Occupy Movement

    The Occupy movement that is sweeping across the nation has electrified the populace behind a common cause. The primary impetus for this movement is income inequality. The most prominent fact that is used in the protests is that the top 1% of the United States population controls over 20% of the wealth. In order to emphasize this fact, protesters use the gathering phrase “We are the 99%”. It makes sense that there has been an uprising in response to this inequality. However, instead of just a difference of income, I think that the main problem that gave rise to this nationwide response is the inequality of the governments dealings between big and small businesses. One of the greatest forces of capitalism is the competition it provides between businesses for customers and profit. Wealth is not bad in and of itself. However, The bailouts of the big banks after their unintelligent and unethical practices lead them to the brink of collapse served as a precedent for other big businesses. Though a smaller business wouldn’t get such preferential treatment and would have failed, the big banks did not and were likely to maintain that position of protection.
    This blatant difference in the way the United States government treats different levels of businesses is troubling and doesn’t bode well for the economy. It decreases the real competition that can exist in a capitalistic society. Even if the smaller business produces a better product, there is still a good chance that their advantage will be diminished by government provided financial support. This type of bailout system promotes unintelligent decision making in big business because it means that they can get more funding, at the expense of tax money that could be sent to other causes to better society.
    Though I agree that the government should not show preferential treatment, the occupy movement needs more leadership to be truly productive or meaningful. Currently, there are not any commonly accepted goals for the movement. There are organizers but no leaders. Without official direction, a large group of people is more likely to become uncontrollable. Even if the majority of the members have a commonly held purpose and support peaceful demonstration, a small number of angry, aggressive or opportunistic individuals can influence the group and, by mob mentality, cast an entire demonstration into violence and chaos. Also, there is no way to tell, conclusively, when the goals of the demonstrations have been achieved without a defined purpose behind the movement. If the participants in the Occupy Movement has the potential of bringing a large amount of beneficial change, but that is dependent on how they proceed from here.

In How Politics Hurts the EPA’s Important Mission, Lisa Jackson, a legitimate source of information as the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, expresses her frustration at how politics has obfuscated the EPA’s goals for the public. She states that there has been misleading information put out that has had real impact on public opinion and policy. For instance, the assertion that the EPA is putting together a “train wreck of regulations” for business and the economy is drawn from a report on regulations the EPA decided not to propose. These proposals didn’t affect any citizen of the U.S. or even to congress. Jackson also argues that the EPA’s initiatives instead help create jobs for research and development, increase efficient use of natural resources, and decrease the cost for consumers due that acquired efficiency.
    This editorial caught my eye because I did a project on “Global Climate Change” in middle school, coming to the conclusion at that time that there was far to little data in support of Global Warming for the cultural uprising that had ensued. There were a lo of sad-looking polar bears, but not a consistent, world wide increase in temperature conclusive enough to say humans are causing the ice caps to melt. Jackson makes a few good points, but I find the majority of the editorial is an emotional plea with the public. I prefer facts so I can actually look at the tangible effects of actions and hopefully choose the best course of action due to an in depth knowledge of the subject matter.
    For me, Jackson’s most amusing line was when she said decision making should not be based on scare tactics. Though this is true, she uses her fair share of scare tactics in this editorial as well. The references to sludge covered rivers, airborne Mercury, and other such events are aimed at shocking the public opinion to the EPA’s side. Though I understand the usefulness of such a pathos driven strategy, (it is hard to get legislation passed when up against a group that makes a concerted, long-term effort to besmirch your reputation and misconstrue your motives) I believe that one’s rhetoric should send a consistent message and not contradict itself, or worse prove hypocritical.
    In general, I prefer a clean, natural world and support efforts to that end. As a matter of fact, my travels are often interrupted by picking up trash along the way. I enjoy the outdoors and want to keep it pristine. I support the endeavors of the EPA, but I also understand, to a certain extent, the financial burden that environmental regulation places on businesses, especially if a business is small and without the resources to fund research. A balanced forward moving progress is the goal that I think we should aim for. That’s why we have compromise, and compromise in large groups is what creates politics. It is an unfortunate eventuality when politics turns dirty instead of constructive and collaborative, but that is life.

In the BBC article "US Senate Backs Debate on Currency Law Amid Yuan Row" the economic struggle with China escalates. The Senate voted to entertain debate about enacting legislation to encourage China to let it's currency increase in value. I found the article interesting because it forced me to do some research into how economics works and how it effects international and national politics. Due to the undervaluation of the Chinese currency, Yuan, China is more attractive to large corporations than other nations. Basically, since corporations can get cheap production and greater profit, China receives more business and can get money from exports. Also, with an undervalued currency, citizens of China are more likely to by products produced in their own country, keeping wealth from leaving. These factor give China an edge on trading but have also perturbed the US government and reduced production and jobs in the US as they increase in China. The currently proposed bill would provide Congress with the ability to place tariffs on goods imported from countries determined to be undervaluing their currency. This would make production in the US more financially competitive and level the playing field.