Outright Elitism

The statement that simply "some people just aren't intelligent enough to be successful" by Boris Johnson is clear evidence of their distance from reality and their over fuelled egos. I firmly reject such comments as those such as Boris Johnson would clearly not have a hope in hell in succeeding if his circumstances were somewhat different as a child. This distinction of top cornflakes and bottom cornflakes shows his lack of sense of the real world and exposes the idiocy in himself as opposed to the people he is trying to attack.

This is completely the opposite of the very theme of meritocracy, you work hard and you get the best rewards, but rather outright elitism. His pitiful distinction of cornflakes is merely an attempt to secure and protect the power of elites, the silver spoon is definitely at hand here.

I shall end this here before it becomes too much of a rant.

Boris Johnson, you clearly haven't had to work hard to get where you are top cornflake.

Consumerism as the key to happiness

GDP, Growth, Sales, Advertising and Confidence, these things are all part of our economy but are these too influential I ask? Has consumerism taken the form as progression, ambition and the common goal in life?

To answer this question (briefly) I will try to explain whether the change in consumer habits has changed our outlook in life. For the purpose of simplicity I shall not consider religious arguments as it would raise too many questions, not because it doesn't matter.

First of all we need to know what we need as a comparison, lets take half a century ago (in the 1960s.) Back in those times consumerism is not what we know of it today. There was no real high demand to consume goods such as the latest fashions apart from those who were in the 'elite' of society. So many may observe that these were the times of simple lives without vast amount of consumption. However, I object that this would mean these were 'good times' as we have it better than people had it then. I feel that people are clouded by nostalgia of what it was to live a simple life. Without 'mad consumerism' we picture a scene of a family sitting around a fire reading books, playing games and singing in a jolly way. Almost picturesque until you consider the flip side. Without consumption, choice was limited to those who could afford to pay for it. Scenes alternatively pictured of families eating bread and butter to get by, and even when people had the choice they had the choice of what was stocked in their local shop. So it seems after considering this that people would not so surely reject consumerism as a good thing to have.

However, as always, that isn't always the case. In some ways these mistaken nostalgic persons have a point. The problem of consumerism is that while it has given us choice of luxuries in which we can afford and cannot bare to say no, it has changed how we act and how we view our outlook in life. Whereas in the past many people wouldn't ask for more they could need, restricting their ambition, in recent times people ask for more than they should. This change has led to an jump from people having barely what they need to a situation where greed has clouded their decisions and judgement. To explain why an over-emphasis on consumerism can lead to disaster, I needn't look back no further than the credit crisis. To sum up the growth of the economy gave the illusion of an everlasting world of growth, causing a dangerous boost in confidence. Because of our consumerism nature that had been built up over the years, our time was now to spend spend spend, to live beyond our means and a party that led to a inevitable economic hangover.

Even if you weren't so sure before, I hope that you now consider that consumerism isn't as clear cut. It seems neither good nor bad in itself but the extent to which it improves our lives and the extent to which it dominates our lives. Both extreme saving and extreme consumerism can never be bad, the solution is the middle ground. But where is this middle ground, well if you can answer this feel free to put yourself amongst the top leading economists. The truth is that we have to balance blindfolded at the moment as people try determine the complexities of the economy, market and consumer behaviour.

Note: I will consider different responses in order to further edit this short piece in the future. 

Social Media: Is it enlightening us or dumbing us down - short.

Recently I have decided to sometimes do short snippets of a Blog post to whatever comes to mind and make a short paragraph on that, whichever receives great interest I shall continue and build upon that (like a to-do list.)

My first short paragraph is on social media and whether its existence is a tool for knowledge or a cause for ignorance.
It can be seen as great, we know what's going on, how to contact someone and what's happening all in the space of our laptops and mobiles. This does seem that our social capacity can indeed expand to a point that could not be imagined a decade or so ago. We follow celebrities, like what we like and get to see what our friends are doing, what could be better?
However, is there really a cost to these benefits we get, and if so, do these costs have serious implications. Well the trouble with all this convenience can make us extremely impatient at times. I admit myself, after I send a text or message, I am expecting a response quickly and it can be frustrating when this is not the case. Secondly, can this get us addicted to social media? If when you refresh Facebook or Twitter and you still have the same, then you are addicted, hooked on the online lives of others.

Now I'm not saying we should all go outside and go play with Kites in that 'ideal perfect' world but rather I ask, should we restrict ourselves from being indoctrinated by the social media lifestyle?

'Google goes through your emails.' Is it a step too far?

Recently, Outlook has performed an attack on Google's reputation by exposing it as a privacy intruder. However, like always I am sure that Google or whatever company that comes into question will just throw up its terms and conditions in an attempt to smokescreen the situation.

It may seem they have a point, if we accepted their terms then we must abide by those conditions. Although, the big BUT here is that terms and conditions may have lots of legal jargon that can protect these companies but the real fact is, Google is the one in control. By establishing a large, loyal and regular users into their Gmail, YouTube Blogger and +1, they have been able to hook us into a advertisers goldmine.

But people can surely just move can't they? Just abandon Google?
No, because Google have integrated all their programs, blogs, videos, accounts and even their social networking together we cannot just opt out of Gmail going through our emails. It's not just controversial but it is a violation of a person's right and this angers me. The fact that they are using this blog, my emails, your searches and what you liked makes me angry, surely they have breached the our trust. While I thought what you posted on Facebook being used for advertising was crossing the line a little, this 'blows things out of the water' so to speak . Our privacy is being used for wealth, our interests and vulnerabilities exploited.
You can use your Terms and Conditions, but you cannot ignore that people have privacy rights.

Hopefully this post will protect our Freedom of Speech on the internet and keep our private messages, private.

Anksthay orfay eadingray!

(If you don't understand... http://www.keepyouremailprivate.com/)

Pushing China to the limit - Why China is not to blame for the USA's problems.

I understand that the majority of the internet world and even a majority of readers of this blog are in fact from the USA. Therefore, I thought I'd give a bit of time dedicated to blogging about the social, economic and political impacts and influences of the USA. This blog post is about challenging the conceptions given of China that is a evil growing superpower that plans to dominate the world, in favour of a more rational approach.

As the sweet turned sour in the USA and the rest of the world in terms of the economy, it can be seen that China is merely the USA's scapegoat for its own inherent problems. I will now explain why this may be the case.

Let's cast our minds back to the so called 'good times' where money was rolling in and prices remained fixed. At this time, the whole 'western' world (i.e. USA, UK, Spain) was engulfed by the greed for even more, and what happened? Well they got more. More money, more goods, more consuming and more or less more of everything, but the question I now pose is, at what cost?

Sure enough the good times can't go on forever and especially in this case the so called 'good times' had been stretched to the limit powered by greed and extreme confidence. As soon as it seemed to be never ending, it sure enough it did. Confidence was destroyed and money was lost, but out of the depths of the downward economic spiral out came a cry 'It's not our fault.'

The desperate attempt to blame something else soon came to be with China. Such attacks on this country escalated stating that it 'stole jobs', made things too cheap and generated unfair competition. However, I argue differently from this one sided narrow view that China is solemnly to blame for the problems in the USA. While I happily could go into the economics of this, I shall not for the purpose of simplicity (although I may, if popular, go into it at a later date) but rather focus on why the blame is not held totally by China.

We know that China makes a lot of goods for the USA, is this the problem of the USA? Well if it is then China is only supplying demand, the USA is not forced into demanding these goods but rather the USA is very familiar with living beyond its means (demanding more than what you can afford.)
Although, some may in response say that this is because these goods are so cheap, if they weren't so cheap then we wouldn't have this problem. I deny this argument for a number of reasons. Firstly, it makes the USA sound out to be some sort of shopaholic stuck in the centre of a Mall (Shopping centre for us UK people) and clearly this is absurd if the USA as a country cannot control itself. However, assume for instance that cheap goods in china did not exist, would this fix these problems? No I argue because it is a inherent problem with the USA (mainly USA but other countries such as in Europe too) rather than its overseas trade partners. If China did not produce cheap goods the USA would simply indirectly demand another developing country (such as India) to supply its never ending demand.

I hope that this gives a bit more insight to how slander is directed to countries that are simply scapegoats of powerful countries and how that there are inherent problems within one's own country rather than it being pinned on the rest of the world.

Feel free to Comment or even follow/share below, the more opinions the better =)

Challenging the feminist stereotype

This post has been dedicated to a fellow blogger in which I share interests. While it has permission to be posted on the other blog, my views may or may not be shared by the blog owner. Since the blog was just starting off I thought I would just make a contribution. The blog in which it is posted is at http://www.thefemaleorg.blogspot.co.uk/

Follow this blog for updates!

'Butch, brute and man-hating' is often the description that is labelled to someone who calls themselves a feminist. But why I ask? Is it true that this idea matches the conception of what some people think?
Clearly not, and the reasons why these conceptions are drawn and exaggerated are because of the fear of change. Those who have dominated for centuries feel vulnerable to the exposure of an equal society growing ever more conservative (not to be confused with The Conservative party.) This imaginary conception is there to manipulate our intuitive feelings towards an equal society to instead favour the traditional gender roles and domination of one sex. Therefore, it can be easy to expose the small extremes of feminism to manipulate people's view on the idea making it seem almost ridiculous.
However, while some may say feminism is outdated and old news, I couldn't disagree more. While women have the ability to vote, own their own property and anything that a man can do, there are some psychological factors that oppress one sex in favour of the other.
While equality of the sexes before the law is now a reality, the deep psychological factors and issues with self-consciousness remain. While it is a slower process, to achieve full equality of both male and female there must be gradual changes in societies attitudes towards women, elimination of gender stereotypes and a point where at any given moment we are seen as equal persons.
Although, while this seems ideal to many people, those who remain in control aim to resist this gradual change, attempting to rather sweep equality' under the carpet' so to speak in favour of such 'traditional values.'

Or maybe feminism is Butch, brute and man-hating and shouldn't you really..."Calm down dear."

Link calm down dear to this link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13211577

Political disengagement fuels the wealthiest in society to be powerful.

Over the years we have become less engaged with politics and the political system. Our love for democracy and our love to participate has faded away dramatically. However, I shall explain why that lack of interest in the political system and lack of participation is not in our own interests.

Some may argue that this disengagement is due to the trustworthiness of politicians has more or less withered away and feel by not taking part in politics would be your stand against this. Unfortunately not, a lack of participation does not show your resentment but rather amplifies the votes of those who benefit most from this twisted sense of democracy.

Parties are too shy to adopt anything that is not consensus. Parties make the policy and 'shift our interests' to try and make it fit. This stems from decades of merging interests such as career prospects, income and wealth and what we expect from the state. Although we are to blame as much for this political consensus, it is our votes (or non-votes that I will explain) that are being taken for granted. By saying that 'They will not get my vote' is not showing your discontent, but what is actually being said is 'I will let someone indirectly use my vote.'

Why you may ask is this the case? This is because politics is still (unfortunately) dominated by the middle to upper classes, while everyone else has the vote, they do not have the willingness to use their vote. So a system of politics that appears to be dominated by the middle to upper classes from within follows that the majority of those who are represented by those within the system are politically engaged. So it follows what you are doing with your non-vote is emphasising the votes of those who tend to have a large influence and are largely represented in the political system. The result being is that those who largely don't use their vote or have little influence over politics are those which are 'victimised' by consensus politics. Therefore, political disengagement fuels the representation of those who are politically engaged (who are positively correlated to those being the wealthiest in society) have a indirect influence over all of our lives.

Example 1: Without Political Participation

	Party A	Party B	Party C	Total
Class A (best-off)	30%	12%	7%	50%
Class B	12.5%	7.5%	5%	25%
Class C	2%	10%	3.5%	15.5%
Class D (worst-off)	0.5%	6%	3%	9.5%

Example 2: With all members participating

	Party A	Party B	Party C	Total
Class A (best-off)	7.5%	2.9%	2.1%	12.5%
Class B	25%	15%	10%	50%
Class C	3.3%	16.1%	5.6%	25%
Class D (worst-off)	0.7%	7.9%	3.9%	12.5%

                                               

Finally, the example above shows that political participation and engagement has the power to change politics, therefore if all members participated in society then it would restrict one group from taking hold and influencing key decisions that affect our lives. As a result, I conclude (and I believe) that political disengagement fuels the wealthiest in society to be powerful.

You may take this argument two ways. Either that political engagement must be increased to those who are not represented in politics (in general I just used classes as an example) or that the state is an unfair system and must be abolished, in which you are an anarchist. Although, I prefer the former (first) I cannot exclude opinions of those who believe different to myself or even  exclude it based on majority beliefs.