Social essay 2

Social essay 2

• 1.
  It can beargued that Economics could be reduced to the study of how individuals and societies meet their needs and wants. According to the source, the economy can be influenced by the government to an extent, but once the economy reaches a beyond critical level, and starts to crash, it is up the producers and the consumers to fix the economy; the government will not be able to fix it for them. No matter what laws, regulations, or the amount of legislative interference the government enforces upon the economy, it is up to the “economic body”, producers and consumers, to repair the defects. Liberalism, as an economic ideology, offers a variety of options for the citizens and governments in terms of dealing with periods of economic distress. One perspective, the right side perspective, the leader of the country would not intervene. They would tell the producers and consumers that they have to fix it, for they are the responsible for the economy; they are the ones who decide the how well the economy does. Adam Smith would be one philosopher that would support this ideology. From another perspective, the left side perspective, the government would tend to intervene more into the economy. Depending how far left the government of a certain country leans, depends how much of a role they play, to fix the problems that arise that could cripple the economy. Keynes would be a philosopher of this ideology. , and would say that the government’s role was to “play doctor” to the economic body when it suffers, and that without interventions, the economic status could drastically worsen if left unchecked. When faced with the question “To what extent should we embrace the ideological perspective(s) reflected in the source?” I would partially embrace the source’s perspective. Adam Smith has the right idea in letting the economic body fix the problem, as the play the biggest role and decides the status of the economy. But when Stalin ruled Russia, he had total control of the economy and his people. Stalin was the one who decided how well the economy would do, and by having total control over the economy, he had the power to sway the economy whichever way he wanted it to go.<br />Throughout society, there are a variety of individuals who would oppose the perspective of this source. Many individuals would use Franklin D. Roosevelt’s “New Deal” policy as an example of their opposition. Influenced by John Maynard Keynes, Roosevelt created a series of programs that focused on the relief, reform, and recovery of the “economic body”. Specifically, the relief would focus on the unemployed, reform the economy, and recovery from Depression. From this Roosevelt also created the Securities and Commission Exchange, which regulated publicly traded stocks, whose legacy was to maintain a strong safety net for the people. Roosevelt also created many jobs for the unemployed. For example, Roosevelt had the Hoover Dam created, and this large scale project opened up many jobs for the people. Many individuals would also argue that countries that use Keynesian Economics would run into some heavy obstacles like debt. According to Keynesian economics, when inflationary times rise, the government should raise taxes and reduce spending, and the central banks should higher interest rates. But if the government increased taxes, then not only would many individuals be unhappy and have a harder times paying bills and taxes during good times, the government would lose popularity and the trust of the people, therefore, destroying their chances of being elected in the next election. Because of Keynesian Economics, Great Britain, the United States, and other countries accumulated massive government debts and stagflation in the 1970’s.<br />With opposition comes agreement. There are many individuals who would agree with the perspectives reflected by the source. Many people would say that both the economic body and the government need to play a role in the economy. It is not just the citizens that make purchases, buy stocks, and take part in consumer demand; the government plays just as much a role in this as the non-government body of society, and therefore, they have just as much of a role as producers and consumers. In a more Classical Liberal right-sided economy, the Invisible Hand usually disappears. John Maynard Keynes used the Great Depression as a perfect example of this. He stated that a balance of supply and demand would not result in full employment, because in times of stress, people would hoard their money, and would not invest any money into the economy, which in turn, would prolong any recession that was occurring, and then it would eventually evolve into something worse. Classical Liberals would also agree with this source’s perspective. They saw no reason for the government to get involved with the economy, believing that individuals were responsible for their own financial situations. Milton Friedman would be a well-known philosopher would agree with the source. He believed that inflation was due to the fact of excess amounts of money produced by central banks. This happens from increased interest rates. Friedman says that when money supply is increased, consumer spending also increases, when in turn causes demand to rise, which leads to inflation to increase. If interest rates were not to increase, it would stop excess amounts of money to be produced, therefore, not causing consumer spending, demand, and inflation to rise. Friedrich Hayek is another philosopher who had similar perspectives of this source. He believed that increased interference in the economy would essentially lead to increased interference in the social aspects of individuals’ lives. Like Adam Smith, both Friedman and Hayek thought that only the free market was the only way to balance supply and demand in the economy, while maintaining individual freedom.<br />One of the best ways to control any economy would probably be Blair’s Third Way, which was created by the United Kingdom Prime Minister Tony Blair, who was in office from 1997-2007. Blair’s Third Way was a mixture of Keynesian Economics and the more recent Monetarism. This was seen as a shift to a more moderate platform that would adopt free market policies, while maintaining Social Programs. Tony Blair’s Third way was in favour of wealth creation, and in favour of greater Social justice. Blair had the government spend more money on Health Care, Education, and he also introduced the minimum wage. He also at this time introduced Tuition fees to all post-secondary schools.<br />When an individual is faced with the question of to what extent should we embrace the perspectives of a source, one could definitely argue that the perspective can completely supported and embraced to a full extent, or it could be rejected, and not be embraced at all. When looking at the political spectrum, there are people both the left side and the right side that would embrace or reject the perspectives of this source. Franklin D. Roosevelt was a Political leader who would have rejected this, because he created many Social Programs that helped individuals who suffered financially. Then there is Adam Smith, who would have agreed with the source, saying that supply and demand from producer-consumer relationship is the cause of the inflation, and therefore, they need to fix the problem. There are two viewpoints of this perspective. Let the economic body sort it out, or have the government intervene and attempt to help fix the problem with Social programs, and other political legislative actions.<br />