Tag

international economy

Is King Cash Facing a Coup D’etat?

Data privacy today is of greater importance and cognizance than it has ever been in the past. Among American consumers there is mounting distrust of both the government and corporations with respect to invasive data collection methods and unethical data uses. Most of the conversation thus far has revolved around the internet, social media, and giants in this realm such as Facebook and Google. And while they are well deserving of critique, why is the same skepticism not applied to Visa and Mastercard? Credit card behemoths and banks have the ability to collect, analyze, and monetize data on every purchase ever made— with the exception of cash transactions. Cash provides an essential consumer protection from the government and corporations as an inherent data opt-out. Yet, it is slowly losing relevance and in effect being phased out by newer technologies. The preservation of cash as an option to consumers is of paramount importance despite its shortcomings. Cash’s eventual disappearance will cause far-reaching and insidious consequences, which we can already witness starting to take hold abroad.

The-For-and-Against-Cash

The US dollar, in both its physical and digital iterations, is the most important world currency. In recent years, as money demand has grown alongside the digitization of many transactions, the question has been raised – where is our physical currency being held? About 5% is in bank reserves, another 5% is in American households, and an unbelievable 90% of U.S. currency remains unaccounted for. Much of it is held in foreign countries; estimates range from 50% to 70% of U.S. paper currency is abroad. Most of this is kept in hundreds as a store of value by Russian oligarchs, international drug kingpins, and of course other countries’ treasury reserves. However, this ghost currency is also floating around in America’s informal economy; from illegal activity to under the table employment. Many critics argue against physical currency precisely because of its use in illegal activities. Harvard macroeconomist Kenneth Rogoff postulates that a transfer to a cashless society would hurt the economy in the short term because of a decrease in demand for illegal products and services. However, he also states that if just a fraction of the lost tax revenue from unreported activities (which could make up as much as 7-10% of overall GDP) were recovered, this would more than make up the difference. But the same reason for which cash is chosen to evade the law – anonymity – it is also essential for consumers. And the use of cash for tax avoidance is not a strong enough reason to go completely digital. In fact, other theorists believe that getting rid of cash would not necessarily solve the problem. According to the UK Treasury and Home Office, cash is only the third most popular channel for money laundering, behind banks and accounting firms. Moreover, if the desire is to stop tax evasion, governments should concentrate their energy on the use of offshore financial centers, not cash.

Governments may additionally argue that the discontinuation of cash would help economic growth in other ways too. With a cash society, the movement of money is slow and expensive. Operating in cash is claimed to cost the U.S. approximately .5% of its GDP every year. This is undoubtedly an attractive reason to switch, but in the grand scheme it is unwise to sacrifice freedom for marginal revenues and growth.

It’s not just governments that find cashless society attractive though. There are certain interest groups that also see going cashless as ultimately beneficial. Small businesses, for example, argue that going cashless makes them more secure. They feel safer without the use of cash- there is no risk of money being stolen on site. However, this neglects a serious flaw with cashless economies in general: they are much more vulnerable to cyberattacks. Cyberattacks pose a risk to the stability of the entire national and even global economy long-term, but more tangibly, an immediate theft risk to consumers. Based on existing protections from banks, consumers are often at higher risk than they may realize. In digital banking, banks generally claim any transactions conducted online with an individual’s password is of their volition, so money is not replaced or refunded.

Even more pressing is that in a cashless world, there is an entire forgotten echelon of society that would be completely disenfranchised – the low income. Low income individuals, along with the elderly, homeless, recent immigrants, minors, and other groups often cannot open bank accounts and thereby could not at all participate in a cashless economy. This has to date been recognized as a significant problem and is the reason that in many U.S. cities and states there is existing legislation that mandates businesses to accept cash. However, this is not true everywhere; many countries, particularly in Europe, allow businesses to refuse cash. This could be possible too in the United States, perhaps if the Swedish model of government subsidized bank accounts for low income individuals were introduced. Regardless, the looming issues of data privacy remain.

The Consequences of Cashlessness

The most pivotal issue with a cashless society is data privacy and the preservation of anonymity. The presence of currency in general, who holds it, and who controls it, is a statement of power in itself. Cash counteracts this and acts as a public good. Since it is held in common, the power is widely dispersed throughout the economy and between consumers. There is no central point of failure or central point of control. However, governments around the world are seeking to gain control over their currency flows and have the ability to do this very effectively through digitization. This can manifest itself in one of two ways.

One is that all money must be held in bank accounts, giving banks, credit card companies, and other financial services providers, already unruly characters, an unprecedented amount of control over an individual’s personal finances. These companies work together to record purchases, share and compile information, and exploit spending patterns for targeted marketing. Take Paypal for example: they claim they are protecting user data, but their terms and conditions outline the non-associates which they may pass data onto, including Facebook, Axium, Oracle, and more. However, this option may still be more attractive than the following because there are a number of financial service providers to choose from. The competition between them can be used to drive demand for greater transparency and consumer protections. Already growing awareness over privacy issues has lead to the new Apple Card. It is unique from Visa or Mastercard in that it only shares data with credit agencies and no further partner corporations.

The second option for digitization is the government holding everyone’s money in central bank bank accounts. This would solve the issue of unbridled corporate power, and to be fair the government is generally held to relatively higher standards of transparency. However, it presents its own issues.

Governments could use their financial power to isolate certain individuals from participating in the economy, potentially for politically or socially motivated reasons, whereas this is not possible in a cash economy. Already, the U.S. government can seize funds from an individual or company bank account without even a formal conviction. This is a power that has historically been abused. During “Operation Choke Point,” in which the U.S. government claimed that it was simply cracking down on predatory lending, it also financially went after moral opponents such as the pornography, gambling, and firearms industries. Private credit card companies do this too. Many pornography providers have switched to using crypto-currencies like Bitcoin in order to avoid the excessive fees that are charged by credit card companies. Moreover, even if many are sympathetic to these quasi-sin taxes, it’s not long before they may creep into more ambiguous areas, dictated by partisanship and special interest groups.

For example, consider a future in which the government places a charge on individuals that make donations to abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood. One’s inability to make anonymous donations would threaten the existence of certain organizations and voices, arguably violating the constitutional right to privacy. This right is not explicit in the U.S. Bill of Rights but can be reasonably implied from the fourth amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure (“to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures”) and by the fifth amendment right to avoid self incrimination (“shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”). An even broader interpretation, such as that favored in the U.S. Supreme Court case, Citizens United v. FEC, could cite the first amendment freedom of speech as granting freedom to make anonymous donations. Considering unchecked political donations and their implications does slightly complicate this argument. However, the aim of this article is not to comment on whether or not dollar limits should be applied in political finance, or if corporations deserve the same rights as people, but to stress the importance of anonymity for citizens. Without the preservation of anonymity, of which cash is an integral part, citizens are vulnerable to corporate and governmental abuse.

Global Digital Currencies

The disappearance of cash, while seemingly not immediately relevant to the United States, is likely not a distant future. There is an ongoing international digital currency race that will only continue to gain traction at an accelerating speed. The most malicious and determined character in this race is China. China’s central bank is set to release the first digitized domestic currency in an act of financial innovation and suffocating state control. China’s new digital currency will be unique and morally questionable in that it allows the central bank to not only track the movement of money but in some cases supervise transactions. They plan to use big data analytics to seek and find money laundering. This will supposedly help to expose corruption — if you accept the presupposition that the Chinese government is not corrupt itself. The new currency, which will initially be available in banks and on the Chinese equivalent of Apple pay, Alipay, will trigger several effects upon its highly anticipated release. First, it may push Chinese consumers to switch their money into anonymous crypto-currencies like Bitcoin. This would cause a depreciation of the Yuan, benefitting the Chinese export market but harming morale. Yet, it may be stopped by the Chinese government, which has previously criticized crypto-currencies like Facebook’s Libra, stating only governments have the right to create digital currencies. The simple fact that the government would even have the ability to stop this, and further dictate which purchases consumers can make, is inherently the issue with digital currency. Moreover, when considering the Chinese are already world leaders in artificial intelligence and facial recognition, it is not hard to see that this is a further power grab. As for the worst case scenario of increasing Chinese authoritarianism— look to the Uyghurs.

The possibility of creating state run digital currencies has also attracted the interest of North Korea, Venezuela, Russia, and Iran. North Korea, a pioneer in digital crime, has already made headway in mining, crypto-jacking, and hacking exchanges in existing digital currencies. The North Korean government has already stolen over two billion dollars worth of digital currency in order to fund its weapons program. And, its own crypto-currency would give it the power to avoid U.S. sanctions to a greater extent. Iran and Russia are similarly motivated to avoid sanctions and attempt to weaken U.S. supremacy in the global financial system. The Venezuelan case on the other hand, is unique and a testament to the government’s continued mismanagement of the economy. Maduro has released a digital currency, the “petro”, whose value is linked to the value of a barrel of oil, and is claimed to provide a solution to the country’s runaway inflation issues. However, “petro” hasn’t yet been successful- it can be found almost nowhere. Some independent crypto-currencies have made headway in Venezuela, though. The crypto-currency “Dash,” for example, is now being accepted as a form of payment at select locations of Church’s Chicken in Venezuela.

There are some democratic nations working to develop digital currencies, too. Sweden, for one, is hoping to soon release the E-Korna. But, Sweden is a special case. The country already functions on a mostly cashless basis, the EU has strong data privacy laws, and the Swedish people have an unusually high degree of trust in the government and new technology. However, even given all these positives, the most important factor is that cash will still be accepted legal tender. The Swedish government even cautions that every household sets aside cash in the event of mass power failure or hacking.

Final Thoughts – Why Data Privacy is Important The increasing surveillance of our lives limits our freedom and impacts our behaviors. The way we spend says so much about who we are and what we stand for, and our financial freedom is deeply imbedded into our constitutional and human rights. Even more than that though, the effect is insidious, the growing surveillance changes how we think and how we behave. Consider the Foucauldian idea about the connection between panopticon prison and discipline within society. The design of a panopticon prison is similar to a two way mirror. There is a central guard tower surrounded by prison cells on all sides, which guards may see into, but for prisoners it is unknown if the guards are present. Since the prisoners do not know when they are being watched they are on high alert at all times. They internalize the gaze of the guards and thereby permanently change their behavior —whether or not they are actually being watched. This is the underlying idea of the surveillance state and the government’s ability to remove anonymity from money would further enhance this effect. Of course, cash represents only one small part of the overwhelming data privacy problem. Yet, it would be foolish to take for granted the mundane and to wait until it’s explicitly threatened to start paying attention. This is not a condemnation of digital currencies, but a plea to preserve cash as an option for those who would prefer to buy and sell without surveillance.

January 2, 2020 0 comment

"Leaders of TPP Member States" Source

Featured Globalization The International Economy

Redefining International Interdependency: The Trans-Pacific Partnership

written by Justin Schmerler

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is the most revolutionary, comprehensive international agreement that any country has ever signed. Since the end of the Second World War, the U.S. has pursued a general policy of trade liberalization, and President Reagan began to more aggressively do so in the 1980s. This kicked off a new era of globalization largely defined by increasingly interconnected nations, cultures, and markets that continues to this day, and has come to define the world community. Unfortunately, this manner of embracing globalization through trade does not account for many of the most important societal developments and issues today. Instead, it favors an almost purely “economy-first” approach. In an age of rapid globalization-driven policy reforms, the TPP provides promising insights into potential future changes and new directions the expanding process of international interdependency could take.

The TPP is a proposed agreement between twelve Pacific Rim nations that account for nearly forty percent of global GDP, with a value of intra-group trade at $2.08 trillion in 2014. The 5,500 page agreement contains thirty chapters on topics ranging from E-commerce to Investment to Intellectual Property. Although the reduction in barriers to trade is highly impactful and affects roughly 18,000 tariffs, the TPP goes beyond just trade liberalization. The TPP represents a historic move towards a more modernized and globalized society, and indicates a shift away from solely economic-based policy towards a more responsible global framework.

The TPP attempts to address modern challenges at the forefront of recent international debates. A prominent example of how the TPP is the most advanced, modern international agreement is the twentieth chapter, “Environment.” Many of the United States’ FTAs have included environmental provisions; however, these provisions have been rather toothless. The US-Australia FTA, for example, essentially contains an agreement to comply with the existing environmental transparency laws and excludes those laws from the agreement’s dispute settlement provisions. Japan, one of the most environmentally responsible countries in the world, has signed 24 FTAs (sometimes called Economic Partnership Agreements) and not a single one contains an environmental chapter or even a side agreement on environmentally responsible policy. Requirements within the TPP Environment chapter, like the ban on subsidizing fishing of overfished stocks, are subject to the agreement’s dispute settlement mechanisms. This means states will punish others for non-compliance. This new, more mandatory approach is indicative of a new set of policy initiatives aimed at pursuing a more conscientious form of globalization.

There are countless other sections in the Trans Pacific Partnership that represent unprecedented advances in achieving transnational regulatory harmonization. Nevertheless, there are plenty of counter-arguments cited as rationale for not signing the TPP. Liberal Democrats worry the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provisions will undermine the environment chapter, though even if they did that’s hardly an effective argument for tossing the agreement altogether. It’s better to have environmental protections that very occasionally are difficult to enforce than to have absolutely none at all. Moreover, some members of the U.S. Congress from both parties tend to argue (rather loudly and simplistically) that TPP will destroy jobs, even though anyone with even a basic understanding of economics knows that the effects of free trade on employment are far more complex and nuanced. Yes, liberalization of trade destroys jobs in certain industries. This is through a process known as “job churn,” by which liberalizing trade disrupts employment to the detriment of some industries and the benefit others. Critically, though, the number of jobs lost is outweighed by the number of jobs created by liberalizing trade. Perhaps that’s why most experts say that although some jobs, mainly manufacturing ones, will be lost due to the TPP, a higher amount of jobs will be created, and in higher-paying industries. These are just some of the many hotly contested issues that abound discussions on the TPP.

One can find countless responses to the vast majority of arguments in favor of ratifying the TPP. However, there is one main argument in favor of TPP that its opponents have yet to devise a viable counter-argument to: Failing to sign the TPP cedes the strategic and economic high ground to China, and potentially destroys any opportunity for spreading progressive regulation to some of the key economic powers in the world.

A common mistake made when analyzing the TPP is assuming a failure to ratify is tantamount to preservation of the status quo. It is very much not. As the US Congress quibbles over whether or not to ratify TPP, China is vehemently pushing an economic agenda of its own in East and Southeast Asia. For years, China has been racing to complete the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP). RCEP includes all the TPP nations outside the Americas, in addition to India, South Korea, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, Laos, Myanmar, and Cambodia. Taken in terms of population, RCEP nations account for nearly half of the world’s population. Crucially, RCEP includes virtually none of the countless progressive, modern regulatory advancements provided for in the TPP, like environmental protections, and would allow China to dictate the terms of economic activity for 50% of the world, leaving the United States to play by someone else’s far less comprehensive rules in Asia and elsewhere. In short, RCEP represents the sort of economy-first approach to international cooperation that has, for decades, failed to address some of the most pressing issues facing the global population.

Failing to ratify TPP and allowing RCEP to become to law of land in the world’s fastest-growing region would be nothing short of a catastrophe. Liberal Democrats would never see the improvements in human rights, labor, and environmental standards that they so-love to complain the TPP lacks. Conservative Republicans would have actively participated in the act of ceding greater economic authority to China, which they and their presidential candidate erroneously attribute much of America’s problems to; and the world would remain on its current course of globalizing trade that has failed to solve so many paramount issues.

This article says little of the highly complex economic implications of the agreement that both proponents and opponents often oversimplify to advance their positions. The TPP’s ratification, unfortunately, is far from guaranteed and if ratified, it will be some time before the public can get beyond mere projections and truly begin observing tangible impacts. This article is simply a recognition that in the era of rapid and seemingly uncontrollable globalization and ever-changing centers of economic growth, the TPP provides the global citizenry with a glimpse into one potential future of international cooperation. The TPP transcends the economic metrics and market-based approaches that have dominated international cooperation for decades, and endeavors to fundamentally improve the manner in which governments around the world embrace the phenomenon of globalization.

October 24, 2016 0 comment

Global Health Security and Conflict The International Economy UCLA and the World

Stop Voting Against Yourself: The Difference between Opinions and Facts

written by thegeneration

by Shadee Ashtari
Editor-in-Chief

In less than 24 hours, our nation will face one of the most crucial decisions of the decade, not only for America, but for the entire world. Our nation will face a decision that not only directly impacts every American citizen today, but every American and global citizen for years to come.

All my (politically cognizant) life, I have been told by greedy, bigoted elders that I am a liberal because I am “young,” “naïve,” and “don’t pay taxes.”

Well, I may still be young (luckily), but I have in my short life: served as a caregiver for a mother with cancer for ten years; lost her to cancer at the age of 20; and worked multiple jobs to help pay for my family’s and school’s expenses (and hence, paid taxes for the last five years). I have experienced my fair share of bitterness and loss, sacrifice and hard work.

And still, I believe that I would rather work hard every day and give as much as I can to those who cannot fight for themselves. I still stand for the liberating and mobilizing power of a strong educational system. I still stand for whatever socially and economically most benefits the greatest amount of people in my country. I am first and foremost a caretaker of my fellow American, and I will defend whatever truly allows the majority of them to succeed.

I believe the greatest American tragedy and hoax has been the intentional and manipulative inception of a deluded lie to masses of good-intentioned Americans by a few profiting con artists. These con artists should be finally called for what they are: anyone who tells the American people that voting for Mitt Romney is in any way beneficial for the majority of Americans.

It is truly not shocking that upper class politicians and voters support his platform and policy outlines—(despite the clear moral and civic duties they choose to ignore) it makes sense that a millionaire would vote for a fellow millionaire to protect their mutual interests. Fine.

But what on earth is the other 96% of the population even considering? The decision between voting for Obama or Romney is not a complex, relative “opinion”—it is a simple fact-based decision between one man’s platform directly economically and socially benefiting 96% of the American population vs. the latter directly and exclusively serving less than 5% of the population.

Anyone who is a student, a member of the middle or lower class (96% of Americans), a woman, a champion of American jobs, cares the slightest about the rest of the world and the future of their children, has half a heart or half a brain ought to vote for President Obama; otherwise, they literally, socially and fiscally, VOTE AGAINST THEMSELVES. They vote to increase their student tuition. They vote to outsource American jobs to China and India. They vote to veto bills ensuring equal pay for men and women. They vote to alienate global allies, increase tensions with unstable countries like Iran, and essentially significantly increase risks of another unnecessary and financially impossible war. (Note, I am steering clear of a few social issues like gay marriage because I am making a point that the majority of Americans, despite their religious or cultural beliefs, will financially and socially benefit on more “indisputable” social issues like equal pay for women from voting for President Obama.) Unless you are part of the top 4%, if you are voting for Romney, you have been conned in Romney’s longest-standing scam. Let’s break it down, for fact’s sake:

GLOBAL IMPACT

To begin with, what would a Romney presidency do to the rest of the world?

Well, it seems like the international community agrees: the outcome would be disastrous. A BBC World Service opinion poll recently found “sharply higher overseas approval ratings for US President Barack Obama than Republican challenger Mitt Romney. An average of 50% favored Mr. Obama, with 9% for Mr. Romney, in the survey of 21,797 people in 21 countries.” Only Pakistan’s respondents chose Mitt Romney as a preferred winner in the November election.

Ouch. Quite the disparity there, Mittens. Apparently the rest of the world seems to understand their inevitably interrelated fates within the international economy. Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in economics and Professor at Columbia University, explains, “Romney’s proposed contractionary policies – the attempt to reduce deficits prematurely, while the US economy is still frail – will almost surely weaken America’s already anemic growth, and, if the euro crisis worsens, it could bring on another recession.”

At that point, U.S. demand will be shrinking and the rest of the international community will directly feel the negative economic impacts of a Romney presidency. In the face of globalization, countries around the world need resolute and collaborative efforts to confront issues of trade, climate change, and nuclear arms. And although Romney’s chest-puffing may have fooled some Americans, the rest of the world agrees his macho rhetoric will not serve as a constructive leader in the challenging years to come.

STUDENTS

How would a Romney vs. Obama administration value you as a student?

President Obama:

–Has launched an initiative to help universities and community colleges cut the rate of inflation in half in college expenses. The new system, explains former President Bill Clinton, “sets aside a long reserve in the federal budget, gives money directly to colleges and to students so the loans cost less money… far more important, every single person after next year that gets a college loan from the federal government…can pay that loan back as your choice as a small fixed percentage of your income for twenty years.” Essentially, no student should ever have to drop out of a college or university again because of the cost of college tuition.

Romney/Ryan solution:

–The Romney administration’s plan would “slash more than $15 billion of mandatory and discretionary funding from the Pell Grant program beginning next year, resulting in a 42 percent cut to Pell Grants,” explains Stephen Steigleder, Policy Analyst at CAP Action.

–Governor Romney’s advise to students? “Borrow money if you have to from your parents.” Romney then goes on to tell a story about a friend who once needed money and borrowed $20,000 from his parents at a “low interest rate.” Must be nice. Oh wait, except for the fact that students who even qualify for Pell Grants probably don’t have parents who can just cough up $20,000.

Impact: Eliminating Pell Grants for more than 1 million students and adding thousands of dollars in loan debt to college students and their families.

JOBS & THE MAJORITY CLASS

Who will protect your job? Who will ensure a secure and fruitful future for your children in the job market? Who will make America a competitive leader of the free world?

Romney (as Massachusetts’s governor):

-Vetoed a bill banning state contracts with companies outsourcing state work overseas.He opposed George W. Bush’s tariffs on imported steel from China and opposed President Obama’s tariffs on tires imported from China (factcheck.org).

-Argues that companies like his Bain-owned company Sensata Tech. betray American workers because of a “high tax burden.” But the truth is, the effective corporate tax rate is the lowest it has been in 40 years, while many of our largest corporations pay close to or nothing in taxes (similar to Romney and his offshore Cayman accounts). So the actual explanation for Romney’s record of outsourcing our children’s jobs to China and India is essentially, the bottom line. His priorities are not the 96% of hard-working Americans—his priorities, as reflected by his policies, are cutting overhead costs and finding the cheapest labor possible, for the maximum amount of profit possible, for the fewest number of people possible.

Obama: The majority of Americans, 96% according to Pew Research, are not upper class, so why do half of Americans choose to vote for them?

Maybe they think a businessman like Romney can fix the economy? Well, let’s look at the numbers.

When was a last time our economy witnessed a surplus?

Under a Democratic administration, the Clinton Administration. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 22.7 million jobs were added between January 1993 and January 2001. What about in the last Republican administration? “There was a net increase of nearly 1.1 million jobs”—20 million less jobs for American workers (factcheck.org).

What about today?

Today’s report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics “showed that the economy added 171,000 jobs last month, beating analysts’ expectations. The private sector added 184,000 jobs…making this the 32nd consecutive month that the private sector has grown.” Overall, under Obama, “the private sector has added 759,000 jobs. At this same point in the George W. Bush administration — October 2004 — the private sector had lost more than 1 million jobs.”

Not to mention, when it comes to Romney and his tax rhetoric, there is an enormously annoying point missing: “the fact that although the rich pay higher taxes than the poor, middle-class people actually pay a higher percentage of their income in total taxes,” according to a 2010 study by Citizens for Tax Justice. Although federal income tax rates are progressive, deductions, loopholes, and “special treatment of capital gains reduce actual tax rates for the top earners.” So what is actually happening? Upper-middle-class taxpayers are paying the highest actual percentage of their income (over 31%).

How strange, I guess a deregulated pro-business, upper-class tax-cutting model didn’t really work out. Seems a middle-class economic growth plan, empirically, yielded a fiscal surplus and that Romney does not seem too opposed to taxes when it comes to pushing them down to America’s working class.

WOMEN

Obama:

-Signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, legally eliminating wage discrimination barriers for women, as his very first executive action as President.

-Increased funding for the Violence Against Women Act in an effort to protect victims of sexual assault and combat violence against women.

-Obama’s Affordable Care Act also ensures women can receive cancer screenings and mammograms without co-pays or deductibles.

Romney’s plan:

-“Get rid of” Planned Parenthood funding, “overturn Roe V. Wade,” and hand over women’s rights to “employers” to decide their access to birth control coverage.

There is no excuse for any human being who values a woman’s safety and her access to life-saving resources like mammograms to vote for Romney (who plans to repeal these measures)—a woman doing so, is yet again, voting against herself and every other woman’s basic liberties. There is more at stake than one’s particular (and irrelevant) religious or cultural reservations; “the bottom line” is the universal civil rights and health of an entire female population.

VOTE FOR YOURSELF

So as voting day approaches, I make my last plea: vote for you; vote for the student, the woman, the middle class, the majority; vote in the interest of the international economy.

Despite your particular traditional reservations, this year, VOTE FOR YOURSELF.

Martin Kaplan, associate dean of the University of Southern California’s Annenberg School for Communication, once said:

“…news is not what it used to be. It has fallen into a bizarre notion that substitutes something called ‘balance’ for what used to be called ‘accuracy’ or ‘truth’ or ‘objectivity.’ That may be because…the notion of a truth doesn’t have the same reputation it used to, but, as a consequence, straight journalists both in print and in broadcast can be played like a piccolo by people who know how to exploit that weakness.”

There is a difference between opinion and fact—don’t be played like a piccolo.

Facts and figures from factcheck.org, Pew Research Center, The Huffington Post, and CNN.

Shadee Ashtari is a senior at UCLA majoring in Communications with a minor in Political Science. At the Burkle Center, Shadee is the Editor-in-Chief of The Generation. She debates on the UCLA Debate Team and edits for the UCLA School of Law’s Communications Department. Her current research focuses on student homelessness in the U.S. and the rise and decline of religiosity in industrialized nations.

November 5, 2012 14 comments