0
Want this question answered?
Be notified when an answer is posted
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Who is the unluckiest person on the earth?
I'd vote for Roy Sullivan, who was hit by lightning seven times.
How reliable is david roy best penny stock eb site?
This is the best website i have ever come across i have been trading with david for the past couple of weeks his picks are simply great i think $77 is nothing for what he is giving
Article on Growth model by Mrs Joan Robinson?
J. Robinson describes the 'golden age' as one where there is full employment of labour and full utilization of capital. In her own words, "when technical progress is neutral, and proceeding steadily, without any change in the time pattern of production, the competitive mechanism working freely, population growing (if at all) at a steady rate and accumulation going on fast enough to supply productive capacity for all available labour, the rate of profit tends to be constant and the level of real wages to rise with output per man. Then there are no internal contradictions in the system... Total annual output and the stock of capital (valued in terms of commodities) then grow together at a constant proportionate rate compounded of the rate of increase of the labour force and the rate of increase of output per man. We may describe these conditions as a golden age (thus indicating that it represents a mythical state of affairs not likely to obtain in any actual economy)." In the language of Roy Harrod we can say that golden age corresponds to a situation where the natural, the warranted and the actual rate of growth of national income are all equal. It represents a state of economic bliss, since consumption is then increasing at the maximum technically feasible rate which is compatible with maintaining that rate of increase. Assuming K/N = 0 = constant in conditions of full employment and fill utilization, an increase in the amount of fully employed labour is given by AN = AK/0. The rate of growth of fully employed labour is then given by which shows that fully employed labour grows at the same rate as the rate of growth of capital, aifei which implies that capital must grow as fast as labour population, the condition of course being that the capital- labour ratio (0) is constant. Let us now consider the question whether the economy possesses any equilibrating mechanism if and when it diverges from the 'golden age' equilibrium for some reason. There are two possibilities indicating divergence. Let us consider (i) first. The implies that labour population is growing faster than capital accumulation leading to a situation of progressive underemployment. Naturally this state is found in most of the underdeveloped countries. Given the state of technology, a higher rate of population growth as compared to capital accumulation leads to a reduction in the money-wage rate (w) of the workers. If the general price level (p) remains constant, the real wage rate (w/p) will also decline. If this happens, the rate of growth of capital can increase since the profit rate would tend to increase as indicated by equation. In such circumstances, the rate of growth of capital would increase to catch up with the constant rate of growth of labour population so as to make AK/K = AN/N. If, however, real wages fail to fall either because money wages are rigid or because the price level falls in the same proportion as money wages, the equilibrating mechanism cannot operate and 'progressive underemployment' cannot disappear. This corresponds with Harrod's notion of indefinite instability "based on the assumptions of the constancy of technological coefficients and relative factor-price movements." 15 Let us take up (ii) now. In this situation capital accumulation grows faster than labour population. Naturally this situation corresponds to the conditions of the developed countries. The possibility of returning to the path of golden age' equilibrium is greater here because even if the real-wage rate were rigid, a change in labour productivity (p) or in the capital-labour ratio (0) might well be such as to increase the profit rate and hence the rate of growth of capital, as would be clear from equation (2.11). According to Kurihara, "This is where J. Robinson goes beyond her basic model and becomes more Schumpeterian than Ricardian."16 If we concentrate our attention on the production function given by (2.5), we can see that it would shift upward if labour productivity (Y/N = p) increased for the same capital-labour-ratio (K/N = 9) or if the latter ratio decreased for the same value of the former. Let us now turn our attention to equation (2.11). This suggests that if labour productivity (p) rises faster than the real wage rate (w/p) while 0 remains constant, then the rate of growth of capital can increase. Even if there is no change in w/p and p and only the capital- labour ratio (0) falls, the rate of growth of capital can again increase. The problem arises only when a fall in capital-labor ratio (0) is accompanied by a more than proportionate decrease in labour productivity (p) for a given real-wage rate (w/p) because, in this instance, the rate of growth of capital will decline instead of increasing. The thrust of Robinson's, Galbraith's and Shapiro's argument is that anything that reduces the impact of uncertainty on the decisions on the production, employment and, most importantly, accumulation of firms, is likely to result in more satisfactory and stable systemic behaviour. Especially is it likely to beget a higher rate of accumulation on average and so a greater chance of absorbing the level of saving associated, if not with full employment levels of income, at least with high levels, certainly higher levels than would occur in a system characterised by the Marshalling freely competitive structures that Keynes used for most of the time in his models in The General Theory itself. In one of her first works Economics is a Serious Subject: The Apologia of an Economist to the Mathematician, the Scientist and the Plain Mans, Robinson analysed the historical development of economical thought. She saw economics as (1) an attempt to produce objective scientific knowledge of a business world, and (2) a branch of theology a means of the ruling ideology and an instrument of social control. She believed that economists need to separate those two aspects. Joan Robinson was initially a supporter of neoclassical economics; her first major work The Economics of Imperfect Competition being largely within mainstream economics. There, she analysed the theory of imperfect competition, trying to replace existing economic models based on perfect competition with ones based in imperfect competition. However, since most economists" analysed economic equilibria assuming perfect competition, Robinson's models did not receive much attention at the time. Her work however, together with Edward H. Chamberlin's Theory of Monopolistic Competition started wide discussion on monopolistic competition. In her article on the neoclassical theory of distribution, Euler's Theorem and the Problem of Distribution, Robinson further contributed to Marshallian economics. Robinson abandoned her views on neoclassical economics after getting acquainted with John Maynard Keynes. As a member of the "Cambridge School" of economics, Robinson assisted with the support and exposition of Keynes' General Theory, writing especially on its employment implications in 1936 and 1937 (in the midst of the Great Depression it tried to explain). She eventually became one of the leading interpreters of Keynes, defending his ideas against the criticism of mainstream conservative economists. She also argued for expanding of Keynes' General Theory to other fields of economics. In 1942 Robinson's An Essay on Marxian Economics famously concentrated on Karl Marx as an economist, helping revive the debate on this aspect of his legacy. The book brought Marx's political and economic ideas back into the spotlight of contemporary debate. In 1949, she was invited by Ragnar Frisch to become the vice-president of the Econometric Society but declined. In the 1950s, Piero Sraffa and Robinson started what has been known as the "Cambridge Capital Controversy," concerning the nature and role of capital goods. In her 1954 article "The Production Function and the Theory of Capital," Robinson attacked the traditional neoclassical view that capital could be measured and aggregated. Sraffa's and Robinson's views became the Cambridge position. On the other side were Americans, including Paul Samuelson and Robert Solow from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who claimed that capital could be aggregated.
Is industrialization on boon or bane?
The existence of the human being on this earth is as old as the existence of the Earth itself. As the initial handful population of the world has increased over billions, gradually the human civilization has improved as well. With the passage of the time, things have absolutely changed and keep on changing day by day. But these changes have their merits and demerits. We cannot claim that all the changes and developments that the world has witnessed so far, have been positive and useful for the people. Let us analyze, whether we are actually benefiting from these changes and so called developments, or else we are gaining less at the cost of losing more. Religions might differ on what is the purpose of one's existence in this world. However, all would be uniting on the point that whatever is there in the world should be a source of benefit, comfort, solace and happiness for the humans. But nowadays, we are witnessing that the advent of industrialization and highly sophisticated technologies; instead of providing quality, value, peace of mind and happiness, they have boomeranged on us and proving to be counterproductive for our well being. As per my perception, the life of a laborer and daily wager who somehow manages to earn his daily meals, and has a sound sleep, is far better than those billionaires who resort to sleeping pills to have some rest. Though the industrialization has eased the life of people, by offering a huge range of products, but at the same time, it has snatched away the quality of atmosphere, polluting the air through toxic and poisonous emissions. We feel comfortable and relaxed travelling in planes, trains, buses and cars, but we should be mindful of the fact, that we are equally contributing towards polluting the environment. We have compromised on the quality of life, in exchange for a short-term convenience. Though the life in ancient times was lacking modern amenities, but it had quality, peace and happiness. The industrialization, the norm of packaging each and everything and adulterating products, has resulted in reducing the life expectancy of the people. Earlier, while the life span used to be 80, 90, 100 years and sometimes even more, nowadays we finish off the chapter within our 50s, 60s or 7os. Technology has been making our life faster. There is no full stop to developing technologies. There is always an attempt to replace the existing technology with the latest and most sophisticated one. This has entered in each and every walk of life. The sole purpose of these technologies is to make things easier, faster and time saving. The world is so crazy for technology, that even the water taps are getting fitted with sensors, not requiring you to handle it manually, they will dispense water just upon keeping hands under them. There is a limit of positive use for anything. The technology has gone beyond this limit, minimizing the physical movement, thereby crippling the people gradually. Apparently these technologies have made our life faster, but they have actually narrowed the gap between our lives and deaths. This is only the bounty of the technology that a sizeable population of the world is reeling under a high level of pressure, stress and depression. The faster is the technology, the more will be the consequences. I believe that by achieving industrialization and state-of-the-art technologies, we have not done a fair deal. Instead we have lost freedom, peace of mind, happiness and complacency; and in turn we have been gifted with modern diseases like depression, stress, tension, obsession with materialism and the loss of values. As we have provided ample opportunities, today "stress management" has become a full fledged industry. Clinics offering stress management solutions have mushroomed across the world. They tend to increase in future, as we keep providing fuel to them. It is ridiculous that first we create diseases and problems, then struggle to look for solutions, while we should assess the consequences of our initiatives in the very beginning itself. It is tantamount to promoting tobacco farming and the associated products, then setting up research institutes for finding out remedies to cancer; and it amounts to owning a confectionary when you are a diabetic. There is no use of millions of dollars; there is no benefit of magnificently built homes; there is no meaning of working in air-conditioned buildings walled of glass and provided with the latest world-class amenities; there is no rationale behind carrying and having the state-of-the-art gadgets; if these are eating away our quality of life, our freedom, our relations, our happiness and our sleep. After all, God has created things for us and not created us for them. It is up to us to decide whether we want to let things to overpower us or not. With a slight deviation from the topic, before winding up this discourse, let us examine the amazing role of technology in elevating things from nothing to everything that is actually positive for some, while it is negative for others. There are a number of things which had absolutely no or minimum importance before the emergence of technology. But the technology has dramatically changed the destiny of these things. For instance, let us see the magic of transformation that has happened to cricketers and actors. The glory, fame and glamour they are enjoying today, were a dream a couple of decades ago. The television has played a pivotal role in sensationalizing and catapulting them to the pinnacle of fame and stardom. They have created such a buzz and sensation that our 7-8 years old children aspire to be Sachin Tendulkar, Rajnikanth, Shah Rukh Khan, Amitabh Bachchan, Aishwarya Roy, Katrina Kaif, Bipasha Basu, Mallika Sherawat, Brad Pit, Angelina Jolie and so on; before aspiring to become Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, Einstein, APJ Abdul Kalam and Mother Teressa. These so called cricket and cinema celebrities are considered role models and icons by our young minds. This is so, only because of the immense popularity, fame and money gained at the mercy of the technology, in the absence of which these celebrities would have gone in to oblivion. But what to do, they are seen as if they are our real heroes contributing towards uplifting the life standards of the people. I am not against the popularity, fame and moneymaking of these people. Just I want to highlight the role of technology in getting them huge money and immense fame for entertaining us. They might have their justifications for being rewarded so much for what they do. But the problem is with those who are really working hard to contribute towards nation building. Let us take the example of our scientists working day and night in research centers and laboratories; and the example of university lecturers/professors who do a noble job for the society. The money earned by them throughout their entire career hardly goes up to 3-4 crores. But for these cricketers and actors, it is just a matter of smashing a couple of boundaries and shaking legs for a few minutes. We should not have any grouse against making money in this manner, as we are not paying them from our pocket, but what really pains is that all the people are not getting their due compensation for the works which are far more constructive than handling bat/balls and shaking legs. The former has no adverse impact while the later distracts attention from doing things which are really constructive for the nation. This is a painful phenomenon that a move on "Sheela Ki Jawani" "Munni Badnam Hui" and "Ooo La La" is more powerful than toiling day and night and breaking head throughout the day to earn a meager sum. Let us think on the above, and strive towards making our life happy. Let us resolve to not let the external forces dominate and dictate terms in our life. Let us also nurture the culture of awarding things only their due importance and see how beautifully it shapes our life. To lead a happy life, it doesn't necessarily demand for money beyond a limit; it doesn't either demand to live in an industrialized world; and it doesn't necessarily ask for totally relying on technologies as well. --
What surprising fact about Iris bothers Roy Hobbs?
Iris tells Roy that she is pregnant with his child. This is from the book, the Natural.
What is the bat name that roy made in the movie the natural?
The Savoy Special was the bat given to Roy Hobbs at the end of the movie.
Why did Roy throw the last game in The Natural by Robert Redford?
Unlike the novel by Bernard Malamud, Roy Hobbs didn't throw a game in the movie version.
Who did roy hobbs play for?
The Knights
What position did roy hobbs play?
Left field
What jersey number did Robert redford wear in the natural?
His character Roy Hobbs wore No. 9 because that was the number of Redford's favorite player, Ted Williams.
What are the release dates for Amazing Sports Stories - 2008 Eddie Waitkus The Real Roy Hobbs 1-10?
Amazing Sports Stories - 2008 Eddie Waitkus The Real Roy Hobbs 1-10 was released on: USA: 15 June 2008
What has the author Roy Bruder written?
Roy Bruder has written: 'Discovering natural foods' -- subject(s): Natural foods
What has the author Roy Chambers written?
Roy Chambers has written: 'Living With Natural Law'
What has the author Roy Ridgway written?
Roy Ridgway has written: 'Asthma (Natural Way)' 'Asma'
Who is the next character to unlock after roy in ssbb?
There is no Roy in ssbb. Roy only makes an appearance in SSBB as a sticker .He's not a playable character.
When did Roy Huggins die?
Roy Huggins died on April 3, 2002, in Santa Monica, California, USA of natural causes.
