In a little over ten years, we have gone from a society which almost never used cellular phones, to one that is completely obsessed with them. People raised in the 1980's and 1990's probably the remember the popular television show "Saved by the Bell" in which the title character, Zach Morris, had a portable phone in his locker. If we watch the television show today, the phone seems so laughable because it was so large and cumbersome.
It seems as though one must have a cell phone in today's society. Even my father, who believes that the world of Terminator is coming when computers will become self aware and enslave us, uses a cell phone and text messaging now. Without a cell phone in today's world, someone feels lost. People feel the need to be able to get in touch with anyone at any time.
There is a tremendous amount of cell phone addiction in this country. Recently I went to a coffee shop and while I was sitting there I noticed that almost all of the people sitting around me with their phones out. This is a time when people are going out with their friends, but they seemed to prefer to be on their cell phone. It seems as though in a world where cigarettes are no longer tolerated in many places, cell phones have become the new fixation.
So what? What's the big deal about cell phone addiction? It's not like being addicted to drugs or alcohol. It seems as though one thing cell phones and similar technology have lowerd our attention spans. People have a hard time paying attention today without seeing some kind of technology. Children today are no longer impressed by having computers, in fact they expect these kinds of things in our society. Adults get very bored easily and always need to have something to do.
Cell phone addiction is a symptom of our addictions to consumer products. In today's world it is customary to buy as many things as possible all the time. Get a new app for your phone, buy a new computer, download music immediately. Does this constant ability to buy things make us happy? I would argue that it does not. It leaves us wanting and disapointed. We feel we need to buy all the time. People are now racking up tremendous debts to buy consumer products and spending as much as possible on everything. Savings seems to be a thing of the past.
It seems as though our ability to consumer new products has become our primary focus as human beings. Since we were little we have been exposed to massive amounts of advertisements encouraging us that buying things will make us happy. We grow up dreaming about what things we might be able to buy if we just had a little more money.
Is there any way to change this? Probably not. Even as I write this, I am using a computer which I am completely dependent on. But eventually the massive use of technology will have some kind of backlash or large scale negative effect. Only time will tell if our addictions to cell phones and other technology will turn us into junkies all looking for our next fix.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Monday, June 28, 2010
Review of "South of the Border"
The new Oliver Stone documentary "South of the Border", is an attempt by the director to make sense of the recent change in Latin American politics. During the course of the film, Stone visits several of the countries of South America which have elected Leftist presidents in the last few years. The most promienent one featured in the film is Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, who is thought by many to have spearheaded the new leftist trend in Latin America.
Stone starts out the film by showing some of the portrayals of Chavez in the U.S. media. Chavez is accused of being a drug addict, insane, and a dictator by the U.S. press. However, when Stone travels to South America we see a very different person. During the course of the interviews Chavez appears kind, articulate, and even funny. In one particularly humorous scene, Chavez takes Stone on a tour of a worker's cooperative, where corn is made. He announces before they arrive that this is where they are building the Iranian atomic bomb, a reference to the reports in the U.S. press that Chavez is helping to fund terrorism against the United States.
After interviewing Chavez, Stone speaks to other leaders around the continent, such as Evo Morales of Bolivia, Christina Kirchner of Argentina, Fernando Lugo of Paraguay, Rafael Correa of Ecuador, and finally Raul Castro of Cuba. Each of these leaders has a distinct insight into why their countries have become more suseptible to leftist politics in the last few years. The common theme from all of them is that their countries have changed mainly due to the policies of the IMF and the United States government, which have bankrupted the citizens of Latin America since the 1970s. The different presidents also make very good points discrediting the lies published by the U.S. media. Kirchner of Argentina, refutes the claim that Chavez is a dictator, by pointing out that Chavez has held 13 different elections since his initial election in 1998.
The film makes one question why is the United States so fearful of these countries. Not one of these leaders has ever made any threats against the United States, and they have militaries which could not possibly match the strength of our own. Through the film, the viewer can see two reasons. First, the new leftist leaders are limiting the influence of the United States in Latin America. Since the Monroe Doctrine, Latin America has been thought to be part of the United States sphere of influence where U.S. policy makers could make profit, no matter what the cost to the citizens of those countries. Second, the rise of leftist leaders in Latin America ignites the fear that the U.S. can be challenged and that this may inspire others to challenge United States hegemony around the world.
At the end of the film one of the film's writers, Tariq Ali, is interviewed. Ali optimistically states that he believes the wave of leftist beliefs in Latin America could spread to the United States through the large amount of immigrants from Latin America. This is very hopeful and does not take into account the existing political and social structures which already exist in the United States. Ali does not take into account that a large percentage of Latin immigrants are members of the upper classes, who are deeply committed to removing leftists from power. However, in this author's opinion the rise of leftist leaders in Latin America might have a progressive effect on the United States. More and more people in the United States have become interested in the policies of the Latin American leaders. As more people are exposed to the truths about these leaders, maybe more people will demand that our leaders carry out the same kinds of egalitarian philosophies. In addition to this, if the current trend of electing leftist leaders continues, perhaps Latin America will be able to create a new united power block which will be on more equal footing with the United States. If this happens, the United States might be forced to adopt more progressive policies in order to combat the egalitarianism from the South.
"South of the Border" is essential viewing for anyone interested in the recent developments in Latin America. Not only does it provide an introduction to the situations in these countries but it gives great insight into the leaders personalities. President Morales ends his interview with a quote from Tupac Katari, an Indian leader who led a rebellion against the Spanish colonizers. Katari was murdered by the Spanish, but his last words were "Today I die as one, but I will return as millions." In Latin America today, millions have spoken up against the ruthless economic policies of the United States. Only time will tell if others around the world will join them.
Stone starts out the film by showing some of the portrayals of Chavez in the U.S. media. Chavez is accused of being a drug addict, insane, and a dictator by the U.S. press. However, when Stone travels to South America we see a very different person. During the course of the interviews Chavez appears kind, articulate, and even funny. In one particularly humorous scene, Chavez takes Stone on a tour of a worker's cooperative, where corn is made. He announces before they arrive that this is where they are building the Iranian atomic bomb, a reference to the reports in the U.S. press that Chavez is helping to fund terrorism against the United States.
After interviewing Chavez, Stone speaks to other leaders around the continent, such as Evo Morales of Bolivia, Christina Kirchner of Argentina, Fernando Lugo of Paraguay, Rafael Correa of Ecuador, and finally Raul Castro of Cuba. Each of these leaders has a distinct insight into why their countries have become more suseptible to leftist politics in the last few years. The common theme from all of them is that their countries have changed mainly due to the policies of the IMF and the United States government, which have bankrupted the citizens of Latin America since the 1970s. The different presidents also make very good points discrediting the lies published by the U.S. media. Kirchner of Argentina, refutes the claim that Chavez is a dictator, by pointing out that Chavez has held 13 different elections since his initial election in 1998.
The film makes one question why is the United States so fearful of these countries. Not one of these leaders has ever made any threats against the United States, and they have militaries which could not possibly match the strength of our own. Through the film, the viewer can see two reasons. First, the new leftist leaders are limiting the influence of the United States in Latin America. Since the Monroe Doctrine, Latin America has been thought to be part of the United States sphere of influence where U.S. policy makers could make profit, no matter what the cost to the citizens of those countries. Second, the rise of leftist leaders in Latin America ignites the fear that the U.S. can be challenged and that this may inspire others to challenge United States hegemony around the world.
At the end of the film one of the film's writers, Tariq Ali, is interviewed. Ali optimistically states that he believes the wave of leftist beliefs in Latin America could spread to the United States through the large amount of immigrants from Latin America. This is very hopeful and does not take into account the existing political and social structures which already exist in the United States. Ali does not take into account that a large percentage of Latin immigrants are members of the upper classes, who are deeply committed to removing leftists from power. However, in this author's opinion the rise of leftist leaders in Latin America might have a progressive effect on the United States. More and more people in the United States have become interested in the policies of the Latin American leaders. As more people are exposed to the truths about these leaders, maybe more people will demand that our leaders carry out the same kinds of egalitarian philosophies. In addition to this, if the current trend of electing leftist leaders continues, perhaps Latin America will be able to create a new united power block which will be on more equal footing with the United States. If this happens, the United States might be forced to adopt more progressive policies in order to combat the egalitarianism from the South.
"South of the Border" is essential viewing for anyone interested in the recent developments in Latin America. Not only does it provide an introduction to the situations in these countries but it gives great insight into the leaders personalities. President Morales ends his interview with a quote from Tupac Katari, an Indian leader who led a rebellion against the Spanish colonizers. Katari was murdered by the Spanish, but his last words were "Today I die as one, but I will return as millions." In Latin America today, millions have spoken up against the ruthless economic policies of the United States. Only time will tell if others around the world will join them.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Banks and Credit Unions
In today's world there are possibly no more powerful institution than banks and investment houses. Our whole world is dominated by buying and selling, and banks provide the currency with which we make transactions on a daily basis. Whether it be receiving your paycheck, buying a house or car, or simply buying a pack of gum, you have had to interact with a financial institution along the way somehow.
Since the fall of 2008, people around the world have seen how financial institutions have greatly been able to determine the course of world events. What started out as banks creating new kinds of home loans for possible buyers, turned into a global financial crisis, which has caused many on all sides of the political spectrum to question the way that business is done. If there is to be a change in the business policies of the world, what should that policy be?
Banks have always be a necessity in the modern world. Currency has been a necessity in almost all civilizations, and since currency is considered valuable there is a need to protect it. There are also times when a person does not have available currency for something one needs or wants. The bank then provides currency on loan for the person in need. In these ways banks provide valuable service to society.
However, the function of a financial institution is above all to make profit. The bank does not care how this is done. In recent years banks have found different profit making devices, that have increased their wealth and power. One way banks have done this is by controlling greater amounts of credit. More and more people have requested or needed access to some kind of credit in the years past. With more loans given out, the banks would naturally receive more profit. It was usually understood, that a bank took substantial risk on giving a loan, but with the financial bailouts of late 2008, it showed that financial institutions were able to secure a generous bailout for themselves from the federal government in their time of need.
Another way that banks have been able to make a greater profit is by increasing the rates of fees that they have charged. From increased charges for using the ATM's of competitors, to excessive overdraft and late fees, banks have been able to charge fees on things they never could have done in the past. For instance, the advent of debit cards has been particularly useful to banks profits. A debit card allows a bank customer to directly transfer money from their account to a merchant. However, if a customer does not have sufficient funds in their account, the bank covers the transaction, and then charges the customer a huge fee for overdrawing their account. This is a classic example of the banks making a profit at the customer's expense. The customer would be better served to just have the transaction declined and face the initial embarassment, rather than be charged a fee which many times exceeds the actual price of the goods purchased.
One possible solution to this, would be to reform the banking industry and the ways that financial institutions conduct their business. However, this is very unlikely. The financial industry is one of the most powerful lobbies in the federal government, and therefore they hold a tremendous amount of influence with lawmakers. Even if large scale reform of the banking industry could take place through legislation, financial institutions would find new ways of profitting at the expense of consumers. Banks, like all large corporations are driven by creating profit. If the company carries out practices that fail to net it profit, the stock holders will find some other kind of practice.
There is a simpler way to bring more equity to our financial system. The solution to this is to stop using the big financial institutions and reallocate our money in local credit unions. Unlike a bank, a credit union is controlled by the people who have accounts. Its leaders are selected by the customers, so thereby the credit union creates a democratic practice. If the credit union creates policies that the consumers do not like, the consumer has a voice and actual power to change the policies. As credit unions do not have the same corporate structure, they often give better interest rates on loans and on deposit accounts. Finally, since credit unions are not driven by creating profits, they are not likely their customers' money to make risky financial decisions that will collapse our economy.
Credit unions are a simple solution to a larger financial problem. With less currency to work off of, the large banks will lose influence. If credit unions become a substantial competitor, banks will also have to change their business practices to compete with them. When this becomes a reality, there will be more equality in the business practices and with this greater equality will develop over all of society.
Since the fall of 2008, people around the world have seen how financial institutions have greatly been able to determine the course of world events. What started out as banks creating new kinds of home loans for possible buyers, turned into a global financial crisis, which has caused many on all sides of the political spectrum to question the way that business is done. If there is to be a change in the business policies of the world, what should that policy be?
Banks have always be a necessity in the modern world. Currency has been a necessity in almost all civilizations, and since currency is considered valuable there is a need to protect it. There are also times when a person does not have available currency for something one needs or wants. The bank then provides currency on loan for the person in need. In these ways banks provide valuable service to society.
However, the function of a financial institution is above all to make profit. The bank does not care how this is done. In recent years banks have found different profit making devices, that have increased their wealth and power. One way banks have done this is by controlling greater amounts of credit. More and more people have requested or needed access to some kind of credit in the years past. With more loans given out, the banks would naturally receive more profit. It was usually understood, that a bank took substantial risk on giving a loan, but with the financial bailouts of late 2008, it showed that financial institutions were able to secure a generous bailout for themselves from the federal government in their time of need.
Another way that banks have been able to make a greater profit is by increasing the rates of fees that they have charged. From increased charges for using the ATM's of competitors, to excessive overdraft and late fees, banks have been able to charge fees on things they never could have done in the past. For instance, the advent of debit cards has been particularly useful to banks profits. A debit card allows a bank customer to directly transfer money from their account to a merchant. However, if a customer does not have sufficient funds in their account, the bank covers the transaction, and then charges the customer a huge fee for overdrawing their account. This is a classic example of the banks making a profit at the customer's expense. The customer would be better served to just have the transaction declined and face the initial embarassment, rather than be charged a fee which many times exceeds the actual price of the goods purchased.
One possible solution to this, would be to reform the banking industry and the ways that financial institutions conduct their business. However, this is very unlikely. The financial industry is one of the most powerful lobbies in the federal government, and therefore they hold a tremendous amount of influence with lawmakers. Even if large scale reform of the banking industry could take place through legislation, financial institutions would find new ways of profitting at the expense of consumers. Banks, like all large corporations are driven by creating profit. If the company carries out practices that fail to net it profit, the stock holders will find some other kind of practice.
There is a simpler way to bring more equity to our financial system. The solution to this is to stop using the big financial institutions and reallocate our money in local credit unions. Unlike a bank, a credit union is controlled by the people who have accounts. Its leaders are selected by the customers, so thereby the credit union creates a democratic practice. If the credit union creates policies that the consumers do not like, the consumer has a voice and actual power to change the policies. As credit unions do not have the same corporate structure, they often give better interest rates on loans and on deposit accounts. Finally, since credit unions are not driven by creating profits, they are not likely their customers' money to make risky financial decisions that will collapse our economy.
Credit unions are a simple solution to a larger financial problem. With less currency to work off of, the large banks will lose influence. If credit unions become a substantial competitor, banks will also have to change their business practices to compete with them. When this becomes a reality, there will be more equality in the business practices and with this greater equality will develop over all of society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)