How the Great Depression Changed American Economy free essay sample

The Great Depression was one of the biggest turning points in American history. Not only did it change the spending habits of U. S. citizens, but it changed how the government controlled the economy. New laws and acts were put into place that helped prevent something like the Great Depression from ever happening again. During the 1920s, America’s economy was extremely prosperous. Businesses were producing mass amounts of products, and because wages were high, consumers were buying them. However, the spending habits of the American people are what would lead to the economy’s downfall. People would invest most of their money in stocks, and spend the rest on items they didn’t really need. Not many people put too much of their income into savings, and those who did may have lost it anyways once the Great Depression started. The President during this time period was Calvin Coolidge. As shown in Document 1, Coolidge believed in a very â€Å"hands-off† policy when it came to government involvement in the economy. We will write a custom essay sample on How the Great Depression Changed American Economy or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page Coolidge’s administration sort of sat back and allowed the economy to prosper on its own. This did not help the country once the Great Depression hit. There were several factors that led to the Great Depression. However, the main cause of the economy’s failure was the stock market crash of 1929. As seen on the graph in Document 2, once the stock market crashed, the unemployment rate skyrocketed. Banks and businesses went out of business, and millions of people lost their jobs. Before the crash, below 2 million people were unemployed. Four years later, in 1933, over 12 million were unemployed. Banks completely failed, losing all of their money. This meant that any money people had saved in the bank had vanished. The President at the time of the stock market crash was Herbert Hoover. Hoover was oblivious to the crash of the economy and did not know how to deal with it. His administration did little to help the economy or restore the country. In Document 3, you can see that Franklin D. Roosevelt, while running for president, said that â€Å"the only efforts by the Hoover administration to cope with the distress of unemployment were to deny its existence. † Because of Hoover’s failure as President, and Roosevelt’s promises, Roosevelt was elected as the new President in 1932. He would go on to serve three terms due to his great success in leading the country. Once Roosevelt became President, the government’s response to the Great Depression changed. In Document 4, Roosevelt says in his First Inaugural Address that he understands the problems of the American people and can sympathize with them. Because he personally understood what they were going through, it made them think that he would be able to help the country. His administration took more control over the economy and through a long, slow process, it gradually improved. In the first 100 days of his presidency, he shut down all banks that clearly were not going to assist the economy. He gave â€Å"fireside chats† to the American citizens, and personally explained to them how he was going to improve the economy. What truly brought the United States out of the Great Depression was Roosevelt’s New Deal. He created many important programs that aimed at providing economic relief for workers and farmers and creating jobs for the unemployed. He also initiated a slate of reforms of the financial system that helped protect depositors’ accounts and regulate the stock market. In 1935, Roosevelt created a new wave of reforms known as the â€Å"Second New Deal. † This included the Social Security Act, which for the first time provided Americans with unemployment, disability, and pensions for old age. Congress also raised taxes on large corporations and wealthy individuals. While the acts Roosevelt enforced with the New Deal vastly improved the economy, many American citizens were weary of them. In Document 5, there is a cartoon portraying an artist’s view on the New Deal. He saw it more as a way for people to test out their new ideas on the American economy than as a way to firmly improve the economy. During the Great Depression, the government set many new laws in place regarding the stock market and the general economy to make sure this kind of disaster never occurred again. They also wanted to ensure that if it did, the American people would not lose all of their money and jobs. They wanted to make the economy safer and more stable. Thanks to Franklin Roosevelt and his administration, the government was successful.

Should the American Government have to pay reparations to Native Americans Essay Example

Should the American Government have to pay reparations to Native Americans? Essay Since time immemorial, the issue on land ownership is very chaotic because men are willing to wage war just to get hold of a piece of land. In primitive times, a certain ethnic group skirmishes with other ethnic groups over territorial supremacy. Land ownership is a bloody business because of the price it entails. When a certain assembly successfully dominated other’s land it means that their goal to expand their territory is realized, but most importantly, domination of a territory also implies that the dominator also take control of the resources of the grabbed territory. And worst, it has been a practice that the dominator of a territory would likely use the people of their grabbed land, and eventually treat them as slaves. In 1830’s a prominent execution of land grabbing transpired in North America between President Andrew Jackson’s administration and the Native Americans, and more specifically to the Cherokees. During this period, President Jackson endorsed a law that was designed to eliminate the Indian people in their own territory and relocate the latter in other places[1]. The ratification of Indian Removal Act took many years of trial but eventually did not succeeded because the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Native Americans. The objective of the said policy is to exchange lands with Native Americans and to eliminate them from thriving in west of the river Mississippi. According to President Jackson, during the deliberation of Indian Removal Act, that he was so concerned of the plight of the Indians because as civilization progresses and as the whites increasingly occupy the land, the Native Americans conditions are being jeopardize[2]. At its first implementation, the Choctaw and the Chickasaw was successfully relocated. But the Seminole and the Cherokees did not falter, they resisted all forms of aggression of land grabbing because they believed that no one owe their ancestral lands. Desperate measures was implemented, violence against Indians was manifested by use of arms and force. Seminole people triumphed in Second Seminole War against the massive troops of military and volunteers. But in the third installment of war the Seminole people was defeated[3]. The last remaining tribe was the Cherokees, and in a very unfortunate event, they were forced to engage in death march, which was later on called Trail of Tears. President Jackson’s administration successfully seized the ancestral lands of the Indian tribes, but its promise of better life, equal opportunities, and relocation is nothing but a farce. The Indian tribes did not receive a permanent land that they can rebuild their lives. The policy failed to reinforce a voluntary expulsion, and worst, their dreams and promises was decimated due to fraudulent land agreements. This historical event is the foundation of a human right debate about the moral responsibilities of Americans to Native Americans[4]. According to human right advocators, the means to fulfill this moral responsibility is through reparations. In this paper, I will provide a nitty-gritty discussion of reparations such as its definition, elements and significance. The paper will also outline several standpoints in line with anti-reparations. And most importantly, this paper will provide arguments pro reparations. The Americans must necessarily pay reparations to Native Americans to lessen interracial issues because they have deprived the latter of something that they own. The Americans should pay the Native Americans for the moral damages that they caused the latter, specifically for grabbing their ancestral lands, for providing them fraudulent promises, and for puttin g their lives on jeopardy. And lastly, the Americans should provide reparations for Native Americans to alleviate their existing condition because the effect of their acts is still existent among Native Americans, meaning, the latter is still suffering from the ill-fated event, which was catapulted by the Americans. We will write a custom essay sample on Should the American Government have to pay reparations to Native Americans? specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on Should the American Government have to pay reparations to Native Americans? specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on Should the American Government have to pay reparations to Native Americans? specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer The Debate Since the concept of reparation is the core of this debate, it is a necessity that we provide a definition of the term. Lexically speaking, reparation is an act of amending and alleviating one’s suffering due to the committed wrongdoings of others. But in terms of moral duty, reparation can be defined given the following criteria: 1) acting responsibly upon the crime of the past, 2) restoration of dignity and reinstatement of property that has been loss, 3) refurbishing the moral animosity between two parties, specifically of the aggressed and the aggressor, and 4) reconciliation of the aggressed and the aggressor’s differences. Having defined reparation, it is now justifiable to lay down the arguments on the validity of why Americans must necessarily pay reparations for Native Americans. First reason is the fact that Americans undeniably deprived the Indians of the latter’s own property and rights. It has been established on natural law that man will own a certain property if he cultivated it and nourished it. In terms of land ownership, one can claim a certain land if he developed and took care of it. And this practice has been considered before the conceptualization of the law. When one develops and nourishes a piece of land, he automatically acquires rights over it. Ancestral land is the embodiment of all the efforts that a group of people exerted to ensure that a piece of land is well taken care of[5]. But man created laws, which aims to advance human welfare and human progress. Objectivists argue that when laws are created it overpower natural laws because the former curtails the primitive nature of the latter, and eventually promotes interest of the majority. In case of the Native Americans, objectivists postulated that the deprivation of their property and rights are permissible because this deprivation is geared towards a better end, which is to protect their culture from the increasing population of the whites and the advancement of the majority’s interests. Therefore, the objectivists concluded that Americans does not own anything from the Indians because when the law was enacted for the progression of human welfare, the Indian’s concept of property and rights has been superseded [6] However, advancing interests in expense of other’s interests is morally unjustifiable because it does not only curb one’s rights but also annihilate one’s existence, in the sense that in the pursuant of the law people go to the extreme just to ensure that the interests was promoted[7]. It must also be noted that majority’s concern does not always perpetuate a reasonable act, or to put it simply, majority is not always right. In the case of the Native Americans, President Jackson created a law in the guise of the Indians concerns, stating that their culture will be jeopardized if they will not be relocated. But the truth is, the law was created for the majority’s volitions to dominate an ancestral land and to economically use it. In the end, the Indians culture was catastrophically destroyed and was left with nothing. The Americans enjoy the fruit of other’s labors, while those who preserved and cultivated the land for hundreds of years were s uffering from poverty. It has been established that a law is a law. But a law is not a law when it violates other’s rights. The law must only protect the majority of the population but the entirety of the population. It must serve everyone’s interests regardless of ethnicity, beliefs, culture, and practices. Secondly, the American government should pay reparations to Native Americans for all moral damages that they have done. When President Jackson government took over the ancestral land of the Indian tribes they did not provide them any payment or any land title. In order to pursue mass mobilization of Native Americans, the government misled these people through providing them fraudulent promises such as the assurance of better life and better land location, though in reality there is not better future awaiting the Indian tribes. According to documents, Native Americans jumped from place to place because the government failed to provide them a permanent place to live. This happenstance is also considered as a medium to diminish Indian culture[8]. Â  When the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Native Americans, President Jackson blatantly ignored this ruling; instead, he let his administration to engage in manslaughter, almost to the point of genocide. These acts are morally damaging a nd morally unjustifiable. The moral problem of taking over one’s own property is the undeniable fact that while the American government is succumbing themselves to the benefits of other’s property, those who must taste the fruit of their property is suffering from deprivation[9]. And the worst part of it; those perpetrators of wrongdoings do not even initiate any acts of alleviating the sufferings of the Indian people, or even sharing the benefits of that property. On the other hand, the immorality of deceiving people is basically founded on the concept of veracity. Lying in expense of others is awfully wrong because by doing so, others existence are put into dangerous situation. In the Native American terms, they were deceived by the American administration to let them fall from the pit of vicious and cyclic affliction. And the immorality of disposing one’s life is unforgivable, how much more if we let hundreds of people died because of the interest that we wan t to realize. Killing someone is never valid especially if the reason was only based on the need to expand territories. Tenets of anti-reparations argue that President Jackson’s act was reasonable because it was geared towards a better end, and that the consolidation of United States of America. They posited that if this act was not implemented United States will not reach its present status. They also added that in aiming for revolution or changes to guarantee a brighter future, chaos is of necessity. Progress should not be impeded because there is a minority that will endure pain and suffering. Therefore, they affirmed that if violence will be a necessary element of progression, then violence must be used because the situation necessitates it. Proponents of dirty hands politics furthered this kind of advocacy because also see a better consequences of the act. Dirty hand politics is a predicament when one is face to decide between two immoral acts but one must choose the lesser evil[10]. And in this case, the moral dilemma is between choosing the progression of humanity in expense of a specifi c ethnic group or letting this specific ethnic group to stay on their ancestral land in exchange of human’s progression. And since the advocators of this kind of politics always look at the interest of the majority, they uphold the importance of human progress in expense of an ethnic group because this decision is of lesser evil. The postulate on significance of human progress is novel and valid; however, it should not resort to any act of deception and violence. It is a contradiction to promote human progress in expense of human lives. Tenets of anti-reparations were correct in saying that because of President Jackson enactment of Indian Removal Act paved way for the consolidation of our nation. But it must be noted that it does not satisfy the evilness and the cruelty that these Indian people had experienced[11]. The advocators of dirty hand politics was mistaken in saying that we have to choose lesser evil for the betterment of humanity because it misconstrued the concept of what is right and of what acts are morally justified. The danger about these kinds of beliefs is that people can always use the alibi of lesser evil to make their immoral acts seems to be right. And worst, it confuses our delineation between being humane and inhumane because we can always opt to do things that are innately inhumane but argue that we engaged ourselves to such act because the situation calls for decision, and we just choose what lesser evil is[12]. Lastly, the Americans should provide reparation among Native Americans because the latter is still agonizing from the aftermath of act of the former. Up to this modern period, most Native Americans do not own anything specifically of land property. The sad thing about the plight of American Indians is that because of the Indian Removal Act most people thought that they are already nonexistent. The American government does only provide a poor relief as a form of reparation to Indians because what they lost is actually priceless, but giving them permanent settlements, opportunities to broaden their horizon, and most importantly, to give them due respect to rebuild their dignity. For the longest time, Native Americans are not receiving enough aid from the government that is why their emotional wounds and their spiritual scars have incarcerated from the past. The help that has been long due is still not delivered to those who deserve it. The lives of Americans Indians are not yet allevia ted because as of the time being, they have not receive justice from any injustices that Jackson’s administration has cast upon them. The sufferings of the American native are insurmountable, and reparations is not enough to compensate it, still reparation must be given to them because it can somehow reduce their burdens[13]. Proponents of anti-reparations argue that mistakes of the past should not be transferred to the future because there is not connection between the two time frames. According to them, the unlawful activities of past should only be attributed to the past because the future generations do not participate in that unlawful activities. Having said this, if the past generation failed to provide reparation for Native American it does not necessarily follow that future generation must fulfill the lacking of past generation. They also added that reparation is futile because it will answer the needs of the Native Americans, and significantly, it will not restore things that they have lost along the way. Anti-reparation advocates conjectured the four reasons why reparations should not be executed among Native Americans. First, they see that reparation will be the unfair to the state because there is no means to qualify and quantify those Indians who deserved the reparations. If reparation is giv en, most likely, those who will take pleasure in it are those descendants of the past, meaning, they have not experienced any cruelty at all, therefore, reparations must not be given. Second, if implementation of reparations is possible still the state must ask for entitlement to differentiate those who must earn it and those who do not, then it will not be unfair to the state and to the present generation. But how can Native American prove their entitlement? Third, if entitlement was proven then they must also establish that their current condition is directly affected by the past wrongdoings. And lastly, since the funds for the reparations will be taken from the pork barrels, which was earned through the taxpayers, it unjust because it must be allocated to serve the interest of the taxpayers. To sum it up, proponents of anti-reparations vehemently disagree in compensating the wrong of the past in expense of the present and future generations[14]. Tenets of anti-reparations overlooked on point in this whole debate, the American government push through their cruelty and atrocities towards the Native Americans to ensure a brighter future and a better life for their future generations. Given this realization, American government must compensate for the wrongdoings of their predecessor since they also harvested from it. The anti-reparation advocators do not want to pay damages that past administration has done in expense of the present and future generation, when in principle the past generation had pursued their own volition in expense Native Americans’ past, present and future generations. They are right that crimes of the past should be crimes of the past, in so far as these crimes are not executed in principle of future generations. It is right that future generation does not directly participate in that immoral activities, but they have the power to correct it. Instead, they continue the practice of their ancestors. Th e criteria that these proponents proposed are very much limited to the issue of being unfair to the state without looking how the state became unfair to the Native Americans[15]. The issue of reparation will not be settled because Native Americans are incessantly deprived of their property and rights, and the future generation is not acting to annihilate this deprivation. And lastly, the talk of proving one’s entitlement and establishing one’s condition is irrelevant because when Indian Removal Act was carried out not only the lives of Indian tribes was jeopardized but also their future, and the future of their generation. The reason behind this is simple; everything that Native Americans own was robbed from them[16]. CONCLUSION: In toto, the anti-reparation proponents suggested that we must move on and forget about what happens in the past because they uphold that the most important thing is the present condition and our visions for the future. But humanity can only move on if all wounds and miseries have been healed and resolved. The desolation of the past remains up to this modern day period because it was not yet answered, and if this will never be medicated it will haunt us in the future. Reparation may not totally heal the wounds and resolved the sufferings still it is important because it can alleviate the situation. The problem is humungous and deeply rooted, meaning, it cannot be decipher over night. Medicating this problem needs a step by step process, and we can start this by reparation and not by purporting escape goat reasoning or even forgetting it as if nothing happens. Reparation should be done at all cost because Native Americans have been deprived of things that they should enjoy, they have been morally damaged due to inhumane acts, and the effects of American government atrocities is still lingering on[17]. nbsp;

Ebay essays

Ebay essays I have recently joined the millions who have visited Echo Bay. It is a busy place with millions of goods, and billions of dollars flowing through it. It is divided into communities, some of which are really tight knit. People come from all over the world to take part in it. It is filled with rare, exotic, and just plain weird stuff. The place Im talking about is more commonly known as eBay. There are millions of items on the web for sale, and just as many people waiting to buy them. Ill explain the basics about how to get started, and some hints on how to sell. EBay has only been a company for nine years, but it has a lot of history for that short amount of time. It is a great way to turn that junk pile in your garage into cash. Getting started on eBay is very simple. Go to a computer and type in www.ebay.com. On the main homepage go to the top, and click on the link that says sell. Follow the simple step-by-step process where it instructs you to put in your personal information. A credit or debit card makes the process simple, but it is possible to sign up without one. You will need an e-mail address as well, and to complete the process you will have to put in a code that they will e-mail to you. After the brief form is complete you are able to list what you want to sell. (eBay Inc.)The entire process from opening the page to having an item listed takes approximately half an hour, and anyone with basic computer skills shouldnt have any trouble. You can include a fairly lengthy description and one picture for the listing price of $.50. To add more features will cost extra. You can add templates, more pictures, and choose where your ad appears for more money. It cost me $.85 total to list a pair of ice ska tes, and an additional small percentage will be added after it is sold, depending on the final cost. You can sell anything over eBay. Well, almost. For logical and legal reasons you cant sel...

Merriam-Websters Words of the Year 2008

Merriam-Websters Words of the Year 2008 Merriam-Websters Words of the Year 2008 Merriam-Websters Words of the Year 2008 By Maeve Maddox The most looked-up words in the online Merriam-Webster dictionary in 2008 reflect the nations preoccupation with discussions surrounding the Presidential campaign. Seven of the tenbailout, vet, socialism, maverick, rogue, misogyny, and bipartisanhave political associations. The other threeturmoil, trepidation, and precipicehave appreared frequently this year in discussions of the stock market and the economy. Some of these words have more colorful backgrounds than others. bailout [bÄ lout] When I hear bailout I have the mental image of corporation executives in 3-piece suits sitting in a leaking boat, tossing bucketfuls of water overboad as fast as they can, and scanning the horizon for a ship that will rescue them. The verb to bail, with the sense toss water out of a boat comes from a word for bucket. vet [vÄ•t] This verb, with the meaning to examine carefully before approving, may derive from the examination of a racehorse by a veterinarian before a race. Kipling used it in this sense in 1904. Its meaning expanded to mean the careful vetting of anything requiring approval, from a manuscript to a job applicant. The word was apparently unfamiliar to a lot of Americans until Obama used it. I heard it used frequently when I lived in England. socialism [sÃ… shÉ™-lÄ ­zÉ™m] Not at all an unfamiliar word to Americans, the spike in looking it up may have had something to do with the contradictory ways in which the word was being used. While the socialism label was being waved about as a Bad Thing by campaigners, the federal government was practicing what seemed to be a form of socialism by taking over ownership of Wall Streets mortgage-backed assets. rogue [rÃ… g] When Sarah Palin supposedly contradicted something McCain had said, TV commentators kept saying shed gone rogue. Their meaning seemed to be that shed become uncontrollable, rather like a rogue elephant trampling its keepers. Here are some definitions of rogue from Merriam-Webster: adjective: resembling or suggesting a rogue elephant, especially in being isolated, aberrant, dangerous, or uncontrollable corrupt, dishonest of or being a nation whose leaders defy international law or norms of international behavior noun: a dishonest or worthless person; scoundrel a mischievous person : scamp a horse inclined to shirk or misbehave an individual exhibiting a chance and usually inferior biological variation misogyny [mÄ ­-sÃ… jÉ™-nÄ“] hatred of women. The question of misogyny comes up whenever a woman runs for office. This years campaign with two high profile women explains interest in this word. maverick [mÄÆ'vÉ™r-Ä ­k or mÄÆ'vrÄ ­k]- John McCain frequently described himself as a maverick. When Sarah Palin joined his campaign, she too adopted the epithet. They used it in the sense of person who is not controlled by others. Maverick is an eponynm. Samuel Maverick (1803-1870) was a lawyer, politician, and land baron who refused to brand his cattle. He claimed he didnt want to hurt them, but other ranchers believed he didnt brand them so that he could then claim any unbranded calf as his own. Maverick first meant an unbranded calf, but came to have the figurative sense of masterless. bipartisan [(bÄ «-prtÄ ­-zÉ™n, -sÉ™n] Heres a word that sounds pretty good at the end of a two year campaign filled with inter- and intra-party bickering: of, relating to, or involving members of two parties; specifically, marked by or involving cooperation, agreement, and compromise between two major political parties. I can vote for that! The remaining three words in the Top Ten are all fraught with scary connotations. trepidation [trÄ•pÄ ­-dÄ shÉ™n] from a Latin word meaning to tremble, trepidation is a synonym for fear. People who regard a situation with trepidation may be shaking in their boots. Ex. Chinas Widening Footprint Prompts Trepidation. precipice [prÄ•sÉ™-pÄ ­s] from a Latin word meaning headlong, a precipice is a steep eminence from which it would be very scary to fall, as in Were hurtling over the economic precipice. turmoil [tà »rmoil] a state or condition of extreme confusion, agitation, or commotion, as in World Economic Turmoil. Maybe next year well be looking up happier words. Want to improve your English in five minutes a day? Get a subscription and start receiving our writing tips and exercises daily! Keep learning! Browse the Vocabulary category, check our popular posts, or choose a related post below:Regarding Re:The Four Sounds of the Spelling OU

Globalization and Identity Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2250 words

Globalization and Identity - Essay Example However, it escalated to the period of colonial expansion due to the potential resources, which are abundant in the lands of Asia (Steger 29). Almost all parts of Asia have been subjugated from colonial rule due to such a heated demand to sustain the needs of industrialized nations in terms of raw material supply (Scupin 325). Most Western countries have colonized the Asian lands. India was controlled by Britain. The Philippines by Spain then the United States. The first point I want to analyze, in a critical sense, is the politics, economics and social conditions that surround identity; specifically, the people of a particular nation. One cannot undermine that certain countries in Asia have governments, whether it is an imperial or a feudal one. China, for example, has an imperial government that is centralized. It cannot be denied that China, under political circumstances, already has a sense of belonging and expansion of influence. Other countries, for the same matter, have feudal societies and tribes that already have a systematized government, possibly ethnic or tribal to a certain extent. Identification is present. These established governments are already propagating a sense of identity. The intervention came from the Western countries since they are forwarding a certain political ideology on their part. This would only mean that the West tries to manipulate the identity of the people in these countries to ensure that they are adher ent to the conventions, which are in favor of the Western people. ... Mostly Western countries have colonized the Asian lands. India was controlled by Britain. Philippines by Spain then United States. The first point I want to analyze, in a critical sense, is the politics, economics and social conditions that surround identity; specifically, the people of a particular nation. One cannot undermine that certain countries in Asia have governments, whether it is an imperial or a feudal one. China, for example, has an imperial government that is centralized (Scupin 325). It cannot be denied that China, under political circumstances, already has a sense of belonging and expansion of influence (Steger 24). Other countries, for the same matter, have feudal societies and tribes that already have a systematized government, possibly ethnic or tribal to a certain extent (Nye 162). Identification is present. These established governments are already propagating a sense of identity. Intervention came from the Western countries since they are forwarding a certain pol itical ideology on their part (Nye 163). This would only mean that the West tries to manipulate the identity of the people in these countries to ensure that they are adherent to the conventions, which are in favour of the Western people. One cannot deny that governments have changed and wars between the colonizers and the colonized burst out due to an assertion of independence and self – governance. In terms of economics, identity is indeed affected. Trading happened between countries of the West and Asia. Cultural exchange is one of the crucial things that must be considered (Steger 24). Upon the exchange of goods and technology, one cannot neglect that there will be

Introduction and Letter of Transmittal on Taco Bell Case Study Essay

Introduction and Letter of Transmittal on Taco Bell Case Study - Essay Example om their governmental agencies arguing that their grocery store might have been selling the brand containing a corn ingredient which is harmful to the public (Hall and Viola, 2003). The report targeted Taco shells, which the brand name of the Taco Bell and distrusted by the Kraft Food industry, the media as well as other consumer’s reactions proved the damage of the Taco Bell reputation. This made the Taco Corporation to face the crisis of destroying brand reputation due to selling of tinted food known as Cry9c, which is harmful to human consumption. The public hold the perception that the company was selling the same product in their restaurant. However, Taco Bell has nothing to do with the manufacturing of the genetically modified corn but it is licensed under the company’s brand name known s Taco shells. Although Kraft already recalls that the food was announced to be having side effects to the consumers, they still distribute and sell it using Taco’s brand na me. Therefore, Taco bell should take action through communicating effectively about the crisis management. They should communicate in order for the corporate to maintain food safety standards and regulations in the restaurants; thus maintaining brand reputation. In compliance with the Kraft Food Industry, the company should make effective communication in order to come up with the conclusion of payment owing that the Taco Bell is undergoing a severe threat of the brand reputation. This is because the company would be interfered especially on revenues that may decrease. This is due to brand reputation; thus, the agreement should be made on transfer of funds. The main purpose of the letter is to inform Taco Bell Company to communicate effectively with Kraft Food Industry and solve the problem the company is facing. Taco Bell Company should also formulate and make the follow-ups of a comprehensive and effective action plan in order to address the issue of food safety. This is essential because it will

Middle East History Essay Example for Free

Middle East History Essay Concerning the security and foreign policy issue, this paper will discuss about the history and politics of India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan that experience intertwined since the first two became independent in 1947. In addition, the three countries also have also distinctive relationship with United States. For the reason, this paper will address how India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan define their vital security interests in relation to the other two during the past 59 years, how the each country seek to advance their respective interests vis-a-vis the other two, and how successful or unsuccessful each has been in doing so. Moreover, this paper will also highlight the countries’ policy positions with regards to their relationship with United States within the past 59 years and how their bilateral relations with the United States related to their relations with the other two South Asian states. 2. India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan Over 50 years in the past, India and Pakistan developed into separate countries on August 15, 1947. The frightening murder of half a million peoples and the evacuating of approximately 15 million men, women, and children blemished what should have been a wonderful event. Just a few months previously, a small number of people had ever perceived sound of the word â€Å"Pakistan†, a thought created by some Muslim intellectuals in 1933 who maintained that there were two separate states in India (Riencourt, A. , 2007). The two-nation assumption of the Muslim League was never admitted by the Hindu-dominated Congress Party, which leaders were all for the formation of an integrated and severely worldly India with complete defense for every religious minority and poor exiles. Pakistan turned into a reality in the 1947 and analyzed its bravery almost directly in the first Indo-Pakistani war on Kashmir (Riencourt, A. , 2007). Therefore, in a very short period, the major advantage of British colonialism in the subcontinent-its political agreement-was annihilated. The Western world compensated slight consideration, at the time, to the long-scope geopolitical effects of this growth. At the present, maybe well over three decades afterward, it ought to compensate a expensive price for this carelessness, in the glow of the current occasions in Afghanistan. 3. India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan and Definition of their vital security interests In the most common definition, the cold war was political, ideological and economic struggle that emerge between the Soviet Union and the Unites States (and allies) right after the Second World War the struggle occurred between 1947 and 1991. It was called the cold war because real physical confrontation never occurred between the superpower nations. The ‘war’ was happening in the form of arms race (including nuclear weapons), developing military alliances, economic warfare (which involves trade embargos, etc), political propaganda, and intelligence warfare (espionage). There were always risks of full range nuclear war with tremendous casualties; however, the closest event to a war is the Cuban Missile Crisis in the 1962, which ended with US, triumphed over the Soviet Union by means of international diplomacy (Gaddis, 1972). Within the cold war issue, it is reasonable if superpower country like the U. S. worries about the development of countries in Asia that continue advancing power. In addition, security becomes a vital interest of any countries. For example, in the year 2000, United Kingdom faced an issue of security due to a preposition by the United States government, as efforts of addressing security concerns of the 21st century. The US government would like to deploy a National Missile Defense (NMD) which would most likely have a significant impact on strategic stability and UK security (‘The 2000 review’, 2000). Similarly, direct on South Asia has mainly remained on the India-Pakistan opposition and conflicts over Kashmir more than fifty years ago. This facet outshined the consequence of Pakistan-Afghanistan relationships on the security interests of the South-Central Asian area. The past and social aspect of the Afghanistan-Pakistan relationship has been and will continue significant in the developing regional spirits (Riencourt, A. , 2007). Following the ending of the Cold War, this relation turned into a major catalyst of the global terrorist group that found its locus in the area. For the majority of Pakistan’s impartial history, relationships with Afghanistan have been difficult and have been distinguished by continuing reciprocal doubt that sometimes revealed in rules of intervention and even efforts at deterioration (Riencourt, A. , 2007). Positioned at the convergence of big mountains and through a chaotic history, the Pakistan-Afghanistan area was once denoted as the â€Å"fight arena of Asia†. Natural features have positioned the area at the junction of international and regional political affairs, strategic and especially financial interests, as a possible channel for energy ways (Riencourt, A. , 2007). The political environment of the area has changed considerably since the proceedings of September 11, 2001. Afghanistan and Pakistan have since gone back to the normal of the global system. However, cynicism and apprehension of rehabilitated conflict amid them continues and they refresh bilateral relationships through wary hopefulness (â€Å"PAKISTAN†, 2006). In due course, India, Pakistan, and the United States ought to think about a cooperative Provisional Reconstruction Team in the northwest of Afghanistan, further than the Pakistan boundary. All these attempts are going to be time-consuming received. However, unless an approach to alleviate the fundamental Pakistan-India conflict in Afghanistan is established, the state will remain to be an arena for this chiefly undeclared fighting. The advantages of making collaboration and confide in Afghanistan will aid forward the broader India-Pakistan tension and improve security around the area (â€Å"PAKISTAN†, 2006). In its security scheming, Pakistan identifies India looking for a tactical covering, a rule of influencing occasions in Afghanistan and Iran to bring out anti-Pakistan reactions to produce political and security troubles for Pakistan. Military policy currently particularly in the nuclear circumstance has transformed the situation and the notions of combat fighting. At greatest, Pakistan possibly will find a sociable Afghanistan presenting a tactical relief zone for restricted logistic nourishment and endorsement in the occasion of upcoming fighting with India (â€Å"Resolving the Pakistan-Afghanistan Stalemate†, 2006). 4. Respective interests among India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan There is abundance to be cynical about the recent ‘concord’ progression amid Pakistan and India. The direct desires following this concord process are none too heartening. Specifically, the military-led government in Islamabad is in great force from its U. S. supporters to accept a collaborative position vis-a-vis the giant eastern neighbor. As you would have thought, the Pakistani military is a communal participant with a record and culture of hostility in the direction of India. Several peace-process idealists say that it is for this very motive that the military is the most dependable bringer of peace. Fragile national leaders cannot create believable guarantees and continue to exist (â€Å"PAKISTAN†, 2006). At all normalization process would weaken the political legality of the armed forces as an unit, accordingly giving augmentation to challenges to its assertions on the state’s financial resources. These assertions would not be restricted to the community reward, although that is significant. They would expand to the military’s great and increasing business territory, covering segments for example manufacturing, economics, property enlargement, shipment, air travel, and farming (â€Å"PAKISTAN†, 2006). Pakistan’s military founding, the state’s most influential political attention group, maintains to consider India as an existing hazard. The U. S. might depart Pakistan to its own ways, its purposes might be restrained, there might be a government failure in Afghanistan, or a government transform in Washington DC. American motivation to support the Pakistani military moderates the latter from financial requirements and political voters for peace making (Riencourt, A. , 2007). The Pakistan-India boundary is forced to be infringed, for the financial necessities are just too overpowering. The increasing amount of lawful and recognized business amid the two countries, as well as approximates of unlawful and unrecognized business, confirms to this predictability. The two economies are not merely geographical neighbors. They work at equal levels of knowledge, and divide comparable levels of buying power, flavors, and favorites. They are genuine candidates for market incorporation (Riencourt, A. , 2007). India and Pakistan are increasing their financial systems with the intention of struggle in international markets. They run in greatly aggressive zones where market share relies on small dissimilarities in border. The lagging of the two financial systems places tensions, occasionally intolerable ones, on national customers and producers in a similar way. Pakistani producers have been converted into powerful supporters of the import of cheaper Indian capital assets and underdone materials. Main upcoming investments in the energy area, and therefore in every other area, depend on political collaboration amid the two states. Although the U. S. obstructs the Iran-Pakistan-India gas channel, an option for example the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India gas route is feasible as long as the Pakistan-India part remains integral as well (â€Å"Resolving the Pakistan-Afghanistan Stalemate†, 2006). 5. The policy positions the three countries took toward the United States and the bilateral relations with the United States In India’s circumstances, the behavior of cooperation with Washington have been belatedly in developing and have yet to attain the levels occasionally documented in the history of U. S. and Pakistan relationships. Trade and industry, however, binds amid India and the U. S. have extended outstandingly in current years and an epidemic of combined military completions and artillery agreements among them give assurance of developing into a qualitatively new type of tactical corporation (â€Å"U. S. Policy Toward India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan†, 2003). For one point, Pakistan’s nuclear controlling and selling in the previous some years has stimulated considerable concern in the U. S. in excess of the security of Islamabad’s nuclear weapons course. Pakistan’s unsteady promise to self-governing regulation is also difficult for Washington, and the Indian and Pakistani governments have conditions, to this point mainly subdued publicly, on the subject of Washington’s Iraq strategy. More than the long-standing, both governments stay intensely apprehensive of Washington’s purposes, particularly of its readiness and capability to uphold recent promises (Rauf, T. , 2001). Preserving welcoming binds with the U. S. continues a subject of greatest significance to both India and Pakistan. Therefore, appeasing the U. S. , preventing acts that might disturb the intrinsically fragile trilateral agreement in position at present, obviously considers in computations completed concerning their relations with the other. This noticeably provides Washington surprising advantage, comprising several abilities for soothing and even changeing India-Pakistan relationships. When forceful national interests are in the balance, on the other hand, Washington’s advantage is probable to show somewhat not real (â€Å"U. S. Policy Toward India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan†, 2003). 6. Conclusion Pakistan and Afghanistan have had mainly opposed relationships beneath all governments except the Taliban, since Pakistan was built as constituent of the separation of India in 1947. Several parts of disagreement were also taken over from tensions amid Afghanistan and India when it was in British colonial regulation. Afghanistan’s governments, together with that of the Taliban, have never identified the Durand Line amid the two countries as a global boundary and have created assertions on the Pashtun and Baluch areas of Pakistan. Today’s cross-border rebellions, with their refuges and encourage networks in Pakistan, are cultivated by the similar sources as earlier tensions, as well as worldwide Islamist movements (â€Å"Resolving the Pakistan-Afghanistan Stalemate†, 2006). A progression must work in the direction of restructurings in the FATA of Pakistan. The U. S. , NATO, and the UN should have the same opinion to send a general note to Islamabad: that the perseverance of Taliban refuges in Pakistan is a danger to global peace and safety that Pakistan has to deal with instantly. In addition, they should concur to advise Afghanistan and India to accomplish all in their authority to support Pakistan to create hard decisions by forwarding sources of Pakistani diffidence, as well as problems with reference to the boundary area and Kashmir. They are supposed to aggressively endorse this progression and take action as backers and funders of every agreement that generate from it (Riencourt, A. , 2007). On condition that India and Pakistan continue antagonistic to each other, Afghanistan is deliberately significant to both. It is very important to Pakistan that it not have unsociable authorities on its east and west boundaries, while from India’s viewpoint, Afghanistan would present excellent strategic moorland to press Pakistan. Reasonably, as well, Afghanistan possesses great assurance. Last year, The U. S. joined Afghanistan and Pakistan mutually in the course of the formation of Reconstruction Opportunity Zones that would get U. S. tax exceptions (â€Å"PAKISTAN†, 2006). Moreover, Afghanistan is a solution to the business ways and energy channels of Central Asia. Therefore, if the U. S. is going to overturn this miserable weakening in Afghanistan, it will require the encouragement of both India and Pakistan. These two big states are supposed to be taught from the past mistakes, combating over Afghanistan is not the way out. The losses are too large.Washington and Kabul have to seek methods to invest both states in aiding to build Afghanistan an accomplishment (â€Å"PAKISTAN†, 2006). Reference: â€Å"Effects on Trends in Trade Policy from 1850-1914. † GradeSaver. Retrieved August 28, 2007 from http://www. gradesaver. com/search Gaddis, John Lewis. The United States and the Origins of the Cold War 1941–1947. Columbia University Press, 1972 House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, Eighth Report, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Session 1999-2000, HC 407, The Stationery Office, 25th July 2000, paragraph 40 Krugman, Paul R. , and Maurice Obstfeld. International Economics: Theory and Policy. Addison-Wesley, 1997 Lipschutz. Ronnie D. â€Å"Seeking a State of Ones Own: An Analytical Framework for Assessing `Ethnic and Sectarian Conflict. † 1998. pp. 44-77, in: Beverly Crawford Ronnie D. Lipschutz (eds. ), The myth of ethnic conflict: politics, economics, and cultural violence (Berkeley: Institute of International Area Studies, UC-Berkeley). at: http://escholarship. cdlib. org/ias/crawford/crawford02. html †PAKISTAN. † 2006. Retrieved August 28, 2007 from http://www. angelfire. com/mac/egmatthews/worldinfo/asia/pakistan. html Rauf, T. â€Å"United States Seeks Pakistans Assistance. † 2001. Retrieved August 28, 2007 from http://cns. miis. edu/research/wtc01/pak. htm â€Å"Resolving the Pakistan-Afghanistan Stalemate. † 2006. Retrieved August 28, 2007 from http://www. usip. org/pubs/specialreports/sr176. pdf Riencourt, A. â€Å"India and Pakistan in the Shadow of Afghanistan. † 2007. Retrieved August 28, 2007 from http://www. foreignaffairs. org/19821201faessay8309/amaury-de-riencourt/india-and-pakistan-in-the-shadow-of-afghanistan. html