Friedman on Gun Laws

On Sunday, The Chicago Tribune had an article on Chicago’s ban on handguns, by David G. Savage. There are two sides that are debating the pros and cons of having guns. According to Otis McDonald, from Chicago, believes that guns are necessary to protect one’s self from armed drug dealers. On the con side, the ban on handguns gives police a legal basis for confronting gang members. Anita Alvarez states that cops cannot stop and frisk a person, just because they have a bulge in their pocket. She states, if it were possible, streets would be safer. Gun-rights advocates say that the Second Amendment applies more broadly and protects a right to have a gun for self-defense (David G. Savage). Mayor Daley argues that more guns would make matters worse.
Milton Friedman believes in economic freedom. In order to achieve this, the government needs to be limited. Economic freedom means that an individual can buy whatever they want, without restrictions. For example, Americans cannot buy Cuban Cigars, because the government prohibits people from buying them. In the article, Friedman would argue that the government is restricting people from buying guns. This is limiting individuals from economic freedom to buy whatever they want. According to Friedman the government should only umpire law and order for free trade. They should not make or change the rules but enforce the rules.
I would argue against Friedman’s beliefs. If people could buy guns, it would create chaos in the city. Civilians with guns might shot an individual, just because they might suspect a person is dangerous. I understand that it would promote free economy, but at the risk of safety. In a way, the government is being an umpire, but not in the way Friedman wants. It is umpiring or enforcing safety from the guns to protect citizens, so they do not cause harm to one another.

Marx in the News: McDonald's New Products

On Saturday, February 13, The Chicago Tribune had an article on McDonald’s new products that will hit stores in the summer. Their new products are Frappuccinos and fruit smoothies. As of right now, they are promoting these products to the people at the Vancouver Winter Olympics. McDonald’s is trying to draw in new customers outside of the traditional breakfast, lunch, and dinner mealtimes. The frappes will cost $2.29, $2.79, and $3.29 for each of the sizes. Those prices are considerably lower than the cost of Frappuccinos at Starbucks. They are also competitions with Jamba Juice on their smoothies.

Karl Marx states that with an increase to production there is a decrease in wages. He argues that capitalists, when following their self-interest, exploit their workers. What I mean by self-interest is gaining profits and beating out their competition. McDonald’s is trying to eat away at Starbucks and Jamba Juice’s profits. The company is doing this at the expense of their workers. They only pay them minimum wage, and now, they are going to have to do more work then before. Karl Marx would state that the company is dividing the labor, making the wage so low.

These workers are not being paid for the value of their work, but their time. As I stated earlier they have to do more work for the same wage. Not only do the workers have to serve their normal products of hamburgers, fries, ice cream, etc; now they have to serve extra drinks. The company is reaping all the benefits, while the workers are not. What Marx would say is to give the workers some of their value back. Marx states that under capitalism, people become estranged from their product, activity, and themselves. If the value is given back to the worker, it can restore their dignity back and become more human.

Locke in the News - Creating Personal Ice Rinks

On Saturday January 30, the Chicago Tribune had an article about homemade ice rinks. James Herbst is a man that has made his own ice rink in his backyard. He loves it when the weather is cold in order to maintain his rink. He also allows other kids from the neighborhood to join in the fun. He says that other parents are now competing with him to see who has the biggest ice rink. The article states that the, “reason for the popularity may be a lack of public alternatives,” (Vikki Ortiz Healy 2010, pg. 2). Lately, budget cuts in suburban parks and recreation departments have forced many public outdoor rinks to close.

According to John Locke, property is the labor that one does. The dads of these suburbs own these ice rinks since they are the ones that created it. The labor they did gives them the right to own these rinks. Since we own our own body anything we create with our hands is rightfully ones property, argues Locke. Virtue comes from the work an individual does. The dad seems to have virtue because he loves to maintain the ice rink for his kids. John Locke would also state that they are not wasting their backyard in the winter. During the winter months, people hardly use their backyards. In this sense, it would seem that we are putting our backyards to waste. Now, that people are making ice rinks in their backyards they are fully using their property. This property is also limited, due to weather. Locke would state that it is temporal because ice would eventually melt.

I believe we are wasting our backyards in the winter. According to Locke, if we are not productive, then it is considered stealing; we were meant to be industrious. I’m glad some people still use their backyards productively. I am not saying all people should build ice rinks in their backyards, but should use it for something during the winter. Making a snowman and snow angles would count in being productive in Locke’s mind. So, go outside and have fun with your backyard.

Former VP of Lehman Brothers visits DePaul University

Lehman Brothers was a company that provided financial services to many countries. It was a primary dealer in the United States according to a New York times article on the 15th of September. On September 15, 2008 the company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. What caused them to became bankrupt? The simple answer would be bad mortgage finance and real estate investments.

On Wednesday January 20th, Lawrance G. McDonald came to DePaul University to promote his book "A Colossal Failure of Common Sense: The Inside Story of the Collapse of Lehman Brothers." He was once a former VP of the company. Lehman Brothers were ignoring the risks that they were taking. They used mark to market accounting to determine the worth of mortgages. Chief Officers knew the dangers but were silenced by people higher than them according to Mr. McDonald.

Mr. McDonald felt that the bankruptcy could have been avoided. He mentioned a few solutions for other companies would not fall to the same fate. He thinks that CEO's should have a term limit. He believes that if you maintain power too long, you start to abuse it. Richard Fuld held the CEO position at Lehman Brothers for 14 years, until it filed bankruptcy. According to Mr. McDonald there should be a risk committee on the board. That way the company can better evaluate the risk that they take. He also believes that former CEOs should become board members.

I agree with what Mr. McDonald states. CEOs should not hold that position of authority too long. It should be like a democracy and vote in the next CEO with a limited term. Having a risk committee can prevent or stop bankruptcy from happening. Just like Enron, they ignored the risks that they were taking and lost everything in the process. Former CEOs as board members can be beneficiary in helping manage the company. They can put their input, but the currant CEO still has the final decision. All in all, what Mr. McDonald broght up, seems to make sense. Maybe if we implement these rules in businesses, it could help save jobs and the overall stability of a company.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/business/15lehman.html

Haiti Relief Efforts- Aristotle in the News

On January 12, 2010, an earthquake hit Haiti at a 7.0 on the rictor scale. Thousands of people are homeless and have nowhere to go. The Chicago Tribune posted an article on January 15 about the relief efforts for the people of Haiti. Individuals have been giving money and canned goods to help the people of Haiti. The response to the disaster has been so high that now anyone is organizing an effort to help. Authorities have warned that freelance philanthropy might only get so far.

Aristotle might state that the best way to help the people of Haiti is to donate food and cloths instead of money. What they need now is the basic necessities to stay alive. Money is only the instrument to acquire the necessities of life. Instead of giving money, it is best to give them what they need instead of the instrument. In order to help them, we first need private property. According to Aristotle, there is a "pleasure in doing a kindness or service to [others], which can only be tendered when a man has private property." Hence, we need private property to do good for the people of Haiti.

I belive that Aristotle has a point. We should give canned goods and cloths instead of money. Now, especially, because there are alot of people that are starting up philanthropy efforts that can be a scam to steal our money. That is what authorities are warning people that are trying to help. Plus, the people of Haiti need food to stay alive in the defistation. What can they do with money, if they have nothing they can use it on, when most of their area has been destroyed. Aristotle states that we need private property. In order for us to help them we need to have private property. If we had all things in common, no one would set an example of liberality according to Aristotle.