Does One Size Fit all?

The US assumes a "one-size-fits-all" solution for all international governments, failing to take into account the desires of the people. Pretending that we are still in the Golden Age of America, we continue to export democracy around the world. It has been a successful system for us as a country; surely, it would be beneficial elsewhere. However, this is not the case. In Egypt, for instance, the Egyptians may choose a president that the US views as malignant to US interests. If they do choose such a president, is the US allowed to intervene and change their choice? Of course not. If the US did intervene to change their president, the US would be no better than all of European countries that once lorded over the colonies. It would go against the US's perception of itself.
In February, the Egyptian government brought criminal charges against the National Democratic Institute and the International Republican Institute. The US immediately objected and this dispute could cause problems in the Middle East, especially since Egypt is one of the US's best Middle Eastern allies. They could  not understand; what was wrong with supporting democracy? But if you picture the situation in reverse, it becomes clear what exactly Egypt was unhappy with. Imagine no explanation as to why your form of government is wrong. Imagine free Korans being handed out in the streets. Imagine the encouragement of jihad, a word not even fully understood by most Americans. Imagine a country with no shorts or tank tops or any "immodest" attire. Imagine what the uproar would be like if Egypt had asked that of us. Americans demand equality, youth empowerment, and secularization. None of this fits into the desires of Egypt. Admittedly, it is regrettable that some parts of democracy (particularly gender equality) are rejected because of cultural traditions but these are issues that Egypt must sort out by itself -- if it turns out to be an issue at all. After all, foreign policy is meant to create allies of the US, not clones of American society. Even so, American democracy isn't the only type of democracy; perhaps Egypt could develop its own working government where religion and government are appropriately balanced.
If we consider our cinema, is it any wonder why a country like Egypt wouldn't want to be like us?

Taste And See

Democracy, some might argue, is an acquired taste, similar to that of a child warming up to the prospects of eating an entire vegetable because they no longer mind its previous foul disposition (i.e. bitterness, tastelessness, etc). If we take a look back and journey over the green-capped mountains and pristine rivers that were staples to the pious realm of the Medieval Ages, democracy, an idea conceived and cultivated by the ancient Greeks centuries prior, was a forgotten system, well hidden within the crevices of books that were branded with other idols as "blasphemous." One would argue that although the juxtaposition of church and state was not questioned and retaliated against, it was still an unethical practice of government because of its indirect nature as being oppressive and totalitarian. Another, however, would argue that because the people were seemingly content with the government (such as in the form of obsolete revolution), there was no such malpractice, and that as long as the people were not opposed to the considerably lowered strata women composed, as well as the menial services that were available for the population, there was nothing wrong with the simultaneous rule of the Bible and the monarchy. However, as time collapsed and Europe entered the 16th century, many theologians began to re-consider the teachings of the Ancient Romans and Greeks, and henceforth sprung the mass effort of educating the youth through the renowned movement known by many students today as "The Renaissance." Returning back to the present, it is evidently clear and growing that the youth of the Middle East are beginning to open their eyes to the many injustices that comprise the Qu'ran, such as the inability for a woman to drive a car or take a walk during the night. The answer to the dilemma of establishing democracy in the country of Egypt is education. Most Islamists who are radically fanatic about their religion are considerably uneducated, and are only informed by their culture and previously established way of life within their country. The offspring of the Medieval Ages revolted against the Church's doctrine because education was becoming vastly attainable. Similar to a new born babe, they were acting as sponges, soaking up information previously inaccessible because of the Church's deterrence. They were beginning to understand the true meanings of human rights, and the differences between what is truly right and what is truly wrong (not what the Church considered right or wrong). Although they were able to obtain and practice what had been taught at the universities, the leaders of the Renaissance were still, in today's standards, considerably far away from implementing these basic human entitlements. So, in conclusion, although the candidates for presidency in the country of Egypt are not in the least bit "democratic" (the two popular candidates are Islamist and intend to keep and maintain Sharia Law), the country is taking a step in the right direction. The people have had a taste of democracy, and they like it, and although the older generation would prefer a "God-fearing" president versus a neutral leader, the accessibility of receiving a formal education is exponentially higher than ever before, and the youth of Egypt's tomorrow will commence the slow yet steady movement towards revolutionizing the concrete Constitution that dictates most of the Middle East to this day. In other words, even if the Egyptians do not govern themselves under a democratic system or anything reminiscent to that of America's government, what is currently happening in that country is the acquirement of a new taste, the stomaches welcoming of a healthier remedy, the beginnings of a less hesitant invitation for freedom.

             On Tuesday we discussed the latest election in Egypt and how surprising it is that even after so many revolts and calls for reform, the candidates in the election are more or less conservative Islamists. But is it really that surprising? Mr. Bonamo brought up a vital question: Whether true democracy can take root in nations where it is not rooted in history. I believe this question can have more than one correct answer because it really depends on nation and its people. In Egypt's case, revolution has just taken place, but there is still much change and reform that needs to take place. If you think about the American Revolution, America didn't truly "revolutionize" after the war. We became independent of British rule, but we still had to work a long way to achieve rights for Blacks, Native Americans, and women. There were still plenty of loyalists in the Nation and aspects of the British system in the Articles of Confederation. As you can see, it is entirely possible for Egypt to grant its citizens true liberty, but it's still in early development.
              Due to the fact that Egyptian law is deeply based on the religion of Islam, it may take a longer time. Some citizens are content with this government and only ask for stability. What many people don't realize is that the Sharia laws many Muslim nations engrave into society are simple rules, similar to the Ten Commandments. Some nations regard these laws to the highest degree and that is why they base federal laws upon them. And since Egypt is mostly comprised of an Islamic population, it's difficult for many to accept democracy the way America institutionalizes it. In my opinion, I don't think such religious laws should be imposed upon anyone who does not believe in them. Instead, the individual could follow them if they please.
            It's not impossible to institute true democracy in Egypt, but it will be very difficult since many Mulsim citizens are opposed to certain things like gay marriage or the right to an abortion. The cultural and historic background in Egypt prohibit change, but there's still hope.

Democracy in Egypt

On Tuesday, we tipped the iceberg of this topic with a discussion about how changing a country's government to democracy can affect them. We mentioned that Democracy works as an opposing force to religion. In a world where there are such thing as Islamists, we must admit that here in America, we are "Christian-ists", in that we use many Judeo-Christian values and laws to "base" our law system upon. We have examined how the diminishing of our very religious based values is due to the fact that our government system is Federalism. We have a three branch government that provides checks and balances so that no one group can have too much power. Our Constitution and Bill of Rights allow for either a strict interpretation or a liberal one that leaves a lot of wiggle room. It’s important to understand that although our society takes a very long time to change, it is easier to change in a democratically run nation because of the “rights” of the people.

The rights of the people caused us to allow for court cases such as Roe v. Wade to take place and for Same-sex marriage to be legal in some states. These are contradictory to the original rules of the Judeo-Christian faith and if we started out as such a nation that can be called “Christian” then what might happen to Egypt with such a system being newly implemented. The Egyptian people have a lot to learn with the government change and “Absorbing such ideals has not been easy since Egypt’s 18-day uprising that ended the three-decade reign of Hosni Mubarak. The ruling military has preferred a speedy transition, forcing Egyptians to learn democracy on the run. A key mistake was that the youthful leaders of the revolution failed to unite behind one pro-democracy candidate before the first round of voting May 23-24.” The Egyptians will have to wait until the next election to try again to elect a pro-democratic president.

The other problem is also is what the people want? Perhaps the people do not like the idea of a democratic government. They can be content with a ruling system that is intertwined with religion, it actually makes them feel safer knowing that their leader is intone with God and that their faith will be upheld as high as the law. The fact that less than half the population even bothered to vote shows the nonchalance or rather the fear that the people feel at the prospect of having a democratic president or voting against the overconfident Muslim Brotherhood who “expected to win outright with more than 50 percent of the vote.”  This battle is far from over and only time will tell how the next events will blow over with the Egyptian people. While they may have conducted a “democratic” election, we shall see how different the change will be from the authoritarian regime to a democracy in Egypt.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2012/0529/Egypt-elections-a-test-of-hard-won-civic-values

Democracy in Egypt: Is it Really a Government by the People, for the People?

          This week in class, we discussed the recent presidential elections in Egypt. The pool of candidates was a wide one, consisting of twelve nominees ranging from more conservative Islamist ideas to more liberal ideas. Recently, the pool of nominees has been narrowed to two:

• Former Mubarak Prime Minister Ahmed Shafiq
• Muslim Brotherhood member Mohammed Morsy

Yet though these two were the ones that garnered the most votes, don't begin to think that they have incredibly strong support, as neither of the two garnered even a quarter of the vote and both are criticized for a variety of reasons.

          First lets take a look at Shafiq. As stated earlier, Shafiq was the Prime Minister under Mubarak's regime and is now seen as a defender of it, making him a somewhat unfavorable candidate to some people. However, the biggest thing associated with Shafiq is that people look at him as a military strongman, or someone that has great power and support from the military, making people cautious of what may happen if he were to be elected. He holds a strong and unrelenting stance on the need for stability as well, something that has led him to become indirectly connected to the bloody attack on February 2nd, 2011 in Tahrir, again making him unpopular. Some revolutionaries even go as far as to say he is a "Darth Vader," character for all his stances on these issues.

          Then there is Mohammed Morsy. Many feel that he is "Uncharismatic, unimaginative, unappealing, and often unintelligible," (Iskandar). Morsy's organization/ party, the Muslim Brotherhood, isn't an attractive option to most Egyptians either, appearing "Opportunistic and disingenuous," by their use of religious rhetoric to eliminate their opposition (Iskandar). In addition to this, their lack of acknowledgement of the killing of protesters has made many question the party's trustworthiness. Also, many Egyptians are unclear about their platform, as they have never stated if the would or wouldn't instate sharia law. Finally, the party already has control of the parliament, and a win in the presidential election would give it full control of the writing of Egypt's constitution.

          With all these uncertainty and anxiety over these candidates, Egyptians are worried over what they may do, or are even able to do. Some have even begun to take steps to get a recount, a revote, and even a cancellation of the election all together. So knowing all this, can the Egyptian government become a democratic government by the people, for the people? And if it is, will possible fears of outside countries (like the United States) of the government chosen cause these countries to intervene? 

Can democracy take root in cultures, societies, and nations in which it is not rooted in history?

During Tuesday’s class, there were many points that were addressed concerning the first democratic elections in Egypt. At the beginning of the class, we were showed a 6 minute video that brought us up to speed with who the runners were, a broad feel as to what the people sought in them, and a peek as to who the top contenders were. Contrary to what was expected from this Democratic election, the two candidates who received the most votes were the former prime minister under the old regime and the Muslim Brotherhood’s candidate. To those citizens that hoped for a real change, this outcome doesn’t guarantee this but rather the opposite – that not much will change. With this in mind, the question of whether or not a democracy can take root in cultures, societies, or nations in which it is was not originally rooted, seems pertinent. Speaking solely from observations that I made about this particular democratic election and from my point of view, it appears that the democracy that we as Americans know cannot be instilled completely on a nation that never really had a desire of actually implementing it. From the video that we watched, we saw that when the citizens of Egypt were asked what they sought in their future president, the prominent answer was stability. The fact that this was even an answer expresses quite a lot as it implies that the people will be content with their president as long as this is exactly what he provides – it doesn’t take into consideration how it will be reached or even maintained. Personally, I would have thought these people, especially seeing as they were under an authoritarian rule before, would want a president that would ensure that they have basic rights and liberties – someone who would steer them in a completely different direction than the one they were previously in. But, evidently this is not the case seeing as the people appear to value stability over freedom. It appears that the Egyptian populous is too accustomed to the rule that they have had up until now and that they rather not take a risk and make too much of a drastic change. Even if they were willing to look at change, this does not address the issue of how they would begin to build the foundations to their new government. In order to arrive at a valid answer to this perplexing question it is clear that there needs to be much more research but as of now, I’m inclined to believe that it is really difficult to bring democracy into a nation, culture, or society that never really aspired to have it in the first place.  (And I didn’t even get the chance to discuss the issues concerning a democracy and religious beliefs…) 

Egyptians Vote in Democratic Election

Egyptians went to the polls on Wednesday to choose their first freely elected president, hoping to recapture the promise of a popular uprising that defined the Arab Spring, end 15 chaotic months of military rule and perhaps shape the character of political Islam across the region.

In scenes unthinkable at any time in this country’s vast history, millions of Egyptians waited patiently in long lines, often holding scraps of cardboard against the desert sun, debating with their neighbors which of the five leading contenders deserved their vote. “It is like honey to my heart,” said Mohamed Mustafa Seif, 36, an accountant voting in downtown Cairo. “For the first time in my life, I feel like I have a role to play. My vote could possibly make a difference.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/24/world/middleeast/egypt-presidential-election.html

This was surprisingly in keeping with a timetable outlined in January (exactly one year after the revolution) in this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/26/world/middleeast/egyptians-mark-anniversary-of-revolt-in-tahrir-square.html

The other surprise was that the two candidates who received the most votes are the former prime minister under the old regime and the Muslim Brotherhood's candidate, a sort-of worst-case scenario for those hoping for real change.  A runoff between the two will occur in mid-June.  Here is an article on this outcome from Egypt's oldest newspaper: http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/36/122/42909/Presidential-elections-/Presidential-elections-news/Presidential-elections-nightmare-scenario-leaves-E.aspx

The questions here include whether democracy can take root in cultures, societies, and nations in which it is not rooted in history, and how other democracies will regard undesdirable outcomes of legitimately democratic elections.

I welcome your additional questions and resources in our discussion on Tuesday.

Teenage Dream

    No country has everything. And that’s what trade is for, right? You don’t have feta cheese, and I don’t have rubber. Let’s make a trade, profit, and stabilize our national growth (GDP) so that both your country and my country can prosper and properly serve the population through various government services (in the United States think Medicare, Medicaid, and welfare). Greece is like an irresponsible teenaged girl who maxed out on her credit card, which is divided into interest and principle. Greece can barely afford the interest, much less the principle, which compounds daily and henceforth drives the country into debt.
    However, Greece is very good when it comes to government services, so if the country were to default, the programs would virtually be wiped out and the population would suffer detrimentally. Last year, the people of Greece rioted on the streets when the government tried to reduce the government aid programs, especially for the elderly, by about 50%. Germany, one of the strongest members of the union, is like the credit card company loaning money to the teenaged girl. At first, she probably was able to afford the interest and principle, but eventually started to run out of cash or euros to pay for the principle which in turn increased the interest. Interest at the start of a loan is like 90% and principle is 10%, with interest after a quarter, six months, or a year decreasing and principle increasing in rate.
    If Greece defaults, the debt goes away, similar to the teenaged girl filing for bankruptcy. However, its reputation and ability to obtain a loan goes sour. Say for example we stick to the teenaged girl analogy and she no longer owns a credit card. This means her credit score will be wiped out, which is financially worse than a bad credit score because she actually doesn’t have one anymore. In turn, luxuries such as a car or a house will become exponentially difficult to own because of her ruined reputation, which deters most potential loaners (it’s almost like paying cash upfront for a house and not having a mortgage). The only difference in this analogy between the irresponsible teenaged girl and Greece, however, is that the credit card company (e.g. Germany) does NOT want the girl to file for bankruptcy. This country is one of the most powerful and prestigious countries in the union. If Germany were at 100% before Greece defaulted, it would be down to 75 or maybe 50% after Greece defaults, which is why Germany, as well as France and Britain, are trying to keep the lower union members such as Greece and Spain afloat before hitting ground zero. 

Conflicting Views on the US

After our discussion on Friday, it was evident that Greece’s current situation can impact not only Greece, but also the US.  To what extent will their economic crisis affect us and how great will their impression be? I found two article that show different opinions on this Greek drama. 

According to David Manges, the managing director of municipal trading at BNY Mellon Capital Markets,  “a Greek default would lead to increasing financial problems for European banks and investors.”  It would force them to sell to US investors taxable municipal bonds, thus increasing the prices.  Other analysis suggest, that Greek defaulting will “push Europe into a recession...[and] lower exports from the United States to Europe.”  It may “ultimately lead to lower tax receipts for state and governments.”  There is also speculation that Greece’s problems may become a “financial contagion in Europe,” with other countries wanting to leave the euro (http://www.bondbuyer.com/issues/121_99/greece-exit-euro-currency-default-municipals-1040018-1.html). 

            James Bullard, of the Fed, says on the contrary that Greece “could exit the euro zone without doing deep damage to the US and European economics if the transition is handled properly.”  He feels that if “the European Central Bank is committed to backing the continent’s brittle banking system,” there should be no problem.  These other analysts are overreacting and he expects the US economy to rise up as a result (http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/BRE84N16C/US-USA-FED-BULLARD/). 

            However, what is going on with Greece and its impact is arbitrary.  No one can exactly predict what will happen.  What if we are overacting because we are in a recession?  The only thing we can hope for is that this drama has a better ending than we predict; maybe we will learn life lessons from it like we do with other Greek plays.  

Comparison of effects Greek economic woes could have on America

           We discussed on Friday the uncertainty about how the collapse of the Greek economy and their default on their loans would affect the United States of America. I looked at two different articles that presented different "What if?" situations about how the world economies and markets would receive another bailout or the withdrawal of Greece from the Euro currency. 

            In 

Why Greece's economic collapse is a nightmare for Barack Obama, Nile Gardiner of the Telegraph offers two possible solutions to the predicament that America will find itself in. First, the author insinuates that "The dire situation in Greece is a stark warning for the United States if it continues down its current path of profligate spending. The debt and broader economic crisis in Europe is merely the shape of things to come for America unless it reverses course." The choices that Europe makes can have a definite and dire effect on our economy and the Obama administration repeatedly advocates the "big government solution abroad and at home." He wants Europe to bail out Greece rather than allow for greater economic freedom, and deregulation of labor markets or national sovereignty. The Obama administration looks to EU  to bailout and backs the rise of a European superstate. As Vice President Joe Biden put it, “we did our bailout. They've got to do their bailout.”

            In How Greek economic woes could help consumers, Ron Scherer of the Christian Science Monitor,  presents how although interest rates have been falling, the misfortune of Greece could be better for consumers. In economic uncertainty, people look for a "safe haven" to put their money and they choose to invest in American Securities, making the interest rate go down without the help of the Federal Reserve. The reason is capital flight from Europe. The president of Greece noted on Tuesday that, "almost $900 million had been withdrawn from the country's banks in a single day." This translates into US lenders dropping their rates on new-car loans and mortgages.The United States government can also benefit from the lower interest rates considering that we apportioned $251 billion for interest alone to help pay back our debts.
        The down side is that the interest rates will not go down for credit cards because they operate under the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) system.
      The two articles represent different points of view on a potential boon or curse. Considering that Americans are still convinced that we are in a recession, the fluctuation of the economies in Europe are reflective of our own instability our dwindling confidence in the government and the rising debt that could result in an American default. 

Faults of the Euro

                After Friday's discussion, I decided to research on how exactly Greece and other European nations ended up in an economic crisis. The problem lies in the structure of the Euro Club, (the 17 nations that share the same currency), itself. Individual countries are not bound to strict rules with respect to their national finances. That is, they can do whatever they want. One could visualize this situation as all of these countries sharing a single bank account, while each government is given its own debit card, without limit. As a result of this construction, some of the economically weaker nations started to live at a high rate since the introduction of the Euro. Banks thought they could safely grant loans to these countries, as these were covered by the other users of the Euro.With the international credit crunch, originating in the United States, interest rates got higher and the worldwide economy cooled down fast. Many countries had to invest large amounts of money in some financial institutions, as it would have damaged their economies even worse if these institutions were declared bankrupt. Thus, the hypothetical shared bank account was drained. This led to decreased credit ratings in many European countries and the Euro as a whole.

                 Many people are arguing to throw Greece out of the Euro, let them go bankrupt, or at least, not to spend another penny on them. What these people do not realize, is that most European banks have investments in many other European countries, including Greece. In other words, doing nothing will mean that some of these institutions might go bankrupt, or will need to be saved by the governments. Besides that, doing any of these things would greatly damage the credibility of the Euro, possibly driving interest rates further up and other members ending up in the same situation Greece is in right now.

                 Although understandable, the European countries should stop debating whether or not they should save Greece. Every wasted day means more doubts in the financial markets, and therefore higher interest rates and larger debts for Greece. There should obviously be rules with respect to the financial situations of the individual countries, and how to deal with situations like this one.

US to Greece: On the Brink of Economic Disaster

         

      Greece is on the edge of economic disaster and the US is anxious about all the negative effects this disaster can potentially bring about. The US is still recovering from the horrendous stock market crash it underwent in 2008 and Greece’s back out from the euro back to the drachma, may lead to hindering the US’s economic recovery.  The US resents the harsh effects of the aftermath of the Greece crisis on it’s own current economy and on the world’s current economic stability. At this time, however, the Obama administration is opposed to bailing out Greece (as it will encourage other European countries to follow the same path as Greece and allow them to believe that the US or another country will bail them out as well).
            The economic calamity in Greece could cause stocks to fall in the US and have a paramount effect on other parts of the world such as Paris, Madrid and other regions in concentration with the Eurozone. The debt crisis in Greece and in many other European nations is a reminder to the US of America’s own economic mess. The government in the US has been intervening far too frequently in economic affairs and has enlisted in spending in order to remedy the deficit. If the US continues excess spending, then the debt and economic crisis in Europe is likely to strike in the US as well. Obama has pushed for big government solutions in order to revive economic development. Both the US and Europe are likely to remedy it’s problems more effectively by reducing government spending, lowering taxes, and ending the regulations on markets. Another solution is allowing national sovereignty and giving the national states/ countries freedom to shape their own economic policies. As Greece and many of its fellow European nations are on the brink of disaster, America’s economic prosperity is also threatened. The US has the potential to be negatively affected by Greece’s back out from the Euro, it can only hope to protect it’s economy by re-evaluating it’s own policies and taking preventative measures against the changes ahead. 

Euro Zone Introduction

The euro was meant to unite seventeen out of twenty seven European countries in the EU in collective prosperity, promoting Federalism. The euro was introduced into the international financial market on January 1, 1999. As of 2009, the euro has been in an extreme debt crisis, constantly at risk of recession. Escalating the crisis is its high position in world affairs; it is the second most traded currency and has the highest combined value in circulation. Several measures, such as the European Financial Stability Facility, have been put in place in a desperate attempt to give financial assistance to countries in trouble; it had originally borrowed 440 billion euros and 250 billion remained after the Irish and Portuguese bail out.
Although this has been perceived as a problem for the euro nations as a whole, the problem is actually primarily concentrated in Ireland, Portugal, and Greece. Of particular current interest is the impact the crisis in the Eurozone (an economic & monetary union within the EU) is having on Greece. The problems first began when investors became worried that Greece would be unable to pay off its debts due to an increase in government debt. That's when money began flowing out of the country because people who had money in Greek banks began to worry about the possible devaluing of their money and property. From that point onward, Greece has been unable to increase confidence in their market (which means that they are unable to get people to buy or sell or invest). 4 billion euros have flowed out every month since 2009.
 This flow has picked up in the wake of Greece's political uncertainty; they have not had a central government in over a week and are instead in a transition period. Their next election will be in June. One political camp desires a renegotiation of the current loan deal with the EU; the other is keen on keeping the euro and completely demolishing the loan deal. Until the elections on May 6, money had actually begun to flow back in. This political uncertainty is accompanied by the looming specter of a Greek default, a default that may be in the near future and is getting vastly different opinions. A Greek default would mean that those who had assets in Greece would have their accounts frozen and converted to the drachma, which has a significantly lower value, compared to the euro.
In a Greek default, Greece would be hardest hit but it could result in a return to recession of 2008 and prove deleterious to the European banking system as a whole. It could also start a ripple effect in which Irish and Portugal also avoid payment of debt and default themselves. Greece's inability to solve their crisis has been in part because of cutting public spending too early. By doing this, their economy has contracted and they have essentially been borrowing more money to pay off creditors. It was essentially a way to buy time to solve their problems. Unemployment is now 16% and the deficit grew 13% in the first five months of this year. It seems inevitable that Greece will be forced to default but some experts believe default may not be quite as bad as it seems.
Stuck between a rock and a hard place, they say that it is better that lenders lose money than an entire population. To increase economic prosperity (in a shorter amount of time) would also mean devaluing the currency in the short run but that is impossible if Greece is part of a group. Time will only tell what happens.

Articles I Used:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/05/15/why-greece-should-default-and-leave-the-euro/
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/17/world/europe/greece-teeters-ahead-of-new-vote.html?_r=1&ref=euro
http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2011/06/17/end-of-the-line-what-a-greek-default-means/
More Perspective:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100158147/why-greeces-economic-collapse-is-a-nightmare-for-barack-obama/
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/economy/business/AJ201205160024
http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2012/0516/How-Greek-economic-woes-could-help-US-consumers
http://www.athensnews.gr/portal/11/55561

- I'm sorry this is so incredibly long but I needed to get all the background because this isn't what most people consider "light reading"

What will become of Facebook?

As the discussion of all the issues surrounding Facebook came to an end, there was a question that still lingered in my mind: How would the Facebook initial public offering affect Facebook and the multiple services that it provides to its users for free?

Up until recently, Facebook had spent its years growing and working on its social network without any outside involvement. But now, Facebook has decided to appeal to the public market for funds so that it begins to prosper as a company. This decision might not have been anything that they could have controlled as Facebook was already approaching the 500 shareholder mark which would require them to publicly release financial details. This is where the whole initial public offering aspect comes in as Facebook has decided to start selling stocks to anyone willing to invest. According to various recent newspaper reports, Facebook has set an initial public offering of $28-$35 a share which values the company by as much as $96 billion. For Facebook, the initial public offering price would rank it as the largest internet initial public offering and as one of the largest initial public offerings in history according to Renaissance Capital. As this has come to light, there have been many criticisms regarding the price per share as some believe that it is too high. Coming up with the price for an initial public offering is something complex. Here, the company has to consider an amount that price will attract investors while at the same time that will bring the most money for the business itself. This is so as once a company goes public it is highly unlikely that shares will once again serve to bring in more money later on. The initial public offering therefore proves to be the best time to bring in money for the company. But even with all the gossip and criticism surrounding the initial public offering and the initial price per share, there appears to be a lot of investors willing to spend their money for a share of this social network giant.

With their initial public offering, Facebook is set to raise an estimated $13.6 billion. What could Facebook possibly do with this money you might wonder? Well, for starters, Facebook could use this money for many things such as buying off potential competition (like they did with the photo-sharing Instagram), use it to finance potential litigation, or maybe to simply keep improving their services. The bigger concern for users though has been the question of how Facebook might change now that it has established itself as a company. Well, according to CNET, we now can expect Facebook to be more focused on making money more than ever before.

“Public companies have to answer to shareholders, who demand steady, growing profits. So despite the company's warning that it will focus on the consumer experience first, profit will certainly be a high priority. You're already starting to see some of the changes. Facebook confirmed to CNET last week that it was testing paid posts, or charging users to guarantee that a post gets seen by all of its followers (currently, users see only a fraction of posts on their news feed).”

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57433719-93/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-facebook-ipo-faq/

As a of the social networking giant, one can speculate many changes that might arise now that Facebook has appealed to investors for money. With this initial public offering, it is possible that many more issues arise with regards to privacy and data collection and at the same time, it is possible that the current ones are actually solved. Whatever may be the case, only one thing is for certain – only time will tell just what changes Facebook might undergo.

Facebook: Taking Over

There is a certain necessity in today’s society to be in constant communication with others, which is facilitated with media outlets such as Facebook. As we have said over and over again, Facebook has revolutionized media and communication because everything we every wanted and everything we every needed to know is at the tips of our fingers. But, with this, there is also a metamorphosis in the way people live.

There is a loss in privacy, where anyone and everyone knows what we are doing at any time, even “friends” we do not know.  It is very possible that a “friend” is not the person you spend all night up with studying for an AP, but a random cyber acquaintance you met one summer and never talked to again. Yet on Facebook, there is no difference. People pour their whole life stories onto their Facebook profiles for everyone to see every little detail.  However, we are so surprised when people we do not know seem to know our favorite TV shows and movies.  Employers judge prospective employees from last weekend’s tagged photos.  We no longer live in a world where we can have secrets since everything is out there.

There is also a loss in etiquette for the adapted “m-etiquette,” where not connecting with the person you are speaking to is acceptable.  Instead of picking up a cellphone to call someone, you can pick up you cellphone and write on their walls.  Don’t even suggest walking over to a friend’s house, it would take too long and too much energy.  Because of this, we fail to see the true emotional and facial expressions in the interactions we have.  How will others know you actually care about what they are saying, or that you are paying attention? The learned social skills that people have had in the past that are necessary such as having eye contact when others are speaking to you, slowly begins to disappear. 

There is also a change in attitude in how we view information.  Everything is personalized for us.  As it is said in this article, Facebook Popcultural Phenomeon Impact Business Society, marketing companies target audiences based on how one personalizes their pages and who one’s friends are.  Examples that they give include the Internet radio Spotify that “lets people share and discover new music with their Facebook friends” and Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign which let younger people become more informed in a way they would respond.  Facebook is their stimulus. 

Not only have we changed our lives, we have also coined new terms like “friended” and “Facebooked” to accommodate and express what we do on Facebook. 

Despite all the bad from Facebook, there is some good.  Without Facebook, we cannot connect to as many people as we can, and those who are shy could be more like extroverts.  But do all these negative affects of Facebook out weight the positives that Facebook has given us?  Maybe these changes are just meant to be.

http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_20604628/facebook-ipo-cultural-phenomenon-impact-business-society?source=rss