Tugas Tenses

AJENG HIKMAHNING PANGESTI 3EB11 ENGLISH BUSINESS 2 English as Language of Global Education New York Times By DOREEN CARVAJAL Published: April 11, 2007 When economics students returned this winter to the elite École Normale Supérieure here, copies of a simple one-page petition were posted in the corridors demanding an unlikely privilege: French as a teaching language. “We understand that economics is a discipline, like most scientific fields, where the research is published in English,” the petition read, in apologetic tones. But it declared that it was unacceptable for a native French professor to teach standard courses to French-speaking students in the adopted tongue of English. In the shifting universe of global academia, English is becoming as commonplace as creeping ivy and mortarboards. In the last five years, the world’s top business schools and universities have been pushing to make English the teaching tongue in a calculated strategy to raise revenues by attracting more international students and as a way to respond to globalization. Business universities are driving the trend, partly because changes in international accreditation standards in the late 1990s required them to include English-language components. But English is also spreading to the undergraduate level, with some South Korean universities offering up to 30 percent of their courses in the language. The former president of Korea University in Seoul sought to raise that share to 60 percent, but ultimately was not re-elected to his post in December. In Madrid, business students can take their admissions test in English for the elite Instituto de Empresa and enroll in core courses for a master’s degree in business administration in the same language. The Lille School of Management in France stopped considering English a foreign language in 1999, and now half the postgraduate programs are taught in English to accommodate a rising number of international students. Over the last three years, the number of master’s programs offered in English at universities with another host language has more than doubled, to 3,300 programs at 1,700 universities, according to David A. Wilson, chief executive of the Graduate Management Admission Council, an international organization of leading business schools that is based in McLean, Va. “We are shifting to English. Why?” said Laurent Bibard, the dean of M.B.A. programs at Essec, a top French business school in a suburb of Paris that is a fertile breeding ground for chief executives. “It’s the language for international teaching,” he said. “English allows students to be able to come from anyplace in the world and for our students — the French ones — to go everywhere.” This year the university is celebrating its 100th anniversary in its adopted tongue. Its new publicity film debuted in English and French. Along one of the main roads leading into Paris loomed a giant blue billboard boasting of the anniversary in French and, in smaller letters, in English. Essec has also taken advantage of the increased revenue that foreign students — English-speaking ones — can bring in. Its population of foreign students has leapt by 38 percent in four years, to 909 today out of a student body of 3,700. The tuition for a two-year master’s degree in business administration is 19,800 euros for European Union citizens, and 34,000 euros for non-EU citizens. “The French market for local students is not unlimited,” said Christophe N. Bredillet, the associate dean for the Lille School of Management’s M.B.A. and postgraduate programs. “Revenue is very important, and in order to provide good services, we need to cover our expenses for the library and research journals. We need to cover all these things with a bigger number of students so it’s quite important to attract international students.” With the jump in foreign students, Essec now offers 25 percent of its 200 courses in English. Its ambition is to accelerate the English offerings to 50 percent in the next three years. Santiago Iñiguez de Ozoño, dean of the Instituto de Empresa, argues that the trend is a natural consequence of globalization, with English functioning as Latin did in the 13th century as the lingua franca most used by universities. “English is being adapted as a working language, but it’s not Oxford English,” he said. “It’s a language that most stakeholders speak.” He carries out conversation on a blog, deanstalk.net, in English. But getting students to feel comfortable speaking English in the classroom is easier said than done. When younger French students at Essec start a required course in organizational analysis, the atmosphere is marked by long, uncomfortable silences, said Alan Jenkins, a management professor and academic director of the executive M.B.A. program. “They are very good on written tasks, but there’s a lot of reticence on oral communication and talking with the teacher,” Dr. Jenkins said, adding that he used role-playing to encourage students to speak. He also refuses to speak in French. “I have to force myself to say, ‘Can you give me that in English?’ ” Officials at Ewha Womans University in Seoul are also aware that they face a difficult task at the first stage of their Global 2010 project, which will require new students to take four classes in English, two under the tutelage of native English-speaking professors. The 120-year-old university has embarked on a hiring spree to attract 50 foreign professors. At the beginning, “teaching courses in English may have less efficiency or effectiveness in terms of knowledge transfer than those courses taught in Korean,” said Anna Suh, program manager for the university’s office of global affairs, who said that students eventually see the benefits. “Our aim for this kind of program is to prepare and equip our students to be global leaders in this new era of internationalization.” The Lille management school is planning to open a satellite business school program next fall in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, where the working language will also be in English. “Internationally, the competition is everywhere,” Dr. Bredillet said. “For a master’s in management, I’m competing with George Washington University. I’m competing with some programs in Germany, Norway and the U.K. That’s why we’re delivering the curriculum in English.” Simple Past • When economics students returned this winter to the elite École Normale Supérieure here, copies of a simple one-page petition were posted in the corridors demanding an unlikely privilege: French as a teaching language. Trans : Ketika siswa ekonomi kembali musim dingin ini dengan elit École Normale Supérieure di sini, salinan dari satu halaman petisi sederhana yang diposting di koridor menuntut hak istimewa yang tidak mungkin: Prancis sebagai bahasa pengajaran. • Over the last three years, the number of master’s programs offered in English at universities with another host language has more than doubled. Trans : Selama tiga tahun terakhir, jumlah program master ditawarkan dalam bahasa Inggris di universitas-universitas dengan bahasa nasional telah lebih dari dua kali lipat Simple Present • We understand that economics is a discipline, like most scientific fields, where the research is published in English. Trans : Kami memahami bahwa ekonomi adalah disiplin, seperti bidang yang paling ilmiah, dimana penelitian ini diterbitkan dalam bahasa Inggris Present Perfect • Essec has also taken advantage of the increased revenue that foreign students — English-speaking ones — can bring in. Its population of foreign students has leapt by 38 percent in four years, to 909 today out of a student body of 3,700. Trans : Essec juga telah mengambil keuntungan dari peningkatan pendapatan mahasiswa yang asing, yang berbahasa Inggris yang dapat membawa masuk Populasinya mahasiswa asing telah melompat sebesar 38 persen dalam empat tahun, untuk 909 hari ini keluar dari mahasiswa 3.700. Present Continous • Business universities are driving the trend, partly because changes in international accreditation standards in the late 1990s required them to include English-language components. Trans : Universitas Bisnis mendorong tren, sebagian karena perubahan dalam standar akreditasi internasional di akhir 1990-an mengharuskan mereka untuk memasukkan komponen bahasa Inggris • This year the university is celebrating its 100th anniversary in its adopted tongue. Its new publicity film debuted in English and French. Trans : Tahun ini universitas adalah merayakan ulang tahun ke-100 dalam adopsi lidahnya. Ini Film publisitas baru memulai debutnya di Inggris dan Perancis. *************************************************************** How to Go Green: Why to Go Green You've probably noticed that green is everywhere these days--in the news, politics, fashion, and even technology. You can hardly escape it on the Internet, and now with the Planet Green TV network, you can even enjoy eco-friendly entertainment 24 hours a day. That's all great as far as we're concerned, but with a million messages and ideas coming at us from all sides, it can be easy to get caught up in the quotidian stuff--switching to organic foods, turning down the thermostat, recycling, say -- without thinking about the big picture of how your actions stack up. Worse, you could even be suffering from a little green "fatigue" -- that is, tuning out the green messages due to their ubiquity. While it's easy to get overwhelmed, it's also simple to begin making a positive impact. Since it's helpful to understand the big picture when it comes to setting to smaller goals, we've adjusted our focus for this guide--a departure from out typical "how to go green" content, which typically tackles very specific topics such as kitchens, cars, or pets -- to take a broader look at the reasons behind why we should go green. As globalization makes the world become smaller, it becomes increasingly easy to see how the lives of people (and plants and animals and ecosystems) everywhere are closely synced up with one another. So toys made in China can affect the quality of life in Europe, pesticides used in Argentina can affect the health of people in the U.S., and greenhouse gas emissions from Australia can affect a diminishing rainforest in Brazil. The truth is that everything single thing we do every day has an impact on the planet -- good or bad. The good news is that as an individual you have the power to control most of your choices and, therefore, the impact you create: from where you live to what you buy, eat, and use to light your home to where and how you vacation, to how you shop or vote, you can have global impact. For example, did you know that 25 percent of Western pharmaceuticals are derived from flora that come from the Amazon rainforest? And that less that one percent of these tropical trees and plants have been tested by scientists? These numbers suggest that we all have a large (and growing) personal stake in the health and vitality of places far and near. In addition to protecting biodiversity (and inspiring medicine), rainforests are also excellent carbon sinks. Bottom line: It benefits everyone on the planet to help keep our wild spaces alive and growing. But embracing a greener lifestyle isn't just about helping to preserve equatorial rain forests, it can also mean improving your health, padding your bank account, and, ultimately, improving your overall quality of life. All that and you can save furry animals, too? Why wouldn't anyone want to green? Keep reading for all the important, big-picture details. • Simple Present As globalization makes the world become smaller, it becomes increasingly easy to see how the lives of people (and plants and animals and ecosystems) everywhere are closely synced up with one another. Trans : Saat globalisasi membuat dunia menjadi lebih kecil, menjadi semakin mudah untuk melihat bagaimana kehidupan orang-orang (dan tumbuhan dan hewan dan ekosistem) dimanapun berhubungan erat selaras dengan satu sama lain. • Present Perfect - You've probably noticed that green is everywhere these days--in the news, politics, fashion, and even technology. You can hardly escape it on the Internet, and now with the Planet Green TV network, you can even enjoy eco-friendly entertainment 24 hours a day. Trans : Anda mungkin pernah memperhatikan bahwa hijau di mana-mana hari ini - dalam berita, politik, fashion, dan bahkan teknologi. Anda tidak bisa menghindarinya di Internet, dan sekarang dengan jaringan TV planet hijau, Anda bahkan bisa menikmati hiburan yang ramah lingkungan 24 jam sehari

MONETARISM (Tugas 1 English Bussiness)

MONETARISM
________________________________________

Photo by: olavs
Monetarism asserts that monetary policy is very powerful, but that it should not be used as a macroeconomic policy to manage the economy. There is thus an apparent contradiction—if monetary policy is so powerful, why not use it, for example, to create more employment in the economy?
First of all, it should be noted that monetarism was an attempt by conservative economists to reestablish the wisdom of the classical laissez faire recommendation and was an attack on the activist macroeconomic policy recommendations of the Keynesian economists. It is thus helpful to briefly examine the historical background against which monetarism developed as a new school of macroeconomic thought.
THE CLASSICAL ECONOMICS.
The macroeconomic thought dominating capitalist economies prior to the advent of Keynesian economics in 1936 has been widely known as classical macroeconomics. Classical economists believed in free markets. They believed that the economy would always achieve full employment through forces of supply and demand. So, if there were more people looking for work than the number of jobs available, the wages would fall until all those seeking work were employed. Thus, market forces guaranteed full employment. The full employment level of employment resulted in a fixed aggregate output/income. The price level (and thus the inflation rate) was determined by the supply of money in the economy. Since, the output level was fixed, a 10 percent increase in money supply would lead to a 10 percent increase in the price level—too many dollars chasing too few goods. The real interest rate was also determined by forces of supply and demand in the market for funds that could be loaned out. The nominal interest rate was then simply the sum of the real interest rate and the prevailing inflation rate. Classical economists thus had an unwavering faith in the selfadjusting market mechanism. However, it was crucial for the working of the market mechanism that there was perfect competition in the market, and that wages and prices were fully flexible.
Classical economists did not see any role for the government. As market forces led to full employment equilibrium in the economy, there was no need for government intervention. Monetary policy (increasing or decreasing the money supply would only affect prices—it would not affect important real factors such as output and employment. Fiscal policy (using government spending or taxes), on the other hand, was perceived as harmful. For example, if the government borrowed to finance its spending, it would simply reduce the funds available for private consumption and investment expenditures—a phenomenon popularly termed as "crowding out." Similarly, if the government raised taxes to pay for government spending, it would reduce private consumption in order to fund public consumption. Instead, if it financed spending by increasing the money supply, it would have the same effects as an expansionary monetary policy. Thus, classical economists recommended use of neither monetary nor fiscal policy by the government. This hands-off policy recommendation is known as laissez faire.
KEYNESIAN ECONOMICS.
Keynesian economics was born during the Great Depression of the 1930s. The classical economists argued that the self-adjusting market mechanism would restore full employment in the economy, if it deviated from full employment for some reason. However, the experience of the Great Depression showed that market forces would not work as well as the classical economists had believed. The unemployment rate in the United States rose to higher than 25 percent of the labor force. Hard working people were out in the street looking for nonexisting jobs. Wages fell quite substantially. However, the lower wages did not re-establish full employment.
Economist John Maynard Keynes argued that the self-adjusting market forces would take a long time to restore full employment. He predicted that the economy would be stuck at the high level of unemployment for a prolonged period, leading to untold miseries. Keynes explained that classical economics suffered from major flaws. Wages and prices were not as flexible as classical economists assumed—in fact, nominal wages were very sticky in the downward direction. Also, Keynes argued that classical economists had ignored a key aspect that determined the level of output and employment in the economy—the aggregate demand for goods and services in the economy from all sources (consumers, businesses, government, and foreign sources). Producers create goods (and provided employment in the process) to meet the demand for their products and services. If the level of aggregate demand was low, the economy would not create enough jobs and unemployment could result. In other words, the free working of the macroeconomy did not guarantee full employment of the labor force—the deficient aggregate demand was the cause of unemployment. Thus, if aggregate private demand (i.e., the aggregate demand excluding government spending) fell short of the demand level needed to generate full employment, the government should step in to make up for the slack.
The central issue underlying Keynesian thought was that those individuals who have incomes demand goods and services and, in turn, help to create jobs. The government should thus find a way to increase aggregate demand. One direct way of doing so was to increase government spending. Increased government spending would generate jobs and incomes for the persons employed on government projects. This, in turn, would create demand for goods and services of private producers and generate additional employment in the private sector. Keynesian economists thus recommended that the government should use fiscal policy (which includes decisions regarding both government spending and taxes) to make up for the shortfall in the private aggregate demand to reignite the job creating private sector. Keynesian economists even went so far as to recommend that it was worthwhile for the government to employ people to in meaningless jobs, as long as they were employed.
The Roosevelt administration did follow Keynesian recommendations, although reluctantly, and embarked on a variety of government programs aimed at boosting incomes and the aggregate demand. As a result, the Depression economy started moving forward. The really powerful push to the depressed U.S economy, however, came when World War II broke out. It generated such an enormous demand for U.S. military and civilian goods that factories in the United States operated multiple shifts. Serious unemployment disappeared for a long period of time.
Modern Keynesians (also, known as neoKeynesians) recommend utilizing monetary policy, in addition to fiscal policy, to manage the level of aggregate demand. Monetary policy affects aggregate demand in the Keynesian system by affecting private investment and consumption demand. An increase in the money supply, for example, leads to a decrease in the interest rate. This lowers the cost of borrowing and thus increases private investment and consumption, boosting the aggregate demand in the economy.
An increase in aggregate demand under the Keynesian system, however, not only generates higher employment but also leads to higher inflation. This causes a policy dilemma—how to strike a balance between employment and inflation. According to laws that were enacted following the Great Depression, policy makers are expected to use monetary and fiscal policies to achieve high employment consistent with price stability.
THE MONETARIST
COUNTERREVOLUTION
By 1950, Keynesian economics was well established. Keynesian macroeconomic thought became the new standard in place of the old classical standard. The birth of monetarism took place in the 1960s. The original proponent of monetarism was Milton Friedman, now a Nobel Laureate. The monetarists argue that while it is not possible to have full employment of the labor force all the time (as classical economists argued), it is better to leave the macroeconomy to market forces. Friedman modified some aspects of the classical theory to provide the rationale for his noninterventionist policy recommendation. In essence, monetarism contends that use of fiscal policy is largely ineffective in altering output and employment levels. Moreover, it only leads to crowding out. Monetary policy, on the other hand, is effective. However, monetary authorities do not have adequate knowledge to conduct a successful monetary policy—manipulating the money supply to stabilize the economy only leads to a greater instability. Hence, monetarism advocates that neither monetary nor fiscal policy should be used in an attempt to stabilize the economy, and the money supply should be allowed to grow at a constant rate. Friedman contends that the government's use of active monetary and fiscal policies to stabilize the economy around full employment leads to greater instability in the economy. He argues that while the economy will not achieve a state of bliss in the absence of the government intervention, it will be far more tranquil. The monetarist policy recommendations are similar to those of the classical economists, even though the reasoning is somewhat different.
A detailed discussion of the key elements of monetarism follows. In particular, an effort is made to explain the theoretical framework that monetarists employ and how they arrive at policy recommendations regarding the use of monetary and fiscal policies.
KEY MONETARIST PROPOSITIONS
Based on Richard Froyen in Macroeconomics: Theories and Policies, the key propositions advanced by monetarist economists (in particular, Milton Fried-man) can be summarized as follows.
1. The supply of money has the dominant influence on nominal income. Two economic concepts enter this proposition—money supply and nominal income. Money supply can be narrowly defined as the sum of all money (currency, checkable deposits, and travelers checks) with the nonbank public in the economy. The money supply so defined is technically called MI by monetary authorities and economists. Nominal income can simply be understood as the gross domestic product (GDP) at current prices. GDP is thus made up of a price component and a real output component. The current value of the GDP can go up due to an increase in the prices of goods and services included in the GDP or due to an increase in the actual production of goods and services included in the GDP or both.
2. The above proposition then states that the stock of money in the economy is the primary determinant of the nominal GDP, or the level of economic activity in current dollars. The proposition is vague regarding the breakdown of an increase in nominal gross domestic product into increases in the price level and real output. However, the proposition does assume that, for most part, a change in the money supply is the cause of a change in the GDP at current prices or nominal income. Also, the level and the rate of growth of the money supply are assumed to be primarily determined by the actions of the central monetary authority (the Federal Reserve Bank in the United States).
3. In the short run, money supply does have the dominant influence on the real variables. Here, the real variables are the real output (the real GDP) and employment. The first proposition only alluded to real output—implied in the break up of the nominal GDP into the real and price components. Where does the employment variable come from? Employment is basically considered a companion of real output. If real output increases, producers must generally employ additional workers to produce the additional output. Of course, sometimes producers may rely on overtime from existing workers. But, generally an increase in employment eventually follows an increase in real output. The second proposition, however, is not confined to real output and employment—prices are influenced as well. Thus, the second proposition effectively states that changes in money supply strongly influence both real output and price level in the short run. Proposition two, therefore, provides a break down of a change in the nominal income, induced by a change in the money supply, into changes in real output and price level components mentioned in the first proposition.
4. In the long run, the influence of a variation in the money supply is primarily on price level and on other nominal variables such as nominal wages. Price level is a nominal variable in the sense that a change in price level is in sharp contrast to a change in real output and employment—it does not have the advantages that are associated with the latter two. In the long run, the real macroeconomic variables, such as real output and employment, are determined by changes in real factors of production, not simply by altering a nominal variable, such as the money supply. Real output and employment are, in turn, determined by real factors such as labor inputs, capital resources, and the state of technology. As was indicated in the second proposition, in the short run, a change in the stock of money affects both real output and price level. This, in conjunction with proposition three, leads to the implication that the long-run influence of money supply is only on the price level.
5. The private sector of the economy is inherently stable. Further, government policies are primarily responsible for instability in the economy. This proposition summarizes the monetarist economists' belief in the working of the private sector and market forces. The private sector mainly consists of households and businesses that together account for the bulk of private sector demand, consumption, and investment. This monetarist proposition, then, states that these components of the aggregate demand are stable, and are thus not a source of instability in the economy. In fact, monetarists argue that the private sector is a self-adjusting process that tends to stabilize the economy by absorbing shocks. They contend that it is the government sector that is the source of instability. The government causes instability in the economy primarily through an unstable money supply. Since the money supply has a dominant effect on real output and price level in the short run, and on price level in the long run, fluctuations in the money supply lead to fluctuations in these macroeconomic variables—i.e., instability of the macroeconomy. Moreover, the government, by introducing a powerful destabilizing influence (changes in the money supply), interferes with the normal workings of the self-adjusting mechanism of the private sector. In effect, the absence of money supply fluctuations would make it easier for the private sector mechanism to work properly.
The above four propositions lead to some key policy conclusions. Based on Froyen, the four monetarist propositions provide the bases for the following two policy recommendations:
First, stability in the growth of money supply is absolutely crucial for stability in the economy. Monetarists further suggest that stability in the growth of money supply is best achieved by setting the growth rate at a constant rate—this recommendation has been termed as the constant money supply growth rule. The chief proponent of monetarism, Milton Friedman, has long advocated a strict adherence to a money supply rule. Other monetarists favor following a less inflexible money supply growth rate rule. However, monetarists, in general, are in favor of following a rule regarding the money supply growth rate, rather than tolerating fluctuations in the monetary aggregate (caused by discretionary monetary policy aimed at stabilizing the economy around full employment). This policy difference from the activist economists (primarily, the Keynesians) is at the heart of the monetarist debate. This component of the debate is known among professional economists as "rule versus discretion" controversy.
One should note that while monetarists are adamant about following a money supply rule, they are not so rigid regarding the rate at which the money supply growth rate should be fixed. A general rule of thumb suggests that the money supply should grow between 4 and 5 percent. How do economists arrive at these numbers? It is assumed that the long-term economic growth potential of the U.S. economy is about 3 percent per annum, i.e., the real GDP can grow at about 3 percent. So, the money supply has to grow at about 3 percent just to keep the price level from falling—economists do not like falling prices because they cause other problems in the economy. An inflation rate of 1-2 percent per annum is considered acceptable. To generate 1-2 percent inflation, the money supply must grow at 1-2 percent above the growth rate of the real GDP. In effect, then, to have a modest 1-2 percent inflation, the money supply should grow at about 4-5 percent. The issue of the money supply growth rule will be further clarified when theoretical principles underlying monetarism are discussed later.
Second, fiscal policy is ineffective in influencing either real or nominal macroeconomic variables. It has little effect, for example, on either real output/employment or price level. Thus, the government can't use fiscal policy as a stabilization tool. Monetarists contend that while fiscal policy is not an effective stabilization tool, it does lead to some harmful effects on the private sector economy—it crowds out private consumption and investment expenditures.