Culture and Economic Development?  

3/8/2012

3 Comments

 
I know we read this is class, but for those of you who missed it, or for those of you (like me) who are still thinking about some of the ideas Fareed Zakaria threw out on this issue of whether cultures are responsible for economic development and the lack thereof or whether policies are, here is your chance to share your thoughts!  Brilliant article.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fareed-zakaria-capitalism-not-culture-drives-economies/2012/08/01/gJQAKtH9PX_story.html

“The central conservative truth is that it is culture, not politics, that determines the success of a society. The central liberal truth is that politics can change culture and save it from itself.”   Daniel Patrick Moynihan

True?  Not true?  Implications?
3 Comments
Daniel Pinho
4/8/2012 08:30:01 pm

The word crisis comes from the Greek krisis, which means distinction, separation, decision. When one needs to go to a distinct country after losing all hopes in his homeland, success definitely transforms in coercion. The ruthless decision of working to exhaustion or dying in poverty makes these human beings succeed in a greater rate whereas if the separation from home didn’t occur. Thus, to Diaspora populations, crisis turns out to be a positive experience.

With that being said, I totally agree with Zakaria when he quotes Moynihan “The central conservative truth is that it is culture, not politics, that determines the success of a society. The central liberal truth is that politics can change culture and save it from itself”, intellectually b****-slapping the Republican Party’s nominee Romney. In fact, culture is just the starting point from which an individual begins climbing to success (whatever this may mean) and politics is the only way this individual may change his position of starting point to peak of the mountain.

Romney’s commentary just makes me dislike him even more and Zakaria’s response to it just makes me even more fascinated with his ideas. I want more stuff from this guy, Ms. Garrett!

Daniel

Reply
Gabriella Goldenstein
6/8/2012 08:36:50 am

The 20th Century Enduring National Conflict - Israel and Palestine

As defined in chapter 3, a national conflict is when “one or more groups have as their goal sovereignty, clashing with others in the quest to form an independent state”. The question of creating a two-state solution for the Israelis and Palestinians has been going on for decades, but the end for this issue is still miles away. This chapter questions why are these conflicts incited and how can they be halted. For this specific situation, the conflict revolves around Palestinian independence, making it a perfect example for a national conflict. However, did this conflict grew to become an ethnic one? Was it always ethnic together with national? (Remembering the books definition for ethnic conflict - conflict between ethnic groups that struggle to achieve certain political or economic goals at each other’s expense).
Another question that called my attention was: How can these conflicts be solved? In this case, the separation barrier has in fact reduced the number of Palestinian suicide bombings, being 73 between 2000-2003 and only 12 after its completion. Is this the ideal solution? Even though this “peace wall” serves to protect, shouldn`t the solution be no bombings at all? What about peace talks between both parties?
The problem is that the nationalism of the Palestinians will keep on growing (and I surely agree with their right) and that the religious, ethnic and all other differences created hatred and extreme rivalry. The problem is that the Palestinian Hamas` moto is “We love death as much as the Jews love life”. Their main objective is Israel`s destruction and they keep rejecting Israel`s right to exist, acceptance of peace agreements and an end to violence. How can these feelings vanish? Israel needs security and a neighbor that won`t be a threat. This is the only way to end this national conflict and to give Palestinians what they want: sovereignty.

Reply
Liz Costa
6/8/2012 09:51:17 am

IS SOCIAL DEMOCRACY BETTER?

In accordance to chapter 3 a social democracy: “accepts a strong role for private ownership and market forces while maintaining an economic quality.” Barack Obama has received various criticisms for the reason that he tried to implement a new health project with an extremely socialist touch to it.
Being the president of the greatest example of liberal democracy Obama’s policies were highly criticized by the republicans in the congress, the conservative American party which argued that it went against the constitutional rights, denying the freedom of the patient to choose their own health care services.
What is to be understood is that, a socialist democracy is not a bad thing. Rather it is the best form of democracy there is, correcting the fallacies that capitalism leaves behind and that the liberal democracy system does not have the power to approach. Another point of a socialist democracy is to spread the wealth the capitalist economy produces so to convert it to beneficial programs for the citizens.
Social Democracy is present in much of Europe, one of its most successful examples being social welfare in Sweden. The system is funded with taxes that provide to the citizens health care, financial security, elderly care, education and labor market. Of course you have to pay a huge amount of taxes but still you have the certainty those taxes are being converted to benefits for the citizens. Social democracy is not inferior to liberal democracy, it is exactly the opposite, it is capitalism with equality.

A short guide to Obama and Socialism: http://balkin.blogspot.com.br/2009/03/short-guide-to-obama-and-socialism.html

Reply



Leave a Reply.