Carving Leaders from the Warped Wood of Humanity Essay - 34

Carving Leaders from the Warped Wood of Humanity - Essay Example A statement made by the author that was very interesting in regards to this discussion was, â€Å"We respect leaders who put the interest of the followers first, but most leaders don’t pay a price for doing that on a regular basis, nor do most circumstances require them to calculate their interest in relation to the interest of their followers† (Ciulla, 2001). I agree with the author that managers have to consider many factors and variables in their decision making the process that has nothing to do with altruism. The interest of the customers of a company and the community are important to consider, but managers are supposed to maximize shareholders wealth. For that to occur companies have to optimize the use of their economic resources to improve the sales and profits of the company. My personal opinion in regards to the topic of whether leadership and altruism are correlated concepts differs from the opinion of Joanne Ciulla. I think that altruism can enhance the perception of a company, thus the strategy can be beneficial for the profitability of the company. Altruism is a win-win proposition for all the parties involved. A company that has a true sense of the importance of ethics will make a concerted effort to help interest groups in need through altruism efforts. Altruism can enhance the public image of a corporation. The use of altruism reflects well on the leadership abilities of a manager. Altruism should not be visualized as a cost; instead, it should be viewed as a moral and socially responsible way to give back to the community that builds the brand value of a company. Despite my difference of opinion with the author in regards to the relation between these two concepts, I agree with the author in that it is possible to be ethically responsible withou t using altruism. There are lots of ethical decisions that managers must make that do not involve altruism.

Politics And History Of Japan Essay Example for Free

Politics And History Of Japan Essay Nazi rule in Germany was unleashed after the Reichstag Fire in Berlin and almost 3 years after this, the February 26 incident helped to introduce militaristic rule in Japan. The February 26 incident awakened the sleeping giant that was Japan and triggered off major world conflicts. The February 26 Incident On February 26, 1936 a breakaway faction of the Imperial Japanese Army composed of young junior officers and swearing allegiance to the Kodo ha faction within the Army, slipped into the middle of Tokyo and captured key government buildings including the one which housed the Diet or Japanese parliament and Army headquarters. Groups raided the residences of the Prime Minister and senior officials in an attempt to assassinate them.   Prime Minister Okada Keisuke had a narrow escape when the rebels killed his brother in law instead. Others, among them the Finance Minister, were murdered. Subsequently that day, the rebel faction went to the Army Minister to make their demands. They declared the government unfit to lead the affairs of Japan not able to do enough for it as a military power, instead more involved with politics and their self- interest. The action, the group declared was taken in the name of the Emperor. They demanded an immediate dissolution of the Government and the installation of a military General sympathetic to their cause. However, this infuriated Emperor Hirohito who was appalled at the killing of senior colleagues. He summoned Aide de Camp General Shigeru Honjo and declared the faction members as rebels who were acting without the authority of the Imperial Army. The Emperor wanted the rebellion to be squashed. But Army retaliation was not forthcoming as senior officers were still in agreement with the agenda of the rebels. However   the ‘Toseiha’ faction in the Army which was against the doctrines of the Kodo Ha, volunteered full support to the Emperor and even the Imperial Japanese Navy sprung into action, moving its ships into the Tokyo Bay to cut off the rebels. When Emperor Hirohito was informed about the reluctance of the Army to take decisive action, he vowed to personally lead his ‘Imperial Guard ‘into the fray. The following day, martial law was declared and the rebels were boxed in and pamphlets of the Emperor’s declaration were circulated indicating that there was no support from any of the forces for their attack. General Honjo, once a believer of Kodo Ha doctrines was on the Emperor’s side. The offensive lasted till February 29 when the army moved in to capture the rebels and senior members of the faction were ordered to commit ‘seppuku’ or ritual suicide rather than lose their honor in a public trial. Other junior officers were spared. Altogether, 70 coup members were arrested and prosecuted for the crime.[1] Subsequent Events   Ã‚   The four day siege resulted in martial law being stretched to July. The army, sensing an opportunity, used the power provided by martial law to expand its powers and budget. Prime Minister Okada was replaced by Koki Hirota. This effectively ushered in totalitarian rule in Japan which was to set the stage for the Second Sino – Japanese War.[2] Historical Background of Militarism In Japanese history, the role of the military, or to be more precise, militarism has had an overwhelming role in shaping Japan’s world view. Militarism stands for a nation’s strength and should play a dominating role in political as well as social life. The influence of militarism goes back to the days of the Meiji Restoration, known in Japan as the Meiji Ishin or Revolution. This period stretched back to the days of the Tokugawa Shogunate and caused far reaching social changes in Japan of the late 19th century. This was a direct reaction to the arrival of Commodore Matthew Perry’s fleet of American ships on Japanese shores. Commodore Perry forced a treaty – ending 200 years of Japanese insulation in matters of business – enabling trade between Japan and the United States. The Restoration came into being with the Satsuma Choshu Treaty which ultimately led to swearing of complete allegiance of the ruling Shoguns of that time to the Emperor. This was a creed forbidding all defiance to the Emperor (as Japanese history of that period depicts). Most Japanese leaders of that period were of Samurai descent and swore by the codes of the ancient Samurais – loyalty and allegiance to the ruler, dignity and honesty. The Japanese perception of events of that time was that the country’s sovereignty was threatened by outside forces. This justified building up a strong economic and military base to counter such a threat. This tradition continued till the 1800’s when mass conscription to the army and navy was considered an indication of unquestioning loyalty to the Emperor. Part of the reason for the widespread intrusion of militarism through to 1878 was the complete detachment of the forces from civilian society. The Staff commands established by the Imperial Japanese Army and Navy were responsible for formulating all defense strategy and were directly under the command of the Emperor. The Staff Chiefs were therefore under no obligation to the Prime Minister or any form of civilian law, During the Taisho period there was a return to democratic governance when the Washington Naval Treaty was signed and Japan participated in the League of Nations only to crumple with the onset of the Great Economic depression in 1929 when the world economy collapsed and caused trade barriers to be imposed by western nations. This was also coupled with domestic problems at home where several radical groups surfaced and there was even an attempt on the Emperor’s life, in 1932. These distressing events gave rise to patriotic feelings (maybe misplaced) in Japan. Such jingoism saw the military as the only solution to Japan‘s seemingly unending series of crises. The romantic notion that it was time for an Asian resurrection under Japanese rule took root. With the signing of the London Naval Treaty in 1930 by Prime Minister Osachi Hamaguchi and his party, the Navy was severely curbed in influence. This was seen by both the opposition and the military as endangering the country’s security. This whipped up jingoistic sentiment to the extent that Hamaguchi was killed in 1930 and the brief interlude with democratic rule came to an abrupt end. Subsequently, patriotic fervor in Japan gave the military free rein in Asia.[3] This was responsible for Japan’s involvement in several Asian conflicts: the Boxer Rebellion, World War 1, the Russo – Japanese War. The infamous Manchurian Incident of 1931 led to Japanese forces’ take-.over of all Manchuria – to protect Japan’s interests, chiefly Manchurian oil fields. The idea of military expansionism drove Japan into successive conflicts with China. In fact, there even was an attempted coup in Tokyo labeled the ‘Imperial Colors Incident’ which failed but was not made public knowledge. Ultimately, however, the swaggering domination of Japanese militarism failed to establish a dictatorship. The first nails into its coffin were driven by the government of Konoe Fumimaro, when, following wartime priorities his government, through the National Mobilization Law, brought all of Japan’s assets under its purview.   Also, in 1940, the formation of the Imperial Rule Assistance Association led to a single party political rule much discrediting the military.   On February 26, 1936, the rebel officers would hardly have been to foresee all this when they tried to take over Tokyo’s streets and were unleashing a murderous campaign. Until recent times, much romantic lore still surrounded military campaigns which allude to the glory of Japan’s military and Samurai like allegiance to the Emperor. The Emperor still remains a symbol of sovereignty in Japan and is much revered, being treated like a Head of State but is no longer the supreme authority over all Japan’s matters specially armed conflicts. Yukio Mishima spoke about the glory of Japan and the Emperor just before committing suicide inside a military barracks in 1970 and he was a well known literary figure in Japan   who wrote a novella on the February 1936 Incident–   proving that modern Japanese society still retains vestiges of its old fascination for matters martial. The members of the group that was behind the failed coup in 1936 are even being seen by some academics as. These were misguided bunch of young radicals who were only acting for Japan and God. They were not as ruthless as members of Hitler’s army were during the days of the Putsch.[4] February 26, 1936 – It’s Implications Under Koki Hirota’s rule m Japan and China engaged in the biggest war Asia right through 1945 from 1937 onward. The trend of militarism and military aspirations made stronger by the February Incident increased Japanese military aggression in Asian territory mainly to buttress its economic interests. The Second Sino – Japanese War was directly the result of Japanese policy toward China aimed at exploiting its natural reserves like oil.   Equally aggressive was the Chinese stance founded upon a new found realization of the unity of the Chinese people and their right to their own territory. A series of comparatively smaller sized conflicts led to a full scale conflagration. In 1937   The invasion of Manchuria – described above and particularly, the Marco Polo Bridge Incident of 1937 led to the war. Lugou Bridge in China is also known as the Marco Polo Bridge because Marco polo is supposed to have referred to this bridge while on his travels. It was controlled on its west end by the Japanese army and on the East by the Chinese Kuomintang Army. The bridge was a lifeline to Beijing to all areas under the Chinese army’s command – if this bridge fell – Beijing would too.[5] On June 1937, Japanese forces sent a message to the Kuomintang on the western end of the bridge about a missing soldier who might have gone over. They asked to be allowed to carry out a search on the opposite end. The Chinese refused the request acting under orders from their command chain. The Japanese countered this with a threat to open artillery fire if they were not allowed through. The prolonged aftermath saw led to the Japanese finally crushing the Kuomintang resistance and driving on toward Beijing and taking it over following which Japan had assumed control over the North China Plain, a strategically important region. The North China Plain has Beijing to its North East edge and Tianjin , an important industrial center on its North coast, What the Japanese actually did was to set up a ‘puppet’ state called Manchuoko , in Manchuria, installing the last Chinese Emperor   as a figurative head. This region actually prospered and its steel production exceeded Japan’s. Japan even gave up its membership of the League of Nations in 1933 after international protests over the incident but continued with its aggression in Chinese territory. Following the Marco Polo bridge incident, China and Japan engaged in full scale conflict from 1937 till 1945. On December, 1941, the Imperial Japanese Navy launched a full scale attack on the American Fleet docked at Pearl Harbor.   The compulsion of Japanese militarism post the February 1936 Incident and its acquisitive instincts in Asia made Japan very sensitive to the presence of others in the region. Its attack on Pearl Harbor was part of a preventive strategy aimed at halting what its military leaders saw as a build up of American interests in the region. Preventive conflicts have always risen because one or the other side believes that an offensive will result in preventing some projected or future incident. In Japan’s case it was its apprehension that American presence in the region was building up and would result in counter aggression for control over its territories in Asia and the Pacific. Pearl Harbor was the base for the American Naval Fleet and was attacked by almost 6 carriers of the Imperial Japanese Navy.   Waves of air attacks were also launched from the Navy vessels and over 300 aircraft flew over Pearl Harbor and destroyed the standing American fleet of ships. By this attack, America was forced to abandon its position of neutrality and enter into World War 2. For long America   was also building up its armed presence in Indo – China as we; as the East Indies as part of a series of counterbalancing moves aimed at keeping a check on Japanese movement in the region which was aggressively aimed at securing Asia and therefore its supreme position as its leader. Japan. Specifically, the objective of the Pearl Harbor attack was to secure Japanese advances into the East Indies islands and Malaya, both rich sources of oil and rubber. President Roosevelt was conscious of this when he ordered his fleet be strategically stationed in the Philippines region. According to Japanese assumption – a complete halt to American activity in the Pacific region – turned out to be completely wrong and it eventually had to surrender to American troops in 1945 bringing an end to World War II.[6] The Axis Pact In September 1940, Japan entered into a pact also known as the Tripartite Pact, with Fascist Italy and Adolph Hitler’s Nazi Germany which was the official declaration of the Axis Powers against the Allied powers. At the height of their power all 3 members commanded huge territories in Europe and Indo-China. Japan was under Emperor Hirohito and its main objective of signing the Pact was to protect its protect its military and economic bases in the pacific region. When Europe was engaged in its conflict with Germany, Japan insidiously moved into European colonies around the Pacific. America was the only nation to alert to Japanese intentions in this part of the world and countered Japan. Japanese believed that a war with the West was inevitable given its cultural differences but, given its unbridled militarism, Japan’s intentions were also materialistic. However, a certain section of the military leadership believed the conflict was to be aimed at hemming in Soviet Russia. But relations with the USA were also strained with American sponsored embargos on Japan m partly in response to its offensives against China. Japan saw US action against it as an act of western Imperialism and proceeded to band with Germany and Italy through the Tripartite Pact. Japan rushed headlong into its military inspired acquisitions also honed by the oil embargo imposed by the USA, which made it dependent on the resources of other countries. Many in Japan believed the conflict with the Americans could be resolved through negotiations but military leaders insisted on stepping up military offensive in Asia. When Germany was carrying out its Blitzkrieg in Europe m Japan was doing the same in Asia having control over large parts of Asia including Taiwan and Manchuria. But uncontrolled military offensives inevitably end and so did Japan’s end in the Battle of Midway when its fleet was destroyed by American ships.[7] The atom bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki preceded by the declaration of war by the Soviet Union broke Japan’s military might forcing it to surrender to America in 1945.   The international War Crimes Tribunal sentenced Japanese military leaders to death. Japan’s militarism blinded it to the might of America’s military might and made it underestimate Chinese resistance. Its territories were taken under American control.   The Japanese also miscalculated the output of the war machinery in America which h outrivaled that of Japan’s. Truly Japan’s military leaders had become complacent and could not realize that they were going through a death wish which was to almost obliterate Japan (the atom bombings) from the face of the Earth.[8] In conclusion it should be stated that one good outcome was Japan’s access to American industrial technology and Japan’s subsequent rise to the world’s major industrial leader. Today, largely because of this Japan is also a technology leader and makes business conquests in place of military ones through its electronics goods ad cars. Japan wages its own internal battles with rising economics problems and unemployment and job cutbacks but the collective Japanese psyche has grown wise to blind nationalism and tries to blend with the world. It now enjoys a stable democracy and single party rule with its armed forces under the command of the prime Minister, Japan has no need for war and a Pacifist constitution has m in fact been built into the Constitution which forces it to renounce aggression and armed conflict .this was bequeathed to it by America after the .defeat of 1945. Japan is well on its way to new millennium bidding goodbye to its aggression and the February Incident will always remain a blot on its history and its pacifist character. Bibliography: Goddard, J; Nation Management: Making the Most Out of It (Christchurch: Howard Price. 2006) pp 433-5 Gervers, V; Japan at War (Melbourne: HBT Publishers Pvt. Ltd. 2000) pp 167 Knott, P; Analysis of US Wars (Dhaka: Dasgupta Chatterjee 2005) pp 188-9 Kumar, H; Justice of Winners: Win Some, Lose None (Auckland: HBT Brooks Ltd. 2005) pp 334 Manning, C S; Principals and Practices of War Industry: Trade of Death (Christchurch: National Book Trust. 2004) pp 279 Powell, M; Anatomy of Modern Crusades: Independence to WWII (Wellington: ABP Ltd 2001) pp 49-53 Prawer, H A; Kingdom of Japan (Dunedin: Allied Publishers 2004) pp 221-5 Tyerman, J; Invention of the Japanese Great War (Dunedin: Allied Publications 2001) pp 233-37 [1] Tyerman, J; Invention of the Japanese Great War (Dunedin: Allied Publications 2001) pp 233-37 [2] Prawer, H A; Kingdom of Japan (Dunedin: Allied Publishers 2004) pp 221-5 [3] Goddard, J; Nation Management: Making the Most Out of It (Christchurch: Howard Price. 2006) pp 433-5 [4] Gervers, V; Japan at War (Melbourne: HBT Publishers Pvt. Ltd. 2000) pp 167 [5] Manning, C S; Principals and Practices of War Industry: Trade of Death (Christchurch: National Book Trust. 2004) pp 279 [6] Powell, M; Anatomy of Modern Crusades: Independence to WWII (Wellington: ABP Ltd 2001) pp 49-53 [7] Knott, P; Analysis of US Wars (Dhaka: Dasgupta Chatterjee 2005) pp 188-9 [8] Kumar, H; Justice of Winners: Win Some, Lose None (Auckland: HBT Brooks Ltd. 2005) pp 334

Comparing Kafkas Metamorphosis and The Stranger (The Outsider) :: comparison compare contrast essays

The Metamorphosis and The Stranger (The Outsider)  Ã‚   Existentialism is defined as a philosophical movement that human beings are completely free and responsible for their own actions.   Existentialists will try not to cause waves and remain completely uninvolved with anyone because they do not want to hurt anybody.  Ã‚   There is absolutely no such thing as an existentialist because he would have to be so uninvolved to the point where he would not be able to live at all.   Although the two stories: The Metamorphosis by Franz Kafka and The Stranger by Albert Camus are very different in approach, their endings are similar in that they both support the basics of existentialism.     Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The biggest difference between the two characters: Gregor and Mersault is their physical form.   One has changed physically into a giant insect while the other remains a normal human being.   Another difference is the situation between the characters and their mothers.   Gregor wants to have a relationship with his mother but cannot because of his physical form.   Mersault’s mother is alive and well for part of the novel, but he does not want to take care of her or have anything to do with her.   The two characters are similar in the way that they do not believe in God and will both die lonely and abandoned.  Ã‚     Kafka creates a very lonely and abandoned world for Gregor Samsa in his short novel Metamorphosis.   Gregor is an existentialist character who mutates into a giant bug without reason and no longer has any control over his life.   He becomes completely uninvolved in the way that he does not talk or have any interaction with anyone inside or outside of the family.   He is dehumanized.   Gregor’s mother is disgusted by the looks of him and refuses to see or talk to him.   Gregor is now lonely and abandoned by his family, does not eat and eventually dies.  Ã‚     Ã‚     Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   In the short novel The Stranger, Mersault is also an existentialistic character.   He does not wish to become involved with anyone, including God and his own mother and does not have any emotion what so-ever when she dies.   Although Mersault does not want to become involved with anyone, he also does not want to create waves, thus he cannot help but to say yes to a friend when he asks him for help.

Motorcycle Helmet Laws in America Essay

Motorcycle are not the safest means of transportation but millions of people all across America choose them over automobile for the trill, speed and high performance capabilities they offer in fraction of the price of a automobile. Motorcycle do not provide the protection like automobiles do with their outer body and safety features like air bags and seat belts, therefore in case of an accident the injury sustained by the rider is often very serious. When dealing with motorcycle accidents, majority of the fatalities are due to head injuries which could have been prevented had the rider been wearing a helmet. Helmets are the only method to reduce the head injuries during crashes which is the leading cause of death involving motorcycle accidents. Helmet use law has created a lot of controversies over the years, while some supporting the law and other opposing it. One side who support the law believe that the helmet law protects the motorcyclist from danger in case of an accident and save the nation a good deal of money. While, the other side believes that the law is unconstitutional and it violets their right to freedom. Although helmet cannot prevent motorcycle accidents but greatly reduces the number of deaths caused by head injuries during these crashes as well as helps in lowering taxes, insurance cost and health care cost. According to the federal government estimates, the number of deaths on motorcycle per mile in 2006 was 35 times higher than in automobile. In last couple of years motorcycle deaths have seen considerable increase- more than doubling in 2007 from the record low in 1997. In contrast the passenger occupant death reached a record low in 2007. This paper examines the history of motorcycle helmet use law and also the current state of the law. It also tries to highlight the burden that accident involving riders not wearing helmet impose on the society and also the effect of helmet law on helmet use. BACKGROUND HISTORY OF MOTORCYCLE HELMET LAW: The motorcycle helmets laws in United States has gone through several changes throughout the years. In 1967, in order to increase the helmet use, the federal government required the state government to enact helmet use laws to qualify for certain federal safety program and highway construction fund. The federal incentives was a success and by early 1970s almost all the states had universal helmet laws which covered all the riders of all ages and experience. 1968, Michigan became the first state to repel its laws. This lead to a series of repeal, re-enactment, and amendment of motorcycle helmet laws. In 1976, US Department of transportation (DOT) moved in to assess the financial penalties on states without helmet laws but the congress corresponded to state pressure and stopped DOT from assessing financial penalties on states without helmet laws. By 1980, several states had repealed their helmet laws and some weakened their laws to cover riders under the age of 18 but not older riders. In the 1980s and early 1990, several states reinstated helmet laws applying for all riders. In the 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, several incentives were created by the congress for the states to enact helmet use and safety belt use laws. The eligibility criteria for receiving special safety grants was that the state must enact both the laws. Up to 3 percent of federal highway allotment was redirected to highway safety program for all the states that did not enact the laws by October 1993. But again after four years of establishing the incentive program ,congress revised itself. In the fall of 1995, federal sanction against the states without helmet use laws was lifted which paved the way for state to repeal helmet use laws. This lead to many states weakening its helmet use laws. Now 20 states and District of Columbia have helmet laws covering all riders and 27 states have partial helmet use law covering some riders (usually riders under the age of 18). Illinois and Iowa do not have any helmet use laws. PRESENT HELMET LAW STATUS: [pic] NO HELMET LAW: |NO HELMET LAW (2 STATES) | |ILLINOIS |IOWA | PARTIALLY FREE: |AGE REQUIREMENT – PARTIALLY FREE (27 STATES) | |15 & UNDER |18 & UNDER |19 & UNDER |21 & UNDER | | | | | | |MAINE |ALASKA |DELAWARE |ARKANSAS | | |ARIZONA | |KENTUCKY | | |COLORADO | |RHODE ISLAND | | |CONNECTICUT | |SO. CAROLINA | | |HAWAII | |TEXAS | | |IDAHO | |PENNSYLVANIA | | |INDIANA | | | | |KANSAS | | | | |MINNESOTA | | | | |NEW HAMPSHIRE | | | | |NEW MAXICO | | | | |NORTH DAKOTA | | | | |OHIO | | | | |OKLAHOMA | | | | |SOUTH DAKOTA | | | | |UTAH | | | AGE REQUIREMENT & INSURANCE: |AGE REGUIREMENT + INSURANCE (1 STATE PARTIALLY FREE) | |21 & OVER | |FLORIDA | MANDATORY LAW: | | |MANDATORY HELMET LAWS (20 STATES) | |ALABAMA |MASSACHUSETTS |TENNESSE |NEBRASKA | |CALIFORNIA |MICHIGAN |VERMONT |NEW YORK | |GEORGIA |MISSISSIPPI |VIRGINIA |NEW JERSEY | |LOUISIANA. |MISSOURI |WASHINGTON |NORTH CAROLINA | |MARYLAND |NEBRASKA |W. VIRGINIA |OREGON | | | | | | | | | | | HOW DO HELMET LAWS AFFECT HELMET USE: Based on various studies of states enactment, repel and weakening of helmet laws, it was observed that the helmet use reached 100 percent when all the riders were required to wear helmet at all times compared to 50 percent when there was no law or law applied to only some riders. In 2008, according to NHTSA, 97 percent of the riders were observed wearing helmets in states with universal helmet laws compared to 90 percent in 2002. In states without universal helmet law the use of helmet was 52 percent in 2002 and 54 percent in 2008. Based on helmets judged to be compliant with federal safety regulations, use was 73 percent in 2002 and went up to 78 percent in 2008 among motorcyclists in states with universal helmet laws. It rose from 46 to 50 percent among motorcyclists in states without such laws. HOW DO HELMET LAW EFFECT MOTORCYCLIST DEATH AND INJURIES: In states which either reinstates or enacted saw a considerable increase in motorcycle helmet use and motorcycle death and injuries decreased drastically. Whereas the states which repealed or weakened their existing helmet law saw a great increase in motorcycle death and injuries and considerable decrease in helmet use. According to two studies published in 2007 and 2008, motorcyclist fatality rates were modelled based on helmet law type, after controlling for various factors such as per capita income, population density, and annual precipitation. It was observed that the states which had helmet law covering all riders had lowest death rates. Further on, the states which had helmet law covering only some riders had low death rate compared to states with no helmet law, but not as low as the states with universal helmet law. These results held for all three types of rates considered: deaths per 10,000 registered motorcycles, deaths per 100,000 population, and deaths per 10 billion vehicle miles traveled. Some examples of helmet law and its effect on death and injuries:   California enacted universal helmet law on January 1, 1992. The number of motorcycle fatalities decreased 37 percent to 327 in 1992 from 523 in 1991.   Nebraska reinstated a helmet law on January 1, 1989 after repealing an earlier law in 1977. The state saw 22 percent reduction in serious head injuries due to motorcycle crashes.   From 1968 to 1977, Texas had a universal helmet use law estimated to have saved 650 lives, but the law was amended in 1977 to apply only to riders younger than 18. The weakened law coincided with a 35 percent increase in motorcyclist fatalities. Texas reinstated its helmet law for all motorcyclists in September 1989. The month before the law took effect, the helmet use rate was 41 percent. The rate jumped to 90 percent during the first month of the law and had risen to 98 percent by June 1990. Serious injury crashes per registered motorcycle decreased 11 percent. But in September 1997, Texas again weakened its helmet law, requiring helmets only for riders younger than 21. Helmet use in Texas dropped to 66 percent by May 1998, and operator fatalities increased 31 percent in the first full year following the repeal.   Kentucky repealed its universal helmet law in 1998, followed by Louisiana in 1999. These actions resulted in lower helmet use, and quickly increased motorcyclist deaths in these states by 50 percent and 100 percent, respectively. In 2000, Florida’s universal helmet law was weakened to exempt riders 21 and older who have at least $10,000 of medical insurance coverage. An Institute study found that the motorcyclist death rate in Florida increased by about 25 percent after the state weakened its helmet law. A study of the Florida law change by NHTSA found a similar effect; motorcyclist deaths per 10,000 motorcycle registrations increased 21 percent during the two years after the law was changed compared with the two years before. IMPACT OF HELMET LAW ON MOTORCYCLE THEFT: Helmet law has also resulted in decline in reduction in motorcycle theft as potential robbers may not have an access to helmet and not wearing helmet will attract police notice. According to Texas department of public safety, motorcycle theft decreased 44 percent between 1988 and 1998 in 19 cities after enactment of universal helmet law. After enactment of helmet law by Great Britain, motorcycle theft feel 24 percent in London. The Netherlands saw 36 percent drop in motorcycle theft after it enacted helmet laws in 1975. In 1980, when on the spot fine was introduced in former West Germany, motorcycle theft plummeted 60 percent. IMPACT OF HELMET ON HEALTH CARE COST: Unhelmeted riders have higher health care costs as a result of their crash injuries, and many lack health insurance. In November 2002, NHTSA reported that 25 studies of the costs of injuries from motorcycle crashes â€Å"consistently found that helmet use reduced the fatality rate, probability and severity of head injuries, cost of medical treatment, length of hospital stay, necessity for special medical treatments, and probability of long-term disability. A number of studies examined the question of who pays for medical costs. Only slightly more than half of motorcycle crash victims have private health insurance coverage. For patients without private insurance, a majority of medical costs are paid by the government. † According to specific findings of several studies: 1996 NHTSA study found that inpatient hospital charges were 8 percent higher for riders without helmets compared to riders wearing helmets.   Various studies shows that the health care cost associated with head injured motorcyclist decline after the introduction of helmet use law in 1994 by the state of California. The rate of motorcyclist hospitalized for head injuries decreased by 48 percent in 1993 compared with 1991 and the total cost of patients with head injuries decreased by $20. 5 million during this period. †¢ After reinstatement of helmet law by Nebraska, study showed that there has been 38 percent decline in total acute medical charges for injured motorcyclist. A NHTSA evaluation of the weakening of Florida’s universal helmet law in 2000 to exclude riders 21 and older who have at least $10,000 of medical insurance coverage found a huge increase in hospital admissions of cyclists with injuries to the head, brain, and skull. Such injuries went up 82 percent during the 30 months immediately following the law change. The average inflation-adjusted cost of treating these injuries went up from about $34,500 before the helmet law was weakened to nearly $40,000 after. Less than one-quarter of the injured motorcyclists would have been covered by the $10,000 medical insurance requirement for riders who chose not to use helmets. Various studies conducted in Nebraska, California, Washington and Massachusetts indicates that taxpayers are burdened by injured motorcyclist. From January 1988 to January 1990, 41 percent motorcyclist injured in Nebraska lacked health insurance or received Medicaid or Medicare. In Seattle, public fund paid 63 percent of trauma care for injured motorcyclist in 1985. In Sacramento, 82 percent of the costs to treat orthopaedic injuries sustained by motorcyclists during 1980-83 was paid by public fund. Forty-six percent of motorcyclists treated at Massachusetts General Hospital during 1982-83 were uninsured. MOTORCYCLE HELMET LAW ISSUES: Motorcyclist often feel that helmet use law violets their right of freedom. They believe that the rider should have the freedom to decide the use of helmet. According to various motorcycle groups, helmet use law reduces riding which in turn results in less death rates in motorcycle crashes which the government uses to confuse people about the safety benefits of helmet. Many motorcyclist have gone to the court objecting the law. In 1972, a federal court told a motorcyclist who objected to the law: â€Å"The public has an interest in minimizing the resources directly involved. From the moment of injury, society picks the person up off the highway; delivers him to a municipal hospital and municipal doctors; provides him with unemployment compensation if, after recovery, he cannot replace his lost job; and, if the injury causes permanent disability, may assume responsibility for his and his family’s subsistence. We do not understand a state of mind that permits plaintiff to think that only he himself is concerned. † This decision was affirmed by the US Supreme Court. RECCOMENDATIONS TO INCREASE HELMET USE: Law makers should look into other means to increase use of motorcycle helmets other then law. Public campaign to encourage helmet use would greatly reduce the law enforcement cost also restriction to one’s own freedom felt by some riders. But the chances of achieving results through these method is minimal. Subsidies on helmet purchase can shift part of the cost from riders to general public by providing federal money to the motorcyclist purchasing helmets. Subsidies would not motivate riders who value their freedom and convenience over the benefits helmet use. Motorcyclist using helmet should be charged lower insurance premium compared to riders not using helmet to encourage helmet use. This difference in insurance premium would encourage un-helmeted rider to use helmet and other safety gear in order to reduce their premium. When novice riders take rider education course, more emphasis should be laid on the importance of helmet use and not just only the basic operating skills. If they understand the use of safety gear and helmet at early age, it might affect their choice later in their life. Motorcyclist who fail to wear a helmet and sustain head injuries could be denied compensation for injury and damages. however, it would become difficult for the court to determine on case to case basis in which compensation would be denied as head injuries are sustained when helmet are worn. Various studies have showed that when helmet use is not mandatory, 50% of all riders wear helmet but when it is mandatory nearly 100% riders use helmet. So, the only way to increase helmet is to enact universal helmet law in all the states of United States of America. REFERENCES: www. pubmedcentral. nih. gov www. iihs. org www. nhtsa. dot. org.

Case Study †Angus Cartwright III Essay

I. Case Overview Angus Cartwright III, an investment advisor, was asked to provide investment advisory services for two clients, John DeRight and Judy DeRight. They both wanted to purchase a property that (1) is large enough to attract the interest of a professional real estate management company and (2) has a minimum leveraged return on their investments of 12% after tax. Their major goals are: Diversification of investment portfolio Protection from future inflation Take some tax advantages (especially for John) Mr. Cartwright selected four properties and performed various financial analyses to best match the needs of his clients with the characteristics of the properties and the returns they offered. II. Assessment of the Analyses and Assumptions: Cartwright employed three stages of analysis: Preliminary Analysis (Exhibit 1 to 3), Risk Analysis (Exhibit 4) and Financial Analysis (Exhibit 5 to 10). Preliminary Analysis starts with gathering key facts and data such as purchase prices, current and future income, depreciation, estimated sales price and cash flows, loan and its rate and amortization, taxes and etc. The 1st year setups (Exhibit 2) for each property were developed and major comparable statistics (Exhibit 3) were calculated. Such analyses serve as a foundation for identifying directions and strategies for further detailed analysis, including financial analysis, physical inspection and an examination of day-to-day operations of potential investment properties. Risk Analysis consisting of a review of financial leverage (loan to value ratio) and operating risk (debt coverage ratio) can help a real estate investor to weigh the level of risks in relation to his investment objectives. In this case, Fowler had the highest leverage of 74.47%, while Alison Green had the highest Debt Coverage Ratio of 2, followed by Ivy Terrace(1.92), Stony Walk(1.46) and Fowler(1.26). The cushions they had are all sufficient for most lenders. The Break-Even Analysis, shown in Exhibit 4, was valuable to understand how a small change in occupancy levels can make a corresponding change in a property’s financial performance; most real state analysis assume the initial occupancy rate to remain at the same level through the investment period. Once all the relevant and key financial data is gathered, a number of effective financial analyses were performed; they are capitalization rate on both purchase and sale, cash-on-cash return rate, Internal Rate of Return (â€Å"IRR†), Net Present Value (â€Å"NPV†), Profitability Index and Cash Flow Analysis. The Quality of the financial analysis outcome heavily depends on the quality and accuracy of implicit assumptions used. However, applying financial analysis is still the best way to estimate the future performance of investment properties and comparing or prioritizing multiple investment opportunities. IRR is the most important and frequently used investment analysis indicator. Understanding various components of an IRR (Exhibit 8, 9 and 10) can help to carefully plan the timing, the sequence and size of events within an investment that will  impact the performance/outcome of the investments. In his analysis, Cartwright used the following assumptions: Annual increase in cash flow from operations: 4% for Fowler and 3% for the others. Vacancy rate: 5% for Alison Green and Stony Walk, 7% for the others. Capital reserve: $250 per apartment p.a., timing of when to disburse the reserve and its tax implication Sufficient funding of the equity investment Tax laws remain stable with ordinary tax rates: 35%; Capital gain tax rate: 15%; tax rate on the depreciation related gain: 25% Cartwright made, in general, conservative assumptions to simplify his analysis, and therefore, no particular assumption stood out to be unreasonable. As a continuing effort to improve quality of his assumptions, we could revisit and review his assumptions with the following generic questions: Is 3% or 4% increase in cash flow reasonable in current market/economic condition? How realistic is it to negotiate a rental guarantee with developers to be at 93% occupancy rate? How realistic is it that the capital reserve will remain at the same level for the next 10 years? How realistic is it that the leasehold payment will remain at the same level for the next 10 years? Should there be any significant changes in the outcome of the analysis, if the timing of the reserve disbursement is not assumed to be at the end of the lease term? Will there be any trend or expected government legislating new tax laws that will have significant impact on real estate investments? All properties appear to be large enough to attract the interest of professional real estate management companies and all exceeded the minimum leveraged return on investments of 12% after tax. On the simple return measures, Stony Walk had the highest Capital Rate on Purchase where Fowler ranked at the highest in Capital rate on Sales; Alison which had a high cash flow with low vacancy rate, and thus a high effective gross income was ranked in first for the Cash-on-Cash Return; Fowler which was still under construction and appeared to be undervalued had largest increase in capital value. On the discount return measures, Fowler had the highest IRR at 15.38 while Stony Walk had the lowest rate at 14.54, with a difference of 0.84; Alison had largest NPV with a difference of $115K comparing with the lowest NPV; Fowler which required the smallest equity investment had the highest Profitability Index. While the two residential properties have higher returns from their on-going cash flows, the increase in the investment value of the other two commercial properties will come from future value increase – see Exhibit 9. Completed exhibits for all four properties are included in the Appendix. The relevant analysis of other financial exhibits is integrated in the following chapter as reasoning of the recommendations. IV. Recommendations If we simply select an investment choice based on the highest IRR rate, Fowler should be recommended for both clients. However, as we better understand the components of the IRR (see Exhibit 9 in Appendix), we should try to best match each client’s ultimate investment goal to distinct character of each property instead of recommending an investment base only on the highest IRR rate. Exhibit 9. Percent of Total Benefits (@IRR) For John, our team recommends Alison Green with the following reasons: John is a retired, passive investor who wants to live comfortably from stable income/returns from the savings he accumulated, and was particularly interested in taking advantage of the new tax law, which will give him a favorable capital gain’s tax. As we can see from the breakdown of IRR, Alison Green and Ivy Terrace were projected to have higher steady income streams than the other two properties. Between them, Alison, although with a lightly lower IRR, has much higher tax benefit than the Ivy. Alison requires a higher initial equity investment than Ivy. However, Alison is estimated to be appreciated more at the end of 10 year and therefore will produce higher capital gain. Since John wants to take advantage of the new tax law and pay his capital gains at the newly enacted 15% rate, Alison is a better choice than Ivy. For Judy, our team recommends Fowler Building with the following  reasons: Unlike John, Judy is an active executive who can be a more aggressive investor and has some available fund for outside investment to diversify her portfolio. She may not care about the stable incoming cash flow as much as John. She will be more tolerant on any fluctuations such as a short-term, negative operating risks such as lower occupancy rate or lower investment value at the beginning as long as her investment will appreciate adequately at the end. We consider Judy as an investor focused more on ‘growth’ than ‘value/steady income’ seeking investor, and therefore we recommend Fowler because of its highest Profitability Index (=NPV/Equity).