Critical Thinking and the Communication Piece

Now that you have identified a good demonstration of your communication skills, we are going to take a look at the elements of critical thinking in it. Specifically, we’re looking at the ways in which critical thinking skills are connected to communication skills.

Let’s start by taking a close look at critical thinking. What IS critical thinking? It’s a term used frequently in classrooms and assignments, but you may not be very clear on what makes for an effective demonstration of critical thinking.

In searching for elements of critical thinking in your communication piece, consider the following:

• How do you use data in your piece? Effective critical thinking means…

Identifying and applying useful data and informationDemonstrate logic to interpret dataDefine and explain important terms and complicated concepts (this might be related to the data or sources you use)Adapting knowledge (or data) to specific scenarios and issues

• How else do you support your thesis? Effective critical thinking means…

Describing experiences and opinionsDeveloping examples to support thesis and claimsArticulating relationships

• How do you deal with opposing points of view? Effective critical thinking means…

Recognizing and discuss inferences and faulty logicDeveloping a plan to generate and construct a solution to a problemCombining multiple viewpoints and strategies in problem solvingIdentify and address opposing points of view

Bank laws

Financial Markets

Date November 22, 2012

The McFadden Act of 1927 was one of the most hotly contested pieces of legislation in

U.S. banking history, and its influence was still felt over half a century later. The act was intended to force states to accord the same branching rights to national banks as they accorded to state banks. By uniting the interests of large state and national banks, it also had the potential to expand the number of states that allowed branching. Congressional votes for the act therefore could reflect the strength of various interests in the district for expanded banking competition. Unlike previous work, we find strong evidence of elite influence. The United States has long had a dual banking system, where state banks are chartered and regulated at the state level, while national banks operate under federal oversight. Before the McFadden Act, some states allowed state banks to open multiple branches, while others prohibited all branching. The McFadden Act attempted to level the playing field by forcing states to accord largely the same branching rights to national banks as to state banks. It was the key piece of federal legislation regulating bank branching, and hence bank competition, in the United States for about 70 years—up until the passage of the Riegle -Neal Act in 1994.

McFadden insulated small banks from out-of-state competition, and inefficient, weak, small banks cannot be driven out of business by competition from a more efficient bank from another state, or even the same state. Branching restrictions varied from state to state. Some states had “unit branch banking” laws, which permitted only one location, NO branches. In most cases, it was easier for a bank to open a branch in a foreign country than to open a branch in another state, or even the same state. Reflects the historic hostility toward large banks,rent-seeking by small rural banks. Legacy of 19th century politics: heavy restrictions on branch banking, many small, local banks. Similar result: