DISTURB THE PEACE destroy YOUR LIFE
Wednesday 27 November 2013
Tuesday 26 November 2013
Is the U.S. Right to Agree to a Deal on Iran's Nuclear Program?
Is the U.S. Right to Agree to a Deal on Iran's Nuclear Program?
The country will temporarily freeze nuclear activities in exchange for sanctions relief
November 24, 2013
Signed early Sunday morning in Geneva, the agreement restricts Iran from enriching uranium beyond five percent. This level is too low to fuel a nuclear bomb but is enough for energy production. Iran will also dismantle links between networks of existing centrifuges, and will not build any new centrifuges or enrichment plants. Its stockpile of 20-percent enriched uranium will be diluted or converted to oxide so it cannot be used for bomb production.
President Barack Obama said the agreement is the first step to ensuring Iran's nuclear program is peaceful and not intended for weapons production. In a statement from the State Dining Room Saturday night, Obama said the agreement will also allow inspections of Iran's nuclear facilities to verify compliance. He emphasized that a more permanent deal will be pursued during further negotiations over the next six months, but in the meantime Iran will be unable to use those talks "as cover to advance its program."
[See a collection of political cartoons on Iran.]
"In these negotiations, nothing will be agreed to unless everything is agreed to. The burden is on Iran to prove to the world that its nuclear program will be exclusively for peaceful purposes," Obama said.
In exchange for the nuclear program restrictions, the United States will provide between $6 and $7 billion in sanctions relief. Iran has been subject to tough economic sanctions for its repeated refusal to comply with international law regarding its nuclear activities, as the country maintains it has the right to such technology.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has been publicly critical of the recent negotiations, said his country did not accept the deal. He said the international community was wrong to provide sanctions relief to Iran in exchange for an accord that did not entirely curb nuclear production.
"Israel is not bound by this agreement," Netanyahu said. "As prime minister of Israel, I would like to make it clear: Israel will not allow Iran to develop a military nuclear capability."
[Check out our editorial cartoons on President Obama.]
Some members of Congress too have been wary of the diplomatic talks, pressing instead for further sanctions on Iran. They argued this would give the United States more leverage in negotiating an end to Iran's nuclear production.
President Obama can use an executive order to enact the sanctions relief included in the agreement, so no action from Congress will be required to approve it.
Sunday 17 November 2013
Who Benefits From A War Between The United States And Syria?
Who Benefits From A War Between The United States And Syria?
Submitted by Michael Snyder via The Economic Collapse blog,
Someone wants to get the United States into a war with Syria very, very badly. Cui bono is an old Latin phrase that is still commonly used, and it roughly means "to whose benefit?" The key to figuring out who is really behind the push for war is to look at who will benefit from that war. If a full-blown war erupts between the United States and Syria, it will not be good for the United States, it will not be good for Israel, it will not be good for Syria, it will not be good for Iran and it will not be good for Hezbollah. The party that stands to benefit the most is Saudi Arabia, and they won't even be doing any of the fighting.
They have been pouring billions of dollars into the conflict in Syria, but so far they have not been successful in their attempts to overthrow the Assad regime. Now the Saudis are trying to play their trump card - the U.S. military. If the Saudis are successful, they will get to pit the two greatest long-term strategic enemies of Sunni Islam against each other - the U.S. and Israel on one side and Shia Islam on the other. In such a scenario, the more damage that both sides do to each other the happier the Sunnis will be.
There would be other winners from a U.S. war with Syria as well. For example, it is well-known that Qatar wants to run a natural gas pipeline out of the Persian Gulf, through Syria and into Europe. That is why Qatar has also been pouring billions of dollars into the civil war in Syria.
So if it is really Saudi Arabia and Qatar that want to overthrow the Assad regime, why does the United States have to do the fighting?
Someone should ask Barack Obama why it is necessary for the U.S. military to do the dirty work of his Sunni Muslim friends.
Obama is promising that the upcoming attack will only be a "limited military strike" and that we will not be getting into a full-blown war with Syria.
The only way that will work is if Syria, Hezbollah and Iran all sit on their hands and do nothing to respond to the upcoming U.S. attack.
Could that happen?
Maybe.
Let's hope so.
But if there is a response, and a U.S. naval vessel gets hit, or American blood is spilled, or rockets start raining down on Tel Aviv, the U.S. will then be engaged in a full-blown war.
That is about the last thing that we need right now.
The vast majority of Americans do not want to get embroiled in another war in the Middle East, and even a lot of top military officials are expressing "serious reservations" about attacking Syria according to the Washington Post...
If we attack and Assad stays in power, that is a bad outcome for the United States.
If we help overthrow the Assad regime, the rebels take control. But they would be even worse than Assad. They have pledged loyalty to al-Qaeda, and they are rabidly anti-American, rabidly anti-Israel and rabidly anti-western.
So why in the world should the United States get involved?
This war would not be good for Israel either. I have seen a number of supposedly pro-Israel websites out there getting very excited about the prospect of war with Syria, but that is a huge mistake.
Syria has already threatened to attack Israeli cities if the U.S. attacks Syria. If Syrian missiles start landing in the heart of Tel Aviv, Israel will respond.
And if any of those missiles have unconventional warheads, Israel will respond by absolutely destroying Damascus.
And of course a missile exchange between Syria and Israel will almost certainly draw Hezbollah into the conflict. And right now Hezbollah has 70,000 rockets aimed at Israel.
If Hezbollah starts launching those rockets, thousands upon thousands of innocent Jewish citizens will be killed.
So all of those "pro-Israel" websites out there that are getting excited about war with Syria should think twice. If you really are "pro-Israel", you should not want this war. It would not be good for Israel.
If you want to stand with Israel, then stand for peace. This war would not achieve any positive outcomes for Israel. Even if Assad is overthrown, the rebel government that would replace him would be even more anti-Israel than Assad was.
War is hell. Ask anyone that has been in the middle of one. Why would anyone want to see American blood spilled, Israeli blood spilled or Syrian blood spilled?
If the Saudis want this war so badly, they should go and fight it. Everyone knows that the Saudis have been bankrolling the rebels. At this point, even CNN is openly admitting this...
According to Associated Press correspondent Dale Gavlak, it has been the Saudis...
The Voice of Russia has also been reporting on Gavlak's bombshell findings...
The Saudis are absolutely determined to make this war happen, and they expect us to do the fighting.
And Barack Obama plans to go ahead and attack Syria without the support of the American people or the approval of Congress.
According to a new NBC News poll that was just released, nearly 80 percent of all Americans want Congress to approve a strike on Syria before it happens.
And according to Politico, more than 150 members of Congress have already signed letters demanding that Obama get approval from them before attacking Syria...
Let's just hope that he doesn't start World War III in the process.
Someone wants to get the United States into a war with Syria very, very badly. Cui bono is an old Latin phrase that is still commonly used, and it roughly means "to whose benefit?" The key to figuring out who is really behind the push for war is to look at who will benefit from that war. If a full-blown war erupts between the United States and Syria, it will not be good for the United States, it will not be good for Israel, it will not be good for Syria, it will not be good for Iran and it will not be good for Hezbollah. The party that stands to benefit the most is Saudi Arabia, and they won't even be doing any of the fighting.
They have been pouring billions of dollars into the conflict in Syria, but so far they have not been successful in their attempts to overthrow the Assad regime. Now the Saudis are trying to play their trump card - the U.S. military. If the Saudis are successful, they will get to pit the two greatest long-term strategic enemies of Sunni Islam against each other - the U.S. and Israel on one side and Shia Islam on the other. In such a scenario, the more damage that both sides do to each other the happier the Sunnis will be.
There would be other winners from a U.S. war with Syria as well. For example, it is well-known that Qatar wants to run a natural gas pipeline out of the Persian Gulf, through Syria and into Europe. That is why Qatar has also been pouring billions of dollars into the civil war in Syria.
So if it is really Saudi Arabia and Qatar that want to overthrow the Assad regime, why does the United States have to do the fighting?
Someone should ask Barack Obama why it is necessary for the U.S. military to do the dirty work of his Sunni Muslim friends.
Obama is promising that the upcoming attack will only be a "limited military strike" and that we will not be getting into a full-blown war with Syria.
The only way that will work is if Syria, Hezbollah and Iran all sit on their hands and do nothing to respond to the upcoming U.S. attack.
Could that happen?
Maybe.
Let's hope so.
But if there is a response, and a U.S. naval vessel gets hit, or American blood is spilled, or rockets start raining down on Tel Aviv, the U.S. will then be engaged in a full-blown war.
That is about the last thing that we need right now.
The vast majority of Americans do not want to get embroiled in another war in the Middle East, and even a lot of top military officials are expressing "serious reservations" about attacking Syria according to the Washington Post...
For the United States, there really is no good outcome in Syria.The Obama administration’s plan to launch a military strike against Syria is being received with serious reservations by many in the U.S. military, which is coping with the scars of two lengthy wars and a rapidly contracting budget, according to current and former officers.
Having assumed for months that the United States was unlikely to intervene militarily in Syria, the Defense Department has been thrust onto a war footing that has made many in the armed services uneasy, according to interviews with more than a dozen military officers ranging from captains to a four-star general.
If we attack and Assad stays in power, that is a bad outcome for the United States.
If we help overthrow the Assad regime, the rebels take control. But they would be even worse than Assad. They have pledged loyalty to al-Qaeda, and they are rabidly anti-American, rabidly anti-Israel and rabidly anti-western.
So why in the world should the United States get involved?
This war would not be good for Israel either. I have seen a number of supposedly pro-Israel websites out there getting very excited about the prospect of war with Syria, but that is a huge mistake.
Syria has already threatened to attack Israeli cities if the U.S. attacks Syria. If Syrian missiles start landing in the heart of Tel Aviv, Israel will respond.
And if any of those missiles have unconventional warheads, Israel will respond by absolutely destroying Damascus.
And of course a missile exchange between Syria and Israel will almost certainly draw Hezbollah into the conflict. And right now Hezbollah has 70,000 rockets aimed at Israel.
If Hezbollah starts launching those rockets, thousands upon thousands of innocent Jewish citizens will be killed.
So all of those "pro-Israel" websites out there that are getting excited about war with Syria should think twice. If you really are "pro-Israel", you should not want this war. It would not be good for Israel.
If you want to stand with Israel, then stand for peace. This war would not achieve any positive outcomes for Israel. Even if Assad is overthrown, the rebel government that would replace him would be even more anti-Israel than Assad was.
War is hell. Ask anyone that has been in the middle of one. Why would anyone want to see American blood spilled, Israeli blood spilled or Syrian blood spilled?
If the Saudis want this war so badly, they should go and fight it. Everyone knows that the Saudis have been bankrolling the rebels. At this point, even CNN is openly admitting this...
And Assad certainly knows who is behind the civil war in his country. The following is an excerpt from a recent interview with Assad...It is an open secret that Saudi Arabia is using Jordan to smuggle weapons into Syria for the rebels. Jordan says it is doing all it can to prevent that and does not want to inflame the situation in Syria.
And shortly after the British Parliament voted against military intervention in Syria, Saudi Arabia raised their level of "defense readiness" from "five" to "two" in a clear sign that they fully expect a war to happen...Of course it is well known that countries, such as Saudi Arabia, who hold the purse strings can shape and manipulate them to suit their own interests.
Ideologically, these countries mobilize them through direct or indirect means as extremist tools. If they declare that Muslims must pursue Jihad in Syria, thousands of fighters will respond.
Financially, those who finance and arm such groups can instruct them to carry out acts of terrorism and spread anarchy. The influence over them is synergized when a country such as Saudi Arabia directs them through both the Wahhabi ideology and their financial means.
And guess who has been supplying the rebels in Syria with chemical weapons?Saudi Arabia, a supporter of rebels fighting to topple President Bashar al-Assad, has raised its level of military alertness in anticipation of a possible Western strike in Syria, sources familiar with the matter said on Friday.
The United States has been calling for punitive action against Assad's government for a suspected poison gas attack on a Damascus suburb on August 21 that killed hundreds of people.
Saudi Arabia's defense readiness has been raised to "two" from "five", a Saudi military source who declined to be named told Reuters. "One" is the highest level of alert.
According to Associated Press correspondent Dale Gavlak, it has been the Saudis...
And this is someone that isn't just fresh out of journalism school. As Paul Joseph Watson noted, "Dale Gavlak’s credibility is very impressive. He has been a Middle East correspondent for the Associated Press for two decades and has also worked for National Public Radio (NPR) and written articles for BBC News."Syrian rebels in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta have admitted to Associated Press correspondent Dale Gavlak that they were responsible for last week’s chemical weapons incident which western powers have blamed on Bashar Al-Assad’s forces, revealing that the casualties were the result of an accident caused by rebels mishandling chemical weapons provided to them by Saudi Arabia.
“From numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families….many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the (deadly) gas attack,” writes Gavlak.
The Voice of Russia has also been reporting on Gavlak's bombshell findings...
Yes, the Saudis were so desperate to get the Russians to stand down and allow an attack on Syria that they actually threatened them. Zero Hedge published some additional details on the meeting between Saudi intelligence chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan and Russian President Vladimir Putin...The rebels noted it was a result of an accident caused by rebels mishandling chemical weapons provided to them.
“My son came to me two weeks ago asking what I thought the weapons were that he had been asked to carry,” said Abu Abdel-Moneim, the father of a rebel fighting to unseat Assad, who lives in Ghouta.
As Gavlak reports, Abdel-Moneim said his son and 12 other rebels died in a weapons storage tunnel. The father stated the weapons were provided to rebel forces by a Saudi militant, known as Abu Ayesha, describing them as having a “tube-like structure” while others were like a “huge gas bottle.”
“They didn’t tell us what these arms were or how to use them,” complained a female fighter named ‘K’. “We didn’t know they were chemical weapons. We never imagined they were chemical weapons.”
“When Saudi Prince Bandar gives such weapons to people, he must give them to those who know how to handle and use them,” she warned. She, like other Syrians, do not want to use their full names for fear of retribution.
Gavlak also refers to an article in the UK’s Daily Telegraph about secret Russian-Saudi talks stating that Prince Bandar threatened Russian President Vladimir Putin with terror attacks at next year’s Winter Olympics in Sochi if Russia doesn’t agree to change its stance on Syria.
“Prince Bandar pledged to safeguard Russia’s naval base in Syria if the Assad regime is toppled, but he also hinted at Chechen terrorist attacks on Russia’s Winter Olympics in Sochi if there is no accord,” the article stated.
“I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us,” Saudi Prince allegedly told Vladimir Putin.
Are you starting to get the picture?Bandar told Putin, “There are many common values and goals that bring us together, most notably the fight against terrorism and extremism all over the world. Russia, the US, the EU and the Saudis agree on promoting and consolidating international peace and security. The terrorist threat is growing in light of the phenomena spawned by the Arab Spring. We have lost some regimes. And what we got in return were terrorist experiences, as evidenced by the experience of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the extremist groups in Libya. ... As an example, I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics in the city of Sochi on the Black Sea next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us, and they will not move in the Syrian territory’s direction without coordinating with us. These groups do not scare us. We use them in the face of the Syrian regime but they will have no role or influence in Syria’s political future.”
It is good of the Saudis to admit they control a terrorist organization that "threatens the security" of the Sochi 2014 Olympic games, and that house of Saud uses "in the face of the Syrian regime." Perhaps the next time there is a bombing in Boston by some Chechen-related terrorists, someone can inquire Saudi Arabia what, if anything, they knew about that.
But the piece de resistance is what happened at the end of the dialogue between the two leaders. It was, in not so many words, a threat by Saudi Arabia aimed squarely at Russia:
As soon as Putin finished his speech, Prince Bandar warned that in light of the course of the talks, things were likely to intensify, especially in the Syrian arena, although he appreciated the Russians’ understanding of Saudi Arabia’s position on Egypt and their readiness to support the Egyptian army despite their fears for Egypt's future.
The head of the Saudi intelligence services said that the dispute over the approach to the Syrian issue leads to the conclusion that “there is no escape from the military option, because it is the only currently available choice given that the political settlement ended in stalemate. We believe that the Geneva II Conference will be very difficult in light of this raging situation.”
At the end of the meeting, the Russian and Saudi sides agreed to continue talks, provided that the current meeting remained under wraps. This was before one of the two sides leaked it via the Russian press.
The Saudis are absolutely determined to make this war happen, and they expect us to do the fighting.
And Barack Obama plans to go ahead and attack Syria without the support of the American people or the approval of Congress.
According to a new NBC News poll that was just released, nearly 80 percent of all Americans want Congress to approve a strike on Syria before it happens.
And according to Politico, more than 150 members of Congress have already signed letters demanding that Obama get approval from them before attacking Syria...
However, is is clear that he is absolutely determined to attack Syria, and he is not going to let the U.S. Congress - even if they vote against it - or the American people stop him.Already Thursday, more than 150 members of Congress have signaled their opposition to airstrikes on Syria without a congressional vote. House members circulated two separate letters circulated that were sent to the White House demanding a congressional role before military action takes place. One, authored by Rep. Scott Rigell (R-Va.), has more than 150 signatures from Democrats and Republicans. Another, started by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), is signed by 53 Democrats, though many of them also signed Rigell’s letter.
Let's just hope that he doesn't start World War III in the process.
The Real Reason Why The US Wants To Invade Syria
The Real Reason Why The US Wants To Invade Syria
It looks like America is once again going
to be waging war. This should not come as much of a surprise, seeing as
how the U.S. is known for getting its hands dirty in the soil of other
countries. The Iraq war was the latest of blemishes to be self-imposed upon the reputation of the United States. In fact, many of the U.S./CIA operations
that were carried out in the last few decades have been leaked and now
have people questioning the decisions made by the U.S. government.
Nevertheless, the U.S., along with France and the UK, are strongly
urging punishment for the alleged illegal chemical warfare that they
believe has taken place in Syria just days before, killing hundreds of Syrians — many of them children.AP recently reported that due to the UN’s division on the issue, the U.S., Britain and France will try to go around the international committee in order to give Syrian Rebels support in their civil war. Because China and Russia continue to use their vetoing power to suppress any response to the Syrian conflict that has already lasted over 2 years, these three countries and their leaders are contemplating action that would sidestep the UN’s procedures.
The task would require achieving support of key international organizations that work outside of the United Nations. One option would be to persuade NATO to get involved — possibly leading to military action.
Ken Pollack, an expert on Middle Eastern military/political affairs told AP that, “Very famously, the Kosovo war was not a legal. Yet… you don’t have people running around screaming that the Kosovo war was illegal. That is because the U.S. did a good job building a case for it.”
In other words, although technically the U.S. should go through the UN before making any decisions regarding its involvement in Syria, there are other means to the same end. The U.S.-led coalition is certain to adduce the international doctrine: Responsibility to Protect — which states that the international community is obligated to prevent crimes on humanity on an international level.
Whichever way you look at it, it’s clear that the U.S. wants to get involved in Syria. The question is: why? The game that is politics has never been my forte — yet logic has to play some sort of role in the decision-making, so I’d be happy to take a stab at it, at the very least presenting a few options. Let’s start with the reason most popular among the masses: money. Now, it’s important to remember that in order to make money, you have to bring in more than you spend — as would any other business.
So, the U.S. would have to make more money off the war than they would have to spend fighting it. The cost of the Iraq war is nearing the $1 trillion mark. Yes, a whole lot of taxpayer money went into that war. On a side note, imagine a world where human beings would stop killing each other and, instead of spending the money on wars, spend it on food and clean water for those in need…
So, in order for the math to make sense, America would need to make well over $1 Trillion in profit from the war. The best way for a country to make money off a war directly is by selling weapons and equipment to the side it supports. A more indirect way would be to allow companies to provide support services, such as feeding the troops, working on buildings’ infrastructures, providing private security… These companies would get paid handsomely for their work (many times more handsomely than they deserve). After that, the money somehow would have to trickle down back to the government — but, unfortunately, I can only guess how. Maybe the companies simply support the government by returning the money in form of a “donation.”
The only problem lies in whether or not enough money would be made off the war to cover the hundreds of billions of dollars that would simultaneously be spent on it. Another possible reason for deciding to be in charge of thwarting all evil, a role the U.S. has chosen to take on, is for reputation. A reputation of a country and the power they possess — or are believed to possess — is of course of the highest importance on such global chessboards. The most common belief is that a country like the U.S. (and, in this situation, Britain and France) is after two things and two things only: money and power.
This may very well be true; however, it is also a possibility that the U.S.-led coalition is actually doing its best to make the world a better place. Sure, maybe a bit of a stretch…but, if you were to throw in money and/or power into the equation in addition, then there’s no reason not to make the world a better place.
Why not do that while making money and holding on to your reputation? Making money, gaining power and emphasizing one’s reputation, while projecting an image of saintliness is a great game plan. Unfortunately, the line between moral and immoral tends to get blurred the deeper you get into politics. Again, I was never a big fan of it all, but I would like to think that behaving in a benevolent and caring manner is quickly becoming more important in our eyes — the people’s eyes.
Sure, as the citizens get wealthier, so does the body governing them. However, this is not a size contest; rebellion propaganda does not take that much money to distribute. Governments will eventually have to genuinely have the peoples’ — all peoples’ — best interests at heart. Or… my thinking may be too utopian and politics will always be a hit below the belt.
Friday 15 November 2013
The Influence of War on Economy
The Influence of War on Economy
(Or The Influence of War on a Country?)
by Bill Hesketh
“A nation that
continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than
on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom” -Martin Luther King Jr.
From World War I to the most recent ‘War on Terror’ our economy has seen night and day differences: WWI, to the roaring 20’s, the Great Depression to WWII, the expansionist 50’s and 60’s into Vietnam. We can’t grip a steady and consistent economy because our economy is fueled by war. Who wants to be consistently in a state of war? The US has both thrived and struggled in funding and borrowing money in the name of war. We have been both creditors and debtors in the game and have watched the ebb and flow turn in our favor and back again. The problem is, the US cannot grip a steady economy because the military industrial complex takes precedence over the social and economic elements of this country. War drastically affects our economy in negative and long-term ways. As a country, in these particular times, we need to seriously re-evaluate how we manage our budget and decide what is and what is not important. We need to find an economic engine other than the military/industrial complex.
The cattle industry is an excellent example of how war directly affects American industry. During and after the civil war cattle prices were very high and the market soared from the 1860’s to the 1870’s, mostly due to scarcity because ranches were often times battlegrounds. Also, feeding troops helped increase demand for the scarce commodity. In 1872, a depression hit and the cattle industry suffered greatly. The debtor to creditor swap for the US in WWI was the next big boom for ranchers. From the 1920’s until the depression in 1930 cattle ranching saw one of the most favorable stretches in American history as an investment. As the trend would point out, the value of cattle significantly dropped about ten years after the war. WWII was the next cause of price and value inflation in the cattle industry. “From 1941 until 1951 (into the Korean war) cattle prices flourished and then dropped off by 50%” (Holecheck).
The clear and consistent pattern that relates directly to the economy and the wars of the US has been taken advantage of by Wall Street investors. Scarcity, supplies and rations for troops along with the economic boom in the beginning of every war blast the profitability of the cattle industry into the stratosphere. In turn, when a war comes to an end, ranch owners and workers take a hard hit. Wages for workers plummet; real estate values of ranches go down; the price per head of cattle hits the floor; and employment rates drop. There is a very fine line for ranchers when it comes to avoiding debt caused by this pattern. Wall Street understands the patterns that come with war and use this to their best advantage by selling high and buying low. To give further proof on a more general scale, the Dow Jones index plunged 6.31% following the invasion of Kuwait in 1990 due to the impact on the price of oil but, it gained 17% in the first four weeks of Operation Desert Storm. Then, in the opening weeks of the Iraq war the European stock markets went up by 2% (Schneider 624). Case in point, there is no consistency or fair balance for an economy in war.
=>
=>
=>
Another problem with the US is that we can’t tell friend from foe when it comes to money. We arm our enemies with profit in mind, and are shocked when their weapons turn on us. From the years of 1937 until 1940 the US was Japan’s number one supplier of goods, both military and peaceful products. “The US is constantly regarded as the prime source of Japan’s imports and the largest external (non-yen) market of Japanese goods” (Bisson 123). In the years of 1937 and 1938 the US supplied over half of Japan’s wartime materials and in 1939 to 1940 even more, mostly thanks to European trade restrictions of the time. “There were seven leading imports for Japan: petroleum and petroleum by-products, scrap iron, copper, aircraft, semi manufactures of iron and steel, and automobiles” (Bisson 123). The US profited from this market monopoly, even while condemning Japan’s aggressive actions towards China and other near-by countries. At the same time, the US continued to make up nearly 95% of Japanese imports.
When Japan finally invaded Manchuria, taking violent and oppressive action against China, only the US could take the responsibility for arming the Japanese. As peacetime products such as cotton and timber were bought less and less by Japan, wartime products rose at an alarming rate. Cotton and timber were piled high on US docks awaiting the trade that had suddenly halted with Japan. The value of these peacetime products took a sharp drop during these years. With the newly acquired Manchuria, Japan no longer had absolute need to trade for raw materials and was becoming an independent country. In essence, the US sold Japan the means to become a super power. The equipment and supplies used in the Pacific and in Pearl Harbor were undoubtedly used against our soldiers and sailors, our allies and civilians all in the pursuit of profit.
The example of Japan has two very important points. First, the US knew that Japan was an ally of the Axis, but with that knowledge we continued to trade with them. We condemned their violent steps against China and the Pacific Islanders publicly, but accepted their cash for our manufactured armaments as well as raw material (not so publicly). Secondly, we lost a market for peacetime products. The value of timber, cotton, tobacco, etc. dropped as they stayed stock piled on our docks while the materials of war flourished under extremely profitable circumstances. It was foreseeable and obvious that Japan was going to commit acts of war. In the end, we lost many lives and finances fighting against our own investments.
Many people would tell you, and be right in saying, that WWII pulled the US out of the Great Depression. The most overlooked and generally accepted fact, which we adapted from that, is that war can solve most, if not all, of our economic problems. In May 1940, there were approximately 8.4 million people unemployed in the US. By May 1942 that number had decreased to about 2.6 million thanks to WWII. Our standing military in 1940 was about 500,000 troops, and just two years later in1942 it was around 3,000,000. Not only did much of our work force go to war, most went to the war effort at home: “from about 500,000 armament workers to over 10,000,000 working hands” (Schwartz 827). This goes to show just how effective our economy and workforce had become all in the name of war. The “military industrial complex” was born during this era and it’s something that we have been unable to disarm.
Post WWII, the middle class flourished under never before seen circumstances. The middle class was born with the help of low mortgages made available for returning soldiers, the re-conversion of military factories into automobile shops, the baby boom, and the modernization of aviation. The nation's gross national product soared; “the total value of the GNP in 1940 was about $200,000 million, then $300,000 million in 1950, and to more than $500,000 million in 1960” (Conte). As the nations wealth became more predominant into the 1950’s, the number of white-collar workers began to approach that of blue-collar workers. Finally, by 1956, white-collar workers outnumbered their “less educated and less affluent neighbors” (Conte). The farm industry, as another example, has been steadily losing its workers because of large-scale farming, international imports and better technology. “There were approximately 7.9 million farm workers in 1946 but over the course of about 50 years (in 1998) that number fell to less than half—3.4 million”. (Schwartz).
This is a trend that has finally caught up to us these days. It was common knowledge in my youth that carpenters, manufacturers, plumbers and other blue-collar jobs were less the ultimate goal than were “professional” white-collar jobs. It was the goal for every child to get to college, graduate and make an upper middle class wage from a desk and a computer. Now, the country is seeing a decline in skilled labor as blue-collar jobs disappear due to technology and to the incentives for moving jobs over-seas. With the trends and ideals of the 40’s and 50’s still held valuable by middle class citizens, but with no World War to support them, and more jobs (both white-collar and blue-collar) going over seas, the middle class finds itself shrinking.
As the nation grew comfortable and the middle class emerged in the US, the people became complacent and ignorant. The public policy priorities had been firmly shaped by two World Wars in the first half of one century. By 1950, in the midst of American prosperity like none ever before, National Defense spending as a percent of the Gross Domestic Product was more than double that of non-defense Federal spending. “Defense spending took up 32.2% while non-defense Federal spending took 15.6%” (Tassava). Today, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, the federal budget deficit for 2010 will exceed $1.3 trillion. The military defense budget request for 2012, according to the Department of Defense, is $685 billion—with a B—dollars. Completely eliminating the defense budget for one year would cut the country’s accumulated deficit by half. That is not reasonable to expect or even hope for but, it gives a good idea how much of our public investment is unavailable for other things like energy and technology because of military spending. If a public official of any sort were to mention the idea of downsizing our military, he or she would be publicly shamed into the stereotype of “unpatriotic”.
“The price of military goods and services has increased more rapidly than prices in both the non-military government sector and in the economy as a whole”- Fordham 574.
American history is full of mistakes and fallacies all relating to the military industrial complex. No realistic politician will ever publicly admit that there is a need to downsize our military. In current times a tomahawk missile costs 80,000 dollars, and that’s probably an outdated weapon by now. Keep in mind that a missile can only be used once… because it explodes! But when, say, a state employee who diligently works and does a good job and is paid the same amount annually (or less!), the public cries out in anger and blames the faithful public servants for their unjustified tax dollar salaries. There is something wrong with our 'democratic' society. Today, according to the Department of Defense, the U.S. has over 700 military bases in more than 50 countries. These are not likely to be statistics that are commonly known. For Instance Fox News doesn’t broadcast how much it costs to keep an Army installation up and running in Somalia, or an Air Force base in Germany, or even a Naval base in Japan. But Americans foot the bill not only in dollars, but also in lost opportunity to invest in other areas that would be to the public benefit. Can you imagine if there were a Japanese naval base in Seattle? What if there were a British air force base in Houston? How about a Russian military base just outside of Miami? Of course you could never imagine these things, but the rest of the world has to deal with US military bases in their backyard twenty four hours a day, seven days a week. We the people of the United States of America (God bless us protectors and saviors of the world) have to pay for them.
Our economy has been toyed with for nearly a century. Clearly, war as our economic engine is a situation that we can afford less and less—not only economically but also socially and morally as well. In these current days our public employees are under attack and being held accountable for a budget crisis that could have been solved by cutting the military budget. There is an expectation that constant conflict will solve the problems of the economy. Clearly this is not the case.
We need to create a new economic engine for our country. We can reinvest even a small percent of the military budget in technologies and sectors that will reap greater returns than “disposable” missiles. Clean energy, sustainable construction, infrastructure, and appropriate farming techniques are all areas that can support continued employment and thereby replace a large part of the military industry as our economic engine. We need to bring back manufacturing jobs from over seas, cut military spending and increase public education’s budget. Otherwise it’s time for World War III.
(Or The Influence of War on a Country?)
by Bill Hesketh
From World War I to the most recent ‘War on Terror’ our economy has seen night and day differences: WWI, to the roaring 20’s, the Great Depression to WWII, the expansionist 50’s and 60’s into Vietnam. We can’t grip a steady and consistent economy because our economy is fueled by war. Who wants to be consistently in a state of war? The US has both thrived and struggled in funding and borrowing money in the name of war. We have been both creditors and debtors in the game and have watched the ebb and flow turn in our favor and back again. The problem is, the US cannot grip a steady economy because the military industrial complex takes precedence over the social and economic elements of this country. War drastically affects our economy in negative and long-term ways. As a country, in these particular times, we need to seriously re-evaluate how we manage our budget and decide what is and what is not important. We need to find an economic engine other than the military/industrial complex.
The cattle industry is an excellent example of how war directly affects American industry. During and after the civil war cattle prices were very high and the market soared from the 1860’s to the 1870’s, mostly due to scarcity because ranches were often times battlegrounds. Also, feeding troops helped increase demand for the scarce commodity. In 1872, a depression hit and the cattle industry suffered greatly. The debtor to creditor swap for the US in WWI was the next big boom for ranchers. From the 1920’s until the depression in 1930 cattle ranching saw one of the most favorable stretches in American history as an investment. As the trend would point out, the value of cattle significantly dropped about ten years after the war. WWII was the next cause of price and value inflation in the cattle industry. “From 1941 until 1951 (into the Korean war) cattle prices flourished and then dropped off by 50%” (Holecheck).
The clear and consistent pattern that relates directly to the economy and the wars of the US has been taken advantage of by Wall Street investors. Scarcity, supplies and rations for troops along with the economic boom in the beginning of every war blast the profitability of the cattle industry into the stratosphere. In turn, when a war comes to an end, ranch owners and workers take a hard hit. Wages for workers plummet; real estate values of ranches go down; the price per head of cattle hits the floor; and employment rates drop. There is a very fine line for ranchers when it comes to avoiding debt caused by this pattern. Wall Street understands the patterns that come with war and use this to their best advantage by selling high and buying low. To give further proof on a more general scale, the Dow Jones index plunged 6.31% following the invasion of Kuwait in 1990 due to the impact on the price of oil but, it gained 17% in the first four weeks of Operation Desert Storm. Then, in the opening weeks of the Iraq war the European stock markets went up by 2% (Schneider 624). Case in point, there is no consistency or fair balance for an economy in war.
=>=> =>Another problem with the US is that we can’t tell friend from foe when it comes to money. We arm our enemies with profit in mind, and are shocked when their weapons turn on us. From the years of 1937 until 1940 the US was Japan’s number one supplier of goods, both military and peaceful products. “The US is constantly regarded as the prime source of Japan’s imports and the largest external (non-yen) market of Japanese goods” (Bisson 123). In the years of 1937 and 1938 the US supplied over half of Japan’s wartime materials and in 1939 to 1940 even more, mostly thanks to European trade restrictions of the time. “There were seven leading imports for Japan: petroleum and petroleum by-products, scrap iron, copper, aircraft, semi manufactures of iron and steel, and automobiles” (Bisson 123). The US profited from this market monopoly, even while condemning Japan’s aggressive actions towards China and other near-by countries. At the same time, the US continued to make up nearly 95% of Japanese imports.
When Japan finally invaded Manchuria, taking violent and oppressive action against China, only the US could take the responsibility for arming the Japanese. As peacetime products such as cotton and timber were bought less and less by Japan, wartime products rose at an alarming rate. Cotton and timber were piled high on US docks awaiting the trade that had suddenly halted with Japan. The value of these peacetime products took a sharp drop during these years. With the newly acquired Manchuria, Japan no longer had absolute need to trade for raw materials and was becoming an independent country. In essence, the US sold Japan the means to become a super power. The equipment and supplies used in the Pacific and in Pearl Harbor were undoubtedly used against our soldiers and sailors, our allies and civilians all in the pursuit of profit.
The example of Japan has two very important points. First, the US knew that Japan was an ally of the Axis, but with that knowledge we continued to trade with them. We condemned their violent steps against China and the Pacific Islanders publicly, but accepted their cash for our manufactured armaments as well as raw material (not so publicly). Secondly, we lost a market for peacetime products. The value of timber, cotton, tobacco, etc. dropped as they stayed stock piled on our docks while the materials of war flourished under extremely profitable circumstances. It was foreseeable and obvious that Japan was going to commit acts of war. In the end, we lost many lives and finances fighting against our own investments.
Many people would tell you, and be right in saying, that WWII pulled the US out of the Great Depression. The most overlooked and generally accepted fact, which we adapted from that, is that war can solve most, if not all, of our economic problems. In May 1940, there were approximately 8.4 million people unemployed in the US. By May 1942 that number had decreased to about 2.6 million thanks to WWII. Our standing military in 1940 was about 500,000 troops, and just two years later in1942 it was around 3,000,000. Not only did much of our work force go to war, most went to the war effort at home: “from about 500,000 armament workers to over 10,000,000 working hands” (Schwartz 827). This goes to show just how effective our economy and workforce had become all in the name of war. The “military industrial complex” was born during this era and it’s something that we have been unable to disarm.
Post WWII, the middle class flourished under never before seen circumstances. The middle class was born with the help of low mortgages made available for returning soldiers, the re-conversion of military factories into automobile shops, the baby boom, and the modernization of aviation. The nation's gross national product soared; “the total value of the GNP in 1940 was about $200,000 million, then $300,000 million in 1950, and to more than $500,000 million in 1960” (Conte). As the nations wealth became more predominant into the 1950’s, the number of white-collar workers began to approach that of blue-collar workers. Finally, by 1956, white-collar workers outnumbered their “less educated and less affluent neighbors” (Conte). The farm industry, as another example, has been steadily losing its workers because of large-scale farming, international imports and better technology. “There were approximately 7.9 million farm workers in 1946 but over the course of about 50 years (in 1998) that number fell to less than half—3.4 million”. (Schwartz).
This is a trend that has finally caught up to us these days. It was common knowledge in my youth that carpenters, manufacturers, plumbers and other blue-collar jobs were less the ultimate goal than were “professional” white-collar jobs. It was the goal for every child to get to college, graduate and make an upper middle class wage from a desk and a computer. Now, the country is seeing a decline in skilled labor as blue-collar jobs disappear due to technology and to the incentives for moving jobs over-seas. With the trends and ideals of the 40’s and 50’s still held valuable by middle class citizens, but with no World War to support them, and more jobs (both white-collar and blue-collar) going over seas, the middle class finds itself shrinking.
As the nation grew comfortable and the middle class emerged in the US, the people became complacent and ignorant. The public policy priorities had been firmly shaped by two World Wars in the first half of one century. By 1950, in the midst of American prosperity like none ever before, National Defense spending as a percent of the Gross Domestic Product was more than double that of non-defense Federal spending. “Defense spending took up 32.2% while non-defense Federal spending took 15.6%” (Tassava). Today, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, the federal budget deficit for 2010 will exceed $1.3 trillion. The military defense budget request for 2012, according to the Department of Defense, is $685 billion—with a B—dollars. Completely eliminating the defense budget for one year would cut the country’s accumulated deficit by half. That is not reasonable to expect or even hope for but, it gives a good idea how much of our public investment is unavailable for other things like energy and technology because of military spending. If a public official of any sort were to mention the idea of downsizing our military, he or she would be publicly shamed into the stereotype of “unpatriotic”.
“The price of military goods and services has increased more rapidly than prices in both the non-military government sector and in the economy as a whole”- Fordham 574.
American history is full of mistakes and fallacies all relating to the military industrial complex. No realistic politician will ever publicly admit that there is a need to downsize our military. In current times a tomahawk missile costs 80,000 dollars, and that’s probably an outdated weapon by now. Keep in mind that a missile can only be used once… because it explodes! But when, say, a state employee who diligently works and does a good job and is paid the same amount annually (or less!), the public cries out in anger and blames the faithful public servants for their unjustified tax dollar salaries. There is something wrong with our 'democratic' society. Today, according to the Department of Defense, the U.S. has over 700 military bases in more than 50 countries. These are not likely to be statistics that are commonly known. For Instance Fox News doesn’t broadcast how much it costs to keep an Army installation up and running in Somalia, or an Air Force base in Germany, or even a Naval base in Japan. But Americans foot the bill not only in dollars, but also in lost opportunity to invest in other areas that would be to the public benefit. Can you imagine if there were a Japanese naval base in Seattle? What if there were a British air force base in Houston? How about a Russian military base just outside of Miami? Of course you could never imagine these things, but the rest of the world has to deal with US military bases in their backyard twenty four hours a day, seven days a week. We the people of the United States of America (God bless us protectors and saviors of the world) have to pay for them.
Our economy has been toyed with for nearly a century. Clearly, war as our economic engine is a situation that we can afford less and less—not only economically but also socially and morally as well. In these current days our public employees are under attack and being held accountable for a budget crisis that could have been solved by cutting the military budget. There is an expectation that constant conflict will solve the problems of the economy. Clearly this is not the case.
We need to create a new economic engine for our country. We can reinvest even a small percent of the military budget in technologies and sectors that will reap greater returns than “disposable” missiles. Clean energy, sustainable construction, infrastructure, and appropriate farming techniques are all areas that can support continued employment and thereby replace a large part of the military industry as our economic engine. We need to bring back manufacturing jobs from over seas, cut military spending and increase public education’s budget. Otherwise it’s time for World War III.
Positive Economic Effects
Positive Economic Effects
War is not without economic benefits, however. These are not limited to having misfortune strike trade rivals. At certain historical times and places, war can stimulate a national economy in the short term. During slack economic times, such as the Great Depression of the 1930s, military spending and war mobilization can increase capacity utilization, reduce unemployment (through conscription), and generally induce patriotic citizens to work harder for less compensation.
War also sometimes clears away outdated infrastructure and allows economy-wide rebuilding, generating long-term benefits (albeit at short-term costs). For example, after being set back by the two World Wars, French production grew faster after 1950 than before 1914.
Technological development often follows military necessity in wartime. Governments can coordinate research and development to produce technologies for war that also sometimes find civilian uses (such as radar in World War II). The layout of European railroad networks were strongly influenced by strategic military considerations, especially after Germany used railroads effectively to overwhelm French forces in 1870-71. In the 1990s, the GPS navigation system, created for U.S. military use, found wide commercial use. Although these war-related innovations had positive economic effects, it is unclear whether the same money spent in civilian sectors might have produced even greater innovation.
Overall, the high costs of war outweigh the positive spinoffs. Indeed, a central dilemma for states is that waging wars - or just preparing for them - undermines prosperity, yet losing wars is worse. Winning wars, however, can sometimes pay.
Conquest, Trade, and Accumulation
Nearly all wars are fought over control of territory, and sometimes over specific economic resources such as minerals, farmland, or cities. The patterns of victory and defeat in wars through history have shaped the direction of the world economy and its institutions. For example, when Portugal in the 16th century used ship-borne cannons to open sea routes to Asia and wrested the pepper trade away from Venice (which depended on land routes through the Middle East), it set in motion a profound shift in Europe's economic center of gravity away from the Mediterranean and towards the Atlantic.
Wars of conquest can more than pay for themselves, if successful. The nomadic horse-raiders of the Iron Age Eurasian steppes found profit in plunder. Similarly, the 17th- to 18th-century Dahomey Kingdom (present-day Benin) made war on its neighbors to capture slaves, whom it sold to Europeans at port (for guns to continue its wars). War benefitted the Dahomey Kingdom at the expense of its depopulated neighbors. Likewise, present-day armies in Democratic Congo and Sierra Leone are fighting to control diamond production areas, which in turn fund those armies. According to one controversial school of thought, states in undertaking wars behave as rational actors maximizing their net benefits. However, wars are fought for many reasons beyond conquering valuable commodities.
Successful empires have used war to centralize control of an economic zone, often pushing that zone in directions most useful to continued military strength. Transportation and information infrastructures reflect the central authority's political control. When European states conquered overseas colonies militarily (16th to 19th centuries), they developed those colonies economically to benefit the mother country. For example, most railroads in southwestern Africa were built - and still run - from mining and plantation areas to ports. Empires, however, inherently suffer the problems of centralized economies, such as inefficiency, low morale, and stagnation. Some scholars argue that empires also overstretch their resources by fighting expensive wars far from home, contributing to their own demise.
In recent centuries, the largest great-power wars have been won by ocean-going, trading nations whose economic style differs sharply from that of land-based empires. Rather than administer conquered territories, these "hegemons" allow nations to control their own economies and to trade fairly freely with each other. This free trade ultimately benefitted hegemons as advanced producers who sought worldwide export markets. The Netherlands after the Thirty Years' War (1648), Britain after the Napoleonic Wars (1815), and the United States after the World Wars (1945) each enjoyed predominance in world trade. By virtue of superior naval military power, each of these great powers shaped (and to some extent enforced) the rules and norms for the international economy. For example, the international financial institutions of the Bretton Woods system grew out of U.S. predominance after World War II. As nations recover in the decades following a great war, however, their power tends to equalize, so a hegemon's raw power gradually matters less, and international economic institutions tend to become more independent - surviving because they offer mutual benefits and help resolve collective goods dilemmas. For example, the United States today, despite its military predominance, does not unilaterally control the World Trade Organization.
Naval power has been used historically to win specific trading and extraction rights, in addition to its broader uses in establishing global economic orders. When asked the reasons for declaring war on the Dutch, a 17th-century English general replied, "What matters this or that reason? What we want is more of the trade the Dutch now have." U.S. warships in the 19th century forced open Japan's closed economy. And in the mid-1990s, both Canada and Russia used warships to drive away foreign fishing boats from areas of the high seas that shared fish populations with Canadian and Russian exclusive economic zones as defined under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. In recent decades, disputes over control of small islands - which now convey fishing and mining rights up to 200 miles in all directions, have led to military hostilities in the South China Sea and the Falklands/Malvinas, among others.
Military power has provided the basis for extracting tolls and tariffs on trade, in addition to its more direct role in conquest of resources and trade routes. Danish cannons overlooking the Baltic Sound gave the Danes for centuries a stream of income from tolls on the Baltic trade. River-borne trade in Europe faced similar choke-points where strategic military fortifications allowed tolls to be charged. The military defeat of the Ottoman empire, by contrast, cost Turkey the ability to control or tax traffic from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean, which today includes a large and growing number of oil tankers.
War and the World Economy
Just as wars' costs and outcomes affect economic conditions and evolution, so too do economic conditions and evolution affect war. Causality runs in both directions. For example, Dutch economic strengths in the early 17th century allowed rapid and cheap production of ships, including warships. The resulting naval military advantage in turn supported Dutch long-distance trade. The wealth derived from that trade, in turn, let the Netherlands pay and train a professional standing army, which successfully sheltered the Netherlands from the ruinous Thirty Years' War. This protection in turn let the Dutch expand their share of world trade at the expense of war-scarred rivals. Thus the evolution of warfare and of world economic history are intertwined.
War is the proximal cause of the recurring inflationary spikes that demarcate 50-year "Kondratieff waves" in the world economy. Those waves themselves continue to be controversial. However, they may have some predictive value to the extent they clarify the historical relationships between war and military spending on the one hand, and inflation and economic growth on the other. The 1990s mainly followed a predicted long-wave phase of sustained low inflation, renewed growth, and reduced great-power military conflict. If this pattern were to continue, the coming decade would see continued strong growth but new upward pressures on military spending and conflict, eventually leading to a new bout of inflation in the great-power economies. Since scholars do not agree on the mechanism or even the existence of long economic waves, however, such projections are of more academic than practical interest.
The relationship between military spending and economic growth has also generated controversy. Despite its pump-priming potential in specific circumstances, as during the 1930s, military spending generally acts to slow economic growth, since it diverts capital and labor from more productive investment (such as in roads, schools, or basic research). During the Cold War, high military spending contributed (among other causes) to the economic stagnation of the Soviet Union and the collapse of North Korea, whereas low military spending relative to GDP contributed to Japan's growth and innovation. During the 1990s, as real military spending worldwide fell by about one-third, the United States and others reaped a "peace dividend" in sustained expansion. However, effects of military spending are long-term, and sharp reductions do not bring quick relief, as Russia's experience since 1991 demonstrates.
The global North-South divide - a stark feature of the world economy - is exacerbated by war. The dozens of wars currently in progress worldwide form an arc from the Andes through Africa to the Middle East and Caucasus, to South and Southeast Asia. In some of the world's poorest countries, such as Sudan and Afghanistan, endemic warfare impedes economic development and produces grinding poverty, which in turn intensifies conflicts and fuels warfare.
The role of war in the world economy is complex, yet pervasive. The shadow of war lies across economic history, influencing its pace and direction, and war continues to both shape economic developments and respond to them.
War is not without economic benefits, however. These are not limited to having misfortune strike trade rivals. At certain historical times and places, war can stimulate a national economy in the short term. During slack economic times, such as the Great Depression of the 1930s, military spending and war mobilization can increase capacity utilization, reduce unemployment (through conscription), and generally induce patriotic citizens to work harder for less compensation.
War also sometimes clears away outdated infrastructure and allows economy-wide rebuilding, generating long-term benefits (albeit at short-term costs). For example, after being set back by the two World Wars, French production grew faster after 1950 than before 1914.
Technological development often follows military necessity in wartime. Governments can coordinate research and development to produce technologies for war that also sometimes find civilian uses (such as radar in World War II). The layout of European railroad networks were strongly influenced by strategic military considerations, especially after Germany used railroads effectively to overwhelm French forces in 1870-71. In the 1990s, the GPS navigation system, created for U.S. military use, found wide commercial use. Although these war-related innovations had positive economic effects, it is unclear whether the same money spent in civilian sectors might have produced even greater innovation.
Overall, the high costs of war outweigh the positive spinoffs. Indeed, a central dilemma for states is that waging wars - or just preparing for them - undermines prosperity, yet losing wars is worse. Winning wars, however, can sometimes pay.
Conquest, Trade, and Accumulation
Nearly all wars are fought over control of territory, and sometimes over specific economic resources such as minerals, farmland, or cities. The patterns of victory and defeat in wars through history have shaped the direction of the world economy and its institutions. For example, when Portugal in the 16th century used ship-borne cannons to open sea routes to Asia and wrested the pepper trade away from Venice (which depended on land routes through the Middle East), it set in motion a profound shift in Europe's economic center of gravity away from the Mediterranean and towards the Atlantic.
Wars of conquest can more than pay for themselves, if successful. The nomadic horse-raiders of the Iron Age Eurasian steppes found profit in plunder. Similarly, the 17th- to 18th-century Dahomey Kingdom (present-day Benin) made war on its neighbors to capture slaves, whom it sold to Europeans at port (for guns to continue its wars). War benefitted the Dahomey Kingdom at the expense of its depopulated neighbors. Likewise, present-day armies in Democratic Congo and Sierra Leone are fighting to control diamond production areas, which in turn fund those armies. According to one controversial school of thought, states in undertaking wars behave as rational actors maximizing their net benefits. However, wars are fought for many reasons beyond conquering valuable commodities.
Successful empires have used war to centralize control of an economic zone, often pushing that zone in directions most useful to continued military strength. Transportation and information infrastructures reflect the central authority's political control. When European states conquered overseas colonies militarily (16th to 19th centuries), they developed those colonies economically to benefit the mother country. For example, most railroads in southwestern Africa were built - and still run - from mining and plantation areas to ports. Empires, however, inherently suffer the problems of centralized economies, such as inefficiency, low morale, and stagnation. Some scholars argue that empires also overstretch their resources by fighting expensive wars far from home, contributing to their own demise.
In recent centuries, the largest great-power wars have been won by ocean-going, trading nations whose economic style differs sharply from that of land-based empires. Rather than administer conquered territories, these "hegemons" allow nations to control their own economies and to trade fairly freely with each other. This free trade ultimately benefitted hegemons as advanced producers who sought worldwide export markets. The Netherlands after the Thirty Years' War (1648), Britain after the Napoleonic Wars (1815), and the United States after the World Wars (1945) each enjoyed predominance in world trade. By virtue of superior naval military power, each of these great powers shaped (and to some extent enforced) the rules and norms for the international economy. For example, the international financial institutions of the Bretton Woods system grew out of U.S. predominance after World War II. As nations recover in the decades following a great war, however, their power tends to equalize, so a hegemon's raw power gradually matters less, and international economic institutions tend to become more independent - surviving because they offer mutual benefits and help resolve collective goods dilemmas. For example, the United States today, despite its military predominance, does not unilaterally control the World Trade Organization.
Naval power has been used historically to win specific trading and extraction rights, in addition to its broader uses in establishing global economic orders. When asked the reasons for declaring war on the Dutch, a 17th-century English general replied, "What matters this or that reason? What we want is more of the trade the Dutch now have." U.S. warships in the 19th century forced open Japan's closed economy. And in the mid-1990s, both Canada and Russia used warships to drive away foreign fishing boats from areas of the high seas that shared fish populations with Canadian and Russian exclusive economic zones as defined under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. In recent decades, disputes over control of small islands - which now convey fishing and mining rights up to 200 miles in all directions, have led to military hostilities in the South China Sea and the Falklands/Malvinas, among others.
Military power has provided the basis for extracting tolls and tariffs on trade, in addition to its more direct role in conquest of resources and trade routes. Danish cannons overlooking the Baltic Sound gave the Danes for centuries a stream of income from tolls on the Baltic trade. River-borne trade in Europe faced similar choke-points where strategic military fortifications allowed tolls to be charged. The military defeat of the Ottoman empire, by contrast, cost Turkey the ability to control or tax traffic from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean, which today includes a large and growing number of oil tankers.
War and the World Economy
Just as wars' costs and outcomes affect economic conditions and evolution, so too do economic conditions and evolution affect war. Causality runs in both directions. For example, Dutch economic strengths in the early 17th century allowed rapid and cheap production of ships, including warships. The resulting naval military advantage in turn supported Dutch long-distance trade. The wealth derived from that trade, in turn, let the Netherlands pay and train a professional standing army, which successfully sheltered the Netherlands from the ruinous Thirty Years' War. This protection in turn let the Dutch expand their share of world trade at the expense of war-scarred rivals. Thus the evolution of warfare and of world economic history are intertwined.
War is the proximal cause of the recurring inflationary spikes that demarcate 50-year "Kondratieff waves" in the world economy. Those waves themselves continue to be controversial. However, they may have some predictive value to the extent they clarify the historical relationships between war and military spending on the one hand, and inflation and economic growth on the other. The 1990s mainly followed a predicted long-wave phase of sustained low inflation, renewed growth, and reduced great-power military conflict. If this pattern were to continue, the coming decade would see continued strong growth but new upward pressures on military spending and conflict, eventually leading to a new bout of inflation in the great-power economies. Since scholars do not agree on the mechanism or even the existence of long economic waves, however, such projections are of more academic than practical interest.
The relationship between military spending and economic growth has also generated controversy. Despite its pump-priming potential in specific circumstances, as during the 1930s, military spending generally acts to slow economic growth, since it diverts capital and labor from more productive investment (such as in roads, schools, or basic research). During the Cold War, high military spending contributed (among other causes) to the economic stagnation of the Soviet Union and the collapse of North Korea, whereas low military spending relative to GDP contributed to Japan's growth and innovation. During the 1990s, as real military spending worldwide fell by about one-third, the United States and others reaped a "peace dividend" in sustained expansion. However, effects of military spending are long-term, and sharp reductions do not bring quick relief, as Russia's experience since 1991 demonstrates.
The global North-South divide - a stark feature of the world economy - is exacerbated by war. The dozens of wars currently in progress worldwide form an arc from the Andes through Africa to the Middle East and Caucasus, to South and Southeast Asia. In some of the world's poorest countries, such as Sudan and Afghanistan, endemic warfare impedes economic development and produces grinding poverty, which in turn intensifies conflicts and fuels warfare.
The role of war in the world economy is complex, yet pervasive. The shadow of war lies across economic history, influencing its pace and direction, and war continues to both shape economic developments and respond to them.
Wednesday 13 November 2013
What Is the U.S. Debt to China?
What Is the U.S. Debt to China?
By Kimberly Amadeo
China is the largest foreign holder of U.S. Treasuries.
(Credit: U.S. Treasury)
China owns debt to keep the dollar's value high.
A high dollar keeps Chinese exports inexpensive.
Credit: Justin Sullivan/Getty ImagesThe U.S. debt to China changes each month, depending on how many Treasury notes the Chinese government buys or sells. In August 2013, China owned $1.268 trillion in U.S. debt. China now owns 23% of the total of $5.59 trillion held by foreign countries. The rest of the more than $17 trillion debt is owned by either the American people, or by the U.S. government itself. For more, see Who Owns the U.S. National Debt?.
China has held more than $1 trillion in U.S. debt for the last three years. That's when the Treasury Department changed how it measures the debt. Before July 2010, Treasury reports show China held $843 billion in debt. This makes it difficult to do long-term comparisons. (Source: Major Holdings of U.S. Treasury Securities)
How Did China Become America's Biggest Banker?:
China is more than happy to own a large portion of the U.S. debt. Owning U.S. Treasury notes helps China's economy grow by keeping its currency weaker than the dollar. This keeps products exported from China cheaper than U.S. products, creating jobs for the Chinese people.
The U.S. allowed China to become its biggest banker because the American people enjoyed low consumer prices. Selling debt to China allows the U.S. economy to grow by funding federal government programs. It also keeps U.S. interest rates low. However, China's ownership of U.S. debt is shifting the economic balance of power in its favor.
Why Does China Own So Much U.S. Debt?:
China makes sure its currency, the yuan, is always lower than the U.S. dollar. Why? Part of its economic strategy is to keep its export prices competitive. It does this by holding the yuan at a fixed rate compared to a basket of currencies, the majority of which is the dollar. When the dollar falls in value, the Chinese government uses extra currency to buy Treasuries, which increases demand for the dollar, increasing its value. In addition, China promises to redeem dollars for yuan at the fixed rate. Obviously, it must keep a good supply of dollars, as Treasury notes, in reserve.
Holding U.S. Debt Gives China Political Clout:
China's position as America's largest banker gives it some political leverage. Every now and then, China threatens to sell part of its debt holdings. It knows that, if it did so, U.S. interest rates would rise, which would slow U.S economic growth. For example, in June 2009 China called for a new global currency to replace the dollar, which is used in most international transactions. China does this whenever the U.S. allows the value of the dollar to drop, which makes the debt China holds less valuable.
What Would Happen If China Called In Its Debt Holdings?:
First, China would not call in its debt all at once. If it did so, the demand for the dollar would plummet like a rock. This dollar collapse would disrupt international markets worse than the 2008 financial crisis. China's economy would suffer along with everyone else's.
It's more likely that China would slowly begin selling off its Treasury holdings. Even when it just warns that it plans to do so, dollar demand starts to drop. This hurts China's competitiveness, as it raises its export prices, so U.S. consumers start buying U.S.-made products instead. China must further expand its exports to other Asian countries, and increase domestic demand, before it can call in its U.S. debt holdings.
China's Debt-Holder Strategy Is Working:
Because of its ability to ship low-priced goods, China's economy has grown around 10% annually for three decades. It's currently the third largest economy in the world, after the U.S. and the EU. China's annual GDP for 2012 was $12.4 trillion. In 2010, China became the world's largest exporter. (Source: CIA World Factbook)
China needs this growth! Its GDP per capita was only $9,100 per person, compared to $49,800 per person for the U.S. This low standard of living allows China to attract overseas manufacturers to outsource jobs by paying its workers less. Therefore, despite its threats, China will continue its position as the world's largest holder of U.S. debt. (Article updated November 5, 2013)
Facts About the Chinese Economy
Facts About the Chinese Economy
By Kimberly Amadeo
By keeping the yuan lower than the dollar, China has been accused of currency manipulation.
Credit: Chung Sung Jun/Getty Images
China's economy produced $12.38 trillion in 2012, based on purchasing power parity. This makes it the third largest in the world, after the European Union ($15.7 billion) and the U.S. ($15.66 billion). However, after 30 years of double-digit growth, China's real growth rate slowed to just 7.8% in 2012, and 9.3% in 2011.
Why China's Growth Is Slowing:
The Chinese economic miracle was fed by government stimulus spending, business investment in capital goods, low interest rates, and state protection of strategic industries such as banking. However, this success led to 5.5% inflation in 2011, a real estate asset bubble, growth in public debt, and severe pollution.
The government's emphasis on job creation and business development based on exports left little for social welfare programs. This forced the Chinese population to save for their retirement, strangling domestic demand. Most of the growth has occurred in the cities along China's east coast, attracting 250 million migrant workers to these urban areas.
Chinese leaders must continue to stimulate growth and create jobs for all these workers, or face unrest. They remember all too well Mao's Revolution. However, at the same time, they must provide more social services, allowing these workers to save less and spend more. Only an increase in domestic demand will allow China to become less reliant on exports. In addition, leaders must crack down on local corruption, and find ways to improve the environmental impact of industrialization. For example, leaders have embarked on an ambitious nuclear and alternative energy program to reduce reliance on dirty coal and imported oil. The 12th Five-Year Plan, released in March 2011, outlines the reforms needed to increase domestic consumer spending and rely less on exports.
Despite an amazing growth record, China is still a relatively poor country in terms of its standard of living. Its economy only produces $9,100 per person, compared to the GDP per capita of $49,800 for the U.S. This low standard of living allows China to pay its workers less, making its products cheaper, which lures overseas manufacturers to outsource jobs there. (Source: WSJ, China Appears to be Stabilizing, August 6, 2013; CIA World Factbook, China Economy)
China's Economy Depends on Exports to U.S.:
China exports $2.021 trillion of its production, making it the world's second largest exporter. (The EU is the world's largest, exporting $2.17 trillion, while the U.S. is third, exporting $1.612 trillion.)
China ships 17% of its exports to the U.S., creating a $315 billion trade deficit in 2012. While China needs the U.S., it's increasing its trade with Hong Kong (14.1%) and Japan (7.8%). It's encouraging trade with African nations, investing in their infrastructure in return for oil. Finally, China is increasing trade agreements with other Southeast Asian nations, and with many Latin American countries.
What Does China Export?:
China does a lot of manufacturing for foreign businesses, including U.S. companies. The raw materials are shipped to China, where factory workers build the final products and ship them back to the U.S. In this way, a lot of China's so-called "exports" are really for American companies for American consumers. China primarily exports electrical and other types of machinery, especially computers and data processing equipment, as well as optical and medical equipment. It also exports apparel, fabric and textiles. It imports raw commodities from Latin America and Africa, such as oil and other fuels, metal ores, plastics and organic chemicals.
China Is the Biggest Banker to the U.S.:
China is the largest foreign holder of U.S. Treasury bills, bonds and notes. As of January 2013, China owned $1.264 trillion Treasuries. This is 11% of the total $11.6 trillion of debt held by the public.
China temporarily cut back on its holdings after July 2011, when it held $1.173 trillion. By June 2012, it only held $1.147 trillion.
China buys U.S. debt to support the value of the dollar. China pegs its currency (the yuan) lower than the U.S. dollar to keep its export prices competitive.(Source: U.S. Treasury, Major Foreign Holders)
China's role as America's largest banker gives it leverage. For example, China threatens to sell part of its holdings whenever the U.S. pressures it to raise the yuan's value. China counters by saying it did raise the yuan's value by 20% between 2005-2010. For more, see What Is the U.S. Debt to China?
The U.S. Accused China of Unfair Trade Practices:
President Obama continues to work with China to lower the trade deficit. China's unfair trade practices was a hot topic during the 2012 Presidential debate. During that debate, President Obama recounted how the U.S. Department of Commerce has successfully brought many disputes to the World Trade Organization, over unfair practices involving tires, steel and other materials.
In 2007, the Commerce Department threatened to apply penalty tariffs to Chinese products. For example, it accused China of "dumping" its paper exports into the U.S. The Commerce Department claimed that China unfairly provided subsidies of 10-20% to its manufacturers of glossy paper used in books and magazines. Trade volume had grown 177% in one year. The U.S.-based New Page Corporation brought the anti-dumping case to the Commerce Department, saying it could not compete against subsidized prices.
Henry Paulson Was Hired to Improve the Trade Deficit:
Former U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson was hired in 2006 to lower the trade deficit with China. He initiated the “Strategic Economic Dialogue” to open China's market, especially its banking industry. He did meet with several successes, including:
- An increase in central bank interest rates, increasing the value of the yuan 20% between 2005 and 2008.
- Elimination of a 17% tax rebate for exporters.
- An increase in the reserve requirement for central banks to 12%.
- A $3 billion investment in the U.S. Blackstone Group.
How China Avoided the Recession:
During the financial crisis of 2008, China pledged 4 trillion yuan, about $580 billion, to stimulate its economy to avoid recession. The funds represented 20% of China's annual economic output. It went towards low-rent housing, infrastructure in rural areas and construction of roads, railways and airports. China also increased tax deductions for machinery, saving businesses 120 billion yuan.
China raised both subsidies and grain prices for farmers, as well as allowances for low-income urbanites. It eliminated loan quotas for banks to increase small business lending.
China also took a leadership role by dropping interest rates three times in two months. Taiwan followed the lead of its largest trading partner by cutting interest rates four times in two months. (Source: Bloomberg, China Unveils 4 Trillion Yuan Spending as World Faces Recession, November 10, 2008) Article updated August 6, 2013
Monday 11 November 2013
Scientifically, are white people more intelligent than black people?
Scientifically, are white people more intelligent than black people?
Fri Jul 3, 2009 2:14 PM
So
I was reading an article I found from 2007 saying that Dr. James
Watson, one of the world’s most respected scientists, Nobel Prize Winner
and DNA Pioneer has claimed that black people are less intelligent than
white people.
Dr Watson said he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really.". He said he hoped that everyone was equal, but countered that “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true”.
He says that you should not discriminate on the basis of color, because “there are many people of color who are very talented, but don’t promote them when they haven’t succeeded at the lower level”. He writes that “there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so”.
He claimed genes responsible for creating differences in human intelligence could be found within a decade.
"
So, if genetically black people are less intelligent than white people how do we explain the white, Asian, Hispanic, etc. people that are less intelligent than everyone?
I think that intelligence is a complex thing. One cannot compare the level of intelligence of another without them having the same level knowledge. There are things that some people are never exposed t so how can they be tested?
I am not even an American but I took the GED test when I got here to have an American proof of education for high school and I passed the first time I took it and I had not even studied for it. The day I took my test, when the instructor asked people how many times they had taken it, some said they were taking the test for the 5th time even. American citizens and that surprised me in such a way that it was the only time I got a little intimidated and thought I wouldn't pass. However I found the test was a piece of cake. I noticed that most people saying they took the test more than once were black [not sure if all American citizens].
I think that I am more intelligent than the average person but I don't think it has anything to do with my ethnicity. I think everyone is capable of doing anything, given the chance. Now, if they are successful or not, doesn't mean they are not intelligent. Some people may succeed as a mathematician but on the other hand, they could never learn a second language. As an English as a second language teacher myself, I have had students that were extremely intelligent and had a very high position on their organization however they could not speak English fluently, even after they have lived in an English speaking country.
As per Wikipedia’s description: “Intelligence is an umbrella term used to describe a property of the mind that encompasses many related abilities, such as the capacities to reason, to plan, to solve problems, to think abstractly, to comprehend ideas, to use language, and to learn. There are several ways to define intelligence. In some cases, intelligence may include traits such as creativity, personality, character, knowledge, or wisdom. However, most psychologists prefer not to include these traits in the definition of intelligence. “
I don’t believe any single human mind would be able to hold all that information alone!
But bottom line, the purpose of this article is to question if people actually believe that black people are really somehow less intelligent than white people, according to Dr Watson's study.
I have wondered sometimes myself if certain types of people and this or that group/type of people were less intelligent.
Dr Watson said he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really.". He said he hoped that everyone was equal, but countered that “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true”.
He says that you should not discriminate on the basis of color, because “there are many people of color who are very talented, but don’t promote them when they haven’t succeeded at the lower level”. He writes that “there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so”.
He claimed genes responsible for creating differences in human intelligence could be found within a decade.
"
So, if genetically black people are less intelligent than white people how do we explain the white, Asian, Hispanic, etc. people that are less intelligent than everyone?
I think that intelligence is a complex thing. One cannot compare the level of intelligence of another without them having the same level knowledge. There are things that some people are never exposed t so how can they be tested?
I am not even an American but I took the GED test when I got here to have an American proof of education for high school and I passed the first time I took it and I had not even studied for it. The day I took my test, when the instructor asked people how many times they had taken it, some said they were taking the test for the 5th time even. American citizens and that surprised me in such a way that it was the only time I got a little intimidated and thought I wouldn't pass. However I found the test was a piece of cake. I noticed that most people saying they took the test more than once were black [not sure if all American citizens].
I think that I am more intelligent than the average person but I don't think it has anything to do with my ethnicity. I think everyone is capable of doing anything, given the chance. Now, if they are successful or not, doesn't mean they are not intelligent. Some people may succeed as a mathematician but on the other hand, they could never learn a second language. As an English as a second language teacher myself, I have had students that were extremely intelligent and had a very high position on their organization however they could not speak English fluently, even after they have lived in an English speaking country.
As per Wikipedia’s description: “Intelligence is an umbrella term used to describe a property of the mind that encompasses many related abilities, such as the capacities to reason, to plan, to solve problems, to think abstractly, to comprehend ideas, to use language, and to learn. There are several ways to define intelligence. In some cases, intelligence may include traits such as creativity, personality, character, knowledge, or wisdom. However, most psychologists prefer not to include these traits in the definition of intelligence. “
I don’t believe any single human mind would be able to hold all that information alone!
But bottom line, the purpose of this article is to question if people actually believe that black people are really somehow less intelligent than white people, according to Dr Watson's study.
I have wondered sometimes myself if certain types of people and this or that group/type of people were less intelligent.
Le Penseur by Auguste Rodin
Creativity and The Levels of Knowing
Whenever we use the word "know" in any form, we often assign a level to the meaning of the word. For example, if someone says that he knows your name, he implies that he remembers your name. However, if he says that he knows jiu jitsu, he usually implies that he can apply it in real world situations that require it. These are 2 different levels of knowing. Understanding the different levels of knowing is very helpful to understanding creativity because creativity takes place at some but not all levels of knowing. The levels of knowing from lowest to highest are:- Memorization
- Comprehension
- Application
- Analysis
- Synthesis
- Evaluation
Memorization
This is the first and lowest level. It involves rote memorization of facts that relate to a given set of principles. At this level, the person can repeat what he or she read or heard but cannot do much else with the information.
Comprehension
This is the second level and it involves a basic understanding of the underlying principles. It allows you to state facts in your own words and to make connection between these facts. This level allows you to hold a conversation about the subject.
Application
This is the third level and it allows you to accomplish tasks based on the set of principles. This is the mimimum functional level because it is the lowest level at which you can use the set of principles in the real world. It requires a reasonable amount of competence in the prior levels. The only way to achieve this level is to practice. For example, you cannot learn to drive a car or ride a bicycle solely by reading a book.
Analysis
This level allows you to break down an application of the principles into its basic components. It allows you to determine which principles are being applied and whether or not they are being applied correctly. It also allows you to determine what actions (if any) need correction and how to correct them. This is the minimum level required to be a competent instructor (although it does not guarantee skill at teaching) and it requires proficiency at the preceding levels.
Synthesis
This is the ability to make (synthesize) new creations and formulate new ideas based on the underlying set of principles. It allows you to generate new ideas without observing them or being taught them. This is the first truly creative level and any appearance of creativity below this level can be attributed to serendipity (luck). Not surprisingly, reaching this level requires proficiency at prior levels. Also, experimenting with various combinations of the underlying principles followed by examining the results is extremely helpful in becoming proficient at this level. The experiments can be either thought experiments or real experiments (whenever practical), but real experiments are generally more accurate.
Evaluation
This is the ability to tell whether or not the underlying set of principles applies to a given task or situation. This term is often mistakenly used to describe analysis. However, unlike the previous levels that work within the underlying principles, evaluation involves checking the relevance or validity of these same underlying principles. Incidentally, the mathematician Kurt Gödel proved that unless a set of principles is self contradictory, you cannot evaluate the set of principles from entirely within itself. This means that evaluation requires you to go outside the set of principles and possibly realize that it is just a subset of an even higher set of principles. However, this allows you to formulate ideas and make creations that could not have been made from within the original set of principles. This is the epitome of thinking outside the box. In fact, every genius that we have looked at so far has shown thought at the evaluation level. As you might guess, reaching this level requires proficiency at the prior levels. Many brilliant artists have summed this up in the statement "Know the rules before you break them". In addition, evaluation requires either inductive reasoning, imagination or exposure to other perspectives.
Clearly, your level of knowledge about a particular field will certainly affect your creativity within that field. Also, creativity (other than by luck) occurs at the higher levels of knowing, and achieving these levels requires time and effort. Let's face it; someone who intends to produce a great piano concerto would do well to actually know how to play a piano.
This is stated perfectly in the Japanese proverb: I will master something, then the creativity will come
How to Become More Intelligent Than You Are Now
How to Become More Intelligent Than You Are Now
Edited by Josh W., Ben Rubenstein, Lucas Halbert, Horses4Ever and 115 others
Do you ever feel less intelligent around other people? Are you
embarrassed when you don’t know the answer to a teacher’s question?
Everybody has those times when they just feel like they don’t know
anything. Of course, you can’t know everything, but no matter how smart
you are, you can start becoming more intelligent today.Steps
-
1Improve your memory. Much of what is generally considered intelligence is simply the ability to remember things well. You can improve your ability to retain and recall memories in a variety of ways, including using mnemonics and by paying more attention to details. -
2Study more effectively. If you find yourself at a loss when your teacher puts you on the spot, or if you perform poorly on exams, you may not be studying enough. Even if you study a lot, improving your study skills can make a big difference. A variety of wikiHows offer tips to help you. -
3Read a lot. Just about everything that humans know can be found in print, whether in books and magazines or on the internet. Become a voracious reader, and you’ll expose yourself to more ideas and information. If you’re a slow reader, consider learning speed reading. Consider jotting down notes, and perhaps looking up a word or two in the dictionary. -
4Visit the library frequently and pick up anything which looks interesting to you. The subject matter is not quite as important as is the act of reading. Always have something good to read at hand. -
5Be more curious. How do some people get to know so much? Good memory skills are only part of the answer: you also have to be curious. If you’re satisfied going through life with little or no understanding of things you’re unfamiliar with, you won’t learn much. Make a conscious effort to be more curious by reminding yourself that developing your curiosity will broaden your horizons and help to make you more intelligent. -
6Research. Curiosity without initiative is like having a car that’s out of gas — it won’t take you anywhere. Fortunately, when it comes to knowledge you’re never far from success. If you read a word that you don’t know, look it up in the dictionary. If you wonder how airplanes fly, read a book about it. If you want to know more about politics, pick up a newspaper. With Internet access now pervasive, there’s less excuse for not finding something out that you want to know. -
7Learn how to look things up. If you know how to use references, from an internet search engine to an encyclopedia, you’ll be able to find the information you want more quickly and effectively. Effective researching skills will nourish your curiosity because you’ll become more confident in your ability to access knowledge. If your research skills leave something to be desired, take a class or workshop on how to research, ask a librarian or teacher, or simply practice researching. Or just press the "help" tabs on the internet and computer programs and read. -
8Figure things out on your own. There’s a lot more to intelligence than “book smarts". We can all learn to perform everyday tasks at work, home, and school better and more intelligently. If you don’t know how to do something, resist the urge to ask somebody else to do it for you or show you how. In most cases, you’ll be able to figure it out on your own, either by trial-and-error or by researching. While it usually takes longer to figure something out than it does to ask about it, you’ll learn more about the overall process, and you’ll remember it better. Most importantly, you’ll exercise your problem-solving skills instead of your “do as you’re told” skills. -
9Ask for help. It’s great to figure things out on your own, but sometimes you don’t have enough time to do so, despite your best efforts. Don’t give up; ask somebody to show you how. Make sure to pay close attention and ask any questions that you have, so that you’ll never have to ask the same thing again. -
10Exercise your mind in different ways. Most of us are good at the things we excel in naturally or the activities we do everyday. Challenge yourself to learn a new skill or to think in a different way, however, and you’ll actually become more intelligent. Choose something you’d like to learn to do (play the accordion, for example) or a subject you don’t do well in (maybe math) and focus on that thing. Initially, you may be uncomfortable and feel even less intelligent than you did before, but if you study or practice diligently, you’ll become more confident, and you’ll make new connections in your mind. -
11Teach others. In order to teach something to somebody else, you’ve got to know it pretty well. When you try to explain an idea or skill to somebody else, you’ll not only remember it better yourself, you’ll also find that the other person’s questions will help you find out how well you really know what you’re talking about. -
12Learn a new word each day. Go through the dictionary and find a word that you don't know already, then practice using it throughout the day. When you come across a new word when doing #3, look it up. -
13Do your homework if you're in school! Don't procrastinate, finish it last minute, or copy someone's paper. The homework is there for practice, and when you do it, you'll become more confident in that subject. But remember, homework time is not the same as study time, so you can't count homework as studying. -
14Find a hobby that interests you. Many people increase their intelligence by attempting to get better at something that they're already good at. For example, not only does it make a computer programmer look smarter if they know C++, but it can help you with your job. -
15Surround yourself with intelligent people. Being around people that are smarter than you can help you become more knowledgeable. -
16Read the news. Keeping up with current events will let you know what's going on in the world. You can catch up on what the world is doing while exercising (step 3). -
17Practice your writing skills as well. Writing allows you to input your knowledge into creativity. Whether you write short, fantasy stories or reports on WWII, it's always great to practice your writing skills. Try exercising your brain and writing a little something every day, whether it be describing your emotions or writing descriptive paragraphs about the weather. Sometimes, just brainstorming can help you create fresh, new ideas. -
18Learn a new language. It has been proven that learning new languages makes one generally smarter. Children who knew two languages or more had more grey matter than those who didn't. And grey matter is responsible for processing information, including memory, speech and sensory perception.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)