Chris Moffatt
Professor Char Miller
Government 490: Technology of Money
Short Paper #4 Movie Review
The Counterfeiters is a 2007 film written and directed by Austrian director, Stefan Ruzowitzky, which was based on the memoirs written by Jewish concentration camp survivor Adolf Burger. Burger wrote about his experiences as a money counterfeiter working on a secret Nazi project, Operation Bernhard, which was intended to undermine the British economy. The Counterfeiters is received high praise from film critics, winning an Academy Award for best foreign language film and various other awards from international film festivals. Two compelling themes in the film that will be focused on throughout this review is the notion that the value of Salli’s labor to the Nazi’s is the sole reason for his survival, and Salli’s frivolous, risky gambling because money is even more fictitious to him than anyone else as he has the ability to create it.
Before it becomes clear that there is a functional application of Salli’s artistic talents to help the overarching agenda of the Nazi regime, he is facing the same cruel fortune of so many European Jews during the Third Reich. A life in a concentration camp was nothing more than a promise of a difficult life and harder death. Salli’s artistic ability started earning him the attention of the guards and eventually got separated from the general concentration camp population and put into a group dedicated to counterfeiting foreign currencies. This sort of promotion echoes two ideas in political theory that seem to hold well in capitalism, the first being Adam Smith’s belief that the definition of wealth is labor, and Locke’s theory of property where he claims that we own our labor and the fruits of our labor.
Salli was of no value to the Nazi’s until they appreciated the significance of his artistic talent, his labor. Once his labor could be applied to a higher agenda, he became more valuable as a human. His skilled labor literally saved his life; it could not be any more valuable.
Locke believed the smartest, most talented and hardest working people would live the best lives, enjoying the gifts of the world that god provided. Locke maintained that we own our labor, and therefore we own the fruits of our labor. Talent, ambition and intelligence will transcend social distinctions, and those people will enjoy the fruits of live. In capitalistic countries there is a widely held belief that anyone who is willing to work hard will be able to live a good life. The Nazi regime was treated like a business, and Salli’s labor could potentially benefit the bottom line. The contradiction between his loyalty to fellow camp prisoners and his own personal ambitions resemble the blurred line between ethical behavior and monetary or social success.
Toward the end of the movie Salli gambles purposely gambles away frivolous amounts of money and explains to the female that there is always more money. This scene represents the fictitious nature of money in the most overt sense. Salli’s can literally create money through counterfeit, but I cannot help but see a parallel to the invented and socially accepted tale of money. Salli’s example does not use credit, debts or interest rates, but instead the recreation of tangible yet worthless pieces of paper.
This was a great movie, and one that I would certainly recommend to others. Director Stefan Ruzowitzky and Adolf Burger deserve all of the praise they have received for this film, based on the true story of a Holocaust survivor.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Chris Moffatt
Professor Char Miller
Government 490: Technology of Money
Short Paper #3
Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio was an Italian artist who lived from1571 to 1610. In class we discussed his famous painting, “The Calling of Saint Matthew,” which he painted in 1600. Two years later Caravaggio painted the, “Taking of Christ.”
This painting clearly depicts the moment where Jesus is being captured by the Roman soldiers, betrayed by one of his twelve apostles, Judas. Judas was bribed by a Roman high priest for thirty pieces of silver. Judas identifies Jesus to the capturing soldiers by kissing him on the cheek. The painting shows the upper bodies or heads of seven men. Just left of center there is a man that is clearly meant to be Jesus being kissed on the cheek by Judas. To the left of Jesus appears to be another apostle running away from the three armed Roman soldiers. The three soldiers are right behind Judas and are about to take Jesus into custody. While discussing “The Calling of Saint Matthew,” in class we established that Caravaggio had a fascination with implementing self portraits into his paintings, almost like a 17th century Italian version of “Where’s Waldo.” On the far right, behind the two soldiers in the back there is a man that resembles this recurring theme where Caravaggio’s character never has a clear look at the action, as if to say he does not see, believe or understand the Christian religion.
The focal point of the painting is the actual act of Judas kissing Jesus on the cheek, Jesus is the only one facing toward the audience. Their faces are also the brightest colors in the painting as the light shines off their faces. There are two interesting contrasts between Jesus and the other characters. Where the third disciple is fleeing in terror and arms flailing, Jesus is composed, almost apathetic, accepting of his immediate fate. Where the Roman soldiers are approaching with a violent onslaught equipped with armor ready for a brawl, Jesus’ pose is as submissive as possible, gently leaning back with his hands softly folded in front. Jesus’ facial expression does not seem mad or combative, just appears to be sad, as if the human in him realizes that this is the beginning of the end while the divine side realizes that his capture is necessary.
Judas, one of Jesus’ twelve apostles who were the most devoted of his disciples, sold his capture for thirty pieces of silver. This speaks to the notion that money corrupts the soul. An apostle of Jesus, whom was believed to be the son of God, allowed his love of money to overpower is love of God. There are conflicting accounts about how Judas died, but the most popular story contends that he became too guilty about sending Jesus to his death that he committed suicide by hanging himself by a tree. “Judas” itself has a connotation of a traitor, the worst kind of betrayal. The story of Judas is a cautionary tale about how much power money can have over a person. Judas was a sellout; he had a price for everything, even the life of his friend and his God’s son. His suicide symbolized the torturous life of a person who loves nothing but money. It is an empty life that tends to lead to a lonely self loathing. “The Taking of Christ” is the depiction of the culminating moment where a soul is literally for sale, where greed for money has rendered nothing sacred.
Professor Char Miller
Government 490: Technology of Money
Short Paper #3
Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio was an Italian artist who lived from1571 to 1610. In class we discussed his famous painting, “The Calling of Saint Matthew,” which he painted in 1600. Two years later Caravaggio painted the, “Taking of Christ.”
This painting clearly depicts the moment where Jesus is being captured by the Roman soldiers, betrayed by one of his twelve apostles, Judas. Judas was bribed by a Roman high priest for thirty pieces of silver. Judas identifies Jesus to the capturing soldiers by kissing him on the cheek. The painting shows the upper bodies or heads of seven men. Just left of center there is a man that is clearly meant to be Jesus being kissed on the cheek by Judas. To the left of Jesus appears to be another apostle running away from the three armed Roman soldiers. The three soldiers are right behind Judas and are about to take Jesus into custody. While discussing “The Calling of Saint Matthew,” in class we established that Caravaggio had a fascination with implementing self portraits into his paintings, almost like a 17th century Italian version of “Where’s Waldo.” On the far right, behind the two soldiers in the back there is a man that resembles this recurring theme where Caravaggio’s character never has a clear look at the action, as if to say he does not see, believe or understand the Christian religion.
The focal point of the painting is the actual act of Judas kissing Jesus on the cheek, Jesus is the only one facing toward the audience. Their faces are also the brightest colors in the painting as the light shines off their faces. There are two interesting contrasts between Jesus and the other characters. Where the third disciple is fleeing in terror and arms flailing, Jesus is composed, almost apathetic, accepting of his immediate fate. Where the Roman soldiers are approaching with a violent onslaught equipped with armor ready for a brawl, Jesus’ pose is as submissive as possible, gently leaning back with his hands softly folded in front. Jesus’ facial expression does not seem mad or combative, just appears to be sad, as if the human in him realizes that this is the beginning of the end while the divine side realizes that his capture is necessary.
Judas, one of Jesus’ twelve apostles who were the most devoted of his disciples, sold his capture for thirty pieces of silver. This speaks to the notion that money corrupts the soul. An apostle of Jesus, whom was believed to be the son of God, allowed his love of money to overpower is love of God. There are conflicting accounts about how Judas died, but the most popular story contends that he became too guilty about sending Jesus to his death that he committed suicide by hanging himself by a tree. “Judas” itself has a connotation of a traitor, the worst kind of betrayal. The story of Judas is a cautionary tale about how much power money can have over a person. Judas was a sellout; he had a price for everything, even the life of his friend and his God’s son. His suicide symbolized the torturous life of a person who loves nothing but money. It is an empty life that tends to lead to a lonely self loathing. “The Taking of Christ” is the depiction of the culminating moment where a soul is literally for sale, where greed for money has rendered nothing sacred.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Chris Moffatt
Government 490: Technology
Professor Char Miller
Paper #2
This essay is based off of interviews of two young adults pertaining to their views about money and their belief in it. I chose to interview my sister, Amanda Perdue, who is an elementary special education teacher in Fredericksburg, Virginia who has a bachelor degree from West Virginia University and master’s degree in education from Mary Washington College. The second interviewee is my roommate Justin Mann, a twenty-one year old student at Northern Virginia Community College who also works as a groundskeeper at Landsdowne Country Club during the day and a server in a restaurant on the weekends. I selected these people because it would give an accurate, authentic portrayal of how young adults believe in money and what it means for their future.
When asked who was on the twenty dollar bill Amanda said “Hamilton” and Justin answered “Andrew Jackson.” Of course Andrew Jackson is on the twenty dollar bill, and it’s fascinating that the person with a master’s degree answered incorrectly, while a community college student with a manual labor job gave the correct answer. Amanda justified her incorrect answer by saying that she has not used cash in years, as she uses her check card for all transactions.
Why do they “believe” in money? Justin answered simply that money runs the world, every single aspect of it. No decision is made without taking money into consideration. Amanda stated that money is a illustration of the concept of ownership. It is a tangible representation of work ethic and ambition.
Could they imagine a time in which people might not believe in money? Justin dismissively answered no and referenced the answer to the previous question with the simple and direct idea that money runs the world. Amanda gave it a little bit more thought but agreed that a time where people do not believe in money is unfathomable because the only other option would be to revert back to the barter and trade system. Money is here to stay because human nature is insufferably selfish; human greed necessitates the concept of ownership, and the concept of ownership necessitates money. People will never live for a greater good. People will never give without assuming that they will be paid back.
Why is money important? Justin stated that you need money for anything. There is literally nothing free in this world, especially in the capitalistic United States. Amanda prefaced her answer by stating that she does not consider herself superficial or overly-materialistic but money is necessary for any major decision. Your housing, transportation, education, clothing, possessions, are all predicated on how much money you have accumulated.
What role does money play in your life? Justin states that money is his top priority in life, “It’s why I work my ass off, its why I study, its why I pull weeds out from cart paths, its why I subject myself to disrespect while I am serving spaghetti and meatballs for a three dollar tip. Money is the top priority.” Amanda responded that money, “rules my life,” on macro and micro level. Money dictated her education objectives, career path, romantic relationships and almost every other major life decision. It also dictates day to day decisions such as parking spots, daily fashion, lunch, utilities and groceries.
What is your dream financial scenario, and how much money is enough? By this point Justin was pretty depressed and said that he will never be able to achieve a dream financial scenario unless he, “wins the lottery.” Amanda believes that a higher paying job that insured that a house, car and other bills will not be a day to day concern. They do agree on one thing, no amount of money will ever be enough. Amanda stated, “Americans live up to and usually past their financial means, even the richest people are stressed about money. There is no such thing as enough money.”
These two interviews paint a grave portrait of the future of a young generation in a weak economy. It is even bleaker when you consider that the two subjects are middle class white people in possibly the most financially advanced civilization in the history of humanity. Accumulating this fictional money is the one of the most important factors of their lives, creating a perpetual stressor. Imagine if they were actually impoverished, or citizens of a third world country. I would like to think that their collective notion that there is no such thing as a sufficient amount of money is exceedingly pessimistic, but the older I get, the more naïve I appear.
Government 490: Technology
Professor Char Miller
Paper #2
This essay is based off of interviews of two young adults pertaining to their views about money and their belief in it. I chose to interview my sister, Amanda Perdue, who is an elementary special education teacher in Fredericksburg, Virginia who has a bachelor degree from West Virginia University and master’s degree in education from Mary Washington College. The second interviewee is my roommate Justin Mann, a twenty-one year old student at Northern Virginia Community College who also works as a groundskeeper at Landsdowne Country Club during the day and a server in a restaurant on the weekends. I selected these people because it would give an accurate, authentic portrayal of how young adults believe in money and what it means for their future.
When asked who was on the twenty dollar bill Amanda said “Hamilton” and Justin answered “Andrew Jackson.” Of course Andrew Jackson is on the twenty dollar bill, and it’s fascinating that the person with a master’s degree answered incorrectly, while a community college student with a manual labor job gave the correct answer. Amanda justified her incorrect answer by saying that she has not used cash in years, as she uses her check card for all transactions.
Why do they “believe” in money? Justin answered simply that money runs the world, every single aspect of it. No decision is made without taking money into consideration. Amanda stated that money is a illustration of the concept of ownership. It is a tangible representation of work ethic and ambition.
Could they imagine a time in which people might not believe in money? Justin dismissively answered no and referenced the answer to the previous question with the simple and direct idea that money runs the world. Amanda gave it a little bit more thought but agreed that a time where people do not believe in money is unfathomable because the only other option would be to revert back to the barter and trade system. Money is here to stay because human nature is insufferably selfish; human greed necessitates the concept of ownership, and the concept of ownership necessitates money. People will never live for a greater good. People will never give without assuming that they will be paid back.
Why is money important? Justin stated that you need money for anything. There is literally nothing free in this world, especially in the capitalistic United States. Amanda prefaced her answer by stating that she does not consider herself superficial or overly-materialistic but money is necessary for any major decision. Your housing, transportation, education, clothing, possessions, are all predicated on how much money you have accumulated.
What role does money play in your life? Justin states that money is his top priority in life, “It’s why I work my ass off, its why I study, its why I pull weeds out from cart paths, its why I subject myself to disrespect while I am serving spaghetti and meatballs for a three dollar tip. Money is the top priority.” Amanda responded that money, “rules my life,” on macro and micro level. Money dictated her education objectives, career path, romantic relationships and almost every other major life decision. It also dictates day to day decisions such as parking spots, daily fashion, lunch, utilities and groceries.
What is your dream financial scenario, and how much money is enough? By this point Justin was pretty depressed and said that he will never be able to achieve a dream financial scenario unless he, “wins the lottery.” Amanda believes that a higher paying job that insured that a house, car and other bills will not be a day to day concern. They do agree on one thing, no amount of money will ever be enough. Amanda stated, “Americans live up to and usually past their financial means, even the richest people are stressed about money. There is no such thing as enough money.”
These two interviews paint a grave portrait of the future of a young generation in a weak economy. It is even bleaker when you consider that the two subjects are middle class white people in possibly the most financially advanced civilization in the history of humanity. Accumulating this fictional money is the one of the most important factors of their lives, creating a perpetual stressor. Imagine if they were actually impoverished, or citizens of a third world country. I would like to think that their collective notion that there is no such thing as a sufficient amount of money is exceedingly pessimistic, but the older I get, the more naïve I appear.
Chris Moffatt
Professor Char Miller
Government 490: Technology of Money
Short Paper #1
In September 2009, 14.4% of all outstanding United States mortgages were delinquent or in foreclosure; this commonly became known as the subprime mortgage crisis. The mortgage crisis is a direct result of the “housing bubble” bursting abruptly where housing prices were elevating at a much higher rate than income rates. This essay will give a brief overview of the elements of the crisis including Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) funds, Adjustable Rate Mortgages, Subprime Mortgages, Investment Banks, Collateralized Debt Obligation (CDO) and Credit Default Swaps (CDS).
The Troubled Asset Relief Program is a governmental program signed into law by George W. Bush that allowed the United States government to purchase assets from financial institutions with the goal to provide financial market stability and to convince banks to resume lending as they previously would. Lack of regulation has been attributed as to why there has been so much money given, and possibly misused, but no noticeable increase in lending.
According to the Federal Reserve Board adjustable mortgage rates are, “loans with an interest rate that changes.” (www.federalreserve.gov). This means that monthly payments may increase even if interest rates do not, payments may not go down even if interest rates decrease, and one may have to pay back more than they borrowed even if all payments were punctual. Lenders may intentionally charge lower rates than fixed rate mortgages, but of course this charge is always subject to increase.
Subprime mortgage loans are riskier loans given to borrowers who may not have the income or credit history to qualify for normal mortgage loans. Subprime mortgage loans have a much higher rate of default than normal mortgage loans and the proportion of subprime loans increased dramatically from 2004 to 2006, about the time when the housing bubble burst.
Collateralized Debt Obligations are securities made up by a collection of bonds, loans and assets. These are separated by degrees of risk and the higher the risk, the more the CDO will yield. CDO’s increase risk about the value of the original assets more extensively. Bear Stearns, Merill Lynch and Citigroup all cited blunders pertaining to CDOs as the reason for their financial losses.
A Credit Default Swap is where the buyer makes payments to the seller so that in the event that it defaults, the buyer gets compensation. All of these negotiations are private and the lack of transparency hides the identities of the buyers and the sellers. This is especially controversial because in the case of the Lehman Brothers or General Motors the stakeholders may have actually benefitted financially from the company having to file for bankruptcy. Creditors benefit from bankruptcy because credit default swaps will pay them the full face value of their debt.
The subprime mortgage crisis appears to be a perfect storm of the housing bubble bursting, reckless lending by the banks to unqualified borrowers, potential corruption of private investors, a lack of transparency in the financial institutions, and a general deficiency of regulation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)