Available Balance
Oversight of United States covert operations
tajikistan-currency-symbol-animation

Although there had been some covert U.S. operations in Indochina during Truman’s administration, as set forth in NSC directives 10/2 and 10/5, which had been continued by Eisenhower, the approval of NSC 5412 on March 15, 1954, marked the official recognition and sanctioning of a much larger program of anti-Communist activities in Indochina and throughout the world.

NSC 5412, “National Security Council Directive on Covert Operations,” continued to be the U.S. Government’s basic directive on covert activities until the Nixon administration’s NSC 40 in 1970.

NSC 5412 defined “covert operations” as “…all activities conducted pursuant to this directive which are so planned and executed that any U.S. Government responsibility for them is not evident to unauthorized persons and that if uncovered the U.S. Government can plausibly disclaim any responsibility for them. Specifically, such operations shall include any covert activities related to: propaganda, political action; economic warfare; preventive direct action, including sabotage, anti-sabotage, demolition; escape and evasion and evacuation measures; subversion against hostile states or groups including assistance to underground resistance movements, guerrillas and refugee liberation groups; support of indigenous and anti-communist elements in threatened countries of the free world; deceptive plans and operations; and all activities compatible with this directive necessary to accomplish the foregoing. Such operations shall not include: armed conflict by recognized military forces, espionage and counterespionage, nor cover and deception for military operations.”

NSC 5412 was declassifed in 1977, and is located at the National Archives, RG 273.

Since 1954, oversight of United States covert operations has been carried out by a series of sub-committees of the United States National Security Council.
NSC 5412/2 Special Group Edit
The NSC 5412/2 Special Group, often referred simply as the Special Group, was an initially secret, but later public, subcommittee of the United States National Security Council responsible for coordinating government covert operations. Presidential Directive NSC 5412/2, issued December 28, 1954, assigned responsibility for co-ordination of covert actions to representatives of the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and the President respectively.

The Federation of American Scientists list of national security documents for the Eisenhower administration does not show a directive 5412/2. It does however show a 5412/1 with a classified title (one of only three such documents for the entire administration).

A National Security Archive chronology of the Bay of Pigs Invasion indicates a membership in December 1960 Allen Dulles, Chairman of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA); Gordon Gray, National Security Advisor; James Douglas, Acting Secretary of Defense; and Livingston T. Merchant, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs.[1]

303 Committee Edit
The covert actions oversight group was renamed the 303 Committee after National Security Action Memorandum No. 303 on June 2, 1964. McGeorge Bundy, National Security Advisor, became Chairman for the committee.

The successor to the Special Group was the 40 Committee.[2]

40 Committee Edit
The 40 Committee was a division of the Executive branch of the United States government whose mandate was to review proposed major covert actions. In 1970 the 40 Committee played a major role in so called “Track I” efforts to prevent Salvador Allende from taking office following the Chilean popular vote of September 4, 1970.[3]

The Committee was a successor to earlier covert oversight and planning groups, variously known as the Special Group 10/2, 5412 Panel, NSC 5412/2 Special Group, Special Group (until 1964), 303 Committee (to 1969), existing since 1954 at the latest.[4]

Operations Advisory Group Edit
On February 18, 1976, 40 committee was replaced by the Operations Advisory Group, in accordance with Executive Order 11905 issued by Gerald Ford. The new group was composed of the President’s Assistant for National Security Affairs, the Secretaries of State and Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Director of Central Intelligence.[5]

NSC Special Coordination Committee Edit
The following year, on May 13, 1977 President Jimmy Carter issued Executive Order 11985 which updated the previous order such that the Operations Advisory Group thereafter would be known as the NSC Special Coordination Committee[6]
Under the Reagan administration, the Special Coordination Committee was replaced by the National Security Planning Group which included the Vice-President, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, the Assistant for National Security Affairs, and the Director of the CIA.[7]

Special Intelligence Office Edit
In 2002–2003, during the Bush Administration, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith created a special-purpose group encompassing and focusing on all military and intelligence efforts involving Iraq, Afghanistan, and other Near East countries, as well as all activities falling under the rubric of the Global War on Terror. This group has been said to have been responsible for stovepiping selective raw intelligence data, bypassing analysis processes as well as bypassing customary cooperation and coordination with NSA, Mossad, and other intelligence entities in order to shape decisions as to the war with Iraq. Its functions were morphed in the Office of Special Plans, which was subsequently investigated for manipulations of intelligence, unlawful activities, and espionage.[8]

Civil defense importance, threat assessment, stage, implementation and civil defense organization.
TMPDOODLE1495351325870

Relatively small investments in preparation can speed up recovery by months or years and thereby prevent millions of deaths by hunger, cold and disease.[citation needed] According to human capital theory in economics, a country’s population is more valuable than all of the land, factories and other assets that it possesses. People rebuild a country after its destruction, and it is therefore important for the economic security of a country that it protect its people. According to psychology, it is important for people to feel as though they are in control of their own destiny, and preparing for uncertainty via civil defense may help to achieve this.

In the United States, the federal civil defense program was authorised by statute and ran from 1951 to 1994. Originally authorised by Public Law 920 of the 81st Congress, it was repealed by Public Law 93-337 in 1994. Small portions of that statutory scheme were incorporated into the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Public Law 100-707) which partly superseded in part, partly amended, and partly supplemented the Disaster Relief Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-288). In the portions of the civil defense statute incorporated into the Stafford Act, the primary modification was to use the term “Emergency Preparedness” wherever the term “Civil Defence” had previously appeared in the statutory language.

An important concept initiated by President Jimmy Carter was the so-called “Crisis Relocation Program” administered as part of the federal civil defense program. That effort largely lapsed under President Ronald Reagan, who discontinued the Carter initiative because of opposition from areas potentially hosting the relocated population.[25]
Threats to civilians and civilian life include NBC (Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical warfare) and others, like the more modern term CBRN (Chemical Biological Radiological and Nuclear). Threat assessment involves studying each threat so that preventative measures can be built into civilian life.

Conventional
Refers to conventional explosives. A blast shelter designed to protect only from radiation and fallout would be much more vulnerable to conventional explosives. See also fallout shelter.

Nuclear
Shelter intended to protect against nuclear blast effects would include thick concrete and other sturdy elements which are resistant to conventional explosives. The biggest threats from a nuclear attack are effects from the blast, fires and radiation. One of the most prepared countries for a nuclear attack is Switzerland. Almost every building in Switzerland has an abri (shelter) against the initial nuclear bomb and explosion followed by the fall-out.[26][27] Because of this, many people use it as a safe to protect valuables, photos, financial information and so on. Switzerland also has air-raid and nuclear-raid sirens in every village.

Dirty Bomb
A “radiologically enhanced weapon,” or “dirty bomb”, uses an explosive to spread radioactive material. This is a theoretical risk, and such weapons have not been used by terrorists. Depending on the quantity of the radioactive material, the dangers may be mainly psychological. Toxic effects can be managed by standard hazmat techniques.

Biological
The threat here is primarily from disease-causing microorganisms such as bacteria and viruses.

Chemical
Various chemical agents are a threat, such as nerve gas (VX, Sarin, and so on.).
Mitigation is the process of actively preventing the war or the release of nuclear weapons. It includes policy analysis, diplomacy, political measures, nuclear disarmament and more military responses such as a National Missile Defense and air defense artillery. In the case of counter-terrorism, mitigation would include diplomacy, intelligence gathering and direct action against terrorist groups. Mitigation may also be reflected in long-term planning such as the design of the interstate highway system and the placement of military bases further away from populated areas.

Preparation Edit
Preparation consists of building blast shelters and pre-positioning information, supplies, and emergency infrastructure. For example, most larger cities in the U.S. now have underground emergency operations centres that can perform civil defense coordination. FEMA also has many underground facilities for the same purpose located near major railheads such as the ones in Denton, Texas and Mount Weather, Virginia.

Other measures would include continual government inventories of grain silos, the Strategic National Stockpile, the uncapping of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the dispersal of lorry-transportable bridges, water purification, mobile refineries, mobile de-contamination facilities, mobile general and special purpose disaster mortuary facilities such as Disaster Mortuary Operational Response Team (DMORT) and DMORT-WMD, and other aids such as temporary housing to speed civil recovery.

On an individual scale, one means of preparation for exposure to nuclear fallout is to obtain potassium iodide (KI) tablets as a safety measure to protect the human thyroid gland from the uptake of dangerous radioactive iodine. Another measure is to cover the nose, mouth and eyes with a piece of cloth and sunglasses to protect against alpha particles, which are only an internal hazard.

To support and supplement efforts at national, regional and local level with regard to disaster prevention, the preparedness of those responsible for civil protection and the intervention in the event of disaster

To establish a framework for effective and rapid cooperation between different civil protection services when mutual assistance is needed (police, fire service, healthcare service, public utility provider, voluntary agencies)
To set up and implement training programs for intervention and coordination teams as well as assessment experts including joint courses and exchange systems
To enhance the coherence of actions undertaken at international level in the field of civil protection, especially in the context of cooperation
Preparing also includes sharing information:

To contribute to informing the public, in view of increasing citizens’ level of self-protection
To collect and disseminate validated emergency information
To pool information on national civil protection capabilities, military and medical resources
To ensure efficient information sharing between the different authorities
Response Edit
Response consists first of warning civilians so they can enter fallout shelters and protect assets.

Staffing a response is always full of problems in a civil defense emergency. After an attack, conventional full-time emergency services are dramatically overloaded, with conventional fire fighting response times often exceeding several days. Some capability is maintained by local and state agencies, and an emergency reserve is provided by specialised military units, especially civil affairs, Military Police, Judge Advocates and combat engineers.

However, the traditional response to massed attack on civilian population centres is to maintain a mass-trained force of volunteer emergency workers. Studies in World War II showed that lightly trained (40 hours or less) civilians in organised teams can perform up to 95% of emergency activities when trained, liaised and supported by local government. In this plan, the populace rescues itself from most situations,and provides information to a central office to prioritize professional emergency services.

In the 1990s, this concept was revived by the Los Angeles Fire Department to cope with civil emergencies such as earthquakes. The program was widely adopted, providing standard terms for organization. In the U.S., this is now official federal policy, and it is implemented by community emergency response teams, under the Department of Homeland Security, which certifies training programmes by local governments, and registers “certified disaster service workers” who complete such training.

Recovery Edit
Recovery consists of rebuilding damaged infrastructure, buildings and production. The recovery phase is the longest and ultimately most expensive phase. Once the immediate “crisis” has passed, cooperation fades away and recovery efforts are often politicised or seen as economic opportunities.

Preparation for recovery can be very helpful. If mitigating resources are dispersed before the attack, cascades of social failures can be prevented. One hedge against bridge damage in riverine cities is to subsidise a “tourist ferry” that performs scenic cruises on the river. When a bridge is down, the ferry takes up the load.
Some advocates[who?] believe that government should change building codes to require autonomous buildings in order to reduce civil societies’ dependence on complex, fragile networks of social services.[citation needed]

An example of a crucial need after a general nuclear attack would be the fuel required to transport every other item for recovery. However, oil refineries are large, immobile, and probable targets. One proposal is to pre-position truck-mounted fuel refineries near oil fields and bulk storage depots. Other critical infrastructure needs would include road and bridge repair, communications, electric power, food production, and potable water.
Civil Defense is also the name of a number of organizations around the world dedicated to protecting civilians from military attacks, as well as to providing rescue services after natural and human-made disasters alike.

Worldwide protection is managed by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA).

In a few countries such as Jordan and Singapore (see Singapore Civil Defence Force), civil defense is essentially the same organisation [clarification needed] as the fire brigade. In most countries, however, civil defense is a government-managed, volunteer-staffed organisation, separate from the fire brigade and the ambulance service.

As the threat of Cold War eased, a number of such civil defense organisations have been disbanded or mothballed (as in the case of the Royal Observer Corps in the United Kingdom and the United States civil defense), while others have changed their focuses into providing rescue services after natural disasters (as for the State Emergency Service in Australia). However, the ideals of Civil Defense [clarification needed] have been brought back in the United States under FEMA’s Citizen Corps and Community Emergency Response Team (CERT).

In the United Kingdom Civil Defence work is carried out by Emergency Responders under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, with assistance from voluntary groups such as RAYNET, Search and Rescue Teams and 4×4 Response. In Ireland, the Civil Defence is still very much an active organisation and is occasionally called upon for its Auxiliary Fire Service and ambulance/rescue services when emergencies such as flash flooding occur and require additional manpower. The organisation has units of trained firemen and medical responders based in key areas around the country.

By country Edit
Main article: Civil defense by country
Albanian Civil Protection
State Emergency Service – Australia
Belgian Civil Protection – Belgium
Defesa Civil – Brazil
Cyprus Civil Defence
Population Protection – Czech Republic
Civil defense in Finland
Sécurité Civile – France
Technisches Hilfswerk – Germany
General Secretariat for Civil Protection – Greece
Civil Defence Harir in Kurdistan – Iraq
Civil Defence Ireland
Isle of Man Civil Defence Corps
Civil defense in Israel
Protezione Civile – Italy
Malaysian Civil Defence Department
Protección Civil – Mexico
Corps des Sapeurs-Pompiers – Monaco[28]
Civil Defence (New Zealand)[29]
Nigeria security and civil defence corps -Nigeria
Norwegian Civil Defence
Panama Civil Defense Seismic Network
Civil Police – San Marino[30]
Singapore Civil Defence Force
UK:

Civil Defence Corps
4×4 Response
UK’s National Attack Warning System
Royal Observer Corps
US:

Civil Air Patrol
United States civil defense
United States civil defense association
Comprehensive Emergency Management
Federal Emergency Management Agency
CONELRAD
Duck and cover

What is the meaning of civil defense ???
200w

Civil defense, civil defence (see spelling differences) or civil protection is an effort to protect the citizens of a state (generally non-combatants) from military attacks and natural disasters. It uses the principles of emergency operations: prevention, mitigation, preparation, response, or emergency evacuation and recovery. Programs of this sort were initially discussed at least as early as the 1920s and were implemented in some countries during the 1930s as the threat of war and aerial bombardment grew. It became widespread after the threat of nuclear weapons was realized.

Since the end of the Cold War, the focus of civil defense has largely shifted from military attack to emergencies and disasters in general. The new concept is described by a number of terms, each of which has its own specific shade of meaning, such as crisis management, emergency management, emergency preparedness, contingency planning, emergency services, and civil protection.

In some countries, civil defense is seen as a key part of “total defense”. For example, in Sweden, the Swedish word totalförsvar refers to the commitment of a wide range of resources of the nation to its defense – including to civil protection. Respectively, some countries (notably the Soviet Union) may have or have had military-organized civil defense units (Civil Defense Troops) as part of their armed forces or as a paramilitary service.
The advent of civil defence was stimulated by the experience of the bombing of civilian areas during the First World War. The bombing of the United Kingdom began on 19 January 1915 when German zeppelins dropped bombs on the Great Yarmouth area, killing six people. German bombing operations of the First World War were surprisingly effective, especially after the Gotha bombers surpassed the zeppelins. The most devastating raids inflicted 121 casualties for each ton of bombs dropped; this figure was then used as a basis for predictions.

After the war, attention was turned toward civil defence in the event of war, and the Air Raid Precautions Committee (ARP) was established in 1924 to investigate ways for ensuring the protection of civilians from the danger of air-raids.

The Committee produced figures estimating that in London there would be 9,000 casualties in the first two days and then a continuing rate of 17,500 casualties a week. These rates were thought conservative. It was believed that there would be “total chaos and panic” and hysterical neurosis as the people of London would try to flee the city. To control the population harsh measures were proposed: bringing London under almost military control, and physically cordoning off the city with 120,000 troops to force people back to work. A different government department proposed setting up camps for refugees for a few days before sending them back to London.

A special government department, the Civil Defence Service, was established by the Home Office in 1935. Its remit included the pre-existing ARP as well as wardens, firemen (initially the Auxiliary Fire Service (AFS) and latterly the National Fire Service (NFS)), fire watchers, rescue, first aid post, stretcher party and industry. Over 1.9 million people served within the CD; nearly 2,400 lost their lives to enemy action.
The organisation of civil defence was the responsibility of the local authority. Volunteers were ascribed to different units depending on experience or training. Each local civil defence service was divided into several sections. Wardens were responsible for local reconnaissance and reporting, and leadership, organisation, guidance and control of the general public. Wardens would also advise survivors of the locations of rest and food centres, and other welfare facilities.

Rescue Parties were required to assess and then access bombed-out buildings and retrieve injured or dead people. In addition they would turn off gas, electricity and water supplies, and repair or pull down unsteady buildings. Medical services, including First Aid Parties, provided on the spot medical assistance.

The expected stream of information that would be generated during an attack was handled by ‘Report and Control’ teams. A local headquarters would have an ARP controller who would direct rescue, first aid and decontamination teams to the scenes of reported bombing. If local services were deemed insufficient to deal with the incident then the controller could request assistance from surrounding boroughs.

Fire Guards were responsible for a designated area/building and required to monitor the fall of incendiary bombs and pass on news of any fires that had broken out to the NFS. They could deal with an individual magnesium electron incendiary bomb by dousing it with buckets of sand or water or by smothering. Additionally, ‘Gas Decontamination Teams’ kitted out with gas-tight and waterproof protective clothing were to deal with any gas attacks. They were trained to decontaminate buildings, roads, rail and other material that had been contaminated by liquid or jelly gases.
Little progress was made over the issue of air-raid shelters, because of the apparently irreconcilable conflict between the need to send the public underground for shelter and the need to keep them above ground for protection against gas attacks. In February 1936 the Home Secretary appointed a technical Committee on Structural Precautions against Air Attack. During the Munich crisis, local authorities dug trenches to provide shelter. After the crisis, the British Government decided to make these a permanent feature, with a standard design of precast concrete trench lining. They also decided to issue the Anderson shelter free to poorer households and to provide steel props to create shelters in suitable basements.[1]

During the Second World War, the ARP was responsible for the issuing of gas masks, pre-fabricated air-raid shelters (such as Anderson shelters, as well as Morrison shelters), the upkeep of local public shelters, and the maintenance of the blackout. The ARP also helped rescue people after air raids and other attacks, and some women became ARP Ambulance Attendants whose job was to help administer first aid to casualties, search for survivors, and in many grim instances, help recover bodies, sometimes those of their own colleagues.

As the war progressed, the effectiveness of aerial bombardment was, beyond the destruction of property, very limited. There were fewer than three casualties for each ton of bombs dropped by the Luftwaffe in many British cities and the expected social consequences hardly happened.[citation needed] The morale of the British people remained high, ‘shell-shock’ was not at all common, and the rates of other nervous and mental ailments declined.

United States Edit
In the United States, the Office of Civil Defense was established in May 1941 to coordinate civilian defense efforts. It coordinated with the Department of the Army and established similar groups to the British ARP. One of these groups that still exists today is the Civil Air Patrol, which was originally created as a civilian auxiliary to the Army. The CAP was created on December 1, 1941, with the main civil defense mission of search and rescue. The CAP also sank two Axis submarines and provided aerial reconnaissance for Allied and neutral merchant ships.[2] In 1946, the Civil Air Patrol was barred from combat by Public Law 79-476. The CAP then received its current mission: search and rescue for downed aircraft. When the Air Force was created, in 1947, the Civil Air Patrol became the auxiliary of the Air Force.[3] The Coast Guard Auxiliary performs a similar role in support of the U.S. Coast Guard.[4]

In the United States a federal civil defense program existed under Public Law 920 of the 81st Congress,[5] as amended, from 1951-1994. That statutory scheme was made so-called all-hazards by Public Law 103-160 in 1993 and largely repealed by Public Law 103-337 in 1994.[6] Parts now appear in Title VI of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, Public Law 100-107 [1988 as amended].[7] The term EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS was largely codified by that repeal and amendment. See 42 USC Sections 5101 and following.[7]
In most of the states of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, such as the United States, the United Kingdom and West Germany, as well as the Soviet Bloc, and especially in the neutral countries, such as Switzerland and in Sweden during the 1950s and 1960s, many civil defense practices took place to prepare for the aftermath of a nuclear war, which seemed quite likely at that time.[8]

In the United Kingdom, the Civil Defence Service was disbanded in 1945, followed by the ARP in 1946. With the onset of the growing tensions between East and West, the service was revived in 1949 as the Civil Defence Corps. As a civilian volunteer organisation, it was tasked to take control in the aftermath of a major national emergency, principally envisaged as being a Cold War nuclear attack. Although under the authority of the Home Office, with a centralised administrative establishment, the corps was administered locally by Corps Authorities. In general every county was a Corps Authority, as were most county boroughs in England and Wales and large burghs in Scotland.

Each division was divided into several sections, including the Headquarters, Intelligence and Operations, Scientific and Reconnaissance, Warden & Rescue, Ambulance and First Aid and Welfare.

In the United States, the sheer power of nuclear weapons and the perceived likelihood of such an attack precipitated a greater response than had yet been required of civil defense. Civil defense, previously considered an important and commonsense step, became divisive and controversial in the charged atmosphere of the Cold War. In 1950, the National Security Resources Board created a 162-page document outlining a model civil defense structure for the U.S. Called the “Blue Book” by civil defense professionals in reference to its solid blue cover, it was the template for legislation and organization for the next 40 years.
Perhaps the most memorable aspect of the Cold War civil defense effort was the educational effort made or promoted by the government.[10] In Duck and Cover, Bert the Turtle advocated that children “duck and cover” when they “see the flash.” Booklets such as Survival Under Atomic Attack, Fallout Protection and Nuclear War Survival Skills were also commonplace. The transcribed radio program Stars for Defense combined hit music with civil defense advice. Government institutes created public service announcements including children’s songs and distributed them to radio stations to educate the public in case of nuclear attack.

The United States and Soviet Union/Russia nuclear stockpiles, in total number of nuclear bombs/warheads in existence throughout the Cold War and post-Cold War era. However, total deployed US & “Russian” strategic weapons (ready for use) were far less than this, reaching a maximum of about 10,000 apiece in the 1980s.[11]
The US President Kennedy (1961–63) launched an ambitious effort to install fallout shelters throughout the United States. These shelters would not protect against the blast and heat effects of nuclear weapons, but would provide some protection against the radiation effects that would last for weeks and even affect areas distant from a nuclear explosion. In order for most of these preparations to be effective, there had to be some degree of warning. In 1951, CONELRAD (Control of Electromagnetic Radiation) was established. Under the system, a few primary stations would be alerted of an emergency and would broadcast an alert. All broadcast stations throughout the country would be constantly listening to an upstream station and repeat the message, thus passing it from station to station.

In a once classified US war game analysis, looking at varying levels of war escalation, warning and pre-emptive attacks in the late 1950s early 1960s, it was estimated that approximately 27 million US citizens would have been saved with civil defense education.[12] At the time, however, the cost of a full-scale civil defense program was regarded as less effective in cost-benefit analysis than a ballistic missile defense (Nike Zeus) system, and as the Soviet adversary was increasing their nuclear stockpile, the efficacy of both would follow a diminishing returns trend.[12]

Contrary to the largely noncommittal approach taken in NATO, with its stops and starts in civil defense depending on the whims of each newly elected government, the military strategy in the comparatively more ideologically consistent USSR held that, amongst other things, a winnable nuclear war was possible.[13][14][15] To this effect the Soviets planned to minimize, as far as possible, the effects of nuclear weapon strikes on its territory, and therefore spent considerably more thought on civil defense preparations than in U.S., with defense plans that have been assessed to be far more effective than those in the U.S.[16][17][18]

Soviet Civil Defense Troops played the main role in the massive disaster relief operation following the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident. Defense Troop reservists were officially mobilized (as in a case of war) from throughout the USSR to join the Chernobyl task force and formed on the basis of the Kiev Civil Defense Brigade. The task force performed some high-risk tasks including, with the failure of their robotic machinery, the manual removal of highly-radioactive debris. Many of their personnel were later decorated with medals for their work at containing the release of radiation into the environment, with a number[quantify] of the 56 deaths from the accident being Civil defense troops.[citation needed]
In Western countries, strong civil defense policies were never properly implemented, because it was fundamentally at odds with the doctrine of “mutual assured destruction” (MAD) by making provisions for survivors.[dubious ] It was also considered that a full-fledged total defense would have not been worth the very large expense. For whatever reason, the public saw efforts at civil defense as fundamentally ineffective against the powerful destructive forces of nuclear weapons, and therefore a waste of time and money, although detailed scientific research programmes did underlie the much-mocked government civil defence pamphlets of the 1950s and 1960s.[20]

Governments in most Western countries, with the sole exception of Switzerland, generally sought to underfund Civil Defense due to its perceived pointlessness.[citation needed] Nevertheless, effective but commonly dismissed civil defense measures against nuclear attack were implemented, in the face of popular apathy and scepticism of authority.[citation needed] After the end of the Cold War, the focus moved from defense against nuclear war to defense against a terrorist attack possibly involving chemical or biological weapons.

The Civil Defence Corps was stood down in Great Britain in 1968 with the tacit realization that nothing practical could be done in the event of an unrestricted nuclear attack.[citation needed] Its neighbors, however, remained committed to Civil Defence, namely the Isle of Man Civil Defence Corps and Civil Defence Ireland (Republic of Ireland).

In the United States, the various civil defense agencies were replaced with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in 1979. In 2002 this became part of the Department of Homeland Security. The focus was shifted from nuclear war to an “all-hazards” approach of Comprehensive Emergency Management. Natural disasters and the emergence of new threats such as terrorism have caused attention to be focused away from traditional civil defense and into new forms of civil protection such as emergency management and homeland security.

Today Edit
Many countries still maintain a national Civil Defence Corps, usually having a wide brief for assisting in large scale civil emergencies such as flood, earthquake, invasion, or civil disorder.

After the September 11 attacks in 2001, in the United States the concept of civil defense has been revisited under the umbrella term of homeland security and all-hazards emergency management.

In Europe, the triangle CD logo continues to be widely used. The old U.S. civil defense logo was used in the FEMA logo until 2006 and is hinted at in the United States Civil Air Patrol logo.[21] Created in 1939 by Charles Coiner of the N. W. Ayer Advertising Agency, it was used throughout World War II and the Cold War era. In 2006, the National Emergency Management Association—a U.S. organisation made up of state emergency managers—”officially” retired the Civil Defense triangle logo, replacing it with a stylised EM (standing for Emergency management).[22] The name and logo, however, continue to be used by Hawaii State Civil Defense[23] and Guam Homeland Security/Office of Civil Defense.[24]

The term “civil protection” is currently widely used within the European Union to refer to government-approved systems and resources tasked with protecting the non-combat population, primarily in the event of natural and technological disasters. In recent years there has been emphasis on preparedness for technological disasters resulting from terrorist attack. Within EU countries the term “crisis-management” emphasises the political and security dimension rather than measures to satisfy the immediate needs of the population.
In Australia, civil defence is the responsibility of the volunteer-based State Emergency Service.

In most former Soviet countries civil defence is the responsibility of governmental ministries, such as Russia’s Ministry of Emergency Situations.

Are you familiar with Economic inequality ?????
TMPDOODLE1495245624124

Economic inequality is the difference found in various measures of economic well-being among individuals in a group, among groups in a population, or among countries. Economic inequality sometimes refers to income inequality, wealth inequality, or the wealth gap. Economists generally focus on economic disparity in three metrics: wealth, income, and consumption.[1] The issue of economic inequality is relevant to notions of equity, equality of outcome, and equality of opportunity.[2]

Economic inequality varies between societies, historical periods, economic structures and systems. The term can refer to cross-sectional distribution of income or wealth at any particular period, or to changes of income and wealth over longer periods of time.[3] There are various numerical indices for measuring economic inequality. A widely used index is the Gini coefficient, but there are also many other methods.

Some studies say economic inequality is a social problem,[4] for example too much inequality can be destructive,[5][6] because it might hinder long term growth.[7][8][9] However, too much income equality is also destructive since it decreases the incentive for productivity and the desire to take-on risks and create wealth.[10][11][12][13]

Differences in national income equality around the world as measured by the national Gini coefficient. The Gini coefficient is a number between 0 and 1, where 0 corresponds with perfect equality (where everyone has the same income) and 1 corresponds with absolute inequality (where one person has all the income, and everyone else has zero income).
Empirical measurements of inequality Edit

The first set of income distribution statistics for the United States covering the period from (1913–48) was published in 1952 by Simon Kuznets, Shares of Upper Income Groups in Income and Savings. It relied on US federal income tax returns and Kuznets’s own estimates of US national income, National Income: A Summary of Findings (1946).[14] Others who contributed to development of accurate income distribution statistics during the early 20th century were John Whitefield Kendrick in the United States, Arthur Bowley and Colin Clark in the UK, and L. Dugé de Bernonville in France.[15]

Economists generally consider three metrics of economic dispersion: wealth, income, and consumption.[1] A skilled professional may have low wealth and low income as student, low wealth and high earnings in the beginning of the career, and high wealth and low earnings after the career. People’s preferences determine whether they consume earnings immediately or defer consumption to the future. The distinction is also important at the level of economy:

There are economies with high income inequality and relatively low wealth inequality (such as Japan and Italy).[1]
There are economies with relatively low income inequality and high wealth inequality (such as Switzerland and Denmark).[1]
There are different ways to measure income inequality and wealth inequality. Different choices lead to different results. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) provides data on the following eight types of income inequality:[16]

Dispersion of hourly wages among full-time (or full-time equivalent) workers
Wage dispersion among workers – E.g. annual wages, including wages from part-time work or work during only part of the year.
Individual earnings inequality among all workers – Includes the self-employed.
Individual earnings inequality among the entire working-age population – Includes those who are inactive, e.g. students, unemployed, early pensioners, etc.
Household earnings inequality – Includes the earnings of all household members.
Household market income inequality – Includes incomes from capital, savings and private transfers.
Household disposable income inequality – Includes public cash transfers received and direct taxes paid.
Household adjusted disposable income inequality – Includes publicly provided services.
There are many challenges in comparing data between economies, or in a single economy in different years. Examples of challenges include:
Data can be based on joint taxation of couples (e.g. France, Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, Portugal and Switzerland) or individual taxation (e.g. Australia, Canada, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Spain, the UK).[16]
The tax authorities generally only collect information on income that is potentially taxable.[16]
The precise definition of gross income varies from country to country. There are differences when it comes to inclusion of pension entitlements and other savings, and benefits such as employer provided health insurance.[16]
Differences when it comes under-declaration of income and/or wealth in tax filings.[16]
A special event like an exit from business may lead to a very high income in one year, but much lower income in other years of the person’s lifetime.[16]
Much income and wealth in non-western countries is obtained or held extra-legally through black market and underground activities such as unregistered businesses, informal property ownership arrangements, etc.
Share of income of the top 1% for selected developed countries, 1975 to 2015.
A 2011 study “Divided we Stand: Why Inequality Keeps Rising” by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) investigated economic inequality in OECD countries, including the following factors:[18]

Changes in the structure of households can play an important role. Single-headed households in OECD countries have risen from an average of 15% in the late 1980s to 20% in the mid-2000s, resulting in higher inequality.
Assortative mating refers to the phenomenon of people marrying people with similar background, for example doctors marrying doctors rather than nurses. OECD found out that 40% of couples where both partners work belonged to the same or neighbouring earnings deciles compared with 33% some 20 years before.[16]
In the bottom percentiles number of hours worked has decreased.[16]
The main reason for increasing inequality seems to be the difference between the demand for and supply of skills.[16]
Income inequality in OECD countries is at its highest level for the past half century. The ratio between the bottom 10% and the top 10% has increased from 1:7, to 1:9 in 25 years.[16]
There are tentative signs of a possible convergence of inequality levels towards a common and higher average level across OECD countries.[16]
With very few exceptions (France, Japan, and Spain), the wages of the 10% best-paid workers have risen relative to those of the 10% lowest paid.[16]
A 2011 OECD study investigated economic inequality in Argentina, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Russia and South Africa. It concluded that key sources of inequality in these countries include “a large, persistent informal sector, widespread regional divides (e.g. urban-rural), gaps in access to education, and barriers to employment and career progression for women.”[16]

A study by the World Institute for Development Economics Research at United Nations University reports that the richest 1% of adults alone owned 40% of global assets in the year 2000. The three richest people in the world possess more financial assets than the lowest 48 nations combined.[19] The combined wealth of the “10 million dollar millionaires” grew to nearly $41 trillion in 2008.[20] A January 2014 report by Oxfam claims that the 85 wealthiest individuals in the world have a combined wealth equal to that of the bottom 50% of the world’s population, or about 3.5 billion people.[21][22][23][24][25] According to a Los Angeles Times analysis of the report, the wealthiest 1% owns 46% of the world’s wealth; the 85 richest people, a small part of the wealthiest 1%, own about 0.7% of the human population’s wealth, which is the same as the bottom half of the population.[26] More recently, in January 2015, Oxfam reported that the wealthiest 1 percent will own more than half of the global wealth by 2016.[27][28] An October 2014 study by Credit Suisse also claims that the top 1% now own nearly half of the world’s wealth and that the accelerating disparity could trigger a recession.[29] In October 2015, Credit Suisse published a study which shows global inequality continues to increase, and that half of the world’s wealth is now in the hands of those in the top percentile, whose assets each exceed $759,900.[30] A 2016 report by Oxfam claims that the 62 wealthiest individuals own as much wealth as the poorer half of the global population combined.[31] Oxfam’s claims have however been questioned on the basis of the methodology used: by using net wealth (adding up assets and subtracting debts), the Oxfam report, for instance, finds that there are more poor people in the United States and Western Europe than in China (due to a greater tendency to take on debts).[32][33][34][unreliable source?][35][36][unreliable source?] Anthony Shorrocks, the lead author of the Credit Suisse report which is one of the sources of Oxfam’s data, considers the criticism about debt to be a “silly argument” and “a non-issue . . . a diversion.”[33] Oxfam’s 2017 report says the top eight billionaires have as much wealth as the bottom half of the global population, and that rising inequality is suppressing wages, as businesses are focused on delivering higher returns to wealthy owners and executives.[37]

According to PolitiFact the top 400 richest Americans “have more wealth than half of all Americans combined.”[38][39][40][41] According to the New York Times on July 22, 2014, the “richest 1 percent in the United States now own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent”.[25] Inherited wealth may help explain why many Americans who have become rich may have had a “substantial head start”.[42][43] In September 2012, according to the Institute for Policy Studies, “over 60 percent” of the Forbes richest 400 Americans “grew up in substantial privilege”.[44]

The existing data and estimates suggest a large increase in international (and more generally inter-macroregional) component between 1820 and 1960. It might have slightly decreased since that time at the expense of increasing inequality within countries.[45]

The United Nations Development Programme in 2014 asserted that greater investments in social security, jobs and laws that protect vulnerable populations are necessary to prevent widening income inequality….[46]

There is a significant difference in the measured wealth distribution and the public’s understanding of wealth distribution. Michael Norton of the Harvard Business School and Dan Ariely of the Department of Psychology at Duke University found this to be true in their research, done in 2011. The actual wealth going to the top quintile in 2011 was around 84% where as the average amount of wealth that the general public estimated to go to the top quintile was around 58%.[47]

Two researchers claim that global income inequality is decreasing, due to strong economic growth in developing countries.[48] However, the OECD reported in 2015 that income inequality is higher than it has ever been within OECD member nations and is at increased levels in many emerging economies.[49] According to a June 2015 report by the International Monetary Fund:
Widening income inequality is the defining challenge of our time. In advanced economies, the gap between the rich and poor is at its highest level in decades. Inequality trends have been more mixed in emerging markets and developing countries (EMDCs), with some countries experiencing declining inequality, but pervasive inequities in access to education, health care, and finance remain.[
There are various reasons for economic inequality within societies. Recent growth in overall income inequality, at least within the OECD countries, has been driven mostly by increasing inequality in wages and salaries.[18]

Economist Thomas Piketty argues that widening economic disparity is an inevitable phenomenon of free market capitalism when the rate of return of capital (r) is greater than the rate of growth of the economy (g).[52]

Common factors thought to impact economic inequality include:

labor market outcomes[18]
globalization,[53] by:
suppressing wages in low-skill jobs due to a surplus of low-skill labor in developing countries
increasing the market size and the rewards for people and firms succeeding in a particular niche
providing more investment opportunities for already-wealthy people
increasing international influence [3]
decreasing domestic influence [4]
policy reforms[18]
extra-legal ownership of property (real estate and business)[17]
more regressive taxation[54]
plutocracy
computerization, automation[55] and increased technology,[53] which means more skills are required to obtain a moderate or high wage
ethnic discrimination[56]
gender discrimination[57]
nepotism[58]
variation in natural ability[59]
neoliberalism[60][61]
Growing acceptance of very high CEO salaries, e.g. in the United States since the 1960s[62]
Land speculation – Followers of Henry George believe that landlords and land speculators derive excess wealth and income from the tendency of land to increase exponentially with development and at a much higher rate than population growth. Their solution is to tax land value, though not necessarily structures or other improvements. This concept is known as Georgism.
Theoretical frameworks Edit
Neoclassical economics Edit
Neoclassical economics views inequalities in the distribution of income as arising from differences in value added by labor, capital and land. Within labor income distribution is due to differences in value added by different classifications of workers. In this perspective, wages and profits are determined by the marginal value added of each economic actor (worker, capitalist/business owner, landlord).[63] Thus, in a market economy, inequality is a reflection of the productivity gap between highly-paid professions and lower-paid professions.[64]

Marxian economics Edit
Marxian economics attributes rising inequality to job automation and capital deepening within capitalism. The process of job automation conflicts with the capitalist property form and its attendant system of wage labor.

In Marxian analysis, capitalist firms increasingly substitute capital equipment for labor inputs (workers) under competitive pressure to reduce costs and maximize profits. Over the long-term, this trend increases the organic composition of capital, meaning that less workers are required in proportion to capital inputs, increasing unemployment (the “reserve army of labour”). This process exerts a downward pressure on wages. The substitution of capital equipment for labor (mechanization and automation) raises the productivity of each worker, resulting in a situation of relatively stagnant wages for the working class amidst rising levels of property income for the capitalist class.
Labour market Edit
A major cause of economic inequality within modern market economies is the determination of wages by the market. Where competition is imperfect; information unevenly distributed; opportunities to acquire education and skills unequal market failure results. Since many such imperfect conditions exist in virtually every market, there is in fact little presumption that markets are in general efficient. This means that there is an enormous potential role for government to correct such market failures.[66]

In a purely capitalist mode of production (i.e. where professional and labor organizations cannot limit the number of workers) the workers wages will not be controlled by these organizations, or by the employer, but rather by the market. Wages work in the same way as prices for any other good. Thus, wages can be considered as a function of market price of skill. And therefore, inequality is driven by this price. Under the law of supply and demand, the price of skill is determined by a race between the demand for the skilled worker and the supply of the skilled worker. “On the other hand, markets can also concentrate wealth, pass environmental costs on to society, and abuse workers and consumers.” “Markets, by themselves, even when they are stable, often lead to high levels of inequality, outcomes that are widely viewed as unfair.”[67] Employers who offer a below market wage will find that their business is chronically understaffed. Their competitors will take advantage of the situation by offering a higher wage the best of their labor. For a businessman who has the profit motive as the prime interest, it is a losing proposition to offer below or above market wages to workers.[68]

A job where there are many workers willing to work a large amount of time (high supply) competing for a job that few require (low demand) will result in a low wage for that job. This is because competition between workers drives down the wage. An example of this would be jobs such as dish-washing or customer service. Competition amongst workers tends to drive down wages due to the expendable nature of the worker in relation to his or her particular job. A job where there are few able or willing workers (low supply), but a large need for the positions (high demand), will result in high wages for that job. This is because competition between employers for employees will drive up the wage. Examples of this would include jobs that require highly developed skills, rare abilities, or a high level of risk. Competition amongst employers tends to drive up wages due to the nature of the job, since there is a relative shortage of workers for the particular position. Professional and labor organizations may limit the supply of workers which results in higher demand and greater incomes for members. Members may also receive higher wages through collective bargaining, political influence, or corruption
These supply and demand interactions result in a gradation of wage levels within society that significantly influence economic inequality. Polarization of wages does not explain the accumulation of wealth and very high incomes among the 1%. Joseph Stiglitz believes that “It is plain that markets must be tamed and tempered to make sure they work to the benefit of most citizens.”[70]

On the other hand, higher economic inequality tends to increase entrepreneurship rates at the individual level (self-employment). However, most of it is often based on necessity rather than opportunity. Necessity-based entrepreneurship is motivated by survival needs such as income for food and shelter (“push” motivations), whereas opportunity-based entrepreneurship is driven by achievement-oriented motivations (“pull”) such as vocation and more likely to involve the pursue of new products, services, or underserved market needs. The economic impact of the former type of entrepreneurialism tends to be redistributive while the latter is expected to foster technological progress and thus have a more positive impact on economic growth.[71]

Taxes Edit
Another cause is the rate at which income is taxed coupled with the progressivity of the tax system. A progressive tax is a tax by which the tax rate increases as the taxable base amount increases.[72][73][74][75][76] In a progressive tax system, the level of the top tax rate will often have a direct impact on the level of inequality within a society, either increasing it or decreasing it, provided that income does not change as a result of the change in tax regime. Additionally, steeper tax progressivity applied to social spending can result in a more equal distribution of income across the board.[77] The difference between the Gini index for an income distribution before taxation and the Gini index after taxation is an indicator for the effects of such taxation.[78]

There is debate between politicians and economists over the role of tax policy in mitigating or exacerbating wealth inequality. Economists such as Paul Krugman, Peter Orszag, and Emmanuel Saez have argued that tax policy in the post World War II era has indeed increased income inequality by enabling the wealthiest Americans far greater access to capital than lower-income ones.
Education Edit

Illustration from a 1916 advertisement for a vocational school in the back of a US magazine. Education has been seen as a key to higher income, and this advertisement appealed to Americans’ belief in the possibility of self-betterment, as well as threatening the consequences of downward mobility in the great income inequality existing during the Industrial Revolution.
An important factor in the creation of inequality is variation in individuals’ access to education.[13] Education, especially in an area where there is a high demand for workers, creates high wages for those with this education,[79] however, increases in education first increase and then decrease growth as well as income inequality. As a result, those who are unable to afford an education, or choose not to pursue optional education, generally receive much lower wages. The justification for this is that a lack of education leads directly to lower incomes, and thus lower aggregate savings and investment. Conversely, education raises incomes and promotes growth because it helps to unleash the productive potential of the poor.

In 2014, economists with the Standard & Poor’s rating agency concluded that the widening disparity between the U.S.’s wealthiest citizens and the rest of the nation had slowed its recovery from the 2008–09 recession and made it more prone to boom-and-bust cycles. To partially remedy the wealth gap and the resulting slow growth, S&P recommended increasing access to education. It estimated that if the average United States worker had completed just one more year of school, it would add an additional $105 billion in growth to the country’s economy over five years.[80]

During the mass high school education movement from 1910–40, there was an increase in skilled workers, which led to a decrease in the price of skilled labor. High school education during the period was designed to equip students with necessary skill sets to be able to perform at work. In fact, it differs from the present high school education, which is regarded as a stepping-stone to acquire college and advanced degrees. This decrease in wages caused a period of compression and decreased inequality between skilled and unskilled workers. Education is very important for the growth of the economy, however educational inequality in gender also influence towards the economy. Lagerlof and Galor stated that gender inequality in education can result to low economic growth, and continued gender inequality in education, thus creating a poverty trap. It is suggested that a large gap in male and female education may indicate backwardness and so may be associated with lower economic growth, which can explain why there is economic inequality between countries.

More of Barro studies also find that female secondary education is positively associated with growth. His findings show that countries with low female education; increasing it has little effect on economic growth, however in countries with high female education, increasing it significantly boosts economic growth. More and better education is a prerequisite for rapid economic development around the world. Education stimulates economic growth and improves people’s lives through many channels.
By increasing the efficiency of the labour force it create better conditions for good governance, improving health and enhancing equality. Labor market success is linked to schooling achievement, the consequences of widening disparities in schooling is likely to be further increases in earnings inequality

The United States funds education through property taxes, which can lead to large discrepancies in the amount of funding a public school may receive. Often, but not always, this results in more funding for schools attended by children from wealthier parents.[81] As of 2015 the United States, Israel, and Turkey are the only three OECD countries where the government spends more on schools in rich neighborhoods than in poor neighborhoods.[82][83]

Economic liberalism, deregulation and decline of unions Edit
John Schmitt and Ben Zipperer (2006) of the CEPR point to economic liberalism and the reduction of business regulation along with the decline of union membership as one of the causes of economic inequality. In an analysis of the effects of intensive Anglo-American liberal policies in comparison to continental European liberalism, where unions have remained strong, they concluded “The U.S. economic and social model is associated with substantial levels of social exclusion, including high levels of income inequality, high relative and absolute poverty rates, poor and unequal educational outcomes, poor health outcomes, and high rates of crime and incarceration. At the same time, the available evidence provides little support for the view that.
A 2015 study by the International Monetary Fund found that the decline of unionization in many advanced economies starting in the 1980s has fueled rising income inequality.[86][87]

In 2016, researchers at the IMF concluded that neoliberal policies imposed by economic elites have exacerbated inequality to such an extent that it is slowing economic growth and “jeopardizing durable expansion.” Their report highlights “three disquieting conclusions”:

The benefits in terms of increased growth seem fairly difficult to establish when looking at a broad group of countries.
The costs in terms of increased inequality are prominent. Such costs epitomize the trade-off between the growth and equity effects of some aspects of the neoliberal agenda.
Increased inequality in turn hurts the level and sustainability of growth. Even if growth is the sole or main purpose of the neoliberal agenda, advocates of that agenda still need to pay attention to the distributional effects.
Trade liberalization may shift economic inequality from a global to a domestic scale.[90] When rich countries trade with poor countries, the low-skilled workers in the rich countries may see reduced wages as a result of the competition, while low-skilled workers in the poor countries may see increased wages. Trade economist Paul Krugman estimates that trade liberalisation has had a measurable effect on the rising inequality in the United States. He attributes this trend to increased trade with poor countries and the fragmentation of the means of production, resulting in low skilled jobs becoming more tradeable. However, he concedes that the effect of trade on inequality in America is minor when compared to other causes, such as technological innovation, a view shared by other experts. Empirical economists Max Roser and Jesus Crespo-Cuaresma find support in the data that international trade is increasing income inequality. They empirically confirm the predictions of the Stolper–Samuelson theorem regarding the effects of international trade on the distribution of incomes.[91] Lawrence Katz estimates that trade has only accounted for 5-15% of rising income inequality. Robert Lawrence argues that technological innovation and automation has meant that low-skilled jobs have been replaced by machine labor in wealthier nations, and that wealthier countries no longer have significant numbers of low-skilled manufacturing workers that could be affected by competition from poor countries.[90]

Economist Branko Milanovic analyzed global income inequality, comparing 1988 and 2008. His analysis indicated that the global top 1% and the middle classes of the emerging economies (e.g., China, India, Indonesia, Brazil and Egypt) were the main winners of globalization during that time. The real (inflation adjusted) income of the global top 1% increased approximately 60%, while the middle classes of the emerging economies (those around the 50th percentile of the global income distribution in 1988) rose 70-80%. On the other hand, those in the middle class of the developed world (those in the 75th to 90th percentile in 1988, such as the American middle class) experienced little real income gains. The richest 1% contains 60 million persons globally, including 30 million Americans (i.e., the top 12% of Americans by income were in the global top 1% in 2008).[89][92]

19th century socialists like Robert Owen, William Thompson, Anna Wheeler and August Bebel argued that the economic inequality between genders was the leading cause of economic inequality; however Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels believed that the inequality between social classes was the larger cause of inequality.
Economist Simon Kuznets argued that levels of economic inequality are in large part the result of stages of development. According to Kuznets, countries with low levels of development have relatively equal distributions of wealth. As a country develops, it acquires more capital, which leads to the owners of this capital having more wealth and income and introducing inequality. Eventually, through various possible redistribution mechanisms such as social welfare programs, more developed countries move back to lower levels of inequality.

Plotting the relationship between level of income and inequality, Kuznets saw middle-income developing economies level of inequality bulging out to form what is now known as the Kuznets curve. Kuznets demonstrated this relationship using cross-sectional data. However, more recent testing of this theory with superior panel data has shown it to be very weak. Kuznets’ curve predicts that income inequality will eventually decrease given time. As an example, income inequality did fall in the United States during its High school movement from 1910 to 1940 and thereafter.[citation needed] However, recent data shows that the level of income inequality began to rise after the 1970s. This does not necessarily disprove Kuznets’ theory.[citation needed] It may be possible that another Kuznets’ cycle is occurring, specifically the move from the manufacturing sector to the service sector.[citation needed] This implies that it may be possible for multiple Kuznets’ cycles to be in effect at any given time.

Individual preferences Edit
Related to cultural issues, diversity of preferences within a society may contribute to economic inequality. When faced with the choice between working harder to earn more money or enjoying more leisure time, equally capable individuals with identical earning potential may choose different strategies.[citation needed] The trade-off between work and leisure is particularly important in the supply side of the labor market in labor economics.[citation needed]

Likewise, individuals in a society often have different levels of risk aversion. When equally-able individuals undertake risky activities with the potential of large payoffs, such as starting new businesses, some ventures succeed and some fail. The presence of both successful and unsuccessful ventures in a society results in economic inequality even when all individuals are identical.[citation needed]

Wealth concentration Edit
Main article: Wealth concentration
Wealth concentration is a theoretical[according to whom?] process by which, under certain conditions, newly created wealth concentrates in the possession of already-wealthy individuals or entities. According to this theory, those who already hold wealth have the means to invest in new sources of creating wealth or to otherwise leverage the accumulation of wealth, thus are the beneficiaries of the new wealth. Over time, wealth condensation can significantly contribute to the persistence of inequality within society. Thomas Piketty in his book Capital in the Twenty-First Century argues that the fundamental force for divergence is the usually greater return of capital (r) than economic growth (g), and that larger fortunes generate higher returns [pp. 384 Table 12.2, U.S. university endowment size vs. real annual rate of return]
Rent seeking Edit
Economist Joseph Stiglitz argues that rather than explaining concentrations of wealth and income, market forces should serve as a brake on such concentration, which may better be explained by the non-market force known as “rent-seeking”. While the market will bid up compensation for rare and desired skills to reward wealth creation, greater productivity, etc., it will also prevent successful entrepreneurs from earning excess profits by fostering competition to cut prices, profits and large compensation.[100] A better explainer of growing inequality, according to Stiglitz, is the use of political power generated by wealth by certain groups to shape government policies financially beneficial to them. This process, known to economists as rent-seeking, brings income not from creation of wealth but from “grabbing a larger share of the wealth that would otherwise have been produced without their effort”[101]

Rent seeking is often thought to be the province of societies with weak institutions and weak rule of law, but Stiglitz believes there is no shortage of it in developed societies such as the United States.

The Mocha Uson Appointment Controversy
100_9241

She was entertainment dancer in primetime television show.

The campaigned to the presidential bid of Rodrigo Duterte and won.

100_9241She blogged every good news of Duterte administration and defend him to the detractors.

As a good gesture of her contribution, she was appointed as member of the board of Movie and Television  Review and Classification Board or MTRCB.

As it’s not yet enough, she was appointed by her president himself as assistant secretary to Presidential Communication Operations Office or PCCO.

She is Margaux ‘Mocha’ Uson.

And now, she is one of the most controversial cabinet members of Duterte administration. Many questioned her qualifications to be appointment in that position. May ranted her in social networking sites like facebook and twitter. Many wrote disappointment to President Duterte and posted that in blog and in broadsheet. They said she is not qualified.

But she only needs one qualification for that position—that is the trust and confidence of the President of the Philippines. That matter and so the President defended her. The president said its payback to the hardship and contribution of Mocha who helped him to win the race. When he has nothing, there was this individual who trusted him and helped him in the campaign—and so he win.

And so its time to payback. The good position in Malacanang—being one of the mouth piece of the President.

So now, the ally of the president which he appointed also defended Mocha.

But they cannot blame the bashers and rants and disappointments. Of course, she was as sexy as ever and every time she defends the president with so many issues surrounding him, the people will always question her credibility and ability. There are more qualified people who help the president that should be appointed aside from her.

But of course, this is still politics. We are govern with politician who cannot hold a position without the support of the people who believe in his leadership and promises.###

Mandatory Drug Text To Government Employees
100_9241

Bravo!

Addicts of the government agencies and entities, your days are numbered; soon you will be fire out of that office because you will be sent to jail. President Rodrigo Duterte ordered the mandatory drug test to all government employees and you are one of the suspects.

100_9241Oh yeah, there was drug test to the employees the previous months. But does that mean you are safe already? Come on, we know some of you are just cleared by the doctor but not the test. With the more comprehensive test, the strain of marijuana, shabu or cocaine will positively come out in the test in your urine and blood.

It cannot be denied that there are many of you who are drug addicts and was only employed because of your connections and your parents.

Shame, you’re corrupting the money of the Filipino. You don’t deserve to receive the salary.

Such a nice move Mr. President. Go and implement the Civil Service Commission order and garbage those employees that destroying your government and your campaign against illegal drugs.

I really like President Duterte now. He’s the man. He’s no traditional politician hiding the real numbers and not hiding the rotten members of his government. He’s not like the former president who hides the real counts of victims of typhoon Yolanda and trying to iron out the incidents of SAF 44.

Friends or not, he doesn’t protect them if there’s corruption or irregularities in the department. Look what had happened to former DILG secretary Ismael Sueno who as fired out by the president and former DFA secretary Perfecto Yasay who was rejected by Commission On Appointments.  During the time of former President Benigno Aquino, he was the spokesperson of defender of former PNP Chief Alan Purisima and former senator Mar Roxas. He sent to jail senators Bong Revilla, Jinggoy Estrada and Juan Ponce Enrile—all but possible vice presidentiables against his Liberal Party.

And now, the sincere campaign against illegal drugs. Save the youth and save the future of the Philippines.###

The Tapes that may exist about a conversation that didn’t happen
Trump in hat - Make America White Again

Excuse me but if I’m a little disoriented. I, foolishly, read and listen to the News. I listen to hat is happening in America. Every day it is something so surreal that I wonder what is in my coffee.

To me, it seems kind of strange that a person would warn another person about ‘leaking’ information, if there was not any information to leak?

I am trying to understand this.

I am trying to understand why Trump would warn Comey; excuse me, that is President Trump, President of the United States, and that is James Comey the ex Federal Bureau of Investigations director whom Trump recently fired, and the subject of the sentence concerns releasing information that we were told didn’t exist, to the press?

There’s supposed to be no information. Right?

I mean, isn’t that what was said? Before? Wasn’t there no information linking Trump to connection with his own campaign and that campaign to Russia?

Right?

Isn’t that what we were told? By Trump?

So, this is Earth, the year is Two Thousand and Seventeen. The month is May. At least on the Earth I occupy.

On the Earth I occupy, there were various statements in which Trump was NOT linked to his own campaign, the people who ran his campaign, Russia, and Russians. These statements were made by Trump and his alternative facts team.

Today, on the Earth I occupy an angry threat is made by the President of the United States against James Comey, the FBI director he has fired, about revealing anything about that investigation Comey was stopped or not stopped; that is unclear from continuing.

In his usual method of communication, Trump Tweeted that there might exist tapes of his conversations with Comey.

Uh huh.

So Trump is using these tapes to make Comey keep his mouth shut?

Keep his mouth shut about what?

Not even six months into his term, Trump has proven what a dishonest treacherous guy he is. And that he’s not above ‘blackmail’ not above ‘threats’ and surely not playing with a full brain.

It is pretty clear to the world that something is definitely not right in America.

The Government Wants To Tax Over The Limit Use Of Salt
salt

When I heard the news about putting some taxes to junk foods that surpasses the recommended daily allowance like salt and preservatives I thought the lawmaker of the Philippines cannot just think of good bill that he should submit in the congress. But upon understanding the situation I was convinced the importance of the proposed house bill 3719 by Congressman Scott Davies Lanete.

photo credit to pixabay

photo credit to pixabay

The proposed bill aims to limit and decreased the usage of salt and preservatives in processed fod products that exceeds the third of daily intakes that include junk foods and canned goods that using salt as of their ingredients. In the proposed bill, a tax of P1 per milligram to be imposed exceeding the recommended limit.

According to health experts and health agencies, overusing of sodium may lead to stroke, heart attack and high blood pressure.

The government has long been campaigning to use the iodized salt which is fortified with iodine instead of using the common salt mostly made in the coastal area of the coastal. Though some of locally made salt is said to have the component of natural iodine but mostly are not. The health department promotes the use of iodized to avoid the intellectual and developmental development.

Still, the proposed of sin tax to the salted products aims the revenue to the government. This is included   to other tax program included in the tax reform program of the government which aims to help boost the revenue of the government. This tax programs include the taxing of the carbonated or sweet products and even taxing the cooperatives. The latter is strongly opposed by the cooperatives of the Philippines and last April 28 they conduct a campaign to oppose the measure.

But it cannot be denied that when made into law it will protect the Filipino from over salt intake. Just imagine the decrease of patients to dialysis because of lesser patients to kidney stone and gall bladder stone and other diseases which salt is the contributor.

The bill may not be good to our taste but perfect to our benefits.###

Talking Out of Both Sides of His Mouth
Trump in hat - Make America White Again

If anyone with a fully operational brain ever listened, really listened to Donald Trump, pre Election, there was a certain nebulous sense that wafted over the performance.

Statements were made which did not have a basis.   It was not transparent how the statements might became practice.

An intelligent person would ask questions, need to understand the how this statement could be put into practice.

Of course, there are not many intelligent people who listened to Trump’s barf.

After the election many of the remarks Trump had made were suddenly turned upside down.  Good was bad, Right was wrong and smiles were frowns.

It was surreal, as one of those dystopian images of the future.   A Nineteen Eighty Four or Matrix or Idiocracy, combined into one alternate reality.

At first Trump praised Comey, his FBI director that is, when Comey was doing his best to tamper with the election by making a false remark about ‘investigating’ Hillary Clinton for a silly email mix up.

Now, when Trump’s Russian ties are about to be exposed, Comey is the worst person in the world.   And Comey is fired without warning.

At first Trump praised Vladimir Putin, now?

Then there was the Burger with the North Korean leader.   This was followed by sending in there’s the Armada, now what?

Then there was the United States, pulling out of NATO, now there is what?

Then the verbal attacks on China, now?

To say Trump behaves as if he is bi polar would be to limit him to only two personalities when he has about six different voices in his head.

No one, not even Trump knows what he is going to do next.

This is sort of amusing for those of us in the not so developed nations of the Earth. For years we’ve been treated as a bit off.   Now, there is no one on Earth more questionable than Donald Trump.

Take a Bow Trumpies…

The Benefits of the Trump Effect
Trump in hat - Make America White Again

There have always been ‘Right Wing’ parties.  Whether they are Neo-Nazi or mere tyrants, whether Ku Klux Klaners or Anti-Immigrant, these Parties have often been a bit on the fringe.

In 2016 – 2017 many of these ‘Right Wing’ Parties and candidates were running for office.  And many of them seemed to have a good chance.

In Europe, considering the backlash against Open Borders, many nations refused Migrants.   Britain did it up front, and left the European Union.   Hungary and other nations put up fences and physically chased migrants from their countries.

Other nations were able to field a Right Wing Xenophobic candidate.

In America, the racism, the xenophobia took shape in a guy called Donald Trump.   He was a guy who never held elected office, knew little about politics or the running of a government but he was a pure blooded racist and that is what Americans wanted, so they elected him.

Seeing him as President shocked many.   Not only was he a repulsive human being but he spoke so stupidly that translating what he said word for word caused many non-English speakers to question their translators for no one out of diapers would say; “He is a bad bad man”.

When the first week of Trump had passed and people all over the world realised exactly how bad it had gotten,  those who supported their own Right Wing Candidates began to rethink.

In Austria, the election was re-run and the Right Wing candidate was now defeated and Van der Bellen won with 53.8% of the vote and a voter turnout of 74.2%.

This odd situation in which there was an election, but questions were raised and it was redone and the Right Wing Candidate Norbert Hofer lost, is a direct result of the election of Donald Trump.

In the Netherlands, a very popular Xenophobe, Geert Wilders looked as if he’d win.   Many people were anti migrant.   But, when they went to the polls, they could not bring themselves to humiliate their nations by voting for a ‘Trump’, so he was defeated.

In France, Marine Le Pen was doing very well.   During the first round she and the newcomer Emmanuel Macon were the only two names on the ballot.

Many voters, who did not like him, voted for him so as to keep Le Pen out of power.

This is because they have seen what Donald Trump has wrought in the United States.

There are people who do not want their country to be a laughing stock, their leader to be seen as a clown, and the world to look at them with loathing.    They might not like the ‘normal’ candidate but they surely can not permit the Right Wing candidate to win.

The Election of Donald Trump by the United States has had a very beneficial result on the population of Europe.  It has made people understand the danger of electing a person who runs on hate.