Quote: “They’re saying that their Dad is a traitor.”
Commentary: I do feel quite terrible for George, especially at this point in the story. I cannot imagine how it must feel to lose your livelihood and watch your town crumble, and then be subject to hate from your former colleagues because you took a temporary job with the company that caused all of the turmoil. I understand that it is difficult to lose your job and then witness your boss continue to work, but George’s employees have to understand that he had no other options: he was offered an opportunity, and he took it to support his family. I’ve always empathized with strikebreakers, and people like George. Though they may be perpetuating the conditions that their co-workers are striking, what other choice do they have? They must make a living somehow. It just seems like the most horrendous Catch-22. However, I was both excited for and proud of George when he used his position as a “traitor” to hold his company accountable. Good for him!
Question: What do you think Sam’s perspective on strikebreaking is? I feel like he would think it was a good thing, at least for businesses.
I was wondering that too! Sam never really talks about his position on unions. I have a feeling he's supportive of unions, because that means the workers are able to work together to their mutual benefit; and is a natural part of the free market. But, I suppose it could be either way; he might defend that if they wanted higher pay, the workers should work for a different company or field.
On the contrary to your hypothesis, I think that he wouldn't support strikebreaking, on the grounds that it is making the system ineffective.
Yeah, Sam never really says his opinion on that. I'm guessing he would be on the side that would be the most economically beneficial, and in this case, against strikebreaking.
I feel that Sam believes in a free marketplace, where strikebreakers are merely a catalyst for something else. That's a difficult question though. I also think that Sam would defend strikebreakers because they keep business moving.
What do you believe strikebreakers are a catalyst for? I understand where you are going, but I am curious as to if there is more depth into that analysis.
Quote: "Why hadn't Sam ever noticed how beautiful she was? Her face had a freshness and a vitality that made the rest of the people in the room look flat by comparison."
Comment: I know it's redundant, but I have to point this out. The author of this book has thoroughly confused me. Sam is a seemingly perfect character, with well rounded thoughts and an undeniable argument for everything. Laura always seems to have a strong opinion that is founded upon emotion, not fact. She is portrayed to be a course or undereducated character with a crude, stubborn personality. When Laura has her moment and is admired, it is not for her mind, but for her appearance. What? Ahh! I would understand if the author was consistent. A pretty face cannot redeem senseless arguments or lack of knowledge. Sam does not comment on her ideas, he comments and is astounded by her appearance. I know that it is common for a person's idiocy to be overlooked if they are attractive, but I had much higher hopes for this book. I especially had much higher hopes for Sam, because I really enjoy the way his mind works, and all of the conclusions he comes to. He seems to be very intelligent and I had hoped that he would be more reasonable than this.
Question: Is Laura capable of winning a debate?
I think that the "fights" Laura and Sam have are more of just her trying to push Sam's thinking so she can understand where he is coming from. Most of the time she isn't really strongly fighting her own opinion, it's more of her poking holes in his argument and trying to see his perspective on things.
From my point of view, it doesn't really seem like Laura is ever debating or fighting, but it is more of a lesson that Sam is teaching her.
I agree; this woman obviously did not go to Yale. No, I do not think she is capable of winning a debate, because the author does not think the English teachers are rational.
I think that throughout the story, Laura will learn more about politics and economics from Sam. She might combine that knowledge with what she knows about history, and then be able to beat Sam in a debate about a wide range of topics!
"Very impressive sound to it. Let's see--the corporation in the twenty-first century has many responsibilities, to its community, to society at large, and to mankind. Grand enough? Should I add the universe as well? Truth be told, I have one and only one responsibility"-here Krauss pauses-"and that is to make money"
This is exactly what Sam was explaining in the earlier chapter. The reason why these corporate peoples sole reason is to make money is because the whole company relies on the company's success, which is money. The CEO can't let the investors in the company down because they have already poured a large amount of money into it. And while I don't agree morally with it, it does make sense that money is the one key factor that is always relevant in any business or company. Anybody would like to say that they don't do something JUST for the money, but it is a big factor in anything anyone does for a career. Everyone must meet a certain threshold when it comes to money so that they can make it in this world.
Question: Is there a way to be both morally successful and economically successful?
I'm not exactly sure if it is possible. I can't really think of an example, however Sam discussed earlier in the book how if someone is too focused on the well being of their workers, the business will fail. Money needs to be supplied to a number of places and if too much of it goes to the workers or outside organizations, the business will be unable to support itself and will fail.
Sam would argue that the desire to be economically successful naturally leads people to be morally successful.
It's all situational, for the person perhaps did things that are morally wrong to achieve currency. Or the person is morally successful but is broke. It depends on the person, but I believe that it is possible .
Yes I agree with Eddie. It does depend on the person. Many people who are morally successful have different ways of solving their problems.
yes of course their is! Their are plenty of men and women that worked hard to get to the point they are today, and they did it with out ruining lives.
Quote: "But if the CEO donates the corporation's money to the system phony because he likes schmoozing with musicians or to a homeless shelter because he fears political pressure and the implicit threat of regulation from people like you, then it's a different matter."
Commentary: I thought this quote was very interesting as it basically explains the motives behind corporations helping out with other organizations. Almost all of the donations made to places who need it are not for the soul purpose of helping the community. They donate because if they don't, their companies will look "bad" in the public eye. In reality, even though these companies are "helping" their communities with donations, it is really just money given out to make themselves look better. It is sad to me how people cannot help out others without some other alternative motive. However, looking at this with more of Sam's views, if the companies donate too much money to external sources, the company will fail. The CEO or whoever is in charge has to make sure that they are being fiscally responsible and making decisions based off of the well being of the company. So, even if a company genuinely wanted to donate money to an organization they would only be able to spend so much as they have to make sure the company is still able to succeed.
Question: Do you think when a company donates money for alternative motives that it is still considered a good dead?
I would still think of it as a good deed, even if their motives are for publicity. Obviously it is a corrupted way of doing things, but it still is helping out someone or something that needs it.
No because most companies do this to avoid getting hurt by taxes. As well as for publicity, which then company will be able to generate more funds then the funds that they donated. Unless the company stays intact with whomever that they are donating to and are committed with them then yes the deed is good.
I think regardless of motives donating money is a good dead and deserves reconciliation. Alot of times people get caught up in motives and question them but if a good dead is getting done or a job is being completed than why do motives matter?
Nice philosophical question! I think that though the end result of a deed like that is "good", karmically, no, the deed itself is not good because it was completed out of selfishness.
I think the deed itself is no longer good, as there were ulterior motives, however, even if done under the guise of goodness it still benefits others.
Quote: "You seem to specialize in giving away money."
Comment: I know the idea of giving away money has less to do with economics and more to do with the emotional side of things, but I find it very interesting. The difference in what someone decides to do with their money and personal life and where that overlaps. I think his intent is to tell us about economic concepts, but he makes it more user friendly, through including the romance and love story aspects that are so human.
Q: I want to hang out with the author of this book and ask him a lots of questions, mostly about economics and how he thinks they relate to our humanity.
Do you think after reading some of the book there is space for humanity in the world of economics?
I like what you said about how giving away money has less to do with economics and more to do with the emotional side of things, but I think it can have ties to both.
Not a question?
"Responsibility is a funny word" said Sam "It conveys a sense of obligation, which in turn conveys a sense of debt, of owing something."
When I read this quote I felt that this cat was on to something. We all have different responsibilities, whether they great or minor. Many of us hold these responsibilities because of the good that may come out of it. For example, taking ownership of a cat. Cats are often bought for companionship but that companionship comes with a price for the cat needs to be taken care of, which then can be seen as an obligation. When he talks about owing something he is talking about the feeling that you get when you have to do something for others. This quote is relatable for there are times when I felt like I had to something for others, I felt obligated to do so, which then can be seen as a burden.
Why did Andrew seem like he was tempting Sam to freak out?
That is a really interesting question! I don't know the answer to it, but I am curious as to what other people have to say. Do you think that Sam's reaction was over the top or was Andrew instigating an attack on Sam?
I believe Andrew was trying to get Sam's strong opinions out of him. From what he had heard about him from Laura.
I really like how you took the quote and applied it to owning a cat, in this book we are always thinking of economics and corporations but you were able to take this quote and make it more relatable.
In response to your question there could be multiple reasons why he did that. For one, from what Laura has said about him he sound like he likes a good argument and maybe he just wanted to be able to say that he won an argument with an economist. Another is that maybe Andrew thought that his sister brought some guy, an economist, home and he wanted to see what he was all about. There could be many reasons why Andrew did that, hopefully we will find out later in the book.
Quote: " You would justify your actions with the consolations that your making the world a better place. In your mind, people don't know how to spend there money wisely."
Comment: This really struck me as a reader and as a consumer, it was interesting to read about Andrew thoughts and caught me off guard when Andrew called out Sam the way he did. I wish that Laura would have commented though in that section of the book, it was clear that those thoughts where one sided. Andrew made it really clear that Sam was content with the decisions he made because in his eyes there it was bettering the world but itsn tbetting bettering the world a matter of perspective?
Question: How can CEO's determine whats financially best for there company if stockholders demand one thing and employees demand another?
yea that is a really good question. They have to balance the two and I think that a lot of CEO's go with benefitting the stockholders more over the employees that they don't have as much contact with.
Quote: " 'Opportunity for Appeal' sounded ominous…"
Commentary: This is the preface to the scene where Laura and Sam are discussing poetry, which leads to a discussion about Penelope, Odysseus's wife, which leads to the question of faithfulness, which leads to my second quote that truly embodies how I see this book- as an example of success given all aspects of failure. "…at least what I believe what Tennyson was saying- is that it's OK to fail when the spotlight is on you. What's really important is still having enough fire in the belly to even consider getting into the arena at all." Powerful stuff, right? Laura really knows how to grab my attention. The importance of the first quote is to portray a setting, while the second is important to explaining the reason they needed to meet in this place. To me, it all connects- the setting, the conversation, the poetry, the character analysis- all of chapter nine spoke to my soul. Oh and the part when we learn what "Iambic pentameter" was fascinating as well!
Question: Do you feel that people can have iambic pentameter in love? For example, Laura explains it as "the type of rhythm in a poem…that gives words power." Do you think that love could be a living example of how humans posses iambic pentameters?
Shea this is deep as oil!!! You got so much out of Sam and Laura's conversation that I didn't see at all. And I love your question, I totally see love being the iambic pentameter to our lives; giving it direction and power.
Shea, I don't have an answer to your question but I love everything you said. I never saw all of what you connected and it is amazing. I love the way you took her just seeing the envelope and connected it to the conversation they had and foreshadowing.
"Laura tells me you don't believe in government regulation of corporations. Says your a big fan of unrestrained capitalism."
I wonder if most economists feel this way too. Sam likes the idea of having business grow by themselves without having to stop its growth because of the government afraid of controlling too much. However from a consumer standpoint it would mean the rebirth of monopolies and all the prices of a certain item could be changed by one man/one company. Again from a economist standpoint it would be a great study and learn in todays world how much a monopoly can effect a capitalist society.
Do most economists wish to see unrestricted capitalism?
This quote was close in context to mine, and I share the same question about unrestrained capitalism
I wonder what the world would look like with unrestrained capitalism
I agree I wonder what this would look like too.
Quote: "after all" continued sam "under capitalism, man oppresses man...but under socialism, it the other way around"
Commentary: I love this quote because it humorously explains the difference in oppression between capitalism, more specifically unrestrained capitalism, and socialism. The difference is that there is no difference. It's still one man oppressing another man and various forms. In socialism individuals are oppressed by an attempt to make them equal under the power of another man. And capitalism individuals are oppressed by the thought of being equal while still being under the power of another man. That's how economics work. There always has to be someone in charge. Even in socialism there is a form of economics that mimicked capitalism in someway. And in capitalism aspects mimic socialism. I feel that wrote really captures the humor in ideological differences.
Question: I wonder if the same idea can be expressed in a different humorous way
I like this quote to, I wonder how close capitalism and socialism really are
I also thought this was an interesting way of talking about socialism and capitalism. I think it really shows how there are flaws to any system and it's about finding the system with the most manageable flaws.
It is interesting that you chose to illustrate that there is no contrast between the two systems, though many people would argue otherwise. I am a little confused by your question, it seems the quote is pretty straightforward, and that most people would use humor as a distraction from the truth.
"In Indonesia 30¢ an hour is a living wage"
I thought this statement brought a little light towards people who are affected negatively by business. Is this helps a lot of people and does a lot of good things of the world, but some people are putting harsh conditions because of it. In the book, there's an attempt at justifying the wages, but people tend to try to justify the horrible things that they are doing. That's what happens with a lot of companies.
why do so many companies yes slavelike labour?
Your question is a difficult one, but I think that it's partially for their bottom line and partially because in a twisted way they are helping them by employing them (though how ethic the employment is is very questionable).
Well even if they are employing the people, it doesn't mean that they are being fair. I personally belive that all it comes down to is money and by paying the workers that little and seeling their products for much more their profit margins are much larger creating more assets for the company.
"But Sam saw right away that he didn't fit in"
I think that it is cool whenever the reader gets insight on the part of Sam's thinking and mind that is not about economics and politics. It shows that these people, who many see as cold hearted economists, actually have the same thoughts and feelings as other people. We would almost never expect Sam to have a different side. Also we see in the book how he is very uncertain how to talk to a woman and what to talk about. It seems like he was always only interested in numbers and politics but it is nice to see him for once, not understanding something and have to asses situations that have to do with Laura. It shows us that there is more to him, and people like him, than what we see on the outside. The reader gains this insight through the author's use of narration about what is going on in the characters' minds.
What exactly does Laura think about him and the side of him that is not the economist?
I think that Laura has grown to like him since she went as far as inviting him to a family dinner party. It seemed very fast though and there wasn't much to bond over.
I think they like to challenge each other, and these challenges allow Laura to see there is more to him than meets the eye. Kinda cheesy but its true! A person can't be all good or all bad, they have a mix, so I think that applies to economists too and with Laura teaching literature, she had to realize he was not all economist-y
"They danced in the street and lined up for the opportunity to be 'exploited.' The tragedy isn't that they earn 30 cents an hour. The tragedy is that 30 cents an hour is their best alternative."
This quote really struck me because I had never thought of poverty this way. My heart goes out to those in need, but I never thought about all the different factors that go into factories overseas and the payment they receive. It definitely explains a lot for me about how complex global economics are.
Now I wonder what we can do to support those living in severe poverty.
All those stores with really cheap clothes always make me wonder why they are so cheap, and many times its because they are made by underpaid workers in foregin countries :( I try to do my part by avoiding those shops when I can so that there is less of a demand on those workers, but I don't know exactly what will help them. They definitely need to be brought to light and have people go over there and talk to them to understand what they need versus just assuming.
Isn't the point, though, that if you buy more of the clothing you will be supporting the poor workers in foreign countries?
I don't belive so, because if you continue to support the moguls who run these vast companies that pay employees so little, they will assume that it is ok and the consumers are fine with the way the products are produced.
"Laura tells me you don't believe in government regulation of corporations. Says your a big fan of unrestrained capitalism."
I chose this quote because I found the differences between Sam and Andrew's opinions interesting. I agree with Sam's argument because I think capitalism allows more freedom for people to self-regulate the economy. Sam explains this very well and uses thought out arguments that I appreciated.
My question is why was Andrew trying so hard to insult Sam's opinions instead of actually debating them?
I'm not sure he was purposefully trying to insult Sam's opinion. At that point in the argument, I think Sam was "winning" and Andrew knew it. So Andrew became defensive, and found it easy to insult Sam's opinions because they were so drastically different from his own.
"Sam wanted to tell her how the words filled her heart, but he was afraid to break the spell she had cast. Laura also felt it. It made her uncomfortable. What was she doing using these words from a century ago to charm this peculiar python from the world of economics?"
This quote stuck out to me for many reasons. One being that this is an example where people are in their heads too much when they have amorous feelings towards another! I've both experienced and witnessed these mind games before, and the only reasonable way to avoid them is to -no joke- talk about them. You miss every shot you don't take, and why would you rather drive yourself crazy thinking about all these hypotheticals and worries when a simple few expressive words could solve it all? Another reason this quote stuck out to me was how he admitted to feeling fear. Fear or False Expectations Appearing Real. Someone wise told me that fear litterally doesn't exist. We are scared of things that haven't happened. And about 80% of what we worry about never happens! For two very educated and mindful people, this little interaction shows the power of emotion undoubtedly.
Where would our world and civilization be without the feeling of fear?
I think that without feeling of fear world and civilization would be destroyed. I think fear is that something that is stoping us to do some bad things but on the other hand it is catalizator for many good things that happen in this world (inventions, ect)
I don't think we would have evolved far as a society. Though we would have a much less tragic history, fear has been a driving factor in many historical events that shapes our world.
"Much of the poem has a melancholy tone. But Tennyson ends it on a different note. The poem is written in the first person. Ulysses is talking. He wonders whether he might gather his mariners for one last voyage of courage."
I really liked this quote from Laura because it gave me a sense of her passion on poetry. She was explaining to Sam the whole concept around the poem and went through the characters emotion. She even wanted to tell him some background info before she started to recite the poem. I was glad to see this section of the book because Laura was finally teaching Sam something she really knew about. I see it as if it were a game of chess, and it was her turn to make the winning move.
How deep will Sam and Laura's relationship going to get?
I think book will reveal all secrets of their relationship.
I agree, we will see it eventually
In Indonesia 30 cents an hour is a living wage.
This simple sentence produce many thoughts and feelings. When I read it it made me think. I thaought about many things that I have and that I ak not aware of. Those people in Indonesia are happy if they have something to eat. And they are probably more happy then us. What is really sad is that those wages are determined by people from here who owns all these companies. Obviously standard determines the wage for people in every country but companies should have their own standards and same wages for everyone. No matter how bad standard is in some country, at the end of the day people would still worked as hard as people from other countries.
What would happened if people in Indonesia had same wages as people here for same labor they do here?
"This is where most of our workers live."
It's interesting to see the different standards of living around the world. The PR guy thought this was where the homeless live, but only to find that probably one of the most highly payed employees live there. In a way I think in America we take advantage of a lot of opportunities here. A job at McDonalds probably pays more than what some of the higher up employees were getting payed at that job. In addition to lower pay they were also forced to work in unsafe environments, without proper safety codes. While here we can probably have a unionization, it seems that in Mexico they don't want to risk what they already have. However it may be more expensive to live here than in a different country therefore we'd have to get payed more to survive. But it's still shocking to hear that a family of 8 have to try and live off of $2,000 a year
Would it be possible to survive in america earning that same amount of money?
Very interesting question! The way that the
Q: You would treat adults like children. you would ban cigarettes if you could.
C: This takes me back to the beginning of the book,where Laura and Sam are arguing about whether or not putting a rail on your porch should be legally required or not. I find it interesting that it would make sense to take out the danger from peoples lives, but that really its taking away their right to it. You would think that keeping everyone safe in any means possible would be a good thing, but from an outer point of view that is still taking away their option to do something.
C: What if, in our society, things that were considered "bad" were immediately outlawed?
I believe that if things that were considered bad were immediately outlawed then people wouldn't have as much fun, because everyone has different personalities.
Quote: "Do you think when he announcement was made that a factory was coming and that jobs would be available, people said, no, keep it away from here? They danced in the street and lined up for the opportunity to be 'exploited.' "
Commentary/Analysis: This argument caught my attention because I think that Andrew's point of view is something that we have all heard at some point or another and up until now I haven't really heard a counter to that argument. Yes 30 cents an hour seems terrible to us and just because the company can pay that little doesn't mean they should but just because it seems so little to us doesn't mean that the people that are receiving it aren't grateful for what they are given or the opportunity to work. Sam described people dancing in the streets out of excitement and gratefulness for the coming jobs and that isn't really a perspective that anyone ever looks at.
Question: I wonder why there was no mention really of the people that become unemployed by the factory being moved in Andrew's argument
I wonder how many people became unemployed because of the factory move and how many people gained a job, respectively.
“It’s just wrong for a CEO to spend it on a pet charity. The CEO should use that money to hire better workers or modernize factories or whatever is best to ensure the long run viability and profitability of the enterprise.”
I feel I can agree with this quote because if you make better working conditions it will make working at your company more attractive. But if spend a lot of money on a charity it might help the public image. But you will still have mediocre conditions which will leave it at not really an attractive place to work. Also it would let the CEO have more money to hire a larger work force, which will be able to make more product. This in turn will benefit the consumer because more of it is being made so that will make it easier to get. So what he is saying is that he would rather the CEO look out for the company as the first priority and if there is enough left over money then maybe spend it on charity.
Why do people feel the need for companies to give back to the community? Can’t they do it by themselves if they want it done?
Well most companies have the money to give back to their community where as normal men and women don't all have giant sums of money.
Quote: "In Indonesia 30 cents an hour is a living wage."
Commentary: I picked this quote, because it made me realize how rich different countries are, and how in some countries the minimum wage is different. When you compare thirty cents an hour to earning thirty cents an hour in America the results are completley different.
Question; I wonder what would happen to people in America if the minimum wage was as low as thirty cents.
Well if the MW was 30 cents, things would be drastically different. But like how Sam mentioned, the MW is that low because that's all they need there. In America, we need more things and have a lot of other priorities and more regulations, etc that pretty much make it impossible to get a MW that low (unless we had some incredible deflation in currency).
"When he got home, he paced around the apartment, furious at himself for what he had done. How could he have let himself be provoked? What was he thinking?"
I can relate to this quote very strongly. I am very passionate about my views, and typically I get provoked very easily into arguments. I LOVE to argue, and it gets my adrenaline pumping. In the past, I have been really easily provoked, and people knew/know that they could provoke me. Like someone would 'casually' mention something around me just to spite me, and often times, I took the bait. When this happened (which doesn't happen as much now), I used to feel a lot like Sam did afterward: ticked off at myself for getting provoked, but also still thinking furiously about the recently completed argument. I often go through arguments in my head after they've been completed to try to identify what I did, and what I could have changed during the argument.
Will this little mishap affect Sam's relationship with Laura?
I think it will greatly effect the relationship, but not for the good or the bad. It will just change some aspects.
"In Indonesia 30 cents an hour is a living wage."
This shocked me when i read it. I did not think that the difference was so huge compared to here. the living difference is also a shocker because if people here only earned 30 cents and hour they would not be able to support there families, but in Indonesia 30 cents is a living wage which means that they could I've off of it.
Dose that make Indonesia a rich country if there people can live with just 30 cents an hour and would that make the USA a poor country because living on one minimum wage job does not buy you a living?
Q: This man is a snake
C: This line hurt me as well as it seemed to hurt same in the book, yes Sam's ideas of our goverment and the money used with it are not all ideal, they are still his ideas. He places valid arguments on the table with supporting evedince and a passhion for what he thinks and feels. He is not a snake, a snake is a manipulator who just says things to get his way. Sam is a very smart individual with reasonable actions and cause, for Andrew to say that to him is very rude and it worries me about Sam's realtionship with Laura's family.
Q: What will happen to their relationship
Q: "In Indonesia 30 cents an hour is a living wage."
C: I know that many people have already choosen this quote but I couldn't help myself. This quote shows the true struggle that many other countries are faced with in comparison to America. Or it's possible that the value of money is worth more so less goes a long way. Either way this quote is an eye opener to some but to others it's just a mere fact. Some people recognize this and feel as if they should act, however most read this and think nothing of it.
Q: Are you the kind of person to act or ignore?
I think many that while many people recognize the extreme difference, its hard for them to act on it, because it would mean giving something up for themselves so that others can be more like them. Personally I would ignore the "issue" because 30 cents is a living wage in that country, here it is not. If people are able to get by, than that is just how their currency functions.
Quote: "It's easy to do good with other people's money"(Page 114).
Commentary: Mrs. Clark was talking about this quote in class and it is easier to say will the rich should this or that, but when it comes to our own money doing something "good" becomes harder. For the most part people say they want to do good and help others but we only look at it with what can be done by those we believe are doing the wrong doing. We say a company is corrupt and that they need to fix the issue with low wages, but in reality that might be true, it is most likely lower wages for the customer to but for the company like Sam said. Speaking of Sam, it was interesting seeing how Same and Andrew's argument played out. Andrew after the comment was made pretended like it was never made. He couldn't admit that that was what he was doing for most of the argument and he was claiming that he was the one with the heart and cared for more for others than Sam did.
Question: Why did Andrew have to bait Sam and not drop the conversation when same was trying to joke he way out of it?
“‘This man is a snake,’ Andrew said, looking at his sister. He turned to Sam. ‘You’re dangerous. You justify corporate greed in the name of working people…. You defend the Charles Krausses of the world and all who would make money on the backs of others. And I resent you poisoning my sister with your heartless view of the world.’” (Roberts 118)
Dang… You know, I think that I might have felt the same way as Adam if I had not heard more of Sam’s perspective earlier or if I had not really known Sam’s true intentions and morals. I really have to applaud Sam for not only defending his position (even though it meant having a not so great first impression with Laura’s family) because it was something that he felt so strongly about, AND then still be able to remain calm and polite as he made his way to the door. Like seriously?! I would have been furious if someone like Adam could be so close-minded to other perspectives other than his own and then feel the need to further insult me in front of someone I admire and want to impress because of my views and ideals. Oh man, I would have been angry. But at the same time I can’t say that I am surprised by Sam’s response. Just the way that he acts and presents himself is just so admirable and so articulate, that even in a tight situation he was composed and still holding close to his manners. I dont even know how else to say it but I just find that so praiseworthy and valuable because it’s just so rare to find that same quality in people these days. God, I love Sam’s character. I mean seriously “You know nothing of my heart.” DAMN SON! Now that’s how you deliver a comeback without being rude. So great.
In Sam’s situation he knew the right words to say to someone who was completely ignorant to other perspectives such as Sam’s that requires an open mind. If you were in Sam’s situation and you shared his same views, what would you have said to influence Adam’s opinion?
Quote: "This is where most of our workers live."
Comment: This quote struck me in many ways. It seems so matter-of-fact yet the descriptions were of a decrepid place. The places that people live vary from country to country depending on location. The man who represented PR thought that the people who were living there were no paid well, yet they were some of the highest paid employees. It made me feel that the HR man thought he was so much better then them, yet he didn't do anything to help them really, being that he was in HR. When reading that a family of 8 survived off 2,000 in a year it caught me off guard. In the grand scheme of things that is not a lot of money and it would be impossible to live off that much money in the US.
Question: What would happen to America's economy if we did have to live off that little money? And how inexpensive would items become due to the drop in salaries?
Your question reminded me of that one movie that we watched in Spanish, about the group of 4 guys trying to live off of one dollar a day
But sam saw right away that he didn't fit in."
It seemed like sam didn't think he fit in because he was like them all them who were really big economist. I feel like he didn't feel the same way that they all thought and it seemed like he felt out of place. I wonder what would of happened if he was 100 % like them?
Q: "You seem to specialize in giving away money."
C: I think that at this point in the story it shows many scenarios of how money is portrayed and used throughout the town. I think that it shows how money is used for both Economical and personal reasoning based on the owner.
Q: Why has money become a human habit and how does it relate to us as a person?
People need money in order to have what they want and need so everyone that wants to live a life to whatever their standards are need that money in order to feel fulfilled.
"Very impressive sound to it. Let's see--the corporation in the twenty-first century has many responsibilities, to it's community, to society at large, and to mankind. Grand enough? Shall I add the universe as well? Truth be told, I have one and only one responsibility, and that is to make money."
I was more surprised than I should have been when I finished this sentence. Up until this chapter I thought that Mr. Krauss was a smart man, scheming and manipulative, but smart enough to run his shoddy business practices under the radar and to keep them there. When he openly admitted to his selfishness in a setting where he could not pay people off to forget it, I was a little disappointed in him. Honestly I though he could have done better, put up some struggle and try to keep the "good" name of his company a little longer so as not to damage his profits as much from the negative press he would receive. I kinda want a bit more out of an antagonist in a story, and so far Mr. Krauss is kinda washed out.
What makes a good antagonist and how exactly could Mr, Krauss change before the end of the book to become one?
What makes a good antagonist is, in my opinion, a person virtue that is seeded throughout the novel or show.
Quote: "You would justify your actions with the consolations that you're making the world a better place. In your mind, people don't know how to spend their money wisely."
Commentary: This quote really struck me because it totally relates to a consumer standpoint. Its interesting because he also brings up the fact that we have control of our own responsibilities. When I read that it made me realize that spending money wisely is a responsibility of mine as well. The more responsible I am with it the better the outcome, too bad in his mind he thinks that majority of the people don’t know how to handle money.
Question: Will any of these misconceptions affect their relationship?
Q: “‘What's wrong with that? You’re just proving my point that you don’t care about people. Who cares what a corporation gives? If the goal is more art or a homeless shelter or a program for crack-cocaine babies, what difference does it make? My goal is to make the world a better place’ ‘But it’s not your money’”
C: This is where I really see the division between Sam and Laura. This is an issue that they both feel extremely strong about especially for Sam to get so angry defending corporations. I don’t know if I would get that angry at someone whose field wasn't economics, when they were defending their point. I think they have very separate views, Laura wants everything to be happy and good in this world and everyone to have money while Sam having more knowledge of these situations knows that it would be impossible for the worlds to work like that, this make them really compatible and incompatible at the same time.
Q: Why do you think they keep talking if they make each other so mad?
Q: "You seem to specialize in giving away money."
C: In a book rooted in the economic world, the worst scenario outside of personal injury could be the loss of money. So when they say this, it really has some affect to it. And as well as that, money, outside of what is is, has some sort of importance outside the wealth part. So giving away something like that in a business world can be lead to terrible consequences.
Q:Why in a world so rooted in the wealth of things, is it bad to give money away? even if money is lost, it is going somewhere, and they might need it more than you,so why is the loss of money so bad?
If you look at grocery stores and the amount of food that they throw away its ridiculous and when an employee takes some to donate they get fired. Its the same concept as money, people would rather see it go away to nothing than to someone because of greed.
Quote: "What's really important is having enough fire in the belly to even consider getting into the arena at all."
There are many parts of society that idolizes people from the past. People that have made a name for themselves that is still remembered today. All of those have fallen at some point, but had enough courage to get back up and push on. One example that many people may be familiar with is Donald Trump, he has gone bankrupt twice but managed to have enough fire to get back in the arena and rebuild his empire. I found that this quote is also very applicable to Sam, because he has a different way of teaching, it is very effective. However, many of his superiors think that it breaks the "rules" and tradition that the system is so used to. He is so close to just being dismissed, that I am shocked at how he is able to continue to teach as well as he does. It illustrates just how well people are able to look at the overall picture, he can see that his method is not well received, however it is reaching some students and that's more than enough reason to push on, regardless of the future.
Question: If you knew that you were about to be asked to leave, would you still push on and give 100%?
Q": "In Indonesia 30¢ an hour is a living wage"
C: In the world people are sadly forced to live off of very little and they suffer. The CEO's pf that company are making alot more by outsourcing and that takes a toll on Americans and it makes the people that work for these companies overseas poor because they earn little to nothing.
C: should there be international laws on labor costs?
Write something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview.