World Economies Article Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

World Economies - Article Example evident increases in purchasing power, global economies have been noted to potentially increase their products to America and other developed nations, which in turn, could further buoyed too much optimism of economic growth. The danger, according to the information, was that other economies could become too complacent and forget the fact that there are still other important economic aspects that need to be addressed. The perception of growth in world economies could apparently drive complacency to a point where more important economic reforms could be forgotten or stalled. One agrees with this assertion given that based on reported experiences on world economies, good news would usually put economic legislators into a momentary status quo since positive growth rates apparently indicate that economic measures have been effective in achieving economic targets. However, it could be deduced that the interconnected nature of world economies should put each economy into assuming a proactive stance at looking beyond current positive patterns and anticipating what these potentials could impact on future economic conditions. In fact, globally, the problem on jobs continue to exist and remain to be a persistent problem that needs to be addressed; despite positive patterns in various economic indicators. "Why optimism may be bad news." 4 January 2014. The Economist. http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21592613-good-news-about-global-growth-risks-pushing-interest-rates-up-and-politicians-appetite-reform. 14 February

The Necessary Being with the Idea of God Research Paper

The Necessary Being with the Idea of God - Research Paper Example The premises of Aquinas’ arguments are actually mostly mere assumptions. Firstly, on the first objection, it would not be valid to assume from God’s infinite goodness that there would be no evil. God’s infinite goodness, after all, may actually mean allowing evil to coexist with the good because God is so good that He allows the existence of everything, even that of evil. Secondly, God’s declaration of Himself in the Book of Exodus is actually a mere statement written by a human author, and so it cannot be taken as the word of God Himself. Thirdly, the statement that all things can be reduced to only one principle – that of human reason – is somehow unproven and is merely considered by Aquinas as an a priori statement. Fourthly, in his proofs of the first mover and the first cause, his a priori idea that the series cannot go on to infinity seems to require proof. It seems that it would be impossible for Aquinas to know exactly why something c annot go on to infinity. After all, numbers can go on to infinity, and numbers are used to count the series of efficient causes. Fifthly, although Aquinas has somehow successfully proven the validity of the first mover, the first cause, and the necessary being, it would seem like an entirely different story to use this as valid proofs of God’s existence. Perhaps, what Aquinas has proven was merely the existence of a first mover, first cause and necessary being but not necessarily the existence of God. God must be loftier than a mover, a cause and a necessary being. More importantly, human reason must not be enough to exactly prove God’s existence, if ever God really existed.

Psychology - Aggression Notes Essay Example for Free

Psychology Aggression Notes Essay Evaluate explanations of institutional aggression (16 marks) Strengths In Irwin and Cressey (1962) study they don’t look at inmates having one value. They look at the subcultures within prison. This shows the nature of the inmates as well as how they were brought up and accept other values. This is also supported by Blomberg Lucken (2000) study on inmates. However you could counter this point by saying its reductionist because it reduces down behaviour to measurable units. Weaknesses Clemmer (1940) or McKorkle and Korn (1954) tend to suggest than inmates imported one holistic criminal subculture into the institution. By taking this holistic approach they are ignoring the biological approach. The importation model fails to provide suggestions for how to manage aggressive prisoners. Suggesting that you can manage prisoners and go against their freewill. Though they may be aggressive it might be because of how they were nurtured. Delisi (2004), it is unethical to give away possible private records. This could be seen as a breach of data protection. This can be linked to Issue and Debates. Especially the ethics and the confidentiality. AO3 – 4 marks – how science works: Methodological issues (internal validity, ecological validity, population validity, reliability) Bias (cultural bias, gender bias) Debates (nature/nurture, free will/determinism, reductionism/holism) Approaches (psychodynamic, cognitive, evolutionary, biological, behavioural) ethics A good psychology essay Be Selective In the exam you will only have 30 minutes per essay so you wont be able to write the same amount you do at home, therefore it is important to make a few points and evaluate them well (possibly by using opposing points) rather than make loads of points and rush the evaluation. You do not have to mention everything in the book in order to get a good mark, its all about quality, so just make sure that if you say something, and it is relevant and well said. Use Evidence If you make a point, it is useful to have evidence from studies/experiments to back it up. You dont have to go crazy with the methodology of these studies (but a little wont hurt) but the most important thing is to state how the research supports/ does not support the theory in question. It may feel like youre stating the obvious, but this is what gains marks. Use Issues and Debates Determinism, Reductionism, Gender Bias (Alpha and Beta), Culture Bias, Socially Sensitive Research/Theory, Reliability and Validity, just to name a few! They arent too difficult to work into your essay, but it is important you explain what each one means and how it relates to the theory in question. You wont gain many marks if you list them without explaining them thoroughly. Be Synoptic This is really important. Could an idea be better explained by another approach? Has research in this area lead to any practical applications? (Such as treatments for psychological disorders) This will show your understanding of psychology in greater detail, and how it is important in real life. Look at the Bigger Picture Does this theory/research raise or lower the reputation of psychology as a science? E.g.: does it rely on scientific testing or is it speculative? Have other studies produced similar findings or do other studies tend to contradict its findings? Dont be completely negative! Make some positive evaluations too, and when you criticise studies, you can always suggest ways in which they could be improved. You are expected to show a holistic view of psychology, and that means appreciating that there are both strengths and weaknesses to studies and theories. Look at your watch Remember; you dont have much time to write your essays in the real exam, so try to stick to 30 minutes per essay. Youll lose more marks by spending too long on one essay and not enough on another, than by writing all essays, but leaving a few points out. When Revising I find writing detailed essay plans helps, including notes on how I would evaluate. These would be far easier to memorise than whole essays, although writing practice essays may be beneficial too as it gets you used to time conditions. If you feel yourself getting stressed, or you are having a mental block, take a break- it is a sign youre working too hard! The best thing for this is to get a drink (definitely keep fluid levels up!) get a little bit of fresh air, and take some time to clear your mind. Even if it feels like your revision isnt getting you anywhere, it will be, so dont panic too much! Reality is a painful thing Its more than likely that you wont be able to remember every minute detail, or remember everything you want to say in the exam, but dont let this worry you too much- just make sure the points you do make are really well explained.

Collectivization and the Peasant Rebellion

Collectivization and the Peasant Rebellion Collectivization and the Peasant Rebellion Collectivization was one of Joseph Stalins policies in addressing the looming decline in food production in the Soviet Union. This policy, implemented from 1928 through 1940, involved the consolidation of farms from individual farmers into collective farms. Because of the collectivization policy, the Soviet Union experienced significant problems as the peasants opposed collectivization and as the government remained adamant in supporting the policy. Support from the Peasantry One of the main benefits of the collectivization policy was that the landless peasants would be able to experience significant improvements in their economic situations, especially when considering that the policy provided for increased involvement of the landless peasants in the farm activities. This was the major aspect of the policy that attracted the peasants to provide support for the establishment of collective farms. Another important consideration is that the collectivization policy was aimed at providing necessary information in order for decision-making at different government levels to be well-grounded. Such information was the main target of the government in controlling the collective farms, with the information being delivered or made accessible to decision-makers in the timeliest manner possible through the centralized structure of the collective farms. This means that the reach/ scope and effectiveness of the centralized collective farms could significantly contribute to the success of the governments efforts in increasing agricultural output. In this regard, it is arguable that one of the advantages of the collective policy was that it made decision-making more attuned to the current conditions of the Soviet Union. However, an important consideration is the structure of the Soviet Union this influenced how economic information on the collective farms could be disseminated among the de cision-makers at the different government levels. For instance, a centralized structure could readily allow for the dissemination of such information through just a singular effort. In the case of a decentralized structure (as was the case of the non-collective farms prior to the implementation of the policy), however, such information would have proven to be difficult to disseminate. This was important to consider, especially amidst the widely implemented combination of centralized and decentralized economic processes within the Soviet Union.[1] The structure of the centralized collective farms would have had to be well-adapted to this (generally) dual nature of the government for it to be utilized fully. From this perspective, if the structure of the centralized collective farms was indeed designed to support such nature, it would have allow decision-makers to be effective at making use of available information. In a decentralized government as in the case of the farms prior to the implementation of the collectivization policy, a properly configured structure would have allowed for the most appropriate way of allocating of resources. In addition, it would have helped decision-makers in assessing options and in implementing control over a variety of processes. The significance of the structure of the centralized collective farms was greater in the overall performance of the economy of the Soviet Union and its centralized operations. Since decentralization meant that many components produced different sets of information and were likely to make decisions based on such varying information sets, having centralized structure such as the structure of the centralized collective farms that comprehensively covered the government and the Soviet Union and its needs would have meant great improvements in making decision making among the different components well-organized and in harmony with each other. Having this done would have meant that the Soviet Union would be able to col1aborate its efforts, in spite of being decentralized. The challenge, however, was that the different components had different information outputs that did not necessarily conform to each other. The system would have had to make major adjustments to such information-processes before actually being able effectively implement the structure of the centralized collective farms. Under decentralization, there were a number of advantages that the peasants and government could use of when implementing the centralized structure of the collective farms. For instance, the costs of developing the centralized structure of the collective farms and implementing it were relatively lower than maintaining decentralized farms that could barely support the food needs of the Soviet Union. This was because of the â€Å"divided† nature of the system individual components of the system did not have to cover the entire Soviet Union, but only had to be connected to the system core Moscow.[2] In addition, the centralized structure of the collective farms in the economic environment of the Soviet Union at the time meant that the system could be customized in such a way that the specific needs of the individual components are addressed in the best possible way. Therefore, through the centralized structure of the collective farms in such a setting, the processes in the di fferent areas were maintained, thereby theoretically allowing for more efficient production. This, in turn, made the system considerably flexible as some areas could be made to function differently from the rest of the Soviet Union. The centralized structure of the collective farms allowed for more effective implementation of Soviet strategies. Theoretically, it also allowed the government to maintain or improve participation of peasants. Moreover, decision-makers in the different areas, even though having access to information regarding other areas, would still have maintained a sense of responsibility, considering that they were made to perform within their own areas in spite of having better access to the system information. Moreover, the centralized structure of the collective farms had the advantage of being theoretically more reliable. This was because of the use of different systems (or sub-systems) in the different areas. When a problem/ failure occurred in one sub-system, t he centralized structure of the collective farms would still remain functional in other sub-systems. The centralized structure of the collective farms also provided for responsiveness among the government offices. It is important to emphasize on the increased motivation/ satisfaction that, theoretically, peasants would have in such a setting peasants were theoretically encouraged to participate in processes and have a heightened sense of responsibility. Also, since the theoretically took into consideration the various needs of the different areas and not just those of the entire Soviet Union as a whole, theoretically, the decision-makers in the different areas would have been able to achieve improvements in their response times. Peasants Discontent and Its Parameters The main discontent of the peasants with the policy was that it took away land from peasants who already had land prior to the policy implementation, and it effectively decreased the income of the peasants in spite of the supposed improvements in the economic situations of the peasants. One of the parameters of the peasants discontent was their freedom to work on their own lands and on lands of their own choosing. The former farm system prior to collectivization is generally associated with democratic societies. This makes sense because the former farm system prior to collectivization required individual freedom and control of resources, properties and means of production. It is arguable that the framework of democracy was the most appropriate for the former farm system prior to collectivization at least at the village level. In contrast, communism and socialism imposed by the collectivization were not typically associated with democracy, especially when considering that communism an d socialism prohibits individual ownership and control of the economys means of production. As a result, the former farm system prior to collectivization could not exist in purely communist or purely socialist economic systems.[3] It is important to note that the former farm system prior to collectivization was characterized by three main aspects: (a) private ownership, (b) individual economic freedom, (c) competition among farming entities. In terms of private ownership, the entire village accepted and accommodated private ownership. This meant that, in such an economy, resources such as land, as well as the means of production and goods and services were privately owned at the village level by individual members of the society, by groups or entities like partnerships or families. In terms of individual economic freedom, the former farm system prior to collectivization allowed individual members of the villages to pursue their own interests to achieve certain economic goals. This meant that in such a situation, the individual peasants were allowed and accommodated to act for personal gains. Considering that individuals were free to go for whichever occupation they desired, the former farm system prior to coll ectivization was frequently referred to as an enterprise system within the socialist Soviet Union.[4] In terns of competition among farming entities, the former farm system prior to collectivization allowed and accommodated individuals and groups to compete against each other. This aspect of the former farm system prior to collectivization was actually an offshoot of individual economic freedom at the village level people competed against each other because of their desire to accomplish their personal economic interests in a system where resources and, thus, economic opportunities were limited. These three aspects were important factors that contributed to the discontent of the peasants and that distinguished the former farm system prior to collectivization from the collective farming villages upon implementation of the policy. In the new collective farm structure, there was no individual economic freedom, no private ownership and no economic competition among individuals or groups of individuals. In such an economy, there was no private ownership. The main positive effects of the former farm system prior to collectivization were as follows. It supported individual freedom. It also allowed for individual control of resources and properties at least at the village level. This prevented the government (or a few individuals) to control economic resources and properties. Overall, the former farm system prior to collectivization was a dominant factor in the Soviet Unions situation during the implementation of the collectivization policy. In contrast, the new structure of the collective farms entailed economic equality. Peasants were compelled to work, with their efforts ideally being pooled together to be distributed equally among the people. In terms of productivity, the people were theoretically encouraged to be more productive. Socialist and communist strategies (agenda) were similar in that they consider the people as the origin of power. However, they also differ in terms of how such power is utilized and maintained, and in terms of how the people have control of such power once it has already been given to the ruler(s). The new structure of the collective farms meant that the landed peasants would lose their properties, that the landless peasants would gain access to farmlands but lose their economic freedom, and that the farming villages would be subjected to the control of Moscow, mainly for the benefit of the densely populated cities of the Soviet Union. The new structure of the collective farms also meant that, with the aim of increasing overall economic efficiency, there was the very realistic risk of the government making reduced payments to the peasants in spite of the peasants increased agricultural output. Uprising Effectiveness, Expectations of Peasants and Overall Outcome The peasant uprising was effective in the sense that it effectively counteracted the collectivization policy. For instance, the Soviet Union as a whole experienced decreased agricultural output because the peasants refused to the work in the farms.[5] This is completely opposite the initial goal of the collectivization policy, which is to increase agricultural output to support the growing demand of the Soviet Union, especially in urban areas where populations were concentrated.[6] One of the main reasons for the effectiveness of the uprising was that the peasants expectations of maintained or increased income were not met by the collective farms. In fact, many of the peasants experienced decreased income because of the collectivization policy.[7] The result of such failures can be observed in the situation of the Soviet Union by the late 1930s. For instance, large-scale collectivization and the reaction of the peasants resulted in major changes in the effectiveness of Soviet Unions institutions especially at the level of the villages. Such collectivization policy did not necessarily have the power or strength to be successful at being effective, in spite of the fact that the policy was supported, theoretically, by the socialist economic system that framed the economic activities of the villages in general.[8] In fact, the results of the collectivization policy indicate that such policy was met with significant opposition, such that support for the collectivization policy was utterly uncommon throughout the Soviet Union in spite of the outright and well-known mandate of the government for the establishment of the collective farms. The opposition exhibited by the peasants in the villages can be considered akin to the Soviet Unions transition into a state where small democratic institutions are accommodated at the village level. Democratic movements have been making some progress at the time, but they are still weak against the large communist government.[9] In addition, perhaps more importantly, the actions of the Soviet Unions government actually resulted in attention being shifted towards the government and its policies and actions.[10] This led to increased criticism of the Soviet Union government and the policies it implemented. However, movements against the communist autocracy were very difficult, in spite of the large scale refusal of the peasants to work in the collective farms. Thus, this implies that the problems experienced by the Soviet Union during the collectivization of the farms were attributable to the Soviet Unions nature of government. Such problems were very complex and difficult to address by way of movements or activities similar/ related to the collectivization.[11] In this regard, the overall outcome of the peasant uprising was the decline of agricultural production of the Soviet Union and the eventual failure of the collectivization policy. It should be noted that the Russian communist government was the principal reason behind the difficulty in addressing problems of autocracy and problems in sustaining the collectivization policy. For instance, in spite of changes in power distribution within the Russian government, the communist central government remained strong and powerful in addressing challenges and oppositions.[12] The Russian communist government actually had not changed much in terms of influence and thus remained the major obstacle to any democratic move or any move that counters the Russian communist governments initiatives and decisions, even at the lowest levels of the villages. Because of this maintenance of power, the central government was able to impose restrictions on the population even when such restrictions were against the desires of the peasantry. For instance, by controlling the farms at the village level, the Russian central communist government believed that it would be more able to control localities and effectively implement reforms for growth, especially in the agriculture and food supply.[13] Because of its power and the lack of strength of opposition, the central government readily and extremely limited the population in spite of changes in the economic conditions throughout the country. Such strength and apparent lack of flexibility undermined the growing problems linked to the peasant uprising. As a result, the inflexibility of the Russian government contributed to the eventual failure of the collectivization policy. Nonetheless, in spite of the power and oppression that the government exerted on the people in the villages, it was actually suffering from unapparent problems in maintaining central control as well as discipline, especially among the communities involved in the collectivized farms.[14] This made Moscow prone to problems in maintaining the system of government throughout the country, which, in turn, made the government unable to properly, completely and effectively enforce the collectivization policy. This also points out that need for Moscow then to examine large-scale and comprehensive reforms and their effects on the economy. An important part of the situation of the Soviet Union during and immediately after the implementation of the collectivization policy was the transformation of the Russian communist government into a major facilitator of the reform.[15] This is important because the Russian government did not properly accommodate the expectations and needs of the peasantry. There was no effective means of establishing a system that checks and balances on all institutions involved in the collectivization policy, such that there were conflicts of interests among the different offices involved in the collectivization policy, as well as between the government and the peasantry in general. The Russian communist government was then already trying to transform itself into an entity that is more understandable and acceptable to the population through the collectivization policy, which undoubtedly attempted to consider the needs of the growing population as well as the needs of the landless peasants.[16] Another principal consideration for Soviet Unions reforms was its legal system at the time of the implementation of the collectivization policy. In the past, the actions that were made in this system were practically determined by the central government. Thus the system was able to deeply enroot itself into the Russian society. The negative things about this characteristic of the government was that, under communist totalitarian government, power was unlimited, party power was permanent, and the leaders power was indivisible.[17] In addition even if the Russian communist government took on a reversal of action, this would not mean any change in the totalitarian power structure. Such inflexibility, as mentioned earlier, contributed to the eventual failure of the collectivization policy. Because of its strong persistence even to the late 1930s and after the failure of the collectivization policy, this central autocracy had to be dealt with if the country was to sustain its economic pace through reforms in the legal system. The historical task that faced Soviet Union was to create a society under the rule of law, in spite of the increased economic lawlessness of the peasants who refused to work in the collective farms. The path to such a society was a legal one, not an illegal one.[18] However, courts were not independent.[19] There still needed to be some big struggles to be faced in order for the system to be changed in favor of economic and socio-political reform for the benefit of the population. This was important because the legal path was an effective method of struggle towards properly addressing the needs of the Soviet Union.[20] It should be noted though that, in spite of apparent stagnancy and decline resulting from the collectivization policy, the Russian legal system has already exhibited significant changes alongside the decline of the economy upon implementation of the collectivization policy.[21] All these emphasize the complexity that the Russian government actually faced in trying to mold the Soviet Union into a growth-conducive society. Regarding the nature of Soviet Unions system of corruption, it is important to note that corruption was built into the fabric of Russian society such that removing it would have resulted in problems at the basic levels of government and public service.[22] Thus, there was a compelling case that essentially establishes that, probably, to some extent, the Soviet Union would have had to continue addressing the need for growth-conduciveness without actually eliminating corruption and peasant opposition comprehensively at such a large-scale. Analysis and Conclusion Regarding the establishment of collective farms in Russian villages, the problems faced by the Russian government was on the autocracy and the delegation of â€Å"power† to the villages through to ensure proper implementation of collectivization.[23] Through collectivization, the village people are deprived of their power and are compelled to give up their properties for the benefit of populations that the government considered fit for allocation of the produce from such properties. By the end of the 1930s, the country already had large scale implementation of collectivization in villages throughout all its territory. However, in spite of the general interest that such an implementation has gained from critics and analysts around the world, the Russian government was actually having problems with the implementation. The principal issues to consider in the implementation of collectivization in the Soviet Union were as follows: (1) whether or not this collectivization policy would influence lawlessness and rebellion exhibited by villages; (2) whether or not the resulting structure of the collective village farms would function as agents for suppressing village resistance to state initiatives or, on the contrary, as supporters of such resistance; (3) whether or not it is possible to establish a peaceful and beneficial coexistence between the Russian Government and the collective farm structures in the villages; and (4) whether or not the people were actually inclined to accept and participate in the collective farms. In effect, there needs to be an examination of such issues, especially in terms of the objectives of the policys implementation and how it was that the resulting collective farm structures in the villages could be established realistically. The problems and results of the collectivization policy were discussed and analyzed, especially from the perspective of the state government as well as the perspective of the peasants. The bases used for such analysis are considerably robust and makes use of earlier literature on Russian sociology and politics. This paper addresses the issues involved in the implementation and failure of the collectivization policy, with Russian socio-politics as the foundation for the analysis. It is concluded that village opposition and freedom in economic activities was difficult to attain, given the state of government (or lack of it) in the villages at the time the collectivization policy was implemented. However, it was not impossible, especially when considering the economic boom that influenced even to a small extent the villages. Overall, the collectivization policy was a failure because it did not consider all of the needs and expectations of the peasants, and because the uprising of the peasants resulted in a decline in agricultural output, which was completely opposite to the agricultural and economic improvement goals of Stalins collectivization policy for the Soviet Union. Bibliography Allilueva, A. 1946. Vospominaniia. Moscow: Apin. Conquest, R. 1989. Stalin and the Kirov Murder. New York: Free Press. Deutscher, I. 1968. Stalin: A Political Biography. London: Sage. Fotieva, L.A. 1964. Lenin. Moscow: Apin. Hingley, R. 1974. Joseph Stalin: Man and Legend. London: Sage. Jonge, A. 1988. Stalin and the Shaping of the Soviet Union. New York: Free Press. Kaminskii, V., Vereshchagin, I. 1939. Detstvo I iunost vozhdia: dokument y, zapiski, rasskazy. Molodaia gvardiia, no. 12, 1939. Khrushchev, N.S. 1989. Stalin. Vospominaniia, 28, 9-15. Krivitsky, W. 1939. In Stalin s Secret Service. London: Sage. Lewin, M. 1968. Lenins Last Struggle. New York: Free Press. Medvedev, R. A. 1969. Let History Judge: The Origins and Consequences of Stalinism. New York: U. Binding. Nicolaevsky, B. 1965. Power and the Soviet Elite. New York: Ann Arbor. Orlov, A. 1953. The Secret History of Stalins Crimes. New York: Free Press. Rayfield, D. 1976. The Dream of Lhasa: The Life of Nikolay Przhevalsky. Athens: Ohio. Slusser, R. M. 1987. Stalin in October. London: Sage. Souvarine, B. 1939. Stalin: A Critical Survey of Bolshevism. New York: Read Books. Triymfi, I.V. 1956. Stalin: Politicheski Portret. Moscow: Apin. Tucker, R. 1974. Stalin as Revolutionary. New York: Free Press. Ulam, A. 1973. Stalin: The Man and His Era. New York: Viking Press. Volkogonov, D. 1973. Stalin. New York: Free press. [1] Kaminskii, V., Vereshchagin, I. 1939. Detstvo I iunost vozhdia: dokument y, zapiski, rasskazy. Molodaia gvardiia, no. 12, 1939. [2] Krivitsky, W. 1939. In Stalin s Secret Service. London: Sage. [3] Souvarine, B. 1939. Stalin: A Critical Survey of Bolshevism. New York: Read Books. [4] Allilueva, A. 1946. Vospominaniia. Moscow: Apin. [5] Orlov, A. 1953. The Secret History of Stalins Crimes. New York: Free Press. [6] Triymfi, I.V. 1956. Stalin: Politicheski Portret. Moscow: Apin. [7] Nicolaevsky, B. 1965. Power and the Soviet Elite. New York: Ann Arbor. [8] Deutscher, I. 1968. Stalin: A Political Biography. London: Sage. [9] Lewin, M. 1968. Lenins Last Struggle. New York: Free Press. [10] Medvedev, R. A. 1969. Let History Judge: The Origins and Consequences of Stalinism. New York: U. Binding. [11] Ulam, A. 1973. Stalin: The Man and His Era. New York: Viking Press. [12] Volkogonov, D. 1973. Stalin. New York: Free press. [13] Hingley, R. 1974. Joseph Stalin: Man and Legend. London: Sage. [14] Tucker, R. 1974. Stalin as Revolutionary. New York: Free Press. [15] Rayfield, D. 1976. The Dream of Lhasa: The Life of Nikolay Przhevalsky. Athens: Ohio. [16] Slusser, R. M. 1987. Stalin in October. London: Sage. [17] Ibid, 37. [18] Jonge, A. 1988. Stalin and the Shaping of the Soviet Union. New York: Free Press. [19] Ibid, 9. [20] Ibid, 36. [21] Conquest, R. 1989. Stalin and the Kirov Murder. New York: Free Press. [22] Ibid 98. [23] Khrushchev, N.S. 1989. Stalin. Vospominaniia, 28, 9-15.

MBA Admissions Essays - The Value of Dynamic Creativity :: MBA College Admissions Essays

MBA Admissions Essays - The Value of Dynamic Creativity    In my junior year of high school I attended an assembly where potential class presidents outlined their positions and ideas for the future. I remember dozing off during the first two speeches, which covered topics such as soda machines and trips to Six Flags Great Adventure. The final individual that spoke did something different. He talked about students in our class. The thing he found special about everyone was that they each possessed character. Having had about seven years to reflect on that speech, I now understand what he meant by character . A person's character can mean different things to different people, but for me, it is qualities that make an individual unique.  Ã‚  Ã‚        The first trait that gives someone character is dynamic creativity. In order to solve complex problems or to complete a difficult task, I feel the ability to come up with fresh ideas is essential. A student who studies for exams and memorizes formulas might not be as well equipped to handle real world problems as someone who is able to put his or her book knowledge to practical use. I believe that the importance of creativity also extends to life choices that people make. In my eyes, someone who spends their summer volunteering at an archeological dig or in a homeless shelter, even though they could have been working for a salary, is making a creative choice. In that sense, I value people who are risk-takers, people who are willing to do something without the guarantee of success. What is also important to me are people who approach situations with an honest and positive attitude. Often, I talk to people who are applying to schools or jobs, and they sincerely want to get accepted or hired, but reservations about their qualifications or ability cloud their thinking. My experience has shown me that successful people do not only want success, but also expect it.      Another piece to the character puzzle is awareness, understanding, and open-mindedness of others. Sometimes, it is difficult to understand why another person believes that way he or she believes, or does what he or she does. When someone does something another might deem illogical, taking into account the individual's circumstances and experiences might lead you to understand why the action occurred. I therefore place a premium on people who take the time and effort to comprehend their fellow man.

A Comparison Of Multi-valued Orientation And Two Valued Orientation :: Comparison and Contrast

A Comparison of Multi-Valued Orientation and Two Valued Orientation Multi-valued orientation and two valued orientation are two completely different thing. THey compare in only one way. This is the fact that they both have values. It could be said that a contrastment of the two would be more useful than a comparison. Two valued orientation is for extremists. Multi-valued orientation is for things to be ranged on a scale. Two values orientation is used for the "absolutes". Instead of having a scale of values, the "absolutes" are used. An example of two valued orientation is temperature. Temperature is measured in degrees. It ranges in whole numbers as well as decimals. Two valued orientation cancels out all the numbers. Instead the "absolute" cold and the "absolute" hot are used. Marxism is a classic example of two valued orientation. It stated that either you were for the communist party or you were against them. Hitler had the same idea. His views were that if you did not support him, then you should not live. So it ended up being supporting him and living or opposing him and dying. Multi-valued orientation is a scale of "in betweens". The extremes are not used. There are definate settings. Using temperature again, let multi-valued orientation show it's use. Hot and cold were used for two valued orientation. Those were the extremes. Instead of using extremes, the actual numbers are used. 74 degrees, 98.6 degrees, and -13 degrees are all examples of the multi-valued orientation. The option to not choose the extremes is open in these

International business management Essay

1. Regional integration Regional integration is a process in which states enter into a regional agreement in order to enhance regional cooperation through regional institutions and rules. The objectives of the agreement could range from economic to political to environmental, although it has typically taken the form of a political economy initiative where commercial interests have been the focus for achieving broader socio political and security objectives, as defined by national governments. Regional integration has been organized either via supranational institutional structures or through intergovernmental decision-making, or a combination of both. Past efforts at regional integration have often focused on removing barriers to free trade in the region, increasing the free movement of people, labour, goods, and capital across national borders, reducing the possibility of regional armed conflict (for example, through Confidence and Security-Building Measures), and adopting cohesive regional stances on policy issues, such as the environment, climate change and migration. 2. Internalization Internationalization is the process of acceptance of a set of norms and value established by people or groups which are influential to the individual through the process of socialization. John Finley Scott (1971) Also it can be defined as a process through which we come to identify parts of our culture as part of ourselves especially to norms and values. 3. Internalization process In international business management describes the process in which the firm gradually becomes involved in international business and enters foreign market whereby the discussions and decisions on development of the domestic market and international market are made. The term international usually refers to either an attitude of the firmtowards foreign activities or to tlie actual carrying out of activities abroad.*Of course there is a ciose relationship between attitudes and actuai behaviour.The attitudes are the basis for decisions to undertake international ventures and the experiences from international activities infiuence these attitudes. In the case descriptions we have to concentrate on those aspects of the internationalization that are easy to observe, that is the international activities. We consider, however, these attitudes as interesting and important and the discussion of the internationalization process is basically an account of the interaction between attitudes and actual behaviour 4. Expand Sales Companies sales are dependent on two factors: the consumers’ interest in their products or services and the consumers’ willingness and ability to buy them. The number of people and the amount of their purchasing power are higher for the world as a whole than for a single country, so companies may increase their sales by reaching international business. Ordinarily, higher sales means higher profits, assuming each unit sold has the same markup. For example, the Star Wars cost millions of dollars to produce, but as more people see the films, the average production cost per viewer decreases. So, increasing the sales will be major motive for a company’s expansion into international business. 5. Acquire Resources Manufacturers and distributors seek out products, services and components produced in foreign countries. They also look for foreign capital, technologies, and information they can use at home. Acquiring resources may enable a company to improve its product quality and differentiate itself from competitors in both cases, potentially increasing market share and profits. Although a company may initially use domestic resources to expand abroad, once the foreign operations are in place, the foreign earnings may the serve as resources for domestic operations. 6. Diversify Sources of Sales and Supplies To minimize swings in sales and profits, companies may seek out foreign markets to take advantage of business cycle recessions and expansions differences among countries. Sales decrease in a country that is in a recession and increase in one that is expanding economically. By obtaining supplies of the same product or component from different countries, companies may be able to avoid the full impact of price swings or shortages in any one country. 7. Minimize Competitive Risk Many companies enter into international business for defensive reasons. They want to counter advantages competitors might gain in foreign markets that, in turn, could hurt them domestically. For example company A and company B compete in the same domestic market. Company. A may fear that Company B will generate large profits from a foreign market if left alone to serve that market. Company B may then use those profits in various ways (such as additional advertising or development of improved products) to improve its competitive position in the domestic market. Companies harboring such a fear may enter foreign markets primarily to prevent a competitor from gaining advantages. 8. Controlling Expenses Every business wants to have low expenses; so some companies will therefore enter the global arena to minimize their costs. Companies will examine the resources they need and where they can get them at the lowest price. By searching outside of their own borders, companies hope to find more economical solutions to the production and manufacturing problems they have. Business might choose to take advantage of lower labor costs, they might move manufacturing plants closer to natural resources, invest in new and more efficient technology, or profit from another countries innovations or tax structures. For example a company that is located in Toronto that gets most of their resources from Japan might want to look into moving the company closer to Japan or they might have to look into finding a new place to get their resources. This is known as outsourcing, meaning that a company will obtain something by contracting it from another source. 9. Diversification In order to diversify a company’s product line they may choose to enter a specific international market. This will apply to both a large scale international business along with a small company. Companies have a foothold in a number of countries so they don’t have to depend on the economy of one country. Companies engaged in international business can protect their investments and their markets by dealing with countries in a variety of countries. A recession in one county won’t have a huge effect if business is doing well in another country. 10. Competitiveness Many companies expand globally for defensive reasons to protect themselves from competitors or potential competitors, or to gain advantage over them. In today’s business environment, even a small business is competing with international businesses. A neighbourhood video store is facing competition from a larger international company such as Blockbuster Video. A local store may have a limited selection because of its small size but it may be able to offer more personal service, a more specialized stock or even lower prices. On the other hand, local businesses may find if difficult to compete with the selection and price that multinational companies can offer. If their businesses are too threatened, they may find wider markets or merge with a larger, possibly international company. International Business Theories Analytical framework of International Business (IB) is built around the activities of MNEs enunciated by the process of internationalization (Kamwesara, 2010p.17). Before emergence of MNEs, Foreign trade and IB were regarded as synonymous and international trade doctrines based on labour cost differentials free trade guided the international transactions among trading partners. Several theories have been formulated which form the basis of international trade and FDI.