Biology Forums - Study Force

Humanities Political Science Topic started by: Catracho on Feb 11, 2019



Title: Answer 2 of 4.
Post by: Catracho on Feb 11, 2019
Answer 2 of 4.
 
1. Discuss why a movement back toward the gold standard would NOT be advisable ( for this, I am not even going to give the option of it being advisable. A recent study by the National Bureau of Economic Research polled 100 economists. Not one felt the gold standard to be a viable option any more).
 
2. After reviewing the Glenn article, what are some of the issues discussed that threaten the current Bretton Woods-inspired international system? Explain in detail.
 
3. How has the Lahav article impacted your perspective on the refugee issue? Explain in detail.
 
4. Analyze the Olympic games, what would the Constructivist say about them? Explain in detail.


Title: Re: Answer 2 of 4.
Post by: habiba on Feb 11, 2019
Hi!

1. Discuss why a movement back toward the gold standard would NOT be advisable ( for this, I am not even going to give the option of it being advisable. A recent study by the National Bureau of Economic Research polled 100 economists. Not one felt the gold standard to be a viable option any more).

Moving towards the gold standard wouldn’t work in today's economy because of all the debt that our country has. The gold that we have isn’t equal to the trillions of dollars that we are in debt to many countries. Government would be limited, and our economic growth would be restricted because of the rest of the world may not have gold.


Title: Re: Answer 2 of 4.
Post by: Gabriel310 on Feb 11, 2019
^^

That's right, we have to consider the monetary supply of gold for the whole world. As industries and commerce springs up everywhere, we as a planet are rapidly growing in value. We have a lot more buying power today than we did even a hundred years ago. We can't just make more gold when we need to, and sooner or later our money supply (that is, our ability to buy stuff) is going to pass our gold supply.


Title: Re: Answer 2 of 4.
Post by: bio_man on Feb 12, 2019
1. Discuss why a movement back toward the gold standard would NOT be advisable ( for this, I am not even going to give the option of it being advisable. A recent study by the National Bureau of Economic Research polled 100 economists. Not one felt the gold standard to be a viable option any more).

Interesting question. I'll take a stab at it.

The gold standard isn't a plausible currency alternative for several reasons. The one mentioned above is an excellent reason that you should include Catracho (https://biology-forums.com/index.php?action=profile;u=825455). But to add one more logistical issue to the list, given that gold is a metal, its weight makes transport expensive and dangerous. Furthermore, every nation would need to be on-board for it to become a worldwide standard. In fact, this is what lead to its collapse as the standard in the first place, when nations in the First World War started financing the war by printing paper currency. This caused rapid inflation and caused nations to abandon it. There's no regulation stopping countries today from doing the same.

The U.S. decision in 1934 to devalue its currency and Britain’s decision not to do so lowered the price of U.S. exports and increased the price of British goods imported; it had previously required $4.87 to purchase one British pound, but it now took $8.24 to buy a pound ($35.00 ÷ £4.2474). So, for example, this forced the cost of a £10 tea set exported from Britain to the United States to go from $48.70 before devaluation to $82.40 after devaluation. This drastically increased the price of imports from Britain (and other countries), lowering its export earnings. Countries retaliated against one another through "competitive devaluations" to improve their own trade balances. As a result, faith in the gold standard vanished, as it was no longer an accurate indicator of a currency’s true value.
Post Merge: 5 years ago

4. Analyze the Olympic games, what would the Constructivist say about them? Explain in detail.

In international relations, constructivism is the claim that significant aspects of international relations are historically and socially constructed, rather than inevitable consequences of human nature or other essential characteristics of world politics. The Olympic games can be interpreted as a continuation of politics were two or more countries rivaling one another in trade, military might, or some other form of politics, can show the world which one is potentially more powerful by winning more gold medals. When countries battle-off in a sporting event, victory on either side brings pride and glory to that country, ultimately making one country appear more dominant than the other.

The behavior of politicians with regard to the Olympics, for example, through funding of sports programs or decisions to compete in or boycott the games, shows how important the games to rival nations. Every time one country takes victory over another, history is made and oftentimes countries nations come closer together. For example, since their split. North Korea and South Korea have a football (soccer) feud. When the two teams play, whether it be during the olympics or some other sporting event, it opens dialogue between the two nations. Citizens often make the connection that political differences can be reconciled because while the two countries don't see eye-to-eye politically, they're more far more similar in theory than on paper.


Title: Re: Answer 2 of 4.
Post by: bio_man on Feb 13, 2019
2. After reviewing the Glenn article, what are some of the issues discussed that threaten the current Bretton Woods-inspired international system? Explain in detail.   3. How has the Lahav article impacted your perspective on the refugee issue? Explain in detail.

I couldn't answer these because they require external resources, so I stuck with 1 and 4.

Hope my ideas help