On Rhetoric, Civic life, Gender, and Cynicism

http://youtu.be/cE9MoqmJOkQ

I thought the content of my speech was the best aspect. My shift, I think, is something worth discussing and considering. My communication of this idea, however, was lacking some important qualities. I too frequently said, “Um.” I don’t say this when I’m thinking of what to say next, but instead I simply say it between ideas. Removing this from my regular speech is a work in progress, and I do think I made some improvements from my rhetorical artifact speech. I managed much better eye contact in this speech, which is particularly important as engagement is crucial in a TED talk (and staring at the wall for 6 minutes is not engaging). I tried to utilize more controversial visuals in order to assist the speech’s engagement, such as the last picture with the topless “nun” with profanity written across her chest and the absurd arguments on social media against Islam.

When I compare my speech to those I saw, I’m particularly critical of mine. Presentation was overall impressive. The content of all speeches, I think, was impressive as well. The observed TED talks all provided insightful and important consideration of paradigm shifts, from seemingly simple ideas of selfies to more complex norms of puritanism and liberalism. Visuals were also employed interestingly, which enhanced the “performance” aspect of the TED talks. My favorite particularly was the use of a swinging pendulum to compare the continual shifts to and from puritanism and liberalism. This visual was simple, but the ideas conveyed by the speaker were more complex and so she used this simplicity to better explain the idea.

It’s been a pretty exciting past two weeks for the Fed (or at least I think so)! A good amount has happened in Congress regarding Janet Yellen’s confirmation and in the stock market as a result of those occurrences, so let’s jump right in.

Janet Yellen’s confirmation hearings began last week. She hasn’t been asked too many ground-breaking questions yet (her knowledge of monetary policy and even macroeconomics as a whole is, I would predict, greater than the men and women in Congress, but there could still be some important questions asked). An obvious, yet important, question that Congress has inquired from Yellen is what her plans are for the current bond-buying program. Yellen’s response has been described as “dovish,” meaning she doesn’t plan on making any drastic changes to the current course of monetary policy. Essentially, bond-buying and low interest rates are here to stay for a while. Tappering is not going to happen quite yet. I’ve described the effects that this “great news” has on the economy before (I say “great news” because recall that it’s a reflection of a bad economy). Indeed, stock markets rose fantastically this week. The DOW passed a new record of 16,000 this past week for example (a new record in its 117-year history).

Confirmation hearings are always exciting if you find dull things exciting, but Yellen’s hearings have been pretty curious as congressmen really aren’t asking any tough questions, as I mentioned. Instead, they’ve been focusing on bond-buying. This is obviously a huge topic, but the conversation has centered on little else. What’s more curious is that those certain Republican congressman (of the Paul variation) who have been very critical of the Fed’s easy money policy haven’t really spoken up. One question and answer was, however, particularly interesting. Yellen was asked if the Fed’s program was creating an asset bubble (we’ve discussed this before), and she simply stated that it was not. Yellen noted the hefty increase in stock market prices, but she stated the Fed has been using price-to-equity ratios and equity risk premiums (fancy Fed stuff) to determine that stock prices are not “bubble-like conditions.” Of course, many economists and journalists have taken interest in that claim, declaring it false. I’ve discussed this before, but more can be read in a FOX Business article that certainly offers food for thought.

Although Yellen’s received little hard-ball questions in Congress, many off the Hill are indeed questioning her. Most criticism revolves around the bond-buying program itself though and the negative effects they predict it will eventually have. An article in Forbes makes a particularly interesting argument that printing money will decrease the value of the U.S. dollar (the article uses the increase price of equity/stock as an example of inflation . . . interesting indeed).

In the past two weeks, we’ve experienced exciting but relatively calm reactions to potential Fed policy. Stocks are up as a result of Yellen’s continued support for QE, which isn’t a surprise. Congress isn’t even engulfed in partisan debate over her confirmation. Indeed, it seems Yellen will easily be elected chairman, even without the few votes from the far righters who want to abolish the Fed (no one takes them seriously anyways).

Media has often been both a reflection and a facilitator of popular opinions and ideals. Media sources share an idea with a population because, of course, media is created by a fraction of that population. On the other hand, media can also make attempts to gain support for an idea. As social and commentary media, from Facebook to Fox News, are growing in population, these sources have naturally become perfect location for reflecting and facilitating ideas, particularly the changing perception of religion. There is currently a shift occurring from accepted religious conformity to an age of modernity that does not have a positive perception of religion, particularly the mainstream Abrahamic religions Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. With radical extremism existing in these religions, it’s easy to see where this new perception comes form, but it is not necessarily merited. Many fear that this shift in the perception of religion, the way people view their lives according to a greater existence, will degrade culture, while many others encourage it.

Social and political commentary often discusses this paradigm shift. In conservative media it is particularly common. Bill O’Reilly uses his evening television show The O’Reilly Factor to broadcast to millions of interested viewers the changing perception of Christianity. He often returns to the segment War on Christianity in which he declares that innocent Christians who simply want to maintained the holiday as spiritual are being persecuted because others want to make the holiday secular in fear that its celebration excludes non-Christians. O’Reilly has stated that Christians needs to “stand up and fight against this secular progressivism that wants to diminish the Christmas holiday” (Source 1).  In one episode of O’Reilly’s show, Mike Huckabee told O’Reilly, “The nature of most Christians is not to get into a fight and squabble,” so Christian reply cannot be expected (Source 1). Many others in the media, however, do not share this sentiment with Huckabee and instead believe religion is often militant and aggressive.

In the summer of 2013 on Meet the Press, political commentator and news reporter Rachel Maddow. Rachel Maddow attacked Ralph Reed, from the religiously conservative Faith and Freedom Coalition, for using religions doctrine to hinder advancements in the acceptance of homosexuality and same-sex marriage. To Maddow, Christianity is anti-productive. Her worldview includes extreme supports for progressive ideologies, and religion’s anti-modernity aspects prevent social progression. Maddow has not entirely denounced religion and suggested it must be abolished, but she and her like-minded viewers hold that religion and social progression cannot co-exist (Source 2).

The twenty-four hour news cycle and social media sites are newly popular, but the anti-religious sentiment expressed in these sources is also new. Religion, particularly Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, are now being perceived and represented negatively, as bad and unproductive. After all inclusion, which is an apparent characteristic of religion, does not allow for differing ideologies (Source 2).

The relationship between state and church has always been considered, but the clear separation of the two parties is relatively recent. Separation of church and state is an ideology often sited by Americans. Of course, the United States Constitution makes no mention of such a separation, but interpretations of the Constitution have established this rule, which ensures that statesmen cannot clearly use religious justifications in legislating and leading the country. The Supreme Court, which has established these interpretations, have cemented the separation by removing religious teachings in public schools. The Supreme Court cases Engel v. Vitale (1962) and Abington School District v. Schempp (1963) have made school-sponsored prayer and religions teachings unconstitutional.

The shift away from religious acceptance–that is, the popular acceptance of religion in everyday life–is not necessarily new. However, only recently have so many perceived religions negatively. Even as people become cautious about religion’s effect on their social progression, social and commentary media has been particularly useful for this shift. Other forms of media, such as fictional media, on the other hands, have not been used to exaggerate and reveal these changes so clearly and largely. Thomas Skill and James D. Robinson in studying the sociology of religion have realized that fictional media, most prominently television, shows religions leaders neither “as pillars of goodness or as cloaked villains,” as they often are in commentary and social media (Source 3). Instead, religions leaders are rarely portrayed, and when they are, they are “very often engage in nonreligious and frequently unlawful activities” and are infrequently caring and compassionate (Source 3).

Media clearly does not currently illustrate religion positively, but social and commentary media sources particularly exaggerate the sentiment into absolute negativity. This may be a result of the constant exposure and usage of these forms of media. Both social and commentary media are used widely for entertainment purposes, and so they are used or viewed more frequently because people so often expect to be entertained rather than to be productive.

The popular opinion of Abrahamic religions is often very different from reality. Minority sects of each religion, instead, define the religion as a whole. The Westboro Baptist Church has become infamous for its protest against the U.S. military and homosexuality. The organization is not actually militant, but its activity is certainly negative and unproductive. As for Islam, militant terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda, Al Shabaab, the Taliba, and Ansar Al Sharia are often viewed as popular Islam. Westerners understand the connection between violence and Islam as logical because of their experiences with the religion. Judaism, a religion that has itself always been and seemingly will always be persecuted, is perceived as aggressive. Zionists often represent the religion. Although support for the state of Israel is common, military force has to be used to maintain this nominally Jewish state in the dar al-Islam.

These violent actions are all products of minority sects of each religion. Most Christians are not aggressive and close-minded, most Muslims are not terrorists, and most Jews are not in a military to protect the Jewish state. However, these sects achieve so much recognition in the media. Not only is the content present enough to make it a commonplace in the twenty-four hour news cycle, but its interesting and controversial enough to get people excited as they go on Facebook or go to watch political commentary. This constant exposure to the violent sects of religion has almost infected the minds of the Western population (Source 4).

Abrahamic religions are still widely practiced and they used to essentially be both the religions and social doctrines of societies, so the ramifications of this change have to be considered. This change may in fact promote an atheist culture. More and more young people classify themselves as atheist or agnostic (Source 5). Some worry that a culture lacking religion will be immoral, as religion has for long been considered the determinant of morality. Conservatives and traditionalists respond to this by declaring the Western culture is indeed losing its morality, citing acceptance of abortion and homosexuality. Progressives and liberals respond by saying that there still can be morality. They may even go as to say that this allows for a modern-day morality that is more accepting and inclusion, citing the acceptance of abortion and homosexuality.

For the majority of human history, religion has provided guidance on how to live life. It has been thought that men and women do not murder or commit adultery, for example, because Abrahamic religions all discourage this activity. Unless these become moral and acceptable in the apparently progressive future, what will maintain their immorality? Tradition simply cannot, as tradition is a component of religious conservatism, antithetical to modernity. Western culture is divided between those are religious and those who view religion as bad, as is clearly seen in the opposing Bill O’Reilly and Rachel Maddow or both incredibly popular yet incredibly different.

At the current time, there is conflict between these people as they struggle to coexist with incredibly different worldviews. In the past, Christians were united in Christendom. Muslims were united in the dar al-Islam. Conflict was common as empires expanded, but these peoples did not violently fight over morality among one another because they had a singular sense of what was right and wrong. Today, there are these two differing groups that are being told in the media to hold strong on their convictions. Religious right-wingers might be in the minority, but their representation in media through forces such as Bill O’Reilly is incredibly strong, so the divide is unlikely to dissipate.

In order to grasp my audience’s attention and appeal to their emotions, I’m going to include a picture of a Westboro Baptist Church protestor, such as the “Pray for more dead soldiers” protestor, as a visual. This is a clear example of the aggressive and counter-productive religious activity that is occurring and that is believed by many to be a growing norm. This will provide obvious evidence of the militant Christianity, but it also acts as a rhetorical device since everyone has something to say about the controversial Westboro Baptist Church. This piece may work to begin my TED talk as it can introduce the paradigm shift. It answers the question which I will continue to consider, “Why is religion being viewed very differently?”

After introducing the paradigm shift, I think I will use this rhetorical question to transition into my discussion, which naturally includes what I think is the answer. After this explanation, I will continue by asking, “So religion is apparently really bad now, so what does that mean for our culture? How does it affect morality, since religion and morality are inseparable.” I will then, of course, follow with consideration.

By referencing popular “news” commentators such as Rachel Maddow and Bill O’Reilly (most people in the audience are likely to enjoy either one of the two) and infamous church organizations, I’m hoping to keep the audience’s attention relatively well. It’s also likely that audience members have experienced Facebook, Twitter, or Tumblr posts with bitter or sarcastic comments on religious activists. The TED talk should focus on how social media is the location of this paradigm shift primarily, and so it will differ from my essay that analyzes the shift as an ongoing occurrence and as something that has been developing for many decades but has only recently been exaggerated and accepted in social media. This, I think, is vital to the paper, but it would depart from TED talk expectations. History lessons are boring and can’t be translated into memes and one-liners.

An article in the Washington Post this week analyzed whether the Fed itself is creating asset bubbles through its massive bond-buying program. This topic is definitely something I want to discuss, especially since I’ve explained both asset bubbles and the Fed’s quantitate easing program in recent posts. The argument that the Fed’s bond-buying makes trouble for the world’s emerging economics, which the article analyzes, isn’t really new. Alan Greenspan discussed the idea in his memoir before the Fed even embarked on the program. However, the effect of massive money printing is something to consider seriously nonetheless.

Obviously many economists (and politicians) hold that bond-buying is damaging to the US economy, but some even argue that it damages the economies of countries like Brazil, South Africa,  Indonesia, Mexico, Turkey and other emerging economies. Because the Fed is constantly buying massive amounts of U.S. Treasuries and maintaining the low interest rates, investors are turning to emerging economies where they may achieve better rates of return at a much quicker rate (recall the time it takes for a Treasury bond to mature). This is great for these economies because their businesses need investments to expand, so the countries’ economies experience expansion. However, it is feared that when the Fed tappers its bond-buying, the amount of money moving into these economies will begin to decrease.

Jerome Powell, a Federal Reserve Board governor, has recently in a speech recognized that the Fed’s current policy is driving money into emerging economies but that it’s only one factor doing so. Powell says that there hasn’t historically been a clear correlation between interest rate differentials (the difference between the interest rates of the U.S. and of those of emerging economies) and capital outflow (American money moving into foreign economies). So if it isn’t low returns on U.S. Treasuries that’s causing American investors to put money in emerging market economies (EME), then what is?

One obvious cause could be real GDP growth rates (the rate at which an economy expands, adjusted to inflation). The graphs above show the correlation between real GDP growth and capital investment in EMEs. Investors want to put their money in an economy that is rapidly growing simply so they can achieve the quickest and highest possible rate of return on their investments. These emerging economies often have great levels of growth. For example, Indonesia’s economy in 2011 expanded at 6.23% (almost double America’s growth rate in the same year). Essentially, when a foreign economy expands rapidly, the rate at which investors move their American money into these foreign economies increases. When GDP growth slows, it declines incredibly (such as in late 2008).

Another possible explanation for this phenomenon is simply the risk of investment. When an economy is weak and investors are no longer confident in an economy, they pull out their “risky” investments in foreign countries. This could explain the decline in EME investment in 2008, which the graph on the right shows above, because of course we know that investor confidence declined during the financial crisis.

The Fed is currently maintaining these explanations. According to them, the Fed isn’t creating asset bubbles of cash flow into emerging economies that will burst when the U.S. economy picks up and it’s again beneficial to invest in the U.S. economy. Foreign economies are benefiting from the Fed’s policy clearly, but will this last? The Fed might think so, although many economists disagree. We know that so many factors contribute to economic phenomena, so I’m reluctant to believe this instance is any different. All of these arguments combined, I believe, have some contribution to the occurrence, so if the Fed tappers, we may see a decline in EME investments, but not entirely (there will always be, I predict, an economy that offers better investments).

I.         Introduction/Recognition of Shift

1. Discussion on religion in media is prominent

i.     Bill O’Reilly (The O’Reilly Factor) and his belief in war on Christianity on television

1. “War on Christmas” et cetera segments

ii.     Social justice warriors in social media (FaceBook and Tumblr)

1. Exaggerated view of separation of church and state
2. Shift in representation and perception of religion

i.     Particularly Abrahamic (Christianity, Islam, Judaism)

1. Religion is now considered:

i.     Militant occasionally

ii.     Hindering on productivity

1. Examples of negative perception

i.     Separation of church and state

1. Not in Constitution but in interpretation of Constitution
   1. Statesmen unable to clearly use religious justifications

ii.     Classrooms

1. Limitations
   1. Engel v. Vitale (1962)
   2. Abington School District v. Schempp (1963)
   3. Mention of religious doctrine must follow guidelines

i.     “Walking on egg shells”

iii.     Social media

1. From Tumblr to MSNBC
   1. Rachel Maddow
   2. Exaggerated perception
      1. Aggression against “Christian Right”

II.         Moments of Shift and History of Religious Representation

1. Christianity

i.     Even when actually militant, not considered violent

1. Crusades
2. Race(s) for empire
   1. In the name of “King and Country” “by the grace of God”
   2. Those who wrote history were Christian, probably factor but now…
3. Inclusion is rejected

i.     Other religions must have point of view considered

1. Status quo now recognizes religions as violent

i.     But monarchy/theocracy is not most popular form of government anymore

III.         Analysis

1. Minority sects are now representation

i.     Christianity

1. Westboro Baptist Church
   1. Not militant, but inappropriately present

ii.     Islam

1. (Islamist) Terrorist groups
   1. Al Qaeda, Al Shabaad, Talibam, Ansar Al Sharia, et cetera

i.     Actually militant

ii.     Perception is understood to be logical by Westerners

iii.     But these are still minority sects

iii.     Juadism

1. Zionists
   1. Pro-Israel is common but…
   2. To maintain “Jewish state” in dar al-Islam

i.     Must use military

IV.         Ramifications

1. Further promoting atheist culture

i.     And anti-religious culture

1. Religious the new persecuted group?
2. No morality without religion?

i.     Conservative/traditionalist approach

1. No morality

ii.     Progressive/revisionist approach

1. Yes, still morality
2. But both groups contribute to shift themselves

People, at one time, dedicated their lives to their god, and it wasn’t commonplace to be afraid to admit it. Nowadays, we see attacks on religion all over the media, as Rachel Maddow on MSNBC and social justice warriors on social media sites such as Tumblr and Facebook chastise the “religious right.” We are experiencing a shift from accepted religious conformity to an age of modernity that does have a positive perception of religion, particularly the mainstream Abrahamic religions Christianity, Islam, and Judiasm. With radical extremism existing in these religions, it’s easy to see where this new perception comes form, but it’s not necessarily merited. Many fear that this shift in our perception of religion, the way people view their lives according to a greater existence, will degrade our culture, while many others encourage it.

The Fed hasn’t really done anything too exciting this week. I know what you’re thinking: “Does the Fed ever do anything exciting?” Possibly not. But it certainly does important things. But it hasn’t really done anything uniquely important this week either. Janet Yellen hasn’t yet had the privilege to experience a nomination hearing (trial?), but there has been a good amount of discussion about the Fed and its role since her nomination. In one particular article in The New York Times that explains what the Fed does and, according to the author, can do, the author mentions how President Obama wants a Fed chairman who can predict and prevent asset bubbles, such as the housing bubble that caused the 2008 financial crisis. This had me wondering, What mechanisms exist in our pseudo-capitalist economy to prevent these economic disasters? Is it the Fed? 

The Federal Reserve banking system was established by the Federal Reserve Act in late 1913. The act established the physical features of the system, including the regional banks and its leading officials. The act defined one of the central bank’s role as a fiscal agent for the United States government. Amendments after its creation have expanded its role, particularly in response to negative public sentiment toward the banking system during the Great Depression. Despite many amendments (I believe it’s something like 200 laws of Congress), the Fed’s role is still often vague. Congress demands in both rhetoric and written law that the Fed should do things like “promote economic growth” and “discourage price instability,” but this is incredibly vague indeed, so the Fed is left to specific decisions. Economic bubbles obviously neither promote economic growth nor discourage price instability.

Asset bubbles occur when an asset (such as the price of housing in the past decade or the price of internet company stock in the 1990s and early 2000s) is given value that cannot be logically and financially justified. Essentially, the asset is overvalued, and this value cannot be maintained and supported monetarily after so long. In the build-up of these bubbles, an economy experiences fantastic economic growth, so no one really likes to discourage the activities. However eventually, the bubble bursts and the economy plunges into recession. Sometimes it’s not terribly long and harsh, as in 2001, but sometimes it is terribly long and harsh, as in the “Great Recession.” So, should the Fed intervene to prevent asset bubbles? Can it intervene?

Alan Greenspan, the chairman during the creation of both the dot com and the housing bubblings, warned about overvalued internet stock prices in the 1990s. He warned everyone and even hiked up interest rates a little (as in, a few tenths of a percentage point), but that’s about it. As for the housing bubble, the Fed totally missed that one. Janet Yellen, over in the San Francisco Fed, did predict a worrisome housing bubble, so that’s a point in her favor indeed. The thing about economic forecasting, however, is that for every one person with empirical evidence suggesting economic prosperity in the future, there’s one other person with empirical evidence suggesting economic downturn (just pick up  copies of any two newspapers the day before a jobs report is released).

In retrospect, it seems so obvious that asset bubbles were being inflated, but it’s not so obvious as it’s occuring. If Yellen has some infallible econometric (that’s basically math and economics combined in a scary and often unreliable manner) model that can recognize housing bubbles, then that’s great, but I doubt she does (especially considering the guys who got this year’s Nobel Price in economics researched predicting stock prices in the long term, which isn’t really a new curiosity). Of course, the President and I want someone who can predict and prevent bubbles, but I’m afraid that’s a lot easier said than done, and it’s no good putting unrealistic pressure on a central banker (they’re stressed enough as it is!).

I’m still considering paradigm shifts we’ve experienced in contemporary times, but I’ve so far thought of the following which are possible options for my essay and corresponding speech:

1) Assumptions on being “green” – I don’t consider my self an environmentalist. I certainly support improving the way humans treat the planet, but it’s not really my area of expertise and I’d hardly call myself an advocate. However, I still recycle, turn the lights out when I leave the room, turn the sink off while I’m brushing my teeth, et cetera. I do all these things without knowing specifically the benefits. It’s been engraved in my mind, as well as the minds of most in our Western society, to assume these activities are necessary and good. Of course, they probably are beneficial, but most of us don’t follow the research and statistics to prove it; we just go along with it subconsciously. How did we get to this point? Only a few years ago, environmental advocacy existed but when did their efforts become so effective that they indoctrinated the minds of millions to do certain tasks in certain manners? When and why did people stop recycling because they knew the benefits and start doing it simply because it was routine?

2) Demand to enjoy “work” – A hundred years ago, the majority of workers in the the Western world worked in factories, slaving away in a cramped environment making some product they couldn’t afford with their small paychecks. A few decades ago, most of Americans used their high school diplomas to do jobs that weren’t too different. Now, most people don’t accept having a 9 to 5 job that simply gets them a paycheck. People want to do something they enjoy, and they pursue that desire valiantly. People are still willing to accept what may seem to be unfair wages, but they’ll do so as long as they’re doing something their passionate about. This shift in priorities has resulted form the emergence of the West as a service-based economy. The economies of most Western countries no longer rely on manufacturing, and instead, service output is dominant, so people are now free to leave the factories to pursue their desires. But has this changed the normal and accepted set of priorities inappropriately, or has it allowed people enjoyable lives?

Andrew McAfee: What will future jobs look like?

I don’t like McAfee’s Ted Talk because I like everything he says in it, but instead I enjoy it because his presentation is absolutely admirable. Some of his claims are very bold and may indeed be falsifiable, but he makes these claims as if they were fact, as if he, his research, and his reasoning were infallible. He manages to inject humor into his speech, and what is particularly impressive is that his jokes are funny to everyone, not only to those in the audience who agree with some of his claims or who finds comfort in them. Not only does humor maintain the audience’s attention, but it also provides an occasional break from the topic, which shift from dismal to optimistic but remains relatively controversial. This is a great quality I’d like to master in my speech so that I can establish and maintain the audience’s interest and approval throughout.

It took a littler longer than usual for the Bureau of Labor Statistics to publish its monthly jobs report since it was shutdown during the infamous government shutdown. The jobs report for September, once it was finally released on Tuesday, was disappointing for the most part. The unemployment rate feel to 7.2%, but only about 148,000 jobs were added to the economy (keep in mind that it requires around 250,000 new jobs a month to keep up with the increasing population and labor force). This wasn’t exactly unexpected, but it is still nonetheless disappointing because it further reveals sluggish economic growth. If you were watching the stock market Tuesday, you may not have known the jobs report was so depressing. Both the S&P 500 and the Dow Jones increased .57% and .49% respectively. Why did the stock market do so well despite dismal news on economic output? I’ll give you a hint: it has to do with the Fed. So then, how will the Fed’s policy change according to this news? I’ll give you another hint, it won’t.

To Wall Street investors, a poor jobs report may have been beneficial because it hinted the Fed will continue its bond-buying program. I’ve explained before how this is beneficial for investment and economic output, but I’ve decided to quickly expand on that today with one of the simplest economic graphs: the money market graph. Below is a basic money market graph that shows the quantity of money in circulation in an economy (the x-axis). The diagonal line within the graph represents the demand for money. The straight vertical lines are the amount of money supplied in the economy. In the U.S. economy, this number is largely controlled by the Federal Reserve. This graph expresses exactly what occurs each month under the Fed’s bond-buying program. The Fed dumbs money into the economy ($85 million monthly), increasing the amount of money supplied (Sm). Increasing the money supplied shifts the diagonal line rightward to Sm2. Immediately after this occurs, the demand for money has not changed, so the intersection between the amount supplied and demanded can be seen as E1 (before bond buying) and E2 (after bond buying).

As we move from E1 to E2, the price, or the cost of borrowing money (the interest rates) decreases. This is exactly why investors love the Fed’s bond-buying program. Because the amount of money supplied is increasing at a constant rate, the interest rates are being held low (demand would increase eventually, but the supply continues to be shifted rightward). This makes it cheap for investors to borrow money and put it into the stock market or, as the Fed hopes, into new business and enterprise to stimulate growth.

So long as the economy is sluggish, the Fed will continue on with its massive bond-buying program and interest rates will be low. This is largely why the stock market did so well on Tuesday despite the poor jobs report. Investors feel assured that the Fed will continue the bond-buying program and interest rates will continue to be low, and so the stock market expressed this optimism. It certainly seems odd that optimism can generate from dismal news, but indeed this is what we experienced. Pessimism is revived when we consider that so few are actually borrowing money to invest in new business and enterprise that would create jobs and expand the economy. Investments in the stock market give businesses more money to potentially do so, but they simply aren’t now, so the news is dismal yet again.

Political division over certain issues is not new to this decade, and political parties’ use of ads and posters in attempts to convince a target audience to support one side of the division is hardly new either. In the digital age however, it has become easier and more common for political parties and organizations to use post ads on social media sites. The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank and political action committee uses its Facebook page to post ads to draw support for certain topics and to convince against other topics. The Heritage Foundation created a five-day campaign to convince Americans that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare, is essentially bad. In one ad, the Heritage Foundation employs successful rhetorical devices to convince the audience that Obamacare should be abolished relatively well.

The audience of this ad is relatively limited because only those who follow the organization’s social media sites. The audience is extended beyond this relatively small group as members in that group share it on their on social media sites by sharing on Facebook, retweeting on Twitter, et cetera. This method expands the audience to those who might not initially agree with the campaign’s premise, like those who first saw it probably do.

The audience acts, to an extent, as a constraint. Although the ad will be shared to a larger audience, the initial population viewing it will likely be American conservatives who support and therefore follow the Heritage Foundation. The beliefs held by the rest of Americans may also act as a constraint. Many might view the piece and immediately reject it as conservative propaganda, as the political climate in America is arguably more hostile than normal.

Indeed, the subject may either be immediately supported or rejected by the audience. The subject is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which itself is considered controversial. The creator of this ad, however, uses this controversy to further the case against it.

Despite possible polarizing initial reactions, the methods the poster employs to reach its destination are used successfully. The creator of this ad seemingly attempted to include as much text as possible. The main text is bold and centered to the left of the poster and asks, “How will they budget diapers and formula, with higher premiums?” This text, along with the picture of a couple holding their child, creates a situation where two parents are apparently unable to afford the basic necessities for their child.

The poster expands this situation by explaining with an accusation, “Because of Obamacare, premiums in the individual market are skyrocketing and young families are forced to buy more costly health plans.” The ad aims to create a situation to which the reader will be sympathetic. The rhetorical question centered on the ad is an obvious appeal to pathos. Most people will immediately find themselves sympathetic toward the fabricated family and their situation.

Invoking a negative emotion in the audience is indeed a successful device. When individuals feel that there is injustice, such as a child suffering from lack of necessities, they are often more likely to act on their sympathetic feelings. If this were a charity, a viewer may make a donation. This ad, however, wants to viewer to join a larger campaign, however, and the viewer may be closer to doing so after considering the apparent effects of Obamacare on families and vulnerable children.

The truth to the text is not necessarily vital to its success. The ad can nonetheless gain support, as oftentimes emotions are weighed heavier than logic. Moreover, individuals may not even have access to the truth, as political candidates and campaigns themselves fabricate their own truths.

The ad continues with its appeals with an important appeal to logos. In the text in the lower half of the ad, the ad attempts to expand the situation and to provide logical reasoning, more clearly linking the child’s dismal situation to Obamacare. It declares the act has caused an increase in health care premiums, which leaves families such as the one in the poster with less money to spend on necessities. This logical reasoning, whether true or not, may be enough to convince the audience. Viewers are even more likely to support this ad’s campaign and sentiments is they can be convinced the argument is logical. The logical appeal this poster employs may be enough for a viewer.

Of course, it did not occur by chance that the Heritage Foundation decided to use a small family on its ad. The use of a young family is an obvious commonplace, employed in attempts to gain support from a wide range of people. Young families who are realizing the financial struggles of family may themselves empathize with the poster’s family. American society venerates the family unit, so of course even those who do not have such a family may be convinced into supporting the cause.

All the elements of the poster accumulate to make a relatively complex poster, as opposed to a simple one with a simple hortative phrase. The poster includes a picture behind two sets of text to make a statement and then further explain it.  The poster does not simply say, “End Obamacare,” but instead it makes no attempt at simplicity. It recognizes the complexity of the situation: that a piece of legislation cannot simply be abolished without public support.  This realization is crucial for the piece to be effective. A layman would not further consider the poster’s meaning after a first glace if the poster only included a typical American conservative babble.

The poster, however, does not fully recognize all aspects of the context in which it was published, and this may seriously impede its successfulness. America is currently politically divided far more than in recent history. Even among the opposing Democrats and Republicans, there is further division, as conservative Republicans battle libertarian Republicans for power in the GOP. This political division in a seemingly far-away capital has resulted in a negative response from the American public. Americans are often finding themselves rolling their eyes whenever a politician blames another party for a fault or when a ridiculously partisan bill is pushed through one of the houses in Congress. This ad may indeed further agitate this pessimistic sentiment, by further adding to the Republican rhetoric against the liberal law.

The ad is, in many ways, effective. It can easily stir up emotions in the viewer through its creation of a family hurt by the government’s apparent wrongdoings, but this success is limited by the status quo’s conditions. Were the ad viewed during a time of less hostile political climate, the ad could be entirely effective in persuasion. However, this is not the case, and so the poster only ads the negativity of the political climate by attempting to draw more Americans to one side of a debate.

The ad is, in many ways, effective. It can easily stir up emotions in the viewer through its creation of a family hurt by the government’s apparent wrongdoings, but this success is limited by the status quo’s conditions. Were the ad viewed during a time of less hostile political climate, the ad could be entirely effective in persuasion. However, this is not the case, and so the poster only ads the negativity of the political climate by attempting to draw more Americans to one side of a debate.

With President Obama blaming House Republicans or his predecessor and House Republicans blaming President Obama for much of the country’s political issues, enough has been added to the political rhetoric to wedge parties against one another. The intention of this ad is, after all, to further widen that gap by gaining more followers for its cause. This ad can therefore even be considered irresponsible. It seems no significant force is trying to better the political climate. The Heritage Foundation certainly has significant political capital, as it has countless followers and as it contributes to significant research such as its annual listing of countries by their economic freedom factor. The Heritage Foundation could use their political capital to better the status quo, but instead, it worsens it.