MU press release as follows:
For Immediate Release
Head Volleyball Coach Pati Rolf Resigns From Position At MU
Assistant Coach Erica Heisser To Lead Team Remainder Of 2008
Milwaukee – Marquette University head volleyball coach Pati Rolf has resigned her position with the University, Director of Athletics Steve Cottingham announced Thursday.

“We want to obviously thank Pati for all of her efforts over the course of the past seven seasons and wish her the best of luck in the future,” Cottingham said.

Rolf compiled an overall record of 102-98 in nearly seven years at Marquette, including a conference mark of 48-45. The Golden Eagles are 27-27 under Rolf since joining the BIG EAST in 2005. MU owns three winning seasons (2004, 2005 and 2006) overall since Rolf arrived in 2002.

Assistant coach Erica Heisser will serve as interim head coach the remainder of the 2008 campaign. MU has four regular season matches remaining this year, including two in BIG EAST play.

A national search for a new head coach will be conducted.

–MU–

Related posts

• No related posts.

The presidency of George W. Bush contained many unwise policies and some catastrophic ones – particularly the executive-sanctioned use of torture. Yet the last two years of the Bush presidency have not been as bad as the six preceding. Three policies, in particular, stand out as likely to be positively reviewed by future scholars: Bush’s efforts to reduce the prevalence of malaria and infectious diseases in Africa, his sacking of incompetent foreign policy advisers and his support for faith-based organizations.

Recent results from the Pew Global Research Survey have shown that the only world region where people have a positive approval rating of President Bush (leaving aside outlier countries, such as Albania, in regions generally hostile to Bush) is East Africa, the region centered around Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda and Rwanda. There, President Bush literally handed out hundreds of bed nets during his February 2008 visit to the region. He has also encouraged the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to conduct clinical research in sub-Saharan Africa, providing jobs and modern health care to regions lacking in both. He has also shown increased flexibility in his HIV/AIDS prevention policies, abandoning much of the strident anti-condom rhetoric that prevailed early in his administration. Millions of Africans are leading healthier, more active lives right now thanks to President Bush’s foresight and initiative.

Bush has also brought a modicum of responsibility and pragmatism back to U.S. foreign policy. The State Department, under the direction of Condoleeza Rice, has had the freedom to embrace diplomatic solutions to thorny relations with global bad apples like Syria, North Korea and Venezuela. General David Petraeus has brought sanity to our chaotic occupation of Iraq, and now stands poised to apply his theories, as commander of CENTCOM, to Afghanistan. Robert Gates has so thoroughly repudiated the disastrous tenure of Donald Rumsfeld, while building on the idea of a leaner, more surgical U.S. military, that many pundits speak of his likely retention under an Obama presidency. President Bush may have made most of the mess, but he deserves credit for beginning the long and arduous task of cleaning it up.

Last, I strongly supported President Bush’s creation of the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, and I continue to do so. Religion plays a vital role in American life, not least as a provider of social services. In the economic downturn that is only getting worse, the need is all the greater. I periodically volunteer at St. Benedict’s, and I can reliably report that attendance at the Community Meal has gone up 20 percent over the past year. Federal support for these programs underscores the pivotal role of congregations in the provision of basic needs and encourages people to do good for their neighbors beyond mere weekly worship services.

President Bush is not a monster; he has damaged America’s credibility in many spheres, but he has enhanced it in the three ways mentioned above. The good that he has done ought not to be lost in an angry mob ready to kick him out the back door of the White House. Being a President is no easy task, and eager supporters of Barack Obama ought to keep this in mind over the next four years.

Related posts

• YES - Should the U.S. close the School of the Americas? (0)
• YES - Should the government bailout mortgage companies? (0)
• Wiretaps promote freedom (0)
• Tap a keg, not our phone calls (0)
• Should there be a student on the board of trustees? - No (0)

The first could be the plummeting economy. During a bad economy people often automatically blame the president, seeing his role as more legislative than executive, despite the fact that the president does not actually exercise direct control over the economy. Since Bush has been the president during a period of major economic instability he will likely have a negative reputation, even after he leaves office.

Another element that will tarnish Bush’s historical reputation is, of course, the Iraq War. Immediately after we entered Iraq, many Americans wondered why we were engaged in a nation that had little connection to terrorism. Afghanistan had direct and undisputed links to Al Qaeda; Iraq did not. In the case of the Iraq War, we were never directly attacked by Saddam Hussein and his army prior to invasion. America was the aggressor. Nobody in the Bush administration was able to give a satisfactory explanation of what America gained from the Iraq War, except for the elimination of weapons of mass destruction, which turned out to be non-existent. Some will still maintain that, in the long run, the Iraq War will be seen as a critical component of the War on Terror. However, there is no consensus on whether or not the conflict in Iraq has actually contributed to stopping terrorism. If anything, it has contributed to causing more terrorist activity in an already destabilized Iraq.

When Bush ran for his first term, he ran on a platform of morality and Christian values, and people generally consider Bush to be strong on pro-life and pro-family issues. However, his record does not show strong evidence of this. Although he did help illegalize partial-birth abortion, there are a variety of different avenues that one can still take to obtain a partial-birth abortion. He opposed federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, although he did not outlaw embryonic stem cell research. Since pro-family legislation has been left to the states (for now), Bush has had no serious effect on issues concerning homosexuality. Overall, Bush has had no serious legislation in favor of moral issues important to conservatives. So, it is not likely that the Christian conservative base will remember Bush as a great moral leader.

Still, Bush supporters might point out that he has kept our country safe. While it is true that our country has not been attacked since 9/11, we have to ask at what cost? Besides the actual monetary costs that a war requires, what else have we sacrificed? For starters, our freedoms and civil liberties have been compromised through the enactment of The Patriot Act which President Bush advocated. The Patriot Act forces us to surrender our civil liberties guaranteed to us by the Bill of Rights. Many would argue that sacrificing our liberties is essential to national security. When confronted with this argument one might remember the words of John Stuart Mill who said: “A people may want a free government, but…if by momentary discouragement or temporary panic, or a fit of enthusiasm for an individual they can be induced to lay their liberties at the feet of even a great man, or trust him with powers which enable him to subvert their institutions…they are more or less unfit for liberty.” Republicans will often characterize those who don’t support The Patriot Act as liberals, dismissing their arguments as partisan politics. However, Woodrow Wilson, the first modern liberal president was behind the Committee of Public Information, a very similar policy to that of the Patriot Act. Also, Franklin D. Roosevelt had a similar policy in World War II. Many American realize that The Patriot Act is a dire subversion of American freedoms, which is uncharacteristic for a GOP president to support. As a result, Bush’s legacy is likely to be stained in the eyes of both traditional conservatives and liberals for his support of The Patriot Act.

The ultimate question is: how will Bush be remembered? Will he be remembered for getting America into a war its citizens did not support? Causing an economic crisis? Letting down the Christian right? Or, will he be remembered for revoking the civil liberties of Americans? While one cannot blame President Bush for everything negative that has occurred during his two terms, there are many policies he has initiated that Americans detest. With all of this in mind, Bush will not be considered a great president as he has no outstanding qualities or credentials which warrant our favorable attention. Many of the most prominent things he has accomplished are not popular, and while he was not a terrible president, he will never – and should never – be compared to Teddy Roosevelt or Ronald Reagan.

Related posts

• YES - Should the U.S. close the School of the Americas? (0)
• YES - Should the government bailout mortgage companies? (0)
• Wiretaps promote freedom (0)
• Tap a keg, not our phone calls (0)
• Should there be a student on the board of trustees? - No (0)

In an email from EWTN Catholic Television this week, I was encouraged to pray a Novena for the election and the results, and I was inspired to write this article. 65% of Americans waited for over an hour in line to vote, but how many of us will spend an hour in prayer that our country might be moved in the right direction? There is no better way to affect national security, economic policies, social justice issues, etc. than to pray about them. Yet we will spend more time standing in line to cause change than in a chapel.

Senator Obama talks about change, and turnout at his campaign rallies sometimes exceeds 20,000 people. Not that his message isn’t interesting, but it’s far from unique. In fact, if I were Jesus I’d think about suing him for plagiarism. He’s late on this message by about 2,000 years. Jesus Christ talks about an even more radical and impressive change, and yet our churches are lucky if 400 people attend on a Sunday. Talk about mixed up priorities when it comes to positively affecting change. The last time I checked, neither candidates turned water to wine or raised the dead, though I sometimes think waking Senator John McCain in the morning might be similar. The call from the Church is simply this, pray about the direction of your country AT LEAST as long as you spent in line on voting day. As off base as this sounds, your vote is useless without prayer. No one person, no group, no country can succeed on its own.

There is no good action that isn’t given, and no good talent or idea that isn’t inspired. So pray! Pray for the poor, the soldiers, the economy, national security, the unborn, the elderly and for the Democratic and Republican parties. Just know that this country is moved by God if we ask for it to be. As cliché as this may sound, and with the addition of one word, God, please bless America.

Related posts

• Why call it “Student Development?” (0)
• Spirituality abounds on campus (0)
• Perceptions of MU through advertising, gentlemen and looking to the UW system (0)
• Mixed reactions to ‘Monologues’ (0)
• Hypocrisy and the whole of Catholic social teaching (0)

Hous-eye sides with the late Senator, William Proxmire, on corporate socialism which Proxmire strongly condemns. Hou-seye and Proxmire believe that if you are going to condemn socialism which favors corporations, you should condemn socialism which favors people, based on the fact that a corporation is seen as a private citizen by the law, as stated by Professor Hauser. Therefore, in order to be a capitalist nation, we must be against all forms of socialism, regardless of the outcome.

The issue that Proxmire was dealing with in 1971 was government bailouts for corporations like Penn Central, Lockheed etc. Hou-seye quotes Proxmire saying: “ ‘If we bail out one, where do we stop!’ Do we bail out every incompetent and inefficient American corporation, or only the big ones?’ ” The issue that we are dealing with now is similar to that of 1971. However, today we have made the jump to both bureaucratic and corporate socialism with the Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. Due to the encompassing nature of this bailout, it affects everyone. This bailout involves the assets of major corporations, which are in control of the mortgages of people’s houses. So now the government has control over businesses and the average person.

Some may argue that this bailout will merely just give the economy enough time to improve and then the government will back out. After all, doesn’t this provision exist in the bill itself? Well, that is a true statement, but does the government ever really step out once the crisis is over? In Stranger in the Arena, John Schmitz, a Marquette graduate and former presidential candidate, examines the Economic Stabilization Act of 1971, which involved price and wage controls during emergency situations. Schmitz says: “I wrote and spoke against this bill … several months later when we were still being assured they would never be used, that this was strictly a political ploy to embarrass the Democrats. Then in the summer of 1971 a price and wage freeze was imposed…” Lest we let history repeat itself, we should learn from our mistakes.

However, some people may still say that the bailout of 2008 is not socialist in nature. In response to these people, it is necessary to look at what socialism is. And who better to discuss socialism than Ferdinand Lassalle, a famous 19th century proponent of socialism. Lassalle proposed that “the major means of production and transportation would be owned and controlled by the government” according to Professor Hauser. Nevertheless, Lassalle would “still allow for elections and freedom of speech.”

Now is probably a good time to examine what the bailout says. We all know that the government is merely using its (or rather our) money “to provide authority for the Federal Government to purchase and insure certain types of troubled assets”, as the bill itself states. In other words, the government owns a portion of the collapsed businesses. Seeing as how the companies were bailing out businesses which were on the verge of collapse, we can just imagine how much money the government has in each of these companies. Logically, the government would want to manage certain areas of the business, seeing as how its moneya is at stake. For this reason, Section 104 of the bill provides for a Financial Stability Oversight Board. In other words, the government controls and owns the business. If we refer back to Lassalle, we can see many similarities.

However, this is not pure socialism. As mentioned earlier, Lassalle wanted “the major means of production and transportation” in the government’s hands. However, the concept is virtually the same when you consider the fact that Lassalle was from the 19th century, and industry was different than it is today. And we have to remember that this bill provides for partial control in the housing market. And that pushes our government closer to Marx than to Lassalle.

At any rate, this bill is not a product of capitalism. At best, it is crony capitalism. Even then, we would be using socialist tactics. Congressman Ron Paul was correct in saying we “can’t save free markets by socialism.” There is something distinctly socialist about this present bill. Since the Great Depression we have been moving steadily closer and closer to a social market economy. Now the government is ready to bail out any and all companies that show signs of failure. We should expect that as our economy continues to decline, more and more companies will require bailouts. And more and more people will also continue to need to be bailed out. Then American citizens will be totally dependent upon the government for everything, and therefore be virtually enslaved by the government. Socialism is an ever-increasing danger to our society, and unfortunately neither of the two major parties is willing to make a serious stand against it.

Related posts

• The Community Reinvestment Act: Mixed results (0)
• Stop keeping money under the mattress (1)
• Nowhere to run, nowhere to hide: How the economic crisis could affect Marquette (0)
• National deficit: it’s not fat, it’s husky (0)
• Fair Trade Coffee: social movement, or economic illiteracy? (0)

A stem cell is capable of becoming many different types of cells in the body such as a skin cell, a muscle cell or nerve cell. And it could possibly be used to replace or heal damaged tissues or cells in the human body which potentially could save the lives of millions of people all over the world. There are two different types of stem cells: embryonic and adult.

Embryonic stem cells are taken from a developing embryo thereby destroying a developing human life. Adult stem cells are found in all tissues of the growing human being and, according to latest reports, also have the potential to transform themselves into practically all other cell types, or revert to being stem cells with greater reproductive capacity. According to adultstemcellresearch.com, adult stem cells have produced 72 cures and treatments while embryonic stem cell research has produced zero.

The use of embryonic stem cells results in the killing of either a human life or certainly a potential human life, thus conservative Christians are strongly opposed to their use. That does not mean members of this community are against looking for methods to cure illnesses and save peoples lives. Instead they are in favor of using a proven alternative to embryonic stem cells which has been found to be far more effective.

Unfortunately the media chooses to focus on embryonic stem cell research while avoiding informing the public that adult stem cells have been far more successful in providing cures for serious illnesses without harming human life in the process. It is simply morally unacceptable to destroy life in order to preserve life when clear alternatives are available. Adult stem cells are this clear alternative.

Related posts

• No related posts.

More than 40 percent of young Americans identify themselves as independent, according to several recent polls. The traditional voting along party lines seems to be ending with the current generation as new voters are disenchanted with partisan politics and the extreme prejudice between the opposing parties. This trend began in 1992 when Centrist Independent candidate Ross Perot garnered 19 percent of the votes for President. Since then, Independent voters, or ‘swing’ voters, have determined the Presidential winner. This has always been the case, but instead of having 90 percent of the population voting along party lines and the middle 10 percent voting independently, the number of voters in the middle is ballooning.

Independent voters are traditionally more conservative in regards to foreign affairs and tend to be progressive on social and domestic affairs, meaning both John McCain and Barack Obama appeal to these centrists. I suggest to you that it is no accident the winners of the primaries were the candidates who were perceived as crossing party lines and avoiding party politics. To independents, McCain is appealing on foreign issues, and Obama on domestic issues. Additionally, Independents also almost universally tend to view the Bush Administration negatively - as a series of squandered opportunities at best and an outright failure at worst.

The growing disdain and borderline hatred exhibited on both sides of the aisle is turning off many voters to the political parties, but the system provides them with no third option to express their dislike for the status quo. Perhaps the best example of partisan rancor is the treatment George Bush has received over the last eight years. It is not necessary to agree with or like someone to show them respect, and any President, as a holder of that office, is entitled to more respect than has been shown Mr. Bush.
Partisan politics is not a bad thing. The country was founded as a two party system and it ensures that both the majority and the minority have a voice in Congress. To those who more often than not find themselves on the side of the minority, this is a comforting fact. Today however, partisanship seems to have taken precedence over progress. Judicial nominations are stalled for years at a time which overburdens the courts and the policy initiatives of one party are attacked at any cost and for any reason by those across the aisle. The Founding Fathers created a two party system to ensure there was no tyranny of the majority, but they did not intend for differences to stand in the way of governing in general. Washington is out of touch with America in this regard – only those on the political extremes support the polarity currently seen in Washington. Those in the center find themselves annoyed with the constant posturing, frustrated with governments’ inability to enact real policies due to their bickering, and are searching for a third option.

The Centrist “Republicrats” have similar goals and common values, while differences exist, they are not so great that they cannot be overcome with concessions and a concerted effort to work together. Neither party seems to understand this; instead they choose to blame the opposition for all failings. America is indeed ready for change, but not to the left and not to the right. No matter what party controls the White House and Congress in the years to come, they would do well to remember that their mission in Washington is to make progress, not blame the opposition for the lack thereof. The next President initially won his party’s nomination by pledging to cross party lines and has a real opportunity to help put a stop to the rancor in Washington. That’s the change America is looking for, and that is the type of change America needs.

Related posts

• Why we should bomb New Orleans (0)
• Wanted: politicians with cajones (0)
• Nationally renowned political science scholar to speak at Marquette scholar to speak at Marquette (0)
• My alternative lifestyle: College conservative (0)
• Marching on fertile ground (0)

Cuomo was correct in his statements calling for a new incentive structure for CEOs. He wants a system where CEOs do not make so much that short-run profits outweigh their interest in long-run stability and success. While admirable in intent, pressuring AIG into cutting off promised pay is as short sighted and irresponsible as the activities and policies that helped create this situation. Cuomo’s belief that an obtuse executive’s excessive severance is extravagant has forced AIG into action. If he called for the cancellation of pensions or health benefits the public would be enraged, but his actions would be equally offensive to the American constitution in either case.

Making one person’s contract less valid than another’s is an affront to every citizen in a country where everyone is supposed to be equal. It is completely evident that the affronted individuals are the easiest to blame for AIG’s and part of America’s plight, but canceling the rights that they are promised in their contracts will lead America down a dangerous path while we are trying to rebuild our economy.

Related posts

• The Community Reinvestment Act: Mixed results (0)
• Stop keeping money under the mattress (1)
• Socialist bailout destroys America’s future A look at how the bailout package will compromise capitalism (0)
• Nowhere to run, nowhere to hide: How the economic crisis could affect Marquette (0)
• National deficit: it’s not fat, it’s husky (0)

He was teaching photography and reporting when the Dean of the former College of Journalism, James Scotton, approached him.

“Scotton said, if you were to put on a conference about the situation with the Catholic Press, who would you invite and what would it look like?” Thorn said.

Thorn successfully put together the first conference and was then put in charge of the Institute for Catholic Media, and he began to investigate the future of the Catholic Press. The Institute was started in 1948 after World War II and provides research grants, readership studies and pulled into the work of the U.S. Conference of Bishops.

Then a Jesuit visitor from Rome needed someone at Pontifical Gregorian University, the first Jesuit University founded by St. Ignatius of Loyola in Rome. The University was starting a new program and Thorn was invited to be the first full time faculty member. In 1982-83, while on sabbatical, he moved to Rome to begin teaching at the Center for Communication. It was there that he got a call from the Vatican asking him for help with a documentary on media relations for seminarians. He was invited back to the Gregorian in 1985, 1987 and 1980 to teach short courses on church and the media, but backed down when he was invited to be a part of the drafting committee on Pope John Paul II’s document, Tantus Nove, or “New Era.”

“I was one of 17 or 18 from around the world in the final drafting committee, and one of three who wrote the final draft,” Thorn said. “When he (Pope John Paul II) came into a room, he filled it. He had a desire to get to know everybody.”

He continued working with the Vatican after that and was president of the teachers and researchers division of the International Catholic Union of the Press for 10 years.

By this time he was in Rome or elsewhere in Europe every four months for conferences. Pope John Paul II was very interested in communication issues. Thorn had several audiences with him and was in Rome in 2005 when he died.

Recently, the Vatican called him to put together another conference, which will take place in 2009 at Marquette and will be co-sponsored by the Vatican and Marquette on the theme of how institutions’ Catholic identity influences classes. It is a part of a Vatican initiative to listen to faculty teaching advertising and public relations, broadcast and electronic communications, communication studies, journalism and film and how Catholicism is reflected in how the professors teach and what problems they have.

“We have a lot of departments where a majority of the faculty aren’t Catholic. How does that work? What about student population,” Thorn said. “You can’t force anything on them. How do you maintain a professional stance, but still maintain your Catholic identity?”

Those attending the conference will hear what issues college faculty members at other Catholic Universities have with identity.

Thorn said that he has gotten into a lot of high-level involvement that he could never have imagined as a doctoral student.

“It looks like my connection (with the Vatican) isn’t going to end soon,” Thorn said, “After Scotton got me into this, it’s been something very important to me. Sometimes God has plans that we don’t know about. I really think this reflects what has turned into a lifelong commitment to put my intellectual and professional life into the Church.”

Scotton claims that he wasn’t too involved in Thorn’s vocation.

“I didn’t choose him, he chose himself,” Scotton said. “He’s been active in communication in the church for many, many years. He has a tough job.”

On October 12, Thorn joined a distinguished number of Catholic men and women as a new member of the Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulchre.

The Order of the Holy Sepulchre dates back to the first Crusade and has very strict restrictions on members. According to Thorn, there first has to be a recommendation from either the Archbishop of the candidate’s local diocese, an officer in the order, a bishop or a local knight. The recommendation then has to be approved by the archbishop, then the regional Cardinal, then finally the Vatican. The candidate is notified by letter if he or she is accepted and is required to fill out paperwork, and references are checked. Thorn’s wife, Victoria, was also nominated.

Thorn said that it was very common for husbands and wives to be nominated together.
“I suspect I was nominated because of all the years I worked with the Catholic conference with media and communication issues,” Thorn said. “(My wife) founded Project Rachel in 1985, which is the official post abortion outreach of the Catholic Church in the United States.”

Project Rachel is now world-wide and is in almost all American diocese.

“When all is said and done, only our faith in God matters,” Milwaukee Archbishop Timothy Dolan said at the ceremony at the Basilica of St. Josaphat, 601 W. Lincoln Ave.

Over 400 knights and ladies from the Midwest came to the ceremony to welcome the 60 new members of the Order.

Thorn is from Janesville, Wis. He received his undergraduate degree from Loras College in Dubuque, Iowa. He did his masters work at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and his doctoral work at the University of Minnesota.

After doing his master’s, he went to Los Angeles to “seek his fortune.” He soon realized he couldn’t make a lot of money freelancing and decided to start teaching. He met his wife in 1971.

“I came to realize I liked teaching better,” Thorn said.

In 1975 he came to Marquette because George Reedy, the former press secretary for Lynden B. Johnson was the dean of the former College of Journalism.

“Everything is here if you want to teach journalism,” Thorn said. “That’s why I chose Marquette over other schools. I had more fun teaching, so I stayed here.”

Related posts

• Pope Benedict’s first trip to the United States (1)
• Tuesday night Mass a growing tradition (0)
• Students called to volunteer, while Archdiocese struggles financially (0)
• Should the university allow The Vagina Monologues to be performed on campus? YES (0)
• Should the university allow The Vagina Monologues to be performed on campus? NO (0)

It is also interesting to note that the Federal Reserve did not consider high inflationary pressures as a concern while cutting rates. It was the first time in months that inflation was not mentioned. Immediately following the rate cut, we saw the Dow Jones gain almost 300 points and the Nikkei up almost 3.5 percent. The Fed also indicated that there would be more rate cuts to come, saying “the downside risks to growth remain.”

What does all of this mean? Does the Federal Reserve really have any control over the stock market? How can rate cuts here affect the Nikkei index in Asia? What rates are we cutting? And who is this Ben Bernanke character? With rates approaching historic lows and the economy still on a slide, we at The Warrior thought it would be a good time to educate our readers on what exactly the Federal Reserve does.
Let’s start with rates. The Federal Reserve has direct control over two rates; the federal funds rate and the interest rate. The federal funds rate is the rate at which private depository institutions can lend federal funds to each other overnight. Banks are required to maintain a certain level of federal funds at the Federal Reserve. In essence, this rate is the rate at which banks can trade federal funds overnight with each other.

The actual rate is determined by the market; the rate the Fed sets is the target rate. The Fed will try and align the target rate with the actual rate by adding or subtracting from the money supply.

The interest rate is the rate at which banks and private depository institutions can borrow from the Federal Reserve. This rate generally follows exactly with the federal funds rate, but at 100 basis points (1 percentage point) above. This encourages private institutions to seek all other forms of borrowing before coming to the Federal Reserve.

So what? What does any of this have to do with the stock market? The amount of money in the economy and the availability of that money to consumers has a direct impact on consumer confidence and spending.

If banks are not encouraged to lend money to consumers, consumers will have less money to spend. If consumers have less money to spend, there will be less of a demand for many goods. Lower demand equals lower prices. Lower prices are good in a robust economy, but when people are looking for work it’s not such a good thing. So the Federal Reserve cuts interest rates when the economy is in a slow down.
You might be asking, what’s the downside to cutting rate? Well, if banks are encouraged to lend money, more consumers will have money. Take the train of thought in the above paragraph and reverse it; you’ll end up with higher prices at the end. Inflation is the major downside, and it’s something the Fed watches closely.

Now that you have a better understanding of how the Federal Reserve works, you can apply it to your life. Keep an eye on what the Fed is doing; it will have a direct effect on your life now and after graduation.

Related posts

• Tough Economy…Maybe I’ll Go to Grad School (0)
• Stop keeping money under the mattress (1)
• Personal Finance: Avoid Debt Dungeons (0)
• Nowhere to run, nowhere to hide: How the economic crisis could affect Marquette (0)
• New meal plan: do the numbers add up? (1)