Ecop1001 (3 Viewers)

[nick1689]

Is the synopsis part of the word count or outside of it like the bibliography?

 

[KarmaKitten]

I think its part of the word count?

As for the 10 sources, its not like you have to explicitly go into detail for each one.

 

[Iheartpaulfrank]

If it's like an abstract (which it sounds like it is) it isn't included in the word count.

EDIT: Sooo over the word sustainability right now.

 

[KarmaKitten]

I'm stumped and freaking out over what exactly is social goals.

I'm having a brain freeze

 

[Iheartpaulfrank]

I'm stumped and freaking out over what exactly is social goals.

I'm having a brain freeze

Social goals are so... broad.

I'm stuck in front of the computer. Have done about 600 words.

 

[Iheartpaulfrank]

UPDATE: 874/1500.

Plan to use 12 references.

 

[KarmaKitten]

I know! I mean, there are so many social welfare things. jesus

i have 700/1500, have not used my references yet.

 

[withoutaface]

Perhaps argue that a capitalist economy is more likely to tend towards the social goals of its citizens than towards some broader, overarching philosophy of tolerance, political correctness or whatever else that the government may wish to drive it to. Argue further that significant social change only really happens when people are prepared to accept it, and as such the idea that you can introduce such change through mere legislation will just create resentment and create greater problems in the long term.

If you're arguing welfare have a look at the current state of Aboriginal communties and say that perhaps welfare dependence (i.e. a non-capitalist mechanism) has perpetuated their poor standard of living.

EDIT: Of course you're probably arguing the other side, in which case nevermind.

 

[beentherdunthat]

Hey ....
can i just ask if i transfer from commerce to arts but i done 2 econ subjects, they will count towards my arts degree and i won't have to drop themmm.....
yeah? :s

http://www.handbook.unsw.edu.au/undergraduate/programs/2008/3400.html

 

[Iheartpaulfrank]

Perhaps argue that a capitalist economy is more likely to tend towards the social goals of its citizens than towards some broader, overarching philosophy of tolerance, political correctness or whatever else that the government may wish to drive it to. Argue further that significant social change only really happens when people are prepared to accept it, and as such the idea that you can introduce such change through mere legislation will just create resentment and create greater problems in the long term.

If you're arguing welfare have a look at the current state of Aboriginal communties and say that perhaps welfare dependence (i.e. a non-capitalist mechanism) has perpetuated their poor standard of living.

EDIT: Of course you're probably arguing the other side, in which case nevermind.

What would you say about capitalism and sustainability?

 

[withoutaface]

What would you say about capitalism and sustainability?

Environmental?

In favour:
- new kinds of business popping up everywhere to take advantage of eco-tourism and the like, as well as existing companies going out of their way to green up their image because this attracts customers (think I saw signs by BP about this). Also new products like the Prius are selling well.
- in the event of significant impact upon people's lives the existing torts system can be used to ensure they received compensation for damage done by global warming.

Against:
Ultimately the amount to which people's guilt or empathy drives them to purchase green products is probably not as high as it needs to be, and individual court cases would be far too expensive, hard to prove culpability and sit too far into the future to be able to help. Mechanisms such as carbon taxes, where the proceeds go towards helping those worst affected by environment degradation provide a disincentive to pollute at the same time as helping the victims of it, and they provide a decent 'middle road' between putting a cap on carbon emissions and having no regulation at all.

 

[KarmaKitten]

EDIT: Of course you're probably arguing the other side, in which case nevermind.

Actually, I'm not. What you said about the welfare dependence of Aboriginals is kind of what I was trying to say but unable to write in an intelligent or coherent manner.

But thanks!

 

[withoutaface]

"I’ll say first that I do believe that the current situation has been caused by both current and past governments. At the start of the 20th century, the Aboriginies generally had a poor standard of living and, accordingly, it was seen as proper that we “take care of them”, be it by establishing reserves in the first half of the century or, more recently, welfare to support communities run by elders. The key problem is that, despite all the issues that appear in these communities, the approach has only ever been slightly tweaked, but never changed.

The communties display all of the most horrible consequences of the welfare state: high unemployment, substance abuse, poor education, high crime rates, etc, and yet we continue to pump money into them without questioning our methods. The fact is that there are no jobs where these people live. Without jobs, there is no choice but to remain on welfare for the rest of their lives, and with the welfare in place there is no real incentive to move to areas where employment is available. This attitude filters down to their children, who have no aspirations because their main role models, being their parents, have never held down jobs, and who lack the educational qualifications to seek work because they are not being encouraged to go to school.

It’s easy to blame alcohol, paint thinner, petrol or glue for all of these problems, but the fact of the matter is that if you don’t have welfare money you cannot purchase such intoxicants, and so must seek work. We then reach a stage where you can’t hold down a job while high on solvents, and the problem corrects itself. We must, therefore, offer packages for these people to move to areas where jobs are available, and if they choose not to take them they will have their welfare cut off. This may seem harsh, but one cannot take the benefits of Western society without accepting its responsibilities, and if they wish to outright reject both to live on their sacred lands they can continue to do so as they have for thousands of years; there was no welfare prior to 1788.

The current bipartisan measures do nothing to bring us towards a situation where welfare dependence is not longer an issue, because they attack the symptoms, rather than the cause, of the problem. There needs to be pressure placed on both parties to completely overhaul their strategies, because only then will we see change in the indigenous community.
"

Something I wrote a while ago on the aboriginal issue...

 

[Iheartpaulfrank]

Environmental?

In favour:
- new kinds of business popping up everywhere to take advantage of eco-tourism and the like, as well as existing companies going out of their way to green up their image because this attracts customers (think I saw signs by BP about this). Also new products like the Prius are selling well.
- in the event of significant impact upon people's lives the existing torts system can be used to ensure they received compensation for damage done by global warming.

Against:
Ultimately the amount to which people's guilt or empathy drives them to purchase green products is probably not as high as it needs to be, and individual court cases would be far too expensive, hard to prove culpability and sit too far into the future to be able to help. Mechanisms such as carbon taxes, where the proceeds go towards helping those worst affected by environment degradation provide a disincentive to pollute at the same time as helping the victims of it, and they provide a decent 'middle road' between putting a cap on carbon emissions and having no regulation at all.

Oh thanks!

But I finished my essay before I saw your post.

1541/1500, just need to write up an abstract.

 

[beentherdunthat]

^ can u help me with my previous post..... i just need a confirmation :s

 

[withoutaface]

Why are you asking this in the USyd forum in a thread that has nothing to do with the question you asked? :/

 

[Iheartpaulfrank]

Hey ....
can i just ask if i transfer from commerce to arts but i done 2 econ subjects, they will count towards my arts degree and i won't have to drop themmm.....
yeah? :s

http://www.handbook.unsw.edu.au/undergraduate/programs/2008/3400.html

Please go to the UNSW forum.

 

[CurlyRuby]

lol IHPF you're all like "Get out of our forum BIATCH"

 

[Iheartpaulfrank]

lol IHPF you're all like "Get out of our forum BIATCH"

I swear it wasn't in a bitchy tone. That's why I added the (unless that was interpreted as fake sweetness)

 

[ledzeppelin]

Got up early today to try and knock this off... about to start working on it now