Monday, September 21, 2009

AP Economics: 22 September 2009

Prayer




Opportunity Cost: The Soviet Choice for Growth


Key Economic Concept:

* Opportunity Cost

Related concepts:

* Scarcity
* Capital Goods
* Choice
* Consumer Goods
* Communism


Lesson Theme: The history of the Soviet Union, like the history of any nation, can be viewed as a series of choices and the opportunity costs that resulted from those choices.

Student Activity: A Journey of Choices

This two part activity will ask students to examine 5 major events in Soviet history (such as signing the Nazi Non-Aggression Pact, for example) to introduce the concept of opportunity cost. They will identify the considered alternatives at the time of decision and the perceived benefits of each alternative, and the corresponding opportunity costs. The second part of the activity asks students to apply their developing understanding of opportunity cost to the "Journey of Choices" they make as they live a typical school day.

Key Points:

1. Scarcity - All economies face the constraints of scarcity - that there are only limited resources to satisfy unlimited human wants and needs.
* Available (and limited) natural resources, labor, and capital must be used to produce a mix of consumer goods and producer goods.

2. All choices, whether they are made by individuals or by groups of individuals such as governments, have a cost associated with them; economists call this an Opportunity Cost.
* Opportunity cost is the value of the benefits of the foregone alternative, of the next best alternative that could have been chosen, but was not.
o Another way to look at it is that "choosing is refusing;" one choice can only be accepted by refusing another.

3. All societies face these choices about use of resources for production and consumption, and as a result, all bear opportunity costs.
* In market economies, choices about production and consumption are made primarily by individuals interacting in markets.
o The costs of these choices are borne by individual producers and consumers.
* In centrally planned economies like that of the Soviet Union, choices about resource use, production and consumption are made by government leaders.
o However, in these economies, it is generally the citizens, rather than the government leaders/decision-makers, who bear the economic opportunity costs.

4. It is instructive, for our purposes, to look at the history of the Soviet Union as a series of choices.
* In examining each historical period, we want to ask:
o What were the alternatives?
o What choice was made? and by whom?
o What benefits/costs resulted from this decision? Who bore the costs of this choice? Who reaped the benefits?
o Why were those who bore the cost willing to do so? (and/or what happened if they were not willing?)

5. To begin, we look first at one of the legs of our 3-legged table, the moral-cultural system of the Russian people.
* Even before the Communist Revolution, Russia was expansive and Russian rulers - and the Russian people themselves - shared a sense of pride in being the center of an empire, of ruling over surrounding countries and cultural groups.
o The expansionism of the czarist regimes melded nicely with the prevailing post-Revolutionary world view in both the Leninist and Stalinist periods - that the Soviet Union would be the epicenter of an enlarging communist world.
o It is important not to underestimate how important this cultural perspective was in gaining and maintaining citizen support for communist policies.
o The strength of the moral-cultural leg and the willingness of Russian people to believe the system would eventually deliver on its promises helped to sustain the system even when the economy faltered.

6. Communist revolutionaries could not escape the constraints of scarcity, and despite their ideals, were immediately and continually faced with the necessity of making choices about production and consumption. Inevitably, these choices bore opportunity costs. In many cases these costs were much higher than even the communist leaders anticipated.
* Ideals of socialism, as developed by Marx and Engels, contained few specifics.
o They focused on a utopian state where everyone was equal and satisfied.
o Marx assumed that only labor could produce value, not land or capital. Since owners of land and capital received part of the value of output it followed that they must be stealing it from labor.
o Marxism was a theory of stages; socialism was to succeed the most developed stages of capitalism.
* Lenin was immediately faced with the reality of socialism.
o The Communist Party came to power in underdeveloped and backward Russia, rather than in an advanced western capitalist economy.
o The constraints of scarcity were glaringly apparent and demanded immediate decisions.
o Lenin's Bolshevik's were a small group that seized power due to the disruption of World War I, they chose to rely on force and violence to consolidate their power.
* As history clearly records, Lenin's choice was to emphasize two priorities:
o to promote rapid economic development by stressing heavy industry, and
o to produce the military might necessary to consolidate power.
o The method chosen by Lenin was to control prices (particularly in agriculture) and to control foreign trade.
* The benefits of this choice were reaped by Lenin and the leadership of the party, in that they were further able to consolidate their power.
* The opportunity cost of this choice was primarily borne by the peasantry.
o Government forced reductions of agricultural prices and restrictions on foreign trade reduced agricultural income and the buying power of the peasantry.
o Also, availability of consumer goods was drastically reduced.
o Agricultural production fell significantly.
+ Between 1860 and 1913, Russia was one of the largest exporters of agricultural goods and was called "the granary of Europe;" by the 1970s, the Soviets were heavily dependent on imported wheat.
o Their willingness to bear this cost rested on a combination of
+ fear or unwillingness to resist coercion,
+ suppressed consumer expectations and limited choices,
+ inability to perceive other choices,
+ the opportunity to see progress around them in the industrial sector,
+ persistence of the dream of empire, and
+ acceptance of the goals and philosophy of the Revolution.
+ (It would be a mistake to underestimate the power of the last 2.)
* To return to the 3-legged table analogy: The political and economic backwardness of pre-Revolution czarist life for most peasants meant that the political-legal and economic legs of Lenin's "3-legged table" held comparative promise for many.
o The communist dream and the legacy of empire, rejuvenated by government proclamations, provided a moral - cultural strength that allowed the Communists to triumph.

7. The Stalinist period found governing officials facing the same economic constraints of scarcity. Stalin, like Lenin, had to make choices about the use of resources for production and consumption.
* Stalin chose to force the collectivization of agriculture and to drastically increase investment in heavy industry.
o Stalin waged a brutal and bloody campaign to herd the peasants onto cooperatives and requisition their harvests.
o More and more of the economy was brought under government planning, prices were set, and private property was abolished.
o The government enforced mass movement of people and other resources to specific projects.
* The benefit of this forced investment in industry was a rapid (but unbalanced) economic growth in the late 1920s.
o During the First Five Year Plan (1928-33), the economy grew 48%.
o Producer goods grew 113%.
o Electric power grew 227%.
* The opportunity costs were, again, borne by the citizens, especially the peasantry.
o Consumer goods production grew only 1%.
o Livestock production declined 58%.
o Government became increasingly secretive, coercive and unresponsive to Soviet citizens. Millions of people were either killed or imprisoned during Stalin's purges.
o Personal and economic freedom were increasingly curtailed.
* High growth rates held through the 1930s and 1940s, and Stalin maintained his choices in the economic sphere, placing heavy emphasis on capital goods and military production, with the resultant benefits and costs:
o The Soviet Union was able to withstand the onslaught of Nazi Germany in W.W.II and continue a heavy military emphasis during the 1950s and 60s.
+ Important benefits were to reinforce the dream of empire and the willingness of the populace to bear costs.
+ Gratitude to the government for defeating the Nazis lifted spirits even higher.
+ Forced emphasis on specific sectors of the economy was well suited for accelerated growth of those sectors at the expense of others (often agriculture).
+ This provided the opportunity for heavy investment in space exploration and military innovation.
+ The emphasis on capital and military goods necessitated a producer goods / consumer goods choice that all but ignored the consumer.
o The willingness of citizenry to bear costs continued, sustained by a combination of fear and belief.

8. By the late 1950's, the economic gap between the USSR and the West had begun to widen; Soviet leadership for investment over consumption continued to impose heavy opportunity costs on consumers.
* Continued emphasis on industrial and military production perpetuated low living standards for the masses of the people.
o Immediately following W.W.II, life for the average Soviet citizen was so miserable that any improvement seemed significant. Rapid growth during the 1950s and 60s allowed for some increases in consumption levels from those of the 1930s and 40s and these increases purchased years of legitimacy and genuine support for the system.
o By the 1970s and 80s, consumption production was virtually flat; the standard of living of the average Soviet citizen did not change and prospects for future wealth seemed less promising.
* In addition, advances - technological, economic, and military - were smaller than in the past.
o After 1957, the Soviet economy began to slow down.
o Average 6% annual growth rates in the 1950s slowed to under 2% in the 80s.
+ This slow down is put into perspective when we realize that investment spending remained extremely high and that it was fueled by the huge oil revenues the Soviet Union received as a result of high world petroleum prices.

9. In hindsight, the beginning of the end is apparent by the early 1980s. Despite strictly enforced central planning, the Soviet system began to look as if it were out of control.
* The costs of negotiating and monitoring transactions among firms and regions became extraordinarily high.
* While innovation in production techniques and new product development was providing much of the rest of the world with higher quality products at lower prices, and was producing a virtual revolution in computer and information technology, the Soviet Union was stalled with out-dated production techniques, decades-old machinery, and inefficient communication.
* The system that had borrowed western technology to fuel its industrial growth seemed incapable of entering the new information age.
* Agricultural output, in spite of heavy investments by Khrushchev and Brezhnev, was declining annually.
* The western free world was moving farther and farther ahead, not only in much desired consumer goods, but also in the showcase areas of military strength and space technology.
o Afghanistan defeat
o Reagan's "Star Wars" defense.

10. Perestroika was a last attempt to shore up a failing system, but by the mid 80s, too many legs of the 3-legged table were wobbling.
* Economic reforms and renewed attempts to increase the growth rate couldn't head off continued problems:
o The time and expense of negotiating exchanges continued to soar.
o Continued high investment in the military and heavy industry sustained limited gains in consumer goods;
+ Investment means resources were directed to industrial and military growth, and thus taken away from consumer production. Investment in industry may promise consumer production in the future, but for the present, it causes standards of living to erode or stagnate.
o Agricultural problems became acute;
o Distributions from farms to cities were sporadic; and
o Oil revenues declined dramatically.
* Under Gorbachev, Perestroika lowered the cost and raised the benefit of diverting resources from the official sector to the informal economy.
o In the political-legal area, political control was used to deliver the privileges to the elite and rule of law was absent.
+ The prosecuting attorney was also the judge.
o In the moral-cultural sphere, there was a loss of moral principals that worked in the economic system.
+ Citizens believed that theft from the state was necessary and justified.
* These economic problems were aggravated by the Soviet people beginning to reject the secrecy of their history and to question the communist plan and the dream that accompanied it.
* With two legs of the 3-legged table seriously weakened, all the strength and force of the 3rd leg could not save the whole, and the structure collapsed.

Conclusion: The cost of decades of choices to invest in industry and the military, to restrict individual freedoms, and to remain isolated from western cultures and economies finally became more than the Communist Party and the people of the Soviet Union were willing to pay.

Activity Lesson #1
A Journey of Choices

Lesson Overview: In this activity, students learn to identify alternatives and opportunity costs. The activity asks them to apply their developing understanding to the historical journey of choices made by the leadership of the Soviet Union. While considering significant historical events, students identify the perceived alternatives at the time, the perceived benefits of each alternative, and the opportunity costs of the decision that was ultimately made. Students also learn to distinguish opportunity costs from consequences. In the process, they begin to recognize that all decisions involve costs, and that economic reasoning is therefore applicable in all situations, even those which may, at first glance, seem not to be "economic" decisions.


Assessment:
Space Race

As the Cold War developed and escalated into the 1960s, leaders of the Soviet Union continued to face the choice of how to use resources to promote their goals. The initial choice to invest heavily in capital goods and military strength was coupled with a desire to wage a propaganda war - to show the rest of the world the prowess of the communist system. The Soviets wanted a showcase, both for their own citizens - to show them that the system was producing advancement and glory, and for the rest of the world. In the late 1950s and early 1960s, the Soviet Union faced the choice of making a huge investment in space technology, space exploration and science, diverting even more investment from the production of housing and consumer goods. This choice to pursue applied science in the area of space technology was apparently motivated by both the hope of using space superiority for military purposes and the desire to showcase the scientific genius of the Soviet Union by defeating the West in the space race. While military prowess could produce the same result, superiority would only be apparent in war, something the USSR wanted to avoid. Space exploration offered them the opportunity to be an undisputed international "winner," without the debilitating costs of war.

1. Consider the alternatives:

* invest in space technology or
* increase investment in housing and consumer goods

2. What were the benefits of each choice?

3. What was the opportunity cost of the choice made to pursue space exploration?

Results of the Choice to Explore Space:

The Sputniks, the shot at the moon, the photographing of the far side of the moon, and Soviet astronauts orbiting of the earth, together with atomic and hydrogen explosions, emphasized the achievements of Soviet applied science, and in particular Soviet rockets, missiles, and atomic and space technology. In these fields, as in others, the Soviet Union profited from contributions of espionage and of German scientists brought to the USSR after World War II. The state financed and promoted these extremely expensive technological programs and also organized and paid for the search for new natural resources necessary for the scientific endeavors.

In terms of the military / industrial investment we know that the Soviet Union tested an atomic bomb in 1949, signed a military alliance with China in 1950, and assisted the Chinese in the 1953-54 Korean conflict. In 1955, they established the Warsaw Pact; in 1956 successfully suppressed a revolt in Hungary; in 1957 successfully tested an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile, and in 1961 challenged the western powers by building the Berlin Wall. In addition, during the 1960s, the Soviet Union was the world leader in steel production.

During the same period, they compiled an impressive list of firsts in space, including the first satellite, the first satellite with an animal aboard, the first moon rocket, the first photo of the far side of the moon, the first man in space, the first woman in space, the first man to walk in space, the first flight around the moon and return, the first experimental space station. Soviet "firsts" in space would continue into the 70s.

4. Evaluate the Soviets' choice in terms of costs and benefits: was it the best choice at the time?

* Did the choice to divert investment into space technology seem to have serious military and/or industrial consequences?

5. Did they accurately assess the costs and benefits?

6. Who benefited and who bore the costs?

Using the summaries provided in the student materials that accompany this lesson, we need to form four (4) small groups to answer the following questions with regard to the decisions made by leadership of the Soviet Union:

* What were the considered alternatives at the time of choice?

* What were the perceived benefits of each considered alternative at the time of choice?

* What action was taken; what choice was made?

* What was the opportunity cost of that choice? (Remember that the opportunity cost of one alternative is the perceived benefits of the other alternative - the benefits that are given up. The benefit of doing something becomes the cost of not doing it.)

7. Each team will choose one issue to present to the class. Student presentations should identify opportunity cost, as per the discussion questions. In addition, however, the presentation team should answer the following questions for their presentation:
* All costs lie in the future. With the benefit of hindsight (your knowledge of history), do you think the Soviet leaders made the best choice?

* Did the leaders accurately perceive the benefits and costs?

* Were the benefits worth the costs?

* Who reaped the benefits of the choice that was made?

* Who bore the costs?

8. Debrief: Emphasize the 3 characteristics of opportunity cost:

* All costs are to someone; people bear costs.

* All costs are the result of actions. (Objects have no cost.)

* All costs lie in the future.

Overhead In-class exercise

1. Read the summaries below of the following events or decisions in Soviet history:
* The Five Year Plans
* The Nazi Non-Aggression Pact
* Consciously emphasizing university education and increasing numbers of educated citizens

2. For each event or decision, answer the following questions:

* What were the considered alternatives at the time of choice?

* What were the perceived benefits of each considered alternative at the time of choice?

* What action was taken; what choice was made?

* What was the opportunity cost of that choice? (Remember that the opportunity cost of one alternative is the perceived benefits of the other alternative - the benefits that are given up. The benefit of doing something becomes the cost of not doing it.)

3. Choose one of the 3 issues you studied and prepare a 5 minute presentation for the class. Your presentation should identify alternatives and costs and should make a case for your opinion on the following questions:


* All costs lie in the future. With the benefit of hindsight (your knowledge of history), do you think the Soviet leaders made the best choice?

* Did the leaders accurately perceive the benefits and costs?

* Were the benefits worth the costs?

* Who reaped the benefits of the choice that was made?

* Who bore the costs?

Overhead Student Handout Research Exercise

Directions:

1. Read the summary of the following events or decisions in Soviet history:

* The Five Year Plans

* The Nazi Non-Aggression Pact

* Consciously emphasizing university education and increasing numbers of educated citizens

2. For each event or decision, answer the following questions:

* What were the considered alternatives at the time of choice?

* What were the perceived benefits of each considered alternative at the
time of choice?

* What action was taken; what choice was made?

* What was the opportunity cost of that choice? (Remember that the opportunity cost of one alternative is the perceived benefits of the other alternative - the benefits that are given up. The benefit of doing something becomes the cost of not doing it.)

3. Research one of the following events or decisions in Soviet history:
* Berlin Blockade
* Cuban Missile Crisis
* Space Race
* Exile A. Solzhenitzyn to Siberian gulags and then to US
* Gorbachev - perestroika political reforms

4. Prepare a 5 minute presentation of your research for the class. Your presentation should identify alternatives and costs and should make a case for your opinion on the following questions:

* All costs lie in the future. With the benefit of hindsight (your knowledge of history), do you think the Soviet leaders made the best choice?

* Did the leaders accurately perceive the benefits and costs?

* Were the benefits worth the costs?

* Who reaped the benefits of the choice that was made?

* Who bore the costs?

The Five Year Plans

In the aftermath of the Russian Revolution and World War I, the weakened condition of the Soviet economy was clearly visible. Output in every economic sector had declined: agricultural output was well below pre-war levels; the availability of consumer goods had fallen dramatically; and industrial output faced a long, slow path to recovery.

During the early to mid-1920s, Soviet leaders engaged in a great deal of internal debate about the relative importance of peasant owned and controlled agriculture on the one hand and state-run industry on the other. The essential question concerned the best path to economic growth: Was economic growth - national wealth and prosperity - best achieved through growth of private farms and the agricultural sector or was it best achieved through state-directed investment in industry? Soviet leaders clearly felt that they could not pursue both and that a choice would have to be made.

The Five Year Plan called for investing in industry by limiting the resources available for the production of consumer goods and the farm sector and directing those resources to the production of such industrial essentials as steel and electricity. For this to be accomplished, the profits from agricultural would have to be used for investment in industry, and satisfying citizens' desires for consumer goods and housing would have to be delayed. The alternative was to encourage the use of resources to satisfy the immediate desires of citizens for food and other agricultural and consumer goods. This would mean delaying investment in the capital necessary for heavy industry and future industrial strength.


Consider the Soviet leaders' choice by drawing a table with five (5) rows and three (3) columns:


I will provide an example.


Given the alternatives and the benefits of each, as they were considered at the time, do you think the leaders made the right choice? Why?

Results of the choice to adopt the First Five Year Plan

By implementing the first of many Five Year Plans, the Soviet leaders clearly chose to push for high economic growth rates through investment in heavy industry and military production. One immediate result of implementing the plan was the seizing of agricultural harvests for redistribution by the state. Farming was collectivized in state-run cooperatives, and there was little or no emphasis on producing consumer goods. In addition, prices and wages were set by the government, which left few consumers with money for consumer purchases, in any case.

Investment in industry rose to 25% by the late 1920s, meaning that effectively one-fourth of the resources of the Soviet Union were being diverted into building an industrial foundation. During the First Five Year Plan (1928-1933) the Soviet economy grew by 48%. Industrial goods grew by 113% and electric power production by 227%. On the other hand, consumer goods grew by only 1%.

With the knowledge of hindsight, discuss the following questions. Be prepared to defend your answers.

* All costs lie in the future. With the benefit of hindsight (your knowledge of history), do you think the Soviet leaders made the best choice?

* Did the leaders accurately perceive the benefits and costs?

* Were the benefits worth the costs? (What was the consequence of the choice that was made?)

* Who reaped the benefits of the choice that was made?

* Who bore the costs?

Nazi Non-Aggression Pact

In the years immediately preceding World War II, Joseph Stalin worked hard to keep the Soviet Union isolated from, although not necessarily neutral in, the growing tensions in Europe. He was very much aware that Hitler's Germany posed a threat to the Soviet Union. He was very much concerned that Hitler's powerful army might invade and take the agriculturally rich Ukraine. He also knew that his own army was no match for Hitler's and that, at the very least, he needed time to prepare to defend the Soviet Union from the Nazis. With these concerns very much in mind, in early 1939 Stalin entered into two sets of negotiations: with the French and British on one hand and with Nazi Germany on the other.

Looking at Soviet history in the years before the war, it is apparent that Stalin was a pragmatist, looking for the circumstances that would be most favorable to the USSR. First, the Soviet Union joined the League of Nations - a move that Stalin had previously opposed - presumably to become more friendly with the Western nations. (However, the known atrocities of Stalinist regime and the perceived weakness of the Soviet military kept the Soviet Union from reaching any agreements with western nations working through the League.) As events heated up in Europe, Stalin had to ask himself whether an alliance with Great Britain and France, and their combined military strength, would deter Hitler, or whether it would only mean that the Soviet forces would be exposed to the fury of German attack from the very beginning of an armed conflict.

Stalin's greatest fear was to be dragged into a war against Germany while other countries like France and Great Britain sat on the sidelines and watched, and an alliance with Germany offered other possibilities. The Nazis proposed the division of Poland between Germany and the USSR in return for not having to worry about attack from the east as they dealt with their foes in the west. From Stalin's point of view, Soviet-Polish relations had never been particularly good, and the Soviet Union had no reason to come to Poland's assistance. Perhaps most importantly, such an agreement would provide an opportunity to stay out of the war. Additionally, the Germans seemed likely to agree to recognize the Baltic area as belonging to the Soviet Union's "sphere of influence," advancing Stalin's perennial goal of extending the Soviet empire.

Consider Stalin's choice by drawing another table with five (5) rows and three (3) columns.


I will provide an example.


Given the alternatives and the benefits of each, as they were considered at the time, do you think Stalin made the right choice? Why?

Results of Stalin's Choice

The signing of the Non-Aggression Pact between the Soviets and the Germans was announced on August 23, 1939, and came as a shock and surprise to the rest of the world. On September 1, German troops invaded Poland, and shortly thereafter, Soviet troops crossed Poland's eastern boundary to claim their share of the spoils. Later the Non-Aggression pact was extended, allowing Stalin to include Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia within the Soviet "sphere of influence."

With the knowledge of hindsight, discuss the following questions. Be prepared to defend your answers.

* All costs lie in the future. With the benefit of hindsight (your knowledge of history), do you think the Soviet leaders made the best choice?

* Did the leaders accurately perceive the benefits and costs?

* Were the benefits worth the costs? (What was the consequence of the choice that was made?)

* Who reaped the benefits of the choice that was made?

* Who bore the costs?


Emphasis On Education*

*Statistics in this scenario were taken from Hedrick Smith, The New Russians, p. 20.

While the rate of change seemed slow in many areas of Soviet society and economy in the years that followed World War II, this was not the case with the area of education, which was targeted early as a priority for investment. At the time of the 1917 Revolution, Russia was primarily an illiterate peasant society with a primitive work force comprised largely of unskilled manual laborers. It is estimated that the illiteracy rate was 75% and that school enrollment was only about ten million in the early 1920's. In part because of a desire to teach about the writings of Lenin and the achievements of communism, but also to help move the country from an agrarian backward economy to a world power, schools and education were areas where the Soviets invested heavily right from the beginning. In addition, school attendance was given high importance in Soviet society.

Consider the Soviet leaders' choice by drawing a table with five (5) rows and three (3) columns.


I will provide an example.


Given the alternatives and the benefits of each, as they were considered at the time, do you think the Soviet leaders made the right choice? Why?

Results of the Choice:

By 1980 the literacy rate was one of the highest in the world. The increase in the numbers of people enrolled in higher education institutions was also striking. In 1950 there were 1.2 million university-level students in the Soviet Union; by the mid-1980s, that number had increased to over 5.4 million students being taught by half a million professors and instructors. By 1985 the Soviet Union had one of the largest bodies of scientific researchers in the world: 1.5 million scientists doing research work.

This emphasis on education produced both a blessing and a curse for the Soviet Union. It was a blessing in that the level of literacy, the quality of the labor force and the knowledge of the leadership increased dramatically. It was a curse in the fact that it was much easier for Soviet citizens to learn and read about life in the West, (if they could obtain banned books and newspapers). The university educated, or intelligentsia as they were called in the Soviet Union, became well-read in history and western thought. For this group blindness to the lies of the past and unquestioning loyalty to the Marxist and Leninist ideals were no longer acceptable. After all, the Soviet universities had taught them to think.

Questioning by the intelligentsia was perceived by Soviet leaders as a threat; critics were branded disloyal. Stalin conducted purges that sent many of the intelligentsia to concentration camps in Siberia, or in some cases even to death sentences. While the education system continued to increase the level of literacy and the size of the intelligentsia, it was only in the last years of the Soviet Union that the questioning of the past and present policies of the communist leadership came out in the open. Many observers of the Soviet Union believe that this force of education and the millions of individuals who were literally trained to question the past helped to break the hold that the communist party had on the loyalties of Soviet citizens. Gorbachev, the architect of perestroika, was part of this growing educated middle class, the first university-educated Soviet leader since Lenin.

With the knowledge of hindsight, discuss the following questions. Be prepared to defend your answers.


HW email to me at gmsmith@shanahan.org.


You pick only one of the three scenarios to do the HW on (Cf. the summaries above in the post for today): a)* The Five Year Plans; b) * The Nazi Non-Aggression Pact; or, c) * Consciously emphasizing university education and increasing numbers of educated citizens. Just pick one and answer the HW questions.


1. * All costs lie in the future. With the benefit of hindsight (your knowledge of history), do you think the Soviet leaders made the best choice?

2. * Did the leaders accurately perceive the benefits and costs?

3. * Were the benefits worth the costs? (What was the consequence of the choice that was made?)

4. * Who reaped the benefits of the choice that was made?

5. * Who bore the costs?


Summary and review of lesson follows.

WH II: 22 September 2009

Today's lesson plan and HW is available on the blog: http://gmicksmithsocialstudies.blogspot.com/


Email address: gmsmith@shanahan.org


Prayer:


Current events:




Dr. Scheuer reveals that the interrogation programs worked and revealed active plots to attack the U.S. Scheuer's three books have criticized security lapses under Bush as well as Clinton. In short, he states that now the country is defended significantly less than we were two years ago. Seven former CIA chiefs on Friday urged Obama to halt its investigation of the agency's interrogation methods, predicting the latest inquiry would only foster "an atmosphere of continuous jeopardy."

The retired CIA agency heads referred to-—John Deutch, Porter Goss, Michael Hayden, James R. Schlesinger, George Tenet, William Webster and R. James Woolsey-—also warned the investigation could hamper the government's intelligence-gathering abilities and deter other nations from working with the United States. The former CIA heads wrote a joint letter to Obama asking him to continue the earlier interrogation methods. The retired agency heads date back to the Carter administration, it is a bi-partisan effort, including both Democratic and Republican administrations.


For more background on Dr. Scheuer, search for the bibliographic information about his three books on LibraryThing.


I moved the "Blog Archive" to the top right on the blog page so it should be easier to find the daily lesson, HW, and other class material.















According to Hobbes, life in the “state of nature”—without laws or other control—would be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”

Hobbes Writes the Leviathan

The title page from Leviathan (1651) by Hobbes demonstrates his belief in a powerful ruler. The monarch here represents the Leviathan who rises above all of society.

Locke Advocates Natural Rights

John Locke had a more optimistic view of human nature. He thought people were basically reasonable and moral. Further, they had certain natural rights, or rights that belonged to all humans from birth. These included the right to life, liberty, and property.

In Two Treatises of Government, Locke argued that people formed governments to protect their natural rights. The best kind of government, he said, had limited power and was accepted by all citizens. Thus, unlike Hobbes, Locke rejected absolute monarchy.

England during this time experienced a shift in political power known as the Glorious Revolution. James II, an unpopular absolute monarch, left the throne and fled England in 1688. Locke later wrote that he thought James II deserved to be dethroned for violating the rights of the English.

Locke proposed a radical idea about this time. A government, he said, has an obligation to the people it governs. If a government fails its obligations or violates people’s natural rights, the people have the right to overthrow that government.

Locke’s idea would one day influence leaders of the American Revolution, such as Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison. Locke’s idea of the right of revolution would also echo across Europe and Latin America in the centuries that followed.


The Philosophes

In the 1700s, there was a flowering of Enlightenment thought. This was when a group of Enlightenment thinkers in France applied the methods of science to understand and improve society. They believed that the use of reason could lead to reforms of government, law, and society. These thinkers were called philosophes (fee loh zohfs), which means “philosophers.” Their ideas soon spread beyond France and even beyond Europe.


Biography
Voltaire

François-Marie Arouet, most commonly known as Voltaire (1694–1778) was an impassioned poet, historian, essayist, and philosopher who wrote with cutting sarcasm and sharp wit.

Voltaire was sent to the Bastille prison twice due to his criticism of French authorities and was eventually banned from Paris. When he was able to return to France, he wrote about political and religious freedom.

Voltaire spent his life fighting enemies of freedom, such as ignorance, superstition, and intolerance.

Voltaire Defends Freedom of Thought

Probably the most famous of the philosophes was François-Marie Arouet, who took the name Voltaire. “My trade,” said Voltaire, “is to say what I think,” and he did so throughout his long, controversial life.

Voltaire used biting wit as a weapon to expose the abuses of his day. He targeted corrupt officials and idle aristocrats. With his pen, he battled inequality, injustice, and superstition. He detested the slave trade and deplored religious prejudice.

Voltaire’s outspoken attacks offended both the French government and the Catholic Church. He was imprisoned and forced into exile. Even as he saw his books outlawed and even burned, he continued to defend the principle of freedom of speech.


Montesquieu


Montesquieu Advances the Idea of Separation of Powers


Another early and influential thinker was Baron de Montesquieu (mahn tus kyoo). Montesquieu studied the governments of Europe, from Italy to England. He read about ancient and medieval Europe, and learned about Chinese and Native American cultures. His sharp criticism of absolute monarchy would open doors for later debate.


Born to wealth, Charles Louis de Secondat (1689–1755) inherited the title Baron de Montesquieu from his uncle. Like many other reformers, he did not let his privileged status keep him from becoming a voice for democracy.

His first book titled Persian Letters ridiculed the French government and social classes. In his work published in 1748, The Spirit of the Laws, he advanced the idea of separation of powers—a foundation of modern democracy.

In 1748, Montesquieu published The Spirit of the Laws, in which he discussed governments throughout history. Montesquieu felt that the best way to protect liberty was to divide the various functions and powers of government among three branches: the legislative, executive, and judicial.

He also felt that each branch of government should be able to serve as a check on the other two, an idea that we call checks and balances. Montesquieu’s beliefs would soon profoundly affect the Framers of the United States Constitution.


Diderot Edits the Encyclopedia

Denis Diderot (dee duh roh) worked for years to produce a 28-volume set of books called the Encyclopedia. As the editor, Diderot did more than just compile articles.

His purpose was “to change the general way of thinking” by explaining ideas on topics such as government, philosophy, and religion. Diderot’s Encyclopedia included articles by leading thinkers of the day, including Montesquieu and Voltaire.

In these articles, the philosophes denounced slavery, praised freedom of expression, and urged education for all. They attacked divine-right theory and traditional religions. Critics raised an outcry.

The French government argued that the Encyclopedia was an attack on public morals, and the pope threatened to excommunicate Roman Catholics who bought or read the volumes.

Despite these and other efforts to ban the Encyclopedia, more than 4,000 copies were printed between 1751 and 1789. When translated into other languages, the Encyclopedia helped spread Enlightenment ideas throughout Europe and across the Atlantic Ocean to the Americas.

Rousseau Promotes The Social Contract

Jean-Jacques Rousseau (roo soh), believed that people in their natural state were basically good. This natural innocence, he felt, was corrupted by the evils of society, especially the unequal distribution of property.

Many reformers and revolutionaries later adopted this view. Among them were Thomas Paine and Marquis de Lafayette, who were leading figures of the American and French Revolutions.

In 1762, Rousseau set forth his ideas about government and society in The Social Contract. Rousseau felt that society placed too many limitations on people’s behavior.

He believed that some controls were necessary, but that they should be minimal. Additionally, only governments that had been freely elected should impose these controls.

Rousseau put his faith in the “general will,” or the best conscience of the people. The good of the community as a whole, he said, should be placed above individual interests.

Rousseau has influenced political and social thinkers for more than 200 years. Woven through his work is a hatred of all forms of political and economic oppression. His bold ideas would help fan the flames of revolt in years to come.

Women Challenge the Philosophes

The Enlightenment slogan “free and equal” did not apply to women. Though the philosophes said women had natural rights, their rights were limited to the areas of home and family.

By the mid- to late-1700s, a small but growing number of women protested this view. Germaine de Staël in France and Catharine Macaulay and Mary Wollstonecraft in Britain argued that women were being excluded from the social contract itself. Their arguments, however, were ridiculed and often sharply condemned.

Wollstonecraft was a well-known British social critic. She accepted that a woman’s first duty was to be a good mother but felt that a woman should be able to decide what was in her own interest without depending on her husband.

In 1792, Wollstonecraft published A Vindication of the Rights of Woman. In it, she called for equal education for girls and boys. Only education, she argued, could give women the tools they needed to participate equally with men in public life.


HW, if and when you have written work, you can email the answers to me gmsmith@shanahan.org.


1. Review material, daily posts, and Shanawiki, for Quiz
2. What did Rousseau mean when he stated that if any individual wants to pursue his own self-interests at the expense of the common good, "He will be forced to be free?" Do you agree or disagree with Rousseau? Why? (Cf. p. 304)
3. Mary Wollstonecraft (pp. 304, 305) argued that women are entitled to the same rights as men. Do you believe this premise to be true? Do you believe women are accorded equal rights today? Present your argument in an essay supported with evidence and logic.

AP Economics: 21 September 2009

Today's lesson plan is available on the blog: http://gmicksmithsocialstudies.blogspot.com/


Prayer


Current events:


A budget video from Political Math will be shown.




We are on the Production Possibilities Curve:


"A correctly labeled Production Possibilities Curve/Frontier," and "Tougher Questions About the Production Possibilities," up to, but not including "Absolute and Comparative Advantage."


As review assistance, consider the post, "Every Graph You Need To Know," to supplement your understanding of the Production Possibilities Curve and subsequent graphing.


Read, and printing it out may make it easier to review,
"Opportunity Cost: The Soviet Choice for Growth."


HW: email answers to me at gmsmith@shanahan.org.


Chapter 2


1. What are the three (3) basic economic questions every society must answer?
2. Who determines what goods will be produced in a capitalist economy?
3. How?
4. What three (3) things determine what goods and services will be produced in an economy?


NB: Quiz Preparation Page on Shanawiki has been added.

WH 2: 21 September 2009

Today's lesson plan and HW is available on the blog: http://gmicksmithsocialstudies.blogspot.com/


Email address: gmsmith@shanahan.org


Prayer:


Current events:




In an interview, comedian Paul Rodriguez, whose mother owns a farm in the area, criticized the actions of the government and called for Obama to review the decision. “This used to be an almond orchard. Now all that is left is firewood.”

Laura King Moon, assistant general manager of the State Water Contractors, a nonprofit association of 27 public agencies from across California that purchase water from the government under contract, said “these cuts are crippling on our people and businesses — especially in the Central Valley where farmers are being forced to fallow their land and workers are being laid off. Rather than piecemeal restrictions, we need to balance the needs of the environment and the needs of people with a collective plan for the Delta.”


The National Marine Fisheries Service, an agency within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, states the water pumping inside central California threatens several species, including Chinook salmon, Central Valley steelhead, North American green sturgeon, and Southern Resident killer whales, which rely on Chinook salmon runs for food. In the Huron area, the delta smelt is specifically targeted.


In defense of the actions, Rod McInnis, the southwest regional director for NOAA’s Fisheries Service stated,

“What is at stake here is not just the survival of species but the health of entire ecosystems and the economies that depend on them. We are ready to work with our federal and state partners, farmers and residents to find solutions that benefit the economy, environment and Central Valley families.”


I moved the "Blog Archive" to the top right on the blog page so it should be easier to find the daily lesson, HW, and other class material.


In Chapter 10 Section 2 The Enlightenment we will continue using material to be posted on our Shanawiki page (http://shanawiki.wikispaces.com/).


Checkpoint Question: for Shanawiki

What effects did Enlightenment philosophers have on government and society?

By the early 1700s, European thinkers felt that nothing was beyond the reach of the human mind. Through the use of reason, insisted these thinkers, people and governments could solve every social, political, and economic problem. In essence, these writers, scholars, and philosophers felt they could change the world.


Scientific Revolution Sparks the Enlightenment

The Scientific Revolution of the 1500s and 1600s had transformed the way people in Europe looked at the world. In the 1700s, other scientists expanded European knowledge. For example, Edward Jenner developed a vaccine against smallpox, a disease whose path of death spanned the centuries.

Scientific successes convinced educated Europeans of the power of human reason. Natural law, or rules discoverable by reason, govern scientific forces such as gravity and magnetism. Why not, then, use natural law to better understand social, economic, and political problems?

Using the methods of the new science, reformers thus set out to study human behavior and solve the problems of society. In this way, the Scientific Revolution led to another revolution in thinking, known as the Enlightenment.

Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher best known for his work The Critique of Pure Reason, was one of the first to describe this era with the word “Enlightenment.” Despite Kant’s skepticism about the power of reason, he was enthusiastic about the Enlightenment and believed, like many European philosophers, that natural law could help explain aspects of humanity.


Hobbes and Locke Have Conflicting Views

Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, two seventeenth-century English thinkers, set forth ideas that were to become key to the Enlightenment. Both men lived through the upheavals of the English Civil War. Yet they came to very different conclusions about human nature and the role of government.















Hobbes Believes in Powerful Government

Thomas Hobbes outlined his ideas in a work titled Leviathan. In it, he argued that people were naturally cruel, greedy, and selfish. If not strictly controlled, they would fight, rob, and oppress one another. Life in the “state of nature”—without laws or other control—would be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”

To escape that “brutish” life, said Hobbes, people entered into a social contract, an agreement by which they gave up their freedom, what he described as the "state of nature," for an organized society. Hobbes believed that only a powerful government could ensure an orderly society. For him, such a government was an absolute monarchy, which could impose order and compel obedience.

Hobbes Writes the Leviathan

The title page from Leviathan (1651) by Hobbes demonstrates his belief in a powerful ruler. The monarch here represents the Leviathan who rises above all of society.

Locke Advocates Natural Rights

John Locke had a more optimistic view of human nature. He thought people were basically reasonable and moral. Further, they had certain natural rights, or rights that belonged to all humans from birth. These included the right to life, liberty, and property.

In Two Treatises of Government, Locke argued that people formed governments to protect their natural rights. The best kind of government, he said, had limited power and was accepted by all citizens. Thus, unlike Hobbes, Locke rejected absolute monarchy.

England during this time experienced a shift in political power known as the Glorious Revolution. James II, an unpopular absolute monarch, left the throne and fled England in 1688. Locke later wrote that he thought James II deserved to be dethroned for violating the rights of the English.

Locke proposed a radical idea about this time. A government, he said, has an obligation to the people it governs. If a government fails its obligations or violates people’s natural rights, the people have the right to overthrow that government.

Locke’s idea would one day influence leaders of the American Revolution, such as Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison. Locke’s idea of the right of revolution would also echo across Europe and Latin America in the centuries that followed.


The Philosophes

In the 1700s, there was a flowering of Enlightenment thought. This was when a group of Enlightenment thinkers in France applied the methods of science to understand and improve society. They believed that the use of reason could lead to reforms of government, law, and society. These thinkers were called philosophes (fee loh zohfs), which means “philosophers.” Their ideas soon spread beyond France and even beyond Europe.

Montesquieu Advances the Idea of Separation of Powers

An early and influential thinker was Baron de Montesquieu (mahn tus kyoo). Montesquieu studied the governments of Europe, from Italy to England. He read about ancient and medieval Europe, and learned about Chinese and Native American cultures. His sharp criticism of absolute monarchy would open doors for later debate.

Biography
Voltaire

François-Marie Arouet, most commonly known as Voltaire (1694–1778) was an impassioned poet, historian, essayist, and philosopher who wrote with cutting sarcasm and sharp wit.

Voltaire was sent to the Bastille prison twice due to his criticism of French authorities and was eventually banned from Paris. When he was able to return to France, he wrote about political and religious freedom.

Voltaire spent his life fighting enemies of freedom, such as ignorance, superstition, and intolerance.

Montesquieu

Born to wealth, Charles Louis de Secondat (1689–1755) inherited the title Baron de Montesquieu from his uncle. Like many other reformers, he did not let his privileged status keep him from becoming a voice for democracy.

His first book titled Persian Letters ridiculed the French government and social classes. In his work published in 1748, The Spirit of the Laws, he advanced the idea of separation of powers—a foundation of modern democracy.

In 1748, Montesquieu published The Spirit of the Laws, in which he discussed governments throughout history. Montesquieu felt that the best way to protect liberty was to divide the various functions and powers of government among three branches: the legislative, executive, and judicial.

He also felt that each branch of government should be able to serve as a check on the other two, an idea that we call checks and balances. Montesquieu’s beliefs would soon profoundly affect the Framers of the United States Constitution.

Voltaire Defends Freedom of Thought

Probably the most famous of the philosophes was François-Marie Arouet, who took the name Voltaire. “My trade,” said Voltaire, “is to say what I think,” and he did so throughout his long, controversial life.

Voltaire used biting wit as a weapon to expose the abuses of his day. He targeted corrupt officials and idle aristocrats. With his pen, he battled inequality, injustice, and superstition. He detested the slave trade and deplored religious prejudice.

Voltaire’s outspoken attacks offended both the French government and the Catholic Church. He was imprisoned and forced into exile. Even as he saw his books outlawed and even burned, he continued to defend the principle of freedom of speech.

Diderot Edits the Encyclopedia

Denis Diderot (dee duh roh) worked for years to produce a 28-volume set of books called the Encyclopedia. As the editor, Diderot did more than just compile articles.

His purpose was “to change the general way of thinking” by explaining ideas on topics such as government, philosophy, and religion. Diderot’s Encyclopedia included articles by leading thinkers of the day, including Montesquieu and Voltaire.

In these articles, the philosophes denounced slavery, praised freedom of expression, and urged education for all. They attacked divine-right theory and traditional religions. Critics raised an outcry.

The French government argued that the Encyclopedia was an attack on public morals, and the pope threatened to excommunicate Roman Catholics who bought or read the volumes.

Despite these and other efforts to ban the Encyclopedia, more than 4,000 copies were printed between 1751 and 1789. When translated into other languages, the Encyclopedia helped spread Enlightenment ideas throughout Europe and across the Atlantic Ocean to the Americas.

Rousseau Promotes The Social Contract

Jean-Jacques Rousseau (roo soh), believed that people in their natural state were basically good. This natural innocence, he felt, was corrupted by the evils of society, especially the unequal distribution of property.

Many reformers and revolutionaries later adopted this view. Among them were Thomas Paine and Marquis de Lafayette, who were leading figures of the American and French Revolutions.

In 1762, Rousseau set forth his ideas about government and society in The Social Contract. Rousseau felt that society placed too many limitations on people’s behavior.

He believed that some controls were necessary, but that they should be minimal. Additionally, only governments that had been freely elected should impose these controls.

Rousseau put his faith in the “general will,” or the best conscience of the people. The good of the community as a whole, he said, should be placed above individual interests.

Rousseau has influenced political and social thinkers for more than 200 years. Woven through his work is a hatred of all forms of political and economic oppression. His bold ideas would help fan the flames of revolt in years to come.

Women Challenge the Philosophes

The Enlightenment slogan “free and equal” did not apply to women. Though the philosophes said women had natural rights, their rights were limited to the areas of home and family.

By the mid- to late-1700s, a small but growing number of women protested this view. Germaine de Staël in France and Catharine Macaulay and Mary Wollstonecraft in Britain argued that women were being excluded from the social contract itself. Their arguments, however, were ridiculed and often sharply condemned.

Wollstonecraft was a well-known British social critic. She accepted that a woman’s first duty was to be a good mother but felt that a woman should be able to decide what was in her own interest without depending on her husband.

In 1792, Wollstonecraft published A Vindication of the Rights of Woman. In it, she called for equal education for girls and boys. Only education, she argued, could give women the tools they needed to participate equally with men in public life.


HW, if and when you have written work, you can email the answers to me gmsmith@shanahan.org.


1. Review for Quiz
2. Be sure to have access to a textbook (there are extras in Room #212).
3. Answer "Checkpoint" questions on the appropriate Shanawiki page, i.e, Section 2, The Enlightenment.
4. As we cover the various Enlightenment thinkers in class, research bibliographic information for them on LibraryThing.