Evolution Of The Principle Of Comparative Advantage Economics Essay

Evolution Of The Principle Of Comparative Advantage Economics Essay From the early 19th century, new outlooks on trade theory have influenced how countries have engaged in production. One of the most significant developments in this area was that of comparative advantage. Comparative advantage refers to the ability of a country to produce one good at a lower opportunity cost than another. Comparative Advantage argues that all countries will gain from trade, even those that are relatively inefficient in the production of goods. All countries will gain, even those with an absolute disadvantage in the production of all goods, as opposed to with Absolute Advantage, which refers to the ability of a country to produce one good at a lower opportunity cost than another. In this essay, I intend to discuss how the theory of comparative advantage has come into being, from its inception in the early 1800s, through the neo classical period and into the modern era. This discussion will look at the variations on the theory proposed by some of the leading economists in the field of international trade, and how they viewed and expanded upon the original law of comparative advantage. In looking at how the law has developed over the past two centuries, my aim is to show the principles uses in describing how international trade is conducted to this day. In the latter sections of the essay, I will refer to empirical evidence that tests if comparative advantage predicts accurately patterns of international trade. Comparative Advantage Adam Smith illustrated an early understanding of the benefits that could be gained by focusing on the production of goods that the population was most efficient at producing: If a foreign country can supply us with a commodity cheaper than we ourselves can make it, better buy it of them with some part of the produce of our own industry, employed in a way in which we have some advantage (Smith,1776,295). This idea demonstrated Smiths understanding of the concept of absolute advantage, whereby gain is realised in exchange between two men who are superior in the production of one good. The principle of comparative advantage was first presented in the work of Robert Torrens in his 1815 Essay on the External Corn Trade, where Torrens discussed Absolute Advantage in substantial detail and explained how it was beneficial for a country to engage in trade for a commodity even if the host country could produce the same good at a lower actual cost than the country it was trading with. However, it is David Ricardo who is widely credited with the first complete formulation of the theory of comparative advantage in 1817. Ricardo recognised that absolute advantage was only a limited version of a more general theory. His early understanding of the theory of comparative advantage is displayed in the quote: Two men can both make shoes and hats, and one is superior to the other in both employments; but in making hats he can only exceed his competitor by one-fifth or 20 per cent; and in making shoes he can excel him by one-third or 33 per cent: will it not be in the interest of both that the superior man should employ himself exclusively in making shoes, and the inferior man in making hats? (Ricardo,1817, p136). The assumptions in his reasoning can be seen in Kemp Okawas review of the formulation of comparative advantage, where they set out a model in which both countries are initially autarkical, then subsequently open up to a free trade environment, that all countries have at their disposal the potential to produce all possible commodities, and that in a state each country involved is able to consume all of these commodities. (2006,468). John Aldrich was recorded as saying, Torrens, Ricardo and Mill all made contributions to the discovery of comparative advantage, not by a major multiple discovery but through a sequence of insights and arguments (Aldrich, 2004, 379). James Mill studied and subsequently ratified Ricardos view on the existence and viability of comparative advantage in 1821 when he said When two men have more than they need, it will be a great accommodation to both if they can perform an exchange of a part of the food of the one for a part of the cloth of the other, and so in other cases (1821,63). In his treatment of the principle, he provided one of the clearest explanations and examinations of the workings of comparative advantage, rectifying much of the ambiguity of Ricardos exposition. His work enhanced the status of the principle of comparative advantage in economic circles by illustrating its viability through the use of numerous numerical examples. John Stuart Mill, son of James Mill, studied and subsequently made refinements to the theorem introduced by his father. Through his work, comparative advantage gained more universal acceptance as an explanation of the benefits of trade in the mid 19th century. He was responsible for the rational reconstruction of Ricardo in which the labour cost coefficients were interpreted as the amounts used in each unit of a good produced rather than Ricardos labour cost of producing the amounts contained in a typical trading bundle'(Ruffin,2002,727-748). Some of Mills most prominent work in the field of comparative advantage can be seen in his 1844 Theory of international values which aided the economic community to come to a fuller understanding and appreciation of the centrality of comparative cost in trade theory (Gomes,2003). In 1930, Gottfried Haberler of the neo-classical school of economics provided a modern interpretation of the theory of comparative advantage which generalised and separated it from David Ricardos labour theory of value, helping to form the foundations of modern trade theory. Haberler believed that it was possible to reformulate the theory in such a way that its analytical value and all conclusions drawn from it are preserved, rendering it at the same time entirely independent of the labor theory of value (Bernhofen,2005,998). His work indicated that comparative advantage is about resource allocation, and adapted it into a more general principle that accommodated non-linear production frontiers. Kemp and Okawa state that Haberler indicated that the relative opportunity costs of producing determines both the direction of free international trade and the manner in which gains from this trade are shared by trading partners (2006,1). The next significant progression in the development of the theory was through the work of two Swedish economists Eli Heckscher and Bertil Ohlin. Their theory examined the reasons behind the differences in comparative costs. The Heckscher-Ohlin model introduced new ideas which differed from the classical approach. Factors of production are taken into account for the first time, of which the two primary ones were labour and land (Eicher, Mutti Turnovsky,2009,68). The theory explains how countries of similar technological levels can trade, how trade affects the distribution of wealth in the economy and how growth in an economy affects trade. Their model was based on two assumptions. Firstly; that countries would no longer differ in terms of technology, but rather by their endowment of factors of production. This meant that countries would be concerned with relative differences in labour and capital abundances compared to their trading partner. The second assumption was that goods differ by the factors of production they require. They explained that the more abundant a factor of production was, the greater the likelihood that it would be cheaper to produce their specialised goods and hence, the opportunity cost of producing goods which were reliant on this factor would be lower in other words, that the source of comparative advantage resided in the factor endowments of a country (Viner,1937). This implies that countries would have a comparative advantage in producing goods that their abundant factor of production. For example, countries with an abundant supply of labour would reap the greatest benefits by focusing their specialism on labour intensive products. The benefits of the H-O theory compared to the theory of comparative advantage were that: it offered; a better means of explaining observed trade patterns, the ability to develop implications about how trade affects wages and returns on capital, it shows the economic growth on trade and it offers a more thorough explanation of political groups on trade. A further development of H-O theory was the Stolper-Samuelson theorem which shows that the owners of scarce/abundant factors are disadvantaged/benefited when an economy opens up for trade and specializes in the production of the good that is intensive in its use of the abundant factor a discovery that was beneficial in the understanding of the politics behind free trade and protectionism. The theory states that during increase in the price of an abundant factor and the fall in the price of the scarce factor, and that the owners of the abundant factor will find their incomes rise the owners of the scarce resource will see their real incomes fall. Rogoff states that their paper was the first to demonstrate the Heckscher-Ohlin theorem in a two good, two country, two factor (labour and capital) model. The H-O theorem shows that with identical technologies at home and abroad, the country with the larger endowment of labour relative to capital should export the labour intensive good. This advancement of the theory aided the thinking about trade between countries with widely different capital-labour ratios. (Rogoff,2005,8). Chipman and Inoue state that for their theory, the following assumptions are made: 1. All trade takes place in a free trade environment, with no transport costs attached. 2. The factors of production, labour and capital, are freely mobile between industries within countries, while at the same time being immobile between countries. 3. The production functions neoclassical and constant over time. 4. The endowment of labour in each country is constant over the two periods (2001,2). Contemporary research by economists such as Helpman Krugman (1985) adapts traditional comparative advantage theory by relaxing some of the assumptions that underlie the contemporary specification of the principle, such as economy of scales and product differentiation. Nowadays, the comparative advantage theory can be further developed by including new aspects, such as specialization, technological differences and aspects of game theory (Tian, 2008). Comparative advantage may appear to be somewhat paradoxical, in the sense that it states that, under a certain set of conditions, a country should produce and export a good that its workforce is not particularly skilled at producing when compared directly to the workforce of another country. However, it holds true when it is explained that when two countries who each hold a comparative advantage in a particular good engage in trade with one another, trade between these nations raises both of their real incomes, on the condition that there is a relative gap between the costs of the same types of products in production by the countries engaging in trade. Ricardos model shows that, if a country wants to maximise gain, it must strive to fully employ all of its resources. It should then allocate its resources to each these resources to its comparative advantage industries, and subsequently, it should aim to operate in a free trade environment, which will benefit all trading partners invol ved. It can be seen how comparative advantage is still a useful and important concept in explaining international trade. Jones and Neary conferred their opinion on the ongoing validity of the theory: While the principle of comparative advantage may thus be defended as a basic explanation of trade patterns, it is not a primitive explanation, since it assumes rather than explains inter-country differences in autarkic relative prices (Reinert, Rajan Glass,2009,199). Revealed comparative advantage is an index devised by Bella Balassa used to calculate the relative advantage or disadvantage a country may have in a specific class or category of goods or services. This advantage can be assessed through analysing trade flows. The index attempts to uncover a revealed comparative advantage by assessing the countrys specialism in exports in relation to others. It is a highly useful means of assessing how useful Comparative advantage is in explaining contemporary trade patterns. A large number of empirical tests of comparative advantage have been undertaken to test the theory of comparative advantage. MacDougall tested the hypothesis that the export ratios of two countries to a third market were a function of labour productivity ratios of the two countries in question. The results were supportive of the Ricardian model, and his work demonstrated that trade between the United States and the United Kingdom in 1937 followed Ricardos prediction. CONCLUSION Throughout this essay, it can be seen how the ideas forged in the original theory of comparative advantage have eminently formed a large part of the basis for understanding how international trade is conducted today. Since its advent, attaining a comparative advantage has been heavily reliant on recognising and exploiting the natural resources and competencies that are present within a country. Even to this day, countries specialise their economies depending on the factors of production that enable them to produce most efficiently, all the while recognising that holding a comparative advantage is a cornerstone of effective trade practices. In the modern era and most likely in the coming years, comparative advantage is likely to continue to become an increasingly more man made factor, with the utilisation of new technologies resulting in the likelihood of significantly increasing production efficiency, and thus affecting the areas on which a country holds an absolute and comparative advantage. Although the original theory of comparative advantage may not subscribe to the current economic environment, it is still a relevant means of determining the most beneficial trading strategy for a countrys economy. Adaptations to the theory since its inception have facilitated the continued utilisation of the idea in the current climate. According to Gale, the changes that have taken place over time are a product of globalisation, for example, new trade barriers and changes in agricultural policy have caused a decrease in some countries manufacturing prowess and has resulted in a subsequent reduction in its comparative advantage (2002,27). The current trend of globalization means that the assumptions associated with comparative advantage are becoming increasingly more difficult to apply.  Ã‚  Despite this, it is still a relevant means of describing international trade patterns today and the ways in which a country can best exploit its natural endowment of resources. To reinforce this point, Paul Samuelson has stated that comparative advantage is the only law of economics which can stand comparison with the laws generated by hard sciences. Modern conditions may cloud our law but, suitably qualified, it still holds (Gray,2000,316). Through my research into the growth of comparative advantage from its inception, I believe that the concept still aptly demonstrates the fundamental importance of the effects, determinants and nature of international trade. Bibliography Aldrich J, Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Volume 26, Number 3, September 2004 (pg 396) (26, 3, 379-399) Bernhofen, Daniel M. (2005), Gottfried Haberlers 1930 Reformulation of Comparative Advantage in Retrospect,   Review of International Economics; Nov2005, Vol. 13 Issue 5, p997-1000, 4p Calhoun, Craig and Gerteis, Joseph (2007) Classical Sociological Theory, Blackwell Publishing Chipman, John S and Inoue, Tadashi (2001), Intertemporal Comparative Advantage, I *(pg. 2) http://www.econ.umn.edu/~jchipman/econ8402f05/INTERTMP.PDF Eicher, Theo S., Mutti John H. and Turnovsky Michelle H (2009), International Economics, Routledge; 1 edition, (pg. 68) Faulkner, David and Segal-Horn, Susan (2004), The economics of international comparative advantage in the modern world, European Business Journal; 2004 1st Quarter, Vol. 16 Issue 1, p20-31, 12p. Gale, Fred (2002) Chinas Food and Agriculture: Issues for the 21st Century / AIB-775, Economic Research Service/USDA (pg27) Gomes, Leonard (2003), The economics and ideology of free trade: a historical review, Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd Gray, H (2000) A Review of Maneschi, Andrea, Comparative Advantage in International Trade: A Historical Perspective, International Trade Journal; Fall2000, Vol. 14 Issue 3, p315-320, 6p Kemp, Murray C., and Okawa Masayuki (2006), The Torrens-Ricardo principal of Comparative Advantage: An Extension Review of International Economics, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 466-477, August 2006 Maneschi, Andrea (1998) Comparative advantage in international trade: a historical perspective (pg52) Mill, James (1821), Elements of Political Economy, London: Henry G. Bohn   chapter III, pg63 Reinert, Kenneth A., Rajan, Ramkishen S. and Glass, Amy Jocelyn (2009), The Princeton encyclopedia of the world economy, Vol 2, Princeton University Press Rogoff, Kenneth (2005), Paul Samuelsons Contributions to International Economics Harvard University, pg 8 http://www.economics.harvard.edu/files/faculty/51_Samuelson.pdf Ruffin, Roy J. (2002) History of Political Economy; Winter2002, Vol. 34 Issue 4, p727-748, 22p Smith Adam (1776) An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Hackett Publishing Company Inc. Book IV, Chapter III (IV.3.33) The evolution of the comparative advantage argument for free trade. http://www.econ.ku.dk/kgp/doc/Lectfrms/evolution%20of%20comparative%20advantage.pdf Tian, Yiqian (2008), A New Idea about Ricardos Comparative Advantage Theory on Condition of Multi-Commodity and Multi-Country International Journal of Business and Management Vol.3, No. 12, December 2008 Viner, Jacob (1937), Studies in the Theory of International Trade, New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, Chapter VIII Introduction In the course of this essay, I intend to outline the development of the principle of the quantity theory of money, from its initial inception in the 16th century right up to the current outlook on the theory in the 21st century. Subsequently I hope to outline the theorys importance as a catalyst for the development of monetarism in the 20th century, and outline how monetarism has progressed since that point in time. The quantity theory of money provides a means of answering the question what gives money value? We know that intrinsically, a bank note is a valueless piece of paper and ink, and that its perceived value stems from the quantity of it in supply. Due to the value of money being variable, a change in money demand or supply will yield a change in the value of money and in the price level. The more money that is in circulation means that each individual bill becomes worth less. This will result in it taking more bills to purchase goods and services, and as a result, price level will increase accordingly. The quantity theory of money states that the value of money is based on the amount of money in the economy that the nominal money supply is a function of the equivalent changes in price levels as it relates to the demand for money necessary to meet the needs of current transactions. For example, in Ireland, according to the theory, when the central bank increases the money supply, the value of money falls and the price level increases. Main body The theory states that a one-time change in the stock of money has no lasting effect on real variables but will lead to a proportionate change in the money price of good. In other words, it declares that moneys value or purchasing power varies inversely with its quantity. To this day, there exists prevalent academic discussion as to who developed the theory. The first possible statement of the quantity theory of money originated in the work of Nicholaus Copernicus In 1526, when Copernicus wrote a study on the value of money, Monetae cudendae ratio, in which he noted the increase in prices following the import of gold and silver from the new world. He expressed the findings of his studies into the value of money, and in this work, he formulated a version of the quantity theory of money. Copernicus observed that the value of money would fall if it was issued to excessive quantities, to the point where it was almost valueless. Volckart notes that Money can lose its value through excessive abundance, if so much silver is coined as to heighten peoples demand for silver bullion. For in this way, the coinages estimation vanishes when it cannot buy as much silver as the money itself contains. The solution is to mint no more coinage until it recovers its par value (1997,433). Jean Bodin took a different stance in the middle of the sixteenth century. In 1568, he drew attention to the influx of gold and silver into Spain, and consequently the rest of Europe, from the Americas. He argued that the price level had risen along with the stock of bullion available for monetary purposes and was able to draw a conclusion about the link between these events. John Locke accepted this idea and stated the Quantity Theory of Money as a general rule, that if the supply of money increased, the prices of all goods will rise. If money supply fell and the prices of goods fell, than the prices of foreign goods would rise relative to domestic goods both of which will keep us poor (Locke, 1692). The first concise statement about the existence of a quantity theory was that made by David Hume in 1752. His theory stated that the general level of prices depended upon the quantity of money currently in circulation. Where coin is in greater plenty; as a greater quantity of it is required to represent the same quantity of goods; it can have no effect, either good or bad that great plenty of money is rather disadvantageous, by raising the price of every kind of labour. (Hume, 1752, Pg 15) He also outlined the relationship between supply of money and prices All augmentation (of gold and silver) has no other effect than to heighten the price of labour and commodities; and even this variation is little more than that of a name (Hume, 1752, 296-7). Alfred Marshalls version of the quantity theory was an attempt to give microeconomic underpinnings to the macroeconomic theory that prices and the quantity of money varied directly. He did this by elaborating a theory of household and firm behaviour and integrating it with the macroeconomic question with the macroeconomic question of the general level of prices to explain the demand for money. Marshall reasoned that households and firms would desire to hold in cash balances a fraction of their money income In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, two versions of the theory competed. One advanced by the American economist Irving Fisher, treated the theory as a complete and self-contained explanation of price level. The other, propounded by the Swedish economist Knut Wicksell, saw it as part of a broader model in which the difference between market and natural rates of interest jointly determine bank money and price level changes. Fisher, in particular spent considerable effort in discussing the temporary effects during the period of transition separately from the permanent or ultimate effects (which) follow after a new equilibrium is established if, indeed, such a condition as equilibrium may be said ever to be established (Fisher,1911,p55-6). In this statement, he finds that the quantity theory will not hold true strictly during transition periods. His work was a forerunner in what would later become known as monetarism. He attempted to take the classical schools equation of exchange and convert it into a general theory of price and price level. The contrasts between the two approaches were striking. Fishers version was consistently quantity theoretic throughout and focused on the classical propositions of neutrality, money-to-price causality, and independence of money supply and demand. By contrast, Wicksells version contained certain elements seemingly at odds with the theory. These elements included a real shock explanation of monetary and price movements, the absence of currency in the hypothetical extreme case of a pure credit economy, and the identity between deposit supply and demand at all price levels in that same pure credit case rendering prices indeterminate. Wicksell tried to develop a theory of money that explained fluctuations in income as well as fluctuations in price levels. He argued that the quantity theory of money failed to explain why the monetary demand for goods exceeds or falls short of the supply of goods in given conditions. The quantify theory fell into disrepute in the 1930s, in part because it seemed at the time that the theory could not explain the Great Depression, and partly because of the publication in 1936 of Keyness theory. Although some economists continued to advocate the quantity theory, many economists became Keynesians and simply viewed the quantity theory as a historical curiosity. Only in the mid and late 1950s did the quantity theory once again emerge as a plausible rival to the Keynesian theory. There were several reasons for the revival. Contrary to the prediction of many Keynesians, upon the conclusion of World War II, the American economy did not revert to the depressed conditions of the 1930s, but instead underwent inflation. Secondly, one of the benefits of the Keynesian revolution had been its demonstration that by manipulating expenditures and taxes, governments can keep the economy close to full employment. In fact, it emerged that there were serious political as well as economic difficulties in actually changing government expenditures and tax rates in this ways, and that Keynesian theory in this area was less useful than it had been thought originally. However the resurgence of the quantity theory should not be attributed merely to impersonal historical events. It is also due to the fact that several influential economists advocated this theory. Don Patinkin of Hebrew University restated the quantity theory in a rigorous way that avoids many of the crudities that infested earlier expositions. Milton Friedman, of the University of Chicago was influential in providing a framework that allowed one to test empirically the proposition that changes in the quantity of money dominate changes in income. Moreover Friedman and Anna Schwartz of the National Bureau of Economic Research argued in a lengthy study that the experience of the Great Depression should be interpreted as confirming the prediction of the quantity theory rather than that of Keynesian theory. Subsequently they showed that in both the United States and Britain, longer run movements in nominal income were highly correlated with movements in the money stock. Despite the resurgence of the Quantity Theory in the 1970s and early 1980s it is still far from universally accepted by economists. Controversies about the theorys validity and applicability still exist, featuring similar questions and themes regarding the Quantity Theory of Money that have arisen since the 18th century. These include the definition of money, the relationship between correlation and causation, and the transmission mechanism. Controversy has continued because of the technical difficulty of sorting out the direction of causation running between money and prices, and because ideological concerns about the viability of market mechanisms are at stake. The first instance of Monetarism stems from the ideas of Irving Fisher. The ideas that produced the quantity theory of money go back to the time of David Hume, and arguably earlier. However, the equation of exchange and the transformation of the quantity theory of money into a tool for making quantitative analyses and predictions of the price level, inflation, and interest rates were due to the contributions of Irving Fisher. The theory provides a theoretical basis for monetarism, and there is empirical evidence to show that the quantity theory does operate. For example, as the Spanish brough gold back from the new world, the money supply increased in their native Spain. In line with the theory, prices rose because there was no corresponding increased in the transactions demand for money which is a function of an increase in output. This initial formulation of monetarism fell short on the question of understanding business cycle fluctuations in employment and output. Due to a flaws and a lack of sophistication of this first form of monetarism, some economists became disillusioned with monetarist analysis. One of these economists, John Maynard Keynes, stated that the quantity-theoretic analysis was of little use expanded on these initial contributions. Many economists agreed with Keyness evaluation of monetarism, most notably Milton Friedman. According to Friedman, there was a belief in the value provided by the quantity theory of money, the quantity theory of money provides the best way of understanding monetary behaviour (1971, 2-3), and that substantial changes in prices and nominal income are almost invariably the result of changes in the nominal supply of money (Friedman, 1968, 434). Following this, came the emergence of the Old Chicago Monetarism of Viner, Simons and Knight. This form of Monetarism emphasised the variability of velocity and its potential correlation with the rate of inflation. In economic policy they blamed monetary forces that caused deflation as the source of depression. According to Viner, in order to remedy economic depression, use of large scale stimulative monetary expansion, large government deficits or policies which encouraged deflation, should be balanced. The exponents of Old Chicago Monetarism did not believe that the velocity of money, in other words the rate at which money is exchanged from one transaction to another, was stable. They also did not believe that control of the money supply was straightforward or that the velocity of money was stable, because inflation lowered and deflation raised the opportunity cost of holding real balances. Classic monetarism emerged from Old Chicago Monetarism. It was described by Friedman in 1953, as well as in the works of Brunner (1968) and Brunner and Meltzer (1972). Classic Monetarism contained elements of institutional reform, analytical thinking and views on the political economy. J. Bradford De Long discusses how classic monetarism contained empirical demonstrations which showed that money demand functions could retain stability under the most extreme hyperinflationary conditions. It contained studies which analysed the limits imposed on stabilization policy by lags of policy instruments and also the belief that the natural rate of unemployment is close to the average rate of unemployment. (2000, 83-94). Political Monetarism argued not that velocity could be made stable if monetary shocks were avoided, but that velocity was in fact already stable. As a result, money stock emerged as a sufficient statistic for forecasting nominal demand. Political Monetarism argued that the central bank controlled shifts in the money supply. As a result, the view was taken that everything that went wrong in the macroeconomy was a direct result of the central bank failing to make the money supply grow at the appropriate rate. Political Monetarism concluded that any policy that does not affect the qu

The Ghost Dance :: essays research papers

The Ghost Dance   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚     Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The Ghost Dance was a very important custom performed by many Indians during the 1880’s through the 1890’s. During the 1890’s, the Indian civilization started to die. The Ghost Dance was a dance that tried to bring back the dead and bring back the ways of the Indians. During those times the Indians were having a hard time dealing with all of the white men. The white men were trying to push the Indians out of their land. In these times, the white man had basic control over the reservation. That meant that the white man had control of the supplies and food that the Indians received. The white man did not take good care of the Indians, as partrayed in the movie Thunderheart. During the movie Thunderheart the white man is sent in to find out about a murder of one of the Sioux tribe’s members. In the movie there is a revolt going on with a group called the ARM’s that are trying to save their Indian culture. Just like back in the old d ays. The white man in the movie treats all of the Indians like they are dirt. The Indians turn out to be very smart people who have many talents. During the movie the main character, Ray Levoi starts to have visions and see many Indians doing the ghost dance. The main character is part Indian, but he does not believe that the Indians are his people. During the 1880’s, that is when Wovoka had the vision of the Ghost Dance. Ever since that day he tried to get as many people as he could to join him to fight the white man. The ghost dance plays a major part in the movie Thunderheart and also plays a major role in the lives of the Indians.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  During the movie Thunderheart, the white man is brought into the badlands of South Dakota to investigate a murder of an Oglala Sioux. The Indians on this reservation have been going through some bad times right now. The living and health conditions are very bad on this reservation. During the movie there is a movement by a group called the ARM’s. They are trying to save their religion and faith. The white man is starting to take over and do whatever they want with their land. In the movie there is a man called Milton who is always beating on the Indians in any way he can.

A Visit to the Seabeach on Puri

Free Sample The Goddess Within for by Gloria Star subrata Dutta November 13, 1957 01:44 AM Calcutta, India After my initial immersion into the study of astrology — when learning the basics was a fascinating challenge — I began to explore the multidimensional nature of astrology and metaphysics. It was quite clear that women and men experience and express the energetic qualities symbolized in their charts differently. Being a woman, I chose to delve into the gender-differences from a woman's point of view. That writing resulted in what you'll read in this report. I hope you enjoy this view of ‘you'! † – Gloria Star Projection of Your Real Self Sometimes showing the world who you really are is not easy, and sometimes the world may not respond as you had hoped! It's helpful to take a look at the differences and similarities between the attitudes, impressions and images you project and the person who resides at the core of your being. With your Sun in Scorpio your ego is driven by a need to be almost enigmatic. You're more comfortable when at least a little mystery surrounds you, and you can exude a strong level of sensual charm. You're rarely halfway about anything, and your intensity can be daunting to those who are uncomfortable with confrontation. Since your Sun speaks of â€Å"who you think you are,† you may think that you're more mysterious than you are in actuality! No bother – you're still a mystery to most, so you're safe! Your Ascendant is the face you present to the world, and shows how others see you. Your Ascendant, or rising sign, is Virgo. Through this influence, you may be somewhat the perfectionist in your appearance and may be most comfortable when you feel well-groomed. Others may view you as detail-oriented, which has its advantages if you know what you want. You may be extremely aware of your physical body, to the extent that you know when anything is not working properly. You'd better keep a nail file in your pocketbook, since you'll fiddle with that ragged nail all day if you don't have a chance to fix it! The energy associated with your Ascendant is Mercury. With Mercury in Sagittarius, you may be rather outspoken and direct in your manner. Your philosophical outlook definitely colors your personality, and you can be a great conversationalist. With your Moon in sextile aspect to your Ascendant you have the capability of becoming well-rounded by integrating your feelings about things with the way they are. You've probably learned that if you're not comfortable with something, you should probably look into it further or avoid it altogether. You may also be quite adept in relationship matters, since you can be aware of the way others are feeling or reacting in addition to staying in touch with your own feelings about what's going on. The  Goddess  Within Get Your Complete The Goddess Within Reading Now! Self knowledge is power! Learn how to reach inwards and discover your strengths, talents and potential to embrace and express your personal power in the best possible ways A must have reading for women everywhere. Get yours today! Only $24. 95 Or get it FREE Get your Complete Reading and Discover†¦. l l l Your basic strengths, talents and needs as portrayed in your birth chart How you project yourself to the outside world and is it the true you Understanding and getting in touch with your true feminine self Get your Complete Reading and Discover†¦. l l l l l l l Your basic strengths, talents and needs as portrayed in your birth chart How you project yourself to the outside world and is it the true you Understanding and getting in touch with your true feminine self Owning and making the most of you inner masculine self Improving your communications and intuition Your approach to relationships, sex, money and control And much, much more!

An Issue Of Procrastination And Stress Levels - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 4 Words: 1245 Downloads: 8 Date added: 2019/06/10 Category Psychology Essay Level High school Tags: Procrastination Essay Did you like this example? Abstract This study examines the correlation between levels of procrastination and levels of stress. Data was gathered to conclude whether or not procrastination levels had a correlational relationship with stress levels. Participants took part in a three part study which included a demographic survey, a procrastination questionnaire, and Cohenrs perceived stress scale questionnaire. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "An Issue Of Procrastination And Stress Levels" essay for you Create order Results concluded that there was no statistically significant correlation between levels of procrastination and levels of stress. Future research should include a variety of other factors like declared major, economic status, if the participant has other responsibilities including multiple jobs, and whether or not the participant lives on campus or commutes. Introduction Literature Review The study conducted by Beleaua and Cocorada (2016) further explored the hypothesis that procrastination leads to negative factors including higher levels of stress. In their research they theorized that individuals who report higher levels of procrastination would in turn, have higher levels of stress. College students were given stress and procrastination questionnaires. Results found that there was a correlation between procrastination and stress. Participants who had high levels of procrastination also had higher levels of stress (Beleaua Cocorada, 2016). Research by Tice and Baumeister (1997) looked into the effects of procrastination on stress and illness in a college setting. Results showed that procrastination scores were correlated with stress. The negative correlations found meant that procrastinators showed lower stress levels and fewer illness symptoms than non-procrastinators (Tice Baumeister, 1997). Szabo and Marian (2018) conducted a study to find correlations between procrastination and stress levels regarding college students during finals week. Using methods as the previous two studies, results found that those participants with increased levels of procrastination also had higher levels of stress than those who did not (Szabo Marian, 2018). Jackson, Weiss, and Lundquist (2000) researched the hypothesis that procrastination had a significant correlation with stress. Results of their study showed that there was a significant correlation between both, meaning that higher levels of procrastination were accompanied with higher levels of stress (Jackson et al., 2000). All studies sought out to find a correlation between procrastination and stress levels. All but one found those with higher levels of procrastination also had higher levels of reported stress. Hypotheses In this study, it was hypothesized that higher levels of procrastination would result in higher levels of stress. It was also hypothesized that participants who showed lower levels of procrastination would also show lower levels of stress. Also, it was hypothesized that demographic factors would not have a significant correlation with procrastination nor stress levels. Method Participants As shown in Table 1, there was a total of 29 participants. Of those 29 participants, 15 identified as male and 14 identifies as female. Of the 29 participants, 6 reported that they were Freshman, 8 reported that they were Sophomores, 7 reported that they were Juniors, and 8 reported that they were Seniors. The demographic survey concluded that 4 participants were White, 11 were Hispanic, 10 were African American, 1 was Asian, and 3 were classified as other. Of the 29 participants, 13 fell between the ages of 18 and 20, 8 fell between 21 and 24, and 6 were 25 years or older. Materials Materials used in this study contained a demographic survey that included gender, year, ethnicity, and age. The demographic survey was a multiple choice formatted questionnaire in which each letter represented a different answer choice. A five question pr ocrastination survey was made for this study to measure procrastination within participants. Stress levels were measured with the use of Cohenrs Perceived Stress Scale (PSS). The stress scale consists of a five item questionnaire in which answers consist of a scale from 0-4, 0 depicting never and 4 depicting very often. The PSS has an alpha coefficient of 0.72, meaning it has good internal consistency and reliability. Procedure Participants were chosen in a public setting. Possible participants were approached and asked if they wanted to part take in a research study for Kean Universityrs psychology program. Participants were given a consent form stating that he or she had no obligation to participate in the study and they had the option to opt out at any given time if they decided to. It was reiterated that completion of their participation was not mandatory. Once the participant signed the consent form, the purpose of the study was thoroughly explained to them along with the steps they would be partaking in. First, participants were given a demographic survey in which the participant had 1-2 minutes to complete. Afterwards, the participant was given 2 questionnaires including the procrastination and the stress questionnaire. Participants were given up to five minutes to complete both questionnaires. Upon completion, demographic surveys, and both questionnaires were collected. Debriefing forms were handed out and explained. Participants were told that if they had any questions, concerns, or were in need of counseling due to any factor regarding the study they would contact the head faculty or the Kean University counseling center at any given time. Results Inferential A pearson correlation found no significant relationship between procrastination and stress. As can be seen in Table 2, the correlation between procrastination and stress failed to reach significance (r=.11, p=.58). Thus, the hypothesis that higher levels of procrastination would result in higher levels of stress was not confirmed. The hypothesis that lower levels of procrastination would result in lower levels of stress also failed to be confirmed. Data found no significant relationship between GPA, procrastination, and stress (r=.35, p=.06). Thus, the hypothesis that demographic factors like GPA would not have a significant relationship with procrastination or stress was confirmed. Discussion Relate to Hypothesis The hypothesis that procrastination and stress levels would be correlated failed to reach statistical significance. Therefore, the theory that higher levels of procrastination would result in higher levels of stress was not confirmed. The hypothesis that lower levels of pro crastination would result in lower levels of stress was also not confirmed. Contrary to the findings of this study, the research conducted by Tice and Baumeister (1997) showed that procrastination scores were correlated with stress. The study by Jackson, Weiss, and Lundquist (2000) also confirmed the hypothesis that there was a correlation between procrastination and stress. Results of their study showed that there was a significant correlation between both, meaning that higher levels of procrastination were accompanied with higher levels of stress. This study did not have similar findings. In fact, this study had the opposite findings, and failed to confirm the relationship between both procrastination and stress. Limitations Limitations included a small sample size of 29 participants which affected the external validity because sample data could not be used to generalize an entire population. All participants were college students. Therefore, data could not relate to those who do not fit that criteria including senior citizens, and other groups. Internal validity was also skewed by the small sample size and the selection. In this study participants consisted of only Kean University students. The data could differ if participants consisted of individuals in another college campuses. Future Research Future research for this study should include a larger sample size so that findings will better generalize the college population. Also, other factors can be used to better specify certain findings. Factors can include the participants declared major, economic status, if the participant has other responsibilities including multiple jobs, and whether or not the participant lives on campus or commutes. A confidence survey can also be used to depict whether or not there is a correlation between confidence levels and stress or procrastination. Research can be expanded by having participants from different college campuses so that the results wont be limited to certain individuals and can better generalize a larger group of people.