#or he likes to generally intervene into people's business and tackling is the most efficient way for a huge guy like him to do that | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

meditationsfromthethirdrail · 4 years ago

Text

Polarization

There is a widespread perception that the U.S. has become as polarized, politically, as it has ever been. A careful consideration of America history suggests that’s not actually true, but I understand the sentiment and I often feel it myself. Being retired provides me with an inordinate amount of time to ponder this problem and to try to make sense of it. It’s become something of an obsession.

I like to mix it up a bit in social media - primarily Facebook - with persons opining on various social ills and political agendas and especially those blindly sharing fact-challenged propaganda, both from the left and right. I’ve stayed away from Twitter, which by design strictly prohibits posts from being long enough to contain meaningful reasoning. I like to save Instagram for pretty photos of flowers and birds and vacations. But Facebook seems a reasonable forum with enough content flexibility to present ideas with some depth to them. Social problems are inherently complex and nuanced, as evidenced by the fact that most of those problems have persisted, in one form or another, throughout human history. Individually and collectively we often find ourselves in situations where there is no perfect, right answer or solution - certainly not one that can be summarized in a tweet.

Our response to dealing with COVID-19 is a good example. There are enormous difficulties, economic and otherwise, with isolating ourselves from one another, and another set of bad outcomes resulting from not doing that. The tendency, it seems, judging by most of the dialogue we see in social media (and most other media) posts and comments, is for people to take ideological positions, cherry-pick supporting facts (or worse, supporting falsehoods), and promote extreme positions. By “extreme” I mean positions that ignore the truths that are quite often inherent in opposing positions. Again using the debate over proper responses to the COVID-19 pandemic as an example, most people who originate or share political posts on Facebook seem either to be solidly of the opinion that isolation, shut-downs, masks, etc. are good policy, or they’re of the view that all those measures are counterproductive or even unAmerican.

Most people instinctively understand that neither of those views is exclusively correct, but people who are in the middle tend not to weigh in as often, perhaps because their confusion about the solution makes them feel that they don’t have anything meaningful to say. I think those voices should be heard much more often than they are. I feel like I have one of those voices, and that’s why I feel a responsibility to try to make myself heard.

Following is my approach to analyzing sociopolitical issues - that is, issues that can be addressed, at least in part, through government action or some other form of collective action by citizens working towards a common goal. First, I try to understand whether and how the issue can or should be addressed by the government. That question is itself a polarizing one. Conservative ideology contains mistrust of government, especially Federal government, whereas liberal ideology contains high expectations that the government should intervene to address most social ills. Neither of those views is inherently correct. One of the the biggest challenges politicians face, when they’re focused on “doing the right thing” and not just getting elected, is deciding what the best role of government ought to be in tackling specific issues. It should be obvious that the government is not the right institution to deal with some issues (the establishment of religion, for example) but it is the right institution to deal with some other issues (the defense of the nation against an outside military force, for example).

When I attempt to discern the proper role of the government, I avoid starting with the ideological answer. Instead I try to look at it pragmatically. Why is (or is not) the government equipped to deal with the particular issue in question? Can government be effective? Can government be efficient? How will government fund its involvement? What other institutions can or should be involved? What’s the ultimate cost to society, economically and otherwise, to having the government more or less involved? The calculus involved to answer these questions is exceedingly complex; nevertheless that’s what politicians ought to spend their time debating, and their debate should always begin with a careful gathering and consideration of relevant facts, dismissing ideology in favor of rationality and consultation with experts to the fullest extent possible.

One time when I still had an active professional career, I was in Utah to give a presentation to the board of directors of a financial institution. One of the directors was a former U.S. senator from the state, and I happened to be seated next to him when the board convened for lunch. When he learned I resided in Pennsylvania, he asked me what I thought about the reelection chances for a well-known senator from my state who had recently switched his party affiliation. That led to a discussion about certain economic policies, during which the senator delivered the low-tax mantra familiar to anyone who has ever listened to a Republican politician for more than a few minutes. My response to him was that I had never understood why the White House, Congress and the Senate didn’t decide about the appropriate level of income taxes by first deciding a) how much does it cost the government to do the things that everyone agrees it needs to do, and b) what else is the government better equipped to do than is any other institution or group of individuals or companies, and how much does that cost? The answers to those questions, I opined, would inform the government about how much revenue it needs to raise. Cart before horse, as it were. I thought the senator would have a ready answer but he seemed not to have ever thought about it that way. Probably, I surmised, because he was more of an ideologue than a pragmatist. Reducing taxes is Republican dogma if anything is.

Let’s return to the issue of the proper size and scope of government, which is a major bone of contention between conservatives and liberals. I can think of numerous Republican friends whose belief that big government is wasteful, inefficient and disrespectful of individual liberty is perhaps the main driving force (among the forces that involve reason and not just culture, tradition and emotion) behind their party affiliation. A strong preference for low taxes is a closely correlated issue. I think it’s safe to say that almost everyone distrusts the government about some things if not many things. Liberals also believe that big government is a problem, just in different ways - for example, too much spending on the military. That’s a whole other issue in its own right and I don’t want to veer into a tangent here, but the point is that everyone wants limited government, and our Constitution is clearly designed to handcuff government overreach. Where should the lines be drawn, to the extent they aren’t clearly spelled out in the Constitution, as potentially amended?

First I want to say to my liberal friends, it is true that the government is often wasteful and inefficient, and not just in the area of military spending. Who hasn’t complained about long lines or call waiting times at government agencies? Who hasn’t been affected by some kind of government error or bureaucratic hassle? Who hasn’t heard tales of certain government employees and contractors being underworked and (seemingly) overpaid? When my father died and my mother required constant care because she was disabled by Alzheimer’s disease, I spent many, many hours dealing with the Veterans Administration to obtain certain benefits for her, so I know first-hand what a nightmare that can be. Because we experience these things, it’s easy for us to conclude that government is bad, or at best a necessary evil.

But I ask my conservative friends who are particularly inclined to seize on the flaws of government as a reason to dislike government generally, are the alternatives to government necessarily better? Many conservatives and libertarians contend that government ought to be run like a business. Indeed, I used to be a big proponent of that theory. Certainly if government were run like a business, it would be more likely to cut dead weight and strive for cost-effective delivery of services, because that’s how it would survive, fiscally. At some point in mid-life, I heard someone whom I respected say flatly that the role of government is not that of a business. I thought about that and realized my friend was correct.

A business operates not just to provide goods and services to its customers, but foremost to earn money for its owners and managers. That’s the basis of capitalist ideology (more about that in a later blog). The government operates (or should operate) in the interests of its citizens - all of them, or as many as possible. There is no profit motive. If social security, for example, were run as a business, the inevitable result would be that a relatively small group of people would take a sizeable chunk of our FICA taxes for themselves, and everyone else would either receive lower payments or they would pay higher taxes for the same benefits. That’s basically what insurance companies that sell annuities do - they take their cut first. I’m not being critical of insurance companies - annuities have a proper role in the personal finances of many people. But annuities are not affordable for many. The fact that our health care system is operated for profit to a much greater degree than are the health care systems of substantially all other developed nations is a primary reason why U.S. per capita health care costs are so much higher than those of substantially all other developed nations - about double the average, in fact. Again, health care is another polarizing issue, and properly the subject of a separate discussion.

Briefly, another example: let’s say a private enterprise, such as a mining company, turns an area of land into a toxic waste dump affecting water and air quality in the area. One necessary role of government, I would argue, is to prevent that from happening, but it does happen, primarily because of corruption, even if the corruption isn’t always obvious. There is usually no profit motive for anyone to clean up the toxic land and quite often the offending enterprise has conveniently gone out of business. So either the government steps in to repair the damage or we live with the negative consequences.

My point here is that although government has certain flaws, it’s the only prominent, powerful institution that’s designed to provide for the welfare of the people as a whole rather than just those who will profit from running it. Corruption (again, a separate subject for another discussion) is the rot inside government that facilitates the generation of profit for a few at the expense of everyone else, and that’s why it’s extremely important that corruption be rooted out at every possible turn. In a democracy, the act of voting for candidates who demonstrate disdain rather than tolerance for corruption is a critical function of voters. Beyond that, as I said before, we should task our politicians to debate the circumstances and conditions under which government is the best source to provide services to citizens that private enterprise will not or can not. Based on the consensus our elected officials reach, we should be prepared to pay taxes to fund what has been deemed necessary or healthy for the citizenry as a whole.

I believe in having as small and unobtrusive of a government as we can, so I guess that makes me a conservative. I also believe in having a government that provides necessary and appropriate services for the benefit of all citizens, to the extent possible, which I suppose makes me a liberal. The fact is that these labels just muddy the water and cause us to gravitate to extremes. We need to focus on uncovering the best ways to get things done for the benefit of all the people while providing ample incentive and reward to those who make the greatest sacrifices and contributions to getting them done. Those goals are not mutually exclusive - not at all. Indeed, balancing those goals, and the roles of government, private enterprise and charitable organizations in achieving those goals, is the ultimate challenge for those who make the laws of the land.

#polarizationpoliticsconservatismliberalismroleofgovernment

1 note · View note

readersforum · 6 years ago

Text

Competition policy must change to help startups fight ‘winner takes all’ platforms, says UK report

New Post has been published on http://www.readersforum.tk/competition-policy-must-change-to-help-startups-fight-winner-takes-all-platforms-says-uk-report/

Competition policy must change to help startups fight ‘winner takes all’ platforms, says UK report

A independent report commissioned by the UK government to examine how competition policy needs to adapt itself for the digital age has concluded that tech giants don’t face adequate competition and the law needs updating to address what it dubs the “novel” challenges of ‘winner takes all’ platforms.

The panel also recommends more policy interventions to actively support startups, including a code of conduct for “the most significant digital platforms”; and measures to foster data portability, open standards and interoperability to help generate competitive momentum for rival innovations.

UK chancellor Philip Hammond announced the competition market review last summer, saying the government was committed to asking “the big questions about how we ensure these new digital markets work for everyone”.

The culmination of the review — a 150-page report, published today, entitled Unlocking digital competition — is the work of the government’s digital competition expert panel which is chaired by former U.S. president Barack Obama’s chief economic advisor, professor Jason Furman.

“The digital sector has created substantial benefits but these have come at the cost of increasing dominance of a few companies which is limiting competition and consumer choice and innovation. Some say this is inevitable or even desirable. I think the UK can do better,” Furman said today in a statement.

In the report the panel writes that it believes competition policy should be “given the tools to tackle new challenges, not radically shifted away from its established basis”.

“In particular, policy should remain based on careful weighing of economic evidence and models,” they suggest, arguing also that “consumer welfare” remains the “appropriate perspective to motivate competition policy” — and rejecting the idea that a completely new approach is needed.

But, crucially, their view of consumer welfare is a broad church, not a narrow price trench — with the report asserting that a consumer welfare basis to competition law is able to also take account of other things, including (but also not limited to) “choice, quality and innovation”.

Furman said the panel, which was established in September 2018, has outlined “a balanced proposal to give people more control over their data, give small businesses more of a chance to enter and thrive, and create more predictability for the large digital companies”.

“These recommendations will deliver an economic boost driven by UK tech start-ups and innovation that will give consumers greater choice and protection,” he argues.

Commenting on the report’s publication, Hammond said: “Competition is fundamental to ensuring the market works in the interest of consumers, but we know some tech giants are still accumulating too much power, preventing smaller businesses from entering the market,” adding that: “The work of Jason Furman and the expert panel is invaluable in ensuring we’re at the forefront of delivering a competitive digital marketplace.”

The chancellor said that the government will “carefully examine” the proposals and respond later this year — with a plan for implementing changes he said are necessary “to ensure our digital markets are competitive and consumers get the level of choice they deserve”.

Pro-startup regulation required

The panel rejects the view — mostly loudly propounded by tech giants and their lobbying vehicles — that competition is thriving online, ergo no competition policy changes are needed.

It also rejects the argument that digital platforms are “natural monopolies” and competition is impossible — dismissing the idea of imposing utility-like regulation, such as in the energy sector.

Instead, the panel writes that it sees “greater competition among digital platforms as not only necessary but also possible — provided the right policies are in place”. The biggest “missing set of policies” are ones that would “actively help foster competition”, it argues in the report’s introduction.

“Instead of just relying on traditional competition tools, the UK should take a forward-looking approach that creates and enforces a clear set of rules to limit anti-competitive actions by the most significant digital platforms while also reducing structural barriers that currently hinder effective competition,” the panel goes on to say, calling for new rules to tackle ‘winner take all’ tech platforms that are based on “generally agreed principles and developed into more specific codes of conduct with the participation of a wide range of stakeholders”.

Coupled with active policy efforts to support startups and scale-ups — by making it easier for consumers to move their data across digital services; pushing for systems to be built around open standards; and for data held by tech giants to be made available for competitors — the suggested reforms would support a system that’s “more flexible, predictable and timely” than the current regime, they assert.

Among the panel’s specific recommendations are a call to set up a new competition unit with expertise in technology, economics and behavioural science, plus the legal powers to back it up.

The panel envisages this unit focusing on giving users more control over their data — to foster platform switching — as well as developing a code of competitive conduct that would apply to the largest platforms. “This would be applied only to particularly powerful companies, those deemed to have ‘strategic market status’, in order to avoid creating new burdens or barriers for smaller firms,” they write.

Another recommendation is to beef up regulators’ existing powers for tackling illegal anti-competitive practices — to make it quicker and simpler to prosecute breaches, with the report highlighting bullying tactics by market leaders as a current problem.

“There is nothing inherently wrong about being a large company or a monopoly and, in fact, in many cases this may reflect efficiencies and benefits for consumers or businesses. But dominant companies have a particular responsibility not to abuse their position by unfairly protecting, extending or exploiting it,” they write. “Existing antitrust enforcement, however, can often be slow, cumbersome, and unpredictable. This can be especially problematic in the fast-moving digital sector.

“That is why we are recommending changes that would enable more use of interim measures to prevent damage to competition while a case is ongoing, and adjusting appeal standards to balance protecting parties’ interests with the need for the competition authority to have usable tools and an appropriate margin of judgement. The goal is to place less reliance on large fines and drawn-out procedures, instead enabling faster action that more directly targets and remedies the problematic behavior.”

The expert panel also says changes to merger rules are required to enable the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) to intervene to stop digital mergers that are likely to damage future competition, innovation and consumer choice — saying current decisions are too focused on short-term impacts.

“Over the last 10 years the 5 largest firms have made over 400 acquisitions globally. None has been blocked and very few have had conditions attached to approval, in the UK or elsewhere, or even been scrutinised by competition authorities,” they note.

More priority should be given to reviewing the potential implications of digital mergers, in their view.

Decisions on whether to approve mergers, by the CMA and other authorities, have often focused on short-term impacts. In dynamic digital markets, long-run effects are key to whether a merger will harm competition and consumers. Could the company that is being bought grow into a competitor to the platform? Is the source of its value an innovation that, under alternative ownership, could make the market less concentrated? Is it being bought for access to consumer data that will make the platform harder to challenge? In principle, all of these questions can inform merger decisions within the current, mainstream framework for competition, centred on consumer welfare. There is no need to shift away from this, or implement a blanket presumption against digital mergers, many of which may benefit consumers. Instead, these issues need to be considered more consistently and effectively in practice.

In part the CMA can achieve this through giving a higher priority to merger decisions in digital markets. These cases can be complex, but they affect markets that are critically important to consumers, providing services that shape the digital economy.

In another recommendation which targets the Google –Facebook adtech duopoly, the report also calls for the CMA to launch a formal market study into the digital advertising market — which it notes suffers from a lack of transparency.

The panel also notes similar concerns raised by other recent reviews.

Digital advertising is increasingly driven by the use of consumers’ personal data for targeting. This in turn drives the competitive advantage for platforms able to learn more about more users’ identity, location and preferences. The market operates through a complex chain of advertising technology layers, where subsidiaries of the major platforms compete on opaque terms with third party businesses. This report joins the Cairncross Review and Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee in calling for the CMA to use its investigatory capabilities and powers to examine whether actors in these markets are operating appropriately to deliver effective competition and consumer benefit.

The report also calls for new powers to force the largest tech companies to open up to smaller firms by providing access to key data sets, albeit without infringing on individual privacy — citing Open Banking as a “notable” data mobility model that’s up and running.

“Open Banking provides an instructive example of how policy intervention can overcome technical and co-ordination challenges and misaligned incentives by creating an adequately funded body with the teeth to drive development and implementation by the nine largest financial institutions,” it suggests.

The panel urges the UK to engage internationally on the issue of digital regulation, writing that: “Many countries are considering policy changes in this area. The United Kingdom has the opportunity to lead by example, by helping to stimulate a global discussion that is based on the shared premise that competition is beneficial, competition is possible, but that we need to update our policies to protect and expand this competition for the sake of consumers and vibrant, dynamic economies.”

And in just one current example of the considerable chatter now going on around tech + competition, a House of Lords committee this week also recommended public interest tests for proposed tech mergers, and suggested an overarching digital regulator is needed to help plug legislative gaps and work through regulatory overlap.

Discussing the pros and cons of concentration in digital markets, the expert competition panel notes the efficiency and convenience that this dynamic can offer consumers and businesses, as well as potential gains via product innovation.

However the panel also points to what it says can be “substantial downsides” from digital market concentration, including erosion of consumer privacy; barriers to entry and scale for startups; and blocks to wider innovation, which it asserts can “outweigh any static benefits” — writing:

It can raise effective prices for consumers, reduce choice, or impact quality. Even when consumers do not have to pay anything for the service, it might have been that with more competition consumers would have given up less in terms of privacy or might even have been paid for their data. It can be harder for new companies to enter or scale up. Most concerning, it could impede innovation as larger companies have less to fear from new entrants and new entrants have a harder time bringing their products to market — creating a trade-off where the potential dynamic costs of concentration outweigh any static benefits.

The panel takes a clear view that “competition for the market cannot be counted on, by itself, to solve the problems associated with market tipping and ‘winner-takes-most’” — arguing that past regulatory interventions have helped shift market conditions, i.e. by facilitating the technology changes that created new markets and companies which led to dominant tech giants of old being unseated.

So, in other words, the panel believes government action can unlock market disruption — hence the report’s title — and that it’s too simplistic a narrative to claim technological change alone will reset markets.

For example, IBM’s dominance of hardware in the 1960s and early 1970s was rendered less important by the emergence of the PC and software. Microsoft’s dominance of operating systems and browsers gave way to a shift to the internet and an expansion of choice. But these changes were facilitated, in part, by government policy — in particular antitrust cases against these companies, without which the changes may never have happened.

The panel also argues there’s an acceleration of market dominance in the modern digital economy that makes it even more necessary for governments to respond, writing that “network effects and returns to scale of data appear to be even more entrenched and the market seems to have stabilised quickly compared to the much larger degree of churn in the early days of the World Wide Web”.

They also point to the risk of AI and machine learning technology leading to further market concentration, warning that “the companies most able to take advantage of [the next technological revolution] may well be the existing large companies because of the importance of data for the successful use of these tools”.

And while they suggest AI startups might offer a route to a competitive reset, via a substantial technology shift, there’s still currently no relief to be had from entrepreneurial efforts because of “the degree that entrants are acquired by the largest companies – with little or no scrutiny”.

Discussing other difficulties related to regulating big tech, the panel warns of the risk of regulators being “captured by the companies they are regulating”; as well as point out they are generally at a disadvantage vs the high tech innovators they are seeking to rule.

In a concluding chapter considering the possible impacts of their policy recommendations, the panel argues that successful execution of their approach could help foster startup innovation across a range of sectors and services.

“Across digital markets, implementing the recommendations will enable more new companies to turn innovative ideas into great new services and profitable businesses,” they suggest. “Some will continue to be acquired by large platforms, where that is the best route to bring new technology to a large group of users. Others will grow and operate alongside the large platforms. Digital services will be more diverse, more dynamic, with more specialisation and choice available for consumers wanting it. This could drive a flourishing of investment in these UK businesses.”

Citing some “potential examples” of services that could evolve in this more supportively competitive environment they suggest social content aggregators might arise that “bring together the best material from people’s friends across different platforms and sites”; “privacy services could give consumers a single simple place to manage the information they share across different platforms”; and also envisage independent ad tech businesses and changed market dynamics that can “rebalance the share of advertising revenue back towards publishers”.

The main envisaged benefits for consumers boil down to greater service and feature choice; enhanced privacy and transparency; and genuine control over the services they use and how they want to use them.

While for startups and scale-ups the panel sees open standards and access to data — and indeed effective enforcement, by the new digital markets unit — creating “a wide range of opportunities to develop and serve new markets adjacent to or interconnected with existing digital platforms”.

The combined impact should be to strengthen and deepen the competitive digital ecosystem, they believe.

Another envisaged benefit for startups is “trust in the framework and recognition that promising, innovative digital businesses will be protected from foreclosure or exclusion” — which they argue “should catalyse investment in UK digital businesses, driving the sector’s growth”.

“The changes to competition law… mean that where a business can grow into a successful competitor, that route to further growth is protected and companies will not in the future see being subsumed into a dominant platform as the only realistic business model,” they add.

0 notes

endenogatai · 6 years ago

Text

Competition policy must change to help startups fight ‘winner takes all’ platforms, says UK report

In the report the panel writes that it believes competition policy should be “given the tools to tackle new challenges, not radically shifted away from its established basis”.

“These recommendations will deliver an economic boost driven by UK tech start-ups and innovation that will give consumers greater choice and protection,” he argues.

Pro-startup regulation required

The panel rejects the view — mostly loudly propounded by tech giants and their lobbying vehicles — that competition is thriving online, ergo no competition policy changes are needed.

Among the panel’s specific recommendations are a call to set up a new competition unit with expertise in technology, economics and behavioural science, plus the legal powers to back it up.

More priority should be given to reviewing the potential implications of digital mergers, in their view.

In another recommendation which targets the Google -Facebook adtech duopoly, the report also calls for the CMA to launch a formal market study into the digital advertising market — which it notes suffers from a lack of transparency.

The panel also notes similar concerns raised by other recent reviews.

The combined impact should be to strengthen and deepen the competitive digital ecosystem, they believe.

from RSSMix.com Mix ID 8204425 https://ift.tt/2u2qCWH via IFTTT

#IFTTT #RSSMix.com Mix ID 8204425

0 notes

toomanysinks · 6 years ago

Text

Competition policy must change to help startups fight ‘winner takes all’ platforms, says UK report

In the report the panel writes that it believes competition policy should be “given the tools to tackle new challenges, not radically shifted away from its established basis”.

“These recommendations will deliver an economic boost driven by UK tech start-ups and innovation that will give consumers greater choice and protection,” he argues.

Pro-startup regulation required

The panel rejects the view — mostly loudly propounded by tech giants and their lobbying vehicles — that competition is thriving online, ergo no competition policy changes are needed.

Among the panel’s specific recommendations are a call to set up a new competition unit with expertise in technology, economics and behavioural science, plus the legal powers to back it up.

More priority should be given to reviewing the potential implications of digital mergers, in their view.

The panel also notes similar concerns raised by other recent reviews.

The combined impact should be to strengthen and deepen the competitive digital ecosystem, they believe.

source https://techcrunch.com/2019/03/13/competition-policy-must-change-to-help-startups-fight-winner-takes-all-platforms-says-uk-report/

0 notes

fmservers · 6 years ago

Text

Competition policy must change to help startups fight ‘winner takes all’ platforms, says UK report

In the report the panel writes that it believes competition policy should be “given the tools to tackle new challenges, not radically shifted away from its established basis”.

“These recommendations will deliver an economic boost driven by UK tech start-ups and innovation that will give consumers greater choice and protection,” he argues.

Pro-startup regulation required

The panel rejects the view — mostly loudly propounded by tech giants and their lobbying vehicles — that competition is thriving online, ergo no competition policy changes are needed.

Among the panel’s specific recommendations are a call to set up a new competition unit with expertise in technology, economics and behavioural science, plus the legal powers to back it up.

More priority should be given to reviewing the potential implications of digital mergers, in their view.

The panel also notes similar concerns raised by other recent reviews.

The combined impact should be to strengthen and deepen the competitive digital ecosystem, they believe.

Via Natasha Lomas https://techcrunch.com

#TechCrunch

0 notes

maternity2142shapewear · 6 years ago

Text

Challenges in Education in Today's Society - Globalization and Changes in Education

Recent investigations in the study of demographic trends at global level are currently making light on a very controversial aspect, although ignored by global institutions, like O.N.U., U.N.D.P., G 20, same by best shapewear organizations with attributions in the educational field (as UNESCO, Youth International Authorities and other). The so-called "demographic winter" phenomenon, which reveals the dramatic consequences of the "modern" life, marked by familial and moral decline, by miscarriage, vulgarization and the homosexuality "normalization", by the poisoning influence of the majority of mass-media and the "Hollywood culture" are inoculating egocentrism, frivolity and irresponsibility. Considering this demographic trend offers a new dimension to the way in which abundance and resource of the world are distributed and also gives a new vision on elementary educational issues.

The globalization of education is reflecting itself in the extension and unification of educational practices, used by all those public or private entities, involved as active social educators. Over time, the public education systems in developed or emerging countries, which promote formal Maternity Shapewear education, are illustrating with consistency the practice of a classical education system. In the field of non-formal education there are used more innovating and diverse methods of education, but unfortunately few of this are oriented upon individual behaviour reshaping in the global context, and they are looking only to proliferate consumerist habits, by preparing youngsters for a successful professional career start. The presence of NGO's with international coverage and professional training companies has fixed the currently understood "development in education" in comfortable limits. This makes room for a reshape of educational fundamentals and, more obvious, for the ultimate purpose of learning.

Most people think that education should equip them with the proper exploitation instruments so that they can forever trample over the masses. Still other thinks that education should furnish them with noble ends rather than means to an end. The function of education, therefore, is to washer dryer clearance teach one to think intensively and to think critically. But education which stops with efficiency may prove the greatest menace to society. The most dangerous criminal may be the man gifted with reason, but with no morals.

Socially speacking, the technological revolution, the broaden access to information and the modern lifestyle facilities have made possible the appearance of an irreversible phenomenon in the conflict between generations. In our present times, the children, "sons of globalization" have access to multiple sources of information, with the internet being most of the time an instrument of self-education. The balance is leaning in the favour of the power of informed youth, who become "the teachers", explaining the new world order to the eldest. This theory takes into consideration the acceleration of technology and the way of our lifestyle, but, beyond its observational character, it does not bring up the discussion on the relevance of educational systems, visible outmoded, which attempts to destroy the moral appliances houston and statutory principles. The wisdom is transmitted from the old generation to the youth, and not backward.

Therefore we are raising the question regarding the way organisms responsible for educational issues should reconsider the basic fundamentals of this basic activity, which clearly has guided the evolution of our world so far. It isn't enough for organizations like U.N.E.S.C.O or U.N.D.P. to confront the absence of primary education and the discrimination regarding access to education in underdeveloped countries, to avoid resettling the educational needs inside an inappropriate system. It is necessary to deal with these aspects in proper time, because we consider education the key-element car dealerships in houston which can slow down the process of planet and people self destruction.

The proposal regarding fundamentals reshaping and reviewing the individual education, approached in all stages and cycles of life, starts with the assumption that "Man has to be educated to act responsible towards the environment and civilization, and not interfere in the harmony and balanced world development with his behaviour". This observation, not exactly recent, triggered a chain of initiatives in the educational system in countries like France, Italy, Germany, including Romania, but I consider that implementing a discipline of Civic Education, in the gymnasium module is not enough, neither convincing.

We feel that the new fundamentals and principals of education, which must be known, understood and applied by every teacher, through all the range of educational processes in the long life learning of individuals, and also in the non formal educational process, whereat luxury cars houston people have access during existence are:

1. Self-consciousness - is essential because it allows every individual to find his role in society, to know his weak points and to develop them according to his unique talents genetically inherited. A person aware of his/her self can easily act in choosing the occupation or the carrier to practice that he or she will be able to direct his energies to and recognize the real problems that the world and society faces. Consciousness-based education, introduced in 1971 by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, is unique in its ability to effectively develop the total brain potential of every student.

2. Stimulating creativity - this special quality is reflected in the mental and social process of generating new ideas, concepts, associations, and permits individual adaptation to unpredictable contexts and situations. There are simple techniques, associated to lateral thinking that Houston SEO Expert can promote this capacity, for example: improvisation, fiction as imaginary product, (Randomness, Improvisation, P.S.).

3. Communication - in the actual forms and methods used as learning practices, communication is not capitalized at being the supreme value, because mostly individual activity it's encouraged, which promotes inappropriate values like egoism, indifference, self-interest. Without communicating problems and discussing difficult situations, there is no way to claim solving the issues in optimal parameters of time, quality and accuracy. The man can not act in terms of social responsibility, as a "macro attitude", which I consider as being shallowly approached, especially in the economical environment.

4. Promoting a responsible role in society - education SEO Company Toronto must train one for quick, resolute and effective thinking. To think incisively and to think for one's self is very difficult. We are prone to let our mental life become invaded by legions of half truths, prejudices, and propaganda. At this point, I often wonder whether or not education is fulfilling its purpose. A great majority of the so-called educated people do not think logically and scientifically. Even the press, the classroom, the platform, and the pulpit in many instances do not give us objective and unbiased truths. To save man from the morass of propaganda, in my opinion, is one of the chief aims of education. Education must enable one to sift and weigh evidence, to discern the true from the false, the real from the unreal, and the facts from the fiction. This is the way in which he or she could develop and exercise an active role in society.

5. Changing opening - in order to be able to intervene in the actual course of the life circle, accepting and promoting the changes is considered a healthy habit, which stimulates the flexibility and the disruption of existing corporately stereotypes, which are heading humanity to destruction, because of the ignorance or simply because of unknown problems that Terra is facing. From this perspective, the change tackling what career is right for me implies a real transformation at psychological level and of human behaviour, therefore to satisfy those priorities needed to be handled immediately. Here we refer to: the necessity of a re-conversion of world economy from a military economy to civil one, immediate solutions for energetic and environmental problems, as well as for the underdevelopment and poverty aspects propagated into the world.

6. Global vision upon world - the actual educational system, as a whole, is constituted by a sum of operations (method -> evaluation -> communication), whose final objective must reflect a pragmatic and global view on the world. At present, the youth is informed regarding global problems through sources like mass media, not making possible a healthy analysis, not making possible a debate and a thoroughness facilitation that could lead to the understanding and building-up personal opinions regarding aspects like underdevelopment, global economical relations, international business analyst certification monetary system, etc.

7. The ability of solving problems - solving problems is the easiest way to re-create conditions and actions in an artificial manner, experience which allows pupils and students to deal with in a constructive way and to develop solutions for different problems. Learning systems which are basically constructed like this are superior because it helps individuals to recognise and adapt to specific economic, social, psychological, spiritual context and to detect real problems in any form, associating optimal alternatives of decision. For example, simulating a complex economical context for a start-up enterprise leads to the stimulation of individual creativeness and decision-making abilities.

8. Multidisciplinary teams - to permit the reshaping and the restructuring of scholar curricular in the needed form in order to develop these abilities and capacities, we are suggesting even some changes in the study of discipline, considering the logical and contextual relations between them, providing an understanding of all existing correlations at a certain point. For example, Public Finances should be studied in the International Monetary System context and not separately. At the same time this characteristic involves, according to those said before, the start point of collaborations between students coming from different specialization, in early childhood development order to accomplish complex projects with a multidisciplinary approach. In this case, the elaboration of a business plan would unite students from different specializations in economical science discipline (services, marketing, management) and students from engineering, agriculture and others profile Universities.

In recent years, there have been promoters that recognise the importance of remodelling and updating the learning systems and they have introduced some of this principals through various pedagogic and psychology methods and ideas, which became guide-lines in Universities educational activities from regions around the world. A recent example at this point is the study made by Clay Shirky, author of "Here Comes Everybody", in which he proposed an innovating learning model, named Open Model of Education. In the Closed Model of Education or Classical System, education is limited because the ideas that a school or district can consider can come from only a limited number of sources, usually teachers, administrators, and consultants. A great deal of thought must be put into the consideration of ideas because the time and cost of failure are so high. Time spent with meetings, staff training, and materials, has a cost. This means the filter for technical schools near me ideas is very high. Only those ideas that seem to have the most benefit will be implemented, though there is no way to know in advance that one of the ideas picked will bring the desired benefit, and one of the ideas left on the table could be the most effective and beneficial.

It is true that by putting into practice an educational system based on the same universal fundamentals it essentially means stimulating globalization through its universal optic itself. Although the manner in which this model contributes to the globalization phenomenon is clear, still we must consider the fact that the final purpose of education is no other then confronting globalization's effects and influences, as well as the global negative impact upon environment and, ultimately, upon the way people live everywhere. Education will allow us to know the actual estate of the world, with all its pluses and minuses, and also will increase the awareness of the impact of every A+ certification training individual upon the world and upon the next generations. In other words, we consider politics, economy or administrative sciences weapons of less importance in the process of global issues eradication, compared to education, as a social science.

To conclude, I would like to specify the way these ideas were generated and which were their fundamentals. This actual used appliances houston study is not a result a thorough research activity, neither a genius idea. I am myself a "product" of a classic, formal educational system, but also had some benefits form the non-formal educational system by involving myself in a volunteer organization that developed soft skills and hard skills both. I consider that these educational practices are not adapted enough to the global context that we are facing everyday, and that specialized literature is exposing, bringing up to light its pronounced effects of human existence on Terra. I am a person that does not hold sufficient information and power to be a voice and to be able to get involved in a sustainable and constant plus size shapewear development of society, whose values are not profit, nepotism, indifference towards future generations, but responsibility to create and offer equal chances. I am an ambassador of a civilization which is plunging headfirst, shy daring to change the dissonant order and murderously world.

#Maternity Shapewear

0 notes