Diminishing marginal return

A famous economic law, in my point of view, is applicable to many things happening in the current world.

In economics, diminishing returns is the short form of diminishing marginal returns. In a production system, having fixed and variable inputs, keeping the fixed inputs constant, as more of a variable input is applied, each additional unit of input yields less and less additional output. This concept is also known as the law of increasing opportunity cost or the law of diminishing returns. [Wikipedia]

The mid-term election of the US House of Representatives and Senate has just ended and the result is yet to be concluded. The Democrats are anticipated to win the majority of the House and may even dominate in the Senate since 1994.

Try to recall the previous two presidential elections in the US. The Republicans gained the victory easily. It was one of the prime time for the Republicans. In an economics, an economy is said to fall after reaching the peak. Additionally, an economy or a business is asserted to follow the business cycle - "periodic but irregular up-and-down movements in economic activity" (Parkin and Bade). Accordingly, after the up-period of the Republicans, it is probably the time for the down movement.

Reasonably one may argue the lost of the Republicans are due to many factors. I agree with it. I do not have a deep understanding of the American politics. As an outsider, I find that the victory of the Democratic Party does not mean the people truly support them. If it is put on the above economics theory, it will be only explained by the fact that it is time for the down of the Republican Party. I cannot see outstanding attractiveness of the Democrats.

Before the election has begun, some news reports already revealed that one of the strategies that the Dem was using in this election was to criticize the George W. Bush's administration. In particular, the Dem opposed the Iraq War and the corruption. The Dem did not need to emphasize its proposed domestic policy to appeal its citizens. At this point, it is not hard to suggest that it is not about the real strength of the Democrats that gives this result of the election.

I personally believe that while the stronger power or the greater victory a party gains, the more tremendous loss it will finally suffer. To me it is some kind of balance the world is trying to reach. Thereafter the Republicans are quite sealed to be the loser this time. Reading through many news stories, the Rep did not show a high morale to fight in a bad situation. They did not seem to be keen on a victory. It is ambiguous whether they believed they could win anyhow, or they thought they would lose however hard they worked. As I think they are clever enough, the answer will probably be the former.

Bush's term still has two years to go. Some estimated that the winning of the Democrats would slam the brakes on Bush's agenda. It is almost certain that the policy of the Terrorism War will be reviewed. Same as many people, I think the result of this mid-election is very important to the world. The US aggressive foreign policy will probably switch to be modest. It will be interesting to see how Bush will have to wrestle with the Democrats. As the US has led to some wars and foreign conflicts under Bush's rule, there will be a hard time for the US to modify or adjust their diplomatic attitudes. It is yet to know whether the US will keep its strong and hard world leading role. I hope not, as I am one of the increasing number of people who think the Americans are weirdoes.

On the other hand, I do not see the Democrats are strong and good enough to keep the public support. If the party wins only because of the weakening of its enemy, it will not be able to win the other time when the enemy regains its strength. People will see and judge the Democrats. The only way to maintain its power is to make achievements. The Democrats has to construct a good plan to gradually retreat from wars; it has to improve the country's relationship with other countries, such as Europe and the Middle East; it also needs to keep its prosperous economy. Otherwise the Democrats will lose soon.

ps. As a journalism student, I learnt the unhealthy journalism in the US. It is well-known that the reporting in US is usually unfair and unbalanced, with sensationalism and self-censorship for the Republicans. I am curious what the situation will be when the head is changed.

pps. I did not realize I will spend some time on the US politics, since I do not very much like the Americans and I am not very political.

ppps. I always think the economics theories are very philosophical and very useful in life.

Book review

Authority and the Individual
by Bertrand Russell, 1949, Unwin Brothers Limited

It took me a long time to finish owing to heavy schoolwork. I have spoken about this book before with a high degree of appreciation, and now I think I should be about to tell some more and conclude.

I was wondering who the writer was, thereby I found a brief biography about him from the Wikipedia. You may click on it and have a look about Russell, and then you may have the same feeling as I do - I did not realize that he was a big man during his life. He was made a Nobel Lauerate in Literature in 1950, and his philosophies brought an influence to intellectuality that should not be overlooked.

(Nobel prize winners are chosen year by year. Other than people who are living in the age, a question is whether people in the future generation will remember or realize the people. Like me, I would have never known Russell if I did not check from Wiki. Additionally the case may be even worse - it is a doubt that how many people know the winners in this year.)

To recall the content of the book, I assume it was the transcript of "The Reith Lecture" for 1948-49 delivered by him. I wrote about this book before, as this was very inspiring for me.

Lately many crises are reported. Many of them are about the conflicts between the authorities, and between the government and the people. Russell discussed much about the possible reasons for these, which are mostly about the nature of human. He gave some suggestions, which I think they were somehow too ideal to be worked out, particularly when this is a more perplexed era.

This is my opinion only, and I think he is a great thinker as many of his ideas are still applicable after over 50 years till now. To me one of his provoking thoughts in this book was about the concept of a state. He said,

'"The State" is an abstraction; it does not feel pleasure or pain, it has no hopes or fears, and what we think of its purposes are really the purposes of individuals who direct it.'

(B. Russell, 1949)

Think about the current governments, they are usually very strong despite an apparent democracy. Politics and democracy is somewhat a game for a minor group of people. These people know the rules very well, and thus they can usually keep the power in hands. To this, I want to quote from Russell again.

'When we think concretely, not abstractly, we find, in place of "the State," certain people who have more power than falls to the share of most men. And so glorification of "the State" turns out to be, in fact, glorification of a governing minority.'

(B. Russell, 1949)

There are countless ideas which I think I pretty much agree with. I wish I could state them all here, but this is not a good idea as it has to do with the copyright. Things about public duty, society structures, and arts, science and practises in this book are very useful for my own thinking.

I wish I would do some more readings about this interesting topic. Personally I think the interests of the society and the individuals are usually contradicting. To obtain a peaceful state, they both have to consider and compromise. It has never been an easy thing to do, otherwise we have already had peace on Earth.

The power of the government is increasing in recent decades. Democracy does not grant common people more power than before. Sometimes policies or decisions made by the leaders are not very much comprehended by the public. This involves the political atmosphere, the public discussion, some surveys that do not usually reflect the reality, and the media influence. For instance, the War in Afghanistan was due to the absolute Taliban and the terrorist group Al Qaeda. This may be understood by the September 11 tragedy. Then there is the War on Iraq, which some dominating powers insisted there were mass destructive weapons. No evidence has been shown until this moment, and the war has been claimed to be "War on Terrorism". These are all said by the leaders. Somehow I don't quite understand how these happened.

As a small molecule of this society, I do not have any influences to the governmental diplomatic policies. Most of the time we only know what the government is going to do from the media, whereas the media does not often provide a complete picture. Studying and working journalism provides an alternative overview to the news media. Journalists does not often provide objective news to the audience. Facts are out there, and what influences people is the interpretation. If we choose to read a newspaper over a period of time, we will perhaps follow the standpoint of the newspaper finally. Having said that there is no right or wrong to hold any point of views, I do not want to accept anything without a careful or thoughtful consideration.

Sometimes the government provides some statistics to show they have public support for their discisions. The pro-government news organizations publish reports with similar results with the government; whilst the opposing news publications put a similar survey with an opposite result on their publication. I doubt the truthfulness of surveys, statistics and reports. It is known that the result can be varied through different criteria or procedure of surveying. Same as journalists writing a piece of news in an angle they want their audience to acquire and receive the messages behind, the result of a report can be produced as something the researchers want. Where does the truth lie in? It is getting harder to find out when the information age has blossomed the most ever.

Democracy delivers a chance for us to choose among options, but we do not know well enough about each option. There has never been a "best" choice. We will never be able to attain the "best" level. Here I do not mean we have to find the best, but I question whether we should do something to make it better when it worsens. Probably there are too many constraints to be removed.

I start to believe that a government is like a man that it becomes arrogant and overlooks the others when it comes to be too strong. I do not agree that a government always claims what they are doing is what their people truly want to do, as I consider this as too assertive. I read an article from the Guardian Unlimited today. Inside, Alberto Fernandez was quoted when he spoke in a programme produced by the Al Jazeera, which I think worthwhile to share:

"It is difficult for any politician in whatever administration to admit mistakes, because people in the east as well as the west don't like to admit they have made mistakes or are wrong," he replied. "This is the mentality of the people, the mentality of power, authority, autocratic thinking. This is reality."

(Jonathan Steele, 2006)

As I wrote long before, I do not completely agree that we can always explain everything by saying "This is reality".

Anti-war

I am very annoyed after reading the newspaper the Australian today about the 600,000 deaths of the Iraqis in the War on Iraq. (Sam Knight and James Hider, 2006, Retrieved from http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/printpage/0,5942,20567647,00.html)

This is what the greatest U.S. President George W. Bush said,

"I do know that a lot of innocent people have died and that troubles me, and it grieves me. And I applaud the Iraqis for their courage in the face of violence."

Originally I post this to somewhere, but I could not stand it and feel I have to share with everyone.

One of the reasons I find it very disgusting is that I did a study about the media coverage of the War in Iraq. When there are 600,000 Iraqi deaths, the CNN reported the number of U.S. deaths in Iraq with the title "U.S. deaths in Iraq, war on terror surpass 9/11 toll" (CNN, 2006, Retrieved from http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/03/death.toll/)

The lead of the article said this was "another somber benchmark". One may then question how many U.S. military deaths there are - around 3,000. The truth of Iraqi deaths five times more than the U.S. is too ghastly to look at. I cannot understand how somber the U.S. deaths are when they are the invaders. They are shouting to the innocent sufferers that they are the victims. I would say it is pathetic.

Perhaps I am too extreme for this, as this is definitely my personal opinion.

The second reason is what Mr. Bush said, and for this I am going to repeat what I have put somewhere.

[Start] Mr. Bush knew a lot of innocent Iraqi dead, but he continued his invasion by saying this is the holy war against terror. He is just a president of a country, but not the judge of the world. I think the death really troubles him because wars always create hostility, and what he has done is bringing more hatred against the Americans. I disdain his speech.

The second statement is even more disgusting. Mr. Bush applauded the Iraqis for their courage in the face of violence. I doubt if he knew what he was saying. It is the United States that brought the hardships to most Iraqis. The Iraqis have no choice to do regardless of having or not the courage.

Since 2003, the Iraqis have been suffering from the war in Iraq, terrorist attacks and conflicts. The fall of Hussein Saddam does not bring them the improvement of living. In the beginning of the war, Iraq was accused of keeping or development mass destructive weapons and having contact with terrorist groups. Three years later, no distinctive clue is found to prove both charges.

Three years before, Iraq might be a conservative or backward country, but at least it was stable and safe notwithstanding the harsh political atmosphere. Three years later, it is destroyed by violence. War is always the fastest tool to devastate everything - properties, relationships, health, wealth, mentality and so on. It is the worst measure to punish a country.

A tragedy.

A lot of documentaries have revealed the ambition of the invaders - the interest of the oil and coal resources; a mass condemnation has been against the war; countless reports and programmes have shown the deaths and unfair treatments of the innocence.

Where is the conscience? Is it still the same as the original belief? Is it exactly what people want?

It is too obvious that the conflicts will never end. It is a sadness. [End]

At the end of September, I was doing an essay about the global coverage of the War on Terrorism and its impact. During the research, I found an article concerning the reporting of Al Jazeera, the Qatar-based news organization, and the CNN (Chris Suellentrop, 2003, Retrieved from http://www.slate.com/id/2081057). It was entitled "Al Jazeera, IT’S JUST AS FAIR AS CNN" and what it moved me is at the end of the article, the writer asked a question -

"Why must we return to the lie when it's time for peace?"