`` Rent Seeking And The Marking Of An Unequal Society `` By Joseph E. Stiglitz

Technology has evolved so much over the course of 82 years. People who were living in 1935 would have no clue what a computer is or what it could potentially become. Education itself and how we learn has come a long way. Everything was hand written. Now in 2017, we have every answer with just one touch of a button. Google is a search engine that holds almost every answer in the world. There are many opinions on the way humans in 2017 function, and process information. Nicholas carr is a respect author who writes about the relationship between technology and culture. He has written for the Atlantic, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, etc. He has written two great essay that have won The Best American Science and Nature Writing, The Best collected in Several Anthologies, The Best American Science and Nature Writing, and The Best Technology Writing. One of them which is titled, “Is Google Making Us Stupid.”  Nicholas Carr argues that Google is not making humans stupid, but as technology progress our minds must adapt and change the way we think and process information. This essay has many rhetorical approaches. Nicholas Carr uses imagery, opinion, ethos, and pathos to persuade his audience, provoking a doubt on whether google is making humans stupid.

Sergey Brin noted, “Some say Google is God. Others say Google is Satan. But if they think Google is too powerful, remember that with search engines, unlike other companies, all it takes is a single click to go to another search engine.” Nicholas Carr’s essay challenges this assertion. Nicholas Carr believes even though there are multiple search engines, “the faster we surf across the Web-the more links we click and pages we view-the more opportunities Google and other companies gain to collect information about us and to feed us advertisements.” This topic elicits such strong responses because technology is a part of our everyday lives. Technology is only becoming more advanced and will continue to be a source of debate for all who use it.

Ever since a young age, the youth of the United States are taught that they must strive to be the best they can be. This would ultimately result in one possessing a competitive edge, once one enters the selection process of joining one of many higher institutions of education or the job market. In the essays “Project Classroom Makeover,” “Biographies of Hegemony,” and “Rent Seeking and the Making of an Unequal Society,” respectfully by, Cathy Davidson, Karen Ho, and Joseph Stiglitz, the topic of competitive behaviors and practices is widely addressed and heavily criticized. Education is competitive, yet bias. Institutions of higher education value students based irrelevant factors, something which is unacceptable in the modern, digital age. This heavily impacts the selection process of candidates, leading the system to favor unqualified individuals. Prevalent business superpowers, many residing in Wall Street, pick low hanging fruit. In other words, these firms take very minimal effort to choose candidates in positions that are extremely competitive and valuable. They recruit individuals who graduate from top schools and have no other realistic edge for the company, aside from namesake. Woven into these practices, many examples of uncompetitive behavior arise as well from other factors of the system. In this essay, I argue that competitive and uncompetitive behaviors have molded modern America, with massive organizations and authorities playing into these behaviors from all

"How Economic Inequality Harms Societies." Richard Wilkinson:. TED Talks, July 2011. Web. 26 Feb. 2015.

of “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” published in 2008 in the Atlantic, believes that the internet is “tinkering with our brains” and has even admitted to seeing changes within himself. Carr created this article to inform people about how societies ability to read and comprehend information is being changed or harmed by the use of the internet. Carr did have some errors such as structural problems with his thesis and also struggled with an informal writing style. Despite some of these errors, Carr’s use of rhetorical techniques such as ethos, pathos, logos, and ample amount of personal and factual information along with the emotional touches, allows him to develop a strong persuasive argument.

Nicholas Carr argues in his text, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” that the Internet is changing the way people work and reflect for the worst. Carr’s argument is ineffective because while the Internet might be shifting people, it could be for the better. Nicholas Carr argues that the instant access to information through Google provides has caused the loss of the ability to read long articles and as well be able to hold our attention with out just skimming through the text. While Carr attempts to persuade his audience through his rhetorical aim and as well as the usage of ethos, pathos and logos to convince his audience with a rational dispute, his argument is to direct and the audience he is speaking to

Nicholas Carr is well known American writer who has written article and books based on business, technology and culture. In 2011, he was the finalist for Pulitzer Prize in General Notification for his book The Shallows: What The Internet Is Doing To Our Brains.In Nicholas Carr’s article “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”, he wrote for The Atlantic on Jul 1, 2008. It's very plausible, complicated and persuasive article. The article makes many believable connections to every day's life, compelling people by using metaphors, staying true to the point and using different rhetorical approaches.

Nicholas G. Carr has written an abundance of articles about technology. Some of his work includes: Does It Matter? Information Technology and the Corrosion of Competitive Advantage, and The Big Switch: Rewiring the World, From Edison to Google. One of Carr’s achievements, “Is Google Making Us Stupid,” smoothly persuades the reader to believe that the Internet is taking over the human mind. The article’s title brings a tough question to mind for readers. By using a familiar movie scene and arguments embedded with relatable analogies, imagery and metaphors; Carr casually and acceptably leads his audience to a reasonable

In the article “Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%” Joseph Stiglitz, a noble prize winning economist, argues that the upper 1% controls about 40% of all wealth in America. This top 1% has taken about a quarter of all income in America, and has seen their income rise about 18% in the past decade. This has made the inequality between classes in the US expand. Eventually, this inequality gap will even hurt the top 1%, because the other 99% will either fight for a bigger piece or just stop working all together. The top 1% can buy anything they need, but their fate realizes on the other 99% to work hard and not fight back. If the 99% stopped working, there would be a simple way to gain back money… that would be to raise taxes on the rich. However, the rich get rich by capital gains, which have a low tax policy. So overall, the upper percent can eventually learn, but a majority of the time it is too little too late.

America is one of the world’s largest and prosperous developed countries in the world, but take a closer look and you realize that the great United States of America has an alarmingly large amount of poverty. Where there once used to be an “American Dream” there now lies the cold hard truth, there is less and less opportunity every day and growing inequality every second. Joseph E. Stiglitz how America has turned into a country that would be unrecognizable to any of the founding fathers. In The Price of InequalityStiglitz visits this problem and searches for the source of the economic inequality that the United States is faced with today. Stiglitz came to the conclusion that America is declining and turning into a society like the one

Google Inc., American search engine company founded in 1998 by Sergey Brin and Larry Page. Google handled 70 percent of worldwide online search requests, placing it at the heart of most Internet users’ experience. Even though Google’s essential core business is search service, it now offers more than 50 percent Internet services and products from Gmail and online document creation to software for mobile phones and tablet computers. Google successfully maintained its core competence meanwhile expanded its business to advertisement and application three major core businesses. Its success in market levitates Google’s growth by acquiring other tech companies as a way of horizontal integration. For example, its 2012 acquisition of Motorola Mobility put it in the position to sell hardware in the form of mobile phones. Google’s broad product portfolio and size make it one of the top influential conglomerate companies in the high-tech market place. Google plays a very vital role in ICT ecosystem and it is one of the forces that enhance the growth of entire ICT ecosystem. For further illustrating the ICT ecosystem, I chose Apple and Comcast as device and Internet infrastructure firm to compare and contrast against Google.

Our analysis of Apple Inc. will incorporate the general overview of the company and how it records it revenues. We will observe how they make an honest effort to be within compliance of all accounting standards according to the Financial Accounting Standards Board for recording and disclosure of its income. Apple’s leading competitor, Google Inc., will also be examined to see whether they are comparable to Apple and still within compliance of the Securities and Exchange Commission and FASB for revenue recognition. Apple takes on design, development and marketing of personal computers, portable digital music players, and media devices that exceed the reach of everyday needs. The company also

Though Google seemed to promote free-thinking and free speech on one hand, they were censoring and filtering with the other. Google lost credibility with the public, thus tarnishing its public image and “loosing 1% of the U.S. market in one month,” as reported in The Business. (2006, Aug) “Image credibility is based on the constituency’s perception of the organization” (Argenti, 2009, p.39). When the public image of a company has been compromised it “can make a huge difference in determining the success or failure of the organization” (Argenti, 2009, p. 40). When the public looses confidence in a company and what they stand for, they no longer wish to use its product. In response, executives at Google attempted to convince the public that they could handle the balancing act between censorship and providing information, and gain back public trust and confidence.

Google is a company that was conceptualized in a dorm room by two Stanford University college students in 1996 (Arnold, 2005, p. 1) and has morphed into one of the greatest technological powerhouses in operation today. What began as merely a means to analyze and categorize Web sites according to their relevance has developed into a vast library of widely utilized resources, including email servicing, calendaring, instant messaging and photo editing, just to reference a few. Recent statistics collected by SearchEngineWatch.com reflects that of the 10 billion searches performed within the United States during the month of February, 2008, an impressive 5.9 billion of them were executed by Google (Burns, 2008). Rated as Fortune Magazine’s

Our generation thrived in one field incredibly fast, technology. We have developed so much technology that there is no telling the virtual size the World Wide Web. A lot of software has been invented and written to try and contribute to organizing this ungodly number of pages, texts, music, pictures and videos. The Search engines came to life and became a billion dollar industry once a reliable, user friendly version made it to customers. Giant companies invest giant money into these businesses and aspire to branch out to a lot more than just virtual reality. Companies such as Yahoo!, Google, Bing, and Amazon have battled for dominance but Google Inc. emerged victorious. Google owners Larry Page and Sergey Brin built an empire that lead