Everyman-a Medieval Play Review Essay Example for Free

Everyman-a Medieval Play Review Essay Summary Everyman is a play which was written to express the importance of morality, to whoever read it or experienced it being performed on stage. Some scholars say that it was written sometime in the late 1400’s, while others insist that it is a translation of a Flemish work called â€Å"Elckerlijc†, which was written by Peter van Diest in 1495. Everyman is an allegory play which is heavily based upon Christian religious perspectives; also it is resoundingly similar to the Christian belief of the resurrection of Christ, and his ascension into Heaven, after the crucifixion. The first act of Everyman, opens with a prologue which takes on the form of a messenger, telling the audience about the fate which is to come to Everyman. The messenger goes on to tell the audience that eventually God will call upon all of humanity to stand before him, and give account of their works which they had wrought in life. The next part of the play is God calling upon Death, to go and bring Everyman to stand before him. God commands Death to go and bring Everyman before him, so that he may give account of his own misdeeds that he has wrought in life. So Death goes and finds Everyman, and tells him that his time has come. Everyman then attempts to bribe Death with a thousand pounds, but Death refuses. However, he states that he will allow Everyman to bring someone with him, so that he does not have to face his judgment alone. Everyman first goes to Fellowship, whom represents friends and companions; and asks him to accompany him to go and stand before the judgment God. Fellowship, whom had promised to stand besides Everyman through whatever may come; tells Everyman that he will not go with him to the grave, because he fears Death and the judgment of God. Everyman is heartbroken, but then goes on to the next in line. Everyman then goes to Kindred and Cousin, which are supposed to represent family and kin; but they too tell him that they will not accompany him on his way to the grave. Thirdly, Everyman turns to Goods, which represents material possessions; nonetheless she also states that she will not go with Everyman to his final judgment. Everyman is very concerned by this point, and so he turns to Good Deeds for companionship. Good Deeds states that she will go with Everyman to face his judgment with him; but unfortunately she lacks the strength for such a journey, because Everyman  has neglected her throughout his life. Good Deeds tells Everyman that he must then go before her sister, Knowledge; for she will know the way in which Good Deeds may regain strength. Upon meeting Knowledge, she tells Everyman that he must go before Confession; and there Everyman confesses his sins. Afterward, Confession gives Everyman a â€Å"jewel† called Penance; which cleanses Everyman of his sins, so that he may stand before God and not be in jeopardy of damnation. With his confession behind him, Good Deeds regains his strength, and is ready to accompany Everyman to the grave. Knowledge then tells Everyman to gather together his attributes of life: Beauty, Strength, Discretion, and Five Wits; so that they too may accompany him to his reckoning with God. But when Everyman gathers them together, they tell him that they will not go with him to the grave; essentially because they are all characteristics of youth, which are all now fleeting from him, as he has the end of life. With that, Knowledge, and Good Deeds accompany Everyman to his final reckoning with God. There enters the character Angel; Knowledge then attests to Angel that Everyman was a good and just person, and in the end, he confessed his sins before God. Then Everyman and Good Deeds go down into the grave, and thus make their way to stand before God in the final judgment of Everyman. Fundamentally, this play ends with the character, Doctor, stating that all accept Good Deeds and Knowledge will all flee from a person, when they go before God for their final judgment. *** Issues in Raised in Key Resources There are several key issues which were raised by the scholars that wrote the major resources which I used to write this report. This play has received a moderate amount of popularity over the past near 500 years; and now today there are some scholars and researchers whom are exceptionally critical, both positively and negatively, of the details as to how it was written. One criticism of note would have to be one which was voiced by Thomas F van Laan. In referring to the general premise of Everyman, he contends of the writer that â€Å"His speech is essentially negative; he focuses solely on the inevitability of death and the destructiveness of sin†. Simply put, Mr. van Laan is stating that at first, the sole purpose of this work appears to emphasize specifically on death and how mankind should feel only sorrow for anything that they do, which goes against the teachings of Christianity. Another criticism of this work which Mr. van Laan refers to is the point in the beginning when God first speaks. Mr. Van Laan states: â€Å"Gods words are wholly negative in force, implying only the difficulty to come, omitting any indication of hope for mankind†. Mr.  van Laan is voicing this criticism on the opening section of the play, fundamentally about how he considers Gods words to be too negative in their approach. In expressing this condemnation, Mr. van Laan is adamant about his beliefs that God would probably not be so disconcerting in his approach to dealing with mankind. However not all that Mr. van Laan has to say about Everyman is negative in nature. He goes on to shed light on the allegory nature of the play, and how this lends credence to its being a unique, legitimate work of theater. He contends that â€Å"The first movement, is a falling action, which traces Everyman’s’ decline in fortune. This shatters the apparent serenity of his life, to the depth of his despair†¦fallowed by the second movement, a rising action, which carries him from this nadir unto his final salvation†¦which is symbolized by the words of the welcoming Angel†. It is my belief, that essentially what Mr. van Laan is stating, is that by using actual characters to personify the specific aspects of human nature; the persona of the play becomes a two-fold endeavor. Firstly, by the characters being literal representations of human qualities; they achieve a form of realism, which is normally only conveyed through the use of spoken dialog. Secondly, the movement’s themselves-transpiring from a state of utter despair, to a state of harmonious bliss; is not only characteristic of all great works of drama, but also of life itself. Throughout Mr. van Laan’s review of Everyman, he states his opinion that by the author using characters to represent the individual aspects of human identity; the play conveys a form of realism, which is distinctly unique. Next brings us to the arguments made by the researcher Roger A. Ladd. His belief is that this play was not written for the everyday person, but was in fact written to be a work which would have been performed for the â€Å"bourgeoisie†. His reasoning stems from research which had been done by scholar Dorothy Wertz; the same scholar who also believes that Everyman was probably written strictly to be performed for the elite rich. In her research, Mrs. Wertz points to the fact that â€Å"by simply examining the vocabulary and phrases used in the original piece, one can determine whom the play had been written for†. In that, she states that â€Å"the wording itself would have been too formal for ordinary citizens of the time period to ascertain†. However, unlike Mrs. Wertz, who believes that Everyman is specifically nothing more than a direct translation of Elckerlijc; Mr. Ladd assumes that it is an amalgamation of Elckerlijc and other English literary customs of the era. Mr. Ladd’s purported theory was reached in part, by investigating the traits of the character â€Å"Goods†, and comparing them with the English anti-mercantile satire traditions which were popular in the late-medieval period. An example of which being, that in the Germanic-Dutch based Elckerlijc, Goods is described as appearing as â€Å"Neglected, rusty. . . heaped up, filthy†. However in Everyman as Mr. Ladd purports, Goods appears in a more English anti-mercantile manner as being â€Å"trussed and piled so high, and in chest I am locked so fast, also sacked in bags†. The Everyman description, falls in line with the late-medieval literary tradition of anti-mercantilism; which according to Mr. Ladd, comes as proof that Everyman could not have been strictly just an English translation of Elckerlijc. Another scholar whom is acquiescent in his research of Everyman is Lawrence V. Ryan. Mr. Ryan takes an approach, which seems to be more about discerning the religious implications of the play Everyman. The first point that Mr. Ryan makes is that †Without theology, the artistic merit may not be fully appreciated†¦that the theology involved is indispensable, not indefensible, and furthermore, that it gives the play its characters, structure, significance, and even its dramatic impressiveness†. One of the main points which all three scholars agree upon is that by being deserted by all those whom Everyman turns to for help; the audience develops a strong sense of pathos, for the plight of Everyman. Mr. Ryan suggests that the emergence of these false-friend characters â€Å"all appear in a climactic order, according to the increased danger of each as a distraction from one’s Maker†. Finally, Mr. Ryan gives his opinion about the reason why all the characters that abandon Everyman, as well as Everyman himself, are all men; and why the only characters that accompany him are women. In essence, the logic behind this as Mr. Ryan contends is that â€Å"All men are born into a state of sin†¦and that for dramatic suspense; the author chose to have the only redeeming characters be women†¦to show that women can counteract this dogma†. Personal Reaction to â€Å"Everyman† My personal opinion of this particular play is one of high appreciation. Unlike some of the reviews of scholars which I have read, which did not display too much positive reception for this work; I personally enjoyed reading it, and doing my report on this play. When I first tried to read the Old-English original version of this play, I found it incredibly hard to ascertain what exactly the meaning was behind what the author had written. Understandably it was difficult for me when trying to use the un-translated Everyman, as Old-English is a version of our language, which has been out-of-date for centuries. When I found the translated version of Everyman on the Fordham University website and began reading it, I almost instantly thought that it had been a work which had been written by either someone whom was a priest, or had been another member of the Christian church in some capacity. Another notion which I had was that if the play had not been written by someone who was a church member, then it obviously had to have been written by someone whom had some form of agenda for getting people involved with the Christian church in some form or another. Perhaps the author had a legitimate reason for wanting people to become more involved with the church or to become closer to god in some fashion. On the other hand, perhaps there was a more sinister motive; like getting more people into the flock of the church, in order to acquire more money flowing into their coffers. Personally, I think that it was a combination of both motives, and that whoever had wrote this play, also had a genuine interest in using a popular mode of expression. Or perhaps the author wanted to show that by turning away from the sins of the flesh; that a person could attain a state of consciousness, which could bring them closer to a higher form of enlightenment. No matter what the personal objectives were for its creation, one thing remains clear; this was that the author of this particular piece was incredibly ahead of his time. From what I have examined in doing research for this report project; in reading other plays that date from the late medieval age, I can honestly say with a certainty, that I have not read anything that dates from this period, which is as unique as this. The usage of human emotions and possessions being personified into literal characters is uniquely a modern notion; and from what I have found, does not appear to have been done in a theatrical piece until sometime around 18th or 19th century. This plot construction is something which I have seen in movies and television shows; which are much more recent, than something that dates from the late medieval period. One example that immediately comes to mind is Charles Dickens’ Christmas Carol; although not entirely the same in primary foundation, the underlying principle is similar. Some of the scholars that I read about, that reviewed this work; were quick to dismiss it as being either frivolity, or simply nothing more than an act of religious propaganda. I have to disagree with both sides; I feel that this is a excellent illustration of late medieval/early modern era theatrical work, which will more than likely see its relevance come again. Summary of key scholarship on this play The first article which I used to review for this report on the play Everyman was a modern-English translation, of the late medieval original version of the play. This particular article didn’t offer any insight into it, as in scholar reviews; but it was extremely helpful in writing my summary of the play. Without this article, I am not sure if I would have been able to do this research project on this particular play, as I would not have been able to even ascertain what it was about. The next article which I used to write this report was written by Roger Ladd. Mr. Ladd took a definitively scholarly approach to conducting his research. Some of the main issues which he decided to confront were how the play Everyman deals with the religious implications of how material wealth corrupts the good intentions of mankind. Ladd went into detail, comparing the details of Everyman, to other plays of similar genera that date from the period. He explains about how most everyday citizens of the late medieval period, looked at the assemblage of material wealth, as the path to avarice, which puts their immortal souls in jeopardy. Like many other scholars whom have written journals about the â€Å"morality plays†, Ladd believes that in order to find out whom the plays written for, one has to look into the wording of the work; by doing this, he states that it becomes apparent who the target was. For example Everyman, when the main character is forced to give up his worldly possessions; it is written to appear as if this could have been the most dastardly thing which could have occurred in his life. Other key scholarship reviews of this play, comes from the scholarly works of Lawrence V. Ryan. Ryan takes an approach to his research, which is concerned with how organized religion is suspect in this play. One of his main thesis’ is about how in the play, Everyman attains salvation through his own works, and not by the salvation which comes from God. He talks about how many religious figures were quick to label Everyman as a work of unholy declarations; and that how many of these religious leaders informed members of their churches that they would be in danger of hell by going to watch a performance of Everyman. Ryan is perhaps the most non-forgiving of the three scholars that I chose to use. Mostly, he tries to make it known that he is of the opinion that Everyman was only an English translation of the Dutch work Elckerlijc. He does not make use of very much authentic information to make this claim, he simply relies on paraphrasing works which had been written by other scholars. Next, I used the research from the scholar Thomas F. vanLaan. VanLaan goes into detail describing the individual characters of Everyman. Noteworthy, is how he explains the nature of these characters, and how they relate to the human experience. Differing from the other scholars whom I referenced in this report, Mr.vanLaan gives a very logical accounting of why the author chose to incorporate inanimate human natures, as the title characters for this play. The choices for the human failings and material wealth, was carefully used to make the play appeal to nearly everyone whom would have watched its production. An example being, of how Everyman had acquired material goods in his life, which would have appealed to the rich; while on the other hand, Everyman losing his material possessions would have gained the approval of the poor which might have been in the audience. However, I never found one scholarly review, which did not offer at least one compliment about this great play. Endnotes *** Paul Halsall, Internet Medieval Sourcebook, â€Å"Medieval Handbook: Everyman, 15th Century†, Fordham University (August 1998) (Accessed on October 20th, 2010) http://www. fordham. edu/halsall/basis/everyman. html The entire summary which I wrote was based upon the modern-English translation of Everyman, which was available online at the Fordham University site.

Essential Workplace Skills Essay -- Job Work Employee Career

Workplace Essential Skills While working or while looking for work there are certain skills sets that are universally important. No matter what job or career path you have chosen these skills make it easier to obtain your goals, whatever they may be. Workplace essential skills enable people at work to do the tasks required by their occupation, give them the basics to learn all other skills (job and life) and assist them to manage and adapt to the changing workplace environment. They are not the technical skills required by an occupation but are the enabling skills that are necessary in most occupations and that allow people to do their jobs successfully. (Molson) The skills that I am referring to are Oral and Written Communication, Interpersonal, and Teamwork skill. These sets of skills have been identified US dept of Labor and other universities and learning Centers as the essential skills every person needs. Oral and Written Communication skills are two of the most important skills a person could have in the workplace. Without the ability to effectively communicate or understand communication in written or auditory form taking and giving direction would be extremely difficult. Oral communication is simply the act of talking and listening. If a person can effectively convey his thoughts in spoken word and interpret others spoken words into their intended thought then they can effectively communicate orally. The same concept can be applied to the written word. The U.S. Deptartment of Labor breaks oral communication into two areas: Listening: Receives, attends to, interprets, and responds to verbal messages and other cues such as body language in ways that are appropriate to the purpose (e.g., comprehe... .../fulltext/00-wes.pdf, United States Dept. of Labor, "Foundation Skills: Basic Skills", 10 June 2005 http://www.careers.unsw.edu.au/careerEd/planning/knowYourself/employability.aspx, University of New South Wales, Sydney Australia, "Employability Skills", 10 June 2005 http://www.nald.ca/molson/skills.html, The Molson Edmonton Learning Centre, "Workplace Essential Skills", 10, June 2005 "Essential skills for the workplace", Beth Blanchard-Smith, Contemporary Books, Chicago, Ill.1993 "Workplace basics : the essential skills employers want", Anthony Patrick Carnevale, Leila J Gainer, Ann S Meltzer; Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, CA 1990.

Monopoly and olygopoly Essay

A monopoly exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity (this contrasts with amonopsony which relates to a single entity’s control of a market to purchase a good or service, and with oligopoly which consists of a few entities dominating an industry) Monopolies are thus characterized by a lack of economic competition to produce the good or service and a lack of viable substitute goods. The verb â€Å"monopolize† refers to the process by which a company gains the ability to raise prices or exclude competitors. In economics, a monopoly is a single seller. In law, a monopoly is a business entity that has significant market power, that is, the power, to charge high prices. Although monopolies may be big businesses, size is not a characteristic of a monopoly. A small business may still have the power to raise prices in a small industry (or market). A monopoly is distinguished from a monopsony, in which there is only one buyer of a product or service ; a monopoly may also have monopsony control of a sector of a market. Likewise, a monopoly should be distinguished from a cartel (a form of oligopoly), in which several providers act together to coordinate services, prices or sale of goods. Monopolies, monopsonies and oligopolies are all situations such that one or a few of the entities have market power and therefore interact with their customers (monopoly), suppliers (monopsony) and the other companies (oligopoly) in ways that leave market interactions distorted. When not coerced legally to do otherwise, monopolies typically maximize their profit by producing fewer goods and selling them at higher prices than would be the case for perfect competition Monopolies can be established by a government, form naturally, or form by integration. In economics, the idea of monopoly is important for the study of market structures, which directly concerns normative aspects of economic competition, and provides the basis for topics such asindustrial organization and economics of regulation. There are four basic types of market structures by traditional economic analysis: perfect competition, monopolistic competition, oligopoly and monopoly. A monopoly is a market structure in which a single supplier produces and sells a given product. If there is a single seller in a certain industry and there are not any close substitutes for the product, then the market structure is that of a â€Å"pure monopoly†. Sometimes, there are many sellers in an industry and/or there exist many close substitutes for the goods being produced, but nevertheless companies retain some market power. This is termed monopolistic competition, whereas by oligopoly the companies interact strategically. Characteristics †¢ Profit Maximizer: Maximizes profits. †¢ Price Maker: Decides the price of the good or product to be sold. †¢ High Barriers to Entry: Other sellers are unable to enter the market of the monopoly. †¢ Single seller: In a monopoly, there is one seller of the good that produces all the output. Therefore, the whole market is being served by a single company, and for practical purposes, the company is the same as the industry. †¢ Price Discrimination: A monopolist can change the price and quality of the product. He sells more quantities charging less price for the product in a very elastic market and sells less quantities charging high price in a less elastic market. Natural monopoly A natural monopoly is a company that experiences increasing returns to scale over the relevant range of output and relatively high fixed costs. A natural monopoly occurs where the average cost of production â€Å"declines throughout the relevant range of product demand†. The relevant range of product demand is where the average cost curve is below the demand curve. When this situation occurs, it is always cheaper for one large company to supply the market than multiple smaller companies; in fact, absent government intervention in such markets, will naturally evolve into a monopoly. An early market entrant that takes advantage of the cost structure and can expand rapidly can exclude smaller companies from entering and can drive or buy out other companies. A natural monopoly suffers from the same inefficiencies as any other monopoly. Left to its own devices, a profit-seeking natural monopoly will produce where marginal revenue equals marginal costs. Regulation of natural monopolies is problematic. Government-granted monopoly A government-granted monopoly (also called a â€Å"de jure monopoly†) is a form of coercive monopoly by which a government grants exclusive privilege to a private individual or company to be the sole provider of a commodity; potential competitors are excluded from the market by law, regulation, or other mechanisms of government enforcement OLIGOPOLY An oligopoly is a market structure in which a few firms dominate. When a market is shared between a few firms, it is said to be highly concentrated. Although only a few firms dominate, it is possible that many small firms may also operate in the market. For example, major airlines like British Airways (BA) and Air Franceoperate their routes with only a few close competitors, but there are also many small airlines catering for the holidaymaker or offering specialist services. Concentration ratios. Oligopolies may be identified using concentration ratios, which measure the proportion of total market share controlled by a given number of firms. When there is a high concentration ratio in an industry, economiststend to identify the industry as an oligopoly. Characteristics †¢ Profit maximization conditions: An oligopoly maximizes profits by producing where marginal revenue equals marginal costs. †¢ Ability to set price: Oligopolies are price setters rather than price takers. †¢ Entry and exit: Barriers to entry are high. [3] The most important barriers are economies of scale, patents, access to expensive and complex technology, and strategic actions by incumbent firms designed to discourage or destroy nascent firms. Additional sources of barriers to entry often result from government regulation favoring existing firms making it difficult for new firms to enter the market. †¢ Number of firms: â€Å"Few† – a â€Å"handful† of sellers. [3] There are so few firms that the actions of one firm can influence the actions of the other firms. [5] †¢ Long run profits: Oligopolies can retain long run abnormal profits. High barriers of entry prevent sideline firms from entering market to capture excess profits. †¢ Product differentiation: Product may be homogeneous (steel) or differentiated (automobiles). †¢ Perfect knowledge: Assumptions about perfect knowledge vary but the knowledge of various economic factors can be generally described as selective. Oligopolies have perfect knowledge of their own cost and demand functions but their inter-firm information may be incomplete. Buyers have only imperfect knowledge as to price, cost and product quality. †¢ Interdependence: The distinctive feature of an oligopoly is interdependence. Oligopolies are typically composed of a few large firms. Each firm is so large that its actions affect market conditions. Therefore the competing firms will be aware of a firm’s market actions and will respond appropriately. This means that in contemplating a market action, a firm must take into consideration the possible reactions of all competing firms and the firm’s countermoves. It is very much like a game of chess or pool in which a player must anticipate a whole sequence of moves and countermoves in determining how to achieve his or her objectives. For example, an oligopoly considering a price reduction may wish to estimate the likelihood that competing firms would also lower their prices and possibly trigger a ruinous price war. Or if the firm is considering a price increase, it may want to know whether other firms will also increase prices or hold existing prices constant. This high degree of interdependence and need to be aware of what other firms are doing or might do is to be contrasted with lack of interdependence in other market structures. In a perfectly competitive (PC) market there is zero interdependence because no firm is large enough to affect market price. All firms in a PC market are price takers, as current market selling price can be followed predictably to maximize short-term profits. In a monopoly, there are no competitors to be concerned about. In a monopolistically-competitive market, each firm’s effects on market conditions is so negligible as to be safely ignored by competitors. †¢ Non-Price Competition: Oligopolies tend to compete on terms other than price. Loyalty schemes, advertisement, and product differentiation are all examples of non-price competition. Advantages of Oligopoly Big Businesses Gain Massive Profits †¢ One of the greatest advantages that occurs from an oligopoly is for the few businesses which control the market for a product or service to build large profits due to reduced sales costs. If just a few companies are in control of the market, the companies have limited competition. It is able to reduce the costs of sales, advertising, promotion and public relations because there is very limited competition to pull the customers away. These reductions in cost can allow the companies in the oligopoly to build larger profits than they would have earned if there were more competitiors. Ability to Determine Prices. Instead of having to keep up with the market, the oligopolies essentially control the market. Unlike other markets where there are more competitiors, the companies in an oligopoly are less concerned about what other companies charge. They are able to establish prices for goods that people want and need based on what the companies in the oligopoly want to charge. Long Term Profits. These companies not only make massive profits, but they are able to retain them for the long haul. It takes a long time and a lot of money for a company to work its way into being a major supplier and part of the oligopoly. During this time, the existing oligopoly companies are able to maintain their profits. Disadvantages of Oligopoly Power in the Hands of a Few. If only a few companies control the availability of a specific product or service, these companies control everything about those products – what they look like, what they cost and how they are sold. Putting this power in the hand of a few companies takes away the normal influences of the market and the consumer. The market and the consumer are now totally relying on the companies to make the right decisions, even during periods of market unrest such as limited availability of a specific component, or escalating prices of raw materials. When the wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few companies, smaller businesses have a harder time being seen as a powerful player in the market. They would have to spend a lot of advertising and sales money to compete with the large powerful oligopoly companies. Creativity. When the knowledge and awareness of a product or service is concentrated in just a few companies, it can be difficult for new ideas to come into play. The existing companies may decide to minimize new products and new distribution methods since they are happy with their current processes and they don’t have any motivation to be competitive by lowering prices or introducing new products or processes. For the individual consumer this lack of creativity leads to out-of-date products and services. Setting Prices. These big businesses have the power to determine what the prices will be, without any concern for competition. This is a negative for the consumer and for other businesses. The whole idea of competitive pricing is thrown out the window when these businesses go about their pricing practices. As you can probably see, oligopolies appear to be beneficial for the companies involved in them, but not so great for the other businesses and consumers in the society. GLOBALISATION Globalization (or Globalisation) is the process of international integration arising from the interchange of world views, products, ideas, and other aspects of culture. Globalization describes the interplay across cultures of macro-social forces. These forces include religion, politics, and economics. Globalization can erode and universalize the characteristics of a local group. Advances in transportation andtelecommunications infrastructure, including the rise of the Internet, are major factors in globalization, generating further interdependence of economic and cultural activities. Though several scholars place the origins of globalization in modern times, others trace its history long before the European age of discoveryand voyages to the New World. Some even trace the origins to the third millennium BCE. Since the beginning of the 20th century, the pace of globalization has proceeded at an rapid rate. Benefits of Globalisation †¢ By buying products from other nations customers are offered a much wider choice of goods and services. †¢ Creates competition for local firms and thus keeps costs down. †¢ Globalisation promotes specialisation. Countries can begin to specialise in those products they are best at making. †¢ Economic Interdependence among different nations can build improved political and social links. Drawbacks of Globalisation. †¢ Cheap imports from developing nations could lead to unemployment in developed countries where the cost of production is high. †¢ Choosing to specialise in certain products may lead to unemployment in other sectors which are not prioritised. †¢ Increased competition for infant industry. †¢ ‘Dumping’ of goods by certain countries at below cost price may harm industries in order countries. Economic globalization is the increasing economic interdependence of national economies across the world through a rapid increase in cross-bordermovement of goods, service, technology and capital. Whereas the globalization of business is centered around the diminution of international trade regulations as well as tariffs, taxes, and other impediments that suppresses global trade, economic globalization is the process of increasing economic integration between countries, leading to the emergence of a global marketplace or a single world market. Depending on the paradigm, economic globalization can be viewed as either a positive or a negative phenomenon. Economic globalization comprises the globalization of production, markets, competition, technology, and corporations and industries. Current globalization trends can be largely accounted for by developed economies integrating with less developed economies, by means of foreign direct investment, the reduction of trade barriers as well as other economic reforms and, in many cases, immigration. Support and criticism Reactions to processes contributing to globalization have varied widely with a history as long as extraterritorial contact and trade. Philosophical differences regarding the costs and benefits of such processes give rise to a broad-range of ideologies and social movements. Proponents of economic growth, expansion and development, in general, view globalizing processes as desirable or necessary to the well-being of human society[209] Antagonists view one or more globalizing processes as detrimental to social well-being on a global or local scale;[209] this includes those who question either the social or natural sustainability of long-term and continuous economic expansion, the social structural inequality caused by these processes, and the colonial, Imperialistic, orhegemonic ethnocentrism, cultural assimilation and cultural appropriation that underlie such processes. The basic function of economy system Every economic system provides solutions to four questions: what goods and services will be produced; how they will be produced; for whom they will be produced; and how they will be allocated between consumption (for present use) and investment (for future use). In a decentralized (usually private enterprise) economic system, these questions are resolved, and economic coordination is achieved, through the price mechanism. Allocation Competitive markets — not corporate-dominated oligopolies — can perform well here so long as side-effects, such as externalities, are incorporated into prices. Ecological economists recognize a legitimate role of the market in society based on the efficiency of allocation of resources. A major improvement in markets includes the side-effects, so markets tell the ecological and social truth. However, pollution provides a subsidy to firms who would otherwise have to clean up their mess. They are easy to hide, hard to calculate, so they persist. This is called a market failure. If markets fail, this means becomes a central point of contention. ESS thus should make a big deal over market failure, which then becomes an institutional failure. Externalities. An externality is a consequence, positive or negative, of an economic activity that affects other parties without this affect being incorporated into market prices. Thus, market price deviates from the â€Å"true† social cost, sending the wrong signal. Note also the subtle linguistic trivialization. Interestingly, the economics profession has long neglected to assess the size or significance of externalities or to calculate the damages perpetrated on its victims, who by definition had these harms inflicted upon them without their participation-despite the obvious dysfunctions of industrialization and urbanization. Indeed, the bias of public policy in the USA has been to protect the producers, not the public at large. Daly comments on the trivialization of externalities by neoclassical economics: When increasingly vital facts, including the very capacity of the earth to support life, have to be treated as â€Å"externalities,† then it is past time to change the basic framework of our thinking so that we can treat these critical issues internally and centrally. Global Fairness Read Sachs and grasp his message. This is authentic social ecology. Without a grand social contract, cooperation between the Global North and the Global South will fail. The results will be disastrous. Sachs realizes that copycat development, the replication of the economic development practices of the global rich, will surely lead to global ruin: more poverty within vast ecological catastrophe. Orthodox western economics can neither be extended to the majority of the earth’s human inhabitants nor can it be sustained indefinitely by the 20% or so who enjoy its cornucopia. Sachs reveals the parasitical political character of global capitalism masquerading as shared economic development. The USA enjoys the opportunity to provide leadership here, but this moral authority has been squandered. ESS requires such leadership, soon. A good place to start is Africa. Brown provides much insight here. Left to itself, a market society will produce large maldistributions in wealth and income. In practice, the market-driven returns to capital, as profits and capital gains, accrue to the wealthy few, the capitalist class, while the returns to labor, wages and salaries, go to a multitude, the working class. This dynamic produces a class-based inequality of both wealth and income, which translates into differential political power. In the past, the inequalities were mitigated by redistributive tax policies–anathema to neo-liberalism, as exhibited by the recent Bush tax cuts. In the era of economic globalization, inequality has grown sharply within nations, including the USA, and on the global scene. Yet, economists regard this normative concern as outside the ken of â€Å"scientific economics. † Therefore, when issues of social justice are openly discussed in the context of sustainable development, do not turn to economics for insight. The usual deflection of the fairness discussion,now in play in the USA since the 2006 election, is to promote economic growth. Grow the pie rather than quibble over the size of the slices. But if the ingredients for physical growth become scarce, growth slows down and the quibbles morph into arguments. This can easily spin out of control. Count on it. Innovation Growth remains the engine of economic globalization without which the system as constituted would crash–although with runaway material growth earth’s ecosystems will surely crash. Schumpeter put it this way: Capitalism, then, is by nature a form of economic change and not only never is but never can be stationary. Schumpeter derided the â€Å"textbook picture† that depicted economic progress as the result of market-based competition . Rather, he pointed to innovation in products, sources of supply, organization, and technology that created a new context â€Å"which strikes not at the margins of the profits and the outputs of the existing firms but at their foundations and their very lives† . Indeed, Schumpeter foresaw that capitalism itself would fall victim to the turbulent task environment of its own making: The capitalist process not only destroys its own institutional framework but it also creates the conditions for another. Destruction may not be the right word after all. Perhaps I should have spoken of transformation . The pivotal move of ESS is to open up a horizon for enormous technical and social progress while maintaining and even restoring harmony with nature. Thus, sustainability offers enormous opportunity. The language of hope must replace the language of despair. There is real opportunity here. ^ Perverse Subsidies A related topic, rarely brought into view, is the plethora of perverse, often hidden, subsidies, including externalities, enjoyed by corporations in such established industries as energy, agriculture, and transportation. Not only do these gifts typically promote older, dirtier, less efficient industries, but they also stymie the development of innovative, cleaner alternatives –depressing prospects for sustainability. For example, subsidies to cotton farmers in the USA disadvantage cotton cultivators in Africa and subsidies to nuclear power generators present an unfair advantage to start-up wind power producers. These often hidden subsidies undermine economic efficiency and promote environmental damage, but go largely neglected in the economic literature. A study released in 2001 by Norman Myers and Jennifer Kent estimates the global cost of perverse subsidies at two trillion dollars, about 5. 6% of the $35 trillion global economy. The subsidy-rich, environmentally poor Bush-Cheney energy policy was formulated behind closed doors with input from energy giants like Enron but with no public disclosure. Eliminating perverse subsidies must be a first step toward building a sustainable economy. Thus, grappling with perverse subsidies and tilting the market toward renewable resources must be high on an ESS agenda. There are multiple components to economic systems. Decision-making structures of an economy determine the use of economic inputs (the means of production), distribution of output, the level of centralization in decision-making, and who makes these decisions. Decisions might be carried out byindustrial councils, by a government agency, or by private owners. Some aspects of these structures include: †¢ Coordination mechanism: How information is obtained and used to coordinate economic activity. The two dominant forms of coordination includeplanning and the market; planning can be either centralized or de-centralized, and the two mechanisms are not mutually exclusive. †¢ Productive property rights: This refers to ownership (rights to the proceeds of output generated) and control over the use of the means of production. They may be owned privately, by the state, by those who use it, or held in common by society. †¢ Incentive system: A mechanism for inducing certain economic agents to engage in productive activity; it can be based on either material reward (compensation) or moral reward (social prestige).

Was Michelangelo an Artist or an Architect

Step aside, Frank Gehry! Get to the back of the line, Thom Mayne. Apparently, the irreverent Michelangelo is the real rebel of the architecture world. In 1980, amidst great public outcry, preservationists began cleaning the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel in Rome, wiping away the dirt and soot that had darkened Michelangelos frescoes for centuries. When the restoration was completed in 1994, many people were astonished to see what brilliant colors Michelangelo had used. Some critics questioned whether the restoration was historically accurate. Painted Tricks on the Ceiling The public first saw Michelangelos frescoes on the vaulted ceiling of the Sistine Chapel on November 1, 1512, but some of those vaults you see are not real. The Renaissance artist spent four years painting the detailed Biblical scenes remembered by most people. Few realize, however, that the ceiling fresco also includes tricks of the eye, also known as trompe loeil. The realistic depiction of the beams that frame the figures is architectural detail that is painted on. The 16th century Vatican parishioners looked up to the chapel ceiling, and they were tricked. The genius of Michelangelo was that he created the appearance of multi-dimensional sculptures with paint. Powerfully strong images mixed with elegance and softness of form, reminiscent of what Michelangelo had accomplished with his most famous marble sculptures, David (1504) and the Pietà   (1499). The artist had moved sculpture into the painting world. Renaissance Man Throughout his career, the radical Michelangelo did a little painting (think ceiling of the Sistine Chapel), did a little sculpting (think Pietà  ), but some say his greatest achievements were in architecture (think St. Peters Basilica dome). A Renaissance Man (or Woman) is someone who has multiple skills in many subject areas. Michelangelo, literally a man of the Renaissance, is also the definition of a Renaissance Man. Michelangelos Architectural Tricks in the Library Born on March 6, 1475, Michelangelo Buonarroti is well-known for elaborate paintings and sculptures commissioned throughout Italy, but its his design for the Laurentian Library in Florence that intrigues Dr. Cammy Brothers. A Renaissance scholar at the University of Virginia, Brothers suggests that Michelangelos irreverent attitude toward the prevailing architecture of his day is what moves aspiring architects to study his work even today. Writing in The Wall Street Journal, Dr. Brothers argues that Michelangelos buildings, such as the Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, trick our expectations just as the Sistine Chapel ceiling did. In the librarys vestibule—are those indentations between the columns windows or decorative niches? They could be either, but, because you cannot see through them they cant be windows, and because they display no decorations, they cant be architectural tabernacles. Michelangelos design questions the founding assumptions of classical architecture, and he brings us along, too, catechizing all the way. The staircase, too, is not what it appears. It seems like a grand entrance to the Reading Room until you see two other stairways, one on either side. The vestibule is filled with architectural elements that are both traditional and out of place at the same time—brackets that dont function as brackets and columns that seem to only decorate the wall. But do they? Michelangelo emphasizes the arbitrary nature of forms, and their lack of structural logic, says Brothers. To Brothers, this approach was radical for the times: By challenging our expectations and defying the accepted sense of what architecture can do, Michelangelo started a debate about architectures proper role that is still going on today. For example, should a museums architecture be in the foreground, like Frank Gehrys Guggenheim Museum Bilbao, or in the background, like the many designs of Renzo Piano? Should it frame the art or be the art? In his Laurentian Library, Michelangelo demonstrated that he could be both Gehry and Piano, attention-grabbing in the vestibule and self-effacing in the reading room. The Architects Challenge The Laurentian Library was built between 1524 and 1559 on top of an existing convent, a design that both connected with the past and moved architecture toward the future. We may think architects only design new buildings, like your new home. But the puzzle of designing a space within an existing space—remodeling or putting on an addition—is part of the architects job, too. Sometimes the design works, like Odile Decqs LOpà ©ra Restaurant built within the historical and structural constraints of the existing Paris Opera House. The jury is still out on other additions, like the 2006 Hearst Tower built atop the 1928 Hearst Building in New York City. Can or should an architect respect the past while at the same time reject the prevailing designs of the day? Architecture is built on the shoulders of ideas, and its been the radical architect who carries the weight. Innovation by definition breaks old rules and is often the brainchild of the Rebel Architect. Its the architects challenge to be both reverent and irreverent at the same time. Sources Photos of Biblioteca Medicea (vestibule and staircase, cropped)  © Sailko via Wikimedia Commons, Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0) or GFDL; Photo of Reading Room in Laurentian Library  © ocad123 on flickr.com, Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-SA 2.0)Michelangelo, Radical Architect by Cammy Brothers, The Wall Street Journal, Sept. 11, 2010, https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703453804575480303339391786 [accessed July 6, 2014]