Summary of The importance of being Earnest Essay Example For Students

Summary of The importance of being Earnest Essay While Algernon Moncrieff and his manservant prepared for a visit froi-n his aunt, the formidable Lady Bracknell, their conversation turned to the question of marriage. Observing the servants somewhat lax views on the subject, Algernon declared, Really, if the lower orders dont set us a good example, what on earth is the use of them? This chat was interrupted by the unexpected arrival of Algernons friend, Ernest Worthing Worthing was pleased to hear that Lady Bracknell and her beautiful daughter Gwendolen would be appearing for tea. But Algernon warned, I am afraid Aunt Augusta wont quite approve of your bein here. Mildly insulted, Ernest demanded to know why. My dear fellow, Algernon answered, the way you flirt with Gwendolen is perfectly disgraceful. We will write a custom essay on Summary of The importance of being Earnest specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now It is almost as bad as the way Gwendolen flirts with you. At this point Worthing announced that he intended to propose marriage to Gwendolen, but was taken aback by Algernons response: I dont give my consent. Worthing, would first have to explain a certain Cecily in his life. As evidence of this relationship, he produced a cigarette case left behind by Worthing on an earlier visit devotedly inscribed from Cecily to her loving Uncle Jack. Well, admitted Worthing, my name is Ernest in town and Jack in the country. It happened, he said, that Cecily was his ward, who lived in his country home under the watchful eyes of a stern governess, Miss Prism. But to escape the stuffy constraints of country living, Jack had invented an alter ego: . . . In order to get up to town I have always pretended to have a younger brother of the name of Ernest, who lives in Albany, and gets into the most dreadful scrapes. Thus, Jack was often called away to the city to rescue irrepressible Ernest. Smiling, Algernon now confessed that he too was a Bunburyist, a friend of the equally fictitious Bunbury, a permanent invalid, whom he visited whenever he chose to get away. When Lady Bracknell and Gwendolen arrived, Algernon took his aunt aside, leaving Ernest and Gwendolen alone. Miss Fairfax, Worthing stammered, ever since I met you I have admired you more than any girl I have ever met since I met you. Gwendolen admitted to returning these warm feelings, in part because my ideal has always been to love someone of the name of Ernest. Would she still love him, asked Jack, if his name were, say, Jack? There is very little music in the name Jack, observed Gweildolen. Before more could be said, Jack knelt and asked her to marry him. At that moment Lady Bracknell entered, and the couple announced their engagement. Highly displeased, Lady Bracknell requested a private conference with Mr. Worthing, in which she asked about his income, his politics, and, finally, his parentage. I dont actually know who I am by birth, lack explained; as a baby he had been found in a handbag in the coalroom of the train station. Lady Bracknell was shocked. Neither she nor her husband, she huffed, could allow Gwendolen to marry into a cloak-room, and form an alliance with a parcel. Now Jack considered his predicament. At least, he decided, he could deal with the complication of Ernest. His imaginary brother must soon dic of a severe chill. Deep in these new intrigues, he left. Meanwhile, Algernon, his curiosity piqued by jacks mysterious young ward, decided he must meet this Cecily. At the Manor in Hertfordshire, Miss Prism and Cecily were talking in the garden. Cecily expressed the hope that Jack would soon allow his reprobate brother Ernest to visit: We might have a good influence over him. .u7afa5ab782fb6422803dd315b7ec8e0a , .u7afa5ab782fb6422803dd315b7ec8e0a .postImageUrl , .u7afa5ab782fb6422803dd315b7ec8e0a .centered-text-area { min-height: 80px; position: relative; } .u7afa5ab782fb6422803dd315b7ec8e0a , .u7afa5ab782fb6422803dd315b7ec8e0a:hover , .u7afa5ab782fb6422803dd315b7ec8e0a:visited , .u7afa5ab782fb6422803dd315b7ec8e0a:active { border:0!important; } .u7afa5ab782fb6422803dd315b7ec8e0a .clearfix:after { content: ""; display: table; clear: both; } .u7afa5ab782fb6422803dd315b7ec8e0a { display: block; transition: background-color 250ms; webkit-transition: background-color 250ms; width: 100%; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #95A5A6; } .u7afa5ab782fb6422803dd315b7ec8e0a:active , .u7afa5ab782fb6422803dd315b7ec8e0a:hover { opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #2C3E50; } .u7afa5ab782fb6422803dd315b7ec8e0a .centered-text-area { width: 100%; position: relative ; } .u7afa5ab782fb6422803dd315b7ec8e0a .ctaText { border-bottom: 0 solid #fff; color: #2980B9; font-size: 16px; font-weight: bold; margin: 0; padding: 0; text-decoration: underline; } .u7afa5ab782fb6422803dd315b7ec8e0a .postTitle { color: #FFFFFF; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 600; margin: 0; padding: 0; width: 100%; } .u7afa5ab782fb6422803dd315b7ec8e0a .ctaButton { background-color: #7F8C8D!important; color: #2980B9; border: none; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: none; font-size: 14px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 26px; moz-border-radius: 3px; text-align: center; text-decoration: none; text-shadow: none; width: 80px; min-height: 80px; background: url(https://artscolumbia.org/wp-content/plugins/intelly-related-posts/assets/images/simple-arrow.png)no-repeat; position: absolute; right: 0; top: 0; } .u7afa5ab782fb6422803dd315b7ec8e0a:hover .ctaButton { background-color: #34495E!important; } .u7afa5ab782fb6422803dd315b7ec8e0a .centered-text { display: table; height: 80px; padding-left : 18px; top: 0; } .u7afa5ab782fb6422803dd315b7ec8e0a .u7afa5ab782fb6422803dd315b7ec8e0a-content { display: table-cell; margin: 0; padding: 0; padding-right: 108px; position: relative; vertical-align: middle; width: 100%; } .u7afa5ab782fb6422803dd315b7ec8e0a:after { content: ""; display: block; clear: both; } READ: Procrastination Essay Miss Prism discouraged this idea, but just a few moments after she had left for a stroll with her own admirer, Dr. Chasuble, the local minister, the butler announced the arrival of Mr. Ernest Worthing, and in walked Algernon Moncrieff, posing as Jacks deliciously wicked and non-existent brother. After some chit-chat and over a bite to eat, Ernest (Algy) implored his cousin to reform him. Soon Miss Prism and the Reverend returned, just in time to be greeted by Jack Worthing, .

Using the theory of fiscal federalism Essay Example

Using the theory of fiscal federalism Essay Example Using the theory of fiscal federalism Essay Using the theory of fiscal federalism Essay Essay Topic: Economics There is much economic literature and debate concerning the classic trade-off between a centralized versus decentralized system of local public good provision. The standard problem goes as follows. Most economies around the world are made up of geographically discrete areas. An obvious example is America, which is composed of distinct states, which are often even completely geographically isolated from the whole (Alaska, Hawaii). Each local area has a local public good, the provision of which benefits the local society. However, public goods often have a spillover effect to other districts, in which case, there are benefits accruing to wider society. The subsequent question is that given the existence of benefits to both local and general society, is it more efficient to have a centralized or decentralized system of decision-making and/or financing? The standard approach to the problem of public good provision assumes that in a centralized system, the government will adopt a standardized level of spending for each area. This is in essence a one size fits all result that doesnt show an appreciation of different local requirements. However, while a decentralized system will be able to respond to heterogeneous local needs, local governments will neglect the wider benefits, which accrue citizens and areas beyond their jurisdiction. Drawing on these assumptions, Oates Decentralization Theorem states that in the absence of spillovers a decentralized system is more efficient. Otherwise, Oates claims there will be a trade-off between the extent of heterogeneity in tastes and the degree of spillovers. 1 However, the argument for a decentralized system relies on the assumption that only a decentralized system will cater for local preferences. In fact, while decentralization may be more effective at tailoring public goods to local requirements, a centralized system in no way implies uniformity of provision across districts. This logic is neither theoretically, or indeed empirically satisfactory. From a theoretical standpoint it is unclear, Besley and Coates question why it must be the case that a government charged with providing public goods in a centralized system cannot differentiate the levels according to the heterogeneous tastes in each district. 3 An empirical example of centralized differentiation of public good provision is that of federal highway spending in the United States. In the Federal Highway Aid Program a significant proportion of resources have been dedicated to specific projects in the legislators districts. Furthermore, Besley and Coates argue that the general spending formula has been manipulated to target spending to particular favored states. 4 Therefore, I believe that Oates Decentralization Theorem is flawed. A decentralized system may well be preferred as a more efficient arrangement to tailor goods to local needs, but this is not a clear-cut argument, and hence it is difficult and controversial to argue for decentralization solely on this basis. In fact, given that the standard approach is based on a trade-off between non-uniformity (decentralized output) versus spillovers (centralized output), once the constraint that central governments always choose uniform levels of public spending across districts is relaxed, the standard approach suggests that a centralized system will always be preferred. However there is a different case for a decentralized system of provision of local goods, which is based on the theory of fiscal federalism. The argument in this case goes as follows. In a centralized system, local public spending costs are shared creating a conflict of interest between citizens in different areas. When spending decisions are taken by a legislature of locally elected representatives, the conflict of interest for resources will take place in the legislature. Thus, Besley and Coates argue, the drawbacks of centralization stem from the basic conflict of interest among citizens of different districts working through the decision-making process. 5 Spending decisions in the legislator will be determined by a minimum winning coalition of representative, which can creates two major resource allocation problems. Firstly, there will be a misallocation of resources as spending will be skewed towards those areas who have representatives in the winning coalition. Secondly, uncertainty about the makeup of the winning coalition will mean districts are unsure of the amount of public good it will receive. Even if the legislature is committed to maximising the surplus of all its members, this would not necessarily be sufficient to achieve surplus maximizing results, as there would be an incentive for voters to elect representatives which high demand for public spending, and hence lead to overprovision. Hence, Besley and Coates say that: if decisions on local public goods are made by a minimum winning coalition of representatives, the allocation of public goods may be characterized by uncertainty and misallocation across districts. If decisions are made in a more cooperative way, then strategic delegation via elections may produce excessive public spending. 6 The drawbacks of a centralized system stemming from conflicting interests over shared costs might suggest a completely decentralized system whereby decisions are made solely by local government and financed from local taxation. However, as with the standard approach, the drawbacks of the centralized system must be weighed against the benefits of improved coordination of spillovers. If interests are fairly homogenous and spillovers high then a centralized system will produce good results regardless of how the legislature is constituted. This leads Besley and Coates to conclude that, the desiderata determining whether decentralization of centralization is best are the same as under the standard approach. However, the logic is different. 7 So how does this argument relate to the empirical example of the European Union? Unions such as the EU are collectives of nations that jointly decide on the provision of certain supranational goods (such as traditional public goods like defence or legal and regulatory frameworks), which will affect and benefit all members. In a multi country union, some competences are taken away from national control and decided instead at union level. The process of European integration has become far-reaching and quickened in pace. However, Gordon Brown says that the EU must abandon old flawed assumptions that a single market should lead inexorably to fiscal federalism. 8 What is the case for keeping decentralized provision of local public goods or for greater integration in the form of a centralized system of public good provision? The case of centralized system of provision of local public goods rests fundamentally on the trade-off between the internalisation of externalities and the costs of heterogeneity. On the one hand, even when looking at the difficulties that accompany reaching compromises and solutions at EU summits, there is little debate that median preferences in EU member states vary considerably. The efficient level of output of a public good will typically vary from one local jurisdiction to another. Furthermore, there is a worry that coordination of fiscal measures will result in an increase in tax rates in all jurisdictions. However, if the union centralizes to little, it runs the risk of not benefit from externalities, which were a key motivation in the creation of a union and the purpose of attending summits. Two main areas of externality proposed in the fiscal federalism literature are firstly equalisation of welfare across countries, especially targeted at poor relief. And secondly at macroeconomic stabilization. In the case of poor relief, sub-central government will be considerably constrained by the potential mobility of the poor and crucially the tax base. Oates says that this is a basic fiscal externality that results in sub optional levels of support under a purely decentralized system of poor relief. 10 In terms of macroeconomic stabilization, the central government is in a position to influence overall levels of aggregate demand and through tax revenue and transfer payments can respond to changes in the macro-economy. However, the present picture is one where, according to Oates, the central government is not well equipped to take a leading role in addressing Musgravess redistribution and stabilization functions. 11 One response would be to enlarge central government powers, but Oates says that the costs of overall public expansion in the public sector would outweigh the benefits. Instead there is a strong case for decentralization to promote inter-jurisdictional competition to limit growth of public sector on encroaching on the private sector. At the moment, it seems to me that there is too much heterogeneity amongst the European nations, which outweighs externality gains. The integration of Europe has been relatively fast and I believe it will take a longer period for homogeneity of interests across the Union to come about, especially given the integration of the young market economies of Eastern Europe who are lagging behind in economic development. Furthermore, concerning Besley and Coates legislature worries, the EU seems to be dominated by the more powerful countries. For example, amongst the net beneficiaries of CAP (common agricultural policy) are some of the richest countries in the EU. A centralized system of provision of public goods in the EU might suffer from similar problems of a skewing of resources to favour the dominant coalition in the legislature. It seems to me, that the European Union is not yet ready for fiscal federalism.

Homeless brings atrocious effects to a country Research Paper

Homeless brings atrocious effects to a country - Research Paper Example Countless research findings point out that the experience of the homeless prevents the physical, psychological, social, and behavioral development of a person (Hovington-Neville 2012). When a large portion of a country’s population is residing without a permanent, house, several stressors can be especially detrimental to the country’s economic status and social well-being. The following paper discusses and analyzes the adverse effects of homelessness in the United States from an individual and holistic point of view. Homelessness brings atrocious effects to a country from a social, health, and economic point of view. Homelessness affects a country socially in terms of picking up the expense of basic needs and services. Among the basic needs are social isolation, premature pregnancies, and the mental wellbeing of children. Paying for these services is the role of the government, and the higher the cost is, the more the country’s budget and focus on infrastructure is affected negatively (Dennis 105). Since the homeless often undergo numerous kinds of social isolation, the solution out of this isolation is not direct. Social isolation is unacceptable in terms of human liberties, especially in a wealthy country like the United States. Unplanned pregnancies by the homeless mean an entire new generation will be born into the homeless population, thereby making the social impact of this problem less solvable. The damage occurs when the child lacks food, proper physical and emotional care, and standard education. Reason One-The harm caused the lack of food also brings about an extreme form of social isolation. Homelessness is a strong sign of social unfairness in any country (Smith 44). Most people become isolated when their economic incapacitation restricts or fully inhibits their opportunity to partake in the mainstream community. Isolation happens when the mainstream community