Thomas More's Utopia Essay

Cover of Utopia

Thomas More's famous Utopia can be seen as a treatise on a variety of subjects having to do with good governance in a republic, building on the ideas of classical theorists such as Plato, and imbued with the spirit of the Enlightenment. During the conversations related in the book, the issue of whether it is better to live a life of philosophic contemplation or to pursue a life of politics is discussed several times, with More's character favouring political involvement, while his new friend Raphael Hythloday maintains that quiet contemplation is preferable. This paper will relate the arguments these two men engage in, to show the advantages and disadvantages of both kinds of life, proving in the end that Hythloday was correct in asserting that a life of philosophic contemplation is preferable.

When More's friend Peter Giles introduces him to Raphael Hythloday, Giles early on suggests that Hythloday enter into the service of a king, because his “learning and knowledge ... would entertain ... while [his] knowledge and ... examples would be helpful at the counsel board” (More 2002, 13). This explains one of the main arguments seen in Utopia for why a person should enter into political life – to be of assistance to a King and his counsellors. Peter goes on to say that Raphael could “advance [his] own interests and be of great use ... to all [his] relatives and friends” (More 2002, 13), introducing another argument in favour of political service, namely that it is possible to use it as a springboard to personal advancement, as well as a noble form of altruism – or, at the least, of nepotism. In addition to this service, Peter feels political advisement to be a sure method to make Raphael happy. Surely these are worthwhile reasons to engage in political life.

Raphael is quick to counter Peter's reasons in support of a political life. He says that he has already been of use to his relatives, having given them their inheritance early. He does not, therefore, see this as justification enough to “enslave [him]self to any king” (More 2002, 13). This is the first indication that he views a political life in a manner radically different from the views of Peter (and More). He goes on to say that such a life is “absolutely repellent to [his] spirit” (More 2002, 13), and so therefore could not possibly make him happy. Instead, he notes that he is able to live life as he pleases, whereas “very few courtiers ... can say that” (More 2002, 13). Finally, he counters Peter's idea that he should serve in politics for a king's own sake by professing that so many other men are seeking to fill such a role that he could not be missed. This initial salvo lays the groundwork for Raphael's refutation of politics, in favour of a contemplative life, based on the freedom and happiness it offers him.

More's character is clearly intrigues and impressed by Hythloday's opinions. He interjects that, while a political life may not make Raphael happy, it would be “worthy of [his] noble and philosophical nature [to] devote his intelligence and energy to public affairs” (More 2002, 13). This is one of More's main arguments in favour of a political life – that it is a way to utilize one's learning and experience to encourage in a king “just and noble actions” (More 2002, 13). More initially feels this is a self-evident benefit to pursuing a political life.

Raphael is quick to disillusion More on this point. He asserts that he does not have the skills that More attributes him, and that even if he did “the public would still not be any better off” (More 2002, 14). The reason Hythloday feels this way is that he thinks that “most princes apply themselves to the arts of war ... instead of ... peace” (More 2002, 14), pursuits to which he is not inclined. Raphael would prefer a contemplative life than one supporting kings' pursuit of “new kingdoms by hook or crook” (More 2002, 14). Even despite this ideological stance, Raphael points out that kings' counsellors generally think themselves “so wise already that they don't need to accept or approve advice from anyone else” (More 2002, 14). This forms part of Raphael's main opposition to More's beliefs. He goes on to suggest that most counsellors are self-aggrandizing seekers of favour, more inclined to find “fault with the proposals of others” (More 2002, 14) than to accept good advice. Most counsellors, Raphael says, will denounce innovative policies as disrespectful to ancestral traditions – at least when they are put forth by others (More 2002). Thus Raphael shows a contemplative life as one that avoids having to support war-mongering or face groundless attack from a king's council, and thus as preferable to political engagement.

At this point Raphael relates his opinion on the current state of England's policies toward both thieves and sheep. These disparate topics initially seem unrelated to the merits of a political or contemplative life, but they are in fact integral. Raphael claims that England's policy of executing thieves is not only unjust, since it is overly harsh and in defiance of God's law, but also ineffective, since there are systemic changes occurring which leave many people with literally no choice but to steal, since the only alternative is to starve (More 2002). He says that land enclosure policies, done in the name of raising sheep, are a prime cause of unemployment, poverty, and the need of men to steal. Instead of retributive execution, Raphael suggests a restorative approach, so that society could benefit from the labour of convicts, while they themselves would have the possibility to rejoin society if pardoned by their king (More 2002). This analysis clearly represents the end product of a period of philosophical contemplation for Hythloday, yet it is met with scorn by those who hear it. Raphael says that, when a Cardinal offered his support for the idea, those gathered nearby were soon “praising enthusiastically ideas which they had received with contempt when [Raphael] suggested them” (More 2002, 25). This helps underscore Raphael's assertion that, were he to pursue a political life, his counsel would not be heeded, and it shows how a contemplative life can lead to a better understanding of truth and justice.

Despite Raphael's clever story to illustrate his position, More tries once more to persuade him. He again stresses the idea that a political life would enable Raphael to be “of the greatest advantage to the public welfare” (More 2002, 27), which he asserts to be an important duty of a good man. At this point he even recalls to mind Plato's call for a philosophic political class of kings, trying to ally his arguments with those of respected classical scholars. More claims that an active pursuit of politics offers a chance to make positive change in a kingdom, and is thus preferable to a contemplative life of philosophy.

Yet Raphael again refutes More. He claims that while philosophers are available who would advise, kings are not “willing to take their good advice” (More 2002, 28). He illustrates how kings, lacking a philosophical tendency, would not receive his advice well. For example, what if Raphael recommended the King of France put aside his military expansionism, instead focusing solely on France itself in an effort to govern it well and win the love of his citizens (More 2002)? Even More appears swayed that such advice would not be received “very enthusiastically” (More 2002, 31). Raphael goes on to ask what would happen if he were to suggest, to the contrary of other counsellors' advice, that the King avoid raising money through taxation or unfair economic practises, and that he should instead permit his citizens to flourish by living modestly (More 2002). He is showing that a political life would not in fact allow him to enact positive changes, since his advice would not be well received or subsequently enacted.

More admits that such advice would be ignored. However, he chastises Raphael for delivering it in such an uncompromising and radical manner. He recommends that Raphael use guile, and to not “abandon the commonwealth” (More 2002, 35) just because he is unable to cure every evil at once. Instead, More says that by adopting a more tactful approach, Raphael could prevent the worst abuses of royal power, modifying their governance to be “as little bad as possible” (More 2002, 35). This represents a shift in More's argument, as he has clearly been convinced that deception is necessary in order for Raphael to be successful in a life of politics. Yet still he believes that this harm reduction approach justifies political pursuits.

Raphael does not agree with More. He points out that deception would not permit him to make the change that More believes, instead serving only to support the destructive policies of others – to “confirm them in their madness” (More 2002, 36). He feels prevaricating would “make people feel more secure about doing evil” (More 2002, 36), hardly the noble deed More has suggested. Raphael feels that the system of private property in itself prevents a kingdom from being “just or prosperous” (More 2002, 37), and that while some policies may serve as dressings on the wounds of “sick bodies that are past cure” (More 2002, 37), in the end the only cure is to adopt communism. Thus, at the end of their discussion, Raphael has held fast to his assertion that a life of private contemplative philosophy is preferable to that of the active pursuit of politics.

In summation, this paper has outline the discussion between the characters of Thomas More and Raphael Hythloday regarding whether it is better to live a contemplative or political life. More's initial preference for the political was met with resistance by Raphael, who countered his arguments repeatedly throughout. Raphael pointed out that, were he to become a political adviser, his council would be belittled or ignored, or would have to be moderated in such a way as to be an immoral equivocation. He showed how he would be unhappy and unable to enact the sweeping changes he felt necessary. In the end, the best that More was able to say for a life of political pursuits was that it could offer a man some personal advancement for himself and his kin (a rather small and shallow benefit), and that it could – perhaps – mitigate some of a king's worst policies. Even still this remained doubtful, as the kind of man willing to so moderate his own position as to be well received by a king and his council would be unlikely to be able to maintain enough integrity in the face of constant opposition to fight for incremental moderation of harmful policies. Raphael, on the other hand, showed that contemplative philosophy was a way to maintain his integrity, avoid enslaving himself to a king, and further the search for truth and justice, free from the tyranny of a council of self-serving political advisers.

References

More, Thomas. 2002. Utopia. In Logan, George and Robert Adams, ed. Cambridge, UK: University Press.

Related articles

• More, St. Thomas (earthpages.wordpress.com)
• The Dismal Economics of Utopia: Lesson One (wmbriggs.com)
• BBC America Acquires Exclusive Basic Cable Rights to 'The Tudors' (tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com)
• Philosophy of Science (socyberty.com)
• The Work & Art of Raphael (brighthub.com)

Machiavelli's The Prince

Image via Wikipedia

Since Machiavelli's death in 1527, the Italian's name has become synonymous with duplicity, deceit, and amorality. His work The Prince was meant as a guidebook for a new ruler on how to gain and maintain power Yet a significant cornerstone of advice he offered was that “a ruler must take care … to avoid those things that will make him an object of hatred or contempt” (Machiavelli 1995, 56), a seeming incongruity from one with such a devious reputation. Yet further study on the recommendations Machiavelli offers to his Prince reveals that he proposes a path which, while taking a flexible approach to commonly held moral standards, still holds others' views to be of pragmatic importance. For this reason Machiavelli dictates a course of action which places highest importance on being feared, both by subjects and fellow rulers, followed by being loved, and that to be hated or held in contempt is to be avoided at all costs. This essay will explain the seeming incongruities of this advice, noting his deference to circumstance, by examining Machiavelli's advice to a Prince.

Primarily Machiavelli can be thought of as embracing a morality based on pragmatism. While he admits that action good is surely a preferable course of action, he is sure to make clear in his instructions to a Prince that morals must be swept aside at a moment's notice if need be. He writes that “anyone who wants to act the part of a good man in all circumstances will bring about his own ruin … [so] it is necessary for a ruler … to learn how not to be good” (Machiavelli 1995, 48). This typifies the advice of Machiavelli, which dictates a fluid style of leadership, responsive to the ever changing moods of fickle fate. Further, the author recommends avoiding “those evil qualities … compatible with holding on to power” (Machiavelli 1995, 48) if possible, but attempts to assuage the conscience of any Prince who finds it necessary to engage in them, since “above all you are supposed to have those vices a ruler needs if he is going to stay securely in power” (Machiavelli 1995, 49). Clearly based on this alone it is evident that Machiavelli's advice is at best an overall suggestion, to be discarded as circumstance demands.

Despite his flexibility, Machiavelli uses strong words in warning a Prince against inciting hatred. In order to explain how Machiavelli could recommend being feared above being loved, yet insist a Prince must avoid hatred, it is important to note that he outlines the causes of hatred rather narrowly. He claims that a ruler will “only be hated if [he] seize[s] the property or the women of [his] subjects and citizens” (Machiavelli 1995, 52). Because of this specific delineation of the causes of hatred, Machiavelli is able to suggest a wide range of detestable actions without concern that they would elicit hatred.

Machiavelli's semantic differentiation of the emotions a ruler should incite seems to be based on two aspects - that those actions which provoke fear are in some way expected, or within the rights of a ruler to commit, whereas those which result in hatred are those which violate the most basic human dignities. Further, that when actions cause the hatred of a small few, especially when they are a powerless minority, they in turn cause fear among the masses. For example, Machiavelli recommends that a ruler, when acquiring new territories in a region with a different culture, establish colonies as a way of strengthening control over the area (Machiavelli 1995). In order to do this, a Prince must steal the land of some of the people, to give to the new settlers. This necessarily, according to the definition he has set out, incurs the hatred of those whose land is appropriated. Yet Machiavelli notes the action will “offend only those from whom you seize fields and house... and they will be only a tiny minority” (Machiavelli 1995, 9). He further says that “those whom you offend will be scattered and become poor, so they will be unable to do you any harm” (Machiavelli 1995, 9), showing that to be hated is not so terrible so long as it does not become a widely held view. In noting that “all the rest … will be afraid to make a false move, for they will have before them the fate of their neighbors as an example of what might happen to them” (Machiavelli 1995, 9), Machiavelli shows that he is recommending a cost-benefit analysis to determine how a Prince may get the greatest benefit and deference from the most subjects. This clearly shows that Machiavelli believes that stealing a man's property or women may make him hate you, but will make others fear you, and so is not in fact to be avoided entirely.

Machiavelli instructs his Prince that “no ruler is secure unless he has his own troops … nothing is so fragile as a reputation for strength that does not correspond to one's real capacities” (Machiavelli 1995, 45). This threat to a Prince's power is a result of the fact that without his own troops he will come to be regarded with contempt, as an “armed man has … for the man without weapons” (Machiavelli 1995, 46). Furthermore, this contempt will express itself as a lack of respect from his troops, whom he “cannot trust” (Machiavelli 1995, 46). If not having one's own army is contemptible, then it is to be avoided whenever possible, since Machiavelli looks with scorn upon those rulers who are contemptible.

Machiavelli offers instructions on ways to minimize the negative effects of hatred, if it must be incurred. He recommends that “people should either be caressed or crushed” (Machiavelli 1995, 9). He feels that if one must commit an act that would inspire hatred, it is better to do it in such a way that the person who will hate you is severely weakened. In his own words, the person should be “injure[d] … in such a way that you do not have to fear their vengeance” (Machiavelli 1995, 9-10). This helps explain how the author can recommend that a new Prince should wipe out not just the previous, now-defeated leader, but also should exterminate local nobles and charismatic figures – and even their memory (Machiavelli 1995). Another method Machiavelli recommends is that a Prince commit undesirable actions in one fell swoop. He advises his Prince to “make a list of all the crimes you have to commit and do them all at once” (Machiavelli 1995, 30) so as to mask the full degree of his hateful actions. He further recommends that “whenever you have to kill someone, make sure you have a suitable excuse and an obvious reason” (Machiavelli 1995, 52), demonstrating he recommends taking hateful actions only when they will be supported by, or at least seem justified to, the populace. Surely these examples prove that Machiavelli views being hated as something to be avoided where possible, but that if hateful actions must be taken, they be mitigated or minimized.

In addition to avoiding or minimizing hatred, Machiavelli recommends a Prince manage his reputation. By so massaging his image, a ruler may gain ever more support from his citizens. He may do this by attempting to win his people's love, or by inciting their fear. To win their love, a Prince may institute good governance. Although introducing new government and institutions presents a dangerous time for a Prince, since those who are satisfied under the old system will resist strongly, and those who stand to gain will offer only the support of a skeptic, doing so is beneficial in the long run (Machiavelli 1995). In addition to the new elite that is created, and is made dependent on the Prince for their success, new institutions can help “render [the principality] peaceful and law abiding” (Machiavelli 1995, 51). This helps prevent disorder from spreading, “which leads to murders or looting” (Machiavelli 1995, 51), and therefore leads the populace to, in time, support the Prince even more. Another way a Prince may magnify the love of his people is the corollary of doing evil deeds all at once. He advises a Prince to “do good … little by little, so people can fully appreciate it” (Machiavelli 1995, 31). He goes on to recommend that a Prince court the affections of the masses rather than the elite, since the masses only want to be free of oppression, whereas the elite want, immorally, to oppress (Machiavelli 1995, 32). These examples show how Machiavelli believes that a Prince must seek to attain the support of his citizens, and demonstrate his pragmatic view that earning their love must be approach with a tactical eye.

Another way in which Machiavelli advises his Prince on manipulating his reputation is when he says that attempting to be generous may lead to a reputation for quite the opposite in the long run. He shows how a ruler who attempts to seem generous will have to finance his lavish favours for the few by raising taxes on the many (Machiavelli 1995). Since raising taxes is in effect a way for the Prince to seize some of his citizens' property, this is certain to incite their hatred, especially since the tax burden is so widespread, while the Prince's generosity will benefit “only a few” (Machiavelli 1995, 49). Machiavelli shows how a fiscally conservative policy of small government institutions benefits the people via low taxes, which in turn leads them to view the Prince as generous (Machiavelli 1995). This once more exemplifies Machiavelli's pragmatic approach to governance, with the goal of attaining the support of the greatest number of people for the lowest political cost.

Machiavelli make it clear that it is better to be feared than even loved. He claims that men are “ungrateful, fickle, deceptive and deceiving, avoiders of danger, eager to gain” (Machiavelli 1995, 52). By this he means that whatever warm feelings the masses have toward you - even love - are inconstant, uncertain, able to be swayed by circumstance beyond your control. He says that “men are less nervous of offending someone who makes himself lovable, than someone who makes himself frightening” (Machiavelli 1995, 52), an insightful view of the psychological workings of men. He goes on to say that “since men are wicked, they break whenever their interests are at stake” (Machiavelli 1995, 53), showing how love is an imperfect tool for garnering support, based on the whims of fate, whereas fear is a tool at the Prince's disposal, able to be deployed as necessary and with precision. This shows how Machiavelli believes that, for the Prince, garnering the obedience of his citizens is of primary importance. His pragmatic advice is that fear is a more useful tool in maintaining political power than even love.

Machiavelli's insights have garnered his work The Prince an ongoing importance in political theory, and more than earned him his Machiavellian reputation, This essay has shown that while he cautioned against actions arousing hatred or contempt, he understood expediency might require them, and offered ways to minimize their harm - to the Prince, rather than the citizenry. Machiavelli understood the need for the support of the masses, and called for a variety of deceptions, such as the appearance of piety, to help achieve it This support could primarily stem from the love of the people, which Machiavelli knew was powerful, if inconstant, or fear, which he knew to be the most powerful emotion, through which a Prince could control his citizens with ease and certainty. This is why Machiavelli argued that it is better for a prince to be feared than to be loved.

References

Niccolo, Machiavelli. 1995. The Prince. In Wootton, David, ed. and trans. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett

Publishing.

Related articles

• Machiavelli Is Everywhere (boingboing.net)
• The New Machiavelli: How to Wield Power in the Modern World by Jonathan Powell (telegraph.co.uk)

Ability Grouping: Students Swept Downstream

Check out my snazzy floooooow chart -WK

The issue of ability streaming is both complex and contentious. In order to determine whether it is beneficial or harmful, it must be asked - for whom? This paper will begin with a brief overview of the issue, followed by an examination of the evidence that ability streaming is detrimental to some of the most vulnerable students. It will then discuss the benefits of streaming to those gifted students who are chosen to enter advanced streams. Subsequently it will be shown that streaming is not good for society as a whole, vis-a-vis the reproduction of social inequalities. Finally, the paper will recommend a policy course for the future of academic differentiation. While ability grouping has only narrow benefit at present, it has the potential to encourage students' and change their lives.

[more after the jump - click here]

IMF Part 3: Research Design

This is the final component of my 3 part assignment on the IMF.
You can read part 1 here
You can read part 2 here

The purpose of this research design is threefold.  First, it will review the extensive body of academic literature on the International Monetary Fund (IMF), including a brief provision of context based on my previous research.   The IMF's role in facilitating debt relief and economic reforms will be outlined, paying attention specifically to the role of the IMF in achieving its stated goals of assisting nations experiencing balance of payment problems.  The literature review will also examine the IMF's role in facilitating or interrupting domestic democratic processes, and related concepts of its democratic deficit and lack of transparency, and its role in culture and identity, sovereignty, and human security.  This will be situated within a context of globalization and the changing nature of the state. Further, this research design will develop a research question and hypothesis based on and situated within the current academic context. Finally, it will prepare a fieldwork component to a future research project in order to answer the questions raised by other scholars'
work.  By doing so, this paper will contribute to a growing body of literature on one of the most influential institutions of the globalized world, the IMF.




[continued after the jump, or click on title to view full article]

A Missing Feminist Revolution in Sociology: 25 Years Later

Image via Wikipedia

As a second year sociology student at Mac I had often congratulated myself on the enlightened nature of my chosen discipline.  Brushing off criticisms that I was engaging in a field dominated by the narrow perspectives of a priveleged few middle-class, white, heterosexual males, I confidently pointed to the prevalence of gender as a variable in nearly all sociological research.  Writing this article made me rethink some of my basic assumptions...

Barrie Thorne and Judith Stacey's article 'The Missing Feminist Revolution in Sociology', is a jab at a discipline which has long claimed to seek value-neutral knowledge on social facts. The present paper will summarize arguments about the lack of maturity in sociological feminist ideologies, and the subsequent lack of paradigmatic changes. It will explain how the fields of history, literature, and especially anthropology have embraced their own feminist revolutions, bringing them to the core of their disciplines and canons in a way that is not reflected in sociology. It will then outline the ways in which feminism has been both co-opted and ghettoized by mainstream sociology, and ideas for change. Finally, the article will be analyzed in light of the changes that have taken place, since its 1985 date of publication, as evidenced by the content of McMaster University's sociology program.
[continued after the jump, or click on title to view full article]

IMF Part 1: Research Proposal

You can read part 2 here
You can read part 3 here

The purpose of this paper is to outline the initial details of a research project, focused on the neo-liberal policies outlined in Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine (2008) as Chicago School disaster capitalism, specifically as exemplified by occurrences in Latin America during the 1970s. Briefly, Klein posits that disaster capitalism, then during its infancy, saw a small group of powerful elites imposing unpopular economic reforms (namely deregulation, privatization, and government cutbacks) during times of crisis (such as armed conflict, political coups, or during violent oppression by military juntas) for the benefit of transnational corporations (TNCs). This issue has been chosen because of its close ties with globalization, outlined below, and the often devastating impact these policies have had on both national economies and cultures, as well as the heightening effect on the global North/South divide. This is important to explore both for the sake of those victimized by the policies of a few, but also to underline the need for global governance, finance, and other institutions to include rigorous democratic checks and balances on abuses of power, conditions which are at present glaringly absent.
[continued after the jump, or click on title to view full article]

Punishment Vs Rehabilitation: Disintegrative and Reintegrative Shaming Rituals

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the concept of stigma and stigmatizing rituals, with specific reference to the applications of deviant labels and strategies to resist the negative consequences associated with adopting said labels. It will then examine disintegrative models of shaming, such as scarlet letter methods, and outline the ways these are beneficial or harmful. Finally, this will be compared with the reintegrative approach to shaming, in order to determine which model has the most to offer in the judiciary system.

It is important to begin this discussion with an operational definition of stigma. According to Goffman, as quoted by Heckert and Best (2008), stigma is a feature of an individual which is associated with stereotypes based on said attributes, which are in turn thoroughly degrading or dishonourable. In continuing his definition, Goffman identifies three major groupings of stigma, namely bodily disfigurements (such as a cleft palate), character deficiencies (such as drug addiction), and group membership (stigma based on status such as race and religion) (Heckert and Best 2008). Further, as noted by Twining, Arluke, and Patronek (2000), Goffman says that the negative consequences of stigma can include exclusion, anxiety and discrimination, but that stigmatized individuals develop interpersonal strategies to cope by lessening (or even neutralizing) it, or by evading it altogether. Finally, Herman and Miall (1990) note that labelling theory shows how, by labelling someone as a deviant, it can cause them to adopt the label and become the very thing they are labelled.

[continued after the jump, or click on title to view full article]

IMF Part 2: Institution Report

You can read part 1 here
You can read part 2 here

This institution report will provide an in-depth investigation into the International Monetary Fund (IMF). It seeks to clearly outline the institutional history, purpose, membership, and projects of the IMF, as well as its governance structure and protocols. In the course of this examination, care will be paid to the IMF's complex relationship with the processes of globalization, and how it in turn impacts the institution of the state. In so doing, this will lay the foundation for a successful research design.

The history of the IMF begins with its conception in July 1944 (IMF, 2006). It was during the Bretton Woods meetings that 45 nations agreed to the kind of economic cooperation that would prevent a return to the dangerous protectionist policies of the Great Depression, such as “limiting imports, devaluing ... currencies ... and curtailing their citizens' freedom to buy goods abroad and to hold foreign exchange” (ibid.). Born in December of 1945, the IMF was tasked with ensuring exchange rate stability. The intervening decades have seen it transform itself in response to its growing membership (from an initial 29 member nations to 186 as of the 2009 inclusion of Kosovo) (Kosovo Times, 2009), as well as in response to changing world events, featuring an increased focus on crisis prevention. Initially the IMF made significant loans to industrialized economies, but in recent decades the majority have gone to developing and Newly Industrialized Countries (IMF, 2006).
[continued after the jump, or click on title to view full article]

Gaudi

I rcently stumbled across a post on one of the blog's I follow about a mug designed by Antoni Gaudi. This led me to look up some of his other work. I found out that he has mostly worked with buildings as his medium of choice (rather than cups and spoons). Here are some awesome pictures from www.GreatBuildings.com, let me know what you think (or point me to others!).

Eurpeans Are Stupid Pigs?

Obviously the title of my blog has become a bit of a misnomer as school takes over my life (I hear you say - what life?), and it doesn't help when I have silly little re-posts like this one from the Financial Times (despite the fact that it is hilarious):

STUPID investors in PIGS

It isn’t just touchy government ministers in Portugal, Italy, Ireland Greece and Spain who don’t like the highly appropriate acronym PIGS to sum up the troubled regions of the eurozone (the ‘i’ seems to be used for Ireland and Italy). The FT has a near-ban on the insulting phrase, and now Barclays Capital has banned it too, for being offensive.

Luckily there’s a handy alternative for excessive borrowers (thanks Zerohedge): STUPID. It pulls together Spain, Turkey, the UK, Portugal, Italy, and Dubai. Sadly Greece, Iceland and Turkmenistan are missing…

Save your money

Image via Wikipedia

Wouldn't it be nice to be able to save a little extra cash, especially around the holidays? I would love to see a bank offering no-fee accounts, even if they lowered (or eliminated) interest payments on those accounts. Better still, this could be a state-sponsored bank, thus untethering it from the short-sighted needs of profit-hungry shareholders. Not sure, but I have a feeling that this would be in violation of NAFTA agreements... shame.