John Kenneth Galbraith Biography

John Kenneth Galbraith Biography Archibald Galbraith, a Canadian schoolteacher, once climbed onto a platform atop a  steaming pile of manure to address a group of Liberal party voters before the coming Ontario  elections. â€Å"Before I begin,† he said, â€Å"I must apologize for speaking from the Tory platform.†Ã‚  Later on, his teenage son, John Kenneth, would congratulate him on the dig, to which he  [Archibald] would respond, â€Å"It was good. But it didn’t change any votes.† (Arthur Scheslinger,  1984, p. 7) So, from an early age, John Kenneth Galbraith was between the world of politics and  pragmatism.   John Kenneth Galbraith was born in 1908. His father’s involvement in politics had a  profound impact on the young John Kenneth, politicizing him at an early age. He originally  studied Agricultural Economics at the Ontario Agricultural College, but would eventually say  that he took his first â€Å"real† economics course at UC Berkeley, and that the economics instruction  in Canada was â€Å"very poor† (Dunn, 2002, p. 350). As a graduate student at UC Berkeley, he  continued his study of agricultural economics and worked as a research assistant for a â€Å"very zany  old man by the name of Edwin Voorhies† (Kreisler, 1986). He stated that it was his study of  agricultural economics that left him with a strong feeling that â€Å"social science should be tested by  its usefulness,† an idea inspired by Veblen’s dichotomy between exoteric knowledge (knowledge  that is valuable and applicable) and esoteric knowledge (knowledge tha t has no practical  application, but because of that, is considered more â€Å"prestigious†). Galbraith believed that social  sciences should be exoteric, not esoteric. In his book Economics and The Public Purpose,  Galbraith develops this idea further, saying, â€Å"The ultimate test of a set of economic ideas is  whether it illuminates the anxietes of the time† (Galbraith, 1973, p.198). In the 1930’s, while Galbraith was studying to receive his Ph. D, it was clear that  economic theory was not addressing the anxietes of the time. Economists were struggling to  explain how free markets had led the United States to economic ruin. One in four Americans  were jobless. Production had all but ground to a halt. Obviously, there were egregious errors in  the accepted dogma, which stated that free markets left to their own devices would bring about  efficiency and employment. Galbraith said that his method of coming to an understanding was to  Ã¢â‚¬Å"for years†¦start with [Alfred] Marshall, see the world as it is, and make the requisite  modifications† (Dunn, 2002, p. 351). Upon graduating, Galbraith traveled to Washington D.C.  and took a position assisting with the implementation of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, before  taking a position as a tutor at Harvard. At Harvard, he made speeches supporting the reelection of Roosevelt, cement ing his initial ties with the Democratic party. Not long after, he was offered  a fellowship at Cambridge, where the discussions centered around Keynes, who had just published his General Theory of Employment, Money, and Interest (Dunn, 2002, pp. 350-355).   Galbraith returned from England to his tutor position at Harvard a confirmed Keynesian. He spent a few more years tutoring at Harvard (where he met John F. Kennedy) and then took a  job as resident economist for the American Farm Bureau Federation in Washington. Galbraith’s  observation of the farm industry solidified his belief in the power of government to move  industries forward. In 1930, farm households accounted for a quarter of the population, whereas  today they account for only 1% of the population and yet on the whole, they now produce more  than they did in 1930. This is due to strong government support of the farming industry. That  national planning could â€Å"transform a weak, disorganized, and poverty prone sector of the  economy into America’s most spectacular productive success†¦preserved his political concerns†Ã‚  (Arthur Schlesinger, 1984, p. 8). Galbraith became head of the Office of Price Administration in  1941 during World War II, and at the same time began his long career as a ghostwriter, penning  spe eches for Samuel Rosenman and Robert Sherwood (Arthur Schlesinger, 1984, p. 8). Galbraith then became editor of Fortune magazine, where he worked directly for Harry  Luce, founder of Time Inc., whom he called â€Å"one of the most ruthless editors I have ever known,  or anyone has ever known† (Kreisler, 1986). Galbraith has credited Luce with dramatically  improving his writing via ruthless editing. Galbraith credited Fortune with giving him a  Ã¢â‚¬Å"marvelous introduction to the corporate mind,† because the focus of the magazine at the time  was â€Å"the anatomy of the big corporations† (Dunn, 2002, p. 353). The decision making processes  of major corporations would be a recurring phenomenon that he would write about in many of  his publications. Galbraith returned to Academia in 1948, having spent five years as editor of Fortune. He  was nominated to a position teaching economics at Harvard. However, members of Harvard’s  board of overseers regarded him as a â€Å"dangerous Keynesian,† and as a result, â€Å"took the step,  almost unprecedented in modern times, of blocking the appointment† (Dunn, 2002, p. 353). However, Galbraith had many political allies, and among them was Harvard’s president, James  B. Conant. Conant was such a fan of Galbraith that he threatened to resign unless the board of  overseers backed down. Eventually they did, and Galbraith became a tenured professor at  Harvard. It was then that he began work on his first major bestseller, American Capitalism: The  Concept of Countervailing Power. Galbraith begins his discussion of capitalism in America by pointing out the following  conundrum: Mainstream economic theory asserts that in the case of monopoly, prices will rise,  business will screw consumers, fail to innovate, and as a result, the economy will be in bad  shape. He then notes the work of Joan Robinson in developing the idea of monopolistic and  oligopolistic competition, noting that oligopolistic industries behave in the same way as  monopolies would, and through informal agreements can have the exact same effect. Then, using  the actual data collected by the American government, he shows that the majority of industries  are in fact oligopolistic. But he goes even further than that, saying that almost all industries will  eventually become oligopolistic for the following reasons: At the birth of an industry,  competetion is necessary and possible, as no firms have clear and significant advantages yet. But  over time, it will become increasingl y difficult to enter the industry because of the barriers to  entry created by high capital requirements and increasing returns to scale. At the same time that  increasing returns to scale start to set in (as they inevitably do), existing firms will also gain the  advantage of experience and prior organization. The convergence of these factors leads, in most  cases, to an industry with a few power players and a larger but still relatively small number of  hangers-on, who exist by filling niches that aren’t worth the time of the large firms. Galbraith poses a question in American Capitalism, and before getting to that question, it  is important to get a sense of the context in which he asks it. After World War II, America was  experiencing incredible prosperity. But underlying this prosperity was the fear of depression. The  Great Depression was still fresh in the collective consciousness, and the average man’s faith that  capitalism would bring about efficiency and full employment was shaken. And yet, as the years  after the war progressed, things were stable and employment was plentiful. It is also important to  note that the era of non-depression Keynesianism was beginning, and much to the chagrin of the  business community, government was becoming a much more participatory force in markets. The business community was reacting violently against this expansion of government, claiming  that it was a complete disaster, wasteful to the very extreme and bound to cripple growth. The  state of the American economy in the 1950’s then was that of big government, near-ubiquitous  monopoly or oligopoly, and an underlying fear of depression. Yet, by almost any measure, the  economy was a success. The problem, according to Galbraith, was that, â€Å"in principle, the economy pleased no  one; in practice it satisfied most. Social inefficiency [government spending], unrationalized  power [monopoly and oligopoly], intrusive government [regulation], and depression were all  matters for deep concern. But neither liberal nor conservatives, neither the rich nor all but the  very poor, found the consequences intolerable† (Galbraith, 1954, p. 85). What fascinated  Galbraith was how an economy which was so flawed in theory could work so well in practice. The question he asked was: Why are things so†¦well†¦good? Thus, he states that his aim in  American Capitalism is to â€Å"examine in turn the circumstances that have kept social inefficiency,  private power, government intervention, and unemployment from ruining us in the recent  present† (Galbraith, 1954, p. 85). The first answer that he gives is that oligopoly is much more conducive to techonological  innovation than classical competetion. â€Å"There is no more pleasant fiction than that technical  change is the product of the matchless ingenuity of the small man forced by competition to  employ his wits to better his neighbor. Unhappily, it is a fiction,† he says. â€Å"Technical  development has long since become the preserve of the scientist and engineer† (Galbraith, 1954,  p.86). His argument is that due to the costliness of development, it can only be undertaken by a  firm with considerable resources. In highly competitive industries, no one firm has considerable  resources. Moreover, because innovations can easily be imitated, it is not economical for a small  competitive firm to bear the research and development costs for an entire industry. Galbraith then turns his keen eye to the idea of inefficiency. He deals with this issue by  asserting that America’s relative opulence shields us and is moreover a cause of such  inefficiency. At the time that the classical economists were writing, an opulent economy had yet  to be observed. For Malthus and Ricardo, â€Å"inefficiency was, indeed, an evil thing. It denied  bread to the hungry and clothing to the naked† (Galbraith, 1954, p.102). The true power of  Galbraith’s insight is his ability to point out the obvious. He criticizes his fellow economists for  bringing the mentality of the nineteenth century, with all its poverty and degradation, to the  opulent twentieth century. Galbraith finds this error both amusing and absurd, saying, â€Å"He [the  mainstream economist] worries far too much about partially monopolized prices†¦for tobacco, liquor, automobiles, and soap, in a land which is already suffering from nicotine poisoning and   alcoholism, which is nutritionally gorged with sugar, which is filling its hospitals and cemeteries  with those who have been maimed or murdered on its highways, and which is dangerously  neurotic about body odors† (Galbraith, 1954, p.102). His point is that these inefficiencies are in  fact a sign of the wealth of America. They are the symptom of a wealthy economy, and thus we  ought not to worry so much about them. He also discredits the idea of intrusive government,  noting that, â€Å"alarm over pending action by government on economic matters, which frequently  reaches almost pathological proportions when the decision is pending, almost invariably  evaporates completely once the action is taken. One of the profound sources of American  strength has been the margin of error provided by our well-being† (Galbraith, 1954, p.106). But the most significant reason that monopoly has failed to capsize the American  economy, according to Galbraith is the exercise of what he calls countervailing power. The  assumption always made by economists, when they would consider the case of markets, was that  the check on an individual firm’s power wold come from the supply side of the industry. Galbraith disagrees. He admits that the existence of monopoly power in a competitive market  does in fact encourage the entry of more producers to appropriate some of that power for  themselves. â€Å"In other words,† he says. â€Å"Competition was regarded [and is] a self-generating  regulatory force† (Galbraith, 1954, p. 112). But in a market that is not competitive, the incentive for some economic agent to  approptiate that power still exists. But it need not come from the supply side. That power is, in  practice, usually appropriated by strong buyers or coalitions of buyers, who can sometimes take  even more than their share. Because of the tendency of power to be organized in response to  existing power, â€Å"countervailing power is also a self-generating force† (Galbraith, 1954, p. 113). According to Galbraith, it is the large retailers who, by way of their absolute power over  manufacturers, bargain for the consumer and protect the consumer from the high monopoly  prices that would otherwise result. Likewise, the considerable market power of large firms is  checked by trade unions for a simple reason, there is something to be bargained for Galbraith  notes that trade unions are most powerful in the least competitive industries. This is because the  surplus that a company derives from monopoly power acts as an incentive to unions. In the very  competitive industries, producers and workers are operating at bare minimum profit and the  incentives to organization insignificant. These are the basic ideas laid out in American Capitalism. The book in many ways lays  the framework and tone for the books he would publish in the sixties and seventies. But while  American Capitalism was Galbraith’s first major bestseller, it was The Affluent Society that  skyrocketed him to fame. The Affluent Society builds on many of the concepts introduced in his  first book, but with several key differences. Though Galbraith could not suppress his urge to  social commentary, The Affluent Society is a much more prescriptive book, growing out of his  chapter on technical development in American Capitalism. To his original analysis he adds a  significantly moral component. The Affluent Society concerns itself with the policies that ought  to be undertaken once the basic needs of the people have been met. Galbraith’s main argument is  that our ratio of private good (cars, televisions, automobiles) to public goods (schools, roads) is  inequitable an d ridiculous. The premise of his argument is that once our basic desires such as  food, clothing, and shelter have been satisfied, large corporations employ advertising to concoct  new demand for products. The traditional economic and utilitarian argument for goods qua  goods falls on its face if consumer demand is not sovereign. What is really necessary is the use  of society’s productive resources in the public realm in juxtaposition with growth in the private  realm. He calls this idea â€Å"social balance,† saying, â€Å"the problem of social balance is ubiquitous,  and frequently it is obtrusive. As noted, an increase in the consumption of automobiles requires a  facilitating supply of streets, highways, traffic control, and parking spaces† (Galbraith, 1958, p.  193). He also confronts the existence of poverty in an affluent society as being the result of  outdated nineteenth century attitudes. â€Å"A poor society,† he says,  "had to enforce the rule that  someone who did not work could not eat. An affluent society has no similar excuse for such  rigor† (Galbraith, 1958, p. 251). But he admits that, â€Å"nothing requires such a society to be  compassionate. But it no longer has a high philosophical justification for its callousness†Ã‚  (Galbraith, 1958, p. 251). In the 50’s, America was in the midst of the cold war and attempts at engineering a better  society were very suspect. Galbraith throughout The Affluent Society understands the inherent  and ideological opposition to big government and social policy, but he is adamant in stating,  Ã¢â‚¬Å"that cities’ residents should have a nontoxic supply of air suggests no revolutionary dalliance with socialism† (Galbraith, 1958, p. 191). In fact, Galbraith eventually finds socialism and central planning to be in many ways  similar to the kind of capitalism that developed in America in the latter half of the 20th century. 9 In The New Industral State, Galbraith focuses his effort on understanding what he calls the  Ã¢â‚¬Å"technostructure.† In an era when the division of intellectual labor is so overwhelming, the  management or even management team of a powerful corporation doesn’t actually make most of  the decisions. The decisions are instead made collectively by teams of experts. Galbraith coins  the term technostructure as, â€Å"embracing all who bring specialized knowledge, talent or  experience to group decision-making. This,† he says, â€Å"not the management, is the guiding  intelligence, the brain, of the enterprise† (Galbraith, 1967, p.71). Many of Galbraith’s ideas resonate to this day. Unfortunately, most do not. It would be  tempting to end this essay optimistically, expounding poetically on the way Galbraith’s ideas  continue to influence national policy. In reality, although he was a well-respected and powerful  man, many of his ideas continue to be ignored by mainstream economists and politicians. Rarely  does one hear a contemporary economist talk about countervailing power, or reference the  Ã¢â‚¬Å"technostructure.† While as a society we owe much to Galbraith and his ideas, the discipline of  economics has for all intents and purposes laid his practical ideas by the wayside. But whether or  not his continued influence on economics is felt by the mainstream, his contribution to the  discipline remains poignant and accessible for those who choose to seek it out on their own. Galbraith’s main contribution to economic thought was his tackling of the problem of  power. He was convinced that the most glaring, most significant, and most ignored problem in  the field of economics was the effect of power on economic activity. Understanding why  Galbraith was so affixed by this idea of power is actually quite simple; he was surrounded by it. Through his political work, Galbraith knew not only Kennedy, but several other presidents and  all the most powerful officials in the democratic party. Through his work at Fortune he became  acquainted with the heads of the largest and most powerful corporations in the world. He saw,  10 clearly, the extent to which the decisions of these men (and the technostructures supporting  them) affected the direction and performance of the economy of the whole. Given that he was an  astute man, for him to ignore the influence of power on economies, in order to advance a series  of aesthetically pleasing models and equations, would have been not only unthinkable but  dishonest. Galbraith wanted badly to be useful, to â€Å"change votes,† as his father would have said. To him, sitting in a room concocting theories did not qualify as usefulness. He longed to be in  the thick of policy-making. Later in life, he wanted badly to avoid what he called â€Å"Belmont Syndrome†1 Thus, his struggle to be relevant was not only ideological but moral. John Kenneth Galbraith died peacefully at home in 2006. He left behind not only an  extensive body of economic work, but two novels. His first novel, The Triumph, written in 1969,  was about U.S. foreign policy disasters in Latin America. His second novel, A Tenured  Professor, written in 1990, was about an eccentric Harvard professor, and lampooned the elite  institution. He lived ninety-seven years, almost all of them (excepting the first few) were  preoccupied with upending the â€Å"conventional wisdom.† He remains one of the most famous and  controversial economists of the twentieth century, and a fine novelist.

Marketing proposal

The Iphone is not a phone. It is a revolution that has just started. Some have called it the next resting place of the mind. When we heard that Apple was creating a new product after iPod, we all held our collective breadths, what were Steve jobs up to? Built in the simple elegance that only Apple knows how to this work of arts most distinctive feature is its high-tech multi touch function that creates an amazing   user experience enables an individual to control everything using his or her fingers and type using a predictive keyboard and glade through the multi touch display to find photos, messages, friends easily. There is thankfully lees clutter and none of those confusing functions that get in the way. Yet the iPod lack one function in order to get it fully right. It doesn’t have a mirror, actually a magic mirror. This is the name I have given a feature that the iphone must have. It is an electronic mirror that a clear spread with your hand over the face of the iphone screens morphs up. Magic mirror can be a traditional mirror with a frame and also has drivers that allow you to talk to an animated character who gives an appropriate response by way of drivers that trigger this. It actively mixes video images while communicating via RS 239 and using the Creston automation system. Other functions includes enabling doctors to identify psychological, physical well being by looking at your magic mirror image along with heart beat and blood pressure sensors of patients and the elderly. The target markets for magic mirror are teenage girls, middle income globally. Because of the growth of the world, middle class there has been a parallel growth in affluent teenagers and young adults. No matter where they are in the world, they have similar desires, interests and consumptions. This has been influenced by the worldwide mass media. They watch the same shows, listen to the same music and watch the same movies and videos. They not only idolize the same musicians, dressing styles, mannerisms and attitudes and therefore have the same shared characteristics and preferences. We intend to have teenagers identify with iphone early in life because preferences and tastes formed now can influence purchasing trends throughout their lives. The social cause that I intend to support is the delinquency and lack of manners that is so prevalent in young adults today. While it has become a common practice for older people to ignore or not to give much thought to young people’s behavior and regard this as a passing cloud, I beg to differ. The recent incidents of fatal shootings all over America is the upper peak of a mountain of poor mannerisms that if not checked will result in lawlessness and societal breakdown. I would advocate a campaign for good manners starting at the very bottom. Children as young as three learning to say thank you and please , then moving up to pre-teens who will use the fulfilled and life lessons applications, games, quizzes and chats. Then focus on teenagers and on the other hand providing guidance, advice and support to parents. The slogan I would choose is ‘thanks a million’. This is a slogan that will be part of the campaign that initiates a state by state competition where a million teenagers’ text thank you messages to older people who have done wonderful and even simple things to make life better for others. Tyra banks are in my opinion the most suitable spokesman for the campaign. Her whole life story is an example for many teenagers about how to become a success in life. Born in a middle class background, she lived a normal life and was inspired by her mother who identified her talent in modeling and helped her develop it even through the most challenging times of her life. As a talk show host, Tyra banks have placed her energy towards developing the potential of young women. Her show provides information on fashion, dress, complexion and style. She especially focuses on teenage girls through the Tzone summer camp experience where independence, self esteem is taught to teenage girls at a mountainside camp for a week. Her energy and personality appeals strongly to young girls most importantly. Tyra banks are a modern woman and a role model with manners.   She has started her own campaign against use of derogatory words ageist women in rap videos and has a policy of not allowing swear words to be used during her show. She is the right person for the job. Magic mirror is just a start of the concept of capturing all the senses sight, sound and smell within the iPod. The next phase is to introduce a scent sensor to the iphone as well as a sound sensor. These two features will make the iphone the almost man’s best friend. REFERENCES Winer, R.S. (2007). Marketing Management, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Andrew Jackson Democracy

Andrew Jackson and his supporters have been criticized for upholding the principles of majority rule and the supremacy of the federal government inconsistently and unfairly. The validity of this statement varies in the cases of the re-charter of the Bank, the nullification controversy, and the removal of the Native Americans. In the case of the re-charter of the bank, the statement is not valid. He did uphold the principles of the majority rule and not of the supremacy of the government.The bank and its branches received federal funding and they were to be used for public purpose by serving as a cushion for the ups and downs of the economy. Biddle, head of the bank, managed it effectively. But his arrogance led many, including Jackson, to believe that Biddle was abusing his power and was serving the interests of the wealthy. As a result, Jackson declared the bank to be unconstitutional even though it was previously said to be constitutional.In the election of 1832, Clay wanted to cha llenge Jackson on the issue by trying to persuade Congress to pass a bank re-charter-bill. Jackson vetoed it, saying that it was a private monopoly and that it favored the wealthy, and in turn led to the backfire of Clay’s plan. The majority of the voters agreed on his attack on the â€Å"hydra of corruption. † And as a result of this issue, Jackson got the majority of the votes and won the election. In his second term Jackson killed the national bank by vetoing its re-charter and by removing all of its money.In his veto message Jackson said â€Å"But when the laws undertake to add to these natural and just advantages artificial distinctions, to grant titles, gratuities, and exclusive privileges to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors to themselves, have a right to complain of the injustices of their government†. He then took the money and put it into so c alled â€Å"pet banks† that were located throughout various state banks. He did this because he did not uphold to the ideas of the federal supremacy.Jackson is usually for state’s rights, but not if it leads towards disunion. That is exactly what happened in the issue of nullification. Around 1828 the legislation of South Carolina declared that the Tariff of Abominations, which was and increased tariff, was unconstitutional. According to Calhoun, Jackson’s vice-president, and his nullification theory, each state had the right to decide whether or not to obey it or to declare it void. Daniel Webster, of Mass. , debated against Hayne and attacked the idea that any state could leave the Union.Jackson believed that the Union should be preserved. South Carolina held a convention to nullify both the tariff of 1828 and the newly formed tariff of 1832. The convention determined that the collection of tariffs within a state is against the constitution. Jackson didnâ€⠄¢t like this, so he forced military action by persuading the Congress the pass a so-called Force bill to give him authority to use military action in South Carolina. But the troops did not go. Jackson decided to open up for compromise and to lower the tariff.Jackson did not uphold to the principle of majority to rule in this case because it only dealt with one state, but he did for the supremacy of the federal government. In the case of the removal of the Native Americans, the statement is valid. Jackson’s view on democracy did not extend to the Native Americans. Like the majority he did sympathize with the land-hungry citizens who desperately wanted to take over lands held by the Indians. Jackson thought that the reasonable answer was to require the Native Americans to leave their homeland and head towards west of the Mississippi.He signed the Indian Removal Act in 1830, which forced a resettlement of many thousand Native Americans. In 1831 the Cherokees challenged Georgia in the courts, but the Supreme Court ruled in this case (Cherokee Nation vs. Georgia) that the Cherokee’s where not a foreign nation and couldn’t sue in a federal court. In a second case, Worcester vs. Georgia (1832), the Supreme Court ruled that the laws of Georgia had no force within the boundaries of the Cherokee territory. In a dispute between state’s rights and federal courts, Jackson sided with the states.He said, â€Å"John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it. † In a statement by Edward Everett, he said, â€Å"The Indians, as was natural, looked to the United States for protection. They came first to the President, deeming, and rightly, that it was his duty to afford them this protection. They knew he had but one constitutional duty to perform toward the treaties and laws – the duty of executing them. He informed them that he had no power, in his view of the rights of the States; prevent their extending their laws over th e Indians. This shows that he upheld the principle of the federal supremacy because he abided. Many presidents that have served in the U. S. have had criticisms against them because of the actions they have performed, Jackson being one of them. The validity of the criticism against Jackson varies with the issues regarding the re-charter of the bank, the nullification crisis and the removal of the Native Americans. His presidency changed the way that we look at presidents today.

Lottery Is Good Essay - 695 Words

nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;State lotteries have been around for awhile to help build up state revenue. In such things as scratch off instant tickets or daily number drawings. To some these things are evil, but to some others who’s lives aren’t the greatest, it’s a shimmer of hope that most people don’t have. Now the thing about the lottery is a lot of people don’t win, but those few that do could be put into a nice situation that they’ve never been in before. This is the land of freedom and opportunity, isn’t that we are giving the commonwealth? nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;If we would take away the lottery it would take away from the retired people who the lottery money goes to as well. I don’t like to know that the money is going to†¦show more content†¦The people who complain against gambling are going at the wrong thing. The real addiction lies in the casinos and places like that. There is where people can drop five hundred dollars at a clip. People can sit in front of a slot machines for hours, most stores don’t allow someone to stand at there front counter for hours, there is a security risk with that. I should know, cause I work at a gas station that does business with the state lottery. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;There is an evil in gambling, but once again, that is all in the casinos. Sure some people who play could save that money for other things like crack or heroin, but they instead play the lottery. Its there life, let them live it the way they want to. For once the government is giving something to the people that gives them some hope, more so then the empty promises they make on the campaign trail. A politician can say he can give you lower taxes and more money to the commonwealth, but the lottery doesn’t talk, it shows that it will give money back to the people. A very good example is the last winner of the power ball that won two hundred and fifty million dollars, he was a truck driver barely able to see his family for he was on the road all the time. Now he can provide his family with the best for he has the money to do it. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Some people get addicted to stuff very easily, sure scratch offs can be, but not bad asShow MoreRelatedLottery Is Good or Not1635 Words   |  7 PagesIs lottery a good idea? These days, a lot of people play lottery and spend a certain amount of money on it while few of them earn back what they spend. Someone says lottery is a kind of tax collected by the government on peoples’ luck and desire to be rich. In another aspect, lottery is also gambling, and it could make people to be a millionaire in a night if the person is lucky enough, however, it has a negative effect that it causes inequality, crimes and so on. So lottery is not a positive ideaRead MoreIs Lottery a Good Idea1189 Words   |  5 PagesIs a Gambling a Good Idea? Definition of Gambling Merriam-Webster’s Learners Dictionary defined gambling as â€Å"playing a game in which you can win or lose money or possessions† (Merriam). Origin of gambling in the United States The first lottery was held in the America by the Virginia Company with the permission of the Crown to raise money to finance the establishment of the Colony in 1612. The lotteries were relatively sophisticated and included instant winners. All the original 13 raised revenueRead Moreis lottery a good idea Essay1781 Words   |  8 Pagesï » ¿Is Lottery a Good Idea? Lottery is one of the best things that has ever happened to human kind especially those that dream high and but their dreams don’t come to life because they don’t have what it takes to make it happen. Lotteries are in various categories such as sweep stakes, scratch off, the Jackpot and even the green card lottery. The lottery that is being focused in this argument is the jackpot one. When individuals or people in general buy the lottery ticket their hopes are high, andRead MoreExistentialism, The Lottery, And Good Country People1103 Words   |  5 Pageswritten works. Writings such as â€Å"Raj Bohemian,† â€Å"The Lottery,† and â€Å"Good Country People† all show evidence of an attitude of choice. The term itself suggests one major theme: the stress on the concrete individual existence and, consequently, on subjectivity, individual freedom, and choice. (Funk Wagnalls 1.) The use of existentialism shapes the characters’ such as the Narrato r in â€Å"Raj Bohemian,† Mr. Summers in â€Å"The Lottery,† and Manly Pointer in â€Å"Good Country People;† and explains the motives behindRead MoreSimilarities Between The Lottery And A Good Man Is Hard To Find1376 Words   |  6 PagesHutchinson from Shirley Jacksons â€Å"The Lottery† and the grandmother from A Good Man Is Hard to Find† by Flannery OConnor, treat their family members both similarly and differently and how they are treated in return. Throughout â€Å"A Good Man is Hard to Find,† the family members ignore each other, argue, and act selfish towards one another, but in the end, O’Connor presents the theme of familial love. In â€Å"The Lottery† however, family relationships are important for the lottery to work, but then they do notRead MoreThe Lottery, by Shirley Jackson and A Good Man Is Hard To Find, by Flannery OConnors1074 Words   |  5 PagesIn Shirley Jackson’s short story the Lottery and Flannery O’Conn er’s â€Å"A Good Man is Hard to Find†, there are a few aspects of a similar nature that attempt to tackle the nature essence of the human condition. Both short stories respectively portray two similar types of foreshadowing where one is random the other is premeditated, which leads these stories to their very surprising dramatic climax that is held until the end of each story. I believe that these important variables of both stories haveRead MoreAn Analysis of Shirley Jacksons The Lottery and Flannery OConnors A Good Man Is Hard to Find1360 Words   |  5 PagesShirley Jackson The Lottery Shirley Jacksons short story The Lottery depicts life in a provincial American town with rigid social norms. Mr. Summers symbolizes everything that is wrong with the town; he represents blind adherence to ritual, social rigidity, and resistance to change. His name corresponds with the seasonal setting of The Lottery, too, drawing attention to the importance of his character in shaping the theme of the story. Summers is in charge of the central motif of the storyRead More Inhumanity in Flannery O’Connor’s A Good Man is Hard to Find and Shirley Jacksons The Lottery1133 Words   |  5 Pages In Flannery O’Connor’s, â€Å"A Good Man is Hard to Find,† and Shirley Jacksons, â€Å"The Lottery,† both short stories deal with man’s inhumanity in different situations, and ending with a similar consequence. Jackson and OConnor both use two characters to depict man having the power to manipulate truth and objection into something people accept. In O’Connor’s’ A Good Man is Hard to Find, the Misfit is a character in need of desired assistance, troubled and confused he wanders savagely murdering strangersRead MoreThe Lottery By Shirley Jackson873 Words   |  4 Pagesâ€Å"The Lottery† â€Å"The Lottery† was written in 1948 by Shirley Jackson. Mrs. Jackson, born in 1916, was known for her tales of horror and supernatural novels. She and her literary critic husband, Stanley Edgar Hyman lived in a little town called Bennington, Vermont. Mrs. Jackson was not accepted by the town. Her novels, especially â€Å"The Lottery†, revealed the dark side of human nature. Stephen King honored Shirley Jackson by dedicating his book Firestarter to her. â€Å"The Lottery† takes place on JuneRead MoreThe Lottery Short Story Analysis1214 Words   |  5 PagesThe short story â€Å"The Lottery† written by Shirley Jackson begins with villagers gathering in the square, between the post office and the bank, to participate in the lottery which is not what it seems like because the story’s surprising ending reveals that Tessie Hutchinson, who draws the slip of paper with the black spot on it is stoned to death when the lottery ends. Shirley Jackson reveals through the use of irony, foreshadow, and symbolism in the story how much people can get caught up in maintaining