Sunday, December 4, 2011

Illustrate and explain the American Federal Government’s changing role between 1919 - 1942.


American Federal Government’s changing role between 1919 and 1942 
          
            From 1919 to 1942, American Federal Government’s changing role can be demonstrated by the degree of government intervention towards economy and the welfare of the nation. President Hoover and his stand with the rugged individualism and government’s policy of laissez faire would not provide direct government aid to individuals as well as companies, even in the times of stock market collapse contributing to the Great Depression. Whereas, President Roosevelt instituted completely the opposite role of government as compared to Hoover, that included a high degree of government intervention in the economy and the welfare of the nation. Therefore, during this time phase, the degree of government intervention increased gradually, and took its elevation towards the highest level that federalized most of the industries and represented the beginning of the welfare state.

            President Wilson established the Federal Reserve and Federal Trade Commission, as well as, helped America to have a neutral position during the World War I with a plan for the League of Nations (Woodrow Wilson). The national policy of Prohibition also began in his era. President Harding favored pro-business policies and limited immigration (Warren G. Harding). President Coolidge also favored pro-business policies that included tax cuts and limited government spending (Calvin Coolidge). President Hoover provided additional help to farmers who were facing mortgage foreclosures, banking reforms, expansion of public works etc. but, with his stand of rugged individualism and his inclination towards the government’s policy of laissez faire, he couldn’t take the American people out of the economy of depression (Herbert Hoover).

            In 1932, when FDR was elected president, the nation was undergoing massive unemployment of 13,000,000 with almost every banks closed, and, therefore, the nation desperately needed a strong support from the government to uplift the economic depression (Franklin D. Roosevelt). The liberal consensus historians from 1940s – 1960s viewed, “the new deal” that consisted of relief, recovery and reform changed the role of the federal government in American way of life. The relief by FDR was initiated by Bank Holiday, Emergency Banking Act, Federal Emergency Relief Act (FERA), Civil Works Administration (CWA), and, Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC). The recovery process included Agriculture Adjustment Act (AAA), National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), Home Owners Loan Corp., Works Progress Administration (WPA), and, Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). The reform, to avoid another depression was carried out by Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), Social Security Administration, National Labor Relations Act and National Labor Relations Board (NLRA/NLRB), and, Soil Conservation Act.

            Therefore, the role of American Federal Government increased exponentially towards its citizens, and the Government could legally regulate the economy with the reforms of FDR (Franklin D. Roosevelt). He also inbuilt the “good neighbor” policy, keeping United States out of the war in Europe as well as contributed to the planning of a United Nations where he hoped to sort out the international difficulties (Franklin D. Roosevelt). Overall, the government involvement in economy and the welfare of the nation increased to the level that was never instituted in the history of United States of America. 



Works Cited:
"Calvin Coolidge." History.com — History Made Every Day — American & World History. Web. 04 Dec. 2011. <http://www.history.com/topics/calvin-coolidge>.


"Franklin D. Roosevelt." The White House. Web. 04 Dec. 2011. <http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/franklindroosevelt>.


"Herbert Hoover." The White House. Web. 04 Dec. 2011. <http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/herberthoover>.



"Warren G. Harding." History.com — History Made Every Day — American & World History. Web. 04 Dec. 2011. <http://www.history.com/topics/warren-g-harding>.



"Woodrow Wilson — History.com Articles, Video, Pictures and Facts." History.com — History Made Every Day — American & World History. Web. 04 Dec. 2011. <http://www.history.com/topics/woodrow-wilson>.


"Years of Crisis." TELESCOPING THE TIMES Years of Crisis, 1919–1939. 61-63. McDougal Littell Inc. Web. 2 Dec. 2011. <http://mclane.fresno.k12.ca.us/wilson98/mwh/C/MH15C061.PDF>.

Sunday, November 27, 2011

Why the Stock Market Crashed in 1929



The Stock Market Crash in 1929 
  
            Just like a human body needs to have a balanced diet to be healthy, economic system needs to have a natural flow of balance to have a prosperous economy, meaning – every individuals and organizations need to contribute to the economy from their own sectors. Economy is the web of every activity that is happening in the society, nation, and in today’s perspective, the whole world. Thus, the imbalance in the web of activities would eventually create an imbalance in the economic system (body) that can result in the unpredictability of the economy (symptoms of sickness, sickness, recovery, healthy) causing recession, depression, recovery and prosperity. Thus, stock market of 1929 crashed because of the imbalance in the web of activities, in the economic system.

            One of the imbalances in the web of the activities in the economy of 1929 was the investments of many individuals as well as corporations, creating rapid expansion in the stock market (Stock Market Crash of 1929).  Many banks also invested the depositor’s money in the stock market (Stock Market Crash). People wanted to become rich without working hard as they saw countless opportunities in the stock market and invested on it, by mortgaging their home, selling liberty bonds, as well as, buying stocks on margin (Stock Market Crash of 1929). 300 million shares of stocks that were being carried, buying stocks on margin by the midsummer of 1929, would certainly create an imbalance in the economy (Stock Market Crash of 1929). Therefore, the stock market crashed due to the rampant speculation, tightening of credit by the Federal Reserve, the proliferation of holding companies and investment trust creating debt, and, the large bank loans that couldn’t be liquidated (Stock Market Crash of 1929).

            In this era, radio was the technology that communicated the speculations of the Stock markets (Norris, Floyd.). The investors and the speculators were never so close, ever before, that motivated investors to invest, and, the stocks reached in millions of dollars (Norris, Floyd). The positive publicity of the stock market diminished the voices that warned public to be careful (Norris, Floyd.). Most of the public, who had very little knowledge about it, were investing on it, even though the businesses were failing right before their eyes (Norris, Floyd.)
“Playing the stock market has become a major American pastime,” reported The Times in a magazine article published on March 24, 1929 (Norris, Floyd). Despite of the warnings from the Fed not to borrow from the Fed’s discount window to lend the money to stock market speculators, the banks choose to ignore the warning, and, created credit crunch which flumed the crash of the stock market (Norris, Floyd).

To sum up, all of the imbalances in the web of the activities in the economy - rapid expansion of investment in the stock market, the margin rules of 10 percent of the purchase price creating debt as well as credit crunch, rampant speculation, communication technology as radio, less education about stock market trends, failing businesses, disregarding the warnings from the government etc. contributed towards the stock market crash in 1929, which is well known as the most devastating crash in United States history, contributing the Great Depression of the 1930s. 

Works Cited:
Norris, Floyd. "Web Special: The Crash of 1929." The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. The New York Times, 15 Oct. 1999. Web. 27 Nov. 2011. <http://www.nytimes.com/library/financial/index-1929-crash.html>.

"Stock Market Crash." PBS: Public Broadcasting Service. PBS. Web. 27 Nov. 2011. <http://www.pbs.org/fmc/timeline/estockmktcrash.htm>.

"Stock Market Crash of 1929." History.com — History Made Every Day — American & World History. A&E Television Networks, LLC. Web. 27 Nov. 2011. <http://www.history.com/topics/1929-stock-market-crash>.


Saturday, November 26, 2011

Make an argument for or against the Annexation of Hawaii, Cuba, Philippines, & or Puerto Rico



The Annexation of Philippines

            The U.S. annexation of the Philippines was the part of a large colonizing project, which the historian E.J. Hobsbawm has termed as, “the age of empire”, between 1876 and 1915 (Espiritu, Yen Le). Economic interest motivated the U.S. to cross the Pacific, and, U.S. saw a growing potential in Asia for a market that helps with the accumulation of goods and capital, and, the history tells us a shift in the U.S. economic strategy from a concern from land to a concern for markets (Espiritu, Yen Le). Heinz Ickstadt argued that the conquest of the Philippines opened a new economic manifest of lucrative markets of China and Japan which opened a way towards U.S. economic prosperity (Espiritu, Yen Le). 

            Imperialism that was backed up by Social Darwinism provides a scientific justification for the annexation of the Philippines. In 1898, United States began its military involvement in the Philippines to help fight the freedom of Philippines from the Spanish colonial rule. After, Spanish were defeated, President McKinley’s argument to retain control over the Philippines is justifiable by the scientifically proven theory of Darwinism, that, they are non-white people, and they are unfit for the Government until they are educated and civilized (Race in Muckrakers & Reformers). We were not the only one to have justified our attempt to broaden our horizons, Rudyard Kipling of Britain also used the Social Darwinism theory to make a statement that it is a white man’s burden to civilize non-European peoples who are far-off lands (Race in Muckrakers & Reformers). Also, for many progressive thinkers, the annexation was a symbol of spreading American principles of stable government, economic development and opportunity, and technological advancement to uplift the civilization of the world (Race in Muckrakers & Reformers). 

            Theodore Roosevelt and other progressives were convinced that America was doing the right thing, because they believed that Filipinos were the people living in barbarism (Race in Muckrakers & Reformers). Even though, 1898 annexation of the Philippines was one of the most controversial provision, we defended it with the argument for “civilization” that is scientifically proven by the theory of Darwinism.           

Works Cited:
Espiritu, Yen Le. "Home Bound: Filipino American Lives ... - Yen Le Espiritu." Google Books. University of California Press, 2003, 5 May 2003. Web. 26 Nov. 2011. <http://books.google.com/books?id=W19b7W7nsxYC>.
"Race in Muckrakers & Reformers." Shmoop: Homework Help, Teacher Resources, Test Prep. Shmoop.com. Web. 26 Nov. 2011. <http://www.shmoop.com/muckrakers-reformers/race.html>.

The Republican Congress on the vision of Reconstruction



The Republican Congress on the vision of Reconstruction

            The civil war was one of the bloodiest wars in the American history killing 620,000 Americans. The nation was in complete jeopardy in respect to the infrastructure, law and order, civil rights and political corruption. When I see those pictures of the America after the civil war, I feel very emotional imagining the pain that the people of southerners or the northerners were going through. I feel bad that the nation was divided. Even though, it seems that the Republicans were politically envisioning the Reconstruction, Republican Congress on the Reconstruction seems to be right as well as effective in comparison to President Johnson.

            The infrastructure of the nation as railroads, houses and other public needs were all meshed up. The big question was how to assimilate four million former slaves into freedom and citizenship (Brockman, Slide 52). In this tough time, the nation should take responsibility to provide freedom, civil rights and treat all of people of the nation as equal. The Republican congress was more effectively envisioning it. They strongly stated that to reenter the Union, 13th, 14th and 15th amendments should be followed that was designed to help and support the equal rights for African American even thought, it had some loopholes which the southerners would take advantage of (Brockman, Slide 81). Their intension was to unify the divided nation. They divided the south into five military districts because this time around, a strong government intervention was necessary because they could protect the civil rights of the freed people who were killed and torchered. They supported Civil Rights Act of 1866, which would help the freedman towards equality but, the fact is that President Johnson vetoed the bill saying it would operate in favor of the colored and against the white race. Oh common, reconstruction is not a political game. It was much needed bill that was supposed to be passed but it took 90 years to revisit after the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional. Congress also created Freedman’s Bureau in 1865 – 1872, which is considered the most important decisions after civil war because it created school, hospitals, industrial institutes, teacher-training centers and distributed food and clothing (Brockman, Slide 81).

            In contrary, President Johnson’s vision for Reconstruction was to have state handle the issues of equality by itself and didn’t supported the Freedman’s Bureau (Brockman, Slide 81). I personally and strongly believe that the civil rights bill and the Freedman’s Bureau should have been the vision for the Reconstruction which the Republican Congress supported, makes me believe that they were right as well they had the most effective vision for the Reconstruction.            



Monday, November 21, 2011

Industrialization has produced more benefits than problems for the Nation



Industrialization has produced more benefits than problems for the Nation
            I cannot imagine the life that I have now, with the comfort of all the benefits that I have, to perform the simple tasks easily, whether it is using my car to commute or, it may be using Wal-Mart to buy all of my groceries. But, what I can imagine is more sophisticated industrialization that makes our life even more comfortable, so that, we can concentrate on exploring the universe. I think it depends up on an individual’s way of looking at the broader perspective of life which the Maslow in his hierarchy of needs, positioned at the top most level – “Self - actualization”, that deals with the highest level of need, an individual seeks ultimately. Therefore, I as an individual, would like to strongly state that the industrialization has produced more benefits than problems for the Nation.  
            Let’s not limit our mind to the history of mankind in Earth, let’s create the history for us to the infinity of the space as Moon, Mars or even other Galaxy. Industrialization for any Nation would be beneficial because we would advance towards civilization of mankind and create opportunities for ourselves to advance and explore our own self. For me, industrialization is equivalent to development, prosperity, pride and economic welfare to any Nation.
            As Andrew Carnegie points out in his article published in 1889 that competition is the factor that would justify industrialization and that it may not be best for some individuals but, it is definitely best for the race of mankind because it insures the survival of the fittest in every department (Carnegie, Andrew). Civilization of the human race is possible with the industrialization and, any nation having civilized individuals is what measures the Nation’s success and pride.
            Henry George in his passage for the book, Progress and Poverty agrees on the fact that the wealth has been greatly increase and that the average of comfort, leisure, and refinement has been raised (George, Henry). But, I completely disagree with his point that the lowest class does not share them. For Example, if a person has to travel from one place to the other, then the person would be using railroads or cars as the different forms of the civilization that industrialization has brought into the Nation. How can he validate his points? Also, I believe, industrialization would motivate every individual to work hard so that they could enjoy the unlimited amount of happiness that has been possible with the innovation and industrialization. Hence, any Government should provide the environment for the industrialist that would benefit the Nation, creating the jobs for the unemployed population of the Nation.              

Works Cited:
Carnegie, Andrew. "Has Industrialization Produced More Benefits or More Problems for the Nation." President of Carnegie Steel, 1889. Web. 7 Nov. 2011.
George, Henry. Has Industrialization Produced More Benefits or More Problems for the Nation? NewYork: Schalkenbach, 1984. Progress and Poverty. New York: Schalkenbach, 1879. Web.

Thursday, October 6, 2011

Mercantilism


September 19, 2011
Mercantilism
            Mercantilism is an economic philosophy and government policy popular since 16th century. This concept arose in France in early 16th century because the monarchy had become the dominant force in French politics when the government would take a control over the economy. Later in 17th century, the height of French Mercantilism was closely associated with Jean Baptiste Colbert, in the degree that the French Mercantilism was also called Colbertism. Great Britain implied this economic system to impose their government control domestically as well as internationally in their colonies. This economic system was very successful in those periods, because there was not any other economic system more efficient. It was an efficient economic and political system for the mother country, and its economic growth. The system is surrounded by many scholars who argue, agree and stay in the middle ground. For instance, Heckscher in 1955, saw Mercantilism as logically ordered entity of ideas whereas, Coleman in 1969, saw it as a thought that lacked consistency, and interpreted it as impractical and unrealistic. One of our founding fathers, Adam Smith, in his Wealth of Nations, criticized Mercantilism. So, what is Mercantilism?
            Mercantilism is a set of precepts concerning economic policy which places the State at the heart of national economic development where wealth is conceived as serving power that share a static conception of international economic relations, considering that one country can only enrich itself to the detriment of another (Fontanel, Jacques).
            Mercantilism doctrine started with the concept of bullionism, which is the economy of a nation measured by the amount of gold or silver which it possesses with the help of creating favorable balance of trade to have trade surplus (Brockman, Slide 14). In this economy, the nation would impose high tariffs on imported manufactured goods and low tariffs on imported raw materials so that the nation would have favorable balance of trade to import as much raw materials as possible, manufacture them to finished goods, and export manufactured finished goods.  Thomas Mun (1571 - 1641) who was on the leading English theorists for bullionism, advocated that a nation should sell more than they consume and place a heavy duty on goods imported for home consumption which would help to establish a favorable trade balance (Rise Of Mercantilism Commercial Capitalism). 
            Therefore, Mercantilism is an economic and political concept that measures the economy of a nation by the amount of gold or silver it possesses, for which the government regulates and enforce economic policies, which would enable them to create an infrastructure to have a trade controlled by them, so that, they have zero-sum game, benefiting the mother country (Brockman, Slide 15). Under this system, the nation would always try to increase their wealth. Therefore, they would try to establish a favorable balance of trade, where they would sell more goods than they would buy as such, self-sufficiency becomes essential and government control must exist to sponsor such policies. 
            For example, if we consider Europe and England - the mother country and the colonies to be North America, then with the implication of Mercantilism, the mother country would import cheap raw materials, as wood and cotton from the Colonies. They would then export the finished goods as furniture and clothes in higher price to the Colonies. In this process of applying Mercantilism, the mother country would pay higher labor cost to give jobs to their citizens rather than outsourcing it to the other countries, where they may have cheap labor. This economic system would impose high tariffs on imported manufactured good and low tariffs on imported raw materials from those outside the national interest. Colonies would be motivated to export the raw materials, because it would have low tariffs. They would have to import the manufactured goods because those are necessity of their lives to live. They would be forced to pay high tariffs to get them. Also, the mother country would pass laws so that it would be illegal to manufacture goods in the colonies, forcing them to buy finished goods from the mother country. This would not only benefit the mother country, it would also control the colonies, and make them dependent on the mother country. It would paralyze the Colonies which are just like Colonies being a slave of the mother country. They have to follow any control the mother country would imply on the Colonies. Therefore, Mercantilism creates unbalanced trade for all other nation or colonies that depend on the mother country for any product and services they have to offer. For the mother country, Mercantilism would definitely help boost its economy and control over the trade.   
            This was one of the reasons why American Revolution started when the government control was imposed over the citizens of the colonies. The colonies rebel against the taxation without representation. It seems like our founding fathers were against Mercantilism because they revolt against it. But, the sad part of our American History is that, in some ways we still practice the same system and policies that we were against. For instance, these days we can hear many instances of government intervention over the economy. The government tries to control the economy by passing policies that would make smaller companies hard to survive, creating a monopoly that helps the bigger companies to avoid competition of any kind. I think government should leave the economy handle itself with the competition. They should not bail out companies because the company that needs government help is a failed system. These are just some analogy, I came up with. I may be wrong.
            In the process of Mercantilism, the Triangular Trade (1451 - 1870) played vital role to implement this economic policies in the Colonies. It is a complex system which is not a two way street.
            For example, the European merchants would transfer manufactured goods to the west coast of Africa. The traders would then exchange these goods for captured Africans. Then, the merchants would sell the captured Africans as Slaves to South America and North America. They would also sell manufactured goods for Gold and Silver in the Americas. The merchants would also buy the raw materials as cotton, sugar, tobacco etc in low price and sell it to their mother country. Hence, the merchants form a triangular shape in trading and hence, called the triangular trade which seems very complex.
            This is how slavery started in Europe and the Americas which brought some economic boom as well as revolution in the later phases of slavery.
            In the late seventeenth century, New England colonists got connected to English homeland as well as the West African Slave Coast (Economy in Colonial New England). Colonist relied upon British and European imports. New England's colonies could not offer much beyond fish, furs, and naval stores in exchange of imports of manufactured goods unlike the southern colonies, which produced tobacco, indigo and rice (Economy in Colonial New England). In response, the New Englanders began built their own mercantile network by building a lucrative shipbuilding system because they had fishing boats and other goods and services that only they could produce at that time. New Englanders made a lot of profit from trading with England because they tried to follow their own system of Mercantilism of exporting the finished goods. They tried to follow the Mercantilist doctrine as well until, between 1698 and 1717, the English government imposed an unfavorable trade balance on New England and New York by raising taxes on the major colonial exports (Economy in Colonial New England). Now, the colonies were forced to fall in to the mother country's power of Mercantilism simply because they were more powerful then the colonies. One of the major aspects of Mercantilism is that the nation who follows it, tries to be as much powerful as they could be so that they can impose power on others. What we see here is the New Englanders tried to follow the economy of Mercantilism as well but, since they were not as powerful as the Mother country, they were unsuccessful to practice Mercantilism for themselves. It is beneficial to the one who impose it and the worst for those who have to follow it. This system tends to create unequal distribution of wealth and undermines competition by imposing policies and forces. This may even result in violent activates because the rest of the world would naturally be furious about the monopoly that one nation is trying to impose on every other nation.   
            One of the results of this control and monopoly, we can study in the history of the colonist of New Englanders. The colonist used their own ships to sell without paying English taxes to the Azores, southern Europe, Madeira and Newfoundland (Economy in Colonial New England). They sold bread, corn, flour, fish, beef, pork, horses, and bacon to the islands' planters and in return the Caribbean planters gave the New Englanders molasses, sugar, rum, indigo, and dyewoods, which was very crucial to the New England economy (Economy in Colonial New England). Also, a classic example of economic protest occurred on 16 December 1773, “the night that a group of colonists disguised as Indians boarded three ships in Boston Harbor and threw some 300 chests of tea into the water. The Boston Tea Party was a demonstration of public protest against the notion that Britain had the right to tax the colonies" (Economy in Ideological Origins of the American Revolution).
            The French practiced the Triangular Trade as well which was different than The English trade, meaning - they were more supportive but the French vessels were relatively inefficient with respect to those from England and other countries (McWatters, Cheryl S). The French merchants would leave for African Coasts to purchase captives at various locations in Africa in exchange for the merchandise sent from France (McWatters, Cheryl S). They would then go to colonies to sell the captives where the terms of trade were cash, bills and letter of exchange as well as colonial commodities as sugar, tobacco and indigo. This would be illegal purchasing in U.S colonies. The vessel would then return to France with goods and funds. Therefore, the application of Mercantilism and Triangular trade was different for different nations.
            To control the economy we need to have power so that we don't depend on other nations. Therefore, with the Mercantilism ideology, the government would build sea power or any other power to control foreign markets. For example, the mother country would build their own ships so that they would not have to use the ships of other nation to carry out the trade which is profitable as well as, it would add prestige and power to the mother nation. They would also control the internal trade that occurs in the nation by imposing internal taxes of all kinds so that the government gets its fund to build the strong nation to control. The very concept of this system is that the mother country would benefit from the colonies that would provide captive markets for the manufactured goods and a source of raw materials. And, for the source of raw materials, the colonies need to have a large population that would work as a labor. This is how the Slavery stated because of this ideology that they would work for free and they would be a vital part in boosting the economy of the mother country. This ideology also portrays that trade is a zero sum game which would gain only at the expense of other nations which is equivalent to the economic warfare (Brockman, slide 15). And, of course, in all of these activities, Government action is needed to regulate and enforce economic policies, which would create state-sponsored monopolies (Brockman, Slide 15).
            Jean Baptiste Colbert is related directly to Mercantilism. Colbertism supported uniform weights and measures, mandatory labor on national roads, large population and even low wages and child labor (Brockman, Slide 16). His trade policy includes the prohibition of raw material exports but the promotion of manufactured goods export, which helped to make the State policy favor the French industry to cope with the international trade competition, by creating a monopoly for the national business, to avoid competition with the international businesses (Fontanel, Jacques). The State also helped to protectionism, financial aids, privileges or the creation of State manufactures (Fontanel, Jacques). He favored internal trade and he was opposed of tolls on internal trade. In short, Colbert favored liberalization of domestic trade and emphasis on the export of goods and services to other nations. This would result in the increase of the national wealth which gives power to the Prince to control the trade as well as have a secured nation.
            "Two hundred and thirty years ago, America's economy was far closer to a pure market economy than it is today with the nation's birth coincided exactly with the publication of the ultimate philosophical handbook for the free market economies - An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith." (Adam Smith). America was the first ever nation to imply Capitalism.
            Adam Smith, a Scottish economist, argued against Mercantilism. Through his handbook for the free market economies, he portrays that economies function most efficiently and fairly when individuals are allowed to pursue their own interests rationally. These individuals’ private decisions which are rationally self-interested would combine to produce a healthy and growing economy (Adam Smith).
            Smith argued that government intervention is the great threat to economic growth by which, the government controls the activities that the people can or cannot do (Adam Smith). "Smith's 1776 work anticipated this economic aspect of the Revolution; it attacked the British policy of mercantilism as a "manifest violation of the most sacred rights of mankind," on the grounds that legislation like the Navigation Acts of the 1660s had ensured a favorable trade balance for England at the expense of the colonists, who could not therefore maximize their production, efficiency, and profits" (Economy in Ideological Origins of the American Revolution). Government intervention would distort the natural flow of economics and decreases choice of an individual to pursue their happiness. He believed in the "Invisible hand" of the market, where by if there would not be government intervention, then the natural operation and the private decisions made by thousands of rational economic players would stabilize the economy in such a way that, in long run, the economy of the nation would benefit the nation as well as the citizen of the nation, creating peace and harmony. The laws of supply and demand and the competition would regulate the market, and there would be no need for government intervention.
            Smith is influential economic thinker even today with his ideas still represent the foundation of the study of economics and especially in today's world, his sharp insights make a great sense (Adam Smith). His book, "An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of Nations" is undoubtedly one of the most important books of all time, which very important in today's economy. Recently many scholars have questioned about how government should deal with economy. Moreover, scholars have pinpointed that if government should intervene in the economy or not. They are blaming government interventions that caused the current economy of the United States. Adam Smith would definitely not be positive about the stimulus bill or about universal government-organized health insurance or about bailouts for companies judged "too big to fail" (Adam Smith).
            Eli F. Heckscher's book, Mercantilism which was first published in 1935, brought mercantilism to the attention of wider modern audience, which divided scholars for against Mercantilism. Donald C Coleman criticized Heckscher's view of Mercantilism that he only focused on the theoretical aspect of Mercantilism. But, both Heckscher and Coleman, rejoined in a liberal interpretation of mercantilist weakness, following the criticism, Adam Smith portrays in his book, An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of Nations.
            With the centralization of power, monarchies from 15 to the 18th centuries controlled the merchants and the bourgeoisie to establish wealth and power (Fontanel, Jacques). The idea of war and developing the military force to have control was already present in the Mercantilist theory (Fontanel, Jacques). The English, French and Spanish all practiced Mercantilism but the principles differed in their main objectives (Fontanel, Jacques). Mercantilism developed over time and its development, therefore, shows a slow transition of economic philosophy towards a lower consideration of political aspects even though, for mercantilist, peace is not an objective because it would not facilitate the State power (Fontanel, Jacques). Therefore, Mercantilism merges Military power and economic power.
            Mercantilism was a good economic system for the mother country when there was not any other economic system. But, in today's economy of globalization, Mercantilism is very hard to implement for the mother country to be economically successful. Government interventions should be minimized as much as possible which is against the philosophy of Mercantilism. Hence, in my opinion, we should move ahead towards Capitalism, which our founding father dreamt of as to be a capitalist nation, for economic welfare. We should avoid the direction of the Mercantilist nation.   
            Basically, Mercantilism is an economic philosophy as well as government policy that were used by France, Great Britain to impose control over their colonies for their national interests. The nation would try to establish a favorable balance of trade under this system by encouraging the export of finished goods and importing the raw materials in low price. The triangular trade played vital role to implement this economic policies in the colonies. As a result of this control and monopoly over the trade, the American Revolution started as well as the New Englanders find their own ways to do trade. Jean Baptise Colbert whose name is directly associated with Mercantilism, in his trade policy, he advocated trade monopoly for the national business to cope with the international trade competition and encouraged to export manufactured goods to other nation to increase the wealth of the nation. Whereas, Adam Smith one of our founding father published the ultimate handbook for the free market economies called, "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations" which criticized Mercantilism, promoting the fact that economy should not be controlled or regulated by any means of external force. Rather, it would be taken care naturally, by the invisible hand of the market meaning - the individuals with rational self-interest would create competition in the market that would eventually favor free trade and Capitalism, to create a positive-sum game where both nations would gain. Basically, Smith believed that the market is self-regulating and it doesn't require government control.  Therefore, in long run, we should head towards Capitalism not Mercantilism because neither of the economic system could be strictly practiced to today’s economy.  It is practically impossible to practice pure laissez-faire Capitalism as well as pure Mercantilism.  



Works Cited:
"Adam Smith." Shmoop: Homework Help, Teacher Resources, Test Prep. Web. 05 Oct. 2011.             <http://www.shmoop.com/economic-systems/adam-smith.html>.
Brockman, Jason H. "American History before 1877 - HIST 121 Slide" Web. 05 Oct. 2011.

"Economy in Colonial New England." Shmoop: Homework Help, Teacher Resources, Test Prep. Web. 01 Oct. 2011. <http://www.shmoop.com/colonial-new-england/economy.html>.

"Economy in Ideological Origins of the American Revolution." Shmoop: Homework Help,            Teacher Resources, Test Prep. Web. 05 Oct. 2011.     <http://www.shmoop.com/ideological-origins-of-american-revolution/economy.html>.

"Economic Systems Terms." Shmoop: Homework Help, Teacher Resources, Test Prep. Web. 05   Oct. 2011. <http://www.shmoop.com/economic-systems/terms.html>.


Fontanel, Jacques, Jean-Paul Hebert, and Ivan Samson. "THE BIRTH OF THE POLITICAL       ECONOMY OR THE ECONOMY IN THE HEART OF POLITICS:            MERCANTILISM." Defence & Peace Economics 19.5 (2008): 331-338. Business      Source Premier. EBSCO. Web. 1 Oct.             2011.<http://proxy01.ccis.edu:2267/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=1d70bc41-c75f-        44cd-bd42-3d5cc8931012%40sessionmgr104&vid=2&hid=122>.

McWatters, Cheryl S., and Yannick Lemarchand. "Accounting for Triangular Trade."        Accounting, Business & Financial History. Business Source Premier, July 2009. Web. 1        Oct. 2011.  <http://proxy01.ccis.edu:2267/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=3afe092c-   24f2-4117-b971-9f860b6ba7f6%40sessionmgr113&vid=4&hid=119>.

"Rise Of Mercantilism Commercial Capitalism." Economic. History of Economic Theory and        Thought. Web. 04 Oct. 2011. <http://www.economictheories.org/2008/06/rise-of-        mercantilism-commercial.html>.

Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Compare and Contrast the life of the average Chinese Laborer and Northern Irish Laborer


September 25, 2011

The life of the average Chinese Laborer and Northern Irish Laborer.
            Chinese immigrants were the next flashpoint of nativists sentiments and they were the target of nativists' anger, which used to be with Irish or Germans or Catholics (Labor in Early American Immigration). The Chinese immigrants started moving to California in 1850s in the hopes of finding fortune in the gold and silver mines, but they were discriminated legally, which made them really hard, just to survive (Race in Transcontinental Railroad). They were not allowed basic rights of an individual as rights to vote, education, testify in court, own land and become citizens, but, they had to pay taxes on water, hospital, school, and property. On top of that, they had to pay foreign miner's "permission tax" which the Irish Immigrants would not have to pay (Race in Transcontinental Railroad).
            Unlike Irish Laborer, Chinese Laborer were far more skilled, hardworking and dedicated workers because, "The first Chinese crews were brought on largely with the idea that their presence might help to keep the Irishmen in line and on the job" (Race in Transcontinental Railroad).  Chinese were efficient in tunneling as well as any other tasks during the building of Transcontinental Railroad who were paid $30 monthly wage whereas Irish counterparts were earning $35 a month plus board which was not at all fair by any means (Race in Transcontinental Railroad). Ironically, after facing racial discrimination from counterparts and the State, in 1882, the Congress passed first Chinese Exclusion Act which banned all further immigration of Chinese Laborers which was renewed in 1892 and again in 1904 (Race in Transcontinental Railroad).
            Irish Laborers were far better offs than Chinese and they were always against Chinese, adapting the slogan, "Chinese Must Go!"
 In 1877, Denis Kearney, a charismatic Irish demagogue in San Francisco, whose supporters led an anti-Chinese riot - destroys business in Chinatown (Labor in Early American Immigration). Competition was the term that defines the working condition of both the Chinese and Irish Laborers which was unfair, because the Chinese were just being able to peruse low paying jobs with greater skills than the Irish.  
            In short, both Irish and the Chinese laborers were the groups of people, who were hated and controlled immigrant workers, who helped connect United States by building railroads, cannels and mining to boost up the American Economy in 18th century. In compared to Chinese Laborers, Irish Laborers were much betters off with the legal rights of freedom to pursuit their own happiness in their own hard ways.  

Works Cited:
"Labor in Early American Immigration." Shmoop: Homework Help, Teacher Resources, Test        Prep. Web. 25 Sept. 2011. <http://www.shmoop.com/early-american-immigration/labor.html>.

"Race in Transcontinental Railroad." Shmoop: Homework Help, Teacher Resources, Test Prep.     Web.  25 Sept. 2011. <http://www.shmoop.com/transcontinental-railroad/race.html>.