for yhtomit ONLY!

PLEASE provide RESPONSES to EACH post (9 total) must be at least 150 words

POST ONE

  During the financial crisis of 2008 Germany seemed to weather the proverbial storm better than other European states.  The global recession of 2008 was caused because of an increase in globalization.  All nations are linked to one another.  When the American economy faltered, it had a ripple effect throughout the world.  Germany was able to make it through the recession unscathed for a few reasons.  First, Germany has maintained a strong independent economy.  Second, they have used their strong economy to influence those around them, rather than by being influenced.  Finally, their reaction to the recession allowed them to succeed, particularly in resisting the urge to lay off skilled employees.

            Germany has always been considered to be a trading state.  With the advent of globalization Germany was faced with a number of new competitors (Kesselman, Krieger and Joseph, 2013, 156).  They were used to being a global leader and were now threatened.  Germany had a variety of ways they could react to this thread.  In order to stay on top of their game they reinvested in their own economy by focusing on increasing education in order to produce better skilled workers.  Thus, their manufacturing exports could continue to dominate.  They did this through the promotion of technical schools and paid internships (Kesselman, Krieger and Joseph, 2013, 156).  The German economy promoted their citizens in getting better jobs, and thus ensured their skills would continue to be needed and marketable, rather than expendable during times of economic strife.  No other nation within Europe promoted this line of economic thinking. 

            The second reason Germany weathered the storm better than other nations was because they chose to take a position of leadership within the European economic community, rather than being told what to do.  Germans were starting to feel the pressures of globalization and the European Union and felt it was beginning to challenge their high standard of living and their well-paid workforce (Kesselman, Krieger and Joseph, 2013, 158).  In a reaction to this pressure, the German government signed into constitutional law, legislation they were not going to become economically any further linked with the EU than they already were.  This meant they would allow their economy to remain relatively independent.  They then used what economic integration that did exist to their advantage.  They used the linkages in order to increase their exports to the European markets, and also allowed them to take advantage of new eastern European markets (Kesselman, Krieger and Joseph, 2013, 159).  They also helped to establish the Euro through the strength of the Deutsch Marke prior to the recession.  The Euro regularly trades above the American dollar and thus allowed the economy to remain strong (Kesselman, Krieger and Joseph, 2013, 161).

            Finally, and perhaps most importantly, was the reaction of the German government to the recession itself.  Rather than laying off employees in the advent of economic downturn the government continued to promote their social market economy.   It established a general framework of regulations rather than giving detailed standards and engaged employers and unions (Kesselman, Krieger and Joseph, 2013, 161).  By working with the unions and employers, rather than laying off skilled workers they cut back their hours, thus avoiding high levels of unemployment.  This kept the economy moving, and people continued to maintain their high standard of living.  Because their economy was succeeding, they then used their position of economic leadership within the EU.  They promoted strict fiscal responsibility in regards to any bailout money that was given to nations.  They wanted to ensure nations were committed to reducing public spending and to not allow inflation to rise (Kesselman, Krieger and Joseph, 2013, 160).  Though Germany was criticized for being rather harsh in their judgement of other nations, clearly they were doing something right in order to make it through the downturn without any major ill effects.

            As of today, the Chinese economy has started to falter, once again causing another ripple effect throughout the world.  The German economy, however, is poised to weather this storm relatively unaffected as well.  This is because exports to China only account for 6.6% (Reuters, 2015).  It is critical to remember that Germany is also an export based economy, thus, it makes sense that they possess an economy based off of manufacturing and are not as dependent upon China as other nations are for the import of goods.  Time will tell if they are once again going to be able to maintain a leadership role in the global economy.  The link to the brief article is provided below.

Bibliography

Kesselman, Mark, Joel Krieger and William A Joseph. 2013.  Introduction to Comparative Politics. 6th ed. Boston:  Wadsworth

Reuters. 2015. “Germany Sees Limited Fallout From China Economic Slowdown” New York Times. August 24.  Date Accessed August 24, http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2015/08/24/business/24reuters-germany-economy-china.html?_r=02015. 

 

POST TWO

Germany has tended to sustain its economy and standard of living through a set of fairly unique moral attitudes than could be realized in other parts of the world. First off, the nation and her citizens carry a sort of “All for One, One for All” mentality that was proved in the wake of the 2008 market collapse. Companies in Germany “held onto their workers rather than laying them off…the government paid part time wages of workers who moved temporarily to part-time…[and] German firms were willing to accept lower profits” (Kesselman et al. 2013, 140-141). This would never have been allowed to happen, nor tolerated, in the United States. German outlooks and actions reinforce the belief that their national wellbeing is interwoven with the wellbeing of one another personally. 

 

How globalization affects Germany is a matter of duality; as are many other measuring points for the state. Our text states, “Germany has often been at the heart of the best and the worst of European history” and nothing could be stated better (Kesselman et al. 2013, 142). Seventy years ago, Hitler’s Third Reich came to a close after a period of German brutality throughout Europe, yet today she stands as “the economic motor of the EU…[whose] standard of living is among the highest in Europe, and…the world’s second-largest exporter” (Kesselman et al. 2013, 151-152).

 

As globalization occurs and the world’s various economies intermingle, Germany is both helped and hurt. Because “German firms are often world leaders in [many industries]” who focus on product quality; their employees, mainly “highly-skilled blue-collar workers” of the globe’s second largest exporting nation, are able to “drive expensive cars, obtain high-quality medical care, and enjoy six weeks of paid vacation each year” (Kesselman et al. 2013, 154-155). However, with 27 member states in the European Union (EU) of varying economic status and organization, problems will inevitably spread load to sister states, such as Germany. In order to become EU member states, “most feel that [fellow] European governments…manipulated economic data to appear to comply with the euro rules [leaving] many Germans feel[ing] they have already sacrificed while other countries borrowed their way into trouble” (Kesselman et al. 2013, 182-183). In light of these feelings, “there is little sympathy for the Greeks and the Portuguese” who have borrowed into extreme debt and have become failed or failing states, like Greece has recently (Kesselman et al. 2013, 183). 

 

 

 

Kesselman, Mark, Joel Krieger, and William A. Joseph. 2013. Introduction to Comparative Politics. Boston, MA: Wadsworth.

 

POST THREE

Germany is a capitalist state but by virtue of geography it is part of the European Union. It is a very powerful state in the region, in fact, considered the most powerful with regard to its economy. Why, because Germany capitalizes on other countries but providing exports. This puts Germans to work and at the same time it creates the needs from other countries. One of the biggest signs of this is the popularity of BMW vehicles here in the United States. By pointing this specific example out we see that they are at least partly connected with the US, which means they have some influence on the global market. This also means that they will in fact get "hit" at some point. Perhaps when Americans stop buying the BMW's.

I cannot help but notice that there is limited government interaction over the economy in Germany. According to Kesselman, "German economic policy is flexible and encourages private actors to cooperate to devise their own solutions." (Kesselman, Krieger and Joseph, 2013) I would say this is different from the other countries that we have studied. Most of the time especially in Europe the state and the economy is typically very connected.

Its not there is no government interaction, but what is interesting is the notion of "semipublic institutions". This sounds like a great concept to have in my opinion. This takes sectors that are in high interest to the government and shares it with the public. These include, health, education and social programs. And again according to Kesselman, "Cooperation between firms and the government requires compromise and thus helps sustain political moderation." (Kesselman, Krieger and Joseph, 2013) I feel that this can help the average citizen to feel less of the massive power that may occur in any system.

To answer the question directly, Germany does benefit from globalization because of the large amounts of exports. The only thing is having so many exports assumes that other countries are going to continue to need the exports. This can also be a bad thing because of what happens when other countries do not need the exports anymore.

This may take a bit to get to and to figure out what it says but the link below will bring you to an article that shows that Germany is the ONLY country in Europe that has a balanced budget. Be sure to select the debt tab in the interactive map if you check this out. http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/08/european-economy-guide?zid=295&ah=0bca374e65f2354d553956ea65f756e0

Kesselman, Mark, Joel Krieger, and William A Joseph. 2013. "Introduction to Comparative Politics." 6th ed. Boston: Wadsworth

POST FOUR

Germany does benefit from globalization. In fact, Germany benefits from globalization more than most countries do for a few reasons. One, Germany’s economic fortunes are linked to globalization allowing the nation to benefit tremendously on its exports both in terms of jobs and profits and two; Germany has great economic strength due to its cooperative and organized form of capitalism (Kesselman, 2012, p162). Both of these reasons have allowed Germany to remain as one of the world’s top economic leaders today despite the financial crises of 2008.

Germany was able to whether the financial crises of 2008 better than most countries, because unlike the United States and the United Kingdom Germany was less driven by the rising profits in the financial sector. However, this does not mean that Germany was left completely unaffected by the recession. As the recession swept through Europe Germanys exports began to decline and shortly after so did their economy. Germany is a nation that relies on its exports. This allows Germany the benefits as a competitor in the global economy. So when the recession hit Germany’s gross domestic products fell below five percent (Kesselman, 2012, p141).

Despite the decline in its economy Germany was able to recover quickly. However, just when Germany was staring to recover from their economic decline they were faced with another problem. Germany’s role became increasingly difficult when other nations like Portugal, Ireland, and Greece needed emergency financial assistance from the EU. This put exert pressure on Germany. On one hand if Germany did not agree to help bailout these countries then it could encourage more spending which then might lead to upset German voters and might even threaten European currency (Kesselman, 2012, p160). On the other hand if Germany did help bailout these countries’s then it could save its economy from another decline. Nevertheless, a 2009 decision by the EU decided that they would limit German integration and restrict German money being used to bailout other European nations.

Overall, Germany has greatly benefitted from its integration with the rest of Europe. In addition, Germany’s ability to adapt to the unfamiliar economic free market has also led it to emerge with one of the strongest economies in the EU. However, Germany still faces twenty first century problems like globalization, unification and the finical burdens from the rest of Europe. Nevertheless, time and time again Germany has managed to pull itself through the challenges it has faced (Troianovski, 2015). Therefore, when it comes to the strength of its state Germany is clearly a leading contender in the EU for its ability to resolve its governmental and economic issues.

Current Article- http://www.wsj.com/articles/germanys-power-polarizes-europe-1436231408

Reference:

1.Kesselman, Mark, Joel Krieger, and William A. Joseph. Introduction to Comparative Politics, 6e, 6th Edition. Cengage Learning, 2012. VitalBook file. http://online.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781305332591/pages/109002438 (accessed August 24, 2015).

2.Trovianovski, Anton. “Greek Crisis Shows How Germany’s Power Polarizes Europe.” http://www.wsj.com/articles/germanys-power-polarizes-europe-1436231408 (accessed August 24, 2015).

POST FIVE

One of the most significant efforts by IGOs and NGOs to prevent and contain international nuclear arms races is the treaty of Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which was accompanied by the United Nations Security Council Resolution 255.  This treaty took two years to be signed into effect and was in force by 1970 and includes 191 states parties.  It is an indefinite treaty that has review conferences every five years with a preparatory conference for each review done each of the three prior years of the review.   The treaty's main objective is to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and it's three main ways of achieving this are as follows: First, states that do not already have a nuclear weapon will not acquire one.  Second, states that do already have nuclear weapons will work towards disarmament.  Finally, any state has the right to pursue peaceful nuclear power for energy.  This treaty has been ongoing and depends on other IGOs like the International Atomic Energy Agency for verification of the conditions that have been set forth and agreed upon.  (UN Security Council Resolutions)

The Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI) is an NGO that works to increase global security through nuclear security.  NTI has done what it can to reduce the threats of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons in various ways, they even made a few movies that aired on HBO.  One significant product that NTI produces to help in the cause is what's called the Nuclear Materials Security Index.  This publication is produced biennially and is an accounting of weapons-usable nuclear material in 176 different countries.  This index has received global attention and some states use it to track their own nonproliferation goals and to create stronger commitments to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons.  (NTI Website)

 

In regards to the UN having a peacekeeping mission within states that violate international treaties, such as NPT, I believe that they should have a responsibility to put forces in place to punish those who violate treaties.  The UN is a representation of 193 states, if a state enters a treaty then violates that treaty and the UN does nothing, does the UN have any credibility at that point?  I would say no.  I believe that the UN should have the ability to put military forces, monetary and trade constraints, and whatever tools necessary to punish those who violate agreements they made.  States must be held accountable and punished when they violate treaties.  What's more powerful than 193 states acting together?

 

 

 

"UN Security Council" UN News Center. Accessed August 27, 2015. http://www.un.org/en/sc/documents/resolutions/1968.shtml. 

 

 

"Nuclear Threat Initiative." NTI. Accessed August 27, 2015. http://www.nti.org. 

POST SIX

Since their very creation, nuclear weapons have been a topic of many debates, treaties, conflicts, etc.  Having nuclear weapons, from a realists perspective, automatically gives a greater voice to the state who has them.  However, there are systems and organizations in place to try and prevent any further states from obtaining these weapons.  There are currently nine states that are "nuclear", and ideally that number would only shrink.  

There are a number of ways that Intergovernmental and nongovernment organizations help to achieve the goal of removing nuclear weapons from all states.  One way is through education and awareness.  There are many agencies that seek to provide current research on nuclear stockpiles, the risk of the weapons themselves, and information on treaties and agreements.  The Arms Control Association is one of these agencies.  They look at current research and present possible solutions to the problem (armscontrol.org). 

Another way that IGOs especially can have an effect on nuclear reduction, is through imposing sanctions in order to push states towards abandoning their nuclear programs.  An obvious example of this is the current deal with Iran.  BBC News states, "Since Iran's nuclear program became public in 2002, the UN, EU and several individual countries have imposed sanctions in an attempt to prevent it from developing military nuclear capability" (2015).  Iran has spent this last year in talks over a deal that would lessen and remove these sanctions.  Depending on how the deal plays out, this is an example of the power IGOs have in limiting the development of nuclear weapons.  One major player in the deal is another agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency, which seeks to maintain the use of nuclear energy but without an ability to weaponize the products involved.  They work as an objective party that regulates atomic energy and will be monitoring Iran's nuclear program. 

Lastly, there are treaties in place that states have agreed upon to  limit their nuclear development.  One of these treaties is the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which according to the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affair there are 183 signatory countries (http://disarmament.un.org/treaties/t/ctbt).  If, however, these treaties are broken there must be consequences.  As far as the role of the United Nations, they have the ability to impose heavy sanctions on both leaders and states as a whole.  These sanctions are the best mode of peacekeeping.

References:

Armscontrol.org. Nuclear Weapons: who has what at a glance. 2015. accessed on http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohaswhat

BBC.com. Iran nuclear crisis: What are the sanctions? 2015. Accessed on http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-15983302.

UNODA. Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Accessed on http://disarmament.un.org/treaties/t/ctbt

POST SEVEN

 A fitting post on the heels of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki anniversary.  With the power to release massive ammounts of energy to push a nation to the negotiating table, nuclear weapons have the capability to end a war on its own.  This devastating power is a force multiplier for nations and will weigh heavy on the minds of leaders of opposing countries.  With the United States and the former USSR, MAD or Mutual Assured Destruction was one of the biggest factors during the Cold War.  Each nation knew that once the firing started, the entire world would be destroyed from the after effects of nuclear fallout.  MAD works between Nuclear Weapon States but not with countries (DPRK, Iran) and non-state actors that welcome death and destruction like Al Quaeda and Da'ish.  IGO's such as the UN with the IAEA and NGO's such as ICAN (International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear weapons), ISIS (Institute for Science and International Security), Etc. strive to prevent such power into the wrong hands. 

     Through the the Department of Safeguards in the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) the Non Proliferation Treaty is enforced through education, safeguards, and inspections performed to stop the spread of nuclear weapons (IAEA).  This action arm for the UN provides a vital tool in order to ensure countries that are signatories continue to abide by the treaties that have been laid out.  To lower the overall nuclear threat from vast stockpiles the Safeguard Department also assists in training and support to disarmament work put forth by Nuclear Weapon States (IAEA). 

     ICAN is a global group that can be characterized as a grassroots organization.  They use the support of famous actors, figures, etc. to bring together a body of local population support to bring preasure on governements into negotiations and treaties by highlighting the devastating effects and harm nuclear weapons bring (ICAN).  With ICAN gathering the local support against nuclear weapons, ISIS provides the scientific analysis to the public forum.  ISIS is a gathering of scientists with expertise in nuclear studies and use various resources to bring to light the materials, countries buildup, and illicit trade of nuclear components to countries and media (ISIS).  

     The UN has no real authority or sovereignty over nations that have signed the NPT and are found in violation.  That being said nations hold a great responsibility when it comes to the ownership of nuclear weapons.  The UN inspectors that ensure states are abiding by the laws and treaties should be given full access to all locations and the ability to report findings without any interference.  The action piece would be held on the global stage through sanctions and embargos to preasure that country back to compliance.  The multiple accounts of misleading and lying by state leaders require active inspections of weapons that have the ability to not only destroy a country, but the entire world we live in. 

 

Works Cited

1. "International Atomic Energy Agency | Atoms For Peace." International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Accessed August 27, 2015. https://www.iaea.org/.

2. "No More Hiroshimas, No More Nagasakis." ICAN. Accessed August 27, 2015. http://www.icanw.org/

3. "Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS)." Institute for Science and International Security. Accessed August 27, 2015. http://isis-online.org/.

POST EIGHT

Distributive justice appears to be an ongoing battle, and the views of Rawls and Nozick are rivals. Both arguments are valid. Though not exactly the same, their ideas seem like a major difference between American Democratic and Republican politicians. This paper will only focus on the difference between Rawls and Nozick.

The base of Nozick's theory of distributive justice stems from his belief in self ownership. This "is just the claim that individuals own themselves - their bodies, talents and abilities, labor, and by extension the fruits or products of their exercise of their talents, abilities and labor. (Feser). Nozick has "three principles of justice in holdings." (Feser). Acquisition is basically owning something that someone else has not owned. A good example of this is finding oil, gold, or any other natural resource. The principle of transfer is a person willingly giving something to another person. Rectification is giving something up because it is owed. This could be considered paying a fine or even going to jail. Nozick's overall aim is to uphold individual rights. It should be a persons own choice to give up what they earned. It is also the responsibility of the individual to earn what they receive.

Rawls simply believes in fairness. Why do actors and athletes make millions, while teachers and Soldiers make thousands? Rawls does not wonder this, and we should not confuse his difference principle with principles of strict equality. He says it is fair as long as those millions benefit the least advantaged. For Rawls,  "All social goods are to be distributed equally, unless an unequal distribution would be to everyone's advantage." (Wenar).  He believes the system  "...will increase the total wealth of the economy and, under the Difference Principle, the wealth of the least advantaged." (Lamont).  　

The question of whether Rawls or Nozick's theory is more fair is very intricate. As an individual, I believe that Nozick is more fair. I believe that I am entitled to everything I have "in accordance with the principles of acquisition, transfer, and rectification." (Feser). As a member of society, I agree more with Rawls. This is because I believe in the saying that you are only as strong as your weakest link. At the same time, I see how dangerous Rawls beliefs can be.

For this purpose, the least advantaged members of society are considered the weakest link. I will use a personal example, from being in the Army, to discuss this. In my experience, it is not a Soldiers fault that they are mentally or physically weak. They had a poor upbringing from their parents or basic training. At first, I will take time from the stronger Soldiers, to help the weaker ones. If the weaker Soldiers does not become more like the strong ones, I will eventually remove the weak Soldier. If I do not remove him, other Soldiers will think that it is alright to be weak.

References

Feser, Edward, "Robert Nozick (1938-2002)", The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ISSN 2161-0002, http://www.iep.utm.edu/, today's date.

Lamont, Julian and Favor, Christi, "Distributive Justice", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2014 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2014/entries/justice-distributive/.

Wenar, Leif, "John Rawls", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2013/entries/rawls/.

POST NINE

I think that the center of Rawl’s Veil of Ignorance is basically how we see other people or take the other persons point of view into consideration. “Behind the veil of ignorance, we do not know our own particular degree of wealth, status, or background.” (APUS) The veil of ignorance is kind of exactly what it says it is… it is sort of a veil we put up and imagine ourselves in another persons shoes. For an example with if we were a white land owner before the civil war we would be all for slavery, however if we were in the opposite shoes and were a slave, we would be completely against slavery. “In taking up this point of view, we are to imagine ourselves in the position of free and equal persons who jointly agree upon and commit themselves to principles of social and political justice.” (Stanford.edu)

I have to agree I do think that the veil of ignorance should be applied when formulating a good and just well-ordered society regarding laws and policies. “This original position would be an acceptable starting point for deliberating justice in the ordering of the basic structure of society.” (APUS) I think that everyone should have their basic rights unless they do something entirely unjust to have them taken away. I think that society today has no fairness and I do not think that our government officials think of how other people feel about a particular law that is being passed, they consider one point of view and that is their personal point of view.

“For a society to be conceived as a well ordered it must be a society in which: everyone accepts and knows that everyone else accepts the very same principles of justice and its citizens  must have an effective sense of justice that would allow them to comply with the general institutions which they regard as just.” (APUS) I feel as though we should put the veil up from our real world and look at how other people live. For example I may make $30,000 per year and live on my own with no children so I have plenty of money to buy groceries but the woman across the street makes $35,000 per year and has 2 kids to support she can not afford groceries. I am looking at regulating a law that adjusts the income cap to be able to receive food stamps. My new law is just going to look at the income and not the number of dependents in the household, that is entirely unfair.. I think there are numerous instances where people should put the “veil” up and look around before making such huge changes.