Newsletter #3 by Denise Torres

1st Takeaway in M9 - Reagan's supply-side approach

dtorres165_1 — 2024-05-02 00:22:23 UTC

In module #9 I learned about Reagan’s supply-side approach and how he believes it will fix the economy. In Module #9 objective 2, it explains how Reagan's supply-side economics is characterized by the notion that the wealthy will generate economic activity, that will in turn create economic opportunity for middle and lower class individuals. In Reagan’s supply-side theory he believed that if upper class individuals taxes were cut there would be great outcomes. Reagan believed that with this tax cut upper class individuals would have more money to invest in production. With an increase in production factories would need to hire more individuals, thus creating more jobs. With more jobs there would be more consumer spending and the stock market would notably rise. Ultimately Reagan’s supply-side theory can also be referred to as trickle down economics because one economic step leads to another. Reagan's supply-side approach relied on each factor being successful and predictable. For example if the tax cut did not result in upper class production investments, there would be no increase in jobs. With no increase in jobs middle and lower class individuals would not be benefiting from this approach.

References: Morone, J., Kersh, R. (2018). By the people: Debating American Government. Oxford University Press, New York,

2nd Takeaway in M10 - Advancements in International Trade

dtorres165_1 — 2024-05-02 00:22:34 UTC

In module #10 I learned about international trade and its progression throughout the years. In module #10 objective 2 video it discussed how the world economy underwent several changes that would drastically assist the international trade market. During the 1980s advancements in communication and transportation made it easier for America and the world economy to conduct operations. Goods could now be shipped from one country to another at a rapid pace. Countries were able to conduct international trade in an organized manner. Countries were able to organize which ports the goods would be delivered to and give estimated times/dates. American business firms were also now conducting trade and business outside of the United States. American business firms could now manufacture items at lower cost; they utilized other countries' cheap labor. The cost to produce an item decreased drastically for the United States. Businesses were able to gain higher profits as a result of this accessible cheap labor. As a result of these advancements there was more market competition amongst the United States and the world economy.

References: Morone, J., Kersh, R. (2018). By the people: Debating American Government. Oxford University Press, New York,

3rd Takeaway in M11 - Dr. Kissinger's involvement in world affairs

dtorres165_1 — 2024-05-02 00:22:44 UTC

In module #11 I learned about Dr. Kissinger’s involvement in world affairs. Even though Kissinger spoke little English, he graduated from Harvard after arriving in America. Dr. Kissinger then established himself in Washington and became the White House’s national security adviser. Dr. Kissinger as well was made secretary of state. In his position Dr. Kissinger made many asstounding calls; he was not your ordinary national security adviser/ secretary of state. As a member of the Nixon administration, Kissinger made several notable achievements, including the 1972 SALT I arms-control treaty with the Soviet Union and the “Shuttle Diplomacy”. The SALT agreements put limits on anti-ballistic missile defense systems and on the deployment of offensive missiles during the Cold War. As a result of Kissinger's constructed agreement the two countries at conflict were able to be at ease. The “shuttle diplomacy” occurred two weeks after Dr. Kissinger was appointed secretary of state while still being the White House's national security adviser. In his new role, he cut William P. Rogers, the Secretary of State out of the most critical decisions and opened secret channels to sub-Cabinet-levels at State and the Pentagon. As a result of these events and others that took place Dr. Kissinger was able to keep the peace while cutting the Soviets out of the negotiations. Dr. Kissinger was able to help stabilize relations between Israel and its Arab neighbors. Dr. Kissinger was actually awarded the Nobel Peace Prize as a result of the secret negotiations that he produced in the 1973 Paris Agreement and that ended U.S. military participation in the Vietnam War.

References: Thomas W. Lippman (2023). “Henry Kissinger, who shaped world affairs under two presidents, dies at 100,” The Washington Post

The question I want to discuss with you- If international trade ceased to exist today would society collapse or would it remain the same?

dtorres165_1 — 2024-05-02 00:23:13 UTC

What do you think....?

Guess what's my answer? If International trade ceased to exist today, society would definitely be on the brink of collapsing. International trade is what fuels the world's economy; it creates jobs, communication lines, products, technological advancements, etc. International trade allows countries like the United States to access produce, products, or technology that are naturally unattainable. International trade as well maintains alliances and potentially creates/entertains new ones. In trading labor, products, produce, etc countries are more prone to keep the peace. If international trade ceased to exist I definitely think war would be waging across the world. Countries would be fighting over each other's land, technology, infrastructures, etc. Countries like the United States would no longer have access to cheap labor and materials. As a result I believe countries like the United States would not be mass producing. The United States would have to use their expensive labor and therefore would have to hike up the prices on their products. Overall each country would be greatly effected by the absence of international trade.

Current News

dtorres165_1 — 2024-05-02 00:23:39 UTC

This article in U.S. News relates to the topics we are studying in class.

Citation: Reuters. (2024). US Senate Approves Bill to Ban Russian Uranium Imports. U.S. News. https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2024-04-30/us-senate-approves-bill-to-ban-russian-uranium-imports

In the news article, the author briefly discusses the legislation passed by the US Senate to bar the import of uranium from Russia. Uranium is used to power commercial nuclear reactors that produce electricity. The US Senate passed this legislation in efforts to disrupt the war going on between Russia and Ukraine. The Senate passed this measure by unanimous consent; there were no Senators that objected to it. This bill also freed up 2.7 billion dollars pass in previous legislations to build out the domestic uranium processing industry. As a result of this bill the United States would no longer be able to access uranium from russia. Previously the U.S. nuclear power plants imported around 12% of the uranium from Russia.
I picked this news article solely based on the fact that the United States will intervene in other countries' conflicts. The United States is essentially acting as a mitigator for Russia and Ukraine. In passing this bill the United States is essentially cutting off trade with Russia. For example the United States had banned oil imports from Russia when they had first invaded Ukraine. Now the United States is passing a bill to ban uranium imports from Russia. As a results of this bill the United States is essentially building an alliance with Ukraine and disassociating themselves with Russia
A key objective of this article was to inform readers of the bill that was passed by the US Senate. In the article the author highlighted how the bill would ban uranium imports from Russia.The author described this bill as a means to disrupt Russia's war on Ukraine. Furthermore, the author briefly mentioned another bill passed in 2022 in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. This bill banned oil imports from Russia. Overall the author's intent was to highlight the fact that the United States was acting as a mitigator between Ukraine and Russia.
A comment I have after reading this article would be that the United States should stop entering other countries' conflicts. I believe the United States government is putting its citizens at risk by getting in between Russia and Ukraine. Although the United States is potentially building an alliance with Ukraine, it is making an enemy out of Russia. The United States government is not thinking about the consequences that may come from passing this bill. In passing this bill Russia will definitely have some sort of resentment towards the United States. It is clear that the United States does not pledge allegiance to Russia.