Global capitalism is the primary cause of world hunger Essay Example for Free

Global capitalism is the primary cause of world hunger Essay Evolution/ change are a way of life. People evolve, cultures evolve, and so do our economies. And with every change comes a considerable amount of resistance. The transition from feudalism to capitalism gathered its momentum in Western Europe in 18th and 19th centuries. Along with came chaos, ambiguities and insecurities. Numerous theories on Capitalism as good or bad also came along. Some include famous works by premier sociologists: Karl Marx and Max Weber. Though Karl Marx’s most popular theories on â€Å"class and conflict† made him a capitalist critique, it is mainly Max Weber who’s considered to have developed a more rational theory on capitalism. Defined in Max Weber’s term, Capitalism is a process where money becomes an end in itself consequently changing the values of society. Although capitalism is an age old phenomenon what makes it younger even now is the global face it has assumed over the past two or three decades. It is now used in combination with globalization hence, termed as global capitalism. It has largely dominated the discourse on poverty and human development. Patrik Aspers (1) defines global capitalism as, â€Å"an economy that connects capitalistic actors from all over the world via production and consumption markets. † The common attack on this phenomenon is that it has increased the disparity between the rich and the poor in the developing world and widened the gap between the developed and the developing world. What’s perplexing is to see how the same phenomenon that is acclaimed for the growing GDP in many emerging economies is also seen as the culprit in raising world hunger. Global capitalism does not function in isolation. There are many other factors that determine its nature making it good or bad for human development. This paper will delve on those factors that have made this phenomenon so unpopular especially in the developing world. Also, to establish that global capitalism is not alone a cause per se of world hunger. Free Trade: Global capitalism means integrating the national economy into the world economy through breaking down of artificial trade barriers. In other words, allowing a free flow of capital across the globe. A more popular term given to this phenomenon is that of â€Å"Free Trade†. Joseph Stiglitz (2)defines it as â€Å"the closer integration of the countries and peoples of the world which has been brought about by the enormous reduction of costs of transportation and communication, and the breaking down of artificial barriers to the flows of goods, services, capital, knowledge and people across borders. Free Trade versus small –scale Farmers: There have been tall claims made on the benefits gained by the emerging countries out of free trade looking at their GDP (Gross Domestic Product) growth over the past decade. While determining the effectiveness of Free Trade, most evidences are based on the number of jobs generated in emerging economies through this system. But this is also dovetailed by another question on whether these jobs also generate a livelihood option for the last common denominators in the developing world. The answer is quite evident from the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) that has taken a centre stage on the ongoing WTO (World Trade Organization) negotiations. The most affected lot of the multilateral trading system are the small scale farmers in developing countries who are largely being affected by huge subsidies provided to farmers in U. S and Europe. This in turn helps these farmers to sell their products at much reduced rates in international markets than the small- scale farmers of developing countries can afford to sell even in their own domestic markets. Hence, forcing these very farmers to sell their produce at a lesser price than that involved in production. One could argue that despite the farmer’s grievances, large flow of cheap food in developing countries could also mean that the poor and hungry benefit from floods of cheap food. The following fact answers this argument. World hunger strings from the current situation of small scale farmers in the developing world: The UN report on World Hunger 2000, revealed failure of the 1996 target of halving the number of people who do not have enough to eat within 15 years. Robert. Drinan (3) in National Catholic reporter, states that a total of 842 million hungry in the world during 1995- 1997 increased by 13 million in the 1999- 2001 period. The First Food Program Director, Kirsten Schwind points out that a vast majority of the world’s poor make their living off agriculture. Hence, failure in this sector also suggests that 50 percent of the people who live with hunger globally are these same small – scale farmers. United States and Europe: are they alone responsible for world hunger? Undeniably, the huge subsidies offered to farmers in the United States and Europe disrupts the global market. But this reason is not alone responsible for devastating farmer’s life in developing world. This era of global capitalism also calls for a global accountability. It isn’t right to put the entire blame on the US and Europe. Kenneth AJ (4) clearly states that â€Å"hunger is a multi-dimensional problem that requires a multidimensional approach and intersectoral interventions in relevant areas, such as health, markets, learning and emergency preparedness. But too often the necessary investments have not been made. National level strategies usually exist, but they often need to be modified to take hunger into greater consideration. † Simply judging the interventions made by international institutes, such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund is not enough. Unless country’s own systems such as, domestic policies, their implementation, and their transparency are not evaluated, the current situation on world hunger will not improve. It is a stated fact that serious policy mistakes are dovetailed by crisis in the economic sector. What keeps many developing countries from benefiting despite numerous development projects are their own infected methods. Many people and many governments have misunderstood the meaning of liberalization. They have mistaken it to mean liberating themselves off their responsibilities. The idea behind globalization was to make competition healthier. This could be done when each country facing an international competition ensures improvement on its infrastructure and provides its workers with latest knowledge on their skills. It is after all a country’s own responsibility. Unfortunately, the latest trend is to blame it all on the unhealthy competition led by free trade. Little have these governments done enabling their own citizens to face the global competition. It is after all these policy makers who hold key to development of their own nation. They are the wheelers of the society who link the modern, pre – modern and postmodern together. When we talk about agricultural competition, besides looking at debates engulfing the distortion issue, it is also important for us to assess the country’s own performance in these areas. It is after all government’s responsibility to improve upon its agricultural production meeting market needs by assisting its farmers with latest techniques and knowledge on new variety crops. Even if we agree for a while that many developing countries cannot afford the latest technologies, how do these governments then account for the dramatic increase in their GDP growth? India stands as the best example, where on the one hand many reports reveals the increased suicidal rate of the farmers, on the other hand there are reports flashing India’s growing GDP rate. A country with 60 percent population involved in agriculture, accounts for only 22 percent of its total GDP growth. Fair Trade involves paying a fair wage to the growers for their goods. Ironically, the larger retailers involved in the selling of these goods exploit these growers by buying their goods, like coffee, cocoa and sugar, at world low prices and then selling the same goods at international markets at highly marked – up prices. The unequal ratio between the production cost and selling cost forces the small – scale farmers in developing countries to borrow money from the local lenders. These lenders decide their own interest rates which unfortunately keeps the farmers in perpetual poverty. There is no supervisory authority that can help these farmers get a fair share for their produce. Caught between the vicious lenders and retailers, these farmers are constantly facing a blow. The government does little in bailing out these ill fate stricken farmers. The borrowing chain does end with the farmers. This trend continues even with the government who borrows money from international bodies to finance their development through several development projects. The supervisory authorities spend little time in monitoring the international capital inflows. These authorities also do not collect information on external borrowing by private corporations in their respective countries and in turn to use this information for managing their domestic policies. The excessive borrowing has direct link to hunger as these payments back to creditors outside the country are drawn from funds that should instead be invested in areas that need greater funding to lift people out of poverty and hunger. The money that is initially borrowed to invest its large portions in areas like agriculture, health care, education, job creation, etc. helps little in elevating these spheres and is rather used up in dealing with the fluctuating market interest rates. Asian Crisis : a result of excessive borrowing: Prior to 1997, eight East Asian countries-Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia experienced a rapid economic growth often called the â€Å"East Asian miracle†. Between 1965 and 1990, the GDP in these countries doubled. Their success was attributed to many factors such as free trade, macroeconomic policies and discipline, high saving and investment rates that attracted many foreign investors looking for a high rate of return. With increasing pressure felt in the foreign exchange market there was a sudden flow of Thai baht in market against the US dollar (the currency speculators rushed to buy US dollar against the Thai baht). This resulted in Thai currency devaluation followed by withdrawal of foreign capital from other East Asian countries as well. What followed was the Asian crisis in mid – 1997 affecting currencies, stock markets and other asset prices of several Southeast Asian economies. Foreign investors lost confidence and withdrew their invested money from these countries. Extensive borrowing in foreign currencies by corporations and other financial institutions while turning blind eye to currency fluctuation was the main culprit for this crisis. The ineffective financial supervision that encouraged short – term borrowing underestimating while the risk involved in exchange rate proved fatal. Role of the National Government: In several working papers much has been said about the international bodies and their role in the Asian Crisis. What is even a greater matter of concern is the role of national governments during the crisis. Nobody ever talks about their intervention. It is true while dealing with global market; one normally expects the global bodies to be accountable for its success or failure. If that being the case, why don’t we abandon the idea of even being governed by national bodies if every downturn is expected to be addressed by the international ones? It is evident from the East Asian case that the supervisory authorities spent little time in monitoring the international capital inflows. The authorities did not collect information on external borrowing by private corporations in their respective countries and in turn to use this information for managing their domestic policies. In earlier times whenever there was a failure in any sector, the only remedy seen for it was nationalization. Any failure in a sector in today’s time is handed over to privatized bodies with national government taking a back seat. The national governments have completely turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to its citizen’s problems. In fact for any rising problem it is the international market that is held responsible. Conclusion: The facts stated above clearly points out the loop holes existing in domestic policies and governance. Lian Greenfield (2001) has argued that the driving force behind capitalism is nationalism. Many countries saw a strong economy as a way of strengthening the nation making capitalism as a means in this process. Hence, it wont be wrong to say that it isn’t global capitalism that is the primary cause of world hunger, it is the improper governance that has led to this disaster. Food availability, food access, and asset creation are virtues of a responsible government for which we cannot hold world systems alone accountable. A good government is one that ensures a proper and organized lending to its farmers helping them to cope with international prices through establishing local banks with reasonable interest rates. This is just one of the many solutions a government can adopt to encompass failures in the agricultural sector considered one of the most important sectors of the emerging economies. A democratic country is one that lets the state make some of the economic decision, and the market and the civil society do others, though with different emphasis on these spheres. References: Aspers P, Edling C, Hobson B. A Note on Global Capitalism. Sweden: Department of Sociology, Stockholm University; 2005. Stiglitz J. Globalization and its Discontents. New York: Norton; 2002. Jesuit Fr, Drinan R. Report Shows World Hunger Increasing. USA (MO): National Catholic Reporter Publishing Company; 2004. Shwind K. Going Local on a Global Scale: Rethinking Food Trade in the Era of Climate Change, Dumping, and Rural Poverty. USA (CA): Institute for Food and Development Policy; 2005. Kenneth AJ. World Hunger Series 2006: Hunger and Learning. Italy: World Food Programme and Standford University Press; 2006. Reuven G, Moreno R. Government intervention and the East Asian miracle. Business Economics; 1997.

Education Essay -- essays research papers fc

  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Most controversies over education are centered around the question of how strictly standards should be upheld. The concern over whether or not flunking students is appropriate or even in the best interest of the student is a widely discussed topic. The argument often begins with students just starting school where the question of standardized testing for kindergartners arises. The majority of people are actually against such testing because they feel that a child who is labeled as a failure at such an early age may be permanently damaged (Bowen 86). The worry over the failure issue is further traced to educators who feel children just entering school are not fully prepared. Teachers are faced with kindergarten students who do not know their addresses, colors, and sometimes even first and last names (An ‘F’ 59).   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Another reason why the assignment of failing grades has decreased is the influence of the self-esteem movement, which promotes the assumption that children who do not have a positive self-image cannot learn or develop properly. Although this theory is widely accepted, it has been discredited by several studies. Recent research shows that, although American students felt more confident about themselves and their work, they were outperformed by several Asian countries on tests of elementary skills. American schools and teachers tend to worry more about the student’s self-esteem than the actual academic performance (Leo, â€Å"Damn† 21). Mary Sherry, a teacher of adult literacy programs, does not believe such theories. Her view is that students become motivated by the threat of failure, and that not failing a student not only shows lack of confidence on the teacher’s behalf, but also hurts the society as a whole. Employees are becoming highly dis appointed with so-called â€Å"graduate† students (8).   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  In a letter to columnist Ann Landers, a college professor wrote about his views of the education system. He feels that universities have turned into businesses where teachers are just looking for money and students are just looking for a piece of paper with a title on it. He says that the students of today think they are automatically entitled to a degree because they pay tuition (Depressed Old Prof. 3-B). Adding to the profit motive for schools is the government which, for the p... ...ressed Old Prof. â€Å"Ann Landers.† Times-Picayune [New Orleans] 4 Sep. 1995: 3-B. â€Å"An ‘F’ for the Nation’s Kindergartners (Education).† Newsweek 16 Dec. 1991: 59. Goldstein, Andrew and Ann Blackman. â€Å"No SAT Scores Required (Education).† Time 11 Sep. 2000: 52-53. Hendren, John. â€Å"Ex-English Professor Creates Corporate Prose Police.† Courier [Houma LA] 25 Aug. 1996: 4D. Leo, John. â€Å"The Answer Is 45 Cents (On Society).† U.S. News & World Report 21 Apr. 1997: 14. ---. â€Å"Damn, I’m Good! (On Society).† U.S. News & World Report 18 May 1998: 21. Morse, Jodie et al. â€Å"Does Texas Make the Grade? (Education).† Time 11 Sep. 2000: 50-54. Mulcahy, Fred. â€Å"No Free Rides for Dumb Students (My Turn).† Newsweek 15 Aug. 1994: 12. Pedersen, Daniel. â€Å"When an A Is Average (Education).† Newsweek 3 Mar. 1997. Ravith, Diane. â€Å"In Defense of Testing (Education).† Time 11 Sep. 2000: 52-53. Roberts, Paul. Modern Grammar. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1968. Sherry, Mary. â€Å"In Praise of the F Word (My Turn).† Newsweek 28 Aug. 1990: 8. Wilkes, Paul. â€Å"The First Test of Childhood (My Turn).† Newsweek 14 Aug. 1989: 8. Winters, Rebecca. â€Å"From Home to Harvard (Education).† Time 11 Sep. 2000: 55.

In Every Cloud there is a Silver Lining

There I was weeping tirelessly for hours on end, almost creating a miniature pond on the ground. My months of preparations had gone to waste. All my plans and decisions I had hoped to undertake ruined. I had planned out my great voyage to the head chief for months. Each and every step I was to take was already decided. But according to my tradition I had to get permission from my mother before leaving. Then it all happened without even listening to all I had to say I heard ‘NO'. A word I feel no man can define and a word that should never exist in anyone's dictionary. There I was foolishly weeping when my motive was to show how much better our lives would be without these traditions yet following them my self. I was to do what I believe was my destiny. I was to do what I believed god created me to do. 1000's of 1000's of years of tradition had been followed in my community. Tradition that I believed was pointless, insensitive, meaningless and inappropriate to follow. Without anyone's consent again I set out to break and change these traditions for our betterment. I packed my bags and headed straight for Chief Souza, the man who is believed to be our god. The man with endless power at his fingertips, what he said happened and he was the only man who could fulfill my destiny. Getting to his home was the least of my worries. I simply had to walk for a short 2 1/2 hours down the sandy graveled road leading straight to his village and his home. I set off without any delays and a short while later I found my self and the grand gate and luxurious village of Chief Souza. My body pushing itself towards the door and with one final deep gulp of air and pushed open the doors. Then I realized I had already achieved a lot and am much closer to achieving my ‘destiny'. Without wasting any time in greetings and worthless talk on my health and family with the Chief I got straight down to the point. I shared a piece of my mind with the Chief not leaving any detail or feeling behind. I never feared his immense power and now in front of him certainly I would not. Step by step telling Chief Souza exactly what my motive is and the reason behind my decision to fight against my tradition. Finally completing my argument against our tradition I looked eye to eye with the Chief. He stared at me as if I had gone crazy and just then I realized what a mess I had got myself into. I realized what a dim-witted person I was to barge into the most superior man's house in the entire community and blast him about how shallow our tradition is. But then again I believed it was my destiny and this is the backbone in my life. This is why I lived. Then something struck me, something hard and heavy and within seconds I dropped to the ground like a stick. Upon awakening I found a rope around my neck and a sack over my head. Despite not being able to see anything I knew the Chief had found my words as an insult to his community and ordered for me to be hung. It hurt really badly as I never even had the chance to question my community on what they found wrong with my words. What was wrong if I had my own opinion about the community and our tradition? It was too late I felt the plank beneath my feet, currently keeping me up, being pulled till I had nothing to balance on. My life had come to an end but my soul would not rest until I accomplished my goal. My mother cried and cried endless for days, wondering ‘Where had I gone wrong in education my son? Why, why, why did he not listen to me? ‘ Everyday each member of the community considers ‘What did he say wrong? He shared his feelings something no one has the courage to do. ‘ Each member of the community started looking at life from a different perspective a perspective in which they can live their lives how they wanted to and not by what their tradition, our tradition, my tradition said. My community members finally realized what I was trying to project. Within a couple of days, I gained my biggest victory our tradition was altered and every member of our community was free to live life their way! Then it became clear to me, if I had not sacrificed my life for the betterment of my community the changes done to our tradition now would never have happened. So even in a dark cloud like the death of a community member came, there really is a silver lining in it. Now my soul will rest in peace!

In the United States Should the Drinking Age be Lowered From 21 to a Younger Age - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 5 Words: 1559 Downloads: 6 Date added: 2019/08/12 Category Society Essay Level High school Tags: Lowering The Drinking Age Essay Did you like this example? Many people around the world drink alcohol for numerous reasons. However, some people may not be able to drink alcohol in other countries because of the drinking age law. For example, people are allowed to drink alcohol at age 18 in Korea, but they cannot drink in the United States because the drinking age law is 21. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "In the United States Should the Drinking Age be Lowered From 21 to a Younger Age" essay for you Create order Since 1984, the United States Congress introduced the minimum drinking and legal purchasing age law as 21 and most states have followed the law until now. After the law passed, the percentages of drinking decreased, but at the same time there are now more people protesting. Even though there are more people protesting, the nation should not lower the drinking age from 21 to a younger because drinking alcohol can cause humongous damage to human body, the accidents and deaths rate will increase, and the rate of alcoholism will increase. The history of alcohol began a long time age. When the first alcohol was created, people did not drink as much as nowadays because the main purpose of using alcohol was to treat illnesses or other medical purposes. However, ever since few centuries ago, people, typically European, began using the alcohol for another purpose: drinking. After some time, drinking alcohol became popular. It is also around this time that Americans started drinking. Europeans imported abundant supplies of liquor into the United States in the 1600s when they came to America. They also created liquor using ingredients from America. As American alcohol became popular in the late 1700s, people started drinking it with every meal. Everybody, even children, could enjoy drinking alcohol without any interference because there was no age limit for drinking alcohol. However, few years later, Abraham Lincoln realized how alcohol was dangerous to the human body; therefore, he imposed a new tax on liquor and made it m andatory to teach the danger of alcohol at school. After the Civil war, in 1910, the United States government banned driving while intoxicated and 9 years later, in 1919, the Constitution announced 18th amendment:After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited (U.S. Constitution). The government officially prohibited manufacturing, selling, or transporting intoxicating liquors to the whole states. However, in 1993, the Constitution announced another amendment: The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed (U.S. Constitution). The 18th amendment was quickly abolished because it failed to be maintained and raised the crime rate. Later, in 1984 July 19, the U.S. constitution introduce d the current drinking age law, 21. First, the National Institute of Health, NIH, studies whether alcohol is good for health and if it is bad, it examines how it is bad and effects on the human body. According to NIH, alcohol mainly damages the brain, heart, pancreas, immune system, and liver (Alcohols Effects on the Body). Alcohol blocks the brain and other tissues from communicating, so the body cannot function properly. If the body fails to function properly, the body and brain cannot develop properly and the behavior and mood may change negatively too. Some people say alcohol helps increase blood pressure; however, it is more likely to cause arrhythmias (irregular heartbeat) and cardiomyopathy (stretching and drooping of heart muscle). Furthermore, people who have high blood pressure need to control or stop drinking alcohol because it can lead to heart attacks and make their immune system weaker. If the immune system becomes weaker, the liver will be impacted by getting alcoholic hepatitis, fibrosis, and cirrhosis because alcohol primarily damages the liver. Even if it is worse, it can lead human body to have cancers such as liver, mouth, esophagus, throat, and breast cancer. The human body is connected together. If one organ is affected adversely, all other organs can be damaged. Lowering the drinking age will make people drink more alcohol. However, if people drink too much, they be hurt physically more than they gain in entertainment; therefore, the drinking age limit should not be lowered from 21. Secondly, the lower minimum legal drinking age produced not only more sale and consumption but also car accidents, typically people who just stepped into their adulthood. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, reported that in 2015 alone, about 1.1 million drivers were arrested and 111 million drivers self reported. More than ten thousands people are also losing their lives every year because of alcohol impaired driving crashes (Impaired Driving). However, among casualties, 2,333 teenagers, between ages 16- 19 were included and 234,845 teenagers were put in a serious situation by accidents (Teen Driver). This is the another statistic that focused on teenagers alcohol impaired driving crashes. According to another center, NSDUH, about 7.3 million teenagers who were under 21 had experienced drinking liquor. Out of the total, 19 percent drank alcohol illegally. This caused 1900 young people to be dead and 300 young people to commit suicide (Underage Drinking Statistics). The rate of drinking alcohol continues to increase every year. At the same time, the average of accidents and death rates is also on the rise This statistics shows how people get out of control after drinking liquor. Both teenagers and adults drink and drive. Many people have been arrested, injured, and killed by drunk driving. If the drinking age limit lowers, more people will be injured and killed. The crime rate will also be higher. In order to cope with this situation, the age limit for alcohol should not be lowered. Thirdly, lowering the drinking age limit will result in more alcoholism. Oxford dictionary defines alcoholism as addiction to the consumption of alcoholic drink (Oxford Dictionary). People cannot handle their behavior or thoughts while they are drunk; therefore, they can easily be a bad influence to others or society through robbery, sexual assault, rape, violence, child abuse, or homicide. In 2015, 86 percent of homicide, 15 percent of robberies, and 37 percent of rapes and sexual assaults were committed by drunk people. Alcoholism also impacts families. More than hundred thousand incidents of family violence is caused by liquor.Scientists announces that 40 percent of all crimes are related to alcohol abuse (Alcoholism and Family/ Marital problems.). In the United States, there are also numerous people struggling with drinking and it is turning to a serious problem these days. There are about 12 to 14 million adults who have an alcoholism problem and more than 3 million teenagers are at risk to be addicted. To lower the age limit for alcohol is the same as to increase the number of alcohol addicts and criminal rates. There are so many alcoholics that even at the age limit of 21, lowering the age limit will likely aggravate the situation. Young people are also more likely to become addicted to alcohol because they cannot control themselves as well as adults. Therefore, it is wise to stay within the age limit of 21. Today, numerous people believe that small amount of drinking alcohol has benefits to human body because some doctors and medias announcement. According to Mayo Clinic, The possible health benefits of drinking alcohol are reduce risks of developing and dying from heart disease and diabetes (Nutrition and healthy eating). About six hundred thousands people die in the United States because of heart diseases; however, a glass of wine can help to relieve their heart diseases, at the same time, it drops the death rate that caused by heart disease. If people control the drinking amount, it can enoughly be beneficial to our health. However, it also contains abundant health risks. Typically addiction, fatty liver, heart disease, mental health problems, and even several cancers at the same time. Some doctors say it can prevent heart attacks and breast cancers; however, others have announced there is a larger possibilities to get other health risks. It is more helpful to eat fruit such as grapes or berries instead of alcohol. People tend not to recognize some facts, but only listen to what they want to hear. Media News Today also reports that Women should not drink more than a glass a day, and men, two glasses (Alcohol use and your health). This means more than a glass or two can cause many dangerous health risks. When people asking about benefit of alcohol, most people only provide wines, not other alcoholic beverages because there are no other benefits for other liquor to human body. Drinking alcohol is actually more easier to have health risks than prevent the health. The age limit for alcohol is still a controversial issue, and many people disagree with it. Many people have expressed a strong desire to change the legal age to below 21, but there are so many problems that can arise from changing the age limit. For example, profuse accidents still occur when the age limit is unchanged, and if the age limit is changed, more accidents will happen. Accidents are not only bad for people, but also can affect the reputation of the country. It is a more efficient and wiser choice to maintain the age limit to protect peoples health and raise the reputation of the country rather than to change the age restriction to bring accidents and countrys bad reputation. Knowing the problems and trying to prevent them is a far more important than conforming to peoples desires; therefore, the drinking age should not be lowered.