An opinion is a simple statement of opinion, often expressed as an opinion about something. However, when expressed in a legal context, it is known as legal advice. It is often used by lawyers and other professionals to express a point of view on a particular situation or legal issue. In many ways, opinion is much like religion.
Why is it necessary to have an opinion? Well, having an opinion is a necessary part of modern life. Without sight it would be chaos. Without sight, there would be no direction for a person to go in life. A person can not succeed unless he has some kind of opinion.
What are the benefits of an opinion? Well, first of all, they demand opinions in order to participate in society. Without opinion, a person would be little more than a sheep with no choice but to pursue the herd. Without opinion, the business world would be completely paralyzed. Without opinion, a person can only make an ignorant fool out of himself.
So, why is opinion important? Well, opinion is important because it forms the basis of arguments, that is, the means by which people try to win their particular cases. Without opinion, arguments are taken. With an opinion, people start arguing that they bring more facts forward.
How do you get an opinion? Well, opinion is gained by being exposed to different kinds of argumentative situations. These situations can occur anywhere and at any time. There are two types of people, those who agree with other people and those who do not. Usually, people who agree with other people are known as moderates. Moderate opinion often resembles a middle position on everyday issues.
On the other hand, there are those who do not agree with other people, these people are known as extremists. Often, these people go beyond moderate thinking and become extreme. The extreme form of an opinion is the most extreme form of an opinion. People whose opinions are extreme often have no logic to support their opinion. Sometimes these people even resort to violence when they are put on the wrong side of an argument. It is for this reason that it is always advisable that every opinion you express must be based on logic and all the facts you use should be examined and verified before you express it in public.
An opinion is very important because it forms the basis of every argument. Without opinion, the person making the argument is nothing more than a child with no real education in public speaking. No opinion means no arguments and therefore no result. You need to make sure that your opinions are based on logic and that you are able to back up your claims with facts and figures. Otherwise, you are nothing more than a predictable mess.
An opinion is important because it can help a business person make a decision. Whether this decision is to open a branch in a place that alienates some of the local population or whether there is an opinion that they should do it this way to bring more business. The last example of using an opinion to influence business decisions is known as propaganda. This is unacceptable as it constitutes an untrustworthy attack by a business person and should therefore be avoided at all costs. If you think you are able to use opinion in a way that does not fall into this category, then you should seek considerate professional advice on how to use it properly in your business.
Readers agree with a guest essay that argued that America could not afford the $ 3.5 trillion bill now before Congress.
Re “Can We Afford a Welfare State ?,” by N. Gregory Mankiw (Opinion Guest Essay, September 17):
Mr Mankiw is a remarkably conservative economist, and his guest essay is the classic conservative complaint: We cannot afford the safety net of many advanced nations. In principle, he says we have to accept: the highest health costs in the world, some of the highest levels of childhood poverty, hundreds of thousands of people go bankrupt every year due to health debts, inaccessibility to higher education for many of our citizens, high Level of economic inequality, etc. What for? Because it would give us G.D.P.
The values expressed by this position are simply unethical and increasingly lead to extremism in our politics. Of course, America can afford to become a large welfare state, and I, for one, am willing to pay for it.
N. Gregory Mankiw makes a well-deserved case against the expansion of the welfare state, but the basis of his argument is that the goal of society should be to maximize the GDP to the maximum Yes, G.D.P. per capita is lower in Europe, but most workers also receive between four and six weeks of paid leave per year, paid maternity leave and maternity leave, and state-provided health care.
What is the impact of this on their emotional and physical well-being? Does the average worker benefit more from being able to afford more luxurious household items, or a more generously paid holiday and better access to health care?
Prof. N. Gregory Mankiw claims that President Biden’s $ 3.5 trillion package is too large and too dangerous. The wiser course is to take more incremental steps rather than trying to remake the economy in one fell swoop. “
His path might be more rational, but it does not work in today’s political world. You have to get it if you can. What works through the eyes of a Harvard economics professor cannot translate to the floor of Congress.
Following the advice of Yogi Berra, “if you come across a fork in the road, take it.” Do not worry.
N. Gregory Mankiw believes that political considerations behind the proposed $ 3.5 trillion social spending bill “raise bigger questions about American values and aspirations, and about what kind of nation we want to be.” But Mr Mankiw ignores the message that our current budget says about our values.
The United States spends about $ 700 billion annually on the military. A 2018 report by the International Institute for Strategic Studies says we are spending more on our military than the next 10 nations combined. This suggests a priority not for self-defense, but rather for projecting US military power around the globe. Excessive military spending results in corporate prosperity. It enriches the military-industrial complex while exacerbating income inequality.
Mr Mankiw says we need to raise taxes in order to have a social safety net comparable to Western Europe. We have another option. We can change our priorities to provide more help to our people and less help to powerful companies.
N. Gregory Mankiw reiterates the same tired arguments and hangs obscurely on “risks to economic prosperity” and the dangers of trying to “make the economy new.” In particular, he ignores the great inequalities in income, wealth, and working conditions that exist in the United States today, which makes his call for the alleged exchange between equality and efficiency both sad and irrelevant.
Many of the policies embedded in the bidding proposals increase equality and efficiency, for example by supporting disadvantaged children and others in which the current economy is underinvested.
Mr Mankiw has the same blind spot when he compares the GDP per capita in the US and Europe. Where high levels of inequality exist, G.D.P. per capita is an incomplete measure of the well-being of the typical household. What about other metrics like life expectancy, access to education, health care? Then the comparison would not be so favorable.
Barbara Morgan Baltimore The writer is a senior lecturer in economics at Johns Hopkins University.
N. Gregory Mankiw claims that Europeans work less than Americans “because they pay higher taxes to fund a more generous social security network.” European residents work less because European Union nations recognize that workers deserve time away from work for their families and interests, that workers should not be slaves to their employers, and other reasons based on recognition that adults are more than workers.
If the so-called “family values” Republican Party had genuine concern for American families, this country would have a law like the European Union that requires a minimum of four weeks of paid leave for all workers.
Beverly IsensonSteilacoom, Wash.
N. Gregory Mankiw, not wanting to act as very fine on sympathy vis-à-vis the less fortunate in his opposition to the proposed Democratic Reconciliation Bill, writes, “This does not mean that the United States already has the right balance between compassion and prosperity. . “
The many millions who are homeless, struggling to get the minimum wage job, who are a medical bill away from the emergency, who cannot afford regular dental care, can be forgiven for seeing this claim as the ultimate suppression.
It is a sad fact that our dynamic capitalist economy works for some – for many of us – but not for all of us. Mr Mankiw is an advocate of capitalism, of free enterprise. But if we have capitalism, then it must be capitalism that works for all of us.
How about a strict tax policy that punishes the companies that make our jobs offshore? This crazy run down of American companies, in countries with starvation wages, no unions and no environmental protection, must stop now.
Prof. N. Gregory Mankiw claims that the $ 3.5 trillion social spending bill is too large and “higher taxes distort incentives and hinder economic growth.” I would note that the United States has by far the highest overall poverty rate among the 26 industrialized nations of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Mr. Mankiw’s use of the G.D.P. because the measure of prosperity does not do a good job of reflecting the well-being of individuals.
Americans have paid much more in personal income taxes in recent decades and the nation has nevertheless prospered. Too many of our citizens continue to struggle financially in the massive accumulation of wealth from the top 0.5 percent of our population. It’s time to get the ship right.
Prosperity as the greatest good? That is demonstrably wrong. The more we bloom, the more we consume; and the more we consume, the warmer our world becomes, the planet earth. We are on the path to a very, very unsympathetic future, and perhaps extinction.