The Novel Roll Of Thunder, Hear My Cry Overall Is The...

Admirable is defined as deserving respect and approval, but how can you decide admirability just from reading a story? Between seventh grade books that show nothing but disrespect, to rotten little girls who pride themselves on being white, the biggest conflict in Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry overall is racism and segregation. Many problems occurred which tested the mind and character of everyone in the story. Cassie Logan, throughout the book, handled these issues the best out of everyone. Although other characters may have reacted well, Cassie stands out as the most admirable. In the book, she exhibited many traits in her actions that shows she is the most admirable character in the book. Even in the beginning, Cassie stood up for her brother, during which she started to take notice of racism in everyday places and in people she was acquainted with. Books were given to both grades and in the front of each book they all clearly stated â€Å"negro - very poor condition†. Littl e Man, her youngest brother, brought the issue up the their also African American teacher seeing as he knew it was not right. The teacher told the children it was what they deserved and that they should just be thankful for the books. Both Cassie and Little Man were yelled at and beaten just for bringing up that they didn’t think it was right. Cassie backed up her brother and learned from the experience that even blacks at her time took part in the racism without trying, just because they were used toShow MoreRelatedDeveloping Management Skills404131 Words   |  1617 Pagesthe Introduction. Based on the positive feedback we’ve received from teachers and students we can state with confidence that the form of active learning pioneered in this book is a proven pedagogy for management skill mastery. Tips for Getting the Most Out of This Course Whether you are an undergraduate or MBA student, or an experienced manager, based on our years of teaching management skills here are some suggestions for making this course a personally meaningful learning experience. †¢ Read the

Socrates Escape From Prison Analysis - 1037 Words

Socrates has a great internal struggle which he discusses with Crito in the Crito, he has been put in jail because had been found guilty of impiety and corrupting the minds of the citys youth with great thought and the courage to question basic things in life. Crito and Socrates go through many different reasons why it would be justifiable for Socrates to escape from jail, and Socrates explains each one breaking down why it would be unlawful for him to do so, not only in the eyes of the law but also for him personally in his conscience. Socrates believes that if he were to escape from jail, it would deter him from living a moral life, and he would not be living the life that he had taught his students, for he would be going against the†¦show more content†¦Each thing in the city relies on the welling running of each part for if one does not feel safe then cannot complete things fully to the best extent. This harm that could be caused to other people in the city, would also b e causing harm to Socrates own conscience also because harming others is unjust, and causing an injustice causes harm to his soul also. For Socrates it is better to die in harmony than with a tainted soul, he would rather live in peace with all of nature than have a small corruption of his soul and live a full life. He concludes that he will stay in jail to accept the death penalty, rather than escape and live the rest of his life on the run. Lastly Socrates combats the situation of the agreements that he has made with the city of Athens and how breaking them would be unjust. He explains that if he were to escape from jail, he would be breaking and agreement that he has made with the state, this being that he is a law abiding citizen of Athens, and in being a good citizen he has promised to follow all the laws, just or not. Breaking an agreement is wrong, and wrong things are unjust actions and doing unjust actions harm the soul. And once again he comes to the conclusion that it is better to die than live with a tainted soul, and he comes to the conclusion that he will stay in jail and receive the death penalty rather than escape and be on the runShow MoreRelatedThe Argument In The Crito By Socrates762 Words   |  4 PagesThe Crito Analysis In The Crito by Socrates, both Crito and Socrates present arguments, one that Socrates should escape prison, and one that he should not. Crito’s argument contains logic fallacies that undermine his argument and make it weak. Therefore, Socrates argument that he should remain in prison and face his death is valid and strong, and is better than Crito’s. Crito argues that Socrates should escape jail, and relies on the premises that he must consider the opinion of the public andRead MoreThe Presentation of Socrates Arguements in Plato’s Apology and Crito792 Words   |  4 Pagespresents Socrates arguments clearly and precisely. Socrates is wise man with a different perspective on life, which presents us with a mass of contradictions. Socrates is an expressive man, yet he never recorded any works. He is ignorant, but wrongfully convicted who is willing to fight his unjust execution. Behind these dilemmas is an opposition not often explored. Socrates is the most patriotic of philosophers, who is dedicated to his state. Exploring this contradiction between Socrates the loyalRead MoreComparison Between Plato And Plato1101 Words   |  5 Pagesbeginning of philosophy to a more modern perspective. In Crito by Plato, Socrates continues a speech of the Laws of Athens by appealing to a social contract that exists between the Laws and the citizens. By living in Athens, one must abide by the Laws of Athens. Since Socrates is in prison, if he were to try to escape he would be breaking the Law. Socrates lived in Athens following the Athenian Law up to this point. Socrates dismissed the possibility of exile, saying he would rather die than liveRead MoreNiccolo Machiavelli And Plato1693 Words   |  7 PagesNiccolo Machiavelli and Socrates (through Plato) have both given the world plenty of advice when it comes to governing. Both men have contributed to the debate of what a ‘prince’, or ruler, should look like. They lived in different time periods but were both surrounded by political uncertainty and fragmentation, which contributed to their views of government. Their ideals of a prince overlap in ways, but overall there are glaring differences in how they think a Ã¢â‚¬Ë œprince’ should rule. A strong exampleRead MoreThe Reconciliation Of Two Positions1696 Words   |  7 Pagesmost prominent individuals in history, Socrates not only helped to set up the foundations for Western philosophy, but the legacy he left behind is something that is still being discussed today by historians and philosophers alike. Socrates is renowned for standing up for his beliefs even in the midst of death as portrayed in Plato’s account of Socrates’ defense speech, Apology, in which he gave during his 339 B.C. trial. It is in this eminent speech that Socrates is able show the dedication he has forRead MoreThe Apology: The Understanding of the Soul in Life and Death Essay1735 Words   |  7 PagesApology. I will begin with a brief synopsis of each major theme, with an analysis and my opinion following, and ending with the question of Socrates own death. Firstly, Plato introduces the important concept that it is far worse for one to do wrong than to suffer wrongdoing. Socrates, refusing to be harmed by Meletus, believes that â€Å"it is not allowed that a good man be injured by a worse† (pg. 41). Despite Socrates impending death or banishment, he does not think that these are the worstRead MoreSocrates: One of the Most Important Figures in Western Philosophy1252 Words   |  6 Pages Socrates was one of the most influential thinkers in the West, even though he left no writings of himself, it was possible to reconstruct an accurate account of his life from the writings of his Greek students because he always engaged them. He was a man with a very strong conviction because he lived his life for the pursuit of knowledge, true wisdom, God’s will, and piety. Though he never wrote anything, his soul source of knowledge about him came from one of his students, Plato. Socrates wasRead MorePlatos Views on Life after Death1 388 Words   |  6 Pagesliterature readily indicates. However, during all phases of his writing he does demonstrate that there is in fact life after physical death, which is widely attributed to his notion of the soul. Plat always viewed the soul as an entity that was distinct from the physical body. Moreover, while the physical body was destined to die, the soul was enduring, interminable, and destined to go on somewhere in some state of being. In just what sort of way the soul would endure was a matter of question, in whichRead More Socrates Last Error Essay examples3184 Words   |  13 PagesSocrates Last Error In the dialogue, Crito, Socrates justified his decision to accept his death penalty. His decision was praised as principled and just. However, such a view was one of the greatest myths in the history of philosophy. Contrary to the accepted ideas, I wish to show that Socrates’ argument was erroneous, the crucial error being his failure to distinguish between substantial and procedural justice. In fact, the whole of the Crito refers to some deeper problems of the philosophyRead MoreSocrates Summary2196 Words   |  9 PagesAccusations made against Socrates:†¨corrupting of youth, allowing them to question authority not respecting traditional gods introducing new gods He was ugly so people thought he was evil Socrates Life: 469BC- 399BC Born: 469 B.C. Birthplace: Athens, Greece Died: 399 B.C. (execution by poison) Best Known As: The great Greek philosopher who drank hemlock Socrates is the ancient Greek thinker who laid the early foundations for Western philosophical thought. His Socratic Method involved

Swiss National Bank Currency Interventions †MyAssignmenthelp.com

Question: Discuss about the Swiss National Bank Currency Interventions. Answer: Introduction: The central bank plays a pivotal role in the currency exchange rate determination. This may be through direct or indirect intervention. The central bank controls the supply of the domestic currency through printing. Additionally, it may intervene in the currency markets by buying or selling either the domestic currency or the foreign currency in order to ensure that there are no drastic fluctuations in the exchange rate. A stable currency exchange rate is pivotal for functioning of a healthy economy which is particularly true for a country which is significantly dependent on international trade. A case in point is Switzerland which generates about 70% of the GDP through goods and services exports. As a result, the Swiss National Bank SNB) ought to play a critical role in ensuring the stability of the Swiss Franc. This is apparent from the exchange rate peg that the bank introduced in 2011 when the financial markets were in turmoil and there was appreciation of Swiss Franc. As a resul t of this pegged current, the Swiss Franc was maintained at a fixed value of 1.2. Considering the pegging to the Euro along with the fiscal prudence by the Swiss government, the Swiss Franc started to be considered as a safe haven in the aftermath of introduction of pegging (Economist, 2015). As a result of this, there was huge flow of money into Switzerland which increased the demand for Swiss Francs and hence exerted pressure of appreciation on the Swiss Franc. In order to maintain the currency level at the designated peg, new francs were printed by SNB and this money was used to buy euros. The net result was that by 2015, the SNB had amassed foreign currency reserves to the extent of $ 480 billion which was estimated to be about 70% of the GDP. With regards to these huge foreign reserves, there was considerable anger amongst the people which is one of the main reasons for the sudden de-pegging of Swiss Franc. The public anger can be gauged from the fact that some months earlier to de-pegging of the currency, there was a referendum which could have limited the ability of the SNB to increase foreign reserves (Economist, 2015). There was also fear of hyperinflation on account of too much money being printed. Additionally, the SNB decision came at a time when ECB (European Central Bank) was on the verge of introducing quantitative easing to buy debt which would have led to devaluation of euro and hence would have required the SNB to purchase even more francs to maintain the peg (Blackstone, 2015). Considering the unsustainability of the currency peg, the SNB in a swift decision decided to de-peg the currency. This had a tremendous impact on the value of the Swiss Franc which soared from 1.2 euro to about 0.85 euro in a single day. As a result, there was a cut in the economic growth estimate of Switzerland which is expected considering the countrys excessive reliance on exports (Klein, 2017). The exporters were the worst hit due to this decision. However, this decision highlighted the need for hedging in wake of increased currency risk. The hedges deployed by Swiss company can be categorised into two sub-categories namely natural hedge and financial hedge. Considering the strong Franc, it is always advantageous for the exporting firms to source various raw materials from outside Switzerland and pay the suppliers in USD since America is one of the main export destinations of exporters in Switzerland. This not only lowers the overall cost but also works as a natural hedge. Beside s, financial hedges include foreign currency swaps, derivatives along with forward agreements. These have been quite effective as various research studies have indicated that future contracts based in Swiss Francs are highly effective to ward off the underlying currency risk (Choi, 2009). This is not surprising considering the heavy reliance on exports in the Swiss economy coupled with the strong inflows in the country which is always putting an appreciative pressure on the currency. In such an environment, the exporters need to take various measures to hedge their exports in order to maintain their underlying competitiveness in the market place (Klein, 2017). From the above discussion, it is apparent that the main reason behind the de-pegging of Swiss Franc by the SNB was the unsustainable pumping in of Francs in order to support a weak euro which led to excessive printing of Swiss Francs coupled with high euro based foreign currency reserve. The de-pegging of currency proved disastrous for the exporters since the Swiss Franc appreciated significantly. As a result, various hedging strategies have been successfully put in place by the exporters and importers in order to minimise the currency risk through the use of natural and financial hedges. The hedging strategy used has been quite effective as highlighted in the various research studies. In an unhedged strategy, the exporter would bear all the exchange rate risk owing to the current fluctuation. If there is appreciation in the USD with regards to Euro, then the net cash inflow for the exporter would reduce which would adversely impact the profit. Based on the available data, there is a high probability of appreciation in USD. This is apparent from the higher interest rate in USA as compared to Europe owing to which there would be higher foreign money inflow into US leading to increased demand for USD potentially causing an appreciation of USD against Euro. This scenario is also reflected in the forward exchange rate. Therefore un-hedged strategy would result in 100% exposure to exchange rate risk with the exporter (Northington, 2011). In this strategy, hedging is achieved through buying or selling of forward contracts. Since the exporter would receive Euro, hence it would be advisable that a 1 year forward contract is sold to a bank. This implies that 1 year from now, the bank would provide an agreed amount of euros based on the forward exchange rate (Petty et. al., 2015). For instance, the 1 year forward contract rate is $1.13 per Euro, hence irrespective of the exchange rate prevalent at the time of settlement, euro would be converted into USD at the above rate. Hence, for 50 million euros, the amount received would be 50000000/1.13 = USD 44,247,788. IF the exchange rate is above $ 1.13 per Euro (like $ 1.14), then the exporter would benefit from the hedge while if the exchange rate is lower than $ 1.13 per Euro, then the exporter would lose. A key risk of this strategy is that the hedge cannot be bought over the whole amount considering that the amount of Euros to be received by vary by 10 million. However, by covering 40 million, a significant portion of the exchange rate can be hedged. Also, another risk relates to counterparty risk which happens when the other party does not uphold the promise (Brealey, Myers and Allen, 2012). In this hedging strategy, money to the extent of expected receivables would be borrowed in Euro by the US based exported and converted into USD at the spot rate and invested in US. Assume expected cashflows after one year be 50 million Also, annual interest rate in euro zone = 2 % pa Hence, required borrowing = 50000000/1.02 = 49,019,608 After one year, the above borrowing would amount to 50 million euros and hence the received payment from the importer would be deviated to settle this debt. The borrowed amount in euros would be converted to USD based on the current spot rate of $ 1.10 per euro. Hence, amount in USD = 49,019,608/1.1 = $44,563,280 The above money would be invested in US at 5.5% p.a. Thus, after one year the exported would receive = 44,563,280*1.055 = USD 47,014,260 A problem area with this strategy is the uncertainty with the amount received after one year and hence only partial hedging can be performed and thereby some exposure to current risk would still remain. A key risk is that the interest rate may change and hence the amount in USD may fluctuate (Parrino and Kidwell, 2011). Since US exporter would receive money, hence for hedging currency risk, the put option needs to be bought. In the given case, the exercise price is $ 1.11 with a premium of $ 0.06 per unit. In the option hedging strategy a large amount of flexibility is available at the cost of a small premium. The payoff of this strategy on a per unit basis can be explored as follows. It is apparent that the worst case exchange rate is capped at $1.17 per euro but there is a potential upside on the future especially if there is significant depreciation of the USD against the Euro. A key risk of the strategy relates to the number of contracts that need to be bought considering that the final amount cannot be determined as of now and hence complete hedging becomes difficult (Petty et. al., 2015). The best option would be money market hedge as has been demonstrated with 50 million euros example where the final amount to the exporter in USD is more as compared to a forward contract hedge. Also, option hedge would be useful only when there is significant depreciation of USD against the Euro which may or may not happen. Thus, the risks are minimised for the exporter using a money market hedge assuming an expected receivable of 50 million after a year (Northington, 2011). References Blackstone, B. (2015) What Happened with the Swiss Franc, [online] Available at https://blogs.wsj.com/briefly/2015/01/15/what-happened-with-the-swiss-franc-the-short-answer/ [Assessed March 22, 2018] Brealey, R.A., Myers, S.C. and Allen, F. (2012)Principles of corporate finance. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Inc Choi, M. S. (2009). Currency risks hedging for major and minor currencies: constant hedging versus speculative hedging. Applied Economics Letters, 17(3), 305-311. Economist (2015) Why the Swiss unpegged the franc, [online] Available at https://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/01/economist-explains-13 [Assessed March 22, 2018] Klein, M. (2017) Have the Swiss National Banks currency interventions actually been good for Switzerland?, [online] Available at https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2017/06/02/2189554/have-the-swiss-national-banks-currency-interventions-actually-been-good-for-switzerland/ [Assessed March 22, 2018] Northington, S. (2011) Finance, 4th ed. New York: Ferguson Parrino, R. and Kidwell, D. (2011) Fundamentals of Corporate Finance, 3rd ed. London: Wiley Publications Petty, JW, Titman, S, Keown, AJ, Martin, P, Martin JD and Burrow, M. (2015), Financial Management: Principles and Applications, 6th ed. Sydney: Pearson Australia,

Nuclear Weapons Persuasive Essay free essay sample

Should every country have the right to possess nuclear weapons? On the 6th November 1945, a United States bomber flew towards the Japanese city of Hiroshima. The only cargo aboard that B-29 bomber was an atomic bomb – ironically nicknamed â€Å"Little Boy† that was to be dropped on its target. At 8. 15am and at a height of around 2,000ft the bomb exploded above Hiroshima, taking 140,000 lives with it. Most of the 140,000 died instantly, horrifyingly the rest of the innocent civilians that were not in direct contact with the bomb died painful deaths in the four months following. They died from radiation sickness and different types of cancers. Whilst the atomic bomb is considered as one of the greatest inventions of all time, in terms of how it could protect a nation, is it really worth having numerous amounts of governments on edge at the thought of a weapon so powerful? Ronald Reagan described nuclear weapons as: â€Å"Totally irrational, totally inhumane, good for nothing but killing, possibly leading to the destruction of life on Earth and civilisation. We will write a custom essay sample on Nuclear Weapons Persuasive Essay or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page † He spoke nothing but the truth. US President Reagan was a nuclear abolitionist. He believed that the only reason to have nuclear weaponry was to prevent the Soviet Union from using theirs. Between them alone the United States and Russia have more than 90% of the world’s nuclear weapons. Why do these countries feel the need to posses so many nuclear warheads? Dominance, power and paranoia. Although some of their weapons may simply just be left over from the Cold War, this is not an excuse. They could have easily been destroyed by now. Countries like Russia and the United States crave power. In modern times the most important substance to guarantee power is weapons. Countries in possession of nuclear weapons use them to scare and intimidate other nations. One day this could backfire and the consequences would be deadly. Take North Korea and America. When Kim-Jong Un tried to invade South Korea, Barack Obama threatened them with an atomic bomb. As soon as that was done North Korea knew they had a major diplomatic issue and rescinded their threat. A major threat to world peace is the potential issue that certain smaller countries are likely to rebel against being manipulated and not having the ability to retaliate. To ensure that they avoid being bullied by bigger powers they may start to produce their own nuclear warheads. As previously stated, the reason two superpowers like Russia and the United States maintain a significant arsenal of nuclear weaponry is down to the fact that frankly, they are paranoid. If you can stockpile most of the nuclear warheads in the world then surely nobody could ever harm your country. This is certainly not the case. By having so many dangerous weapons you are not only a bigger threat to potential enemies but practically there is the additional threat that Terrorists could pose if they ever managed to secure or steal some of these weapons. Morally we should also be questioning the validity of nuclear weapons, if the leaders of a country say that it is ok to use an extreme sanction like nuclear weapons to threaten enemies then what’s to say that civilians do not do the same thing on a smaller scale? In the beginning of the atomic age atom bombs were created to end the war and to save numerous lives. By this I mean that arguably, multitudinous lives were saved due to the fact that when the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima the Japanese virtually surrendered straight away. If they hadn’t surrendered the war possibly would have gone on for a lot longer. In contrast to this, look at what has become of nuclear weapons now. Instead of saving lives, atomic bombs are now kept with the intention of unnecessary mass murder. What makes the monsters that enforce the use of nuclear weaponry any different from Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot or Joseph Stalin? Even though the atomic bombs are not in use at this moment, anyone or any government in possession of these weapons have the intention to inflict large amounts of pain on vast number of people. Rajiv Gandhi said that the â€Å"nuclear war will not mean the death of one hundred million people. Or even a thousand million. It will mean the extinction of four thousand million: the end of life as we know it on planet earth. † The prospect of a nuclear war is just a horrendous thought, a thought that should never cross our minds. Recently, President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev signed a treaty saying that both countries are willing to reduce their amount of nuclear weapons by one third. It is comforting to see that the US and Russia are starting to destroy their atomic bombs but it is not good enough. They need to stop reducing their arsenal of weapons and eliminate them completely. Opponents of this idea claim that owning arnaments like atomic bombs mutually assures governments that they both have the potential for ultimate destruction. But is that really a good or virtuous thing? People who appear to be psychopaths run a number of countries. For instance take the ruler of Zimbabwe: Robert Mugabe. He is at the potentially senile age of 89. His mind is failing. Can you begin to comprehend what would happen if he got his hands on an atomic bomb? The result would be anarchy. Or take the ruler of Syria, President Assad. He has already murdered masses of people by chemical gas attack and has publicly stated that he would destroy the state of Israel. For rulers like these men to possess weapons with such a huge destructive potential is a simply ludicrous thought. If some unhinged individual were to drop an atomic bomb now it would result in retaliation and possibly the biggest global catastrophe this planet has ever seen. We need to think about the consequences. It is a statement of fact that the more of something being produced the easier it is to acquire. Yes, this can concern nuclear weapons also. When more nuclear warheads are being manufactured there is a bigger chance of them being stolen or worse being detonated. Therefore, there is a much larger risk of them falling into the wrong hands. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, there have been 18 cases of loss but most likely theft of uranium and plutonium. These elements are key when constructing a bomb. To make matters worse, there have been 11 whole nuclear bombs lost in the United States. They have never been recovered. If agencies and governments are finding it hard to keep track of their materials now, think of how impossible it would be if every country had their own arsenal of nuclear weapons? If these lost bombs are in the hands of terrorists at present I can guarantee that they will currently be considering how best to use them to maximise their effect. To conclude, the fact is that if every country were to have the right to possess nuclear weapons we would all be living in constant fear of attack. Our lives would be very different; we would be insecure with regards to our safety and this would impact greatly on how we lived our lives – we would need to be significantly more vigilant. A small example of this is the potential effect that liquid explosives has on air travel where we can’t take any fluids that are more than 100ml into an airport. That is just for liquid explosives, what limits would be required to ensure nuclear components weren’t being smuggled? If one country were to drop a bomb it would set off a chain reaction, all it would take is for one rogue state or organisation to detonate a bomb and the world would effectively end through nuclear Armageddon.