Last updated on January 27, 2013
Wow, it feels like forever since I wrote one of these. Here we go, Monday Update stuff.
Well, first, sad new to report: Game Music Saturdays is officially being retired. For one, I’m not a very good music journalist; I end up talking more about the game itself than I do the music. Two, nobody seems to be reading them. A new series, then, will launch on Saturdays – it’s a surprise, so stay tuned on that front.
Now we get on to Monday Update (which is not retiring).
Arbitrage – A pretty fine film overall! Or a term I don’t really understand that well!
In economics and finance, arbitrage (pron.: /ˈɑrbɨtrɑːʒ/) is the practice of taking advantage of a price difference between two or more markets: striking a combination of matching deals that capitalize upon the imbalance, the profit being the difference between the market prices. When used by academics, an arbitrage is a transaction that involves no negative cash flow at any probabilistic or temporal state and a positive cash flow in at least one state; in simple terms, it is the possibility of a risk-free profit at zero cost.
More words down below!
Ok, so I don’t like Richard Gere. Really, I don’t. He never struck me as a particularly good actor; he has one note, and that one note is called “charm”, whatever the heck that means. He plays the same smarmy guy in just about every film he’s ever played a role. Honestly, does anyone disagree with this?
So, as a piece of casting for a movie about an amoral finance CEO trying to simulatenously close a corporate takeover after “cooking the books” and covering his affair/manslaughter at the same time…it’s very, very weird. I like that he’s finally cast against type here. But does it work? Well, the problem is…he’s charming yet again, except you’re not supposed to like Richard Gere here. I’ve seen many critics says things like “He plays a man who remains utterly evil throughout” and “There’s pain teeming right underneath the surface”. My take: Richard Gere plays Richard Gere in a role not at all designed for Richard Gere.
Hence, why it works. The movie makes him a convincing protagonist without using swelling music or “Insert evil music chord here”, and you find yourself waiting with bated breath to see whether he’ll actually make everything work out in the end. There’s just a cold, low droning beat through the whole film that never makes a judgement call or tells you how to feel. Rather, things happen, and you watch. I’m thinking this is why critics seem to love the film, and think Richard Gere’s actually a good actor (I kid; I’m just not a fan of the guy).
I watched it on an airplane, so perhaps it was censored up the wazoo (clearly, that man was not saying “you idiot!”), but for an R-rated film I found it rather tame. I imagine there is much more in the original version.
Would I recommend it? If you like this sort of “Wall Street thriller” style, than yes; it’s more intellectual than your typical genre tropes-filled action film. Still, I’m not THAT enamored with it; it does its job, and it does it well, without frills and without much of anything to say. I wouldn’t even call it a character study so much as “things that happen”.
The Servile State – Who knows why I read books dealing with such pressing issues on a cruise; then again, serious issues is my forte, so to speak.
Hilaire Belloc’s book deals with what he calls the “Servile State” – a government literally founded on the institution of slavery. He believes that this is where humanity founded their economic systems. However, Christianity eventually led cultures away from this form of government due to the fraternity and equality of all men (and women, if not in practice). When the Church ruled over the Medieval Age, government moved to a system called distributism. Think serfdom and feudalism; Belloc, however, puts quite a positive spin on the subject, unlike what you’ve read in your history books. Distributism intends an extension of private property and the means of production (that is, capital) to as many persons as possible.
In those times, serfs and peasants actually owned MORE of the overall economy than we do now in the modern State. Rulers were not harsh, for they knew they lived under God and God’s commands as well as the Pope; to abuse was to suffer wrath. Feudal lords, then, would parcel out their land and leave the serfs to their own devices. People in those days, contrary to the popular conception, actually worked only eight hours a day at maximum. Many owned lots of luxury goods, and had plenty of time to indulge in fine food and drink. Factor in all the various holidays (Sundays off, obviously!) and saint’s feats, and they had a third of a year off. Sounds pretty nice, I’m sure! Medieval peasants made about double what people in third world countries make today on average – that’s a pretty big feat! Crafting guilds, our equivalent of “unions”, ensured proper pay and also prevented abuses by the lords as well. Clearly, there were many factors that prevented abuse because of the universal distribution (hence the name of said economic system in our time). Science, as well, developed throughout the time period due to the founding of universities; this led to further refining of the system, and increased education all around, at least of some class (whereas before…no one was educated in much of anything). When you have everyone under a unified ideology, people tend to work towards that goal with ease.
However, once the Protestant Reformation rolled around, this was used as an excuse to remove power from the Church and put it towards the people. Kings used this arbitrarily to remove funding from monasteries and churches, or to kick the Church out entirely. Capitalism made its grand debut, and created a “dog-eat-dog” atmosphere. Companies gathered all the means of production and forced the rest of the population to serve their whims. Belloc, obviously, laments the Industrial Revolution for ruining what he saw as a Christian system, even if it wasn’t perfect. Capitalism heralds a return to the Servile State; any attempts to reform it, contrary to our ideas, will lead to the return of slavery, to work under contractual obligation under law. Positive law dictates, in a way, that one person will work for another, and thus slavery returns in a modified form. This might seem to be the same inDistributism, but it wasn’t understood that you worked for the feudal lord; rather, he granted you property to use. You worked it to live. That’s far different that a contract; it’s not as if the lord could take the land from you on a whim. The law punishes you for trying to get out of something before its contract expires.
It’s interesting that he sees the minimum wage as a result of this Servile State. Rather than demand equal work for equal pay, a minimum wage (and unemployment benefits) show less a desire for high pay, and more a need to trade one’s true value for safety and security. One would rather be a slave than see the possibility of unemployment. So it is that capitalism forces servitude upon the lot of those not in possession of society’s goods (as I guess America shows, in a way). As Mr. Belloc says:
Such schemes definitely divide citizens into two classes,the Capitalist and the Proletarian. They make it impossible for the second to combat the privileged position of the first. They introduce into the positive laws of the community a recognition of social facts which already divide Englishmen into two groups of economically more free and economically less free, and they stamp with the authority of the State a new constitution of society. Society is recognized as no longer consisting of free men bargaining freely for their labor or any other commodity in their possession, but of two contrasting status, owners and non- owners. The first must not be allowed to leave the second without subsistence ; the second must not be allowed to obtain that grip upon the means of production which is the privilege of the first. It is true that this first experiment is small in degree and tentative in quality ; but to judge the movement as a general whole we must not only consider the expression it has actually received so far in positive law, but the mood of our time.
Considering he wrote the book in 1912, I find this book an interesting historical examination, and quite relevant to our current time period. Belloc also predicted the rise of Islam as a threat to the Western world; the guy’s got a penchant for being oddly prescient, I’ve got to say. I’m not sure if I see everything he wrote in the book happening right now, but it’s definitely a very interesting look at economics. Possibly, this could happen in the future; better to keep your guard up, eh?
———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–
That’s it for Monday Update. Stay tuned tomorrow! For things!
