The Mississippi Bubble, that took place in France in 1717, has been compared to the subprime crisis that began in 2006 in the United States. The similarities between the two crises were not actually noticed until after the subprime crisis had begun. The similarities are present in the development, policy responses, and the roles that each government played. Could these two crises that occurred more than 300 years apart be so similar that with a proper analysis of the Mississippi Bubble have helped in any way with the subprime crisis? It is said that history repeats itself, so did the economic crises from 1717 reoccur in 2006?
Before being able to denote the similarities a thorough understanding of the two must exist. The Mississippi Bubble The Mississippi Bubble was a direct result of a scheme to make the French colonies in America and Canada look wealthier than they actually were between the years of 1717 and the end of 1720. The bubble was originated by the Mississippi Company, a French trading company, which was developed by John Law. Law’s company was developed in 1717 and quickly became a monopoly on trade rights with these colonies (Your Dictionary, no date).
The Mississippi Company held trading privileges to the French territories along the Mississippi River for twenty-five years (Jon Moen, 2001). Terms for this deal included that the company was required to have 6,000 French residents and 3,000 slaves settle in the area (Sandrock no date). Law’s company was permitted to appoint its own governor and officers in the colonies as well as grant land to potential developers of their choice (Moen). In addition to this, the company was also permitted to hold a monopoly on the growing and selling of tobacco (Sandrock).
The company was originally funded by the selling of shares in the company for cash and state bonds at low interest rates (Moen). These bonds are what mattered most to Law. Eventually the Mississippi Company began to take over all of trade with France, first with tobacco trade with Africa and then trading with China and East Indies (Moen). This was all in scheme with the Banque Royale, the first central bank in France. The company then began involvement further with the French government by purchasing rights to print new coins and then the right to collect taxes in France (Moen).
At the end of 1718, Law was made the Controller General of Finances after the company was made royal institution because stockholders were bought out by Duc d’Orleans (Sandrock). By 1719, Law had developed a way for his company to become the holder of the French national debt, which then became a primary source of income for the company. To make this work, potions of the country’s debt was exchanged for shares in the company. The repackaging of this debt became appealing to investors, considering many wanted to be involved in the Mississippi Company.
The man behind all of this was John Law. He was a man of many trades, including gambling and murder. Law did however hold a strong background in banking and financial practices (Sandrock). He began getting involved in the industry at age 14. Law was not only the director and creator of the French central bank, but due to his company’s control of French trade and the monopoly held with the French colonies, was one of the most powerful men in France. Despite the trouble caused by Law with the Mississippi Bubble, he did help France make the transition from coined to paper money.
In 1715, France was the most powerful country in Europe but was on the verge of bankruptcy (Sandrock). France held a high level of national debt due to their involvement in many wars. Unlike other powerful countries, The French lacked a central bank that could stabilize their financial system. Law quickly took advantage of this and opened Banque Generale which later became Banque Royale (Sandrock). The paperbacked money that was issued became a legal tender (Moen). These paper banknotes being a legal form of tender meant that they could be used to pay taxes and repay debt (Moen).
The banking system was very successful in the regulation of this paper-backed currency. When the Mississippi Company was first created the shares available sold for 150 livres but quickly rose and by January of 1720 shares sold for over 18,000 (Sandrock). The livre was the currency at the time in France it was worth 4. 5 grams of silver in comparison to the US dollar that would be worth 24 grams. To invest at this time, one only needed to invest ten percent of the stock price and the rest could be put on credit (Sandrock).
As the value of these shares increased, investors from not only France but all over Europe became involved in this market (Moen). Despite the eventual burst of the bubble, people did get rich off of John Law’s Louisiana Territory scheme. The terms to begin investing were lenient, and to purchase shares it was only required to have a ten percent down payment (Sandrock). The market was so appealing that even the working class began investing any amount that they could into the company, in turn creating a new class of millionaires (Moen).
One example of this, according to the article published by John Sandrock, that a beggar invested his entire life savings and made 70 million livres. In 1719, as the debt repackaging was taken place, the French government continued to allow the printing of paperbacked money. This contributed to the one of the biggest weaknesses in Law’s efforts, which was that Law continued to print paperbacked money to fund the investments into the company. This resulted in the money supply almost doubling (Moen). June 1720 there were 2,696,000,000 in circulation (Sandrock).
This large supply of paper money resulted in a rise of the inflation rate because these notes outnumbered the amount of coins and gold that were supposed to back them. According to the article by Jon Moen, in January of 1720 the inflation rate for that month reached 23 percent. In May of 1720 bank runs began to occur on Banque Royale. The paperbacked currency in France at this time had less than half the value of the coin-based currency. During this time Law began to reduce the value of the shares in Mississippi Company (Moen).
In September of 1720 the value of the shares was at 2000 livre and a year later was valued at 500 livres (Moen). The Mississippi Company was eventually taken over by outside parties by taking over shares that were not actually purchased (shares that were purchased on credit), this taking of shares in turn reduced the number outstanding by two-thirds (Moen). This rapid decrease and confiscation of shares resulted in many of these newly made millionaires being left empty handed and financially destroyed, like France (Moen).
John Law’s original idea was to create a national bank, Banque Royale, which would be in control of national finance and create a state company, the Mississippi Company, which would be for commerce and exclude the private banks in France (Sandrock). These would then create a monopoly of trade and finance, which they succeeded at. The goal was to use the profits from these to pay off the national debt, which during the 1700s was at three billion livres (Sandrock). The Mississippi Company and John Law’s scheme was, in my opinion not intended to create a bubble that would eventually burst and eave France and many other European countries in economic turmoil. Law believed that the main purpose set forth for the government was to increase the wealth of its nation, and believed the way to do this was to increase the amount of currency that circulated throughout the country (Sandrock). As seen, this is what he attempted to do, it just happened to fail. Despite the financial devastation, Law did help straighten out the taxation and financial systems of France (Moen). The view that John Sandrock takes is that John
Introduction To Vaccines And Antibiotics
“When Smallpox spread, epidemics were everywhere and killed millions of people. “After getting the disease once, survivors were immune for the rest of their lives. This led to the practice of variolation—deliberately infecting a person with smallpox. Dried smallpox scabs were ground up and blown into the nose of an individual. The person would get a mild form of the disease and, if they survived, would be immune for the rest of their lives. “In 1796, Edward Jenner noticed that milkmaids who developed a less serious disease, cowpox, never developed the deadly smallpox disease.
He performed an experiment, taking fluid from the cowpox disease and using it to infect an 8 year old boy. Six weeks later, Jenner exposed the child to smallpox, but the boy did not develop the disease. The first vaccination was discovered. ” What is a Vaccine? A vaccine is prepared from the virus or its products, and made to act as an antigen without inducing the disease. When the vaccine is given, the body’s immune system detects this germ and reacts as it would if the person were infected. It makes antibodies against the vaccine material, which will remain in the body and attack if an actual infectious organism enters the body.
Vaccine Effectiveness: “So, do vaccines really work? The answer is yes. The poster boy for this question is our first example: smallpox. In 1967, the WHO launched a worldwide effort to eradicate smallpox. They started the idea of mass vaccination. The last case of smallpox reported was in 1977 in Somalia. **next slide** This is a list of some of the vaccinations, showing the incidence of the disease before and after the vaccines were produced. Despite the health benefits vaccines may have, some argue that vaccines should not be mandatory. The life vs. liberty debate.
Liberty was one of the founding principles of America. All citizens should have the right to make their own health care choices. Another one of the areas of debate involves health issues: People will still get vaccinations if they aren’t mandatory. The idea of herd immunity states that as long as most of the population is vaccinated, the disease will be contained. Another one of the major health issues in this debate involves the link between Autism and Vaccines. It’s possible that vaccines could trigger brain inflammation, leading to Autism. History points to a correlation between vaccines and autism.
By 1983, all MMR II vaccines included Thimerosal- a mercury containing preservative. 7 years later, the prevalence of Autism increased from . 045% to . 2%. When two doses of MMR II were recommended, there was also a spike in the incidence of autism. The rebuttal to this side of the debate involves the following arguments: First, from a Utilitarianist standpoint, it’s better to save the lives of the many than to save the liberties of the few. Also, if enough people decide to skip out on vaccinations, herd immunity would no longer apply and the effects on health could be disastrous.
In the Autism debate, it’s important to remember that correlation doesn’t mean causation. Also, Thimerosal was almost completely eliminated from vaccines in 2000, yet the prevalence of Autism still continues to increase. Antibiotics: “Antibiotics, also known as anti-bacterials, are drugs used to treat infections caused by bacteria. They work one of two ways. Bactericidal interferes with the bacterium’s cell wall formation, while a bacteriostatic antibiotic stops bacteria from multiplying. “Penicillin is considered to be the first antibiotic, discovered in 1928 by Alexander Fleming. ”
“The Necklace” A Closer Look At The Characters Character Analysis
Characters in a story can be classified as “dynamic” or “static”. Dynamic characters are characters that change as the story progresses. That is, they recognize, change with, or adjust to circumstances. Static characters, which can also be described as “flat”, are characters that are not well developed and remain fairly unchanged throughout the story. Usually static characters have minor roles in a story. In any literary work, it is absolutely essential to have characters, whether major or minor. It is also necessary to develop these characters through out the story.
Character development gives the reader insight to the more important meanings or lessons of the story. “A characteristic of `The Necklace’ is its extreme brevity: it is nine pages long. But this is not because all so-called extraneous details have been ruthlessly pared away. For the story is not as straightforward as it seems. The story-teller in `The Necklace’ is a ludic narrator, sometimes mischievously misleading his reader, and sometimes building suspense by indulgence in personal digression”. (Adamson) lessons are usually brought out by the events that take place within the story.
Looking at Guy De Maupassant’s piece “The Necklace”, we see a very clear development of the main and dynamic character is Mathidle. In the story, we see a change in her attitude about life. This change come about when she has to learn one of life’s little lessons the hard way. She and her husband are forced to live a life of hard work and struggle because of her own selfish desires. Mathilde changes from a woman who spends her time dreaming of all the riches and glory she doesn’t have, to realizing that she over looked all the riches she did have.
The story opens with the description of how miserable Mathilde is. Maupassant describes her as “suffering constantly, feeling herself destined for all delicacies and luxuries. ” (Roberts 4) She sits dreaming of silent rooms nicely decorated and her own private room, scented with perfume to have intimate “tete-a-tetes” with her closest friends. Then she is awakened from her own daze, only to realize that she is in her own grim apartment. In her eyes, she lives a tortured and unfair?life. Mathidle has a husband named Losiel. He is much the opposite of his wife.
He is completely content with his lifestyle. He seems to be a very passive person, who doesn’t let status or riches effect him. Yes, M. Loisel appreciates the little things. He also seems devoted to his wife. Of course, if he had the chance to be rich he would, but he doesn’t dwell on the fact that he is part of the middle class. He seems to be a hard worker and does his best to provide for his wife. He demonstrates is simplicity the one night at dinner Losiel and Mathilde sit down to eat. Mathidle is dreaming of fancy four course meals, while he is ecstatic because they are eating boiled beef.
Losiel is aware that his wife has not yet adjusted to her status. One night, he had come home from work very excited. He had worked extra hard to get he and his wife invited to one of the biggest parties ever. Losiel thought this would be please his wife, when in fact it only made her upset. Here was Losiel trying to please his wife and she just started to cry. This just goes to show how ungrateful she really is. When Losiel had inquired about why she was upset, she had said it was because she had nothing to wear.
She was hinting to her husband that she needed a dress. Then Losiel, because he wanted his wife to be happy had willingly given up his vacation money so his wife could have a dress to wear. Still, that wasn’t good enough for her. Mathilde wanted more. Luckily, Mathilde had a friend in the upper class. Mme Jeanne Forestier is the rich friend: the person you turn to when you need something absolutely fabulous to wear and someone who has everything Mathilde would love to have. Mathilde had gone to her friend and had asked to borrow jewelry for the occasion.
This just helped to prove her need to have more. When she arrived at her friends house she had many things to choose from. Mathilde had seen all kinds of things that delighted her but one thing in particular had caught her eye. “In a black satin box, a superb diamond necklace, and her heart throbbed with desire for it. Her hands shook as she picked it up. She fastened it around her neck, watched it gleam at her?throat and looked at herself ecstatically. ” ( Roberts 6) She had gotten all she?wanted. Once again, Mathilde’s selfish desires had been fulfilled.
After going to the ball and basically being the “life of the party”, she returned home to her drab apartment, only to remember the events of the evening where she was in the spotlight and people looked at her. It was at that moment that she had noticed that the necklace was missing. She and her husband had searched everywhere for it yet, the necklace was no where to be found. For the next ten years Loisel and Mathilde worked their fingers to the bone to repay Mathi lde’s friend for the necklace that Mathilde had carelessly lost. They had to ove to a different apartment, this worse than the last. They also had to borrow money from the various people to pay some of the finance charges they had acquired from owing loan sharks. “Another trait Mathilde owns is being dependent. I believe she is very dependent on her husband. She always expects him to please her or buy the items she wants. An example of this would be when she loses the necklace he is the one who spends his inheritance to pay back for her mistakes”. (Adamson) It was in this time, that Mathilde had began to change.
Physically, “she had become the strong, hard , rude, woman of poor households. ” ( Roberts 9) But also there was a change on the inside , too . Sometimes she still sat and thought about her moment of glory and then thought about what her life would have been like if she would have never lost the necklace. She realized that her selfishness and desire to be “on top” had caused her to experience the major down fall that she did. She also realized that she was at rock bottom now, her and her husband both, and she had put them there.
She had become the person she absolutely did not want to be. Her life was worse than it had been before, and only because she was being selfish and unthankful. Losiel in this time really didn’t change. He just did what had to be done in order to pay for his wife’s mistake. I don’t think he complained about it either. He saw that she was working hard to correct her mistake and indeed was learning from it. Once again, Losiel was demonstrating his passiveness. Maupassant uses Mathilde as a round character. She is the one who changes or evolves with the events of the story.
She learns that “one should be content with what one has” and ” it’s ok to dream, but not to let your dreams keep you from seeing reality. ” Losiel then, is a flat character. He remains the same or is constant. With all the commotion in the story, Losiel manages to keep the same character traits. His life is effected yet, he’s still the same person. Another example of a flat character is Mrs. Forriester. Even though her necklace is lost, it really doesn’t have an impact on her character. She too, remains constant. Mathilde dreams of unattainable wealth and comfort yet, fails to see that her dream life ends up harming her real life.
Maupassant does and excellent job of showing the transformation of Mathilde’s character from a person who is selfish and ungrateful to a person who realizes that her mistakes and pays for it the rest of her life. Even though the story is fiction, Maupassant has made it believable and lifelike. These traits are what made “The Necklace” so understanding. If it weren’t for Mathilde’s actions and traits the moral of the story would have never been learned. Someone reading this story could benefit greatly from it. all must deal with selfishness at some point in our lives. Why not learn from other peoples mistakes , fiction or not.