontentment, which helped spark the 1917 revolutions. Alexander Kerensky, the Minister of War, wrote that ‘the Russian people [were] suffering from economic fatigue’, and consequently, ‘the Russian Revolution [was] just beginning’.

Additionally, shortages of equipment were a pressing problem. Russia had begun the war ill-prepared for modern conflict since the country had not yet fully industrialized: at the onset of the war, the artillery was using 45,000 shells a day, but the factories produced only 1,300 in the same period. Although the situation started to improve in 1916, the military still lacked airplanes and heavy guns. Colonel Knox wrote that ‘without airplanes and far more heavy guns and shells and some knowledge of their use, it is butchery, and useless butchery to drive Russian infantry against German lines’. Without good supplies and equipment, Russia could not overcome its enemies.

The Russian population was on the verge of revolt due to inflation: this problem made the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk almost inexorable. The underequipped military could not defeat the Central Powers because of the glaring supply issues: the Imperial Army would find itself on the brink of collapse, creating a military catastrophe for Russia. The Brusilov Offensive was not significant here as the campaign neither changed the Russian economic situation nor affected the equipment shortages.

Russia also capitulated to Germany because of the lack of morale in the army and among the people.

The high casualties from the Brusilov Offensive sparked waves of demoralization: according to General Dukhonin, the commander-in-chief, the campaign caused one million losses. Desertion and dissent became endemic; this led to the collapse of the shrinking Imperial Army in 1917. Without an army, Russia could not fight a war.

The high number of total fatalities, aggravated by the Brusilov Offensive, hit the people hard too: most Russians were appalled at the loss of men and were horrified by the army’s failure: dissent and discontent spread amongst the population. A 21st-century account explains that ‘success on the battlefield would quell dissent at home’. However, the continuous losses and the failure of the Brusilov Offensive made the people desperate for change.

The high death toll, which provoked desertion in the army and dissidence amongst the people, contributed to the 1917 Revolution and obliterated Russia’s shrinking army. The Brusilov Offensive played a substantial part in this, and the campaign exacerbated existing problems with morale.

Ultimately, Russia lost the First World War because the people were incandescent: food shortages, economic problems, and the Tsar’s incompetence made the people despise the imperial regime. The Bolsheviks’ popularity soared, and the slogan ‘peace, land, bread’ effectively guaranteed the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. The Brusilov Offensive caused high casualties and demoralized both the troops and the people, but the campaign’s failure, although significant, was not the main reason Russia surrendered to Germany. The principal causes of the defeat were the 1917 revolutions and the disintegration of the Imperial Army. The Brusilov Offensive shook a population on the brink of revolt, and the campaign’s failure was nothing less than the straw that broke the camel’s back.

I’ll be honest, walking into my first economics lesson, I was skeptical, questioning if I had made the right choice. Growing up in Hong Kong, the city’s position as a major hub of finance and trade was an unavoidable fact, with both my parents working in the financial sector; the sound of the talking heads on television discussing the housing market and stock prices, one economic problem after the next; providing the soundtrack to my mornings as my parents prepared me for school. I couldn’t understand a word at the time, tuning out the tangle of voices and tucking it into the back of my mind; choosing instead to divert my curiosities elsewhere for the time being. However, when it came time to pick the subjects I would be taking post-iGCSEs, I chose Economics as one of them. During the period of intellectual drought that followed my iGCSEs, I felt aimless. I was yearning for something to fulfill my hunger for knowledge. I recalled the burning frustration of not knowing, of not being able to understand what I had felt growing up. It was then I decided to take up economics, hoping to find answers.

I had held many misconceptions about the nature of Economics going into that first lesson. All of them had been swiftly dispelled by the time it was over. When my teacher introduced economics as a social science, I was surprised, to say the least; curious, and eager for more. As more concepts were introduced, my curiosity only grew, which led me to realize that this subject was the right choice for me. All of the facts and figures I heard on the morning news suddenly started to make more sense, opening my eyes to the economic and political issues around me: Why is housing unaffordable for so many?, What is the root cause of the high level of income inequality? Why do people not always make rational decisions? These were some of the questions I began to ask myself as I progressed further with my studies.

Looking back, I think what ultimately led me to embrace economics as a subject was that it had a human element I thought was lacking in subjects I had previously studied, like maths. While mathematical problems deal in absolutes, economics is mired in uncertainty. There are often many possible solutions to any given economic problem; economics being a field of study that is constantly evolving, with many often contrasting schools of economic thought having been conceived since the inception of the discipline, each with their own flaws and benefits; forming the bedrock for modern economic policy. But despite this progress, there still remains a great many economic problems that lack a definitive answer. Economics, being a study of human problems, perhaps reflects our flaws and imperfections, having inherited both our best and our worst. Like us, “The Dismal Science” has yet to reach its ultimate form and may never do so, but for me at least, that was good enough.

My studies in Computer Science have allowed me to cultivate my problem-solving skills and adopt a logical mindset, which has been useful when considering the various interlocking pieces that make up an economy. It has also granted me insight into the background workings of the internet and computer encryption protocols which may prove useful, given the increasing number of economic transactions that are performed online. Studying English has sharpened my analytical and research skills. Studying texts and exploring their many possible interpretations prepared me for the subjective nature of economic policies. These skills will serve me well as I transition to higher education and beyond, into the world of work, where I aim to build a career in the financial sector.

After years of simply memorizing facts, I found a subject that demanded my effort and encouraged me to think in a more well-rounded way; to understand the multifaceted nature of economic problems. I had been living in a world of black and white. But for the first time, I saw a hint of grey.