Globalisation:Cato Institute - Revision history

Laura Robertson: /* Concluding Remarks */

2010-11-17T15:41:28Z

Concluding Remarks

Laura Robertson: /* Concluding Remarks */

2010-11-17T15:39:27Z

Concluding Remarks

Laura Robertson: /* Concluding Remarks */

2010-11-17T15:35:17Z

Concluding Remarks

Laura Robertson: /* Concluding Remarks */

2010-11-17T15:34:20Z

Concluding Remarks

Laura Robertson: /* Concluding Remarks */

2010-11-17T15:09:51Z

Concluding Remarks

Laura Robertson: /* Concluding Remarks */

2010-11-17T15:08:13Z

Concluding Remarks

Laura Robertson: /* Concluding Remarks */

2010-11-17T14:42:56Z

Concluding Remarks

Laura Robertson: /* Patrick J. Michaels */

2010-11-17T14:34:21Z

Patrick J. Michaels

Laura Robertson: /* Funding And Support */

2010-11-17T14:33:47Z

Funding And Support

Laura Robertson: /* Funding And Support */

2010-11-17T14:28:22Z

Funding And Support

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:41, 17 November 2010
Line 112:		Line 112:


−	Cato is essentially a neoliberal think tank that believes in prosperity of big business and reduction of government but it is important to look through what these policies say to the actual reality that they would incur. Free market breeds pure competition and competition always has its winner as well as its losers and the way in which these places are decided can often be unfair and once these classes are set mobility, self discovery and education to better themselves becomes a question of how much money a person has rather one the ability of the individual. The ideology of this institute is apparent even in recent politics with the prospect of an introduction of welfare health care. The uproar which is seen by right wing think tanks like the Cato institute shows the undeniable with even the simplest form of human need. “Cato has been a long time advocate of deregulating the health care industry, so that consumers can afford the health care insurance and treatment of their choice” <ref> [http://www.cato.org/health-welfare-entitlements “Cato ; Health, Welfare and Entitlements”] Cited 15.11.10</ref> the reality here however is that not everyone has the opportunity to actually be a consumer and these ideologies completely disregard the population of America and out with America that cannot afford these basic human needs. As the graph given shows 2.5% of America’s wealth is owned by 50% of the population where the top 1% own 33.3% <ref> [http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4#half-of-america-has-25-of-the-wealth-2 ~~"15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America~~ ”15 Mind blowing facts about wealth and inequality in America”] Cited 13.11.10</ref> and Cato’s ideology see’s this figure get bigger and more global as when there is free trade among societies smaller societies have much less to bet than bigger players like America which begs the question where people are supposed to accumulate the ability to be “consumers”. [[Image:Graph for cato.JPG\|400px\|right\|thumb\|Pie Chart]].	+	Cato is essentially a neoliberal think tank that believes in prosperity of big business and reduction of government but it is important to look through what these policies say to the actual reality that they would incur. Free market breeds pure competition and competition always has its winner as well as its losers and the way in which these places are decided can often be unfair and once these classes are set mobility, self discovery and education to better themselves becomes a question of how much money a person has rather one the ability of the individual. The ideology of this institute is apparent even in recent politics with the prospect of an introduction of welfare health care. The uproar which is seen by right wing think tanks like the Cato institute shows the undeniable with even the simplest form of human need. “Cato has been a long time advocate of deregulating the health care industry, so that consumers can afford the health care insurance and treatment of their choice” <ref> [http://www.cato.org/health-welfare-entitlements “Cato ; Health, Welfare and Entitlements”] Cited 15.11.10</ref> the reality here however is that not everyone has the opportunity to actually be a consumer and these ideologies completely disregard the population of America and out with America that cannot afford these basic human needs. As the graph given shows 2.5% of America’s wealth is owned by 50% of the population where the top 1% own 33.3% <ref> [http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4#half-of-america-has-25-of-the-wealth-2 ”15 Mind blowing facts about wealth and inequality in America”] Cited 13.11.10</ref> and Cato’s ideology see’s this figure get bigger and more global as when there is free trade among societies smaller societies have much less to bet than bigger players like America which begs the question where people are supposed to accumulate the ability to be “consumers”. [[Image:Graph for cato.JPG\|400px\|right\|thumb\|Pie Chart]].
	This again is another example here of privatisation of social issues that is wrong; when privatisation occurs things become about turning over profit instead of delivering a quality service to the human being who needs such services as health care. The Cato Institute do not pick on these fields and almost ignore the fact that business means profit so of course proper care may suffer if it is more ‘cost effective’ to skip corners. Members of the Cato Institute’s board of directors epitomise this point through the interdependence of corporations and think tanks like Cato. Their actions promote what are many features of globalisation: self-interest and widening profit margins, at the expense of ethical considerations. This can also be further highlighted with regards to Cato’s sceptic stance on climate change, when considering the views and research of its scholars such as Patrick J. Michaels. His research is funded by companies who benefit from publications which act as a smokescreen to dominant opinions on climate change; therefore Cato acts as a mouthpiece to those who fund them. It is almost impossible to live in a free market without inequalities and although Cato may think this is a fair system it is not for any one person or group to decide who deserves more quality of life than anyone else. Less government among other things means less accountability to the people and a bigger allowance to business to put welfare and lives behind making a profit to allow the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer and more exploited.		This again is another example here of privatisation of social issues that is wrong; when privatisation occurs things become about turning over profit instead of delivering a quality service to the human being who needs such services as health care. The Cato Institute do not pick on these fields and almost ignore the fact that business means profit so of course proper care may suffer if it is more ‘cost effective’ to skip corners. Members of the Cato Institute’s board of directors epitomise this point through the interdependence of corporations and think tanks like Cato. Their actions promote what are many features of globalisation: self-interest and widening profit margins, at the expense of ethical considerations. This can also be further highlighted with regards to Cato’s sceptic stance on climate change, when considering the views and research of its scholars such as Patrick J. Michaels. His research is funded by companies who benefit from publications which act as a smokescreen to dominant opinions on climate change; therefore Cato acts as a mouthpiece to those who fund them. It is almost impossible to live in a free market without inequalities and although Cato may think this is a fair system it is not for any one person or group to decide who deserves more quality of life than anyone else. Less government among other things means less accountability to the people and a bigger allowance to business to put welfare and lives behind making a profit to allow the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer and more exploited.

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:39, 17 November 2010
Line 112:		Line 112:


−	Cato is essentially a neoliberal think tank that believes in prosperity of big business and reduction of government but it is important to look through what these policies say to the actual reality that they would incur. Free market breeds pure competition and competition always has its winner as well as its losers and the way in which these places are decided can often be unfair and once these classes are set mobility, self discovery and education to better themselves becomes a question of how much money a person has rather one the ability of the individual. The ideology of this institute is apparent even in recent politics with the prospect of an introduction of welfare health care. The uproar which is seen by right wing think tanks like the Cato institute shows the undeniable with even the simplest form of human need. “Cato has been a long time advocate of deregulating the health care industry, so that consumers can afford the health care insurance and treatment of their choice” <ref> [http://www.cato.org/health-welfare-entitlements “Cato ; Health, Welfare and Entitlements”] Cited 15.11.10</ref> the reality here however is that not everyone has the opportunity to actually be a consumer and these ideologies completely disregard the population of America and out with America that cannot afford these basic human needs. As the graph given shows 2.5% of America’s wealth is owned by 50% of the population where the top 1% own 33.3% <ref> [http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4#half-of-america-has-25-of-the-wealth-2 "15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America ”15 Mind blowing facts about wealth and inequality in America”] Cited 13.11.10</ref> and Cato’s ideology see’s this figure get bigger and more global as when there is free trade among societies smaller societies have much less to bet than bigger players like America which begs the question where people are supposed to accumulate the ability to be “consumers”. [[Image:Graph for cato.JPG\|~~300px~~\|right\|thumb\|~~Graph~~]].	+	Cato is essentially a neoliberal think tank that believes in prosperity of big business and reduction of government but it is important to look through what these policies say to the actual reality that they would incur. Free market breeds pure competition and competition always has its winner as well as its losers and the way in which these places are decided can often be unfair and once these classes are set mobility, self discovery and education to better themselves becomes a question of how much money a person has rather one the ability of the individual. The ideology of this institute is apparent even in recent politics with the prospect of an introduction of welfare health care. The uproar which is seen by right wing think tanks like the Cato institute shows the undeniable with even the simplest form of human need. “Cato has been a long time advocate of deregulating the health care industry, so that consumers can afford the health care insurance and treatment of their choice” <ref> [http://www.cato.org/health-welfare-entitlements “Cato ; Health, Welfare and Entitlements”] Cited 15.11.10</ref> the reality here however is that not everyone has the opportunity to actually be a consumer and these ideologies completely disregard the population of America and out with America that cannot afford these basic human needs. As the graph given shows 2.5% of America’s wealth is owned by 50% of the population where the top 1% own 33.3% <ref> [http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4#half-of-america-has-25-of-the-wealth-2 "15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America ”15 Mind blowing facts about wealth and inequality in America”] Cited 13.11.10</ref> and Cato’s ideology see’s this figure get bigger and more global as when there is free trade among societies smaller societies have much less to bet than bigger players like America which begs the question where people are supposed to accumulate the ability to be “consumers”. [[Image:Graph for cato.JPG\|400px\|right\|thumb\|Pie Chart]].
	This again is another example here of privatisation of social issues that is wrong; when privatisation occurs things become about turning over profit instead of delivering a quality service to the human being who needs such services as health care. The Cato Institute do not pick on these fields and almost ignore the fact that business means profit so of course proper care may suffer if it is more ‘cost effective’ to skip corners. Members of the Cato Institute’s board of directors epitomise this point through the interdependence of corporations and think tanks like Cato. Their actions promote what are many features of globalisation: self-interest and widening profit margins, at the expense of ethical considerations. This can also be further highlighted with regards to Cato’s sceptic stance on climate change, when considering the views and research of its scholars such as Patrick J. Michaels. His research is funded by companies who benefit from publications which act as a smokescreen to dominant opinions on climate change; therefore Cato acts as a mouthpiece to those who fund them. It is almost impossible to live in a free market without inequalities and although Cato may think this is a fair system it is not for any one person or group to decide who deserves more quality of life than anyone else. Less government among other things means less accountability to the people and a bigger allowance to business to put welfare and lives behind making a profit to allow the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer and more exploited.		This again is another example here of privatisation of social issues that is wrong; when privatisation occurs things become about turning over profit instead of delivering a quality service to the human being who needs such services as health care. The Cato Institute do not pick on these fields and almost ignore the fact that business means profit so of course proper care may suffer if it is more ‘cost effective’ to skip corners. Members of the Cato Institute’s board of directors epitomise this point through the interdependence of corporations and think tanks like Cato. Their actions promote what are many features of globalisation: self-interest and widening profit margins, at the expense of ethical considerations. This can also be further highlighted with regards to Cato’s sceptic stance on climate change, when considering the views and research of its scholars such as Patrick J. Michaels. His research is funded by companies who benefit from publications which act as a smokescreen to dominant opinions on climate change; therefore Cato acts as a mouthpiece to those who fund them. It is almost impossible to live in a free market without inequalities and although Cato may think this is a fair system it is not for any one person or group to decide who deserves more quality of life than anyone else. Less government among other things means less accountability to the people and a bigger allowance to business to put welfare and lives behind making a profit to allow the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer and more exploited.

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:35, 17 November 2010
Line 112:		Line 112:


−	Cato is essentially a neoliberal think tank that believes in prosperity of big business and reduction of government but it is important to look through what these policies say to the actual reality that they would incur. Free market breeds pure competition and competition always has its winner as well as its losers and the way in which these places are decided can often be unfair and once these classes are set mobility, self discovery and education to better themselves becomes a question of how much money a person has rather one the ability of the individual. The ideology of this institute is apparent even in recent politics with the prospect of an introduction of welfare health care. The uproar which is seen by right wing think tanks like the Cato institute shows the undeniable with even the simplest form of human need. “Cato has been a long time advocate of deregulating the health care industry, so that consumers can afford the health care insurance and treatment of their choice” <ref> [http://www.cato.org/health-welfare-entitlements “Cato ; Health, Welfare and Entitlements”] Cited 15.11.10</ref> the reality here however is that not everyone has the opportunity to actually be a consumer and these ideologies completely disregard the population of America and out with America that cannot afford these basic human needs. As the graph given shows 2.5% of America’s wealth is owned by 50% of the population where the top 1% own 33.3% <ref> [http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4#half-of-america-has-25-of-the-wealth-2 "15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America ”15 Mind blowing facts about wealth and inequality in America”] Cited 13.11.10</ref> and Cato’s ideology see’s this figure get bigger and more global as when there is free trade among societies smaller societies have much less to bet than bigger players like America which begs the question where people are supposed to accumulate the ability to be “consumers”. This again is another example here of privatisation of social issues that is wrong; when privatisation occurs things become about turning over profit instead of delivering a quality service to the human being who needs such services as health care. The Cato Institute do not pick on these fields and almost ignore the fact that business means profit so of course proper care may suffer if it is more ‘cost effective’ to skip corners. Members of the Cato Institute’s board of directors epitomise this point through the interdependence of corporations and think tanks like Cato. Their actions promote what are many features of globalisation: self-interest and widening profit margins, at the expense of ethical considerations. This can also be further highlighted with regards to Cato’s sceptic stance on climate change, when considering the views and research of its scholars such as Patrick J. Michaels. His research is funded by companies who benefit from publications which act as a smokescreen to dominant opinions on climate change; therefore Cato acts as a mouthpiece to those who fund them. It is almost impossible to live in a free market without inequalities and although Cato may think this is a fair system it is not for any one person or group to decide who deserves more quality of life than anyone else. Less government among other things means less accountability to the people and a bigger allowance to business to put welfare and lives behind making a profit to allow the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer and more exploited~~. [[Image:Graph for cato.JPG\|300px\|right\|thumb\|Graph]]~~.	+	Cato is essentially a neoliberal think tank that believes in prosperity of big business and reduction of government but it is important to look through what these policies say to the actual reality that they would incur. Free market breeds pure competition and competition always has its winner as well as its losers and the way in which these places are decided can often be unfair and once these classes are set mobility, self discovery and education to better themselves becomes a question of how much money a person has rather one the ability of the individual. The ideology of this institute is apparent even in recent politics with the prospect of an introduction of welfare health care. The uproar which is seen by right wing think tanks like the Cato institute shows the undeniable with even the simplest form of human need. “Cato has been a long time advocate of deregulating the health care industry, so that consumers can afford the health care insurance and treatment of their choice” <ref> [http://www.cato.org/health-welfare-entitlements “Cato ; Health, Welfare and Entitlements”] Cited 15.11.10</ref> the reality here however is that not everyone has the opportunity to actually be a consumer and these ideologies completely disregard the population of America and out with America that cannot afford these basic human needs. As the graph given shows 2.5% of America’s wealth is owned by 50% of the population where the top 1% own 33.3% <ref> [http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4#half-of-america-has-25-of-the-wealth-2 "15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America ”15 Mind blowing facts about wealth and inequality in America”] Cited 13.11.10</ref> and Cato’s ideology see’s this figure get bigger and more global as when there is free trade among societies smaller societies have much less to bet than bigger players like America which begs the question where people are supposed to accumulate the ability to be “consumers”. [[Image:Graph for cato.JPG\|300px\|right\|thumb\|Graph]].
		+	This again is another example here of privatisation of social issues that is wrong; when privatisation occurs things become about turning over profit instead of delivering a quality service to the human being who needs such services as health care. The Cato Institute do not pick on these fields and almost ignore the fact that business means profit so of course proper care may suffer if it is more ‘cost effective’ to skip corners. Members of the Cato Institute’s board of directors epitomise this point through the interdependence of corporations and think tanks like Cato. Their actions promote what are many features of globalisation: self-interest and widening profit margins, at the expense of ethical considerations. This can also be further highlighted with regards to Cato’s sceptic stance on climate change, when considering the views and research of its scholars such as Patrick J. Michaels. His research is funded by companies who benefit from publications which act as a smokescreen to dominant opinions on climate change; therefore Cato acts as a mouthpiece to those who fund them. It is almost impossible to live in a free market without inequalities and although Cato may think this is a fair system it is not for any one person or group to decide who deserves more quality of life than anyone else. Less government among other things means less accountability to the people and a bigger allowance to business to put welfare and lives behind making a profit to allow the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer and more exploited.

	==Contacts==		==Contacts==

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:34, 17 November 2010
Line 112:		Line 112:


−	Cato is essentially a neoliberal think tank that believes in prosperity of big business and reduction of government but it is important to look through what these policies say to the actual reality that they would incur. Free market breeds pure competition and competition always has its winner as well as its losers and the way in which these places are decided can often be unfair and once these classes are set mobility, self discovery and education to better themselves becomes a question of how much money a person has rather one the ability of the individual. The ideology of this institute is apparent even in recent politics with the prospect of an introduction of welfare health care. The uproar which is seen by right wing think tanks like the Cato institute shows the undeniable with even the simplest form of human need. “Cato has been a long time advocate of deregulating the health care industry, so that consumers can afford the health care insurance and treatment of their choice” <ref> [http://www.cato.org/health-welfare-entitlements “Cato ; Health, Welfare and Entitlements”] Cited 15.11.10</ref> the reality here however is that not everyone has the opportunity to actually be a consumer and these ideologies completely disregard the population of America and out with America that cannot afford these basic human needs. As the graph given shows 2.5% of America’s wealth is owned by 50% of the population where the top 1% own 33.3% <ref> [http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4#half-of-america-has-25-of-the-wealth-2 "15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America ”15 Mind blowing facts about wealth and inequality in America”] Cited 13.11.10</ref> and Cato’s ideology see’s this figure get bigger and more global as when there is free trade among societies smaller societies have much less to bet than bigger players like America which begs the question where people are supposed to accumulate the ability to be “consumers”. This again is another example here of privatisation of social issues that is wrong; when privatisation occurs things become about turning over profit instead of delivering a quality service to the human being who needs such services as health care. The Cato Institute do not pick on these fields and almost ignore the fact that business means profit so of course proper care may suffer if it is more ‘cost effective’ to skip corners. Members of the Cato Institute’s board of directors epitomise this point through the interdependence of corporations and think tanks like Cato. Their actions promote what are many features of globalisation: self-interest and widening profit margins, at the expense of ethical considerations. This can also be further highlighted with regards to Cato’s sceptic stance on climate change, when considering the views and research of its scholars such as Patrick J. Michaels. His research is funded by companies who benefit from publications which act as a smokescreen to dominant opinions on climate change; therefore Cato acts as a mouthpiece to those who fund them. It is almost impossible to live in a free market without inequalities and although Cato may think this is a fair system it is not for any one person or group to decide who deserves more quality of life than anyone else. Less government among other things means less accountability to the people and a bigger allowance to business to put welfare and lives behind making a profit to allow the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer and more exploited.	+	Cato is essentially a neoliberal think tank that believes in prosperity of big business and reduction of government but it is important to look through what these policies say to the actual reality that they would incur. Free market breeds pure competition and competition always has its winner as well as its losers and the way in which these places are decided can often be unfair and once these classes are set mobility, self discovery and education to better themselves becomes a question of how much money a person has rather one the ability of the individual. The ideology of this institute is apparent even in recent politics with the prospect of an introduction of welfare health care. The uproar which is seen by right wing think tanks like the Cato institute shows the undeniable with even the simplest form of human need. “Cato has been a long time advocate of deregulating the health care industry, so that consumers can afford the health care insurance and treatment of their choice” <ref> [http://www.cato.org/health-welfare-entitlements “Cato ; Health, Welfare and Entitlements”] Cited 15.11.10</ref> the reality here however is that not everyone has the opportunity to actually be a consumer and these ideologies completely disregard the population of America and out with America that cannot afford these basic human needs. As the graph given shows 2.5% of America’s wealth is owned by 50% of the population where the top 1% own 33.3% <ref> [http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4#half-of-america-has-25-of-the-wealth-2 "15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America ”15 Mind blowing facts about wealth and inequality in America”] Cited 13.11.10</ref> and Cato’s ideology see’s this figure get bigger and more global as when there is free trade among societies smaller societies have much less to bet than bigger players like America which begs the question where people are supposed to accumulate the ability to be “consumers”. This again is another example here of privatisation of social issues that is wrong; when privatisation occurs things become about turning over profit instead of delivering a quality service to the human being who needs such services as health care. The Cato Institute do not pick on these fields and almost ignore the fact that business means profit so of course proper care may suffer if it is more ‘cost effective’ to skip corners. Members of the Cato Institute’s board of directors epitomise this point through the interdependence of corporations and think tanks like Cato. Their actions promote what are many features of globalisation: self-interest and widening profit margins, at the expense of ethical considerations. This can also be further highlighted with regards to Cato’s sceptic stance on climate change, when considering the views and research of its scholars such as Patrick J. Michaels. His research is funded by companies who benefit from publications which act as a smokescreen to dominant opinions on climate change; therefore Cato acts as a mouthpiece to those who fund them. It is almost impossible to live in a free market without inequalities and although Cato may think this is a fair system it is not for any one person or group to decide who deserves more quality of life than anyone else. Less government among other things means less accountability to the people and a bigger allowance to business to put welfare and lives behind making a profit to allow the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer and more exploited. [[Image:Graph for cato.JPG\|300px\|right\|thumb\|Graph]].

	==Contacts==		==Contacts==

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:09, 17 November 2010
Line 112:		Line 112:


−	Cato is essentially a neoliberal think tank that believes in prosperity of big business and reduction of government but it is important to look through what these policies say to the actual reality that they would incur. Free market breeds pure competition and competition always has its winner as well as its losers and the way in which these places are decided can often be unfair and once these classes are set mobility, self discovery and education to better themselves becomes a question of how much money a person has rather one the ability of the individual. The ideology of this institute is apparent even in recent politics with the prospect of an introduction of welfare health care. The uproar which is seen by right wing think tanks like the Cato institute shows the undeniable with even the simplest form of human need. “Cato has been a long time advocate of deregulating the health care industry, so that consumers can afford the health care insurance and treatment of their choice” <ref> [http://www.cato.org/health-welfare-entitlements “Cato ; Health, Welfare and Entitlements”] Cited 15.11.10</ref> the reality here however is that not everyone has the opportunity to actually be a consumer and these ideologies completely disregard the population of America and out with America that cannot afford these basic human needs. As the graph given shows 2.5% of America’s wealth is owned by 50% of the population where the top 1% own 33.3% <ref> [http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4#half-of-america-has-25-of-the-wealth-2 15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America ”15 Mind blowing facts about wealth and inequality in America”] Cited 13.11.10</ref> and Cato’s ideology see’s this figure get bigger and more global as when there is free trade among societies smaller societies have much less to bet than bigger players like America which begs the question where people are supposed to accumulate the ability to be “consumers”. This again is another example here of privatisation of social issues that is wrong; when privatisation occurs things become about turning over profit instead of delivering a quality service to the human being who needs such services as health care. The Cato Institute do not pick on these fields and almost ignore the fact that business means profit so of course proper care may suffer if it is more ‘cost effective’ to skip corners. Members of the Cato Institute’s board of directors epitomise this point through the interdependence of corporations and think tanks like Cato. Their actions promote what are many features of globalisation: self-interest and widening profit margins, at the expense of ethical considerations. This can also be further highlighted with regards to Cato’s sceptic stance on climate change, when considering the views and research of its scholars such as Patrick J. Michaels. His research is funded by companies who benefit from publications which act as a smokescreen to dominant opinions on climate change; therefore Cato acts as a mouthpiece to those who fund them. It is almost impossible to live in a free market without inequalities and although Cato may think this is a fair system it is not for any one person or group to decide who deserves more quality of life than anyone else. Less government among other things means less accountability to the people and a bigger allowance to business to put welfare and lives behind making a profit to allow the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer and more exploited.	+	Cato is essentially a neoliberal think tank that believes in prosperity of big business and reduction of government but it is important to look through what these policies say to the actual reality that they would incur. Free market breeds pure competition and competition always has its winner as well as its losers and the way in which these places are decided can often be unfair and once these classes are set mobility, self discovery and education to better themselves becomes a question of how much money a person has rather one the ability of the individual. The ideology of this institute is apparent even in recent politics with the prospect of an introduction of welfare health care. The uproar which is seen by right wing think tanks like the Cato institute shows the undeniable with even the simplest form of human need. “Cato has been a long time advocate of deregulating the health care industry, so that consumers can afford the health care insurance and treatment of their choice” <ref> [http://www.cato.org/health-welfare-entitlements “Cato ; Health, Welfare and Entitlements”] Cited 15.11.10</ref> the reality here however is that not everyone has the opportunity to actually be a consumer and these ideologies completely disregard the population of America and out with America that cannot afford these basic human needs. As the graph given shows 2.5% of America’s wealth is owned by 50% of the population where the top 1% own 33.3% <ref> [http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4#half-of-america-has-25-of-the-wealth-2 "15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America ”15 Mind blowing facts about wealth and inequality in America”] Cited 13.11.10</ref> and Cato’s ideology see’s this figure get bigger and more global as when there is free trade among societies smaller societies have much less to bet than bigger players like America which begs the question where people are supposed to accumulate the ability to be “consumers”. This again is another example here of privatisation of social issues that is wrong; when privatisation occurs things become about turning over profit instead of delivering a quality service to the human being who needs such services as health care. The Cato Institute do not pick on these fields and almost ignore the fact that business means profit so of course proper care may suffer if it is more ‘cost effective’ to skip corners. Members of the Cato Institute’s board of directors epitomise this point through the interdependence of corporations and think tanks like Cato. Their actions promote what are many features of globalisation: self-interest and widening profit margins, at the expense of ethical considerations. This can also be further highlighted with regards to Cato’s sceptic stance on climate change, when considering the views and research of its scholars such as Patrick J. Michaels. His research is funded by companies who benefit from publications which act as a smokescreen to dominant opinions on climate change; therefore Cato acts as a mouthpiece to those who fund them. It is almost impossible to live in a free market without inequalities and although Cato may think this is a fair system it is not for any one person or group to decide who deserves more quality of life than anyone else. Less government among other things means less accountability to the people and a bigger allowance to business to put welfare and lives behind making a profit to allow the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer and more exploited.

	==Contacts==		==Contacts==

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:08, 17 November 2010
Line 112:		Line 112:


−	Cato is essentially a neoliberal think tank that believes in prosperity of big business and reduction of government but it is important to look through what these policies say to the actual reality that they would incur. Free market breeds pure competition and competition always has its winner as well as its losers and the way in which these places are decided can often be unfair and once these classes are set mobility, self discovery and education to better themselves becomes a question of how much money a person has rather one the ability of the individual. The ideology of this institute is apparent even in recent politics with the prospect of an introduction of welfare health care. The uproar which is seen by right wing think tanks like the Cato institute shows the undeniable with even the simplest form of human need. This again is another example here of privatisation of social issues that is wrong; when privatisation occurs things become about turning over profit instead of delivering a quality service to the human being who needs such services as health care.The Cato Institute do not pick on these fields and almost ignore the fact that business means profit so of course proper care may suffer if it is more ‘cost effective’ to skip corners. Members of the Cato ~~Institute~~ board of directors epitomise this point through the interdependence of corporations and think tanks like Cato. Their actions promote what are many features of globalisation: self-interest and widening profit margins, at the expense of ethical considerations. This can also be further highlighted with regards to Cato’s sceptic stance on climate change, when considering the views and research of its scholars such as Patrick J. Michaels. His research is funded by companies who benefit from publications which act as a smokescreen to dominant opinions on climate change; therefore Cato acts as a mouthpiece to those who fund them. It is almost impossible to live in a free market without inequalities and although Cato may think this is a fair system it is not for any one person or group to decide who deserves more quality of life than anyone else. Less government among other things means less accountability to the people and a bigger allowance to business to put welfare and lives behind making a profit to allow the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer and more exploited.	+	Cato is essentially a neoliberal think tank that believes in prosperity of big business and reduction of government but it is important to look through what these policies say to the actual reality that they would incur. Free market breeds pure competition and competition always has its winner as well as its losers and the way in which these places are decided can often be unfair and once these classes are set mobility, self discovery and education to better themselves becomes a question of how much money a person has rather one the ability of the individual. The ideology of this institute is apparent even in recent politics with the prospect of an introduction of welfare health care. The uproar which is seen by right wing think tanks like the Cato institute shows the undeniable with even the simplest form of human need. “Cato has been a long time advocate of deregulating the health care industry, so that consumers can afford the health care insurance and treatment of their choice” <ref> [http://www.cato.org/health-welfare-entitlements “Cato ; Health, Welfare and Entitlements”] Cited 15.11.10</ref> the reality here however is that not everyone has the opportunity to actually be a consumer and these ideologies completely disregard the population of America and out with America that cannot afford these basic human needs. As the graph given shows 2.5% of America’s wealth is owned by 50% of the population where the top 1% own 33.3% <ref> [http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4#half-of-america-has-25-of-the-wealth-2 15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America ”15 Mind blowing facts about wealth and inequality in America”] Cited 13.11.10</ref> and Cato’s ideology see’s this figure get bigger and more global as when there is free trade among societies smaller societies have much less to bet than bigger players like America which begs the question where people are supposed to accumulate the ability to be “consumers”. This again is another example here of privatisation of social issues that is wrong; when privatisation occurs things become about turning over profit instead of delivering a quality service to the human being who needs such services as health care. The Cato Institute do not pick on these fields and almost ignore the fact that business means profit so of course proper care may suffer if it is more ‘cost effective’ to skip corners. Members of the Cato Institute’s board of directors epitomise this point through the interdependence of corporations and think tanks like Cato. Their actions promote what are many features of globalisation: self-interest and widening profit margins, at the expense of ethical considerations. This can also be further highlighted with regards to Cato’s sceptic stance on climate change, when considering the views and research of its scholars such as Patrick J. Michaels. His research is funded by companies who benefit from publications which act as a smokescreen to dominant opinions on climate change; therefore Cato acts as a mouthpiece to those who fund them. It is almost impossible to live in a free market without inequalities and although Cato may think this is a fair system it is not for any one person or group to decide who deserves more quality of life than anyone else. Less government among other things means less accountability to the people and a bigger allowance to business to put welfare and lives behind making a profit to allow the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer and more exploited.

	==Contacts==		==Contacts==

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:42, 17 November 2010
Line 112:		Line 112:


−	Cato is essentially a neoliberal think tank that believes in prosperity of big business and reduction of government but it is important to look through what these policies say to the actual reality that they would incur. Free market breeds pure competition and competition always has its winner as well as its losers and the way in which these places are decided can often be unfair and once these classes are set mobility, self discovery and education to better themselves becomes a question of how much money a person has rather one the ability of the individual. The ideology of this institute is apparent even in recent politics with the prospect of an introduction of welfare health care. The uproar which is seen by right wing think tanks like the Cato institute shows the undeniable with even the simplest form of human need. This again is another example here of privatisation of social issues that is wrong; when privatisation occurs things become about turning over profit instead of delivering a quality service to the human being who needs such services as health care.The Cato Institute do not pick on these fields and almost ignore the fact that business means profit so of course proper care may suffer if it is more ‘cost effective’ to skip corners. Members of the Cato ~~Institute’s~~ board of directors epitomise this point through the interdependence of corporations and think tanks like Cato. Their actions promote what are many features of globalisation: self-interest and widening profit margins, at the expense of ethical considerations. This can also be further highlighted with regards to Cato’s sceptic stance on climate change, when considering the views and research of its scholars such as Patrick J. Michaels. His research is funded by companies who benefit from publications which act as a smokescreen to dominant opinions on climate change; therefore Cato acts as a mouthpiece to those who fund them. It is almost impossible to live in a free market without inequalities and although Cato may think this is a fair system it is not for any one person or group to decide who deserves more quality of life than anyone else. Less government among other things means less accountability to the people and a bigger allowance to business to put welfare and lives behind making a profit to allow the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer and more exploited.	+	Cato is essentially a neoliberal think tank that believes in prosperity of big business and reduction of government but it is important to look through what these policies say to the actual reality that they would incur. Free market breeds pure competition and competition always has its winner as well as its losers and the way in which these places are decided can often be unfair and once these classes are set mobility, self discovery and education to better themselves becomes a question of how much money a person has rather one the ability of the individual. The ideology of this institute is apparent even in recent politics with the prospect of an introduction of welfare health care. The uproar which is seen by right wing think tanks like the Cato institute shows the undeniable with even the simplest form of human need. This again is another example here of privatisation of social issues that is wrong; when privatisation occurs things become about turning over profit instead of delivering a quality service to the human being who needs such services as health care.The Cato Institute do not pick on these fields and almost ignore the fact that business means profit so of course proper care may suffer if it is more ‘cost effective’ to skip corners. Members of the Cato Institute board of directors epitomise this point through the interdependence of corporations and think tanks like Cato. Their actions promote what are many features of globalisation: self-interest and widening profit margins, at the expense of ethical considerations. This can also be further highlighted with regards to Cato’s sceptic stance on climate change, when considering the views and research of its scholars such as Patrick J. Michaels. His research is funded by companies who benefit from publications which act as a smokescreen to dominant opinions on climate change; therefore Cato acts as a mouthpiece to those who fund them. It is almost impossible to live in a free market without inequalities and although Cato may think this is a fair system it is not for any one person or group to decide who deserves more quality of life than anyone else. Less government among other things means less accountability to the people and a bigger allowance to business to put welfare and lives behind making a profit to allow the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer and more exploited.

	==Contacts==		==Contacts==

@@ Line 107: / Line 107: @@
 When we look deeper into Michaels past corruption and deception becomes more apparent. In 2006 Michaels was found to be receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars of donations from [[Intermountain Rural Electric Association of Sedalia]] a power company dealing with thousands of customers in the Denver area<ref> Seth Borenstein, ‘Utilities Paying Global Warming Skeptic’ Washington Dateline, July 27, 2006 Thurs 6:39 PM GMT, accessed 19.10.10 </ref>. At this time a Colorado utility company also organised a donation of one hundred and fifty thousand dollars. Reasons given by the IREA’s general manager was that "we cannot allow the discussion to be monopolized by the alarmists,” The alarmists it would appear to be are those who are showing concern of the increasing temperature of the world and the affect it is having all over, like the melting ice caps and instinction of animals to name but two. This is also the same man who is less interested in affects on global warming and more keeping happy customers  by  keeping rates low<ref> Seth Borenstein, ‘Utilities Paying Global Warming Skeptic’ Washington Dateline, July 27, 2006 Thurs 6:39 PM GMT, accessed 19.10.10 </ref>
 This is just one example which will become one of many on this page but the effect of these financial deals from a falsely proclaimed non partisan group can have a damning affect on the greater picture and a countries opinion and attitude towards global warming.Patrick Michaels has the ability to reach a massive percentage of the population.
-In 2002 Patrick Michaels gave an interview where he spoke about the ‘myth’ that he believes to be global warming. Patrick Michaels has a lot of passion into attempting to encourage people to disbelieve in what global warming experts say about the problems that exist. This passion is shared by many in the industry who are able to benefit from less attention to global warming and less government regulation. Michaels is the chief editor of a newsletter funded by the [[Western Fuel Association]] called [[“World Climate Review”]] where he writes extensively on why global warming is such an insignificant problem for America. For this reporting for the association Michaels is paid an undisclosed amount and on top of this he has received another 63,000 for research which will only help corporations lobby for less regulation on their companies. Although these were originally confidential documents it has also came out that 20% of funding has been from other companies as well. For instance forty nine thousand pounds came from the German Coal Industry and a further fifty five thousand pounds combined from Cyprus Minerals Company and Edison Electric Company <ref> [ http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=4#src21]”Exxon Secrets – Patrick.J.Micheals factsheet” cited 15.11.10]</ref> to allow the research to be taken place which raises serious doubt as to how objective Michael’s can be trusted to be with so much money for his research.Thus meaning that his ideas, especially when portrayed as non partisan findings, give an impression that this is dependable information to the masses. As shown however there is far more to the Cato institute and to Patrick Michaels than a strive for truth.
+In 2002 Patrick Michaels gave an interview where he spoke about the ‘myth’ that he believes to be global warming. Patrick Michaels has a lot of passion into attempting to encourage people to disbelieve in what global warming experts say about the problems that exist. This passion is shared by many in the industry who are able to benefit from less attention to global warming and less government regulation. Michaels is the chief editor of a newsletter funded by the [[Western Fuel Association]] called [[“World Climate Review”]] where he writes extensively on why global warming is such an insignificant problem for America. For this reporting for the association Michaels is paid an undisclosed amount and on top of this he has received another 63,000 for research which will only help corporations lobby for less regulation on their companies. Although these were originally confidential documents it has also came out that 20% of funding has been from other companies as well. For instance forty nine thousand pounds came from the German Coal Industry and a further fifty five thousand pounds combined from Cyprus Minerals Company and Edison Electric Company <ref> [ http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=4#src21”Exxon Secrets – Patrick.J.Micheals factsheet”] cited 15.11.10]</ref> to allow the research to be taken place which raises serious doubt as to how objective Michael’s can be trusted to be with so much money for his research.Thus meaning that his ideas, especially when portrayed as non partisan findings, give an impression that this is dependable information to the masses. As shown however there is far more to the Cato institute and to Patrick Michaels than a strive for truth.
 ==Concluding Remarks==

@@ Line 84: / Line 84: @@
 On the website CATO puts across a very proud acceptance of funding from essentially anything bar the government. One can give to the CATO institute and become not just a supporter but "you become a part of Cato". This would mean that CATO is free to be a non partisan think tank which is entirely independent. Although this is given to be the case on the website it is not necessarily how it is perceived by others elsewhere.
-An important case is one of [[Doug Bandow]] who was a senior scholar at CATO and who was found to be taking money from Jack Abramoff for writing articles which would favour him. [[Jack Abramoff]] was a lobbyist for a top lawyer and lobbying firm in America and is currently in prison for committing fraud against 4 American tribes for millions of dollars. This incident which can be further probed is just one example of discrepancies within a company with such ‘pride’ in independence <ref>[http://uspolitics.about.com/b/2005/12/22/cato-columnist-linked-to-abramoff-resigns.htm "Abramoff resignation article"], access 13.10.10 </ref> .
+An important case is one of [[Doug Bandow]] who was a senior scholar at CATO and who was found to be taking money from Jack Abramoff for writing articles which would favour him. [[Jack Abramoff]] was a lobbyist for a top lawyer and lobbying firm in America and is currently in prison for committing fraud against 4 American tribes for millions of dollars. This incident which can be further probed is just one example of discrepancies within a company with such ‘pride’ in independence <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/17/politics/17abramoff.htm?_r=1 "Columnist Resigns His Post, Admitting Lobbyist Paid Him"], access 13.10.10 </ref> .
 ===David Koch Foundation===
@@ Line 100: / Line 100: @@
-Patrick J Michaels has received more than $115,000 from coal and energy companies, according to Ross Gelbspan (1995 Harpers Magazine author). Michaels is also reputed to have had payments of at least $100,000 from other coal interests, according to the Intermountain Rural Electric Association. Being a Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies with the Cato Institute and a Visiting Scientist with the George C. Marshall Institute, Michael also receives funding from Exxon Mobil and other oil companies. <ref>"[http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/patMichaels.html Patrick J. Michaels - Logical Science]", access 19.10.10 </ref>.  Michaels, being a senior fellow with the Cato Institute, also receives funding from the Cato Institute for his firm, New Hope Environmental Services, founded in 1994.<ref>"[http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/patMichaels.html Patrick J. Michaels - Logical Science]", access 19.10.10 </ref>. New Hope Environmental Services describes itself as a company that “produces cutting-edge research and informed commentary on the nature of climate.” <ref>"[http://www.nhes.com/ New Hope Environmental Services Inc.]", access 15.11.10 </ref> It produces a bi-weekly publication online, World Climate Report, written by research scientists and climatologists, and according to its website it is “the nation’s leading source of breaking news concerning the science and political science of global climate change.”<ref>"[http://www.nhes.com/ New Hope Environmental Services Inc.]", access 15.11.10 </ref>. According to the Cato Institute’s annual returns, since April 2006 they have paid $242,900 to New Hope Environmental Services, as well as possibly funding Michaels’ background research for his 2009 book “Climate of Extremes” (published by the Cato Institute).<ref>"[http://www.prwatch.org/node/8382 The Cato Institute's Generous Funding of Patrick Michaels]", access 08.11.10 </ref>
+Patrick J Michaels has received more than $115,000 from coal and energy companies, according to Ross Gelbspan (1995 Harpers Magazine author). Michaels is also reputed to have had payments of at least $100,000 from other coal interests, according to the Intermountain Rural Electric Association. Being a Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies with the Cato Institute and a Visiting Scientist with the George C. Marshall Institute, Michael also receives funding from Exxon Mobil and other oil companies. <ref>"[http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/patMichaels.html Patrick J. Michaels - Logical Science]", access 19.10.10 </ref>.  Michaels, being a senior fellow with the Cato Institute, also receives funding from the Cato Institute for his firm, New Hope Environmental Services, founded in 1994.<ref>"[http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/patMichaels.html Patrick J. Michaels - Logical Science]", access 19.10.10 </ref>. New Hope Environmental Services describes itself as a company that “produces cutting-edge research and informed commentary on the nature of climate.” <ref>"[http://www.nhes.com/ New Hope Environmental Services Inc.]", access 15.11.10 </ref> It produces a bi-weekly publication online, World Climate Report, written by research scientists and climatologists, and according to its website it is “the nation’s leading source of breaking news concerning the science and political science of global climate change.”<ref>"[http://www.nhes.com/ New Hope Environmental Services Inc.]", access 15.11.10 </ref>. According to the Cato Institute’s annual returns, since April 2006 they have paid $242,900 to New Hope Environmental Services, as well as possibly funding Michaels’ background research for his 2009 book “Climate of Extremes” (published by the Cato Institute).<ref>"[http://www.prwatch.org/node/8382 The Cato Institutes Generous Funding of Patrick Michaels]", access 08.11.10 </ref>