Sharing Ideas through the Internet Research Paper

Sharing Ideas through the Internet - Research Paper Example Sharing Ideas through the Internet Due to the ease of access, some people possess impure intentions as they log onto cyberspace with everyone else. Communication and information sharing are two of the internet’s greatest advantages. Sharing of information and ideas across localities, countries, time zones, and computers occurs over the internet. This sharing allows multi-national corporations to keep projects going all the time by moving it between stations of work electronically by using the internet. Communication can occur through e-mail, file sharing, or instant messaging. The internet can now be used to make telephone calls via a process that is known as Voice over Internet Protocol, or VOIP. Sharing ideas over the internet also enhances play. Sharing of videos, pictures, and music over the internet with a worldwide audience enhances information sharing, allowing individuals to preview new music free. Website hosted games are also available for people across the world, enabling someone in Australia to play with an Austrian. Online gambling and dating are two popular attractions to the internet. However, sharing of ideas over the internet possesses a dark side. If one is capable of covering their cyber address, then they become tempted to carry out things they would not normally do such as spread malicious information and pornographic material. In addition, people with technical knowledge and skills may compromise unsuspecting users sharing information on the internet, which they may use to infect your correspondent’s computer with malicious software. ... However, this paper seeks to prove that by, taking proper precautions, one’s internet experience, could prove enriching, with the pros far outweighing the cons. Social networking and potential for collaborations brought about by blogs; provide a decidedly human side to the publicizing of ideas and information (Bruns & Jacobs 4). Via the personalization of content, blogs do much more than play an informative role. They provide a platform for expression, deliberation, and debate. Blogs have come to replace outdated personal websites and email lists as vehicles for the idea and information exchange, giving authors an opportunity to connect with their audience in ways that would have been impossible before. At the same time, they retain control over their space’s creative space. The blogosphere is unique due to its structure as a fluctuating, decentralized, and distributed ad hoc network of personalized websites that inter-create, interact, and interrelate with each other. Herein lays the power of blogging. Rather that the individual blog, it is the tapping of thousands of weblogs collective power that brings about the emergence of blogosphere’s â€Å"magic†. Blogs enable weblogs to become more than its part’s total. Anyone with access to the internet in this environment can participate in idea and information exchange, with the low level of entry barriers and lack of a central authority to grant accreditation or publishing rights ensure that bloggers are not prevented from linking or responding to ideas or information found on or off-line (Bruns & Jacobs 5). In a time of value system redefinition, global threats, and competing belief networks, bloggers now have the opportunity to question their view on issues, as well as grasp some sense of hope and

Under take a deep and wide Market (or industry) analysis for Heineken Essay

Under take a deep and wide Market (or industry) analysis for Heineken - Essay Example What therefore has been the key to success in Heineken? Well, it is the uniqueness of the marketing strategy and the industry analysis that has been adopted by Heineken over time. In a keen study of Heineken’s strategic platforms, one can simply notice why Heineken is destined for even a brighter future (Duetsch 2002, p. 78). This paper aims at analysing the beer industry, with reference to Heineken, being a key player in the industry. What makes the Heineken strategy unique and what are some of the marketing and analytical platforms pursued by this giant (Heineken) in the beer industry. David A. Aaker is credited for having come up with AAKER Marketing Analysis, a marketing strategy that puts emphasis and focus on the micro- external environment in which an organization operates. Most organizations today have adopted the AAKER Marketing Analysis in their market analysis, strategy so as to understand more their various immediate external environment (Bohrer 2007, p. 37). An analysis of the immediate external business environment is critical to the success of any organization. In the beer industry, specifically, Heineken has employed AAKER Marketing Analysis with the main aim of creating a competitive advantage over other industry players in the following ways: It is a policy at Heineken that any market ventured into must be fully exploited. In order to fully satisfy their customers, Heineken did their market analysis by first identifying the size of the market that they (Heineken) intended to operate into. In analysing the market size, Heineken put focus on the number of their consumers and potential consumers; followed the quantitative analysis with qualitative analysis of what can be the demands of those customers (Bohrer 2007, p. 43). With this analysis put into consideration, Heineken has been able to understand the needs of their customers, thereby working towards satisfaction of

Development of an Entrenched Constitution

Development of an Entrenched Constitution How Entrenched or rigid should a states Constitution be? A constitution is defined as a frame of political society, organised through and by law; that is to say one in which law has established permanent institutions with recognised functions and definitive rights (Wolf-Phillips, 1972:7). Thus a Constitution in itself is a legal framework through and by which a state is governed. This essay will asses factors that benefit and hinder constitutions based upon their depth of entrenchment. An entrenched constitution will usually be derived from a single codified document which will itself set special procedure Different from that needed to amendment of extra constitutional law, (Wolf- Philips, 1968: xiv) to allow amendments to be made. These codified constitutions are thus often difficult to amend due to the checks and balances built into the constitutional amendment procedure, to protect existing systems and institutions from radical short term ideas. Conversely less entrenched constitutions are demonstrated through uncodified constitutions. These constitutions that outline the rules by which government and society function are not contained within a single document but are instead set out in a variety of forms, from statute law, to general conventions and also respected and influential academic writings. Here it is the case that no special procedures are required for amendment (Norton, 1982:9). This essay will attempt to argue that equilibrium needs to be established between entrenchment and flexibility, to ensure that basic civil rights of citizens are outlined and entrenched, but that ultimately the hands of democratically elected persons should not be tied when taking important decisions by an overarching entrenched document smothering any political or societal advancement. A major and frequent criticism of an entrenched constitution derives from their very defining factor, namely that they are difficult to change and amend (Hague, 2007:261). This Critique is based upon the fact that as society changes, new challenges are faced by politics and that untimely a constitution constructed in some cases centuries before will not adapt and evolve to these needs and thus may become constrictive to generations requiring decision not explicitly contained within the document. An example of a constitutional principle that illustrates this immovable nature of entrenched constitutions is the Basic Law of Germany where any proposed changes to articles, one and twenty are inadmissible. Thus it is both theoretically and practically impossible for any changes to be made to these two articles that ensure Germanys Federal system and outline basic human rights of the German citizens. This explicit entrenchment although may be critiqued due to its cemented nature has to be taken in the context of the specific state to evaluate whether this ultimate entrenchment is justified. The German constitution was formed following the defeat of Hitlers fascism throughout Europe. Following this time of great instability it was agreed that the principle of decentralised administrative and governmental authority, (Wolf- Phillips, 1968:24) should be the key principle of any future German political system. This entrenched federalism was designed to stop future authoritarian governme nts taking power as power would now be distributed throughout the state. In this case the entrenchment of certain clauses within a constitution may be Justified due to the individual provenance of a state thus possibly undermining the critique that cementing certain clauses prevents organic evolution of a states political system. Instead entrenchment aids in protecting and guaranteeing certain standards government and society and thus ensuring if not political development, political stability. Although the above example highlights an instance where entrenchment of certain clauses may be beneficial in maintaining stability of government, not all clauses seem as rational to be entrenched as the ones described above. A Constitution that may be critiqued for its apparent outdated nature due to its arguably over entrenchment is the United States Constitution. The second article amending the Constitution affirms citizens rights to keep and bear arms (Wolf- Philips, 1968:213). This example highlights the exact problem with having a too entrenched constitution. When this specific article of the constitution was framed into law in 1791, the need for the individual to protect themselves against attack from others or indeed an over powerful state was no doubt a legitimate reason to allow for citizens to carry firearms. However, many would argue that this article is outdated and also irrational not least due to Americas stature as proprietor of modern day democratic values. Although in theory this article could be changed through a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress and approval by three-quarters of the states (Hague, 2007: 263), this type of amendment is very unlikely to take place however due to the separated American political system with three branches of government, often of different ideological stances vowing for influence cou pled with notoriously weak party allegiances making the legislative process very inefficient. In this case a too entrenched document can be seen as protecting irrational out of date clauses thus weakening the argument for entrenched constitutions. On the other hand however this feature of entrenched constitutions as housing outdated yet immovable clauses can be seen as a great strength in ensuring law abides to civil rights of individuals. For example the first 12 amendments to be made to the Constitution of the United States are known as the Bill of Rights, these amendments guarantee freedoms and explicit rights of all Citizens of the Union (Mckeever, 1999: 46). A constitution containing explicit rights to citizens entrenched in the same way as the US Constitution ensure that it would be virtually impossible to neglect these rights in any laws proposed by government. This entrenchment of rights within a constitution may be particularly useful in states with very diverse populations where the rights of many different groups need to be protected both from government and others by an entrenched constitution outlining protection of minorities. Flexible Constitutions however often lack this explicit definition of human rights. Britain lacks a bill of rights, (Norton, 1982: 245) thus in theory, parliament has the legal ability to sacrifice rights of citizens due to the lack of an entrenched document protecting liberty of citizens. Therefore for many human rights activist groups an entrenched bill of rights is paramount to any modern state to outline citizens basic rights and to limit government power over the individual, thus strengthening the argument for more entrenched constitutions. Another potential strength of entrenched constitutions is their ability to be interpreted and thus viewed in a more flexible light. This occurs through processed carried out by Supreme and Constitutional courts. For example the Supreme Court in the USA makes decision based upon the interpretation of the constitution in modern day circumstance. This process to some extent can provide a constitution that although may have been framed centuries earlier, relevance to modern day circumstance through interpretation. This interpretation allows a historic document to act as a relevant legal framework with application to modern society. Within American political institutions the Supreme court is the final arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution (McKay, 2005:281), this strengthens the concept of an entrenched constitution as ultimately the constitution, although entrenched still allows flexibility and relevance through open interpretation by a supreme law interpreting body. (McKay, 2005:51) The British Constitution is largely regarded as one of the most flexible or least entrenched constitutions largely due to its uncodified nature. The British Constitution requires no special amendment procedure and can be altered by any piece of statute law. This has led the British constitution to be labelled as a living organism of perpetual growth and change (Norton, 1982:23). This fluid nature allows the constitution to grow and react to changes in society which allows the constitution to directly combat short term problems that may face the state. An example this organic nature can be derived from legislative procedure following the London terrorist bombings in July 2005. Here members of parliament voted to extend the detention of terror suspects to 28 days. This action in many states with entrenched constitutions would have been in opposition to principles set within the Bill of Rights. For example the USA Constitution stipulates that No person shall be held to answer for a capital and be informed of the nature and cause of their accusation. (Finer, 1995: 117). Thus any changes that are to be made to detention time without charge in the USA would be subject to great scrutiny to assess whether any increase is accepted within the nature of the constitution. Here we can see one of the possible weaknesses of an entrenched constitution in reacting to new threats as cases where supposed terror suspects may need to be held for longer gaining protection from a constitution failing to evolve to meet modern day threats, thus providing potential strength for a less entrenched and more reactionary constitution. Despite this ability for less entrenched constitutions to react to short term issues within society, many defenders of more entrenched documents see the ability to place civil liberties under threat so easily through a simple change in ordinary legislation as a terminal flaw of flexible easily modified constitutions. The stability and uniform nature of age old, entrenched documents has the same effect on law and society that is not too be too reactionary and volatile. Many groups have critiqued the 28 day detention without charge holding period as fundamentally against individuals civil liberties but have little formal ways to attack such policies due to the none entrenchment of civil liberties within the constitution. Overall we can see that both Entrenched and more flexible constitutions have strengths and weaknesses. Entrenched constitutions can become outdated and restrictive on dealing with current issues through a difficult amendment procedure. However, their entrenchment can provide a state with stability which is especially useful after revolution or war. Entrenched Constitutions have the benefit of protecting the explicit right of citizens within a Bill of Rights. On the other hand a more flexible constitution can evolve and grow as society changes around it. This helps politicians to not feel constrained to deal with current issues that face society. Despite this a flexible constitution may be reactionary and dangerous if not employed in the right type of system resulting in the possible abuse of civil liberties for short term reactionary policies. Here it is arguable that the type of Constitution a state employs largely depends on the circumstances within that individual sate. For example it is easy to see that post World War Two Germany required an entrenched constitution which guaranteed the separation of powers and human rights for citizens. On the other hand however Britain has arguably been a great promoter of democratic values where a more flexible constitution is seen as a virtue through the ability to change and amend the direction of the state without the need for ultimate written entrenchment. In conclusion it will be offered that although a state should always have some written and entrenched articles largely relating to the human rights of citizens, constitutional formulation should always based upon individual circumstance that dictates the extent a constitution should be entrenched. In an entrenched constitution however it must always be the case that a supreme court is present to interpret the Constitution for application to individual cases to keep the constitution relevant and living in modern society. References Finer S E, Bogdanor Vernon, Rudden Bernard (1995), Comparing Constitutions, New York: Oxford University press. Hague Rod, Harrop Martin (1982) seventh edition (2007), Comparative Government and Politics: An Introduction, New York: Palgrave Macmillan. McKay David (1983), Sixth edition (2005), American Politics and Society, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. McKeever Robert, Zvesper John, Maidment Richard (1999), Politics USA, Harlow: Pearson Education Limited. Norton Philip (1982), The Constitution in Flux, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Phillips-Wolf Leslie (1968), Constitutions of Modern States, London: Pall Mall Press. Phillips-Wolf Leslie (1972), Studies in Comparative Politics: Comparative Constitutions, London: Government and Opposition. Bibliography Finer S E, Bogdanor Vernon, Rudden Bernard (1995), Comparing Constitutions, New York: Oxford University press. Garner, Robert. Ferdinand Peter. Lawson Stephanie (2009), Introduction to Politics, New York: Oxford University press. Hague Rod, Harrop Martin (1982) seventh edition (2007), Comparative Government and Politics: An Introduction, New York: Palgrave Macmillan. King Anthony (2007), The British Constitution, New York: Oxford University Press. McKay David (1983), Sixth edition (2005), American Politics and Society, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. McKeever Robert, Zvesper John, Maidment Richard (1999), Politics USA, Harlow: Pearson Education Limited. Mount Ferdinand (1993), The British Constitution Now: Recovery or Decline, London: Mandarin Paperbacks. Norton Philip (1982), The Constitution in Flux, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Phillips-Wolf Leslie (1968), Constitutions of Modern States, London: Pall Mall Press. Phillips-Wolf Leslie (1972), Studies in Comparative Politics: Comparative Constitutions, London: Government and Opposition. Sunstein Cass (2001), Designing Democracy: What Constitutions Do, New York: Oxford University Press.

The Best Candidate for the Presidency :: American America History

The Best Candidate for the Presidency As this election 2000 is coming, each candidate is working very hard. They are doing debates, electoral campaigns all over the country in order to get more popular votes and therefore get the electoral votes they need to be the next president of the United States. In all of the inquiries that the media did in most of the states, Al Gore seems to be the favorite one, because he knows what he is doing, he has enough experience to rule our country, and he also has very interesting positions in the issues that he proposed to the American people. Albert Gore, Jr., was born in Washington D.C on March 31, 1948. His mother was Mrs. Pauline Lafon Gore and his father was Albert Gore, Sr. As Governor Bush, Al Gore has a father who was in the political business; his father was a Democratic congressman and senator from Tennessee. Gore graduated from Harvard University in 1969 with a Bachelor's degree in government. While he was studying in Harvard, he was linked with drugs like marijuana that made his father mad at him, and he almost lost everything he got, so he decided to quit and never do that again. Although Gore opposed U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War, he accepted induction into the United States Army and served as a military reporter. Upon his return home, and until 1976, he worked as an investigative reporter and editorial writer for the "The Tennessean" a Nashville newspaper. Gore married Mary Elizabeth "Tipper" Aitcheson on May 19, 1976 and they have four children. Gore was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives se veral times and he also was elected to the U.S. Senate and as member of Congress, he earned a reputation as an authority on arms and environmental issues. After that, Gore ran unsuccessfully for the democratic presidential nomination 1988. In 1992 Al Gore was the running mate of Bill Clinton, also in this year he wrote "Earth in Balance" which is a book that talks about environmental issues. Clinton defeated the incumbent Republican President, George Bush, and Al Gore became Vice-President in 1993, finally they were reelected in 1996 and in 1999 Gore announced his candidacy for President in the 2000 election. Al Gore has stated his position on a number of issues; some of his position more important are in education, health care, taxes, and Social Security.

Coca Cola and Pepsi Profitability Analysis Essay

Gross profit margin(2013) = 100 Ãâ€" 28,433/46,854 = 60.68% Gross profit margin(2012) = 100 x 28,964/ 48,017=60.32% Gross profit margin(2011) = 100 x 28,326 = 60.86% Source: PepsiCo Inc. Annual Reports Gross profit margin (2013) = 100 x 35,172/66,415 = 52.96% Gross profit margin (2012) = 100 x 34,201/65,492 = 52.22% Gross profit margin (2011) = 100 x 34,911/66,504 = 52.49% Gross profit margin is a resource for paying extra expenses and future cutbacks. Coca-Cola Co. gross profit margin declined from 2011 to 2012 but then inclined from 2012 to 2013. However, it did not reach the level of 2011. PepsiCo Inc.’s gross profit margin, on the other hand, decreased from 2011 to 2012 however it improved from 2012 to 2013 go over 2011’s level. Comparing the two companies, Coca-Cola Co. has a higher gross profit margin which shows superior fraction of revenue existing to coat operating and other costs. Net Profit Margin (USD $ in Millions) Coca-Cola Co. 2013 2012 2011 Net Income Before Minority Share of Earnings, Equity Income, and Nonrecurring items 8,584 9,019 8,572 Net Sales 46,854 48,017 46,542 Net Profit Margin 18.32 % 18.78 % 18.42 % Source: Coca-Cola Co. Annual Reports Net Profit Margin (2013) = 100 x 8,584/ 46,854 = 18.32% Net Profit Margin (2012) = 100 x 9,019/48,017 = 18.78% Net Profit Margin (2011) = 100 x 8,572/46,542 = 18.42% PepsiCo 2013 2012 2011 Net Income Before Minority Share of Earnings, Equity Income, and Nonrecurring Items 6,740 6,178 6,443 Net Sales 66,415 65,492 66,504 Net profit margin 10.15 % 9.43 % 9.69 % Source: PepsiCo Inc. Annual Reports Net Profit Margin(2013) = 100 x 6,740/66,415 = 10.15% Net Profit Margin(2012) = 100 x 6,178/65,492 = 9.43% Net Profit Margin(2011) = 100 x 6,443/66,504 = 9.690% Net profit margin is an indicator â€Å"of profitability, computed as net income divided by revenue. It measures how much out of every dollar of sales a company actually keeps in earningsâ€Å".(Wintner & Tardif, 2006, p349)Coca-Cola Co. net profit margin improved as of 2011 to 2012 although decreased drastically starting 2012 to 2013.PepsiCo Inc. net profit margin go down beginning of year 2011 to year 2012 but after that recovered from 2012 to 2013 going beyond the level of 2011. The figures above indicate that Coca-Cola Co. has a elevated profit margin compare to PepsiCo Inc., which indicates more cost-effective corporation which better control its costs compared to Coca-Cola Inc. Total Asset Turnover (USD $ in Millions) Source: Coca-Cola Co. Annual Reports Total assets turnover(2013) = 46854/90055 = 0.52 Total assets turnover(2012) = 48017/86174 = 0.56 Total assets turnover(2011) = 46542/79974 = 0.58 PepsiCo Inc. 2013 2012 Net revenue 66415 65492 Total assets 77478 74638 Total assets turnover 0.85 0.87 Source: PepsiCo Inc. Annual Reports Total assets turnover (2013) = 66415/77478 = 0.85 Total assets turnover (2012) = 65492/74638 = 0.87 Coca-Cola Co.’s net profit margin enhanced from 2011 to 2012 nevertheless go  down considerably as of 2012 toward 2013. PepsiCo Inc.’s net profit margin, on the other hand, worsens since 2011 to year 2012 but raised the following year exceeding the level of 2011. The figures above indicate that PepsiCo Inc. has a higher Total Assets Turnover comparing to Coca-Cola Co. which shows that PepsiCo turns its assets faster into sales. Asset Turnover is connected to Return on Assets (ROA) through Du Pont formula. DuPont Return on Assets (ROA) (USD $ in Millions) Coca-Cola Co. 2013 2012 2011 Net Profit Margin 18.32% 18.78% 18.42% Asset Turnover 0.52 0.56 0.58 Return on Assets(ROA) 9.52 10.51 10.68 Source: Coca-Cola Co. Annual Reports ROA(2013) = 18.32% x 0.52 = 9.52 ROA(2012) = 18.78% x 0.55 = 10.51 ROA(2011) = 18.42% x 0.58 = 10.68 PepsiCo Inc. 2013 2012 Net Profit Margin 10.15% 9.43% Asset Turnover 0.85 0.87 Return on Assets (ROA) 8.62 8.20 Source: PepsiCo Inc. Annual Reports ROA(2013) = 10.15% x 0.85 = 8.62 ROA(2012) = 9.43% x 0.87 = 8.20 The ROA numbers provides investors with an overview of how efficiently the business is converting the investment into net income. (Gibson, 2009) Coca-Cola Co. ROA decreased starting of 2011 to 2012 as well as as of 2012 towards 2013. PepsiCo Inc. ROA, on the other hand, declined from year 2011 to 2012’s level however later inclined since 2012 towards 2013, however it did not reach the level of 201l. Nevertheless, Coca-Cola has a higher the ROA numbers compare to PepsiCo. which shows that the business earns more capital on a smaller amount of investment. DuPont Return on Equity(ROE) (USD $ in Millions) Coca-Cola Co. 2013 2012 2011 Net Income 8,584 9,019 8,584 Total Shareholder Equity 33,173 32,790 31,635 Return on Equity (ROE) 25.87% 27.50% 27.13% Source: Coca-Cola Co. Annual Reports ROE(2013) =100 x 8,584/33,173 = 25.87% ROE(2012) = 100 x 9,019/32,790 = 27.50% ROE(2011) = 100 x 8,584/31,635 = 27.13% PepsiCo Inc. 2013 2012 2011 Net Income 6,740 6,178 6,443 Total Shareholder Equity 24,279 22,294 20,588 Return on Equity(ROE) 27.76 % 27.71 % 31.29 % Source: PepsiCo Inc. Annual Reports ROE (2013) = 100 x 6,740/24,279 = 27.76% ROE(2012) = 100x 6,178/ 22,294 = 27.71% ROE(2011) = 100 x 6,443/20,588 = 31.29% Return on Equity (ROE) determines how sound a company makes use of reinvested earnings to make more earnings. ROE is utilized as a common hint of the business effectiveness. In other words, what amount of revenue the business is capable to generate with the resources provided by its stockholders. (Gibson,2009) Coca-Cola Co.’s ROE increased as of 2011 towards 2012 except that later declined considerably from 2012 to 2013.PepsiCo Inc.’s ROE, on the other hand, decreased starting year 2011 to 2012 but then slightly rise  up from 2012 to 2013. Based on the numbers above, we can conclude that PepsiCo Inc. has a competitive advantage over Coca-Cola Co. because it has a higher ROE, which means that is growing profits without pouring new capitals into business. References Wintner, S., Tardif, M. (2006)Financial Management for Design Professionals: The Path to Profitability. MA: Kaplan AEC Education. Retrived from: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/abercrombie-fitch-no-profits-just-225850116.html?&session-id=7b3af266ae1a387aaf0cfe6dca24ba10 Gibson, C. (2009)Financial Reporting & Analysis. Using Financial Accounting Information (11the Ed) MA: South-Western Cengage Learning, Mason,OH

Why Did The Policies Of President Hoover Fail To Combat The Great Depression Effectively?

In October 1929, the USA was plunged into the sharpest recession to take place in American history. The period it lasted for became known as the Great Depression. Drastic action was required to fix the situation, and the first person people looked to was President Hoover, who had unluckily took up presidency eight months before the Wall Street Crash. However, Hoover is known for his inability to sue federal powers to overcome the Depression quickly and effectively. Some recent historians have been more sympathetic towards Hoover because they believe he was a victim of both his own mindset and of one of the most difficult to solve crises in American history. But most believe it was his political beliefs and policies that stopped him fight the Depression successfully. Hoover's main trouble was that he was not willing for direct government to take place. His two central policies were self-help and voluntary co-operation. His continued belief in these represented his continued belief that the economy had to right itself and that changes he made would not help – â€Å"Economic depression cannot be cured by legislative action or executive pronouncement†. Indeed, Hoover knew that the government was urgently required to take action but the action he was willing to take was not nearly enough to deal with the depth of the Depression, as shown through eight different areas of the Depression federal government policies were made on. These were agriculture, tariffs, repudiation of war debts, voluntarism, unemployment relief, Federal Home Loan Bank Act, Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) and war veterans and the ‘Bonus Army'. The legislation passed in all of these areas was a failure, which lost Hoover all credibility. The Agricultural Marketing Act was passed in 1929, creating a nine-person Federal Farm Board with funds of $500 million to create ‘stabilisation corps', and the crops created were eventually bought back at higher prices. The agricultural policy failed for two reasons: firstly because it paid US farmers artificially high prices and could not continue in the long term; secondly because it treated agriculture as a domestic, not foreign, issue. Cheap foreign imports became a problem, and the answer appeared to be even higher tariffs. In June 1930, the Hawley-Smoot tariff was enforced – and was the highest in US history. Its result was most European nations abandoning free trade. Hoover could have vetoed the bill but chose not to. In the repudiation of war debts, Hoover blamed the Depression on Europe, though the situation was in fact vice versa. Europe could not afford to pay back war debts, and international trades decreased. Countries worldwide were in a more depressed state, again a negative result. Hoover placed the onus of improving the situation onto the businesses rather than the government. He told businessmen not to cut their workforces or wages but to maintain output and encourage buying. As the depression worsened, however, they could not afford to do this. Workers were fired and wages reduced, raising unemployment levels. So, Hoover then secured $500 million in 1932 from Congress to use as unemployment relief, but the amount simply wasn't enough. He also set up the President's Emergency Committee for Employment to help agencies organise efforts, but still refused to help directly because of his self-help policies. An example of this is during the 1930-31 drought, which was so severe it led to almost starvation in the South. Congress gave $47 million to be offered as loans, but Hoover still didn't want to give direct relief. He didn't believe in giving out benefits. So unemployment relief was another failed attempt by Hoover to fight the Depression. The Federal Home Lon Bank Act was passed in July 1932, and was Hoover's attempt to save mortgages. A series of Federal Home Loan banks were set up to help loan associations providing mortgages. However, they only lent 50% of the property value. The Act failed and was largely ineffective, and homes were repossessed. The Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) was Hoover's most radical measure to overcome the Depression and the precursor to the New Deal initiatives of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The RFC was established in January 1932 and could lend up to $2 billion to stabilise banks, insurance companies, railroads and construction companies that were suffering. It was a measure taken to restore confidence. The loans, however, were given mainly to big banks and larger companies. The RFC eventually failed because it was giving too little too late. By this time, Hoover's credibility was severely damaged, but the nail in the coffin was yet to come – the treatment of the Bonus Army, which portrayed him as cold and cruel. In 1925, Congress agreed to give veterans of WW1a ‘bonus' to be paid in 1945. In June 1932, 20,000 war veterans marched to Washington to request their bonus early in order to survive the Depression. They were told that the government could not afford to pay them, but Hoover would pay for their trip home. Feeling betrayed, the veterans set up camp. Hoover feared violence, to the extent of revolution, and called in the military. Tanks, infantry and tear gas destroyed the camp and drove away the veterans. These men who had served their country were called â€Å"tramps and hoodlums with a generous sprinkling of Communist agitators†. Hoover was solely blamed for the dispersal of the Bonus Army, which was a major political blunder. By now, the people of America had turned away from Hoover and were looking for answers elsewhere – Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Already popular as Governor of New York State, Roosevelt appealed to the US people because he proposed to take the action that Hoover would not and showed flexibility. Through his time as Governor, Roosevelt showed his willingness to listen to others' ideas and his belief that direct government intervention was necessary. An example of his flexibility is the Temporary Emergency Relief Administration, set up in 1932. Though it was temporary, it was the first state-run relief effort in the nation. In comparison, Hoover refused to hear ideas remotely associated with government intervention. However, some historians argue that Hoover did in fact involve the government in more areas of life than ever before, for example the expansion of federal lending and the encouragement of public works' schemes. Hoover had a personal concern for those suffering the Depression. He cut his own and state officials' salaries by 20% and had long working hours. On the other hand, he showed optimism in public, which led people to accuse him of losing touch with reality. Although Hoover worked tirelessly to fight the Depression, his refusal to abandon his policies of self-help and voluntary co-operation prevented him from doing so successfully. In conclusion, President Hoover's policies failed to combat the Great Depression effectively because the help they provided were very limited in the extent the Depression had gone to. Because of his beliefs in self-help and voluntary co-operation he blocked direct government intervention from his policies, driving away supporters towards Roosevelt, who won the elections of 1932 and began his ‘New deal'.