Federal Reserve: Good or Bad

When the Federal Reserve was first created it did seem like a very reasonable idea. The idea of having a centralized banking system was to control money circulation and limit the amount of inflation in our economy. In 1913 however, when the Reserve was created, from that day on any privately owned banks loaned money from the Federal Reserve, so although they are private their resources are still coming from the governments own reserves. Today, many people believe that the Federal Reserve is against the idea of a free enterprise system and also a market economy. A market economy has five many points; freedom of choice, the ability to own private property, competition, a system of markets and prices and lastly, limited government interference (Council for Economic Education). Basically, it refines the point that the economy should be left alone and kind of just go with the flow. Many studies show that when the Federal Reserve steps in too much they end up destroying every aspect of their main goals in the first place. In 1929 after the stock market had crashed many had no idea it was due to the Federal Reserve's aggressive and hasty decisions. When everything was going well during the roaring twenties, unemployment was at an all time low, Americans had more money than they knew what to do with and the dollar cold buy the world. This is when the Federal Reserve thought it wold be a good idea to put more money into circulation, thinking it would benefit the already growing economy. Boy were they wrong. The stock market crashed because everyone has spent their money on loans and put the money into the stock market. With the ridiculous amount of shares and trades going on the stock market slowly started to collapse. At first the shares were losing value, causing everyone to trad. When everyone realized what was going on they tried to get rid of their trades but were stuck with them. Later, in 2002, way after the whole incident, a former member or the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, Ben Bernanke exclaimed,"Regarding the Great Depression, … we did it. We’re very sorry. … We won’t do it again.", at Milton Friedman's 90th Birthday Party(Gary Richardson, federalreservehistory.org). So, in conclusion, I believe the Federal Reserve always had their thoughts in the right place, they never tried to do the wrong thing and screw up the economy. But overall they need to realize that you cant predict the economy and you cant predict when where and how consumers will by goods or even invest. There are thousands of possibilities of events that occur in the economy, whether they lead to inflation, deflation, stagflation or hyperinflation; but they cannot be predicted. 

PS: this is me at my 8th birthday party, if that face isn't cute enough to get me out of a final then i don't know what is

Spoils and Merit System g

The spoils and merit system is a huge issue in Americas government system. The spoils system is when someone, usually a government official is given the job because they supported whoever their superior is. Also, after a political party wins an election, that is when officials give jobs to supporters and fans rather than experienced workers. The merit system is the complete opposite, when the political party gives the jobs to he people they know will be able to do a job right, based off of prior job experience. Of course the spoils system is still in works today, although it may not be as obvious. President's now-a-days may know that the people they hire to be their Press Secretary or Vice President will do the job right but in most cases it is usually a close friend of theirs. The spoils system occurred a lot more in the early 20th century when political parties were just beginning to grow and they strived to only have people who supported them and knew they were there for the long run work for them. Citizens now realize that electing a President is based on not who has the most followers but who has the best workers who will get them what they want.

Business Cycles, Depressions and Recessions

Ever since money has been in circulation and the economy has been in full swing, it has been almost impossible for economists to predicts the business cycles of the economy. This is for many reasons, one being the unexpected ups and downs of an economy. These ups and downs usually occur because of bear and bull markets. A bull market is when the economy appears to be growing steadily and is expected to stay that way. During a bull market stock prices rise, currency rates rise, unemployment is low and in result the economy grows because people are more willing to spend money. It is referred to as a "bull" market due to

the way a bull attacks, thrusting its horns in the air, metaphorically referring to how the economy is thrusting upwards as well. A bear market is the opposite; when the economic growth slows and the unemployment rate is high, causing people to be more conscious of how they spend money, which in return hurts the economy. Through out history bull and bear markets have ended in all different sorts of ways. In the late 1920's what started out as a bear market turned into the Great Depression. As the bear market at the time only worsened over time it became obvious that there is no definite way to reverse a declining economy. Going back to how economists cannot predict business cycles, because of the forever changing demand and supply and an unpredictable society, today's economy will never be fully predictable. For this reason recessions, which typically only last two or three quarter business cycles, are hard to stop from becoming depressions because no matter how hard economists try attempting to reverse a recession, trying will only make it worse. Although sometimes trying to fix these recessions may seem like a good idea, the economy may just slip farther into a recession and finally become a depression where not only stocks go down, unemployment rises and money value lessens but also the citizens living status decreases. There lives are less enjoyable, a recession was "when your neighbor loses their job and a depression was when you lost yours."(6 How the Economy Works in the Real World)

Underground Economy

The underground economy or the "shadow economy" is the jobs that, in the governments eyes, are illegal because the workers are being payed under the table. These workers are not paying any types of taxes because their incomes are not reported. On the positive side, the underground economy has circulated, just last year, $2 trillion dollars. This is positive because these people involved In this economy are spending money because of how much they make and putting it towards our regular economy, making it stronger. Although, it also has its downsides. Because of the large among of Americans not paying taxes and being payed under the table, it leaves more taxes to be payed by everyone who is on the books. If these people were to pay taxes , the government would not have to raise taxes, they might even lower them in result. 

Net Neutrality

Net Neutrality is the idea that all Internet service providers send out an equal amount of service to all their customers at all times. For example if Comcast was to send a stronger Internet signal to Netflix and send a lesser amount to Amazon or Hulu. Doing this would take away the competition between the two websites because the website with the weaker Internet signal would be at a disadvantage. Net neutrality says that this should not be allowed because all websites should have an equal chance of success and nigget ahead just by paying more for an upper hand. Consumers like me support net neutrality because although I use Netflix 24/7 and absolutely never use Hulu, I understand it is only fair that all websites remain competitive to maintain fairness. The FCC controls neutrality by having the Internet be a open and fair playing field. They do not make discriminate against any website due to the idea of this fairness. 

Cell Phone Rights

The Riley vs. California brings up a lot of controversial topics and questions on the issue of cell phones being searched with or without a warrant. In my personal opinion I do think it is a good idea that the police cannot search anyone's cellphone without a warrant. I believe it is a violation of the fourth amendment. Although cellphones obviously aren't specified in The Constitution I think of cellphones as being forms of documents, letters, personal files. Just as the Chief Justice says cellphones "just as easily be called cameras, video players, Rolodexes, calendars, tape recorders, libraries, diaries, albums, televisions, maps or newspapers." Just as paper documents and files cannot be searched without a warrant, neither should the messages and photos be searched on your PERSONAL device. In case where searching someone's cell phone can save a life, then a warrant less search may be alright. If it is just to bring a criminal to justice, then the police should either get a warrant or find other evidence to convict a criminal. There is no way of "remote wiping" a cell phone,  as the Court called it. The evidence of a phone can be erased but it also can be recovered by computer analysts. The police can wait in a situation that is not dire to obtain a warrant and search the phone. So overall, I do agree with the Courts ruling to overturn Riley's conviction. 

Head of State

In the movie Head of State starring Chris Rock, Rock's character, Mays Gilliam becomes a politician that no one had expected him to turn out to be. He goes through many phases while running for President. Through ought the movie it is clear that the point is to play with the stereotypes of all politician being ignorant, know it all, kiss ups. It satirizes the idea that politicians will do anything to get ahead. Whether it be the way they run their campaign or the was they present a speech at a constitutional convention. In the movie Mays Gilliam started off his campaigns by just trying to give the people what they want and get them to like him. He acted professional and organized which in no way represented his real personality and intentions. As the movie went on he started to take hold of his power in his own way. He started acting like himself, and being honest with the citizens. The outcome was amazing, everyone liked him as a politician because he was being himself.
Much of this shows through ought the movie right as Mays starts his campaign, it is clear he is not acting himself in front of press or during speech's, he tries to act professional. Later on when he and Baker, his opponent, are closer in the race Mays realizes the only way to win his to be himself. He starts fun campaigns and connects with crowds in his own way, he starts to win over the majority of votes. Lastly, when he wins he remains himself and I'm assuming he keeps the promises he gave to the citizens.