Fact 1 But when these two-- Dispassion and longing for Freedom-- are lacking, then Restfulness and other graces are a mere appearance, like water in a desert.
Reflection 1 This line stood out to me, especially after the explanation of dispassion. Early it is described at a perpetual willingness to give up all sensual self-indulgences. This is something preached commonly, but in this reading it came differently. Here I saw it in relation so many at Fordham, myself included. I realized that even yesterday, how many times my friends, teachers and myself fell victim to falling for indulgences for ourselves. Even as I sit here now I don't know that I am pursuing dispassion, but it is now more clear. It is hard to describe the way that I now understand dispassion, but the few lines on the second and third page articulated in a way that I was able to relate it to my life and those around me.
Fact 2 Sickness is not cured by saying 'medicine' but by drinking it. So a man is not set free by the name of the eternal without discerning the eternal.
Response 2 This passage on how to find and achieve the eternal is something well put. The analogy between just saying medicine and taking it works very well, although I would talk it a step further. I would say that if there was sick and talked about taking medicine it does nothing, just as talking about being a better person and finding your true self. You must take the medicine as you must act in a way to find your better self.
Fact 1 We had liberal, progressive Christian, and conservative evangelical Christians, and the head of the Jewish Community Relations Council all there together.
Response 1 These are the stories we do not hear enough of in out religious and faith based communities. This story about all different faiths coming to solve a problem of a church needing funding for renovation is truly inspiring. What it took was someone to see that there was a problem and lend a helping hand and to have groups accept the invitation to the breakfast. These opportunities to help each other are the ones that we need to encourage as a community of humans. We can do this by hanging out with different groups all together. Here we are able to see the value add when people come together. From my point of view this is 1+1=3. We see a few groups come together and the sum of them is greater than their individual parts. This is what relationships are all about, finding how to get 1+1 to equal 3.
Fact 2 Best business purpose? I am not sure. Faith calling? I hope so.
Response 2 This is a very difficult line for me to walk down. I do want to look at the long term sustainability of the program/organization. But with that I find it difficult to put off helping those who need the help right now. This is the fight that Packard seems to be having with herself in the moment. Practically the money will run dry if she continues to give out money to all these groups and maybe she is wrong and there is not enough money in Boston to solve all of Boston's problems since the money is in the red. But the other half says that she gave money to Hati and to other groups who may not be able to fund raise or who don't know how but need the money to give back and do good in the community. Its a very difficult line for me.
Fact 1 "The richest 1% of Americans owns 40% of the nations wealth, which is more than what is owned by the bottom 95%"
Response 1 This is a fact that I first heard in the movie "Wall Street" staring Michael Douglas as a corporate raider, meaning he bought companies and took over and made money when he resold it and kicked out management. He, in one of the movies most famous scenes is explaining to his protege what it what his job really entailed. That scene inspired a generation of investment bankers to go into wall street and become part of that 1%. We heard this 1% again during the movement of Occupy. This was when Americans took to protesting the richest 1% and the perception that they were bailed out by the government. Not many people realize what the 1% owns, but it is truly remarkable what such a small group can control. It also reminds me of the story of stuff and if everyone had what they had the world would need to be X times bigger.
Fact 2 "Human dignity depends simply on being human, not on social status."
Response 2 This simple line means so much. The point of living as people together is not to see who ranks higher against who but rather to see who is going to be kind to another, be helpful to someone or be a friend to trust. These are human traits and we forget these things when we are surrounded all the time by greed and desire for a social status. It is important to remember that we are dealing with humans, and we should treat others that way as opposed to rungs on a ladder.
Points that stood Out 1) We have created 100,000 new synthetic chemicals that factories have created through production process of materials to make "better" and "safer" goods for us as end consumers.
2) What happens to factory works who are being taken advantage of or who are not fair trade? Will they suffer more when they are in less demand?
My interpretation 1) This fact about 100,000 man made chemicals that have been created through processing materials, chemicals, and toxins is frightening. These are chemicals that have not all been test as safe to the environment and to humans. The thought is that they are put into the air and are diluted. The issue is that there are many chemicals that are not proven to be safe or unsafe. But when these chemicals interact with the other thousands of created chemicals there is a probability that some of them will be dangerous to us. This was one of the most eye opening facts in this video that focused on sustainability of our economic system.
2) Is fair trade the best way? Can everyone at the bottom end of the spectrum survive in this system? Or will some suffer while those in fair trade benefit from better conditions? Some of the arguements will argue along the similar lines of public education and the voucher program, which is famous in DC. The program allows for some students the money to go to a private school who would normally not have the chance. The connection I see to fair trade is that only some benefit while a large amount still suffer from big corporations taking advantage of them (or public school students still have to go to bad public schools). Another relation is that the few in fair trade (and with vouchers) benefit alot but those not classified as fair trade are hurt even worse. There needs to be a way to bring everyone up. That needs to be the goal.
Stand out parts 1) First, the comment he makes about saving medicaid $18,000 a person through his program. He claims, and research suggests, that $18k is saved by medicaid due to elderly not going into medicaid funded operations or homes that require medicaid funding. 2) The second stand out area is that of dealing and working through failure and delinal. He says he was never a person to be afraid if rejection or failure and that is what helped him succeed. Responses 1) I have an optimist and pessimist view on the first comment. The optimist in me says that this is great, and that this operation is a great way to show a private person finding a way to make the government fun more efficiently. We see that he groups some funding together and over all the systems save, so he claims. And that is where the pessimist in me comes out. The article says that Medicaid saves $18,000/ person. My question is does another agency HHS or HUD bare a higher cost due to this program. I would imagine that if people who need the housing are getting funding, then there is an increased cost to HUD. So for this to economically work, as he suggest, HUD would have to be paying less than Medicaid is saving for the whole system to be saved. 2) This comment on failure and not giving up really was something great to hear from someone who did something so great for the community. He did something that we can all recognize now but we did see the lost battles for 8 years with HHS and HUD and local medicaid systems or even local governments. These hard fought battles are ones that led to this outcome of an ecosystem sustaining itself. But he could have given up on this at any time because the fights were to difficult, but this really shows that hard work can pay off and honored.
In the Readings 1) The idea of 'Economy of Communion model' is a fascinating one. It is remarkable to see that we have accepted businesses as part of the solution of poverty not just the problem of poverty. The way it works is these businesses operate, employing people, then take the profits and put them into community improvements and education enhancements in the community.
2) The second thing that stood out to me was the sense of reflection that managers in the communion model had. Many of the valid points of maintaining relationships develop from the reflection of managers so they did not make harsh decisions. I think this trait of the Communion model is something we have to take away to other areas of business.
My Perspective 1) This model is something that I believe is the answer domestically and internationally. The model of good willed companies. In high school I was exposed to a book called "Begging for Change." The story explains a man in DC named Robert Egger. He saw realized that there was a big hole in DC and decided to fill it. He started a for business catering company that also operated as a soup kitchen. Homeless men and women in DC could come and train for 6 months with him. He would require them to be drug and alcohol free during that time, and would give them a stipend. The more experienced trainees would be carter events for law firms and other organizations in DC. Then at the end of 6 months of training they would get a certificate saying they graduated a program, and then they are assisted in finding jobs at restaurants in the area. Egger's point is that business can help people, and it often does better than non profits. He believes that private businesses can use money more effectively to help people when it is in a business setting as opposed to a nonprofit helping oriented group.
2) In two examples reflection maintained and actually enhanced relationships that would have otherwise been terminated. The first was when the cleaning product company received defective products. The manager wanted to cut off business with them but after reflection went and fixed the problem, enhancing the relationship. A second scenario in the same company dealt with an employee who did something that the manager wanted to fire him for. After reflection (as it was suggested he do) the manager healed the wound and made the relationship better than at the start. I think this is something corporate America can learn from. We should not we so quick to find some other supplier or employee as we can just find a way to better the relationship. This way we can get over the hurdle, which will happen with another company eventually. So you might as well solve the issue now and save the money by not dealing with transition cost and keep the current supplier or employee.
Text from Video 1) At one point early on there was a comment made that Romero was not practicing liberation theology but instead was practicing the beatitudes. Meaning he was not looking to free the people of El Salvador but instead he was trying to get people to practice the beatitudes such as give food to the hugry, give drink to the thirsty and comfort the poor and oppressed 2) Something that was interesting and mentioned only for a minute was the involvement of the United States in the conflict.
Response to Video 1) The first point was about the Liberation Theology and beatitudes. I believe that Romero was about liberation theology but did it through the lens of the beatitudes. He wanted the hungry to be feed and thirsty to be given a drink, but the root of every speech and sermon was about the disappearance of the poor civilians. People were disappearing because there was an oppressive force that captured those who wanted to challenge that authority. His true message, given what I understand, was liberation. It was not the traditional liberation theology that other South American countries used but this was his version. He wanted to liberate the oppressed by using the beatitudes (theology). So in my eyes he was using liberation theology to free the oppressed in El Salvador.
2) I am not going to go ahead and bash the US for its apparent involvement in the oppression in El Salvador. I just think that it is remarkable to see the relationship between the United States, our home, and the Jesuits, our educators. In this circumstance the American government supported those doing the oppressing in order to maintain an ally in Central America during the crisis with Cuba. Both sides were trying to protect their contingencies- the US with its population and watching Cuba from El Salvador, and the Jesuits looking after the poor in EL Salvador not worrying about Cuba and the US. Although it is difficult I believe that problems like this can be resolved if both sides take a higher level view at the problem and realize that they are harming each other and each others innocent constituents as they do not work together.
From Reading 1. I thought it was very fascinating that there was a theory on economic logic behind gift giving. This is something that makes sense now for retailers, economists and even social scientists to look at. The article discussed that (p100) in a survey recipients of gifts were 20% less valuable than the item they would have bought if they had the cash themselves. But it goes on to say that gifts are a signal of the way you feel about someone. Economically and socially the gift giving theory is one that is more interesting than meets the eye, especially for those of us who are use to it. 2. The next theory I really saw as a shock was the crowding out theory, the theory that people do some things based on values rather than for money. There were two examples that stood out. The first was in Switzerland and a survey went out to a village that asked if they would store nuclear waste in their town if it was considered best place in country for it. A small majority (51%) said yes. The following two questions asked if they would do it if they were paid each times there were fewer yes responses (25%). The next one that stood out were the lawyers when they were asked if they would give senior citizens a discounted service, the response was no. But when asked if they would give time for free to seniors who were in need the answer was a strong yes.
My Perspective 1. I think that the explanation of the gift giving economic theory was very interesting. I believe that there is no rationale with the gift giving in intimate settings (ie family, loved one). I believe there is another part of the theory that could be added though. I think with loved ones, we give so that other loved ones see how much we have to offer and how much we have to give to them and it makes us feel good. I believe that the giving part of gift giving is just as important as the receiving part. I do agree with his theory that with those who we are not close, a co-workers son’s bar mitzvah, we will be prone to give cash and not feel as uncomfortable. 2. The crowding out theory proves that there are still values in the system and everything is not just economics. The Swiss people felt that they were being bribed as opposed to them being stand up citizens and doing something for their country. As for the lawyers they mostly likely fit into my theory from the first response, which is that they wanted to do something that made them feel good. Giving up the thirty dollars an hour and doing something for free may have made them feel better than $30/ hour.
Texts 1) The first thing that stood out to me was the descriptions of "partially committed businesses." These are businesses that do not sell 100% fair trade goods. In the United States, 95% of all annual sales of Fair Trade goods are made by partially committed businesses. These partially committed businesses are multinational companies including: Starbucks, Dunkin Donuts, Safeway, Target, Wal-Mart, Einstein Bagles, and Whole Foods. Starbucks, when the article was written, generated the most sales of Fair Trade products than any other retailer.
2) The second thing that stood out to me was the story on page 11. The story about the man from Texas and the group in India. Gupta was the man from Texas but felt unfulfilled and started to do business with NGOs in India. Then Indian groups create and sell items with the NGOs that can sell internationally.
Responses 1) In response to the facts displayed by the first point above, I do not think that partially committed businesses are entirely bad. Yes, it is unfortunate that some workers are still being taken advantage of. That is true. But 95% of all the money made in the US is from businesses that are partially committed. Many of these businesses probably cannot be fully invested in Fair Trade products but there is a market for it with many socially aware people. This is why they are able to sell the Fair Trade products and why they are only partially committed. If the demand was there and people were willing to pay then I be there would be more FT products. The point being: all products cannot be FT unless there is a movement to support it, without the movement then there is no way that partially committed business will increase their investment.
2) This really stood out to me because I feel that we at Fordham (Amani) are doing just that. The group is really a lot of business students and faculty that are going to do meaningful business with groups in India (and South America). This is exactly what we are doing with the Rams in Africa. We found a demand in the international market and are putting orders into groups in Africa. I found the brief story as something that is true since it is something we are doing ourselves here.
Actual Responses to Text 1) The flow chart on page 35 provided a lot of impact for me. As a member of the business school we take an operations class that discusses flow charting. The class focuses on getting a product through as quick as possible and eliminating costs where ever possible to be able to offer a cheap product to consumers and maximize profits. This is not what the Fair Trade diagram looks like. Instead of starting at the end and setting a price (as Walmart does), this sets a price for the designer/producer/ builder. 2) The second part of the reading that impacted me was Deuteronomy 15:7-11. This one is about giving to your fellow "humans" and not to ask for debts to be repaid. I find this interesting because this is a problem we struggle with, especially when interacting with FT in Africa, South America and India. The issue is that if we just give money to them then they will accept it, maybe waste it, and they will feel no obligation to pad it back since we are not (according to Deuteronomy) supposed to ask for debts to be repaid. So this is a challenging thought, do you give to someone and make it possible for them to be dependent on you or only to business with them.
Actual Response 1) In response to the first point above about the flow charts, there is a lot to say about the our society. We must first be willing to accept that there may be higher prices if we are going to buy social just products. As we see in the flow chart if the producer is getting 20% of the product price instead of 1-5% then the price will go up (because owners will want to maintain some profits). This means that we as the end consumers will have to accept that our purchasing power, as the article describes, will come at a premium. This is something that will take a lot of convincing of consumers to do, especially because natural price increases already bother people. This is going to be, and has already proven to be, a tough sell to many consumers. (If companies do this then it may look like we are posing a 'tax' on people in the US who are already struggling to make ends meet. All at the cost of helping people in another country. And although this may be the right thing to do since our standard of living is higher, but it will be a tough sell to law makers and politicians.)
2) I am going to respond to the second point that I wrote about above. This has to do with giving to the poor or doing business with the poor in developing nations. Many economists believe that the United States could do more for African and South American developing countries by doing business with them and having them create wealth rather than have the US give hand outs. This economic theory goes against the bible verse that tells us to give and not to seek for repayment of debts. I would agree with the economic theory due to how its visible and clear and we have seen it work in other economies. For me it is more sustainable than the handouts that the bible suggests, that being said we have to look after the poorest of the poor. There I see nothing wrong with giving food out to those who have nothing to eat or drink.
Tue Nov 19, 2013 7:43 pm
Visitors
Board Statistics
