By Ryan Fitzsimmons
An ever present problem in today’s world is poverty, which affects not only millions of people abroad, but also a growing number of people in the United States. While very few people would shrug a responsibility to help those who suffer from poverty and its related ailments, a question commonly arises. How much is enough and is it wrong to give less than I currently am?
Kristine Falkowski and Kaitlin Blumberg, two students of philosophy at St. Thomas Aquinas College, recently spoke on society’s ethical duty to help the impoverished and whether or not the amount currently being given is morally acceptable. “People must perform their duties,” says Blumberg, “but there is a great debate over what those duties are.”
First, the speakers defined what helping the poor entails. Among the needs of those less fortunate are shelters, clothing and healthcare, all which would improve their quality of living. “10,000,000 children die every day from poverty related causes,” says Blumberg, “which include preventable illness and hunger.” Because so many people perish from things that more affluent people can prevent with a little money, the question how much should people give and how much should a person lower his or her standard of living for another becomes problematic. Over the past few centuries, as Falkowski and Blumberg note, many different philosophers have tackled this issue.
The two speakers begin by noting different viewpoints on welfare from modern philosophers. “According to Robert Nozick,” says Falkowski, “people only have rights to what they have earned.” Blumberg fires back, mentioning John Rawls’ writings in saying “government should insure impoverished receive welfare.” These perspectives are then supported by older philosophical theories, including Aristotelian and utilitarian thought.
“Aristotle said that generosity is a happy medium between giving too much to help others and too little,” says Falkowski. Providing an ancient view on supporting others, Falkowski notes that Aristotle takes personal welfare into account. Although caring for the poor is an important task, it is equally important to care about oneself and not to rob yourself to give to others.
Blumberg, once again giving and opposing view, comments on utilitarianism, a 19th century philosophy. “Since utilitarians believe that no one person is more important than another, and that happiness is the ultimate goal in life, giving to the poor is a necessity,” says Blumberg. She goes on to mention how some utilitarians, most notably Peter Singer, give away all money they don’t need to survive to those less fortunate in hopes of creating a better world. Although Singer sets a good example, both Blumberg and Falkowski note how cases like his are extreme and are unrealistic to expect all people to follow.
Finally, both Blumberg and Falkowski come to a theory that they both accept as practical, the social contract theory. Developed by Thomas Hobbes, social contract theory states that all members of society follow rules because it is in their best interest to keep society strong. In relationship to the poor, both speakers mention how impoverished people are under the social contract, and that helping ease their poverty would assist the upholding of society.
By giving their views on the different ethical theories of charity, Falkowski and Blumberg offer different perspectives on how to help the poor and why it is in society’s best interest to do more.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Check Your Facts
By Liz Kaminski
True or false? That's the question Rob Garilli, a senior at St. Thomas Aquinas College and also SGA President, addressed in a speech on the reliability of the media in his Speech Communications Honors class earlier this month. To relate the problem of uncertainty with the media to his audience, Rob opened his speech with a poll he conducted on the class. Using his sample population, Rob found that “85% of students do not know whether to trust the news they are getting” and displayed the statistic with a pie chart to achieve maximum impact.
Rob explained that not only are students at STAC unsure of news facts, but a survey conducted by PIPA during 2010 congressional elections found that many voters were upset with media for providing false and biased information.
Since there are many news outlets and only a few are reliable, Rob wanted to inform the audience where they can look to find confirmation of stories that the media provided. One very reliable source to check political facts is on a website called PolitiFact. Established by the St. Petersburg Times with editor in chief Bill Adair, PolitiFact won a Pulitzer Prize in 2009 for its fact checking abilities. Rob then delved into the formatting of the website.
First, he explained the Truth-o-Meter which is what the website uses to rate the truthfulness of an article or story. “There are six levels with which PolitiFact uses to rate a story, True, Mostly True, Half True, Mostly False, False, and Pants on Fire” explained Rob. Most of the levels are self-explanatory, but Rob clarified one of the more unclear levels.
“Pants on Fire shows that not only is the story absolutely false, but there is also a sense of ridiculousness to the story. The catchy name was made up to help lighten the mood of the website and draw young people to the site,” Rob said. Each meter is located on the side of the article to show the reader the rating of truthfulness. Rob pulled up the website to show the audience where the Truth-o-Meter was located on the various web pages.
Rob used the two different examples to also show that PolitiFact was extremely unbiased in search for truth out in the media. One article dealt with how it was an untruthful rumor that the congressional Republicans have written up zero bills on job creation. Another article talked about the misconception in the media that Obamacare constitutes a government takeover of the health care system. This showed some support that the website was not biased.
However, at the end of the speech, sophomore Melissa Vander Teems brought up the point again by asking “Are the articles posted about 50/50 – like half of the articles dealing with Republicans are false and half of the article dealing with Democrats are false?”
Rob answered this question by explaining that they do not break it up in that manner. PolitiFact deals with all sorts of articles and posts all findings despite the ratio of false to true on Republicans and Democrats. There job is to find out whether the information the media is feeding the masses is true through reliable sources with high credentials and after amounting research.
This was an informative speech about how the media can put out misinformation which can greatly affect political positions. Rob’s detailed research into the website reassured the audience of its reliability. After this speech, the audience walked away with the tools needed to sort through the information provided by the media to make sure that is truthful and correct.
True or false? That's the question Rob Garilli, a senior at St. Thomas Aquinas College and also SGA President, addressed in a speech on the reliability of the media in his Speech Communications Honors class earlier this month. To relate the problem of uncertainty with the media to his audience, Rob opened his speech with a poll he conducted on the class. Using his sample population, Rob found that “85% of students do not know whether to trust the news they are getting” and displayed the statistic with a pie chart to achieve maximum impact.
Rob explained that not only are students at STAC unsure of news facts, but a survey conducted by PIPA during 2010 congressional elections found that many voters were upset with media for providing false and biased information.
Since there are many news outlets and only a few are reliable, Rob wanted to inform the audience where they can look to find confirmation of stories that the media provided. One very reliable source to check political facts is on a website called PolitiFact. Established by the St. Petersburg Times with editor in chief Bill Adair, PolitiFact won a Pulitzer Prize in 2009 for its fact checking abilities. Rob then delved into the formatting of the website.
First, he explained the Truth-o-Meter which is what the website uses to rate the truthfulness of an article or story. “There are six levels with which PolitiFact uses to rate a story, True, Mostly True, Half True, Mostly False, False, and Pants on Fire” explained Rob. Most of the levels are self-explanatory, but Rob clarified one of the more unclear levels.
“Pants on Fire shows that not only is the story absolutely false, but there is also a sense of ridiculousness to the story. The catchy name was made up to help lighten the mood of the website and draw young people to the site,” Rob said. Each meter is located on the side of the article to show the reader the rating of truthfulness. Rob pulled up the website to show the audience where the Truth-o-Meter was located on the various web pages.
Rob used the two different examples to also show that PolitiFact was extremely unbiased in search for truth out in the media. One article dealt with how it was an untruthful rumor that the congressional Republicans have written up zero bills on job creation. Another article talked about the misconception in the media that Obamacare constitutes a government takeover of the health care system. This showed some support that the website was not biased.
However, at the end of the speech, sophomore Melissa Vander Teems brought up the point again by asking “Are the articles posted about 50/50 – like half of the articles dealing with Republicans are false and half of the article dealing with Democrats are false?”
Rob answered this question by explaining that they do not break it up in that manner. PolitiFact deals with all sorts of articles and posts all findings despite the ratio of false to true on Republicans and Democrats. There job is to find out whether the information the media is feeding the masses is true through reliable sources with high credentials and after amounting research.
This was an informative speech about how the media can put out misinformation which can greatly affect political positions. Rob’s detailed research into the website reassured the audience of its reliability. After this speech, the audience walked away with the tools needed to sort through the information provided by the media to make sure that is truthful and correct.
Sunday, September 4, 2011
Journalism Live
A new semester begins, amid the destructive aftermath of a hurricane, a national economic crisis, and horrendous attacks on America a decade ago that sparked a costly war that still continues overseas. How we know, beyond our limited circle of personal experiences and communications, about the bigger story of these historic events and their effects is the job of journalism.
Journalism at its best conveys us on a daily journey of discovery, an exploration of our community and the world around us that lasts a lifetime. It provides—via newspapers, magazines, radio, television, internet websites and, these days, tweets—news of what happened affecting friends and neighbors, celebrities and complete strangers.
Students at St. Thomas Aquinas College are introduced to basic journalism skills and assigned projects in which they write feature articles about aspects of current events that interest them and, they feel, other folks.
As highlighted on this website, STAC student-journalists explore a wide range of topics. Previous reports range from the internet’s impact on the music industry to the search for a missing son, movie reviews to interviews with grandparents who survived World War II, the death of a Polish president in an airliner crash in Russia to the mystery of a screaming man behind a campus dorm, critical looks at advertisements for beauty products and male-female divisions of labor to a fan’s close look at professional wrestling, mature messages in pop-punk music to who blew it in the Wall Street crash, how commuting in New York City is a daily dance with music to why a pro baseball player was suspended for using fertility drugs, as well as tips for navigating college life and a capsule tour guide to Disney World.
Stay tuned for the Fall 2011 edition of feature stories from STAC, reported here in The Sparkill Journal.
Friday, May 7, 2010
Say Anything
By Jacqueline Russo
Say Anything released their fourth full-length album on November 3, 2009. The album is self-titled and according to lead singer Max Bemis it “literally defines everything about the band we’ve built so far.”
During the Summer of 2009, the band released “Hate Everyone,” “Do Better” and “Property” as the first three singles from the new album. The songs off of this album are the catchiest and most mature songs recorded by the band so far. Say Anything debuted at number 25 on Billboard 200, the band’s highest charting record to date. Max Bemis called it “a step forward.”
Say Anything’s new album seems like a coming-to-age for Bemis and the band. The fact that the album is self-titled suggests that the band has finally found their true, perhaps permanent, identity.
Say Anything is an indie rock band with punk rock influences. It was formed in Los Angeles, California in 2000 by Bemis and four friends. Between 2000 and 2002 the band self-recorded and released two EPs, Junior Varsity and In Your Dreams and a full-length album, Baseball: An Album by Say Anything. In 2003, the band signed with Doghouse Records and in 2004 they released …Is a Real Boy, the album that the band considers their first official effort.
While the popularity of the band was increasing exponentially, Bemis’s mental health plummeted. In 2005 he was diagnosed with bipolar mood disorder and the band took a break when several members decided to call it quits. Bemis’s breakdown caused Say Anything to cancel their tour with Saves the Day, Senses Fail and The Early November.
Later that year, after Bemis’s successful rehabilitation, the band released …Was a Real Boy with J Records. Over the next two years, Say Anything toured with Saves the Day and Hellogoodbye. In late 2007, the band released their third full-length album, In Defense of the Genre.
Max Bemis was raised in a strongly Jewish household and still identifies himself as being Jewish. His maternal grandparents survived the Holocaust and this has provided Bemis with inspiration to write many tracks. In “Alive with the Glory of Love,” a song off of …Is a Real Boy, Bemis describes a relationship that is torn by the Holocaust. The lyrics in the song discuss the couple’s lives in the ghetto, while in hiding, and their experience in concentration camps.
Fans of Say Anything, as well as new listeners, can tell that this band is not like every other pop-punk band that sings songs about teenage relationships and heartbreak. Max Bemis and Say Anything share important experiences and messages with their listeners.
Jacqueline Russo is an undergraduate student at St. Thomas Aquinas College. She is an English major with aspirations to become a journalist or a writer. She is a member of the Dean’s List and belongs to Sigma Tau Delta, the National English Honor Society. Jacqueline will be interning with the Our Town newspaper in Pearl River, New York during the Summer of 2010.
Say Anything released their fourth full-length album on November 3, 2009. The album is self-titled and according to lead singer Max Bemis it “literally defines everything about the band we’ve built so far.”
During the Summer of 2009, the band released “Hate Everyone,” “Do Better” and “Property” as the first three singles from the new album. The songs off of this album are the catchiest and most mature songs recorded by the band so far. Say Anything debuted at number 25 on Billboard 200, the band’s highest charting record to date. Max Bemis called it “a step forward.”
Say Anything’s new album seems like a coming-to-age for Bemis and the band. The fact that the album is self-titled suggests that the band has finally found their true, perhaps permanent, identity.
Say Anything is an indie rock band with punk rock influences. It was formed in Los Angeles, California in 2000 by Bemis and four friends. Between 2000 and 2002 the band self-recorded and released two EPs, Junior Varsity and In Your Dreams and a full-length album, Baseball: An Album by Say Anything. In 2003, the band signed with Doghouse Records and in 2004 they released …Is a Real Boy, the album that the band considers their first official effort.
While the popularity of the band was increasing exponentially, Bemis’s mental health plummeted. In 2005 he was diagnosed with bipolar mood disorder and the band took a break when several members decided to call it quits. Bemis’s breakdown caused Say Anything to cancel their tour with Saves the Day, Senses Fail and The Early November.
Later that year, after Bemis’s successful rehabilitation, the band released …Was a Real Boy with J Records. Over the next two years, Say Anything toured with Saves the Day and Hellogoodbye. In late 2007, the band released their third full-length album, In Defense of the Genre.
Max Bemis was raised in a strongly Jewish household and still identifies himself as being Jewish. His maternal grandparents survived the Holocaust and this has provided Bemis with inspiration to write many tracks. In “Alive with the Glory of Love,” a song off of …Is a Real Boy, Bemis describes a relationship that is torn by the Holocaust. The lyrics in the song discuss the couple’s lives in the ghetto, while in hiding, and their experience in concentration camps.
Fans of Say Anything, as well as new listeners, can tell that this band is not like every other pop-punk band that sings songs about teenage relationships and heartbreak. Max Bemis and Say Anything share important experiences and messages with their listeners.
Jacqueline Russo is an undergraduate student at St. Thomas Aquinas College. She is an English major with aspirations to become a journalist or a writer. She is a member of the Dean’s List and belongs to Sigma Tau Delta, the National English Honor Society. Jacqueline will be interning with the Our Town newspaper in Pearl River, New York during the Summer of 2010.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
The Life of Leonard Schwartz
By Layla Connelly
Leonard Schwartz is my grandfather, and in my eyes the best grandfather a girl can have. He was born September 27, 1919 in The Bronx, New York. He has lived through many decades and has accomplished so much in his life. He has a remarkable sense of humor and positive attitude, he always finds a way to make me laugh. He has maintained several careers over his lifetime, and is a very hard-working man. He is also a major part of our country's history. My grandfather was in the United States Coast Guard during World War II and fought the Japanese; he often reminiscences about his time in the service, and about Pearl Harbor. He is my very own hero.
My grandfather not only served in one of the most significant and historical wars our country has ever had. His time in the service was spent as a gunner’s mate on the Hunter Ligget ship; he served for 5 years. While he was enlisted, the Navy took the Coast Guard over, making him part of the Navy as well. Leonard Schwarz also held many jobs, aside from being a Veteran. One can say he’s done it all. He was a truck driver for a long period of time; he woke up at 4 am every morning and traveled for hours to make a living to provide for his family. He was also a cab driver and bartender. I think, above all, his most successful role was being a grandfather, because he is great at it.
Lenny, as everyone refers to him, was one of four children. He had two brothers and one sister. He was born and raised in The Bronx near The Bronx Zoo, on Elder Avenue. He was sitting in front of the zoo on a sunny day in the 1930’s with a few of his friends when he saw a pretty girl ride by on a bike. When the girl rode by, he turned to his friend and said, “That’s the girl I’m going to marry.” That pretty girl was my grandmother, Lillian. Now, that’s what I call love at first sight. My grandparents' love story is what I would call a true love story. Love at first sight and true love seems so far-fetched to me, especially in our day and age, and seems as if it’s a thing of the past, but it makes me believe it really is possible.
Soon after being honorably discharged from the Navy, Lenny married Lilly. My grandparents were married for 45 years, and would still be married today if she was still alive. My grandmother lost her battle with cancer a year before I was born and my grandfather supported her and took care of her the best he could. My grandfather speaks of her daily and always says I remind him so much of her. I never had the pleasure of meeting her, but from what I’ve heard she was elegant and classy, so if I am indeed anything like her I would be flattered.
They went on to have three children, my aunt, uncle, and mom. He was a great father to all three; even though they have all passed on, my grandpa keeps their memories alive today. It is hard to truly comprehend how strong a man he is. It is always hard to lose a loved one, especially a child, but to lose three may be unbearable for some. This is when he became my rock. My grandfather was always and still is a huge part of my life, but throughout the hard times I’ve endured over the past years, he’s really been the biggest supporter I have had. He is my shoulder to lean on whenever I may need one.
My grandfather is quite the remarkable man. He can tell stories for days and is an inspiration to me and to several other people. His dedication is respectable and significant. His strength is motivational to me each and every day. He is a hero and I wouldn’t be who I am without him.
Layla Connelly is a Psychology major at St. Thomas Aquinas College.
Leonard Schwartz is my grandfather, and in my eyes the best grandfather a girl can have. He was born September 27, 1919 in The Bronx, New York. He has lived through many decades and has accomplished so much in his life. He has a remarkable sense of humor and positive attitude, he always finds a way to make me laugh. He has maintained several careers over his lifetime, and is a very hard-working man. He is also a major part of our country's history. My grandfather was in the United States Coast Guard during World War II and fought the Japanese; he often reminiscences about his time in the service, and about Pearl Harbor. He is my very own hero.
My grandfather not only served in one of the most significant and historical wars our country has ever had. His time in the service was spent as a gunner’s mate on the Hunter Ligget ship; he served for 5 years. While he was enlisted, the Navy took the Coast Guard over, making him part of the Navy as well. Leonard Schwarz also held many jobs, aside from being a Veteran. One can say he’s done it all. He was a truck driver for a long period of time; he woke up at 4 am every morning and traveled for hours to make a living to provide for his family. He was also a cab driver and bartender. I think, above all, his most successful role was being a grandfather, because he is great at it.
Lenny, as everyone refers to him, was one of four children. He had two brothers and one sister. He was born and raised in The Bronx near The Bronx Zoo, on Elder Avenue. He was sitting in front of the zoo on a sunny day in the 1930’s with a few of his friends when he saw a pretty girl ride by on a bike. When the girl rode by, he turned to his friend and said, “That’s the girl I’m going to marry.” That pretty girl was my grandmother, Lillian. Now, that’s what I call love at first sight. My grandparents' love story is what I would call a true love story. Love at first sight and true love seems so far-fetched to me, especially in our day and age, and seems as if it’s a thing of the past, but it makes me believe it really is possible.
Soon after being honorably discharged from the Navy, Lenny married Lilly. My grandparents were married for 45 years, and would still be married today if she was still alive. My grandmother lost her battle with cancer a year before I was born and my grandfather supported her and took care of her the best he could. My grandfather speaks of her daily and always says I remind him so much of her. I never had the pleasure of meeting her, but from what I’ve heard she was elegant and classy, so if I am indeed anything like her I would be flattered.
They went on to have three children, my aunt, uncle, and mom. He was a great father to all three; even though they have all passed on, my grandpa keeps their memories alive today. It is hard to truly comprehend how strong a man he is. It is always hard to lose a loved one, especially a child, but to lose three may be unbearable for some. This is when he became my rock. My grandfather was always and still is a huge part of my life, but throughout the hard times I’ve endured over the past years, he’s really been the biggest supporter I have had. He is my shoulder to lean on whenever I may need one.
My grandfather is quite the remarkable man. He can tell stories for days and is an inspiration to me and to several other people. His dedication is respectable and significant. His strength is motivational to me each and every day. He is a hero and I wouldn’t be who I am without him.
Layla Connelly is a Psychology major at St. Thomas Aquinas College.
Monday, May 3, 2010
"Slumdog Millionaire" Review
By Katie Quinn
"Slumdog Millionaire," directed by British director Danny Boyle, was released on November 12, 2008. It was a great success and was nominated for best movie, winning eight Oscars and numerous other awards. This movie is considered to be a comic drama, but it offers a lot more.
Set and filmed in India, it is about an 18-year-old orphan named Jamal Malik, who came from the slums of Mumbai and won the game “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire.” Jamal tells the story of his life in the slums, where he and his brother, Salim, grew up, and how he knew each question that was asked in the game show. The host and the producers of “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire” thought Jamal was cheating, since he knew the answers and harassed him until he told them how he knew them. Each chapter of the movie explains each question as they were given to him and how he encountered information about every question that was asked.
While Jamal was a boy he came across a girl name Latika, who he loved but then lost. The reason he went on the game show was not to win a million dollars but to try and get Latika’s attention to see her again, because he knew that she would be watching the show.
Many critics really enjoyed "Slumdog Millionaire." The New York Post said “Slumdog Millionaire, which just may be the most entertaining movie I've ever labeled a masterpiece.” They believe that four stars are not enough for this movie. Robert Ebert also really liked the movie. He states “This is a breathless, exciting story, heartbreaking and exhilarating at the same time.” Ebert also states, “The film's surface is so dazzling that you hardly realize how traditional it is underneath. But it's the buried structure that pulls us through the story like a big engine on a short train.” The Wall Street Journal said that “Slumdog Millionaire" “is the film world's first globalized masterpiece.”
I really enjoyed watching "Slumdog Millionaire." The first time I saw it was in the movie theater, not knowing what to expect. When the movie was over I was amazed by the acting and the story line. This movie is unique and memorable. I loved every minute of it. "Slumdog Millionaire" is my favorite movie. I recommend that people watch this film.
Kaitlyn Quinn, of Mahopac, NY, is a junior at St. Thomas Aquinas College, studying for a business degree. My goal is to start and manage my own business and to become a successful business manager. I love and enjoy working in retail stores.
"Slumdog Millionaire," directed by British director Danny Boyle, was released on November 12, 2008. It was a great success and was nominated for best movie, winning eight Oscars and numerous other awards. This movie is considered to be a comic drama, but it offers a lot more.
Set and filmed in India, it is about an 18-year-old orphan named Jamal Malik, who came from the slums of Mumbai and won the game “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire.” Jamal tells the story of his life in the slums, where he and his brother, Salim, grew up, and how he knew each question that was asked in the game show. The host and the producers of “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire” thought Jamal was cheating, since he knew the answers and harassed him until he told them how he knew them. Each chapter of the movie explains each question as they were given to him and how he encountered information about every question that was asked.
While Jamal was a boy he came across a girl name Latika, who he loved but then lost. The reason he went on the game show was not to win a million dollars but to try and get Latika’s attention to see her again, because he knew that she would be watching the show.
Many critics really enjoyed "Slumdog Millionaire." The New York Post said “Slumdog Millionaire, which just may be the most entertaining movie I've ever labeled a masterpiece.” They believe that four stars are not enough for this movie. Robert Ebert also really liked the movie. He states “This is a breathless, exciting story, heartbreaking and exhilarating at the same time.” Ebert also states, “The film's surface is so dazzling that you hardly realize how traditional it is underneath. But it's the buried structure that pulls us through the story like a big engine on a short train.” The Wall Street Journal said that “Slumdog Millionaire" “is the film world's first globalized masterpiece.”
I really enjoyed watching "Slumdog Millionaire." The first time I saw it was in the movie theater, not knowing what to expect. When the movie was over I was amazed by the acting and the story line. This movie is unique and memorable. I loved every minute of it. "Slumdog Millionaire" is my favorite movie. I recommend that people watch this film.
Kaitlyn Quinn, of Mahopac, NY, is a junior at St. Thomas Aquinas College, studying for a business degree. My goal is to start and manage my own business and to become a successful business manager. I love and enjoy working in retail stores.
Big Banks and the Rest of Us
By Danny Hyon
Desperate times call for desperate measures; this aphorism conveys a strong belief that chaos can be subdued by an equivocal responsive measure. Oddly enough, Congress, big banks, and Wall Street seem to believe otherwise. The seeds of greed have sprouted a decaying tree filled with branches of corruption and leaves of eroding public faith. Special interest groups and political lobbyists have tediously nurtured this insidious plant to laugh at the face of justice.
In the midst of a global demolition, crafted by the large corporate institutions and Wall Street executives, the world was struck by a devastating monetary force comprised of toxic assets and over-the-counter derivatives manufactured and packaged through a clandestine transaction between two parties: the federal government and large financial institutions (Wall Street), while neglecting the concerns of the public sector (Main Street). What has been going on in the global economies, the financial sectors, and the underlying way of life is strongly attributed to the avarice visions of Wall Street and Congress’s lack of will power to help or create a sound economic-regulatory policy.
Congress and Wall Street have created an elaborate theatrical play, where the directors of this economic tragedy (Wall Street), have acquired powerful media friendly actors (Congressional lobbyists), to perform and entertain on stage using financial properties--company stocks, personal equity, municipal bonds, treasury notes, 401 K/ retirement plans, and other financing instruments--as devices to create an illusion of prosperity. Like all terribly scripted plays, the ending is not only confusing, but the big players have orchestrated a series of acts that withhold any degree of sensibility and coherency.
The reality behind this play sinks in when we the audience (Main Street) are not only perplexed by the synopsis of this monstrosity, but infuriated by our overpriced, highly inflated ticket without receiving a viable return. To fully comprehend the economic disaster the explanation lies within the resolution where reformation is imperative and categorized by five facets: the federal government, the over-the-counter derivatives market, the “too big to fail” notion, the trendy executive payroll, and finally the consumer protection agency. These elements are currently circumventing the court of public opinion and Congress in strong hopes of precluding a fiscal disaster from reoccurring, but in some twisted sense of humor, it is an attempt to justify the malignant practices of Wall Street.
The Fed
The recent financial crisis has been in production for decades. Some may contend that after the fall of President Woodrow Wilson’s Administration, the regulatory system of the Federal Government gradually withheld its active participation in the economy. The focal point of this discussion begins with the birth of the Reagan era and the continuing deregulatory polices enacted by the Clinton Administration. In retrospect, the Reagan administration could be considered the beginning of the collapse of the American Monetary Empire or economically speaking, Reaganomics is the transfer from public capital to the hyper-concentrated interests of the plutocratic elite. Make no mistake, the global community is currently facing the adverse effects of deregulation, political corruption, and the influences of the ever-emerging corporatocracy.
In 1978, congressional leaders designed and ratified a legislative agreement; that supplanted the Full Employment Act of 1946 by enacting the Humphrey-Hawkins Act of 1978. This decision negatively impacted our economy. It was the very first step to financially constrain the influences of a once active government from monitoring the conditions of the economy. The Hawkins Act explicitly stipulates that the federal government will rely primarily on private enterprise to achieve the four goals (employment, growth in production, price stability, and balance of trade and budget); moreover, the Hawkins Act ridicules the inefficiency of its predecessor, the Full Employment Act of 1946, in assertion that zero unemployment is unattainable and unrealistic. Most importantly, the Hawkins Act empowered the influences of the private sector and the central banking system, while undermining the U.S. government regulations.
As Ronald Reagan transitioned from Hollywood actor to U.S. President, his award winning performance on bad government left the American people in awe and investment bankers begging for more. Reagan’s stage presence was superb; like all great actors, his performance reflects the genius behind his directors. President Reagan made the people of the world believe that “Big Government” is not the answer; as the stock market continued to climb, citizens began to believe the myth. The economy began to bloom, trade deficits appeared to gradually shrink, people were happy and bankers were happier; in the Regan era, the nationalistic slogan was quite clear; “show me the money.”
The Clinton administration continued to cement and amplify the deregulatory practices of Wall Street by glorifying and promoting the actions of private institutions as a catalyst to the American economy. In the early 1990’s, President Bill Clinton inherited a healthy economy, the fall of the Soviet Union, and the birth of the internet/technological boom ensuing the success, innovations, and supremacy of the United States of America. Each facet played a significant role in shaping the zeitgeist of the U.S. instilling the belief that corporations did more good than bad. The mixture of these elements and the ill advice of Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, help foster the concept of free-market capitalism. Greenspan’s advocacy of the free market system is a false axiom that would defend and justify the authorization of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley law, commonly referred to as the “Financial Modernization Act .“
On June 16, 1933 President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed into law the “Glass-Steagall Act”, a legislative action that pursued financial regulation in hopes of decimating the wanton criminal activities of the oligarchy and its egregious influences of the U.S. economy. The Glass-Stegall Act targeted the banking system by separating the confluent aspects of commercial banking and investment banking. The Glass-Stegall Act stipulates that no commercial bank was allowed to own an investment bank and vice versa. Each institution consisted of different policies and functions of capital; investment banking handles the exchanges of securities and commodities, while commercial banking involves transactions of small customer deposits. When the two aspects of banking are fused as a single entity, the unified institution yields a great source of financial power, thus a super-institution is created and equipped with a great amount of control over America’s financial life.
On November 12, 1999 the Financial Modernization Act was enacted, diluting the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, thus opening the flood gates of the financial reserves and eventually contaminating the economic system with toxic assets and over-the-counter derivatives.
President Roosevelt understood the ulterior motives of the large banking institutions and the detrimental consequences of their monetary actions; the Glass-Steagall act was a preemptive strike against future corruption and financial enslavement held by the large banking firms. Under Roosevelt’s clairvoyant leadership, the Glass Steagall Act was a significant humanitarian charter issued and designed to preserve the financial and constitutional liberties of Americans.
Unfortunately, the current economic situation is the fruition of Wall Street aspirations, the abolishment of stern financial regulation, and the incessant greed that consumes, pervades, and trickles down from the top of our modern oligarchy. In retrospect, the manifestations of the recent financial crisis and the ongoing lives of America draw strong parallels to the destitute life of America in the 1920’s, where the banking industry contributed to a stock market crash and extreme levels of unemployment resulting in the Great Depression. The American agenda should revolve around the reformation of the Federal Government’s regulatory oversight, where stabilizing the health of our economy and reintroducing the financial notion of balance of power is the priority of government in order to maximize the value of life and liberty, not the assets of corporations.
Derivatives
The over-the-counter derivatives market has been an unregulated market that has been practiced by large corporations for over a decade. Derivatives are extremely confusing and considered a novelty in the financial markets. A derivative is defined as a transaction negotiated between two parties without the confinements of an exchange. It is an agreement that transfers risk of one company to another. The derivatives fall into two categories where customized risk of a company is transferred and negotiated privately to another firm, commonly referred to as an over-the-counter derivative or financial swap.
Another form of a derivative is known as a futures asset, a standardized form of exchange-traded derivatives. The main distinction between a swap and a futures asset is the over-the-counter derivative or swap is highly volatile because it does not involve the standard strictures of an exchange; it is essentially, a private agreement that is structured on a bilateral basis, it does not comply with matters of jurisdiction, and its credit-risk mitigation varies between a company’s policy in relation to the negotiated parties. In an attempt to simply and explain the hazardous products of over-the-counter- derivatives, it is a sophisticated, highly unregulated monetary gambling instrument that is purely backed by leverage.
On October 9th, 2008 Lyndon LaRouche ridiculed the federal government for its inactive participation in regulating the over-the-counter derivatives market stating that the derivatives bubble is “the hyperinflationary bomb, crushing the international financial system.” He then censures the discretions of the Federal Reserve and its former Chairmen with a closing statement, “It is time to break the silence on derivatives. The true, hyperinflationary factor in the situation is the unregulated, insanely leveraged derivatives trade. This is what is killing us. This is the great crime of Alan Greenspan.”
Based on the analytical data released on June 30th 2008 by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the three largest American banking institutions, J.P. Morgan Chase, Bank of America, and Citicorp, aggregated a current outstanding derivatives contracts of $179.4 trillion. The three banks combined have total assets just under $5.6 trillion. As of December 31, 2007, according to the Bank for International Settlements the total over-the-counter and exchange-traded derivatives summed to more than $675 trillion.
A startling analysis of the derivatives market by John Hoefle, an analyst for the Executive Intelligence Review, estimated the true figures of the derivates market to be well above the quadrillions of dollars. These numbers and contentions are dated two years ago and reformation of this deleterious market is yet to be conceived. President Barrack Obama created a frail proposal on regulatory reform authored by U.S. Secretary of Treasury Tim Geithner; however, serious doubts have circulated throughout the public and a substantial regulatory policy has yet to be enacted. Yet the over-the-counter derivates market is an extremely volatile sector that has negatively impacted the U.S. economy; it is an ineffective monetary instrument accountable for our recent financial instability.
Too big to fail
Many economists have dissected the deeply interwoven connection Wall Street has in our global economy. The too big to fail notion revolves around the idea that corporations are too large and interconnected with all facets of the economy, declaring government authority to proclaim bankruptcy to such institutions will be deplorable and cause a severe meltdown in the overall scale of the global economies. To the public sector, too big to fail arrogantly validates the wrong doings of Wall Street firms impressing the perception that large corporations are immune to failure despite the truth behind corporate influences.
In 2007-2008 Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Washington Mutual, Wachovia, Bear Sterns, Countrywide Financial, and AIG were all infected with the hazardous toxic assets that were distributed in the interconnected economies. These mega corporations all failed and almost pushed the world to the brink of demolition. Subsequently an emergency bailout was allocated by Congress to rescue other large financial institutions from defaulting, thus solidifying the despicable and unforgivable Wall Street Slogan; Too big to fail. Paul Krugman a noble economist, has argued that too big to fail is beyond a catchy phrase, it is the justification of predatory lending, fictitious monetary transactions, and money hungry measures that Wall Street will take to make an extra dollar while conscientiously jeopardizing the financial well being of mankind.
In 1863, President Abraham Lincoln conveyed an uncanny foresight about big banks' impact on American lives in the future. “The money power preys upon the nation in times of peace and conspires against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.”
As we stare at our deflated tickets, as the curtain falls, and we are left to fill in the pieces behind the Wall Street tragedy, I ask my fellow Americans, where is our poetic justice?
Danny Hyon is a senior at St. Thomas Aquinas College. He enjoys writing and studying economics.
Desperate times call for desperate measures; this aphorism conveys a strong belief that chaos can be subdued by an equivocal responsive measure. Oddly enough, Congress, big banks, and Wall Street seem to believe otherwise. The seeds of greed have sprouted a decaying tree filled with branches of corruption and leaves of eroding public faith. Special interest groups and political lobbyists have tediously nurtured this insidious plant to laugh at the face of justice.
In the midst of a global demolition, crafted by the large corporate institutions and Wall Street executives, the world was struck by a devastating monetary force comprised of toxic assets and over-the-counter derivatives manufactured and packaged through a clandestine transaction between two parties: the federal government and large financial institutions (Wall Street), while neglecting the concerns of the public sector (Main Street). What has been going on in the global economies, the financial sectors, and the underlying way of life is strongly attributed to the avarice visions of Wall Street and Congress’s lack of will power to help or create a sound economic-regulatory policy.
Congress and Wall Street have created an elaborate theatrical play, where the directors of this economic tragedy (Wall Street), have acquired powerful media friendly actors (Congressional lobbyists), to perform and entertain on stage using financial properties--company stocks, personal equity, municipal bonds, treasury notes, 401 K/ retirement plans, and other financing instruments--as devices to create an illusion of prosperity. Like all terribly scripted plays, the ending is not only confusing, but the big players have orchestrated a series of acts that withhold any degree of sensibility and coherency.
The reality behind this play sinks in when we the audience (Main Street) are not only perplexed by the synopsis of this monstrosity, but infuriated by our overpriced, highly inflated ticket without receiving a viable return. To fully comprehend the economic disaster the explanation lies within the resolution where reformation is imperative and categorized by five facets: the federal government, the over-the-counter derivatives market, the “too big to fail” notion, the trendy executive payroll, and finally the consumer protection agency. These elements are currently circumventing the court of public opinion and Congress in strong hopes of precluding a fiscal disaster from reoccurring, but in some twisted sense of humor, it is an attempt to justify the malignant practices of Wall Street.
The Fed
The recent financial crisis has been in production for decades. Some may contend that after the fall of President Woodrow Wilson’s Administration, the regulatory system of the Federal Government gradually withheld its active participation in the economy. The focal point of this discussion begins with the birth of the Reagan era and the continuing deregulatory polices enacted by the Clinton Administration. In retrospect, the Reagan administration could be considered the beginning of the collapse of the American Monetary Empire or economically speaking, Reaganomics is the transfer from public capital to the hyper-concentrated interests of the plutocratic elite. Make no mistake, the global community is currently facing the adverse effects of deregulation, political corruption, and the influences of the ever-emerging corporatocracy.
In 1978, congressional leaders designed and ratified a legislative agreement; that supplanted the Full Employment Act of 1946 by enacting the Humphrey-Hawkins Act of 1978. This decision negatively impacted our economy. It was the very first step to financially constrain the influences of a once active government from monitoring the conditions of the economy. The Hawkins Act explicitly stipulates that the federal government will rely primarily on private enterprise to achieve the four goals (employment, growth in production, price stability, and balance of trade and budget); moreover, the Hawkins Act ridicules the inefficiency of its predecessor, the Full Employment Act of 1946, in assertion that zero unemployment is unattainable and unrealistic. Most importantly, the Hawkins Act empowered the influences of the private sector and the central banking system, while undermining the U.S. government regulations.
As Ronald Reagan transitioned from Hollywood actor to U.S. President, his award winning performance on bad government left the American people in awe and investment bankers begging for more. Reagan’s stage presence was superb; like all great actors, his performance reflects the genius behind his directors. President Reagan made the people of the world believe that “Big Government” is not the answer; as the stock market continued to climb, citizens began to believe the myth. The economy began to bloom, trade deficits appeared to gradually shrink, people were happy and bankers were happier; in the Regan era, the nationalistic slogan was quite clear; “show me the money.”
The Clinton administration continued to cement and amplify the deregulatory practices of Wall Street by glorifying and promoting the actions of private institutions as a catalyst to the American economy. In the early 1990’s, President Bill Clinton inherited a healthy economy, the fall of the Soviet Union, and the birth of the internet/technological boom ensuing the success, innovations, and supremacy of the United States of America. Each facet played a significant role in shaping the zeitgeist of the U.S. instilling the belief that corporations did more good than bad. The mixture of these elements and the ill advice of Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, help foster the concept of free-market capitalism. Greenspan’s advocacy of the free market system is a false axiom that would defend and justify the authorization of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley law, commonly referred to as the “Financial Modernization Act .“
On June 16, 1933 President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed into law the “Glass-Steagall Act”, a legislative action that pursued financial regulation in hopes of decimating the wanton criminal activities of the oligarchy and its egregious influences of the U.S. economy. The Glass-Stegall Act targeted the banking system by separating the confluent aspects of commercial banking and investment banking. The Glass-Stegall Act stipulates that no commercial bank was allowed to own an investment bank and vice versa. Each institution consisted of different policies and functions of capital; investment banking handles the exchanges of securities and commodities, while commercial banking involves transactions of small customer deposits. When the two aspects of banking are fused as a single entity, the unified institution yields a great source of financial power, thus a super-institution is created and equipped with a great amount of control over America’s financial life.
On November 12, 1999 the Financial Modernization Act was enacted, diluting the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, thus opening the flood gates of the financial reserves and eventually contaminating the economic system with toxic assets and over-the-counter derivatives.
President Roosevelt understood the ulterior motives of the large banking institutions and the detrimental consequences of their monetary actions; the Glass-Steagall act was a preemptive strike against future corruption and financial enslavement held by the large banking firms. Under Roosevelt’s clairvoyant leadership, the Glass Steagall Act was a significant humanitarian charter issued and designed to preserve the financial and constitutional liberties of Americans.
Unfortunately, the current economic situation is the fruition of Wall Street aspirations, the abolishment of stern financial regulation, and the incessant greed that consumes, pervades, and trickles down from the top of our modern oligarchy. In retrospect, the manifestations of the recent financial crisis and the ongoing lives of America draw strong parallels to the destitute life of America in the 1920’s, where the banking industry contributed to a stock market crash and extreme levels of unemployment resulting in the Great Depression. The American agenda should revolve around the reformation of the Federal Government’s regulatory oversight, where stabilizing the health of our economy and reintroducing the financial notion of balance of power is the priority of government in order to maximize the value of life and liberty, not the assets of corporations.
Derivatives
The over-the-counter derivatives market has been an unregulated market that has been practiced by large corporations for over a decade. Derivatives are extremely confusing and considered a novelty in the financial markets. A derivative is defined as a transaction negotiated between two parties without the confinements of an exchange. It is an agreement that transfers risk of one company to another. The derivatives fall into two categories where customized risk of a company is transferred and negotiated privately to another firm, commonly referred to as an over-the-counter derivative or financial swap.
Another form of a derivative is known as a futures asset, a standardized form of exchange-traded derivatives. The main distinction between a swap and a futures asset is the over-the-counter derivative or swap is highly volatile because it does not involve the standard strictures of an exchange; it is essentially, a private agreement that is structured on a bilateral basis, it does not comply with matters of jurisdiction, and its credit-risk mitigation varies between a company’s policy in relation to the negotiated parties. In an attempt to simply and explain the hazardous products of over-the-counter- derivatives, it is a sophisticated, highly unregulated monetary gambling instrument that is purely backed by leverage.
On October 9th, 2008 Lyndon LaRouche ridiculed the federal government for its inactive participation in regulating the over-the-counter derivatives market stating that the derivatives bubble is “the hyperinflationary bomb, crushing the international financial system.” He then censures the discretions of the Federal Reserve and its former Chairmen with a closing statement, “It is time to break the silence on derivatives. The true, hyperinflationary factor in the situation is the unregulated, insanely leveraged derivatives trade. This is what is killing us. This is the great crime of Alan Greenspan.”
Based on the analytical data released on June 30th 2008 by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the three largest American banking institutions, J.P. Morgan Chase, Bank of America, and Citicorp, aggregated a current outstanding derivatives contracts of $179.4 trillion. The three banks combined have total assets just under $5.6 trillion. As of December 31, 2007, according to the Bank for International Settlements the total over-the-counter and exchange-traded derivatives summed to more than $675 trillion.
A startling analysis of the derivatives market by John Hoefle, an analyst for the Executive Intelligence Review, estimated the true figures of the derivates market to be well above the quadrillions of dollars. These numbers and contentions are dated two years ago and reformation of this deleterious market is yet to be conceived. President Barrack Obama created a frail proposal on regulatory reform authored by U.S. Secretary of Treasury Tim Geithner; however, serious doubts have circulated throughout the public and a substantial regulatory policy has yet to be enacted. Yet the over-the-counter derivates market is an extremely volatile sector that has negatively impacted the U.S. economy; it is an ineffective monetary instrument accountable for our recent financial instability.
Too big to fail
Many economists have dissected the deeply interwoven connection Wall Street has in our global economy. The too big to fail notion revolves around the idea that corporations are too large and interconnected with all facets of the economy, declaring government authority to proclaim bankruptcy to such institutions will be deplorable and cause a severe meltdown in the overall scale of the global economies. To the public sector, too big to fail arrogantly validates the wrong doings of Wall Street firms impressing the perception that large corporations are immune to failure despite the truth behind corporate influences.
In 2007-2008 Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Washington Mutual, Wachovia, Bear Sterns, Countrywide Financial, and AIG were all infected with the hazardous toxic assets that were distributed in the interconnected economies. These mega corporations all failed and almost pushed the world to the brink of demolition. Subsequently an emergency bailout was allocated by Congress to rescue other large financial institutions from defaulting, thus solidifying the despicable and unforgivable Wall Street Slogan; Too big to fail. Paul Krugman a noble economist, has argued that too big to fail is beyond a catchy phrase, it is the justification of predatory lending, fictitious monetary transactions, and money hungry measures that Wall Street will take to make an extra dollar while conscientiously jeopardizing the financial well being of mankind.
In 1863, President Abraham Lincoln conveyed an uncanny foresight about big banks' impact on American lives in the future. “The money power preys upon the nation in times of peace and conspires against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.”
As we stare at our deflated tickets, as the curtain falls, and we are left to fill in the pieces behind the Wall Street tragedy, I ask my fellow Americans, where is our poetic justice?
Danny Hyon is a senior at St. Thomas Aquinas College. He enjoys writing and studying economics.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)