The total $381,948 is part of yearly grants:

2008: $184,415
2007: $39,376
2006: $58,792
2005: $16,617
2004: 0
2003: $82,748

Total: $381,948

The new advanced security systems will help the bus-line protect its gamblers from mountain terrorists. Hint hint: we take this to assume that Osama Bin Laden and friends are lurking under a rock in the Rocky Mountains.

The only thing that the anti-terrorism grant will protect the gamblers from is potentially dangerous mountain goats and avalanches (which would also take care of the mountain goat problem, for free).

Infrastructure Protection Activities Program

As part of Homeland Security’s Infrastructure Protection Activities program, the federal government is awarding $844 million in tax-payer money to protect American infrastructure.

$11.2 million of this is allocated to the Intercity Bus Security Grant Program, “to assess risks and prevent attacks on that part of the nation’s transportation system”.

The Problem

One of America’s most prominent think tanks, The Heritage Foundation, recently published the stupidity of this grant to protect the gamblers from terrorists. According to senior researcher James Carafano, private companies should be responsible to improving their infrastructure rather than having the government (and ultimately, tax-payers) paying for their improvements. Consider that Ramblin’ Express, Inc. will benefit most from the anti-terrorism grants as it was free money.

By diverting $381,948 to protect gamblers, less money is allocated to the real problem of getting the terrorists in the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan. The terrorists are not in Colorado.

The Economic Stimulus Package

When announcing the economic stimulus plan as a panacea for his economic futility, President George W. Bush paraded that the package will “boost our economy and encourage job creation.”

In addition to tax refunds to American individuals and families, the plan also includes worthy business incentives and assistance to homeowners stuck in a mire of foreclosures. The main issue, then, is the fruitless thinking behind the rebates to individuals and families.

Tax Rebates will Not Stimulate the Economy

While President Bush claims that “the incentives in this package will lead to higher consumer spending…” he overlooks what Americans will do in a recession economy when jobs are scarce and prices are souring.

Faults of the Business Incentives

First, Bush’s plan to kick-start businesses is not completely effective. The stimulus plan focus too much on tax rebates and not enough on tax incentives to support businesses in creating jobs.

In fact, this point has been raised several times in Congressional debates, even by fellow Republicans such as Representative Jeb Hensarling of Texas, chairman of the Republican Study Committee:

“Giving temporary tax rebate checks to families, as important as that is, is not the same as economic growth. If you’re going to have an economic stimulus package, it ought to contain some economic stimulus.”

- Representative Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas)
Chairman, Republican Study Committee

Faults of the Tax Rebates

The main problem in Bush’s solution to the country’s economic woes surrounds faulty reasoning in his tax rebates. While we agree with the president that rebates will encourage Americans to consume more (thereby increasing the profits of businesses and eventually increased jobs), we do not agree with the vehicle used.

During the summer of 2008, Americans will start receiving the refunds in the form of checks. However, as the U.S. economy is currently in a recession, many if not most Americans will probably save the money rather than spend it. These Americans would rather keep the money for more rainy days ahead. Of course, many Americans will purchase food, gasoline, or pay of bills. But they would have done this anyways, regardless of the economic stimulus plan.

Any finance professional can tell you that the wisest decision is to save and invest your tax refunds. This is not recommended by the government as it has little value to the economy.

The hope supporting the tax refunds was that Americans would use the money to purchase flat-screen TVs and computers. Again, there are problems with this faulty hope. As mentioned, many Americans would rather save their checks rather than spend it. Second, many products are manufactured by foreign companies. For example, using your $300 to purchase a “Made in China” product will do very little benefit for the U.S. economy as the proceeds are sent to the Chinese manufacturer. Only by using the money to purchase items manufactured domestically can they benefit our economy.

A Better Economic Stimulus Plan: Issue “Gift Cards”

Instead of spending $42 million to notify Americans of soon-to-come refunds, who will then file them in their banks, the federal government should have issued universal “gift cards” that would have to be used on purchases. Here’s the plan.

Consider a couple who receives a $1200 gift card that can be used at any business in America. The couple is coerced to make a purchase, such as a refrigerator. By purchasing the refrigerator, the business receives the gift card and then proceeds to exchange it with the federal government for a check.

This plan would force the consumer to use the gift card on purchases and thereby increase profits for businesses.

While good in intention, Bush’s economic stimulus plan misses the spot. The better option would have been to force Americans to make purchases with a universal gift card that is accepted at any business.

While Alaskan Natives and local fishermen have waited 20 years for their rightful justification, they instead were met by a slap to the face by the Court and its newest friend, Exxon Mobile.

The Situation

In March 1989, the oil tanker Exxon Valdez struck Bligh Reef in Prince William Sound off the coast of Alaska, steered by a drunken shipman. While the spill was relatively smaller than most other oil spills, the remote location wreaked havoc on local wildlife, including salmon and sea otters. As a result the Exxon Valdez oil spill ranks as the largest man-made environmental disaster to occur at sea.

To put the magnitude of the oil spill in perspective, consider that:

• 500,000 seabirds died
• 1,000 sea otters died
• 250 bald eagles died

The affects of the spill are still felt today according to a University of North Carolina study. The research team estimated that the area would take more than 30 years to recover, an assertion that Exxon executives deny (however, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration supports the University’s estimate).

The Exxon Valdez Litigation Timeline

1994

The 32,677 plaintiffs against the oil company have been waiting since 1994 for their compensation. The plaintiffs include “former Alaska governors, the current governor, the state’s congressional delegation, supertanker captains, environmentalists, state lawmakers, Alaska Natives and experts”

In the Alaskan case of Baker v. Exxon, the jury awarded $287 million for actual damages and $5 billion for punitive damages against Exxon. The $5 billion punitive damages were equal to one year’s profit at that time.

Exxon appealed this decision as they are rightfully permitted.

2002

The Baker v. Exxon decision was appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Russel Holland reduced the punitive damages to $4 billion as not to be “grossly excessive.”

However, a similar case had passed meanwhile. Exxon therefore appealed Judge Holland’s decision. But after reviewing the precedent case, the judge increased the punitive damages to $4.5 billion with interest.

Exxon appealed this decision as they are rightfully permitted.

2006

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the case again and lowered the punitive damagers by nearly 50% to $2.5 billion citing a limit set by the Supreme Court on punitive damages.

Exxon appealed this decision as they are rightfully permitted.

2008

Finally, the U.S. Supreme Court heard the appeal on June 25, 2008. Justice David Souter issued the 5-3 decision to lower the punitive damages to only $507.5 million, a limit established by compensatory damages.

Exxon executives maintained that the company had already paid more than $2 billion in cleanup and a further $1 billion in criminal charges. Seems fair. But when you consider that Exxon makes nearly $40 billion in annual revenue (the largest profit in U.S. history), the damages are more like a drop of oil in a bucket.  The company can recuperate the punitive damages in about an afternoon of oil drilling.

Exxon responded by issuing a weak 154-word Statement by CEO Rex W. Tillerson on June 25, 2008, citing that the company has already paid billions in damages and that situation has been cleaned up according to a 1992 U.S. Coast Guard study. Mr. Tillerson closes the case with his statement.

The Problem

Aside from the environmental damages, the U.S. Supreme Court backed America’s third largest corporation against the people (in this case, Alaskan fishermen who have lost their livelihood as a result of diminishing wildlife populations).

We cannot only blame Exxon for appealing the court decisions as they are legally permitted, plus they are a corporation that seeks profits. However, the Supreme Court is a culprit for essentially creating law (a duty traditionally reserved for the Congress).

The Supreme Court’s slap on the wrist to Exxon will teach the big oil companies a lesson. This is what’s wrong with America.

So here’s the final lesson to American corporations: it is fine to ruin whatever you want, as long as your wallet is open. Yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling finally turns one of the darkest pages in American history to an even darker page, dripping with black gold.

The National Transportation Library estimates that the number of telecommuters in America has grown about 22% from 1996 to 2002, a pleasant growth rate. However, to remain competitive, businesses need to continue this tradition in the future, especially with higher energy costs and a stronger push to protect the environment.

To curb rising energy costs, and to boast employee morale with an affordable “benefit” or perk, telecommuting should be adopted even more in the coming years. Unfortunately, many firms hold to a traditional approach to doing business, with employees working under the direct supervision of managers. The central problem in today’s business society is a lack of trust in employees.

Accordingly, telecommuting does not just bring benefits to the employee and the company; the country as a whole can prosper with lower demand on energy and a smaller footprint on the environment.

But for businesses wishing to remain competitive in a penny-pinching era and to retain the most qualified talent, telecommuting should be widely adopted. This article presents several benefits to telecommuting from the individual, business, and economic perspectives - reasons why U.S. firms should adopt virtual teams.

Accordingly, telecommuting does not just bring benefits to the employee and the company; the country as a whole can prosper with lower demand on energy and a smaller footprint on the environment. With renewed concerns about energy costs and environmental conservation, plus societal focuses on family, telecommuting has slowly been adopted in the country’s leading corporations, including at Richfield, MN-based Best Buy, the nation’s largest electronics retailer. Today, there are more than 45 million telecommuters in America. However, to best benefit the environment and economy as a whole more companies need to promote telecommuting.

Environmental Conservation

Telecommuting would require less road travel. This would help curb future needs to expand highways and to resurface existing roads. Land use for human consumption is one factor in environmental damage, including habitat loss. The same is true about parking lots. By minimizing the number of cars during rush hour traffic, there is less pollution as only those employees that truly cannot telecommute (such as those in service industries) are traveling. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that saving gas by having every potential telecommuter working remotely would prevent 26 billion pounds of carbon dioxide from being released into the environment.

Energy Conservation

Perhaps the most obvious benefit to telecommuting is energy conservation with less demand on gas and oil. Telecommuting would save thousands or millions of traveling cars and be an easy solution to saving energy.

The United States government consistently maintains that increased demand is the cause of the current energy crisis. While this notion is probably incorrect as the real blame falls on the governmental policies themselves and oil speculation, a lower demand may help lower oil prices at least slightly.

Promoting telecommuting in American businesses affects three types of energy:

Vehicle Energy

Of course, less cars on the road will require less demand on gas and oil. Furthermore, the amount of resources and materials needed to maintain cars will likewise decrease. The American Electronics Association estimates that 1.35 billion gallons of gas can be conserved annually in the United States if every employee that can telecommute does so for 1.6 days per week. The association president, Christopher Hansen, maintains that:

“Fewer commuters on the roads means reduced fuel consumption, traffic congestion and air pollution…It is a win for workers, who can reduce long commute times and strike a better life-work balance.”

- Christopher Hansen
President, American Electronics Association

Road Energy

The resources needed to maintain the nation’s road infrastructure is astounding. Less traffic on these roads will curb routine damage and call for less maintenance. Road repair is not only a headache for those that must travel on the road, but costs millions of dollars in fueling heavy construction equipment and for the concrete road materials.

Office Energy

The business will also save on energy costs as each employee that telecommutes is one less cubicle to heat, cool, and light. The average energy consumption used at an office per person is higher than that used in a traditional home (one possible reason is because large companies do not keep close track of expenses in part due to bureaucracy whereas homeowners are constantly monitoring their home electric bills).

Improved Health

Telecommuting improves the health of all Americans in two ways. First, the employees will usually have less stress as they can work while enjoying time with their families. The stress of working in a cubicle coupled with the rush hour traffic can be dramatically reduced by giving employees the simple option of working from home at least one day a week. Next, Americans in general benefit from less pollution for cars as less people are driving to work.

Improved Safety

The logic is simple: less traffic on America’s highways equals fewer accidents. Thousands of American die each year from traffic-related accidents, in addition to millions of dollars in property loss. Rather than coercing employees to exceed the speed limit to reach the office by 8:00am or having craggy-eyed employees return home after a day full of meetings, these employees can work safely and comfortably from home.

Life-Work Balance

Perhaps the most intriguing benefit of telecommuting is an improve social life where employees can balance their life and work. Consider, for example, the much-herald case of Best Buy. Employees at the corporate office are allowed to work from home with hours they set (some employees even work at midnight - whatever works best for them) as long as the required work is completed on time and accurately. This allows Best Buy employees to spend quality time with their families, an activity that has unfortunately been lost as America has moved to a commercial and competitive style.

Family Proximity

Rather than spending an hour each day in traffic, employees can spend that additional hour with family and friends. Furthermore, employees can better respond to emergencies that may arise in a family from home rather than having to furiously drive 20 miles back from work when an emergency strikes.

Telecommuting also solves a common dilemma in which one spouse must compromise for the other who must work in a certain location. Often times, the spouse may have to forgo a fulfilling and lucrative position to maintain the other’s work position. With telecommuting at least one spouse can compromise from working from home nearly anywhere. If either person could telecommute, the decision to accept a new job offer is much easier.

Company Benefits

Telecommuting has several well-documented benefits for American companies as well.

Increased Productivity

Time saved driving can be used working. Many Americans spend upwards of an hour traveling each day. This hour can be spent working and thus increasing productivity. From the moment the telecommuter turns on his laptop, he can be productive. Plus, the employee has to spend less time getting ready for work - this time could be used to sleep an extra hour or so or starting work early.

Increased Job Recruitment and Retention

In a survey of 1,400 CFOs conducted by Robert Half International, 33% believe the option of telecommuting or a flexible work schedule is the best benefit for a new employee.

Employees that are satisfied with a great work-life balance will be more inclined to remain with the company rather than job hopping for better benefits.

Reduced Company Costs

In today’s low-profit economy, American firms can save millions of dollars by allowing employees to work from home. With reduced upkeep and electric costs, many Fortune 500 companies have implemented successful telecommuting programs that boost the bottom-line.

For example, AT&T saves more than $25 million annually in real estate and operational costs by having less employees onsite, according to Burke Stinson, a spokesman at AT&T Corp.

If American companies wish to remain competitive in today’s fierce economy, telecommuting should be adopted to improve the nation’s environment and help individuals retain a satisfactory work-life balance, all while helping companies lower costs.

As the world’s most advanced country, 1 in 7 Americans do not have basic healthcare coverage.

As the world’s most advanced country, 1 in 7 Americans do not have basic healthcare coverage. Another estimate puts uninsured Americans at more than 45 million people.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s 2007 Health, United States statistics report, healthcare costs have skyrocketed each year, incompassing more and more of a person’s Gross Domestic Product (meaning that people are spending a greater percentage of their income on healthcare related expenses than before). In total, Americans spent more than $2 trillion on healthcare in 2005.

The United States has the highest amount of income spent on healthcare expenditures in the world at more than 15%. 

The Healthcare Mess

One driving factor in rising healthcare costs are malpractice suits. To illustrate, consider a doctor who must carry a multi-million dollar insurance policy to ward off malpractice suits. A malpractice suit is a lawsuit brought against a professional such as a doctor for wrongdoings during a procedure.

The current healthcare system punishes patients that are hurt in two ways. First, they are injured by the medical system that was supposed to heal them, and second, they are stuck in a mire of complexity and helplessness in pursuing legal justification.

While only 2 percent of injured patients seek legal compensation today, those that do often seek millions of dollars in pain and suffering. Juries often times award millions of dollars to these injured patients as if they are lottery-winners.

In addition to lofty pain and suffering, high legal fees coerce patients to seek millions of dollars in damages. Lawyers today will usually accept a case only if the payout is great enough to compensate for the time and resources.

A Lack of Precedents

Decision making in medical malpractice cases lacks guiding policies and standards. Only a small percentage of injured patients are awarded damages because of the difficulty of differentiating between unavoidable injury and malpractice. Court cases should ideally provide precedents for future cases, but judges usually do not give juries instructions about legal standards of healthcare as they do in criminal cases, because. Malpractice is therefore hard to prove.

Insurance to mitigate malpractice risks is the main perpetrator of rising healthcare costs, not higher insurance premiums.

The Solution

The current legal system is ill-equipped to appropriately handle medical malpractice cases. While many healthcare professionals have proposed admirable solutions to healing the American healthcare system, a complete revamp of the legal system would be the only long-standing solution.

Using the Worker’s Compensation System

The healthcare industry needs a court system mirrored after the worker’s compensation system. In the workers’ compensation systems, injured workers submit a claim through their employer to either a board or administrative judge, depending on the state. The verdict is based on several criteria, including the severity of the injury, the degree of disability, and the worker’s pay.

Healthcare Courts would Create Precedents

A healthcare court would create precedents by following the worker’s compensation system. A healthcare court would first have a schedule of benefits to compensate patients for medical injuries. Second, injured patients would receive consistent compensation based on previous awards.

The healthcare court would also refer to a guide of malpractice scenarios, using Accelerated Compensation Events (ACEs). Consider, for instance, a patient who requires additional care because of bleeding after heart surgery; this injured patient would not have to prove medical malpractice because bleeding following surgery is a documented error on behalf of the surgical team. Trivial cases would be dismissed by the review board without backlogging the healthcare court system.

Specialized courts are not a revolutionary or confusing idea. In fact, many European nations already have courts similar to the one proposed above. Many of these nations, including Denmark and Sweden have more advanced healthcare systems. The United States also have similar specialized courts such as the worker’s compensation court.

“Our Chinese friends must understand the worldwide concern. I will adapt my response to the evolutions in the situation.”

- French President Nicholas Sarkozy

Other European nations have also entertained the idea of a boycott, including Germany.

The American government, however, has taken an opposite approach. President George W. Bush has resolved that America will in fact participate in the Chinese Olympics merely as “sports fans.”

The Importance of the Beijing Olympics

China’s booming economy has propelled the sleeping dragon into the national spotlight, highlighted by the Beijing Olympics. The world sporting event has been prized as the country’s “coming-out party,” a force to be recognized in the global scene. With tens of millions of dollars being spent on new infrastructure, the Chinese government realizes the importance of the Olympics.

Coming August, China hopes to showcase its progressive government and economic advancement, while hiding its human rights violations. It is no coincidence that the Tibetan monks held their protests just recently on the eve of the Olympics. With the world awaiting the start of the ceremonies, the Tibetans know that now is their chance to tell their story to the world in hopes of an international response.

The Solution

Bush should either boycott the opening ceremonies of the Olympics or at least threaten the Chinese government. Physically boycotting the event will speak louder than Bush’s calls for human rights reform by showing his real commitment to the problem.

Critics would argue that the U.S. should not intervene in foreign affairs that do not directly affect America. However, human rights transcend political boundaries and must be advocated with all world leaders, including the U.S.

In the long-term future, China needs to fix its human rights violations first before it can become a democratic nation that the world hopes it will be.

“It is very nice that the government is kind to immigrants – they don’t even speak English and we are all becoming citizens.”

But equally so, I was shocked by many of these people’s attitudes about America. Keep in mind that these people are the future of America. “We owe it to this country,” said Omar, a Somali refugee who was here with some friends, “Without the [sic] America, we would all be hungry and maybe even dead.” Standing behind him were two of his friends who didn’t say a thing while I as talking with Omar. I quickly found out why. “It is very nice that the government is kind to immigrants – they don’t even speak English and we are all becoming citizens,” Omar continued while gesturing to his friends.

The Problem

Omar’s stories bring a low-key, but potentially deadly, problem that is threatening the very foundation of this nation. Following the Revolutionary War, the founders of the new America agreed after much debate for a unified government with pseudo-sovereign states. The purpose then of the federal government was to oversee the interaction of the states with each other and to set policies between other nations and the United States.

While many critics of the time were opposed to a central government, its benefits can be felt today. Image having to exchange currencies when buying goods from another state or needing a passport to drive into Iowa. Unfortunately, the founding fathers did not set an official language, though English was the conventional tongue. In the 1700s, the founding fathers realized the value of a unified nation. This paradigm has since been lost as now the country is slowly being torn apart by an uncommon language.

Rather than imposing English as the standard in the U.S., the federal government has instead chosen to take a less risky path by leaving the country open to any language. Perhaps the government is afraid of being called a racist. Many other Americans are likewise afraid of being labeled a racist for mandating immigrants to speak English. But in reality, at least partial assimilation is necessary to keep America unified and globally competitive. No one, including me, is coercing immigrants to abandon their culture or religion to assimilate with native-born Americans; rather, language is the one common communication system that is needed to interact with each other. Returning to the Citizenship Ceremony, Omar’s friends are free to speak their language privately and to each other, however they should not mandate the government and even private companies to speak their language rather than having to learn English.

Today, only about 82% of Americans speak English regularly at home. The rest mostly speak Spanish followed by a host of European, Asian, and African languages.

Wake up America

The traditional complacent behavior of American politicians and leaders is steering America down a wrong path. Some immigrants that refuse to learn English are compelling the government and private firms to offer services in their native language. Wake up America! The government and companies are not able to force new immigrants to learn English as they are too weak or afraid to mandate such cultural changes.

At the current rate, do not be surprised that the English language becomes second to most Americans.

The Cost

The inherit cost of allowing multiple languages in U.S. companies and in government services can be astounding. Nearly any American company that wishes to stay competitive needs to appeal to immigrants. As such, these corporations are offering services in different languages ranging from customer support in 2-3 languages to product manuals in up to 4 languages.

This doesn’t affect individuals, right? Regrettably, companies would never swallow the costs of producing and printing product manuals in several languages or training customer support representatives in different languages. These additional costs are passed on into higher product costs for all of America to enjoy.

The India Example

Consider the example of India, a nation divided with more than 17 local languages. Nearly each state in the country has their own dialect separate enough that one cannot understand their neighbors in the next state.

While India does have an official language (Hindi) that is used for interstate commerce and in the federal government, the mandate is weak. For example, the southern states in India (home to cities such as Bangalore) refuse to use Hindi, instead doing all personal and business work in English. In several accounts, many stories have arisen about an Indian fluent in Hindi not able to talk with local south Indians.

The lack of a strong unified language was one reason that India is an undeveloped country (yes, the country is growing now, but imagine its power if it had a strong unified language).

Wake up America! Before we know it, Texas may enforce Spanish as the official language while the Midwestern states speak Somali.

…a $4.00 gallon of gas yields the government $0.60 and the oil company $0.16.

The Problem

After oil executives from the largest oil refinery companies met the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 21, 2008, several alarming facts surfaced as to who was really benefiting from the nearly $4.00 a gallon price. And its not the oil companies.

The U.S. government has placed a heavy 15% tax on gas whereas the oil companies make only a 4% profit. For example, a $4.00 gallon of gas yields the government $0.60 and the oil company $0.16.

Supply and Demand for Oil Prices

How did gas prices become so expensive? Economics’ most basic principle, the interaction between supply and demand, shows that as the demand for oil (which is the key ingredient in gas) has increased as of result of the growth of developing nations, the world supply of oil has remained relatively stable. As demand increased and supply remains unchanged, the market price (shown as the intersection of the supply and demand curves) rises:

Constant Supply

However, the oil companies do deserve some blame for keeping the supply of oil constant. While environmentally this may be the best option, economically, maintaining a stable supply raises prices. Foreign oil companies in the Middle East and South America have a monopoly with the world drinking at their fingertips.

Rather than refining more oil and increasing supply, the oil companies can keep a constant flow of oil as demand increases, again driving up the market price (see graph above). This equates to higher profits.

Congressional Faults

Nevertheless, the main problem rests in the policies drafted by the U.S. Congress. On top of the 15% tax on gas, the Congress has pursued alternative fuel sources that many scientists believe are a stretch to become feasible for everyday use, including solar and wind energy; both sources produce small amounts of energy using expensive equipment.

The increase in prices (for items such as food or energy) are the result of inflation, which is an increase in the already existing money supply and a subsequent decrease in value of the money. As more money is printed by the government, the value of the currency falls. After Congress approved billions of dollars to such plans as the war in Iraq, it create a budget deficit. The Federal Reserve Bank responded by printing more money to purchase government-issued Treasury Bills. The end result of the budget deficit: inflation in energy prices.

The Solution

Congress needs to take three steps to lower gas prices in the U.S. First, legislatures need to revisit the need for the 15% tax on gas.

Balance the Budget

Congress must also balance the budget and lower the need to print more money. The U.S. Congress should stop unneeded spending which will help balance the budget and lower inflation.

Deregulation

Next, Congress needs to dissolve the cartel-like monopolies. Following a model similar to the disbandment of the telecommunications industry with the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the foreign oil companies in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) need to be deregulated.

During the energy crisis of the 1970s, then President Ronald Reagan passed legislation to deregulate oil prices. Economists and policymakers scorned the plan, claiming that deregulation of oil would push gas prices to more than $10.00 a gallon. Instead, the deregulation fueled the unparalleled growth of the 1980s as gas prices plummeted to below $1.00.

While $0.99 gas is a far cry today, a deregulated market would allow non-OPEC producers to enter the market and coerce the existing OPEC companies to cease their monopoly-like behaviors of “hoarding” oil. Ideally, deregulation would push the supply curve in the graph above rightward and subsequently lower prices.

If history is any indicator, deregulation may alleviate today’s energy crises and even restart the American economic engine.

The United States nevertheless prides itself as a global leader in education with the world’s best students. With abundant and accessible web and print resources and heavily funded schools, young American should be the paradigm of global education.

Unfortunately, however, American students are falling behind their European and Asian counterparts in math and science, a well documented phenomenon. These young Americans’ knowledge of geography is equally shaky even with one of the world’s best rates of Internet usage and news coverage.

The Problem

The facts about poor geography knowledge are alarming. For example, The National Geographic-Roper Public Affairs 2006 Geographic Literacy Study found that about 50% of young Americans could not located New York state on a U.S. map. The survey studied 510 Americans aged 18-24 years 2006.

Equally alarming, 60% of students could not locate Iraq on a map despite hearing and reading about the War in Iraq for several years.

To continue, India has been in the news heavily lately as well for its booming economy partly powered by U.S. outsourcing. Nevertheless, 47% of students could not locate India on a map of Asia.

The figures found by The National Geographic survey raise interesting questions about the role of America’s future leaders in the global context. Today’s business and societal environment is quickly adapting to a global scale without borders. As people, knowledge, and ideas are moving easier between countries, at least a basic understanding of global geography (especially when the country in question is in the news frequently such as Iraq or India) is necessary. The survey summarizes its striking finds with an equally grim conclusion:

“Taken together, these results suggest that young people in the United States … are unprepared for an increasingly global future”

- The National Geographic-Roper Public Affairs 2006 Geographic Literacy Study

The survey’s findings are not anything new. A similar survey was conducted in 2002, placing the U.S. second to last on its holistic geography knowledge.

The Solution

A fundamental understanding is paramount in today’s global economy. While elementary and middle schools currently have geography requirements, many high schools do not. Even worse, universities traditionally do not have a geography requirement either.

Geography is one subject that requires constant attention as there is undoubtedly so much to learn about nations, culture, and peoples. As such, elementary and middle schools should continue to focus on geography. High schools should also mandate a geography requirement in addition to other similar requirements such as “World Cultures” or “European History.”

While it may be more difficult to fit a geography requirement in university-level curriculum, the topic should at least be a key component in all classes. For example, many business schools today intertwine the study of globalization and international business in all their functional classes ranging from marketing to finance. Geography is of utmost importance to business students who will be working in a globally integrated world upon graduation.

Regardless of the educational level, geography is needed to expos students and future leaders to diverse cultures, varied ideas, and the exchange of knowledge from around the world.

Apparently to U.S. officials, the sleeping giants of India and China only recently awoke and are thus responsible for the increased prices.

Apparently to U.S. officials, the sleeping giants of India and China only recently awoke and are thus responsible for the increased prices. Ramgopal Agarwala, an analyst at a research institution in New Delhi, India, agrees that his country has undergone unparalleled growth in the last two years, but also that their economy has continuously been improving, not just suddenly.

The Problem

The U.S. acknowledges that an improved diet in the growing middle-class of India has resulted in an increased demand for food. Likewise, a more affluent middle-class is rapidly adopting improved transportation - increasing demand for oil. Supporting Rice, U.S. President George W. Bush explained on May 2, 2008:

“Just as an interesting thought for you, there are 350 million people in India who are classified as middle class. That’s bigger than America. Their middle class is larger than our entire population.” ‘When you start getting wealth, you start demanding better nutrition and better food, and so demand is high, and that causes the price to go up.”

- U.S. President George W. Bush

Bush alerts to his “knowledge” of economics and supply and demand. While Bush is correct that India and the developing world are demanding more food and other commodities such as oil, these increased demands are neither sudden nor the main cause for increased prices worldwide.

Rather, the rising prices are more the result of increased energy and transportation costs than more demand from other countries. Consider, for example, that India is a net exporter of food, not importer. The demand in this country is low per capita than the developed world. In his discussion, Bush disagrees, citing that “no question that ethanol has had a part of it. But I simply do not subscribe to the notion that it is the main cost driver for your food going up.” Clearly, this logic seems faulty as energy costs are perhaps the driving force behind the increased prices. As the cost of producing and shipping food increases, farmers are coerced to passing the loss to consumers.

Food Consumption Per Capita

In fact, India may be demanding more commodities now, but their demand per capita is far below the U.S. or other developed nations. For example, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that Americans have a 3770 calorie diet whereas their Indian counterparts have only a 2440 calorie diet. Consider the graph below which shows the amount of food consumed by an American and Indian in 2006 (figures in pounds per person annually).

The Reality

As the world quickly found out, India and other developing nations are not the cause of rising food and commodities prices, despite increased demand. Rather, economists cite several other sources for the increased prices:

1. increased consumption in the U.S. (thereby raising demand)
2. Conversion of arable land for use in biofuels (thereby lowering supply)
3. A depreciating dollar which makes imported food and oil more expensive for Americans

All India Congress Committee spokesperson Manish Tewari concurs that the increased food prices are due to other factors besides a “slowly” increasing demand from Indian consumers: “India is a not a net food importer. It is a food exporter. The assumption that local prices are increasing because of a changed India is completely erroneous.” Tewari continued that, “the crisis is actually because of diversion of arable land in the developed world for ethanol production and because of changes in the climate pattern.” Tewari’s findings parallel world economists’ analysis.

The Solution

While the Bush administration has since apologized for their erroneous analysis of economics, the long-term solution is domestic. Americans need a change of life, including better dieting (as witnessed by the obesity rate in America). Likewise, the falling dollar can only be improved by growing the recession economy. Finally, biofuels may be the future of energy, however, more sustainable short-term solutions must be found to increase the supply of food rather than decreasing it.