Stumper 3 Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Stumper 3 - Assignment Example For example, when a nation is looked by the danger of wars, it urges that the administration buy some military types of gear which thusly initiates the requirement for bonds to settle the uses. Since the open investment funds is one of the significant wellsprings of the loanable supports showcase, its disintegration would cause a negative effect on the assets. At the point when we have government spending outperforming the assessment assortment, it implies there is negligible government investment funds and this prompts decline in assets as it needs to finance what duty can't cover (Mankiw 2011). In any case, when the legislatures discount the loanable supports showcase with noteworthy benefits, it adds to its development. It is obvious from the contextual investigation that capital inflows and capital outpourings are the two pieces of the global capital record. The capital inflow furnishes loanable subsidizes which are traded with budgetary resources (Mankiw 2011). This shows when a nation is experiencing national dept or spending shortages, it benefits the global account whereby it takes into account money related trades. Capital outpouring is a direct inverse of

Obesity Is Not a Personal Problem

Corpulence is anything but a Personal Problem As the weight wave crashes over the United States, more Americans are paying cash based to thrive the $33 billion business diet industry (Spake 283). As American’s belts keep on growing, they inundate themselves in one of the biggest, most shocking customer showcases: the weight reduction industry. Amanda Spake, creator of â€Å"Rethinking Weight†, delivers the inquiry concerning who should take care of the general expense of health improvement plans. Spake challenges that insurance agencies should pay for the costs that fat individuals experience. This, she states, is because of the way that stoutness is an organic â€Å"disease† and it ought to be dealt with and paid for like some other basic disease (283). In this article, Spake doesn't present the significance of physical action, just talking about fruitless eating less junk food encounters and awful hereditary cosmetics. Despite the fact that Spake quickly proposes that practicing is a bit of leeway to the individuals who are hefty, she puts the lone fault for heftiness on the hereditary perspective. From 1986 to 2000, the quantity of individuals who are seriously obeseâ€which is recognized by having a weight list of 40 or moreâ€has quadrupled, from around 1 out of 200 grown-ups to 1 in each 50. This alarming measurement has made more individuals know about this rising event that has cleared over the United States. Heftiness has clinical experts stressing; not exclusively are the quantities of overweight individuals proceeding to rise yet weight-related clinical expenses are taking off. Medicinal services costs for ailments because of corpulence have now surpassed those identified with both smoking and liquor abuse. The heftiness pandemic is a major supporter of soaring human services costs in the United States, incompletely because of the weight-related illnesses that come connected at the hip with corpulence. Infirmities, for example, type II diabetes, coronary illness, hypertension, and elevated cholesterol are firmly associated with weight and a disturbing 80 percent of hefty grown-ups experience the ill effects of one of these hazardous ailments (Spake 283). Many research establishments are presently associating corpulence to a person’s hereditary cosmetics, considering it a natural advancement that an individual can't control. Spake proposes that insurance agencies should take care of the expenses of corpulence as it is a hereditarily and naturally decided malady accordingly the individual doesn't be able to get more fit all alone. Accordingly, specialists propose that remembering the treatment of heftiness for human services plans may carry science and mental stability to the insurgency of weight reduction (Spake 286). Numerous scientists don't recognize stoutness as a sickness in dread that unfortunate get-healthy plans will sometime be viewed as satisfactory treatment and at last commanded to be secured by protection. In spite of the fact that Spake approves her statements by support up her words with solid assessments and measurements, she debilitates her contention by not tending to the significance of physical movement. Maria Pfisterer is a large mother who Spake claims has attempted each weight reduction system possible. Be that as it may, no place does it say that notwithstanding the medications and â€Å"quick-weight reduction fads† Pfisterer had endeavored to incorporate an activity system. She guaranteed that the entirety of the projects she attempted brought about a couple of pounds lost and many more picked up; continually coming back to the equivalent 197 to 202 pound extend. Being overweight is the consequence of a certain something: eating more food than one consumes (Spake 285). No place in the article does Spake recommend that physical action is a viable, sound and economical approach to get in shape, deciding to advance the possibility that weight reduction comes just from extravagant counting calories programs. In her article, Spake claims that hereditary qualities are the sole factor for weight in America. There are numerous different variables referenced in the article that play into someone’s weight including the food they eat, their degree of physical movement, and cultural factors, for example, publicizing. Likewise, Spake cites Arthur Frank, chief of George Washington University’s Weight Management Program, â€Å"So saying to a fat individual who needs to get in shape, ‘All you need to do is eat less,’ resembles saying to an individual experiencing asthma, ‘All you need to do is inhale better’† (284). Heftiness and asthma are two totally different things consequently ought not be analyzed. A person who is overweight can assume responsibility for their weight-gain by assuming increasingly close to home liability and settling on more beneficial decisions. Nonetheless, asthma is a provocative issue that can strike whenever which makes an individual wheeze or heave for air where an individual can't control its belongings. Not every person concurs that stoutness ought to be viewed as an infection, some expressing that the corpulence pestilence can be toppled by people taking increasingly close to home responsibility for their prosperity and selecting to settle on more beneficial way of life decisions (Spake 283). In a frightened endeavor to cause perusers to accept that corpulence ought to be viewed as a sickness and insurance agencies should take care of the expense of the individual’s costs, Spake neglects to give enough proof to help her case. She keeps up that overweight individuals have a hereditary imperfection that makes them be powerless to weight gain. Physical exercise, which is only here and there referenced in Spake’s article, is a significant weight reduction instrument that assists with consuming the additional calories an individual’s body doesn't consume all alone. Spake depicts a deficient contention that refutes her principle reason. Individuals with medical coverage should hope to perceive what is secured and look for more advantageous, more affordable choices to fix the things that are excluded. Notwithstanding what â€Å"Rethinking Weight† proposes, overweight people have an equivalent chance to supplant their current way of life with more beneficial propensities. Works Cited Spake, Amanda. â€Å"Rethinking Wight. † Writing and Reading for ACP Composition. Eds. Thomas E. Leahey and Christine R. Farris. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 2009. 282-88. Print.

Googles Search Monopoly Should Monopolies Be Limited

Google’s Search Monopoly Should Monopolies Be Limited Google is undoubtedly one of the biggest companies of our time. The company’s search engine has become so popular that we don’t look up things on the Internet anymore, we ‘google’ them.The company’s conquest of the digital business world has led some to argue it’s not just an ordinary company anymore, but rather a monopoly. Some regulators are closely scrutinizing the company to ensure it isn’t violating competition. © Shutterstock.com | tubartstockBut what are monopolies and is Google a digital monopoly? If so, should regulators try to find a way to limit them? This guide will look at all of these questions. Hopefully you’ll get a better understanding whether we should be worried about Google’s dominance in the digital world and why it might not be one of the world’s most invincible companies.WHAT IS A MONOPOLY?Before we look into the evidence of Google as a monopoly, it is important to understand what a monopoly is. The word is often used in the media, but not always in its proper meaning and many companies accused of being monopolies don’t necessary fall under the strict definition.In its essence a monopoly is a situation in which only a single company or a group has the ownership of nearly all or all of the market for the given product or service. Therefore, a monopoly is a situation where competition is absent.In a strict academic sense, this extreme case of capitalism is characteri sed as a market containing a single operator. Such situation often results in increased prices and even inferior products, as the group has no competition in the market.Because of this, monopolies are tightly controlled in the modern world and therefore the strict definition of monopoly is not often present in the modern world. In many countries, there might be specific industries where there is a state-owned monopoly, but overall, most government’s are against the rise of a monopoly. If a single company would control the market, the group is likely forced to divest its assets through antimonopoly regulation.What is a digital monopoly?Google is often referred to as a digital monopoly instead of just a monopoly. But what is a digital monopoly? At its core, the definition is the same as above, but it only refers to market position in the digital market, especially on the Internet. Digital monopoly is the concept of digital forms of media replacing all the other forms of media. Since digital media has different transparency issues and more advanced modalities, a company in digital media has a higher likelihood of controlling and dominating information and entertainment.Few examples of monopoliesMonopoly as a concept is relatively new in the field of history of business. The study of monopoly kick-started around a hundred years ago, when academics began to wonder if monopolies are good or bad for business and for the consumer.As mentioned above, it isn’t easy to find a true monopoly in the modern world, as many governments are strictly against them. This doesn’t mean that monopolies, to some extent, wouldn’t exist. Furthermore, there have been plenty of famous examples of monopolies in the past.One of the most cited examples is the US company, Standard Oil. The company, founded by John D. Rockefeller, controlled around 88% of the refined oil flows in the US and nearly 91% of oil production.Other examples include:S. SteelAmerican Telephone and TelegraphChec k out the YouTube video for an interesting look at some surprising monopolies: IS GOOGLE A ‘GOOD’ OR A ‘BAD’ MONOPOLY? AND SHOULD THEY BE LIMITED?So what about Google? Is the famous search engine a monopoly or not? In the case of Google, opponents and proponents of the company often don’t simply argue whether the company is a monopoly, but rather whether it is a ‘good’ or a ‘bad monopoly.First, it is important to understand why Google is considered a monopoly in the first place. Whether or not people agree with Google’s position as a good or a bad monopoly, its position as a market leader is undoubtedly true.When it comes to Google’s position in the digital world, the following stats support the argument that Google is, for good or for bad, a digital monopoly:It currently owns around 67% of the global search marketIts share of the US mobile organic search market sits at 89%Around 187 million unique visitors visit Google sites each monthThe case for a good monopol yAlthough Google itself has never claimed to be a monopoly, some experts don’t think being a monopoly is necessarily a dirty word. In fact, some people argue Google is in fact a monopoly and this is a good thing, not just for Google but also for its consumer.The argument is that Google’s position as a market leader doesn’t necessarily mean it wouldn’t be improving or developing. Indeed the argument goes that Google’s position is what allows it to focus more freely in building a stronger business and better product and service for customers.In a highly competitive field, companies don’t have much chance to focus on anything other than making money. But when you are in a position such as Google where money isn’t on your mind, you are freer to focus on the long-term future of the business.Furthermore, the argument is that a monopoly in today’s world means the product or service on offer is simply superior to others. Google’s monopoly became to be simply because its pr oduct and service is so much better than others in the field. Its market position was born naturally not through a government subsidy or forced market control, for example.Should Google’s monopoly position be discouraged? The people who argue Google’s position is positive think the current situation is not just good but a desired position for a company. Because the above highlights the positive aspects of a monopoly and because digital monopolies can be beaten by a superior competition, there’s nothing wrong for Google being a digital monopoly.The case for a bad monopolyBut of course there are always two sides to a story. Google’s unrivalled market position is seen by many asa negative and it’s accused of taking advantage of the situation for business gain. While the company might not have achieved its market status through illegal means, some people claim it’s using its position in a monopolistic manner.The bad monopoly argument is often based on the fact that since Goo gle’s search engine is so widely used and since it has the power to decide what companies come up in search engines at the top, it can promote its own products and services freely. Therefore, it doesn’t support free competition, as it can control who gets the views.Google’s market monopoly is almost considered as a self-perpetuating. Since it has such a big market monopoly and people use its services for many different aspects (e-mail, search engine, calendar, documents), small businesses have no choice but to advertise on its platforms.Therefore, critics argue that Google’s position should be limited and it shouldn’t be able to promote its own services or affiliates as freely as it does.THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT GOES AFTER GOOGLEPerhaps the most critical approach to Google’s position has been the European Parliament’s quest to limit its market control. The company, which controls over 90% of searches in many European countries, has faced a number of legal challenges fro m the European Parliament in recent years.The European Union is known for its criticism of antitrust probes â€" it challenged Microsoft’s position as a market leader a few years ago. It has since turned its attention towards Google and criticized the search giant for abusing its market position. EU has accused the company for its anticompetitive practices, claiming the company promotes its own services over those of its rivals. The European Parliament has called the company to unbundle its activities and voted in 2014 for a motion that would ask the company to break into smaller operators. The EU’s European Commission is currently investigating the company over alleged violations of anti-trust laws.Furthermore, the European Parliament has attacked the company for its data protection practices. The EU is hoping to create a unified data protection act across Europe and one that would also see foreign companies abiding by the laws as well. Google was forced to implement the EU’s right to be forgotten’ ruling. Under this rule, people can ask Google to remove certain ‘out-dated’ or ‘irrelevant’ information of themselves from the search engine.European Union’s final verdict on Google is still waiting for the investigation to finish. So far, the search engine giant has battled against the EU’s claims, but it remains to be seen whether the company is forced to restructure its business or change its approach in the coming months.While there are many who have welcomed the EU’s decision to go after Google’s monopoly position, the US government has sometimes accused the EU for looking after its own interests. Nonetheless, the US Federal Trade Commission did look at antitrust complaints against Google earlier, but decided not to pursue stronger action.THE DANGERS OF A DIGITAL MONOPOLYBut should digital monopolies be limited? Are there any dangers associated to companies such as Google having such a big market share? The following are some of the dan gers of a digital monopoly and the reasons why regulators are right to keep an eye on market position.Problems over the ownership of dataMany experts, who argue against digital monopolies, aren’t necessarily concerned about the market positions per se or their influence on the competition, but the ownership issues over data. Companies such as Google are able to collect a vast amount of data from their users through the different operations and use this data in order to stay ahead of other businesses.Furthermore, many argue the company hasn’t always acquired this data through appropriate measures. For example, Google has been accused of using exclusive deals in order to attract new customers and that some of its services collect data without its customers’ proper knowledge.Data collection and ownership makes the situation tricky, as it hasn’t been considered a competitive advantage in the monopoly regulations.Control over the data customers seeThe other issue with digital mon opolies such as Google is the power they have on controlling the data available for customers. When you are searching for flights through Google’s search engine, the answers you receive are not simply random. Google with its affiliates decides the flights and routes you are offered.While Google argues the information is for the benefit of the customer, i.e. it’s the cheapest routes, it still doesn’t necessarily provide enough information for the customers on how this happens. Customers do for the most part enjoy the benefits of Google’s powerful algorithms, but how the company uses them is not always clear.Furthermore, companies who want to be recognized by Google’s search engine need to convince Google first and not the consumer. Some have argued this puts companies into competition over Google’s attention, not necessarily over the customers.Distorting competitionBoth of the above points could lead to the final danger of digital monopolies: distorting competition. Free competition is considered the best way to guarantee consumers enjoy a good product and service. But if companies are looking for Google instead of the customer, is the competition free?The digital revolution has also introduced the issue of vertically integrated ecosystems, where different tech companies work together against other players. This could limit consumer choice quite drastically and make it hard for different companies to compete with their direct competition.Different smartphone apps are a great example of this distorted competition. Developers of apps often have to choose which vertically integrated ecosystem they join (Apple’s iOS, Google’s Android or Microsoft) and depending on the customer choice, the customer’s option of apps could be strictly limited. Furthermore, different mobile carriers now offer certain phone deals exclusively, again creating very limited ecosystems for consumers.THE REASONS GOOGLE ISN’T NECESSARILY INVINCIBLEDigital monopolies can be harmful for the consumer as well as for healthy competition amongst businesses. Because of the dangers mentioned above, it is a good idea for governments to keep an eye on digital monopolies and companies that control much of the digital market.But is Google’s market position as powerful as some of its opponents argue? Is there evidence to suggest Google might not be as invincible as some would think?While Google could be seen to benefit and somewhat distort the competition through its search engine and other service, the company surely also has provided many benefits for its customers. Advertisers do need to pay for Google, but on the other hand, consumers are able to use Google’s products free of charge. People are also free to switch between search engines, yet most continue to find Google’s products and services the most accurate and time-saving.Furthermore, the era of digital business hasn’t limited competition, but, as many argue, made it riper. The barriers of entry a ren’t as hard for many businesses and some of Google’s own products are often preferred by small businesses as important part of getting started.Overall, the entry barriers in the digital world are much lower than the ones for offline companies. You can set up an online service quite easily from the comfort of your own home, whereas creating a new clothing company won’t be quite as simple.This increased competition also makes it harder for digital monopolies to last. While it is hard to see Google withering away from the digital world, it isn’t to say it couldn’t happen. Consider the example of Google’s dominant social network Orkut, for example. The platform was hugely popular, but was swallowed by Facebook. Now Facebook is under threat by a wave of different social messaging apps such as WhatsApp.The evidence shows how big technology companies have struggled to maintain a strong market position for longer periods. IMB and Microsoft both lost their market dominance in p ersonal computing and Google itself is struggling with the rise of the smartphones, as developers are creating successful substitutes for Android.In order to survive in the digital world companies need to stay on top of the market and reinvent themselves. Microsoft, for example, got behind because it didn’t continue to innovate but relied on its market dominance. If Google wants to be on top in the next few decades, it will need to continue to create new services. This will only be beneficial for the customers as well as competition.FINAL THOUGHTSGoogle’s market position is unrivalled and it enjoys a clear market advantage over its competitors. At the same time, there are real dangers attached to digital monopolies and it is crucial regulators keep a close eye on digital companies such as Google. Monopolies of the digital world will need to be treated slightly differently and regulators must start focusing on areas such as data ownership instead of simply focusing on competition .Nevertheless, Google’s prominence hasn’t always been simply bad, especially for the consumer. The era of digital business has also increased and improved competition, making it harder for companies such as Google to overlook competitors and take advantage of consumers. While it is important monopolies continue to be controlled and limited, Google isn’t necessarily as abusive of its power as some might argue.