Jun 26

Sports Mascots: They’re Not All Fun and Games

Mascots, mascots, mascots. They’re everywhere. High school, college, and professional teams alike circle around their beloved mascots during the “big game” as a beacon of tradition, hope, and luck. Some mascots are funny, and some are plain strange. (There’s such thing as a banana slug? And a dancing tree? Check out UC Santa Cruz and Stanford for further information…) Unfortunately, it’s not all fun and games when it comes to mascots. Welcome to the offensive, degrading, and even outright racist. Welcome to the land of Native American mascots.

A couple weeks ago, two senior girls from Hall High School in West Hartford, Connecticut lobbied to change the logo of their stereotypical Native American mascot, the “Warrior”. They were fine with the nickname itself, but they said that the logo itself had to go. The logo was the image of a stern man, who had two feathers sticking out from his head. Essentially, it was the most stereotypical perspective of a Native American that one can come by. What brought on this student initiative though, at this point in time? The last straw for the girls had come when a new student group was sanctioned to cheer for games this year, which coined itself, “The Reservation”.

For weeks, the battle raged on at Hall High School, as opinions were split between the current students and alumni alike. Many people were attached to the logo, and felt no need to change it. It was a source of both pride and tradition for the high school. However, others disagreed, stating that the time to change the logo was long overdue. In the words of Hall English teacher Scott Ferguson, “”Anytime that you take a complex race of people and reduce them to one stereotypical image that many people legitimately feel upset about — that, to me, is cause enough” for change”. In the end, the girls won out. The nickname will remain the same, but a new logo will be instated at Hall High School in the fall.

New school, old story. The same dilemma has taken place time and time again in schools across the country. Since 1970, about two-thirds of all Native American-related mascots have been eliminated from high school, college, and professional sports teams in the United States. Just last month, a decision was made by the Oregon State Board of Education to ban all Native American based mascots in the entire state of Oregon. Any Oregon school whose mascot is the Braves, Chiefs, or Indians is mandated to change their mascot by 2017. While it was decided that the nickname “Warrior” is to be allowed, all Oregon schools with the nickname “Warrior” must completely sever the ties between any Native American traditions and school insignia.

Indians, Tomahawks, Redskins, Chiefs, Braves. We’ve heard them all. It’s just a mascot, isn’t it? Why the need to focus simply on Native American-related mascots? Why not ban all mascots stereotyping certain ethnic groups? Why not fight against Notre Dame’s athletic department who choose to call themselves the “Fighting Irish”? A common complaint in the whole mascot dilemma is that such groups or ethnicities should take pride, not offense, in the fact that teams want to honor them. However, the problem comes with representation.

Do a quick Google search of “Native American mascots”, and you’ll find Continue reading

Share

Jun 26

Should Convicted Felons Have the Right to Vote?

It’s an election year again. Which means you, just like me, have been getting bombarded with press releases, flyers, news articles, debates, and more information than you could ever possibly require about this round of candidates. Sure, this can be irritating at times, but it’s what you’ve come to expect this time of year and it can be useful. So you take what information you want and start thinking about who you’re going to vote for in November. But what if you couldn’t? What if you had to receive all this material and see all the advertisements about voting but you weren’t allowed to? That is the reality that 5.3 million adults face in the United States. Convicted felons who have lost their right to vote. With their conviction, they lost one of the most crucial aspects of citizenship in this country. And quite frankly I think that’s wrong. As a democratic nation, the United States shouldn’t be able to pick and choose who should have the right to vote.

Before I continue, let me clarify, voter eligibility is determined on a state by state basis, it’s not an overarching standard within the country. But generally speaking convicted felons can’t vote while they’re in jail and they can’t vote while they’re on parole. They can maybe vote once they finish serving their sentence. But even if they do regain their eligibility, they almost never actually get to exercise that right. The amount of red tape and hurdles they have to jump through make it all but impossible for that to happen, except in a few select states. For example, a man in Iowa, who was convicted of felony robbery as a teenager, tried to regain his right to vote later in life. He followed all the procedures and even went so far as to hire a lawyer to assist him with the process. But he was STILL denied because he and his lawyer hadn’t submitted all the necessary, but complicated, paperwork properly. This is just one example of many of people trying to get their rights back and being denied. So for a majority of people, once you’re convicted of a felony you won’t be voting again.

Now, I know there are a lot of people out there who agree with current laws and don’t think convicted felons should have the right to vote. They say felons are bad people, they’re criminals. They ask if I would really want a mass murderer voting in an election. But lots of crimes result in felony convictions, not just the heinous ones we read about in the paper. Vandalism, theft, distribution of drugs can all also result lead to a felony conviction. Are these also “bad people”? Even if you think yes and there’s no way you’d support the way they voted, one person couldn’t decide the election results on their own. There aren’t even enough convicted felons to “block vote” in favor of a particular candidate. And that’s assuming that all convicted felons would even vote for the same person (according to studies, it’s highly unlikely that they would). Which means there’s no danger that they would negatively impact the results and elect someone a majority of the public didn’t approve of.

But I think something more important is at stake than even election results when we deny certain people the ability to vote. Our country is founded on democracy. It’s what set us apart when we first became a nation, it’s something we pride ourselves on, and it’s something we work to spread around the world. But how can we consider ourselves a true democracy when certain members of our society don’t have the right to vote? Is punishing these people or protecting the outcome of particular elections worth sacrificing one of the central tenets of our country? What’s really more important to you: keeping certain people from voting or protecting the integrity of our entire system?

Share

Jun 26

Water is Everyone’s Problem

Did you know water was declared a human right in 2010 by the United Nations? Yet, 884 million people are still without access to safe drinking water and, more than 2.4 billion people lack access to basic sanitation. These statistics are pretty shocking to me because despite many advances, we are facing this problem in the 21st century. Changes in the environment and climate have impacted major sources of freshwater in many parts of the world.  As the world population grows towards over seven billion, water may become even more sparse as more and more people are losing access to fresh clean water because of these changes.

Water is everyone’s problem and this problem needs to be addressed. Unfortunately, this issue has not received the attention it deserves from my perspective. Some governments and organizations have recognized that this is a problem, however no concrete plan has been created or established. I believe the best way to push for action is by working together. Non-profit organizations, governments, international organizations, and the private sector can collaborate together, and effectively create change.

A real roadmap needs to be laid out on how to tackle this issue. At worldwide conferences such as Rio+20, delegates from countries recognize a problem, however when these delegates return to their own countries, often no real progress occurs. Unfortunately it is likely that the outcome document of the conference and statements regarding water and sanitation, will not create any real progress because there are no concrete goals involved. Without goals, no one will really take the first step. National, state, and local Governments, NGOS, and professionals from the private sector need to collaborate and work together to make long lasting change.

I recently went to a conference in April at Yale University. There were three non-profit organizations at the conference presenting with missions based on water and sanitation. If these organizations collaborated, they may actually achieve lasting and huge results from their combined efforts. For example, Charity Water, Water.org, and WaterAid are all organizations that focus on delivering clean water to those that do not have access. All of their mission statements are quite similar. In addition, these organizations also stress that water impacts everything including education, health, and even rights of children and women. They fundraise to create wells in rural communities to supply them with clean water and work with local partners in their project site areas, so that the communities have a say in the projects.

An idea for a collaborative strategy for this work would be to create an advocacy alliance to appeal to local and central governments to place more emphasis on the water crisis. They could also partner up with the private sector and international organizations such as the World Health Organization, UN Water, or Unicef to gain more support. This will form more awareness around the issue and it will also push others to take action.

Another strategy would be for  the organizations to collaborate and work with governments and Continue reading

Share

Jun 22

Who shoulders the refugee burden?

Another week, another UN holiday commemorating a global social issue. This week we had World Refugee Day on June 20th, a day to “honor the courage, strength and determination of women, men and children who are forced to flee their homes under threat of persecution, conflict and violence.” With the situations ongoing in the Middle East and Northern Africa, this year’s catchphrase “No one chooses to be a refugee” provides an even more heartfelt reminder of how unfair these situations are for refugees.

Whenever an awareness-raising special day like this occurs, there’s always inevitably a few notable statistics that become a sort of tagline for the day. One of these I kept seeing during my online readings about WRD was the stat on where the world’s 43.7 million refugees and internally displaced persons are located. An astounding 80% of these 43.7 million refugees and IDPs are hosted by developing countries. That is a lot.

Honestly, initially it was shocking to hear that four-fifths of the world’s refugees end up in developing countries. But, when I got to thinking about it I really wasn’t that surprised that they end up shouldering the weight of refugee situation. Developing countries often suffer from political instability; which means that borders are likely fluid and social services are probably meager for their own citizens, much less others coming into their country to seek safety and refuge. The thing is that when one is fleeing a country for fear of their safety and death, especially when these people are economically disadvantaged, they are going to go to the most accessible, safer (though not necessarily safe) place they can get to. It makes sense that the easiest places refugees can access are not really the places with the means to support them.

So, the industrialized countries that arguably would be better served supporting these vulnerable populations are the ones bearing the least of the burden. In these places, it’s generally harder to reach, cross the borders into the country and receive refugee status that would grant them access to social services. It’s like one big Catch-22. The easiest places to get to, are the ones that can’t support refugees, while the ones that can are the hardest to access.

It’s sad to think of people that are forced out of their home city or country because of conflict, persecution, or some sort of disaster, as something of a burden on others. But, the reality of it is that they are, especially when the host country is a ‘developing country’ (disclaimer: yes, I know the term isn’t standardized and is somewhat ambiguous, but for the sake of not digressing from the point of this blog, I’m just using it in general terms). These countries often have their own slew of issues that their struggling to deal with (often it’s things like lower human development, living standards, education and less opportunities for its own citizens compared to developed countries) much less having to address the issues of hundreds, thousands or even millions of vulnerable people with very little to no resources. That’s a lot to deal with.

No one chooses to be a refugee, but for now it is a reality. So, how do we remedy this issue? It would be great to think that developed and developing countries would work together to find ways to support these vulnerable people, but that just does not seem to be happening. One day we may have a world where no one has to be a refugee and where there is always a choice, but for now other countries will be forced to bear the burden.

Share

Jun 21

Simply Divine: The Sweeter Side of the Chocolate Industry

 

While chocolate might taste sweet, it’s history is anything but. There is a long history of exploitation and unethical practices surrounding the West African cocoa beans used by “Big Chocolate” corporations such as Hershey, Kraft (which recently bought Cadbury), Nestle, and Mars. There are news reports of unfair pricing. Poor working conditions. There are even reports of forced child labor, as thousands of young children are bought and sold through human trafficking rings, and then forced to work on the cocoa fields, kept away from their homes and families. The children are overworked, often working up to 100 hours per week in dangerous conditions. The harsh reality is that the cocoa industry has been plagued by human rights issues for years. However, there is one company, which stands out from all the rest. It values things such as fair trade, sustainable farming practices, and ethical working environments. Its name? The Kuapa Kokoo Cooperative, which was founded in Ghana in 1993.

Kuapa Kokoo is a farmer cooperative made up of small cocoa industry farmers from West Africa. It is a stakeholder in Divine Chocolate, which means that the cocoa farmers own a majority stake in the company, thus allowing them to share in the profits. In the cooperative, all 45,000+ member owners of the cooperative receive a 45 percent share of the profits for their cocoa beans. They also are given the opportunity to benefit from financial services and assistance from the Kuapa Kokoo Credit Union. The thought behind such services is to empower the small cocoa farmers. Social, economic, and political empowerment is the ultimate goal in this partnership.

One of the keys to Kuapa Kokoo’s success is its Fair Trade certification. Just two years after the company was founded, it became certified as a FairTrade producer organization in 1995. What exactly is Fair Trade certification? Fair Trade certification ensures that the cocoa beans are harvested in such a way that ensure certain environmental, social, and economic standards are met. It means farmers will receive a fair price for all of their cocoa beans due to the FairTrade minimum price, which is placed on all products. And the benefits don’t stop there. Due to the extra income that comes in due to the Fair Trade products, citizens in the small farming communities have been able to invest back into the community with social projects such as improving water and sanitation, working on healthcare, and building new schools.

The company’s success is due to the pride in which it gives its farmers. The farmers in the cooperative feel a great sense of pride at the fact that they are all partial owners of the company. They’re able to make their own decisions, elect their own officials, even have weekly meetings. They’re not simply puppets, whose strings are being pulled at every whim and desire of a big name “Big Chocolate” figureheads. They’re in charge of their own destiny.

Such stories of hope and success, pride and profits, gave the Kuapa Kokoo cooperative a way to break Continue reading

Share

Jun 21

DREAMers Goal in Sight? Maybe

Immigration issues have been in the news a lot over the past few months. With this being an election year and the hispanic vote supposedly “up for grabs”, politicians from both parties have been trying their best to appear favorable to the immigrant community without isolating any of their other traditional supporters. But up until recently all their measures have essentially been only words with few actual results. President Obama changed that with his announcement last Friday that undocumented immigrants who came here as children no longer need to fear deportation. He finally laid the groundwork for change that would actually have a sustainable impact on immigrants’ lives. But that will only happen if Congress acts to change his Presidential policy into law. If they fail to do that, then this will just be yet another attempt by the government to create a band-aid fix for a much larger and more serious problem.
State governments and the federal government have been making small legislative changes meant to improve immigrants’ lives for quite some time now. Many of these were good ideas in theory but bad in practice. They were very specific fixes that didn’t have a lasting impact because they didn’t address the overall problem. Take Texas for example. In 2001, the state passed the Texas Dream Act, which allowed undocumented immigrants access to in-state tuition and financial aid. On the surface this seemed brilliant; more educational opportunities for kids, regardless of their immigration status. But not that many students were able to take advantage of the new program, with Texas Dreamers making up only about 1% of the in-state student population in 2010. This on its own shows how ineffectual small changes are, but the legislature compounded the problem by making it extremely difficult for immigrants to gain work permits. These kids could finally get access to the education they deserved, but then weren’t allowed to find jobs after graduation.

Those seem like conflicting ideologies to me. If the state is going to spend money to help educate these kids and treat them as if they were US citizens, doesn’t it make more sense to provide a pathway for them to get jobs and return the state’s investment? Instead of fixing the issue and helping immigrants, Texas managed to replace an old problem with a new one. Education but no job. That’s not problem solving, that’s the legislature going through the motions without thinking about all the issues. And this is just one example out of many of government trying to make small changes because officials weren’t willing to take the risk of making big ones.

With his announcement, President Obama took that risk and laid the groundwork for legislators to hopefully enact broader changes. He’s admitted this is only a stopgap measure for now, but at least he has taken a stand and shown that more sweeping changes are necessary for immigration reform. Without congressional support he can only stop certain deportations, he can’t provide amnesty or citizenship for all undocumented immigrants. But his decision makes sense. If we’re going to make getting an education and finding jobs easier, then it only makes sense that we should stop deporting people. Hopefully congress will follow his example and provide a pathway to citizenship for all these people who deserve it.

Some people might say that I’m asking for too much. That I’m unfairly judging other laws aimed at improving immigrants’ lives. Or that even small changes are better than nothing. Maybe we don’t need to tackle such a controversial issue as citizenship and amnesty for undocumented immigrants. But I think that would be shortsighted. Immigration is too big of an issue to try to change step by step. Incremental changes simply give people false hope that real change is happening. Or it allows politicians off the hook because they can point at some specific legislation and say “look we did that, we are helping immigrants” when really they’ve done essentially nothing. The goal of sustainable impact on immigration reform is close but we need to maintain support for the DREAM Act and President Obama’s new policy if we wish to reach it.

Share

Jun 20

The Rise of Brazil: Part 1

Have you noticed lately that Brazil has been in the international spotlight… a lot? It seems like every week I see some new headline about Brazil in relation to:1) a major international convention, 2) a major international sports event or 3) an issue involving development in the Amazon. The attention is good, bad and/ or controversial simultaneously almost all the time. What’s happening in Brazil is important for so many reasons that I think it’s crucial to follow these major events, analyze them, and hopefully see how they play out. This blog series, starting with this post, will over the course of the summer look at these events in the larger context of what’s happening in Brazil.

 

Recently I’ve seen a few news articles covering the controversy surrounding the construction of the Belo Monte dam. Problems in the Amazon, and even in Brazil, are nothing new. This is really just your latest example of the clash between one country’s economic development versus the rights of its indigenous citizens. But, what makes this issue different is that it’s set to the backdrop of the Rio+20 conference and its focus on all things sustainable development.

Brazil is moving forward in terms of economic development, but at what price? The rights of its indigenous people. At its simplest, this is exactly what Rio+20 looks to address: “how we can reduce poverty, advance social equity and ensure environmental protection”? The dam threatens to relocate people; pay monetary compensation that 1) likely has very little value to an indigenous tribe that highly values their land and the livelihood they make off it or 2) undervalues their property; and blatantly just disregards talking with them in the planning process.

These are obvious disadvantages, but what about the benefits? Do they outweigh the harm done to these people? It seems unlikely. Yes, they say that up to 40,000 jobs will be created, but with up to 20,000 people potentially displaced, this number doesn’t seem so great (not to mention once construction stops, many of these workers will be out of work). The hydroelectric dam is also supposed to generate clean energy or get rid of blackouts that occur in households, but there is speculation that this could end up going to industries more than people. There are more, but the gist is that even the upsides have downsides (something both sides of the issue can no doubt argue).

So, groups are out protesting the dam at Rio+20 and it’s becoming a very interesting part of the conference. Where you have the Brazilian president praising the dam as a clean, sustainable energy, you have hundreds of protestors outside making it impossible to ignore the question of “At what social cost?” This is perfect timing in that this specific issue serves as a perfect example for what Rio+20 is trying to tackle.

Renewable and clean energy is wonderful, but not when it is approached it in a way that anyone else that doesn’t follow your agenda is disregarded. There’s no perfect compromise to this issue, but there are ways to alleviate the disadvantages on both sides of the issue. It’s apparent that the Rio+20’s host country needs to pay attention to what’s discussed during the conference. Perhaps the country will serve as the model for the dilemma between social equity and sustainable development. I can only hope there is an element of self-awareness to this conference wherein participants/ countries/ whoever can use this as an opportunity to identify their own faults and weaknesses and move forward from there towards social equity and environmental sustainability for everyone.

Share

Jun 20

Stop and Frisk: A New York Controversy

Stop and Frisk. I’m sure you’ve heard about it but I doubt you’ve personally experienced it or really even thought about how it would feel. Imagine you’re walking in your neighborhood, hanging out in a park, just talking to your friends. All of a sudden a police officer walks up and informs you he needs to pat you down and search you right where you stand. If he doesn’t find anything illegal on you, you can go back and continue doing what you were doing. If he does find something illegal, you’ll be arrested on the spot. Why can the police officer do this? If you’re in New York: because you were acting “suspicious”. That’s it, no other reason is necessary for an officer to invade your privacy and put you through such a traumatizing and humiliating experience. I know there is a time and a place for stopping and frisking a suspect, but I think the New York policy goes too far and oversteps the boundaries of what stop and frisk should be.

New York law says police can stop and frisk any person they observe with “furtive” movements or “suspicious” behavior in order to reduce crime and gun usage in an area. This means a person can essentially be stopped anywhere anytime in the city. Needless to say this leaves a lot of power and discretion with individual policemen, making it much too easy for an officer to abuse this policy and indiscriminately stop people. Or worse to start stopping people based on their race instead of on their behavior. It is this racial problem more than anything that has led to outrage and protests in New York City, which culminated in a march on Father’s Day of several thousand demonstrators. People feel that the police unfairly target minorities to the point that they have created a feeling of martial law in some areas of the city. And with the way the policy has been implemented, they’re right.

Mayor Bloomberg of course denies that police officers use racial profiling when they exercise their right to stop and frisk. I’m sure the mayor and most of the officers really do believe that when they say it. But it is essentially impossible to guarantee that race doesn’t play into their decision making on some level. Even if an officer is not consciously racist, psychological studies have shown that many people still have an unconscious bias against minorities. Which means that a law like New York’s stop and frisk will inevitably result in racial disparities in stoppage rates. When police have to work on off of “hunches” and don’t have to provide evidence for their suspicions then they can do whatever they wish and allow all their potential prejudices to influence them. The law needs to be reworked so that is no longer the case. People should not be at a greater risk of attracting police attention just because of their race. It isn’t fair to them and violates their rights as residents of this country.

Stop and frisk hasn’t proved to be particularly effective, with only 10% of stops resulting in arrests or summons. So there is no reason to continue implementing a policy that does at least as much harm as good. Why not turn to other more effective methods of gun control instead? The state could put more money into educational programing for kids. Or copy Illinois and Washington and introduce more transparency in the policing system to restore people’s faith in the police department. It would be better for everyone to implement a system that encourages people to support and work with the police rather than one that creates animosity and distrust. Of course officers should continue to have the ability to pat down a suspect if they have a legitimate cause. But this should be used as a method to protect themselves not as gun control. New York City has a responsibility to protect all its citizens and their rights and their policies should reflect that. Stop and frisk should be fixed so that EVERYONE is safe and treated equally.

Share

Jun 19

Spread the Word to End the Word

There’s a moment in many social situations when you simply don’t know what to say. Someone has misstepped their boundaries, violated your beliefs, and you don’t know how to respond. The moment hangs in time, as an internal battle rages in your mind. Should you stay silent, stewing in anger? Do you say something? Is it worth it? What will people think?For me, the moment usually follows when someone makes a mistake. Makes a fool out of himself. Does something stupid. And then those dreadful words march right out… “what a retard”. My head whirls around, locked on the culprit. Do they not realize what they said? Do they even care? 

I wasn’t always aware of the word, and its damaging ramifications. Never one to use it myself, but at the same time never one to do something when it was said. That all changed when I became involved with Special Olympics Pennsylvania through my school several years ago, when I first learned about the Spread the Word to End the Word Movement.

The Spread the Word to End the Word movement was started in 2009 by two college students during the Special Olympics Global Youth Activation Summit. The goal? To encourage people to stop using the words “retard” and “retarded”. The campaign celebrated its 1st Annual Spread the Word to End the Word Awareness Day on March 31st of the same year. Now, every March, people make the pledge to remove such words from their vocabulary, while also encouraging others to do the same. What started as student initiative turned into a nationwide campaign, spreading from school to school, before rolling over into the professional world, the entertainment industry, and even the White House. In 2010, President Obama passed Rosa’s Law, which eliminated the use of the words “retarded” and “retardation” in federal health, labor, and education laws.

It wasn’t always like this. Originally the terms “mental retardation” and “mentally retarded” were simply used as a way to describe a specific clinical condition. However, the words have taken on an entity far removed from their original meaning over the course of time. They have become synonymous with words like dumb. Stupid. Idiot. What’s the problem? The problem is that using such language does affect how people view those with intellectual disabilities. It does affect how people with intellectual disabilities are treated throughout society. To equate the “r-word” with words like dumb or stupid is to promote a certain stigma, and continue a cycle of negative perceptions. It allows people to disregard those with intellectual and developmental disabilities. It allows them to disregard their worth, and their contributions to society.

Therefore, the Spread the Word to End the Word movement has worked tirelessly to raise awareness about the removal of the “r-word” from everyday language. Its goal is to make people realize the damaging consequences that occur as a result of using such language. According to Soeren Palumbo, a brother to a sister with an intellectual disability, “I don’t think you understand how much you hurt others when you hate.  And maybe you don’t realize that you hate.  But that’s what it is; your pre-emptive dismissal of them [people with intellectual disabilities], your dehumanization of them, your mockery of them, it’s nothing but another form of hate”.

Words have have power. Infinite power. Maybe that’s the craziest part of it all. Words have the power to do good, but they also have the ability to do deeper damage than you could ever imagine. Pledge to ban the use of word “retarded” from your vocabulary. It’s such a minor change in your everyday life. However, it makes a world of difference in the lives of so many with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

Share

Jun 18

Economics 101

The other day I was shown a semi-viral youtube video that you may have heard of: Quantitative Easing Explained.  Now, I don’t know that much about quantitative easing, or the Fed, or Goldman Sachs, so I really cannot say anything about those aspects of the film, but I can say that much of the basic economic information at the beginning of this little video is inaccurate.  So, I decided to write a post on some basic economic facts I feel everyone should be aware of, some from the video and some not, that will hopefully be useful to you in your everyday life!  Many of these economic concepts can seem a bit counterintuitive but are actually quite straightforward and simple once you learn them, and I think a working knowledge of some basic economic principles is essential.
1.       Nominal vs real variables
Nominal money is measured in dollars: the price of a new car, the money in your bank account, your salary, and your debt, for example.  Real money is the purchasing power of that money—how many goods you can buy with it—and is measured in goods.  For example, if you have $100 and live in a one-good economy where that good costs $2, the nominal value of your money is $100 and the real value is $100 divided by $2/good, or 50 goods.  If the price of the good rises by $1 then the real value of your money decreases, as it is now $100 divided by $3/good, or 33.333 goods, and if the price of the good drops by $1 then the real value increases to 100 goods.  In real life, of course, we don’t live in a one-good economy, but the real value of money can be calculated using the Consumer Price Index, which you can do on your own if you are interested. 
2.       Deflation is not always a good thing
Contrary to what the bears in the video claim, deflation is not always good, and in fact can be very bad, particularly during a recession.  Many economists believe that deflation can set off a deflationary spiral in which the decrease in prices leads to a decrease in production, which causes unemployment, which lowers demand, which in turn causes prices to fall further.  Not all economists agree that deflationary spirals can occur, but most still view deflation negatively, as it greatly hurts borrowers, or people in debt.  Deflation is an increase in the real value, or purchasing power, of money, and so people with loans must pay back more than what they initially borrowed.  Deflation is believed to have been involved in the Great Depression, and can also discourage investment.  For these reasons, and many more, deflation is more frequently looked upon negatively.

3.        Bond prices and interest rates are inversely related

My macroeconomics professor certainly made sure we would never forget this one, so you know it’s important!  The Fed changes the interest rate through open market operations (OMOs): buying and selling US securities on the open market.  If the Fed wishes to lower the interest rate it makes an open market purchase (OMP), or buys bonds.  Continue reading

Share