How Women Changed the Business World

Before women entered the workforce, men had designed a system that was both useful and efficient (at least, for them). But now that women are on the job, things have changed.

In the olden days, only men were involved in the business process, meaning only men would hold the positions of buyer, seller, and provider. So whenever a home needed something new, like curtains for the bedroom, the husband would phone the supplier, a male salesperson would take the order, and Bobby in the warehouse would ship it.

And if the curtains showed up blue, after they had been ordered white, the husband would console his wife with sayings like, “Ah, don’t worry honey. Who’s going to notice? It’s just me and you.” And they’d accept the order.

Then women got involved.

Today, the wife orders the curtains from a female sales rep, and if they’re not the right colour, she calls to complain. Then the female sales rep says, “Of course you don’t want blue curtains when you ordered them white. They won’t match.” And she goes down to see Bobby.

After calling Bobby an idiot, she explains to him the situation. And after understanding that the only problem was that he shipped blue curtains when the customer wanted white, Bobby goes, “So?”

Then the female sales rep, Sarah—with an “h”, introduces him to the new warehouse manager, Jenifer—with only one “n”, who promptly instructs him to ship the correct ones. 

And this new system is making things less efficient because now we have to ship everything twice (sometimes even three times).

Justin

In the last federal election, I voted for Stephen Harper and the Conservatives. Though I felt Harper was far-right on some social issues, I waived this for the sake of his competence with numbers. But I’m not angry the Liberals won. On the contrary. As a centrist, I believe society is better served when both parties get a turn. I’d rather see 10 years of left and 10 years of right before 20 years of either one—because that’s how our system gets to the centre.

We simply haven’t evolved to the point where all parties “manage from the middle.” So instead of long serving centrist parties that sometimes take from the left and sometimes take from the right, we get wild swings of one way or the other. One team shoves its ideology down our throats, then the opposing side takes the field and reverses the controversial bits but leaves what they should have passed when they were in charge. This all-left, all-right style does sorta produce centrist rule but it’s disruptive and most people don’t like it. Business definitely doesn’t like it—they prefer slow and gradual change.

But enough of this centrist stuff, what do I think of Justin? Two things: he’s an intellectual lightweight and his Prime Ministership will be of great importance.

Since he has none of his dad’s philosopher king capabilities, his intellectual skills are suitable only for consensus-style management—and this style will, for the very first time, be put to the national test. The article on Modern Decision Making explains the pitfalls of the consensus model, concluding that it’s a combination of the two styles that works best. Within this government, it will be the role of somebody else to perform the duties of suffering, responsibility, nursing, and consistency—not the PM.

But who? When George W was around, everyone knew Dick Cheney was pulling the strings. So who’s pulling Justin? The answer is a committee. And that’s what’s interesting. For the first time in history we’re going to be managed by a committee. Now let me be the first to say this is not necessarily a bad thing. As a matter of fact, it’s a coming of time. We’ve been highly educating people in this country for over 60 years and may have arrived at a point where we no longer defer to an expert. It’s group rule. 

At the beginning I explained why I voted for Harper. I said that despite my opinion of his negatives, I was willing to vote for his positives. But since Trudeau’s election, I haven’t heard anyone say, “though Justin’s not a genius, we had to make a change.” People feel sufficiently confident that, collectively, we can do this and that there’s nothing wrong with Justin—he’s just like us.

Trudeau is a repercussion of mass education and a further peg in the female style of management. Staunch conservatives aren’t afraid of the liberal ideology—we’ve had it before. They’re afraid of being guided by an airhead. They liken it to a company overrun by staff or a family being run by the kids. But these committee people are neither employees nor kids. They’re professionals who’ve been successful in their former lives and aren’t new to the concept of being a boss.

Justin Trudeau will not be an exceptional Prime Minister but this country is. And what he represents about Canada is a new belief system that says we’re intelligent people who care about one another, and not a bunch of trolls needing to be led. Personally, I’m going to sit back and watch this unfold. I’m not going to be a sour-grape, sore loser and complain. I’m going to watch, witness, and evaluate whether my country has attained the ability to almost govern itself.

I have to tell you, Justin, I’m looking forward to the ride. (And I wish you well.)

Roasting Vegetables

If you’ve got an oven, you should know how to roast vegetables. Here’s a tip.

Prepare vegetables

Into a bowl, peel and cut up a combination of turnips, yams, sweet potatoes, real potatoes, butternut squash (don’t forget to peel), carrots, onions, and/or Brussels sprouts.

Toss with oil

Toss with olive oil (or another type) and add a spec of water, which usually comes from washing.

Season

Season with:

  • salt, black pepper,
  • chopped fresh garlic,
  • rosemary, basil, or oregano (use a combination or just one).

You can also use Herb de Provence or Italian seasoning.

High heat

Grab a roasting pan with low sides—usually a cookie sheet is fine. Place parchment paper on the bottom to reduce mess. Throw on your vegetables and roast at 425° (even 450°) for approx. 40 minutes, mixing halfway through.

Note

Acorn squash is different. You don’t peel it. It needs to be cut into moon-shaped slices (like cantaloupe). Toss with oil, salt, black pepper, and an herb. Then dab with butter and add some brown sugar or honey. Toss again and roast as per above.

Imperialism

Ego and selfishness have blemished much of history. It’s characteristics like these that prompted emperors and kings to invade neighbouring lands and take them for their own. These acts of aggression were called imperialism.

Prior to World War I, established military thinking held the belief of Alcibiades, renowned Athenian statesman and general who said (c. 450 BC), “If we cease to rule others, we are in danger of being ruled ourselves.” His concept of “rule or be ruled” became the position of the world’s military class for two and a half millennia.

World War I

World War I started like most. Germany, Austria, and the Ottoman Empire (Turkey) were in alliance against Britain, France, and Russia. In 1912, Russia announced a buildup of national munitions. Germany’s response was to strike now while still able. (Initially, WWI was scheduled for 1912 but was delayed until the German navy could be expanded to contend with that of the British.)

Due to technological gains, twentieth century warring had changed. Men no longer drew swords and battled in fields. Industrialized guns, bombs, and machinery had been invented and were prevalent everywhere. Without getting into gory details, WWI lasted over four years and the casualties totaled 37 million (17 million deaths).

Americans

Two years into the war it became obvious the German alliance was going to win. The allies’ only hope was to convince their fellow democracy-believing buddies, the Americans, to join in. Then president, Woodrow Wilson, knew he’d have a difficult time convincing his electorate to offer up its money and sons. At the time, America was seen as isolationist and indifferent. Not only were they always an ocean away but Americans believed there was no end to these European wars.

The general notion of the US was to host an economy where all citizens could work their way into a good life. But they also believed in freedom. A freedom only democracy could provide. And since, at the time, only 12 countries had attained such freedom, they were bound to support their allies.

League of Nations

After the war, America championed the League of Nations, an intergovernmental organization with the mission to maintain world peace. Its primary goals included preventing wars through collective security and disarmament, and settling international disputes through negotiation and arbitration. Other issues included labour conditions, just treatment of native inhabitants, human and drug trafficking, arms trade, global health, prisoners of war, and protection of minorities in Europe. At its greatest extent it had 58 members.

World War II

Though well intentioned, the League suffered many setbacks, including the US president’s failure to achieve ratification by his own senate. Italy disrespected the League by invading Ethiopia and, of course, Hitler wasn’t bothered by it at all.

The aggressions of World War II started in the late 1930s, with Britain and France declaring war on Germany in the fall of 1939. Again, the allies were being beaten badly and again, it was America to the rescue. But this time, US president Franklin Roosevelt had better ideas on how to curb imperialism.

Before entering the war, Roosevelt secretly met with British PM, Winston Churchill, off the coast of Newfoundland, to demand the dissolution of all existing empires following an allied victory (including Britain’s, which was by far the largest). This resolution (called the Atlantic Charter) came true with European countries divesting themselves of all foreign territories, including much of Africa and the Middle East.

United Nations

After WWII, humanity once again established a world organization to maintain world peace. The United Nations replaced the League of Nations with 51 original member states, and today has 193. Its objectives include maintaining international peace and security, promoting human rights, fostering social and economic development, protecting the environment, and providing humanitarian aid in cases of famine, natural disaster, and armed conflict.

Some harbour criticism of this organization but in terms of obstructing imperialism it has achieved most of its goal. Yes, some countries have broken apart (e.g., Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia) but as of yet, no one has taken over the world.

Check out the movie Sergio on Netflix.

The Bible

A canon is a general law or criterion by which something is judged. It’s also a list of sacred books accepted as genuine. The canon of the New Testament is the set of 27 books Christians regard as divinely inspired. These books were written mostly in the first century and finished by the year 150.

Roman Emperor Constantine ruled from 306 to 337. He believed a new religion was in order for Rome and chose Christianity as the fit. The empire proclaimed the toleration of Christianity in 313 and Constantine himself converted. He then convened over the First Council of Nicaea in 325. This was the first effort to attain consensus through an assembly representing all of Christendom.

The Bible was finally settled upon at the Council of Carthage in 397, under the authority of Saint Augustine (Mr. Augustine at the time). It was confirmed by Pope Innocent I, in 405, when he sent a letter instructing all bishops to use the new canon. The Old Testament is based on the Hebrew Bible. The New Testament, written in Greek, discusses the teachings of Jesus, as well as events in first-century Christianity.

Early influences

Many theologians had their hand in the creation of this document. And though all opinions were not incorporated, multiple views were certainly heard. Here are three examples: Hermas, Irenaeus of Lyons, and Marcion of Sinope.

Hermas (c. 85) taught that Jesus himself was not divine but a virtuous man who was subsequently filled with the Holy Spirit. Hermas was one of two competing doctrines about Jesus’ true nature, the other saying he pre-existed as a divine spirit (Logos). Christ’s identity with the Logos was affirmed in 325 at the First Council of Nicaea.

Irenaeus of Lyons (c 180) instituted the four-gospel canon. In this central work, he denounced various early Christian groups that used only one gospel as well as groups that used more than four.

Marcion of Sinope (85-160) rejected the spiritual teachings of the Old Testament and regarded the God depicted there as an inferior Being. He claimed the “theology of the Old” was incompatible with the teachings of Jesus. Marcion believed Jesus had come to liberate mankind from the authority of the old God and to reveal the superior God of goodness and mercy, whom he called the Father.

Gospels

The gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are commonly referred to as the Synoptic Gospels. They include many of the same stories, often in a similar sequence and in similar wording. The Gospel of John is structured differently and includes several miracles of Jesus and sayings not found in the other three.

Christian theologians often consider John to be a central text in their belief that Jesus is God—in connection with the idea that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are equals. There were also some who rejected this gospel because it wasn’t compatible with the other three. These heretics were called Alogi.

Interpretations and translations

Protestant denominations, including Evangelicals, have made alterations to establish their own versions of the Bible. They’ve removed or substituted the odd book, and added a verse or two, but in general the Bible has stayed pretty much the same since the late 4th century. What’s made significant impact are all the translations.

The first was to get it into Latin. This was done by Saint Jerome around the year 400. His version (the Vulgate) eventually became the official Roman script. The Bible was then translated into Old English during the 10-11th centuries, Middle English in the 14th, and Modern English in the 16th century. In total, there are over 100 translations just for English, of which many are still available. Individual translations vary with verses being added or subtracted, and different wording being used.

Ecumenical councils

An ecumenical council is a conference of church dignitaries and theological experts convened to discuss and settle matters of doctrine. The first ecumenical council was the First Council of Nicaea (325). These councils have continued right up to Vatican II, held between 1962 and 1965.

Conundrum

The Bible contains many controversial clauses making belief in a good and loving God, along with a Bible that is divine, often difficult to reconcile. For example, Timothy 2:12 (King James Version) says: “But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.” This verse is widely used to oppose women from being trained and ordained as clergy, and from holding certain positions inside the Church.

Another passage commonly used to oppose homosexuality is Leviticus 18:22. The English Standard Version says: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.”

If you divide the Bible into four sections: Old Testament, the teachings of Jesus, stories about Jesus (e.g., the birth story), and the rest of the New Testament, you’ll find significant differences based on the type of believer.

  • Fundamentalists consider all equally divine
  • Lights accept only the teachings of Jesus as being divine
  • Progressives are caught in the conundrum. 

Fundamentalists have no problem with Old Testament discipline. Lights assign the non-Jesus parts to a completely separate category (especially the Old Testament). And progressives are stuck trying to reconcile an often-suspect Bible with a good and loving God.

Closing

The progressive path forward is always through interpretation. Previously when detractors said, “Why doesn’t God love all people and accept everyone into heaven?” religious folk would reply, “Because the Bible was written thousands of years ago and that’s the way it was.” Sometimes people bought it, sometimes they didn’t. Many left the church.

Today’s progressives have better answers. Their replies include “The Bible itself isn’t divine, it’s about divinity,” or “Constantine was part of the Roman Empire where they used biblical law in addition to civil law to administer people.” Push them further and you might get “If it’s not in accordance with a good and loving God, then the Bible is wrong.”

Maybe we need another ecumenical council to satisfy those who wish to be guided by the good parts of the Bible, without accepting the kooky. This way, fundamentalists would have something clean to believe in, progressives could stay in the church, and lights would attend more often. That or we start a new religion.

Public Sector

Canada’s population is around 36 million, of which 18 million work. Twenty percent of those workers operate somewhere within government, at one of three levels. Let’s see what they do.

Federal

Our federal government provides services through various ministries. Here are some (click for a full list):

  • Aboriginal Affairs
  • Agriculture and Fisheries
  • Canada Revenue Agency
  • Citizenship and Immigration (e.g., immigration, refugees, passports)
  • Employment and Social Services (e.g., CPP, Old Age Security, Employment Insurance)
  • Environment (e.g., Environmental Protection, Parks Canada)
  • Finance (e.g., Auditor General, Bank of Canada, Deposit Insurance, Canadian Mint)
  • Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
  • Heritage (e.g., CRTC, CBC, National Film Board, Sport Canada)
  • Health (e.g., food inspection, public health agency)
  • Industry (e.g., National Research Council, Statistics Canada, Canadian Space Agency)
  • Justice (e.g., Human Rights Commission, Supreme Court)
  • National Defense (e.g., Army, Navy, Air Force, Royal Military College, Veteran Affairs)
  • Natural Resources (e.g., Atomic Energy Board, National Energy Board)
  • Public Safety (e.g., Border Services, Correctional Services, CSIS, RCMP)
  • Transport (e.g., Canada Post, Via Rail)

Provincial

The province of Alberta also has ministries. They include the following (click for a full list):

  • Aboriginal Relations
  • Agriculture, Forestry, Culture and Tourism
  • Education (e.g., teachers, schools, busing, advanced education)
  • Economic Development, Energy and Environment
  • Health Care (e.g., doctors, nurses, hospitals, clinics, drugs, ambulances)
  • Human Services (e.g., welfare, AISH – Alberta Income for the Severely Handicapped, child services, people with disabilities, seniors)
  • Labour Relations (e.g., WCB, Occupational Health and Safety, Labour Relations)
  • Justice and Solicitor General (e.g., police, law courts, prisons, parole, sheriff’s office)
  • Transportation (e.g., highway maintenance, motor vehicles, safety regulations)
  • Treasury Board (e.g., gaming and liquor, ATB bank, auto insurance board)

Municipal

The City of Edmonton provides services through various departments. Here are some (click for a full list):

  • Garbage and Recycling
  • Snow Removal and Landscaping
  • Public Transit (e.g., buses and LRT)
  • Power, Water, and Sewer (e.g., Epcor)
  • Fire Stations, Road Construction and Maintenance
  • Land Sales, Zoning, Building Permits, Building Inspections
  • Attractions (e.g., parks, trails, libraries, zoo, concert halls, museums)
  • Sports Facilities (e.g., rec centers, arenas, golf courses, pools, professional stadiums)
  • Hosting Festivals and Public Events

Outsourcing

Now, not all services paid for by government are provided by government. For example, in Alberta x-rays and blood tests are performed by private companies. Likewise, most cities have subcontracted their garbage collection. As a rule, conservatives like to see outsourcing as much as possible.

Alberta privatized its liquor stores in 1993. The wholesale component is still handled by the province but the retail side is fully private (so you can own a liquor store). Then Alberta did the same thing with registries (e.g., renewing your driver’s license). Some US states have even subcontracted public education. The government pays so much per student and business hires teachers and builds the building. Sure, they’re regulated but wow—you can own a school!

Conclusion

We’ll forever argue over which services governments should and should not provide and whether we’re getting our money’s worth. We’ll also argue over what should be outsourced, but there is no question that government does a lot for us. Add to this the thousands of registered charities in Canada and you see how good we are at taking care of each other.

Christian Alternative

Within the Christian community we have devout believers and those who consider themselves to be “light.” The difference can be illustrated through their individual interpretations of the Bible. Devouts believe God wrote, or at least heavily influenced, the Bible and that its words are His direct communication. Lights don’t find the Bible to be that significant. So we have two groups:

God ⇒ Bible ⇒ Devout Christian

God ⇒ Light Christian

The difference leads to many questions. Are there two gods? Is one of these groups wrong? If you don’t believe in the authority of the Bible, can you still be called a Christian? And what about Jesus, do “lights” believe in Jesus?

Answers to these questions require a further definition. Since most “lights” could also be described as Christian comatose (not that committed to formality), we need another category for non-traditional interpretations. Let’s pick one example and call them alts. Alternative people believe the following:

  • Jesus said and did a lot of great things.
  • Jesus was a man, not God.
  • Anyone can go to heaven, not just Christians.
  • Some sections of the Bible are not in accordance with a good and loving god (and should be removed).
  • Many of religion’s rules (like, no birth control or telling people what they can eat) are completely man-made and not in accordance with a good and loving god.
  • There is no hell (so stop scaring people).

As you can see, alts don’t totally line up with strict beliefs nor do they side with deists who, seeing holes in Christianity, disregard religion completely. Alts regard the deist point of view as throwing out the baby with the bathwater since it ignores all of faith’s good parts.

The problem

Because alts are stuck between devouts (who run the church) and God-only people (who leave the church), they don’t have anyplace to go. They want religion, but not devout-style with all its rules and literal interpretations. Their version wishes to focus on the positive, deeper meanings in the Bible, not the contradictory stuff.

Jesus

Before Jesus, the majority of the Roman Empire believed in multiple crazy-assed gods with human-like personalities. Yes, the Jews had a better system but they were few in number and figured God was just for them.

Jesus, with his compassionate message of “love thy neighbour,” struck a chord with many that still resonates today. It’s a great interpretation of what we’re supposed to be doing on this planet. But to alts, it appears churches hijacked the message and bound it to regulations in order to control people. (There’s a shortage of fish, God says don’t eat fish.) In their mind, the Church jacked up Christ’s divinity (through rewrites of the Bible) for their own sake, and the logic became: if Jesus said it, God said it. And we’re the authorities on what Jesus said.

Churches built a condemnation-based society with rules on top of rules that alts believe is a crock. And alts are angered by the distortion churches and devouts have made to the real message of Christ. He was not a Christian supremacist, Christ loved everyone. He was not a condemner, Christ was about forgiveness. And Christ was not an egomaniac persecutor, he was a humble teacher. He isn’t Jesus Christ—Our Saviour, he’s Jesus Christ—Our Example. Turning him into a spokesperson to espouse a private set of motives isn’t just deceptive, it robs us of the Jesus to whom we should aspire.

The expression “Jesus died for us” says he gave his life to protect the message. If, once it became apparent these teachings were inflaming the establishment, he abandoned it only to move away, all of its meaning would have dissipated. So given the situation, he had to die for us. And the expression “Jesus rose from the dead” doesn’t mean he went up to heaven (like everyone is supposed to), it means the message continues to survive long after his physical death. And the instruction to “love thy neighbour” should never be forgotten.

Churches

Churches certainly deserve credit for their actions taken in the past because it isn’t easy managing the masses. And we must recognize the enormous amount of good churches have accomplished, everywhere. But maybe it’s time to rid the world of the conundrum and become 100% sincere. Isn’t it wrong that the Catholic Church forbids people to use birth control? Aren’t certain religious organizations wrong in outlawing certain foods? And more importantly, isn’t it silly to insist that God instructed us on any of this?

Conclusion

Christianity isn’t an “all in” proposition—you’re allowed to take only the good parts. The belief in a good and loving God still stands, but if you find something suspect, it’s okay to drop it. The Bible has some great passages like, the Good Samaritan or “let ye among you that hast not sinned cast the first stone,” but it isn’t a direct communication any more than what exists within any poem or a song. Divinity is everywhere. Not just in one book.

If alts are right about this, we’re left with two big questions: who is God? and what does He want from us? Alt answers are: there is a God, God is good, and life is an experience that gets explained to us at the end. But while you’re here, do what Jesus said and “love thy neighbour.”

Investing 102

Now that you understand the basic types of investments (from Investing 101), it’s time to explain stocks and the external factors affecting them. 

There are three criteria used to evaluate any individual stock (earnings, dividends, and growth) and three factors that affect the market overall (GDP, money supply, and interest rates).

Earnings, dividends, and growth

Buying a stock typically depends upon:

  • Earnings per share (EPS)
  • Dividends (the portion of EPS paid out)
  • Prospects for growth

If you buy a stock for $50/share and the company earns $5.00/share, that’s 10% equity growth. If they keep $3.00 and pay out $2.00 in dividends, that’s even better because money is always better in your pocket. The question then becomes, can they continue to provide these returns? Or does the future hold even better figures—because they’re growing?

You look at how much the company is making, how much they’re paying out, and what their future holds. It’s always risky because nobody knows the future. Sales and earnings could fall because of competition, new regulations, loss of key management—a number of reasons. And the company could cut its dividend at any time. So holding any stock is risky even without considering external factors, but investors also look at GDP, the money supply, and interest rates because they affect every company’s potential for growth.

GDP

GDP is a general indicator of the world’s (or a specific country’s) growth. Think of it as a measure of adding all companies’ sales together. If the number goes higher, it means companies are growing.

GDP affects individual companies because we typically all grow together. So if Company A’s sales are growing, Company B’s probably are too since we’re all customers of each other. Or Company A’s employees go out and buy Company B’s products, and likewise. 

If the world’s GDP (or my country’s GDP) is growing, that’s generally good for the stock market. If they’re both in doubt, than the potential for growth for most companies is compromised.

Money supply

The money supply is the amount of money out there pursuing goods (thereby causing GDP).

It includes employee wages, consumer cash, consumer assets (e.g., home values, investment portfolios), consumer debt (e.g., credit cards, home loans, car loans), corporate cash, corporate debt, government debt, family inheritances, and 75 other things.

The essence of the money supply is that when it’s increasing, it’s good for the market. When it’s decreasing, the effect is negative.

Interest rates

Interest bearing vehicles like bonds and GICs are competitive options to stocks. Their returns are lower but they come with less risk. For example, if GICs are paying 2-3%, and moderate-risk bonds are paying 4-5%, then investors should expect stock returns to be 6-7% (or greater) because of the additional risk. Make sense? I’m only going to invest in something riskier if I believe I can make a higher return.

As interest rates rise, all three of these values increase. GIC rates go higher, so bonds must pay better, and investors seek greater returns from their stocks. This pressure then drives the price of stocks down since you must now get a higher percentage yield out of the same return. For example, a $50 stock that earns $5/share, yields 10%. If interest rates rise to the point where stocks must yield 15%, the stock price will adjust downwards to $33 ($5 divided by 15%).

Predicting the future of interest rates is always tricky. Initially, they were set up to appropriately compensate lenders for risk, but then the government got involved through monetary policy (see Keynes). Regardless, the effect on stocks remains the same: as interest rates rise, stock prices go down, and as interest rates fall, stock prices go up.

Summary

In addition to evaluating individual stocks based on their own financial merit, investors also look at macroeconomic factors in determining their potential for growth.

The problem today is that all three macroeconomic factors are negative. The US’s GDP is growing but the world’s GDP is expected to fall. The money supply is expected to shrink because consumer and government debt (already at all-time highs) must now be paid back. And interest rates have nowhere to go but up.

Add to this the fact that many Canadian companies have been paying dividends in excess of earnings (essentially, eating their own flesh) to appease investors, and you have general market conditions screaming to fall. This doesn’t mean every stock will fall—but it sure makes investors nervous.

Keynes

Economies are like waves with both crests and troughs. When economies overheat, they naturally crash in order to correct themselves. Then when we experience dips, prices naturally adjust until people start to buy again.

John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946) was a British economist who spearheaded a revolution in economic thinking. He proposed that government intervention was necessary to moderate these booms and busts. Before Keynes, thinking held that supply was the economy’s prime motivator. They believed producers would simply adjust prices until the desired number of units sold. But in the 1930s, faced with a lingering recession, Keynes argued we should look at aggregate demand.

Classical economic thinking held that, in a downturn, full employment was achieved by “supply side” price adjustments. Employees would lower their wage demands and producers would reduce profit expectations, yielding lower selling prices, to the point where consumers could no longer resist. Keynes argued that full employment could be better achieved by increasing aggregate demand through the use of policy. (Monetary policy refers to the government’s control of the money supply — like when the Fed adjusts interest rates, and fiscal policy is control over government expenditures and taxation). He proposed government could do three things:

  • Increase expenditures on things like highways.
  • Reduce taxes on consumers and business, thus increasing disposable income and after-tax profits.
  • Increase the money supply by lowering interest rates.

The first two typically result in budget deficits but, under his philosophy, these deficits are to be paid back when the economy looks good.

Keynesian thinking became popular in the 1940s and 1950s, to the point where almost every capitalist country adopted his recommendations. In the 1970s, these principles were challenged by other schools of thought, which argued against the effectiveness of government’s ability to regulate the economy and the natural business cycle. But in the economic crisis of 2008, this thinking resurfaced and was greatly employed throughout the world.

Civilizations

If you were asked to describe a country like Canada, Egypt, or Indonesia, you could possibly start by categorizing it by civilization. We’ve had numerous civilizations throughout history and continue to host many today. North Americans and most Europeans belong to Western Civilization. So do Australians and New Zealanders.

A civilization is defined according to three themes:

  • its belief system (usually religious)
  • its economic system
  • its form of government

* There are other cultural influences like food, rule of law, and social customs that we’re ignoring for the purpose of this article. 

Western Civilization

Western Civilization is based on Judeo-Christian beliefs, free-market capitalism, and democracy. In contrast, Arab civilization is based on Muslim beliefs, economies that are largely state run, and governments that are either dictatorships or monarchies.

Civilization refers to a country’s style, as opposed to its geographic location. Canada and New Zealand certainly aren’t neighbours but we think alike.

America

Okay, so how would you define America? America is a country within Western Civilization that subscribes to Judeo-Christian beliefs, free-market capitalism, and its constitutional democracy.

Canada

Canada also belongs to Western Civilization but is less religious, employs less of a free-market ideology, and has a different form of democracy (we use the Westminster system). So we’re unique from the United States but still part of the same civilization. The same could be said about France. France is also westernized but their people are even less religious and less adherent to free markets than we are.

So civilization is a general belief system that’s open to regional interpretation.

China

Let’s compare all this to 1950s China. China then, was not a member of Western Civilization—they had their own. They abolished religion and believed in individual servitude to the state; had a command economy, where all companies were operated by the state; and government was based in communism.

This is a very different style than the one held by the West. Now eventually, when faced with starvation, China converted its economy to quasi-capitalism—but their current thinking still leaves them on their own.

ISIS

ISIS is currently attempting to create a new civilization. One that embodies the religious, economic, and political beliefs of Wahhabi Islam. Commentator Bill Maher says not only is the West different from others—it’s better. And most westerners agree.

So is ISIS a threat to our civilization and way of life? And is combating ISIS like fighting the war once waged against communism? Questions like these are beyond the scope of this site but now you know what everyone is talking about.