Strategic Purchasing Essay Example for Free

Strategic Purchasing Essay Sustainable business growth and practices are taking a forward leap in to the globe. Almost every business now is planning to have a value chain through out their business. Strategic Purchasing is the key element to a sustainable growth of the business along the competitive edge. This study shows the importance of the Kraljic portfolio model that is to be put in to the actual usage, which would yield benefits of purchasing sophistication in terms of positioning and professionalism. Results showed that both positioning and professionalism are positively related to the greater usage of the model. Based on the analysis of a Dutch chemical company, the immense use of the portfolio model has been described and explored in strategic purchasing. The results have proved that when the model is tailored and elaborated it brings about an effective guidance in purchasing and supplier strategies. The case study also lists out the supplier strategies that are feasible. Thus it supports the fact by using the kraljic model that purchasing function does play a vital role and enable organizations to gain competitive advantage The Initial objective of strategic purchasing to procure materials amp; equipment’s, from the right origin, with the right quantity and of the right quality, through right time and cost (peter 1993). Strategic purchasing does play a vital role in an organization. To have a successful business venture purchasing has to be the core element responsible for a product’s quality, acceptability, price and reliability. Procurement system solely depends on the choice of suppliers, to ensure the delivery under any circumstances (John, Marton 2006). In few cases, DSM is locked in the partnering relationship due to necessity, might be cause of situations like monopolistic market. The only solution to this would be finding alternative suppliers through proper new development of suppliers. This solution will not be obtainable when the scenario is due to patents, another situation would be when the supplier does not want to involve really in co – development (Van Weele 2006). There is more likely for the partnership to change into the indolent and chances of being more relaxed in the relationship. Strategic partners should always be a supplier of world class. World-class suppliers are high performing, alert at all times and technically sound through sense of economy. This clearly depicts that strategic patterns will meet the benchmark externally with more satisfactory performance of price (Van Weele 2006). Decomplexing strategy and supplier development (2) must be pursed when the situation turns vice versa, that is when the partnerships show under achieving performance or patterns. Less complexity products when made, leads to alternative solutions within reach. Effectively, DSM wants itself always to be less dependent on non dependable and under achieving suppliers (Van Weele 2006). Importance of kraljic portfolio model is clearly understood when it is actually put into use and customizing of the same would enhance the solving capability of the strategic issues that are at hand. The portfolio model provides guidelines for a better supplier and purchasing strategies. This case study clearly suggests us the importance of placing commodities at different quadrants of the matrix to help in development of the purchasing strategies (Van Weele 2006).

Impact of Money on Happiness

Impact of Money on Happiness The love of money, as they say, is the root of all evil. Yet money remains an essential commodity in everyday living. It is a universal need that is pursued one way or the other world over. There are several amenities in life that can mostly only be purchased by money; hence the lack of it can speedily reduce an individual, any individual into distress and a state of depression. Money is acquired by several means; for most people of certain ages, to acquire money means to simply work for it. For others of younger and even older ages, their acquisition of money is largely determined by others, such as parents, guardians in the case of younger people or the government, pension and previous investments in the case of the older generation. All in all, money is an essential part of living. It may not necessarily be the most important aspect in life as will be critically examined later on but it most certainly ranks very high indeed on the list. Some might argue that with enough money or a dequate finances, every other aspect of life falls into perspective. Yet it may immediately be counter argued that the term ‘enough money or adequate finances’ is, in itself, a relative one. What constitutes adequate finances, when is a man said to have enough money? Perhaps it is worth mentioning at this juncture the economic theory of supply and demand and vice versa. The more you make, the more you need. Human need is such that can never be fully satisfied. For instance the needs and demands of a toddler differ significantly from that of a teenager as does that of a man in his 20s from that of a family man with children. Is it then possible to quantify one’s overall state of wellbeing by how much wealth the individual has been fortunate enough to acquire? Can money be said to possess the ability of buying or at the very least orchestrating happiness? What, in the first instance, is happiness? While it remains difficult to attribute a specific definition to hha ppiness, it is often referred to as the state of well-being characterised by emotions ranging from contentment to intense joy or emotions experienced when in a state of well-being. The opposite of ‘happiness’ would therefore be ‘sadness’ or to be in a sober mood. Happiness is a robust state of mind that has been pursued by mankind since the stone ages and is as old as man himself. Man as a social being has goals and expectations in life. Such goals and expectations are quite naturally based on individual beliefs, societal or cultural norms as well as personal experiences. It is however safe to surmise that whatever a man’s[1] ambitions, goals, expectations and desires, when these desires and expectations appear to be within easy grasp and ultimately achieved, he will naturally be in a state of well being and experience what is known as happiness. Some of the major contributory factors to happiness include but are by no means limited to the following: Good or optimum state of health Secured and well paid employment Supportive family or friends As pointed out above however, these factors are based on individual concepts of happiness and the means by which this state of mind can be achieved. From the factors above, it becomes increasingly visible that happiness can be analysed from the economic as well as psychological perspectives. According to economists, it is a standard assumption that happiness – individual utility in the economic vocabulary depends on income, leisure and sometimes a few other factors. Yet, although mainstream models would predict that higher income leads to greater happiness, most earlier empirical research has been unable to find a sufficiently strong correlation between subjective well-being and per capita income in rich countries to support the standard utility assumption.[2] In a research carried out in the 90s, it was discovered that even though many, if not all, African countries were classed as under developed societies where poverty assails most of the population, people were still happ ier than others of more substantial means in countries like the United Kingdom and the United States. In a country like Nigeria for instance, the term ‘depression’ was almost a strange expression for many while others who had heard of the world had never even come close to suffering such a low state of mind. Research on the other hand, shows that quite a significant number of patients in the UK suffer depression which is the exact opposite of happiness or a state of bliss and well being. The pursuit of happiness and all it entails has been a goal shared by people world over more than any other goal in the history of mankind. While economics might be associating the pursuit and ultimate capture, so to speak, of this rather elusive blissful state of mind with the accumulation of wealth and material satisfaction, it has been proven in recent times that this may not very well be the case. In fact, a positive association has been shown to hold only at certain points in time within particular countries and not for the group of high-income countries as a whole.[3] The usual explanations given for this paradox are either that people compare themselves with their peers and neighbours[4] or that as incomes increase, so do people’s income aspirations[5]. Both these factors are assumed to be present already at fairly modest levels of per-capita income. However, one recurring problem with previous studies is that conclusions on the absence of an effect of economic performance on well-being have typically been based on either limited cross-sectional samples which may be contaminated by a strong time-constant cultural component[6] or on sparse and incomplete longitudinal data.[7] The unavoidable fact remains that with the accumulation of wealth or any other commodity for that matter, comes more responsibility or need which in turn leads to even more desire for greater accumulation. In that regard, it might be safe to surmise that perhaps wealth or its end less accumulation does not exactly guarantee happiness.[8] For instance, if a man is said to have achieved his goal and been fortunate, lucky or smart enough to secure a fantastic job and comfortable income, if the economist approach on consumer behaviour is accurate, he should be in a blissful state of mind. However there are other factors which need to be considered to determine a man’s state of mind and this is where the psychological and social researches into happiness comes into play. In support of Duesenberry’s paradox, Kenneth Arrow believes that it offered â€Å"one of the most significant contributions of the postwar period to our understanding of economic behaviour†[9] and that it was to be commended for attempting to link economic theory more directly with psychological motivations and with consumer learning processes.[10] Some saw Duesenberrys work as attempting to broaden the theoretical economists horizon.[11] Others like A. C. Pigou, expressed se rious methodological reservations but nonetheless commended the potential significance of the work.[12] In more recent times, there has been a steadily increasing interest on the part of economists in happiness research. It has been argued that reported subjective well-being is a satisfactory empirical approximation to individual utility and that happiness research is able to contribute important insights for economics. It has also been reported how the economic variables such as income, unemployment and inflation affect happiness as well as how institutional factors, in particular the type of government; democracy or dictatorship and the extent of government decentralisation, systematically influence how satisfied individuals are with their life, the effects and some of the consequences for economic policy and for economic theory. Whereas psychologists and sociologists have been researching the concept of happiness for a very long time, the economist approach to happiness is actual ly a more recent approach. Early economists and philosophers, ranging from Aristotle, who promulgated that a happy life is a good complete life and concluded that although happiness is good other things are equally good and important; such things as health and wealth, knowledge and friendship, and a good moral character[13] to Bentham, who formulated that â€Å"happiness is the greatest good†[14] John Stuart Mill, an ardent supporter and disciple of Bentham who agreed that â€Å"†¦. actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness†¦.†[15] have all incorporated the pursuit of happiness in their work. Yet as economics grew more rigorous and quantitative, more parsimonious definitions of welfare took hold. Utility was taken to depend only on income as mediated by individual choices or preferences within a rational individual’s monetary budget constraint. Even within a more orthodox f ramework, focusing purely on income can miss key elements of welfare as numerous economists have noted over time. People have different preferences for material and non-material goods. They may choose a lower paying but more personally rewarding job, for example. The study of happiness or subjective well-being is part of a more general move in economics that challenges these narrow assumptions. Richard Easterlin was one of the first modern economists to re-visit the concept of happiness, beginning in the early 1970s.[16] In economic researches world over, when people are asked relevant questions about what for them constitutes happiness, the answers are mostly identical. For those who are currently struggling to make ends meet, those who are out of jobs, those who are classified as under priviledged in society by virtue of their meager or no income it would appear that the wide belief is that money can indeed buy happiness. But when probed further and deeper, it emerges that money on its own, may not necessarily bring happiness but mere momentary satisfaction. What money certainly does however is to relief people from their financial burdens. Where a family struggles to pay the rent/mortgage at the end of every month, bills accumulate from lack of adequate finances, holidays are a thing of the past or never experienced. If such a family is transported to a place where they can suddenly afford to consolidate their debts, pay off the mortgage, go on holidays, eat what and when they like, their spirits will certainly be lifted significantly higher than when they had little or nothing to exist on. It is therefore apt to surmise that money would most probably clear debts, reduce or out rightly pay off mortgages, which would certainly be a tremendous source of relief for most people. Money however may not necessarily have the ability to purchase true happiness. The human brain is trained to adapt to situations, good or bad. It is therefore only a matter of time before the new found wealth becomes a ‘given’ and the family is faced with other challenges. Many people, cross-section, agree that acquisition or possession of significantly more money than they have at the moment can calm their day to day frustrations and perhaps distract them from their personal problems, but it cannot make them truly happy. If an individual is basically positive and optimistic, the acquisition of wealth will only enhance that persons life. It is believed that money can bring relief if the lack of it is causing stress (as is the case in the majority). If however, a person is generally neurotic, unhappy and pessimistic, no amount of money will eradicate such pessimism or other unrelated psychological problems the individual deals with on a daily basis. A windfall can also bring problems to people who have no idea how to deal with money. To those who have lived from hand to mouth all their lives, unless they are intelligent about it, there is a tendency to fritter a windfall away. One has to know how to use or invest money wisely, in order to make it work for them. In a survey carried out in England and America on lottery winners it became a clear pattern that people essentially remain who they basically were before winning the lottery. A pessimistic, uninspired individual who wins  £1,000,000 in lottery is more likely to be back to exactly the same spot he was in before winning the lottery in less than five years. While a more optimistic, ambitious and level headed indiv idual who wins  £500,000 is more likely to go ahead and invest the money in ventures that will guarantee him better income for the foreseeable future. Money or shall we say too much money is itself a catalyst for trouble for those who are not psychologically balanced enough to handle instant wealth. Economists and psychologists have come together in numerous attempts to untangle the webs of how, why and why-not of money and the general state of well being/welfare. Of particular importance, it would appear, is the aspect of why money is seen by many as unable to set right all that is wrong in their lives and by so doing guarantee them lasting happiness. Why is it that the more money one has, the more one aspires to acquire? In the popular words of an artist ‘..the more money you come across, the more problems you have’[17] The economics of happiness is an approach to assessing welfare which combines the techniques typically used by economists with those more commonly used by psychologists. It relies on surveys of the reported wellbeing of hundreds of thousands of individuals across countries and continents.[18] Why is it that when one is finally able to possess those material things that appeared all so important in the absence of money and to basically achieve their dreams it only brings momentary joy? In attempting to answer these seemingly depressing questions, scholars of happiness have arrived at some insights that appear very useful and educational indeed. It has been commonly acknowledged and accepted that money can help find more happiness, so long as one knows just what to expect from it and does not have unrealistic expectations. Splashing out money on luxurious cars or even buying a private jet is not necessarily a means of utilising money to becoming happy. Research suggests that seeking the good life at a store is an expensive exercise in futility.[19] It is essential to realise and understand where one has been going wrong in order to achieve a blissful state of mind. According to Richard Gelfond, co-chairman and CEO of Imax, being an achiever and rising out of poverty certainly brings happiness. Wealth therefore appears to play a bigger factor in being happy than most would like to admit. In surveys, people consistently give thre e reasons for their personal happiness: wealth, family and health. Being richer means being able to afford better health, however debatable an argument this is. For a terminally ill patient for instance, perhaps with the notorious HIV virus or the equally formidable cancer; wealth most certainly affords them better treatment and immediate access to the very best specialists in those fields as well as the very best medication. The patients are therefore guaranteed far more comfort in their sickness than the ordinary man on the street who depends on the state or government for his treatment. At the end of the day however, can one honestly assert that the affordability of better health care makes the former patient happier than the latter? Can either be truly happy simply because one has more money than the other? Does it not then depend on the individual’s outlook on their conditions? Would the wealthy not willingly give up their wealth to become healthy again? Strange and surp rising as it might sound, it is not uncommon for the poorer man to come to better terms with his condition and find, if not downright happiness, some sort of peace in the terminal medical situation he finds himself than for his richer or wealthier counterpart. Professor Robert Shiller, a Professor of Economics at Yale University, in his argument for the advantages of having money is of the opinion that more money, in all likelihood, guarantees better relationships.[20] This is open to extensive debate and arguments. The simple question thereafter arises, if money or wealth enables one to find better relationships, how come then that most celebrities, by far the best paid individuals in the world, find it, from time immemorial, practically impossible to be happy in their relationships and marriages? It is common knowledge that marriages and relationships in Hollywood or any other star studded part of the world, for that matter, are more often than not, a fleeting experience for the p arties involved. Talking about celebrities and their wealth, if money does indeed procure happiness, why is it that the majority of celebrities have had at one time or the other alcohol problems, drug addiction issues, depression, suicidal tendencies and even in albeit admittedly fewer cases, death by over dose of one dangerous substance or the other? Surely if money brings happiness they, the celebrities with more money than most should be the happiest on earth. This is however evidently not the case. It stands to reason therefore that while money promotes a better sense of well being in some, better sense of achievement in others, contentment, the satisfaction that comes with the ability and affordability of luxury items o comfort, and even perhaps momentary happiness and joy in others, it is not the mere happenstance of such money or wealth in one’s life that procures happiness or any true sense of joy for the consumer. Tim Webber of the BBC’s Business Edition, in o ne of his editorials, ‘Why money doesn’t buy happiness’[21] quotes an African artist, Youssou N’Dour as follows†¦ â€Å"†¦ Forget money entirely†. Youssou NDour is reported as going on to say that there is plenty of happiness in Senegal, even though its people are not wealthy at all. Just see the joy that music and entertainment can bring to the boys in the poorest parts of Dakar. says Mr NDour. But he concedes that one thing was even better than the music and other elements that promote happiness in Senegal; the moment when Senegal beat France in the 2002 Football World Cup.[22] Catherine Sanderson, a psychology professor at Amherst College expresses her opinion on the debate of economics approach to happiness by saying that human beings are never satisfied. It is standard consumer behavioural pattern. The more we have, the more we are likely to want. It is the inherent nature of man. Ms. Sanderson authoritatively asserts that we always t hink just that little bit more money will be the answer to all our problems and bring ultimate satisfaction.[23] Indeed, it would appear that the more money one makes, the more one wants or continue to aspire to make. The more one has the less effective it is at bringing one joy. Little wonder it is therefore that this seeming paradox has long bedeviled economists. Another reputable scholar, Professor Dan Gilbert, psychology professor at Harvard University opines that â€Å"Once you get basic human needs met, a lot more money doesnt make a lot more happiness,[24]. Regrettably, there is no easy way out of being unhappy; money is no short cut to happiness for a depressed person. Overcoming one’s emotions and teaching one’s self to be happy can be more difficult that earning more money or winning the lottery as explained above. In fact, according to Matthew Herper,[25] if a person is handed $10, the pleasure centres of his brain lights up as if he were given food, sex or drugs. But that initial rush does not translate into long-term pleasure for most people. Surveys have found virtually the same level of happiness between the very rich individuals on the Forbes 400 and the Maasai herdsman of East Africa. Lottery winners return to their previous level of happiness after five years. Increases in income just do not seem to make people happier and most negative life experiences likewise have only a small impact on long-term satisfaction.[26] Probably via media exposure or even in real life, at some point in time or another extremely rich, wealthy and famous people have been seen to be unhappier than one would expect them to be, given the amount of material benefits that they have. It is surprising that a large number of wealthy people do not seem to experience the happiness that one would expect goes with so much money and riches. A study conducted by the University of Illinois indicated that more than 30 percent of the richest people in America were n ot as happy as the person who earned a modest income.[27] It is worth mentioning that more often than not, most of the sulking, miserable people one comes across in everyday life are rich people. This is obviously not due to the fact that these wealthy people are unable to afford three square meals, pay the mortgage, go on holiday or afford whatever luxurious item catches their fancy. Their misery is as a result of the fact that people generally seem to have more expectations from money. Money cannot buy anyone everything but in the minds of people who give up everything for money, it is difficult to accept, having acquired the wealth of their goal that they strove so hard to achieve partial success. This is not to negate the positive effects money has in the society and on one’s well being in particular. Yes, money most certainly is important to help one live life to the fullest and be able to experience the good things in life, not necessarily criminally expensive activitie s but such holidays, clothes, jewelries, and cars that become seemingly unreachable when one is void of the purchasing means. But at the same time, an increase in its inflow does not bring proportional happiness with it. As the age old saying goes†¦the grass will always (appear to) look greener on the other side. If ‘A’s’ income increases by $20,000, he is happy until he finds out his next door, perhaps less qualified neighbour’s income has increased by $60,000 and that the neighbour can now afford the car of A’s dreams without breaking the bank. The economics of happiness does not purport to replace income-based measures of welfare, but instead to complement them with broader measures of well-being. These measures are based on the results of large-scale surveys, across countries and over time, of hundreds of thousands of individuals who are asked to assess their own welfare. The surveys provide information about the importance of a range of factors which affect wellbeing, including income but also others such as health, marital and employment status, and civic trust. The approach, which relies on expressed preferences rather than on revealed choices, is particularly well suited to answering questions in areas where a revealed preferences approach provides limited information. Indeed, it often uncovers discrepancies between expressed and revealed preferences. The latter cannot fully gauge the welfare effects of particular policies or institutional arrangements which individuals are powerless to change. Examples of these inclu de the welfare effects of inequality, environmental degradation, and macroeconomic policies such as inflation and unemployment. In a recent happiness survey at the University of Colorado, it was established that actual involvement in doing things can bring more joy than having things. Gilovich and Leaf Van Boven, both of the University of Colorado conducted this survey by asking students what makes them happy, when and where. The students were also asked to ultimately decide if they were at the happiest when they were doing something as against when they were buying something. It emerged that man’s preoccupation with stuff obscures an important truth: that the things that do not last create the most lasting happiness. One reason may be that experiences tend to blossom and not diminish as they are recalled. In your memory, youre free to embellish and elaborate,[28] Gilovich admonished the students. â€Å"Your trip to Mexico may have been an endless parade of hassles punctuate d by a few exquisite moments. But looking back on it, your brain can edit out the surly cabdrivers, remembering only the glorious sunsets. So next time you think that arranging a vacation is more trouble than its worthor a cost youd rather not shoulderfactor in the delayed impact.†[29] Economists have found out in the United States for instance that an increase in income does not necessarily automatically yield an equal increase in one’s level of happiness. In one of the several surveys conducted, it was discovered that going from earning less than $20,000 a year to making more than $50,000 admittedly makes the recipient twice as likely to be happy, yet the payoff for then surpassing $90,000 is slight. And while the rich are happier than the poor, the enormous rise in living standards over the past 50 years has not made Americans happier.[30] Why? David Futrelle gave three reasons for this. According to him, we overestimate how much pleasure there is to be derived from having more. Humans are adaptable creatures, which has been a plus during assorted ice ages, plagues and wars. But, he argues, that is also why people are never all that satisfied for long when good fortune comes their way. While earning more makes people happy in the short term, we quickly ad just to the new wealth, status and everything that comes with it. Granted, there is bound to be a certain thrill and sense of achievement which comes with the first shiny and exotic car one buys from the increased income or new found wealth, splashing out on huge screen televisions and even spending money on family. But it is not long before all these become ‘normal’ and the consumer begins to want even more. It is when this insatiable appetite for more yields little or no result that man begins again to experience dissatisfaction and many people find themselves descending back to the very initial position they were in the first place; reverting to a state of running in place that economists call the ‘hedonic treadmill.’[31] The hedonic treadmill theory explains the popularly held observation that rich people are no happier than poor people, and that those with severe money problems are sometimes quite happy. The theory supports the argument that money does not buy happiness and that the pursuit of money as a way to reach this goal is futile. Good and bad fortunes may temporarily affect how happy a person is,but most people will end up back at their normal level of happiness.[32]Buttressing Mr. Yarrow’s point on the same subject, John Lanchester also observed that following studies of data from all over the world, it is clear that, instead of getting happier as they become better off, people get stuck in a place where their expectations rise at the same pace as their incomes and the happiness they seek remains constantly just out of reach.[33] Reference is here being made yet again to the hedonistic treadmill. Daniel Kahneman, the one time (2003) winner of Nobel Prize for economics is best known for his work on hedonic psychology.[34] Kahneman opines that suddenly the big question is being asked by those who spent their lives on making and measuring money: what indeed is it all for when people are no happier than they were.[35] Be all these as they may, the fact remains undisputable that money does matter in various ways. In England, for instance, people who are earning less than or around  £10,000 per annum are measurably, permanently happier when paid more. It matters when people of any income feel a drop from what they have become accustomed to. But above all, money makes people unhappy when they compare their own income with others.[36] Richer people are happier not by the simple virtue of the absolute size of their wealth, but because they have more than other people. But the wider the wealth gap, the worse it harms the rest. Rivalry in income makes those left behind more miserable that it confers extra happiness on the winners. This insatiable appetite for more will keep driving a man back to the car dealership or to the electronic gadget stores in search of better and bigger items for more satisfaction. According to Gilbert[37] however, what is being mistaken for happiness and satisfaction at buy ing a new ‘toy’ is simply the feeling that comes on the day one actually buys the item in question. Once the initial razzmatazz fades away and the new Ferrari or even private jet no longer races the heart, man tends to draw the wrong conclusions. Instead of questioning the notion or erroneous, if honest, belief that happiness can be bought at the dealership, one often begins to question their choice of car. ‘Perhaps I would feel better with a Ford Mustang?’ This thought alone sparks a fresh burst of enthusiasm and hope for more happiness which simply leads to yet more disappointment once the new car is purchased and the racing heart also inevitably settles back to normal after a few days or weeks. Again this is what economists refer to as typical consumer behaviour. More often than not, this dissatisfaction with the material things that come with wealth is borne out of envy for others around us. Quite naturally, more money can and does lead to more stress. The big salary pulled in from a high-paying job may not necessarily procure much in the way of happiness, at least not much more than the individual is accustomed to. Some have even gone as far as saying if one is unable to find happiness in their current situation on a low income job; it is unlikely that such persons will ever be happy even in a high paying job. The whole idea is to cut one’s coat according to one’s size to afford flexibility, satisfaction and happiness because however low one’s income is, there are always people below the hierarchy of earnings. Just as however much one earns, there will always be people on the upper rung of the ladder of success. What more money can do however is to buy one a (more) spacious house in the suburbs. What immediately becomes a problem is the long trip to and from work, taking the children (if there are any) to school and commuting to social activities from the suburbs or the countryside. At the end of the day, it is only natural that the everyday commute, even if permissible initially, becomes a problem and however much one loves their job, becomes a burden and wears down the individual. As in the case of lack of continued satisfaction with ones purchases, compariso

F. Scott Fitzgeralds The Great Gatsby :: essays research papers

Characters in books can reveal the author feeling toward the world. In The Great Gatsby Fitzgerald suggested the moral decline of the period in America history through the interpersonal relationships among his characters. The book indicates the worthlessness of materialism, the futile quest of Myrtle and Gatsby, and how America's moral values had diminished. Despite his newly acquired fortune, Gatsby's monitory means could not afford his only true wish, therefore he cannot buy everything which is important to Daisy. (Fitzgerald, -page 42) What you wish for is not always what you want or not all that glitters is gold. The wild lavishness of Gatsby's parties and the shallowness and purposelessness of the lives of the guests all kills Gatsby on the inside. All Gatsby wants when he chooses to be rich is to get Daisy. Daisy, who is wealthy and beautiful, symbolizes a way of life which is remote from Gatsby's and therefore more attractive because it is out of reach so he changes himself. (Fitzgerald, -page 54) Myrtle and Gatsby both want to be part of the same elite crowd. They play a reflection of each other in the book by wanting the same thing but they have different methods of achieving it. Gatsby wants Daisy, and Myrtle just wants to be higher in society. Gatsby plays the god-like character in this book so his means are good but both him and Myrtle do bad things to get higher in a crowd that will never take them in. To make themselves appear better to the other crowd, they lose some of the moral fiber that was there to begin with. (Fitzgerald, -page 83) Loss of morals in the 1920' in America caused the American dream to vanish. The god-like character of the book was a good person but he did bad things like bootlegging and joining in organized crime. Affairs happened in the elite crowd between Tom and Myrtle. Dishonesty reared its ugly head when Daisy killed Myrtle by running her over then blaming it on Gatsby.

Hamlet - Intelligent , NOT Insane Essay -- William Shakespeare Hamlet

Throughout the Shakespearian play, Hamlet, the main character is given the overwhelming responsibility of avenging his father’s "foul and most unnatural murder" (I.iv.36). Such a burden can slowly drive a man off the deep end psychologically. Because of this, Hamlet’s disposition is extremely inconsistent and erratic throughout the play. At times he shows signs of uncontrollable insanity. Whenever he interacts with the characters he is wild, crazy, and plays a fool. At other times, he exemplifies intelligence and method in his madness. In instances when he is alone or with Horatio, he is civilized and sane. Hamlet goes through different stages of insanity throughout the story, but his neurotic and skeptical personality amplifies his persona of seeming insane to the other characters. Hamlet comes up with the idea to fake madness in the beginning of the play in order to confuse his enemies. However, for Hamlet to fulfill his duty of getting revenge, he must be totally sane. Hamlet’s intellectual brilliance make it seem too impossible for him to actually be mad, for to be insane means that one is irrational and without any sense. When one is irrational, one is not governed by or according to reason. So, Hamlet is only acting mad in order to plan his revenge on Claudius. In order for Hamlet to carry out his goal of revenge, he had to be totally sane. In Act I, he is warned by the ghost not to go mad and not to harm his mother. If Hamlet were truly mad, he would have done many unorthodox acts, which would only wreck his plan of getting revenge. There can be no such thing as restrained insanity. Hamlet’s sanity is displayed when he does not harm his mother. Gertrude has hurt Hamlet. She betrayed his father by having an affair with Claudius and eventually marrying him. Since Hamlet does not kill her, it shows he is in full control of his mental state and that he is not controlled by his feelings like most mad people. Another reason why Hamlet is not mad is in the way he escaped his awaited execution in England. Hamlet knew that he was to be sent to England to be killed on the orders of Claudius. But once he saw a chance of escape on the pirate ship, he took this opportunity to board the ship, which made him escape death, thus prolonging his life a little longer. If Hamlet were actually mad, it would be doubtful that he would know of Claudius’ plans,... ...nd not making any sense whatsoever. In comparison, Hamlet speaks in regular sentences, and is able to converse normally with those around him. With much thought, and careful planning, Hamlet searches for evidence to determine the truth about his father's murder. And with this in hand, he departs on a path to avenge his father that is both reasonable and rational. While Hamlet might not carry the best of luck with him throughout the play, he certainly holds onto his mental integrity and ability to reason through challenges. Hamlet feigns madness so that he will be able to successfully get revenge on Claudius. In order for his plan not to be discovered, he has to fake madness in order to throw off his enemies. For his revenge plan to be a success, Hamlet will have to be perfectly sane so that he won’t sabotage his plan in anyway, and to keep himself alive long enough to carry it out. Hamlet’s plan on proving Claudius’ guilt and whether or not the ghost is his dead father shows that Hamlet is too intelligent to be mad. If Hamlet were indeed mad, he would be too dim-witted to come up with such a clever plan. Bibliography: Shakespear, William. Hamlet. Don Mills HBJ, 1987

children stereotypes on tv Essay -- essays research papers fc

Stereotypes in Children’s Television: â€Å"The Proud Family†   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã¢â‚¬Å"The Proud Family† is a children’s program that runs daily on The Disney Channel and on Saturday mornings on ABC Kids. It is a TV-G rated program. The show is about an African-American family with the last name Proud. There is a mom, dad, three kids, and a grandmother. The main character of the show is the oldest daughter named Penny Proud who is probably in junior high. Also, some of Penny’s friends are in the show. All of the characters in this show are stereotyped by many things such as race and gender, including Penny.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The first stereotype I noticed about the show was the way the cartoonist drew the different characters. All of the African-American characters were drawn with enormous lips and huge noses. Meanwhile, the two Caucasian characters in the show were both drawn with wider heads and seemed smarter than the other characters in the show. Also, all the African-American characters talked in a dialect while the Caucasian characters talked slower. In addition, all of the African-American characters all called each other â€Å"brotha,† which is another stereotype, because not all African-Americans call each other that or like to be called that.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  There are many stereotypes made about the main character Penny. First, her race is the main issue in the show. She is shown drawn the same way as the other African-American, with the bigger features described before. Penny also has a kind of attitude about her, which is also often associated with African-American females. Not only is she stereotyped by race, but by gender as well. She is shown as the smart and understanding friend, probably because she is the main girl character in the show. For example, when her friend, Dlionay, has a problem with a boy, Penny is the one that helps Dlionay out and gives her advice and helps her try to win back the boy.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  However, there were also other gender stereotypes in the show as well. The girl, Dlionay was often shown as the kind of â€Å"damsel in distress.† A few times a boy was sent to rescue her. For example, one of her friends was stuck out in the water and instead of getting him herself, she plead to the other boy to please save him. This shows the stereotype that men are stronger and braver than women... ...e typical physical stereotypes of African-Americans, this show is good for children to see because the characters are kind to each other and it portrays a loving family and home and great friends for the children. I believe that overall this show gives a positive image of African-American characters to everyone who watches. Even though there were some stereotypes of race and gender, it didn’t affect the overall message of the program, which was to help out friends when they are in need and make sure your family is important in your life. This show was funny as it was compassionate. If I had children I would like them to watch this show because almost all of the other shows I saw on television before choosing to write about this one had Caucasian characters or animals and the main focus of the show. I believe that this program, â€Å"The Proud Family,† gives a great deal of diversity to The Disney Channel’s and ABC Kids other programs and gives children more of an opportunity to relate to a character and learn that minority people are in important part of out population as well. Works Cited Perse, Elizabeth M. Media Effects and Society. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 2001.

As sophocles observes in antigone Essay

4. Awareness (Greenleaf, 2002): Able servant-leaders are usually sharply awake and reasonably disturbed from integrated holistic perspectives, yet with inner serenity (Greenleaf, 2002). Habit 1 (of 7 or of 8), Being Proactive or the concept of Inside-Out, that any significant type of change in the would-be-leader must first come from within himself (Covey, 1900). 5. Persuasion (Greenleaf, 2002): Servant-leaders rely primarily on persuasion and on convincing even by way of group-building consensus, rather than through coercion or force based on the traditional authoritarian model (Greenleaf, 2002). While Gardner insists that: â€Å"Leadership is the process of persuasion or example by which an individual (or leadership team) induces a group to pursue objectives held by the leader or shared by the leader and his or her followers† (Gardner, 1990). Yukl emphatically stressed, in that: â€Å"influence is the essence of leadership† (Yukl, 2001). 6. Conceptualization (Greenleaf, 2002): Servant-leaders perform a delicate balance between thinking out a problem and facing beyond day-to-day-focused-realities approach (Greenleaf, 2002). Habit 2 (of 7 or of 8), Beginning with the End in Mind, that the would-be-leader develops his own principled-center mission statement in life with long-term goals (Covey, 1900). 7. Foresight (Greenleaf, 2002): Intuitive servant-leaders understand the lessons from the past, the realities of the present, and the likely consequence of a decision for the future (Greenleaf, 2002). Characteristic 1, They Are Continually Learning, that the would-be-leader’s perception is more than enough honed by his self-initiated desire to know it all (Covey, 1992) and similar to Characteristic 6, They See Life As An Adventure (Covey, 1992). Alfred North Whitehead strongly suggested, in that: â€Å"Every leader, to be effective, must simultaneously adhere to the symbols of change and revision and the symbols of tradition and stability† (Warren Bennis, 1995). 8. Stewardship (Greenleaf, 2002): Servant-leaders merely act as stewards or â€Å"hold men and resources in trust† for the good of all or for society, emphasizing openness and persuasion (Greenleaf, 2002), likewise very similar to Stewardship Delegation (Covey, 1900). Habit 3 (of 7 or of 8), Put First Things First, that the would-be-leader’s effectiveness lies in making sure he balances his Production (P) with his building Production Capacity PC (Covey, 1900). Also, hence, according to Covey’s classification, Stewardship is under Habit 3 (Covey, 1900). 9. Commitment to the Growth of People (Greenleaf, 2002): Servant-leaders are seriously responsible and deeply committed to the growth and nurturing of each individual worker within the institution (Greenleaf, 2002). Characteristic 2, They Are Service-Oriented, that the would-be-leader/ servant-leader regards his work as a vocation or a way of life and not as a career (Covey, 1992). Characteristic 4, They Believe In Other People, that the would-be-leader is very hopeful for the beneficial potential capacity of everyone around him (Covey, 1992) though not quite far is Habit 8, It is about Finding Your Voice and Helping Others to Find Theirs (Covey, 2006). 10. Building Community (Greenleaf, 2002): Servant-leaders selflessly give themselves for building true communities among themselves who work within given institutions (Greenleaf, 2002). Characteristic 3, They Radiate Positive Energy, that the would-be-leader despite the â€Å"drudgery† of strengthening his institution, you could still find him cheerful, pleasant, happy; his attitude optimistic, positive, upbeat; and his spirit enthusiastic, hopeful, believing. Therefore, with the above, Covey concluded, in that: â€Å"A (good) habit can be defined as the intersection of knowledge, skill and desire† (Covey, 1900). Thus, with all of the above information, Sergeant Kidd’s dictum of soldiers learning to be good leaders from good leaders (Army, 1999) could now apply even to civilian employees or even ordinary civilians as more and more people are convinced through more and more pieces of literature pointing towards that thinning gray area between military and civilian leaderships. Political leadership is what John W. Gardner in his On Leadership, espoused in that: â€Å"Men and women of the greatest integrity, character, and courage should turn to public life as a natural duty and a natural outlet for their talents† (Gardner, 1990). While under business leadership falls all the works of Covey, Bennis, Goldsmith, and Yukl; however, noteworthy are those other works by Frances Hesselbein and Retired US Army General Eric Shinseki’s BE*KNOW*DO, Leadership the Army Way (Frances Hesselbein, 2004) and Jason Santamaria, Vincent Martino, and Eric Clemons’ The Marine Corps Way: Using Maneuver Warfare to Lead a Winning Organization (Jason A. Santamaria, 2003) because they believe that the business world could benefit from their shared experiences of the military. While the civilian sector regularly and easily pirates top executives from one private company to another or among themselves, the military sector cannot do that but because the military must so promote within its own ranks is why military leadership development is that paramount according to Hesselbein and Shinseki (Frances Hesselbein, 2004). Santamaria, Martino, and Climons first laid down the premise that although business and war are entirely worlds apart, the same principles apply to them because they both thrive in very competitive environments. The authors gave 23 true-to-life civilian examples followed by explanations before proceeding to compare and contrast 23 parallel true-to-life military examples (Jason A. Santamaria, 2003). Like the non-original â€Å"Servant-Leader† Greenleaf with his 6th century BCE Tao Te Ching, the non-original â€Å"Maneuver Warfare† Santamaria has his more than 2,500 years ago genius and timelessness of Sun Tzu’s work The Art of War, especially in targeting critical vulnerabilities, surprise, focus, tempo (speed), and combined arms. The authors ask if they are really â€Å"natural or universal laws of warfare†; however, because the concepts are intuitive to the greatest strategists, generals, and CEOs, the authors have endeavored to transform such intuition into a systematic problem-solving approach that â€Å"the rest of us† can clearly grasp and then apply (Jason A. Santamaria, 2003). These authors interchangeably explained the 46 examples in detail the workings of the Marine Corps Way by compressing Maneuver Warfare through these not only 7, but 10 Guiding Principles which when implemented singly and shortly is very powerful, but all the more deadly when applied in subsets or as an integrated whole (Jason A. Santamaria, 2003). When these situationers are examined closely, potential businesses should achieve breakthrough results (Jason A. Santamaria, 2003). 1. Targeting Critical Vulnerabilities (Jason A.Santamaria, 2003): To attack and to swiftly take advantage of the competitor’s weaknesses after thoroughly studying both the allied leader’s group and the competitor’s situation (Jason A. Santamaria, 2003). 2. Boldness (Jason A. Santamaria, 2003): When occasion arises to grab that opportunity to carry out calculated risks which can secure breakthrough results (Jason A. Santamaria, 2003). 3. Surprise (Jason A. Santamaria, 2003): Using surreptitiousness, vagueness, and sham to confuse the competitors. And for them to outrightly disregard their knowledge of the allied leader’s group condition thereby prejudicing their capability to position well their assets against the allied leader’s group (Jason A. Santamaria, 2003). 4. Focus (Jason A. Santamaria, 2003): Clustering together the allied leader’s group materiel at decisive places and times to take advantage of important favorable conditions to meet the allied leader’s group needs and objectives (Jason A. Santamaria, 2003). 5. Decentralized Decision Making (Jason A. Santamaria, 2003): Designating responsible people for them to make their own judicious decisions nearest the action centers after they have timely and thoroughly assessed firsthand local information about the situation within the mission target area (Jason A. Santamaria, 2003). 6. Tempo (Jason A. Santamaria, 2003): Recognizing prospective breaks, deciding, and executing plans more swiftly than opponents for the allied leader’s group to grab the upper hand and relegate the enemy to always be on the defensive and always to be confused by the allied leader’s group concerted and coordinated actions against the enemy (Jason A.Santamaria, 2003). 7. Combined Arms (Jason A. Santamaria, 2003): Timing the allied leader’s group attack in such a way that his group’s people, vehicles, equipment with pre-planned sequencing become orchestrated as only one entity; whereas, if the allied leader’s group use them singly, the effect will not be as dramatic (Jason A. Santamaria, 2003). 8. Integration of Principles (Jason A. Santamaria, 2003): When measured individually, these concepts give the best results when implemented in subsets or all are treated collectively as only one whole (Jason A.Santamaria, 2003). 9. Reconnaissance Pull (Jason A. Santamaria, 2003): Reconnaissance pull is an illustration of implementing the concepts in subsets: the unintended reaction is an actual time happening to a golden chance to weaken or defeat the enemy, whereby when the possibility is afforded to the allied leader to surprise the enemy, that leader then familiarizes the greater organization towards the situation, with him assuming that leadership function in setting up and applying the attack. Reconnaissance pull covers four of maneuver warfare’s ten concepts: decentralized decision-making, targeting critical vulnerabilities, tempo, and focus (Jason A. Santamaria, 2003). 10. Full Integration (Jason A. Santamaria, 2003): Joining simultaneously all ten concepts together as one combined entity allows the person to effect the greatest outcome with much reduced cost of materiel (Jason A. Santamaria, 2003).

Credit crunch Essay

The credit crunch which is also known as a credit crisis, finance crunch or credit squeeze is best described as a condition that makes investment capital hard or difficult to obtain. It is the sudden reduction in the availability of credit and loans or the abrupt tightening of loan borrowing conditions by financial institutions. Therefore credit crunch is generally associated with reduced credit availability although it might be independent of interest rates increase. During this period investors and lenders seek investments that they consider to be less risky and make flight to quality. This is usually at the expense and disadvantage of medium and small sized business enterprises. The price of liability and debt products is therefore driven up by the wariness of the banks and investors to lend money to corporations. The credit crunch condition is usually considered as a product or an extension of recessions. What causes credit crunch  The sudden wariness of banks and other investors to lend to corporations may be the result of a variety of reasons. First and foremost the slow lending activity could be as a consequence of the central government imposing or forcing direct credit controls on banks and the banking system in general. It could also be the product of banks anticipation decline with regard to the collateral value used they used to secure their loans. Additionally it could be a result of an unexpected raise in reserve requirements or other monetary conditions by the central bank. Moreover perceived increase in risks concerning the solvency of lending institutions within the system of banking could also cause a slow down in lending activity. Credit crunches could also be the effect of sustained periods of careless lending that consequently leads to losses and huge bad debts for investors. The institutions are then forced to react by raising interest rates and decreasing credits that can be made available for lending purposes. Because of the losses that these institutions and investors had earlier incurred it becomes hard for them to lend further than the fixed levels even if they wished to do so. The crunch can also be generally as a result of a decline in the prices or value of assets that had been previously over inflated. The price collapse then substantially leads to a financial crisis. Consequently new entrepreneurs or investors in the market may be forced to foreclosure or bankruptcy as the values of the assets that had been previously inflated go down. In the event of credit crunch especially if the capital available will not be sufficient to survive the credit cycle businesses may prefer to go into liquidation, sell or mark to market. Credit crunch occurs in cycles. During its upward phase assets can experience leverage bidding and induced inflation in prices. Effects of credit crunch on the economy. Generally the crunch has acted to decrease economic growth by disabling major industries and key factors of production which are important to ensure a thriving economy. The credit crunch has not only affected the financial markets in the country but it has gone ahead to affect the ordinary customer and consumer who usually support and also benefit from a booming economy. The credit crunch in the United Kingdom has basically meant that customers are experiencing an increase in the rates and fees charged to them by banks and other financial institutions. For the customer more security is required in cases where the individuals want to take new loans or make overdrafts. For suppliers the situation remains the same with equipment loans getting even harder to acquire and overdrafts being called in or basically being reduced. The rates offered by the financial institutions have soared way past most suppliers’ capabilities and guarantees and debentures have become the order of the day (OL 2007, 2-4). The increased lending rates have resulted to restricted people spending and have also left individuals at a loss not knowing from which other sources to tap their finances. Additionally the economy’s supply capacity has been dramatically affected. The economy’s potential output has been reduced leading to a shortage of goods and services. This also means that the ability to produce innovative goods and services has also been deterred as this also depends on lending services provided by financial institutions that are incapable of lending out enough at the moment. Lack of profitability as a result of reduced innovation has thus become a norm leading to a further economic slowdown. The economy has been deeply affected also because investor confidence and trust in the financial markets has gone down. This means profitable business has ceased and that making losses has become the norm for the economy the implication being deficits in the government budget. More so as a consequence the public sector has gone into deficits (BBC News 2008, 3-5). This is a devastating situation for the economy after enjoying not less than fifteen years of economic growth. Big financial firms have been forced to closure or have had to be rescued with massive damage having been experienced on their banks balance sheets. Investment banks have recorded major losses in their financial books and further aggravated by the decline of structured credit values. Money markets short term lending has become way too expensive and the medium period unsecured lending and securitization which were among the key sources of funds for financial have dried up. Most companies have additionally been forced to direct their income towards debts servicing. The effects have been contracted earnings and increased unemployment rates as companies struggle to cut costs. So far the largest job cuts and unemployment rates have been recorded in the housing and financing sector. In fact towards the end of this year the rates are expected to shoot to five percent which is double the figure that was previously recorded during the end of 2007. The labor market has since been weakened as the result of the crunch as more people get out of working capacities. The housing market is among the worst hit and has continued to weaken as the crunch proceeds. The prices in this market have fallen to devastating levels leading to a further decline of employment rates and real income. Obviously the investments in this sector have gone to a record low. Mortgage rates have also increased, its lending decreased and thus pushing the house prices down. The housing sector is in fact expected to experience a 24 percent drop this year (Pritchard 2009, 3-6). What Is Being Done? Over the last months the economy of the country has declined by a figure not less than 0. 8% making it even harder for the government to map out the way to recovery (Channel 4 News 2009, 1-5). Despite the governments efforts to revive and redeem the people and economy from the disastrous effects of the credit crunch most citizens are not yet satisfied and they are in fact of the opinion that very little is being done to fix the situation. The general feeling is that politicians have been merely throwing words at each other and therefore failing to turn their words into significant action. The government despite these feeling from the public is trying all it can to undo the damage, for example the Prime minister has been caught encouraging people to strive to pay their debts instead of overspending on some household commodities like food. The government is therefore trying to encourage its citizens to ensure that they have enough funds in store to clear or pay their debts and loans. This is for the reason that the more people are able to clear the amounts of money they owe as loans the easier it will be for the credit crunch to fade away after some time. Additionally people are being encouraged to take loans that have rates that they will be able to afford. This is because if people keep up the habit of borrowing loans with high rates and therefore unaffordable to them, the worse the credit crunch situation is going to be. Taking up loans with higher interest rates only create greater debts for lenders because people eventually end up struggling to pay or not paying at all, the effect will then be a prolonged credit crunch (Gillepse 2009, 5-7) Additionally the government opted to increase guarantee on savings in order to discourage or stop mass withdrawals of financial institutions. The implication is that savers have their first not less than 35,000 pounds guaranteed in full unlike the previous years where only savings of not more than 2000 pounds would be guaranteed in full. The government in addition made various attempts to maintain interest rates and keep them on hold for a while due to the turmoil in the economy. They have also severally in the past year cut the rates with the aim of easing the situation, trying to bring it under control and to assist borrowers. The government has moreover tried to persuade its citizens to stay clear of overvalued assets which are all hostage within the credit cycle such quartet resources include for example those in the travel, chemicals and construction industries. The government has also tried to carry out systemic injections in an effort to help fix the crisis. It has furthermore tried to come up with various rescue packages for the financial sector to add to their numerous efforts to restore investor confidence. But until the investor trust in the markets is restored it seems there is little that the government can do as at now to ease the crisis. The government has as well sort the help of the globe to fix this situation for the reason the country is also highly dependent on banking flows that cross the county’s borders. Question marks and eye brows have been raised about the banking systems fiscal policy, regulation and general governance and their ability to guard the system form excessive risk taking. In conclusion recession is a condition that has devastating effects on the economy of any country. Especially in this decade the market forces operate in such a way that it has become very hard for economists to precisely predict any looming crisis to ensure that governments take preventive measures early enough. Market forces have served to increase the cost of living not only in the country but also globally. Wealth distribution has consequently become uneven with the margin between the rich and the poor becoming even wider. All the governments’ have left is to institute the right regulations and policies that will especially work to enhance the operations of our financial systems and then hope that when the markets recover from this crunch that will be the end of financial crises.