Why Ferrari’s Are Expensive? Essay

Why Ferrari’s Are Expensive? Essay.

1) First of all, Ferraris are beautiful cars and luxurious which not many people cannot afford to buy them. On the eyes of economics the market system that governs our country which is capitalist gives many incentives for companies and for the buyers to best use their money. The first essential need for prices of Ferraris or any other type of property to go high or be worth more than what it really is, depends on how many people are willing of people to want those things.

Consequently, the system works as on how many people want to have a Ferrari as their personal property which regulates the market system. Second, in capitalist economy there is freedom of enterprise and choice, which gives entrepreneurs and private business the right to produce their choices of goods and services and to sell them in their chosen markets. Third, is the self-interest of individual’s is a motivating force to want to drive a Ferrari.

Fourth is the competition between buyers and sellers regarding what are the best prices the sellers could offer, and the amount of money the buyer is willing to pay.

In addition, Ferrari’s cost so much in America because it is an international product, it is not produced within American’s sources. Also, According to an Ferrari specialist: Ferraris costs so much because of “high quality leather, detailed stitching on the interior, high tech materials such as the super lightweight and super strong carbon fiber for better strength and weight reduction, cutting edge technologies like the paddle shift, dual clutch, F1 traction control, suspension set, overall for better performance but also comfort at the same time. The paint of a Ferrari is high quality and it can recover when it got a light scratch. Ferraris are hand built (although there is some machinery works that human cannot do), they’re crafted with patience and big attention to details. The workers are professional workers too.

Some short production models like the 599 GTO, Enzo, 250 GTO, 288 GTO, SA.” Overall, Ferraris are made in very small amount of quantity, meaning it’s very exclusive and all those money that they spent for the development of the car are paid off with high price because they only sell it in small amount. The price of those cars can also go up in the future. Another point is that when sales going up, or when sales maintain their same percentage, demand simultaneously up or maintained by consumers as well, therefore the quantity of Ferraris are high and been sold, as a result to this process the prices go up as well. Ferrari’s specialist also stated that “The 250 GTO is a very classic car and now it’s the most expensive Ferrari in the world by record. So it’s also a good investment.”

2) First of all, this would not happen in a capitalist society, because the government does not own all private properties and businesses. On the other hand, if our command system was communist, which the government owns pretty much everything, consequently Ferraris would not cost much because there would be no self- interest, competition and so forth from companies or form buyers. However, if there were free Ferraris on the parking lot of a dealership, they would be gone within a second, everybody including the people who work at the dealership would be taking one or more than one for them and their relatives. But, on economics eyes, when there is no price for things, the consumer (the people) will get all Ferraris, meaning there will be not enough supply to produce all needed Ferraris, and as the demand increases, therefore would be no more Ferraris to be sold or donated, consequently there will be no valid market price or the prices would fall resulting no production, no sale, no consume.

3) In my opinion, there is no fairest way to distribute them for both Ferrari and those that want them, because of the fact that when products are free, the demand supersedes the quantity of supplies, therefore would be no fair to of distribution, or the only why of distribution would be a type of auction. However, there can be found a fair price for all products we have in our society, it would start as the price average of thing, this would influence the relative value of the product compared with other goods and services.

Second, would be the demand and supply of goods and services determine what is produced and sold. Third, the customers’ income is an important factor, because it depends on the income of that community, city, or any place and their income influences what customers can afford. Also, the number of customers, the amount that people earn, their wealth, and the relative prices of products determine who can afford to buy different goods and services in that specific area. In addition, the status of the demand, and also the quality of the supplies resources will determine a combination of factor that will make a fair price of the product.

4) First of all, a price ceiling is a government-imposed limit on the price charged for a product. Second, the market price is at which the supply of an item equals the quantity demanded. According to the question when the incentive created by the government when a price ceiling is imposed and it is higher than the market equilibrium price, the price ceiling has no impact on the economy. But, when the government imposes free products such as in this case “Free Ferraris,” it is regulated by a communist government. Consequently the entrepreneurs will not take the risk to invest any type of money in the Ferraris, because certainly they will not make any profit from it. And there will be no competition among buyers and among sellers, because that is what makes the price to the equilibrium price. Therefore, any below price of the Ferraris would create a shortage; the quantity demanded would exceed quantity supplied, which is an excess demand.

Why Ferrari’s Are Expensive? Essay

Capitalism Essay

Capitalism Essay.

A society is capitalist if most production is carried on by employees working with means of production (equipment and materials) belonging to their employer, producing commodities which belong to the employer. (Employees: those whose services are treated as commodities. ‘Labour is a commodity like any other’, ‘an article of trade’ – Edmund Burke, Thoughts on Scarcity, 1795.

Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for a private profit; decisions regarding supply, demand, price, distribution, and investments are made by private actors in the free market; profit is distributed to owners who invest in businesses, and wages are paid to workers employed by businesses and companies.

This is what we mean by the system of Capitalism. Thinking about Capitalism, one directly is taken to the period of Marx and Engels where a distinction between Capitalist and Labour class was firstly and soundly made.

Until then a capitalist continued to dominate the class hierarchy. Simple words suggest that a capitalist is a person in whose hands the entire power to production and the decision regarding the consumption vests.

For ages capitalist class ruled the large part of the society. Even today, in several fields capitalists dominate other classes. Capitalism, as a deliberate economic system, developed incrementally from the 16th century in Europe, although proto-capitalist organizations existed in the ancient world, and early aspects of merchant capitalism flourished during the Late Middle Ages.

Capitalism became dominant in the Western world following the demise of feudalism. Capitalism gradually spread throughout Europe, and in the 19th and 20th centuries, it provided the main means of industrialization throughout much of the world. Today the capitalist system is the world’s most dominant form of economic model. The term capitalist refers to an owner of capital rather than an economic system, but shows earlier recorded use than the term capitalism, dating back to the mid-seventeenth century.

The Hollandische Mercurius uses it in 1633 and 1654 to refer to owners of capital. In French, Etienne Clavier referred to capitalistes in 1788, six years before its first recorded English usage by Arthur Young in his work Travels in France (1792). David Ricardo, in his Principles of Political Economy and Taxation (1817), referred to “the capitalist” many times. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, the great scholars of 18th century have continuously used the term ‘Bourgeois’ while talking about capitalist class.

They raised points concerning the exploitation of Proletariats by the Bourgeois and asked the proletariats to fight for their rights. The Communist manifesto given by these scholars shows the distinction they have made between the two classes and the domination of powerful capitalist class in the society. Marx on Capitalism; How explain the possibility of Capitalism? Capital is money used to make money – by buying commodities which are then to be sold to get an increased amount of money. How can money be used in this way?

One answer is: by buying cheap and selling dear as prices fluctuate. This may explain how this or that individual makes money for a while, but since every gain made this way is someone else’s loss, if those who gain that way now have an even chance of losing later, then it cannot explain the existence of a definite class of people who regularly make money. The explanation for the existence of such a class (capitalists) is that a limited set of people are in a position to buy a commodity which regularly yields an increase when they sell.

This commodity is the service of the worker, which may produce commodities which exceed that service in exchange value (and only when when it does will the worker’s services be bought). The service of a worker is a commodity which has the special use of producing other commodities, which may have more exchange value than it has itself. There are other commodities (e. g. machines) which produce commodities, but (on the labour theory of value, which makes human labour the sole source of value) the exchange value contributed by a machine is simply a fraction of the cost in labour terms of making and working the machine.

If over its whole working life it costs $3,000 and produces 3000 items, then it adds $1 to the value of each item. But the amount of labour a worker puts into what he produces over a lifetime may exceed the amount of labour needed to produce and maintain that worker. If some employer buys the worker’s services at their value – i. e. for the equivalent of the labour needed to produce the worker – then, since the worker’s product belongs to the employer, there will be an excess or ‘surplus’ value, additional to the value of the wage, that the employer appropriates.

Marx does not think that in the real world full value is always paid. But he conducts his argument on the hypothesis that full value is paid, for several reasons. First, he wants to make it clear that his analysis of capitalism does not rest on the assumptions that capitalists defraud the worker. Even if there were no cheating, capitalism could still exist. Second, he wants to show that even an idealized capitalism would be doomed to destruction (the argumentative strategy of proving the point for the hardest case: a fortiori it holds for other cases).

Third, he wants to make it clear that it is in production itself, and not merely in the distribution of the product, that the capitalists’ profits originate; it is not accidental that most (though not all) capitals are used to finance production (not, e. g. , for buying non-human commodities and selling them unmodified). To argue that capitalism is a system of inequality and class conflict, Marx takes as his point of departure the idea that the dominant class, the bourgeoisie, controls capital, property, the means of production, and hence by extension all those (far more numerous than the bourgeoisie) who make up the laboring class (i. . , labor).

Indeed, Marx sees an equivalence between capital, property, and the means of production, which are all concentrated in the bourgeoisie. More than this, Marx analyzes bourgeois power as aligned with fundamental forms of social organization and oppression: “Hitherto, every form of society has been based . . . on the antagonism of oppressing and oppressed classes. . . . Society can no longer live under this bourgeoisie . . . its existence is no longer compatible with society” (Marx, 2002, p. 209). Just as Marx links class power to political power, he links political power to industrial-economic power over the laboring classes.

The bourgeoisie’s ability to control industry and economy had as its consequence bourgeois control of the political system. This dominance, according to Marx’s logic, implies oppression of the majority of persons in society because capital will always seek to maximize its benefit. Marx’s solution: revolution and dictatorship of labor, which Marx terms the proletariat. He does not deal with the result of such a dictatorship and seems to simply assume that the proletariat will exercise its own power in a just way.

Capitalism and India; my viewpoint! (Socio-Economic) I am totally tuned in to the incentives, rewards, labour and profit motives of capitalism. It is not perfect. But it is historically absurd to deny that price and profit signals under capitalism have done a far better job of allocating scarce resources and sustaining long periods of economic growth than any other alternative. Communism proved itself to be a disaster wherever and in whatever name practiced. Remember the USSR? East Germany? Bulgaria? Romania? Albania?

And the devastation of Cuba under Fidel Castro that his ageing brother Raul cannot fix? Socialism, too, has had its innings in the west as well as in the east, and failed. State-sponsored capitalism — once the hot East-Asian model — saw too much of the state, and relatively less of private capital, resulting in overarching ambitions, needlessly grandiose projects and poor long-term returns. Go to Dubai and see for yourself. And the mixed economy with the state occupying the ‘commanding heights’ meant one thing: too much of command with little or no height worth the name.

So, if you were to closely observe the dirty, disordered canvas of economic progress during the 20th and 21st century, you should conclude that, for all its warts, capitalism has been the winner. It has sometimes caused pain; suffered from serious cycles; and often needed the clout of the state — such as we have seen from September 2008. It has also been quite resistant to sensible regulation. Even so, the basic institutions of capitalism have worked, not just in the US and the OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and development) nations, but also many developing countries, of which India is one.

And worked better than alternative mechanisms. That brings me to India. As we move on to the second decade of the 21st century, here’s my core hypothesis: India is geared to have significantly more of capitalism than what we have had up to now. And the more the better. Let us begin with agriculture. Nowhere is there a more intensely capitalistic venture than farmers choosing the crops that they sow, water, weed, harvest and sell. Since the late 1960s, economists have run thousands of regressions called supply response functions, which quantitatively determine what best explains crop acreage and output over long periods.

What are the results? From the turn of the 20th century right up to now, crops were planted according to expected prices and/or profits — surrogated by the price signals of the previous few years. Of course, other variables mattered such as rainfall, irrigation and fertiliser use. But the driving force was profits. Capitalism, therefore, defines 17 per cent of India’s GDP, namely agriculture. Now to services, which accounts for 55 per cent of GDP. If you deduct the share of government services, there is still some 40 per cent of GDP, much of it in the private sector. This is huge. And many of the activities are driven largely by profits.

Whether it be mobile telephony, retail trade, restaurants, real estate, storage, hotels, road transport or finance, each service — big, medium, small or holes in the wall — rises, shrinks, falls, re-grows or disappears according to supply, demand, costs and pricing. Even earlier anti-market behemoths such as public sector banks and insurance companies have become more attuned to prices and profits than anyone could have imagined in the mid-1990s. Thus, 57 per cent of India’s GDP is tuned to capitalism. What about industry, which accounts for 28 per cent of GDP? Some two-thirds of it is purely private.

That is another 18 per cent approximately. Moreover, most public sector undertakings are more price-and-profit oriented than ever before. So, hello capitalism! It accounts for at least three-quarters of our GDP. It may be higher still. But 75 per cent will do for now. Contrary to what the CPI, CPI(M) and some ‘don’t confuse me with facts’ professors tell you, India is awash with capitalism. Like China, you turn any corner, and you will meet someone who wants to start some business or the other: a photocopying shop, an STD booth, a local agency for Dabur, Godrej or Hindustan Unilever, automobile spare parts — the list is endless.

The state must allow these millions of capitalists to thrive. By creating essential infrastructure such as roads and power; by fostering basic facilities for education and training; by encouraging entrepreneurship through clean governance; and by creating level playing fields. These are tough tasks, but if the state succeeds in some fair measure, you can be sure that India’s millions of capitalists will make 9 per cent GDP growth look silly. We have it in us. In spades.

Conclusion Over the centuries, capitalism and capitalist class has changed with time. It is worth adding that the impact of Capitalism on Society, economy, polity is huge. This has made it a multi-disciplinary subject of discussion. Domination of other classes of a society by a particular section of the society can never be justified and hence capitalism has been largely criticized by various scholars all over the world. The work of Marx on Capitalism is praiseworthy and is still followed today when issues regarding capitalism arise.

You may also be interested in the following: individualism in literature

Capitalism Essay

Comparison of Marx, Durkheim and Weber Essay

Comparison of Marx, Durkheim and Weber Essay.

Marx, Weber, Durkheim, introducing the godfathers of sociology. Three of the most influential theorists that are debated on and about till our present time. How have three very different individuals in history have maintained the template as we know it to understanding society, which has been over three centuries old? How is it that three different worlds and times in history, has had such familiarization not only for their respected times but a revelation to today’s systems and structures. Let us explore the minds and studies of the three men, and discover were they either Genius’ or foe? Summary:

The “Manifesto of the Communist Party” by Karl Mark was first written in 1848 in a time where rules on workers and working conditions where at minimum to none.

At the precipice of social and political turmoil in Germany, Mark writes “The history of hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle (Marx 2007: p.96).” Marx was elaborating on how things were and how things are going to be.

In the first parts of his essay he correlates the examples of ancient times, where man enslaves men for the sake of material gain or economic growth. From Politics, religion and history in of itself are structures based to suppress the worker and is what maintains the so called Class Struggle.

According to Marx, all aspects of theses systematic ways to which concentrates on the gain of material, economic growth or dominance, will continue the destructive pattern until the end of time or until resource runs out. A foresight into the future of what he called elite society’s feeding of the backs of feudalistic society’s. This was the battle of class struggle. The manifesto reflects if not cries for a declaration of political changes since society has been at war with absolutism and over privileged aristocrats since the French revolution. Marx focuses on a new enemy, Capitalism.

In marks view capitalism was the epicenter for the division of people into two literal classes. The Bourgeoisies (the capitalist) who owned the factory, mine, assembly line, and then there was the Worker. The worker would trade their cheap labor to the capitalist for a wage and the capitalist would give them (the worker) as little as possible that they could get away with. In Marx’s efforts of change, he tries to suggest the idea of communism, the end all – be all aspect that could put an end to oppression and abuse to the working conditions of the common man.

Emile Durkheim wrote his essay called “Division of Labor in Society” in 1893 which allowed an influence in advancing sociological thoughts and theories. Durkheim explains how the division of labor can benefit society due to its increase in the skill level of the workman, a creation of solidarity amongst people and an increase in the reproductive capacity. Durkheim elaborates on how it established the moral and social order within people and has a further concept on economic interests. Durkheim explains that there are two main kinds of social solidarity: one is being mechanical and the other being organic solidarity.

This means that society as a whole is organized and that people in a group share the same common beliefs. “The totality of beliefs and sentiments common to the average members of a society forms a determinate system with a life of its own (Durkheim 2007: p. 162).” The shared system that society binds together in on, is what he called the collective consciousness, this system allows each individual to bind together for one common goal or purpose. However, in organic solidarity society must be a system of functions that differ in functionality but unite by relationships.

For this to work each person has to have a distinct job and a personality that is independently their own. Individuals can grow as does society grows, making it more efficient as moving in sync but the moving parts are customary to one’s self. In organic solidarity societies are advanced and civil, the members of that society become more of an individual which starts distinguishing themselves from each other, developing the division of labor. Law is a major factor that Durkheim basis a lot off.

A sort of symbolism and order to social life two types of law can be observed. Repressive law (punishing the guilty) and Restitutive law (restoring correctives to the offender). Durkheim applied that more mechanical solidarity. Anomie is introduced as the deregulation that was occurring society. He sheds the light on how people were supposed to act with each other were breaking down and at a time didn’t know what to except from each other. Anomy literally translates” the state or condition of individuals or society characterized by a breakdown or absence of social norms and values (dictionary.com.)”.

Max Weber in 1922 writes “Bureaucracy”, where weber believed that structured organizations is a formal, rigid authoritative figure, whereas Weber was referring to the types of businesses that ran their organization like a family type, informal structure. He believed that those in a managerial position should be appointed due to their levels of professionalism and expertise.

“The principle of office hierarchy and of channels of appeal stipulate a clearly established system if super- and subordination in which there is a supervision of the lower offices by the higher ones (Weber 2007: p.265).” Weber explains in his writings that the old ways such as feudalism in his time should be done away with, and that society changes their structure to a more organization of hierarchical principle.

For example lower level subordinates follow the orders of the superiors but still have a chance to appeal unlike traditional authority to a more a wide spread structure. Weber had a level of rules that a organization would had to follow in order for it to work. The highest positions had to be experienced and professional, rules had to be set and written down in the form of a record to follow. The official has to be full time and makes a career out of his or her job. Administration would belong to the office and key point that weber makes is that they are appointed not elected, and for their work would receive wages; depending on the level of the level of their expertise or education.

As we compare each writer’s studies, there are some obvious notions and contradictory arguments at hand. For example the comparison of Weber and Marx is that Weber believed a stern clear chain of command that had leaders, duties, and subordinates to appoint and follow. He believed it was very necessary for the success of not only capitalism but society as a whole. In Marks case the powerful “bourgeoisie” (capitalist) was the enemy because of their hierarchy of power, they became corrupt and money hungry making the whole system flawed disregarding the humanity of people in that quest for all round dominance.

Marx belief was if anything more similar to Durkheim’s anomie theory, whereas the lacking of a sufficient system up rise in workers and the individual. Durkheim would see it as a necessity for a system to further its functioning as a whole. Contradictory to both, Weber argues that society is not driven by social conflict or of its uniqueness but solely society has actors and each actor has a certain role and part in a larger picture that translate into relationship for a larger picture like mechanism with many wheels to move for one purpose, forward.

You could even entertain the notion that Karl Mark and Emile Durkheim were positivists and Weber was not. Either way all still had their own genre of advancement for better understanding the complexity of society. Even if there suggestion and recommendation may differ, we can all agree that people, humans, mankind in its purity is still very complex and dynamic.

Application:

The article I’ve chosen is, on September 21, 2012 from the “guardian” say British, and other country officials in Beijing want to discuss the advancement plans for nuclear energy. The talks are positive to bump more nuclear plants around the world but continue to keep a low carbon footprint. Amid all the disasters and ugliness of nuclear waste that has been destroying the environment, corporate companies promise to find a renewable source of energy without destroying the earth. Marx in this case would say that this is only a humanization to capitalism and masks the true essence which is just profit, and will continue to disregard the oppression of the earth and will continue to fool people on the process waste will not hinder people until the people will be feed up of it and revolt.

Weber would say Bureaucracy takes place as it is known that big corporates try’s to maneuver around policy and government that this is an attempt to maximize profit through the process of power because laws have been cracking down on plants, so a professional stand point on the case will keep the law makers at bay to further continue the necessary energy needed by all people who use it.

Durkheim would agree that the solidarity of this issue would arise because of such an impact of waste people would never allow it and change of policy’s would have to be introduced and in order to keep loyal customers they have to acknowledge the values to protect the earth which will in the future advance technology and people. However, Weber’s theory would be the most persuasive in this topic, because of the scarcity of energy this is a necessary evil, to by any means necessary achieve affordable energy. No matter the costs.

Comparison of Marx, Durkheim and Weber Essay

Chapter 14 – Capitalism and the Economy Essay

Chapter 14 – Capitalism and the Economy Essay.

economic system in which property and goods are primarily owned privately; investments are determined by private decisions; and prices, production, and the distribution of goods are determined primarily by competition in an unfettered marketplace.
Capitalism

Chapter 14 – Capitalism and the Economy Essay

Ap English- the Jungle by Upton Sinclair Essay

Ap English- the Jungle by Upton Sinclair Essay.

The wedding between Jurgis and Ona is an epitome of the various problems in Packingtown. The way the saloon keeper took advantage of the couple is representative of the dishonesty and thievery from the surrounding society. The crowd stranded outside the wedding symbolizes the helpless and hungry inhabitants of Packingtown. When the newlyweds allowed these people into the wedding they quickly transformed into an “every man for themselves” perspective.

In retrospect, the disregard for others that thrived in the society by not providing a money donation to the bride and groom was prevalent.

The wedding demonstrates the struggle of Packingtown’s society as well as the future it forces upon its citizens. 2. Vivid Imagery: •“These bare places were grown up with dingy, yellow weeds, hiding innumerable tomato-cans, innumerable children played upon them, chasing one another here and there, screaming and fighting. ” This excerpt describes the area in which the children would play. Sinclair uses words like, “dingy” to emphasize the situation in which the kids grew up in.

“One wondered about this, as also about the swarms of flies which hung about the scene, literally blackening the air, and the strange, fetid odor which assailed one’s nostrils, a ghastly odor, of all the dead things of the universe. ” Here Sinclair depicts the horrible situations that people had to deal with when living in Packingtown. When Sinclair talks about the flies blackening the sky, the reader is able to make a mental image of how awful the conditions were. •“One with a swift stroke cut the throat; another with two swift strokes severed the head, which fell to the floor and vanished through a hole.

Another made a slit down the body; a second opened the body wider , a third with a saw cut the breast-bone; a fourth loosened the entrails; a fifth pulled them out — and they also slid through a hole in the floor. ” In this passage Sinclair gives the reader a grotesque image of the working areas in Packingtown. The crude images are very descriptive and add a sense of reality to the story. •“Little by little the scene grew plain: towering, black building here and there, long rows of shops and sheds, little railways branching everywhere, bare gray cinders under foot and oceans of billowing black smoke above. While describing the steel mill’s surroundings, Sinclair uses a metaphor to emphasize the environment around the building, “…oceans of billowing black smoke above. ” •“…deafening thunder, and whistles shrieked warnings on all sides of him at once; where miniature steam-engines came rushing upon him, and sizzling, quivering, white-hot masses of metal sped past him, and explosions of fire and flaming sparks dazzled him and scorched his face. ” When describing the inner parts of the steel mills, Sinclair uses sensory words to grab the reader’s attention.

Words like, “deafening”, “shrieked”, “sizzling”, “white-hot masses”, “dazzled” and “scorched,” add to the mental image portrayed when reading this passage. •“…by the stage, he saw the stage, he saw three giant caldrons, big enough for all the devils of hell to brew their broth in, full of something white and blinding, bubbling and splashing, roaring as if volcanoes were blowing through it—one had to shout to be heard in the place. ”In this selection the author uses very descriptive language to increase the impact of the scene. “The devils of hell to brew their broth,” this statement is very intense and strong.

It is showing the ways of the steel mill as a hell-like place. •“…there fell a pillar of white flame, dazzling as the sun, swishing like a huge tree in the forest. ” This example shows how the author is able to use similes to validate the image. With his descriptive words the reader is able to picture the situation clearly. •“ Out of regions of wonder it streamed, the very river of life; and the soul leaped up at the sight of it, fled back upon it, swift and restless, back into far-off lands, where beauty and terror dwell. ” This passage is very dramatic.

The way Sinclair masterfully creates an image of a “river of life” and “the soul leaped up at the sight” is incredible. He is able to give the reader a front row perspective when reading the section. •“So amid deafening uproar it clattered to and fro, growing thinner and flatter and longer. The ingot seemed almost a living thing; it did not want to run this mad course, but it was in the grip of fate, it was tumbled upon, screeching and clanking and shivering in protest. ” In this passage the author uses personification to describe the steel mill workplace.

When uses this literary term he leaves the reader with a strong image of the steel mill. He gives the ingot a personality and emotion. •“By and by it was long and thin, a great red snake escaped from purgatory; and then, as it slid through the rollers, you would have sworn that it was alive — it writhed and squirmed, and wriggles and shudders passed out through its tail, all but flinging it off by their violence. ” This last quote adds to the personification of the ingot. The personification used here is a clear example of Sinclair’s mind thinking, and creativity.

The words used here that add to the imagery are, “squirmed”, “wiggled”, “flinging. ” All of these words create vivid imagery for the reader. 3. Sympathy: •“Then suddenly her eyes opened— one instant. One instant she looked at him— there was a flash of recognition between them…. she faded from him, she slipped back and she was gone. ” In this passage Sinclair uses emotion to pull the reader in. He gives the readers a sign of hope when Ona opens her eye, then he crushes them down when saying she is gone.

The reader feels the emotion that Jurgis is feeling when dealing with the death of his wife because of Sinclair’s way of making his words into reality. •“He clutched her hands, he shook her, he caught her in his arms and pressed her to him; but she lay cold and still—she was gone—she was gone! ” In this passage Sinclair emphasizes the emotion of Jurgis by repeating his last few words. His use of alliteration adds an echo to an intense scene. •“He gripped his hands and set his teeth together—he had not wept, and he would not—not a tear!

It was past and over, and he was done with it—he would fling it off his shoulders, be free of it. ” In this passage Jurgis just found out about the death of Antanas. Jurgis does not want to deal with reality, so he ignores the fact that his son is dead. This makes the reader feel sympathy towards Jurgis in his attempt to evade the truth. •“It should go like a black, hateful nightmare, and in the morning he would be new man. And every time that a thought assailed him—a tender memory, a trace of a tear—he rose up, cursing with rage, and pounded it down. This passage is another example of Jurgis’ persistency. His urge to avoid the situation gives the reader an upfront perspective. •“There should be no more tears and no more tenderness; he had had enough of them—they had sold him into slavery. ” This passage helps the reader understand the struggles that Jurgis has had to deal with while in Packingtown. •“So he went on, tearing up all the flowers from the garden of his soul, and setting his heel upon them. ” This passage uses an emotional metaphor to enhance the reader’s point of view.

Using flowers as Jurgis’ happiness, and saying that he has pulled them out and stomped on them, shows how depressed Jurgis is. •“Then, too, his health came back to him, all his lost youthful vigor, his joy and power that he had mourned and forgotten! It came with a sudden rush, bewildering him, startling him; it was as if his dead childhood had come back to him, laughing and calling! ” This side of Jurgis is not recognized by the reader. His emotion here is so happy and excited that it gives the reader hope that Jurgis isn’t all bad. 4. Naturalism: “They had put him behind bars, as if he had been a wild beast, a thing without sense or reason, without rights, without affections, without feelings. ” The author is comparing Jurgis to a wild animal. This is ironic because in Jurgis’ job he had to kill wild animals and enclose them. •“They could tell the whole hateful story of it, set forth the inner soul of a city in which justice and honor, women’s bodies and men’s souls were for sale in the market-place, and human beings writhed and fought and fell upon each other like wolves in a pit. ” Sinclair compares people to fighting wolves.

The beastly characteristics of wolves give the reader an image of hostility between people in society. •“He nodded to her, and she came and sat by him, and they had one more drink, and then he went upstairs into a room with her, and the wild beast rose up within him and screamed, as it has screamed in the jungle from the dawn of time. ” This passage is interesting because it is comparing Jurgis to an animal in the jungle. And it is ironic because the jungle is the title of the book. 5. In chapter 21, Jurgis is struggling to find his sense of stability.

There is an excerpt where Sinclair proves this by writing, “To a man whose whole life had consisted of doing one certain thing all day, until he was so exhausted that he could only lie down and sleep until the next day—and to be now his own master, working as he pleased and when he pleased, and facing a new adventure every hour! ” This passage shows the reader that Jurgis is finding a new way of life and realizing that he doesn’t always have to follow what the norm is. In contrast to the way of Packingtown, Jurgis’ new way of life is free and pleasant. Another contrasting issue is how Jurgis starts the book as a strong headed man.

He is working hard for his family and their needs. He is positive that America will help his family and only add to their happiness. By the end of the book Jurgis has no family. America took away the only two people in his life that he loved. He begins to lose trust in people and starts to slowly become a dark and hateful man. 6. Diction: “Just what,” answered the other, “would be the productive capacity of society if the present resources of science were utilized, we have no means of ascertaining; but we may be sure it would exceed anything that would sound reasonable to minds inured to the ferocious barbarities of Capitalism. The diction used here is describing capitalism as “ferocious barbarities. ” Sinclair is straight to the point when defending his opinion of being against capitalism and for socialism. Vivid Imagery: It was a monster devouring with a thousand mouths, trampling with a thousand hoofs; it was the Great Butcher — it was the spirit of Capitalism made flesh. Upon the ocean of commerce it sailed as a pirate ship; it had hoisted the black flag and declared war upon civilization. In this passage Sinclair uses intense images to enhance his opinion on Capitalism. He only thinks of Capitalism as a bad way of life with no positives. When reading the passage the reader is able to see Capitalism as a ship, sailing on the ocean, and trying to corrupt society. Juxtaposition: The working-man was to fix his hopes upon a future life, while his pockets were picked in this one; he was brought up to frugality, humility, obedience, — in short to all the pseudo-virtues of capitalism.

The destiny of civilization would be decided in one final death-struggle between the Red International and the Black, between Socialism and the Roman Catholic Church; while here at home, “the stygian midnight of American evangelicalism —Sinclair puts his two opposing societies in the same paragraph to emphasize his point of view. 7. In the beginning of this book Jurgis saw the stockyards as a way to get a better life for him and his family. The stockyards were Jurgis’ backbone, the main supplier of survival. When the stockyards began to reveal the truth of society, Jurgis realized he was doomed. The stockyards developed into Jurgis’ enemy.

They took over his life and began to control it. He was forced to work there in order to survive, even though it disgusted him and sometimes hurt him. In the book it says, “When Jurgis had first come to the stockyards he had been as clean as any working-man could well be. But later on, what with sickness and cold and hunger and discouragement, and the filthiness of his work, and the vermin in his home, he had given up washing in winter, and in summer only as much of him as would go into a basin. ” This shows how Jurgis was dependent of the stockyards, and how the stockyards neglected his needs. 8.

Upton Sinclair was trying to get sympathy for the workers in Packingtown. He wanted to show the public what conditions were like and how workers suffered. He also wanted to start a socialistic movement, where society would avoid capitalism and head for socialism. But he actually only made readers want to not eat manufactured food. His descriptive scenes showed the readers the true essence of a factory. His vivid imagery, instead of getting sympathy, started a food purity movement. This book influenced people to start the FDA (Food and Drug Administration). Part 2 Q&A: 1. Chicago 2. Buying the house 3. Phil Conner 4.

Jack Duane 5. Prostitute. QUOTES: “I will work harder” – This quote is signifying constant determination that Jurgis possesses and his fear of failure. It’s significant throughout the entire book because he is always trying to make a better life for his family and loved ones and yet he continues to fail. “I did not want—to do it,” she said, “I tried—I tried not to do it. I only did it—to save us. It was our only chance. ” – This shows the pure desperation of Ona’s family and their struggle to withhold a decent life. The author uses pathos to appeal to the reader’s emotion as he emphasizes their pitiful situation.

In their oppressive society liberty and humanity are diminished. “It’s the second time they’ve sent me up on a trumped charge—I’ve had hard luck and can’t pay them what they want. Why don’t you quit Chicago with me Jurgis? ” – This quote shows how Jurgis is ready to disregard morals and leave his life. He wants a different and better life. He is thinking about leaving Chicago and the cruel ways of the Packingtown. “When people are starving,” the other continued, “and they have anything with a price, they ought to sell it, I say. I guess you realize it now when it’s too late.

Ona could have taken care of us all, in the beginning. ” – This quote shows the desperation created in capitalistic system. In order to survive, the abandonment or morality and self-respect is necessary. People need to go with the system and evade original ideas. Sinclair also brings up Ona’s death to make the reader feel sorry for the family. “You know what to do about it—vote the socialistic ticket! ” – This quotes juxtaposition to a paragraph that briefly displays some of the flaws in a socialistic community. It’s basically saying that socialism is the way to go. Essay Questions: 1.

When people think of a jungle, they imagine struggle, hardships, a dog eat dog society, where the fittest flourish. The predator and prey in Packingtown also exemplifies the title. The ruthless winters and unsanitary conditions of Packingtown illustrate the primitive ways of a jungle. 2. No this book is not an effective piece of persuasive writing. Throughout the book Sinclair talks about the flaws of capitalism without any solutions. When socialism is finally brought up Jurgis is already starting to have a better life and doesn’t need socialism to save him. Therefore defeating the purpose. . This book should be taught in schools. Many pros of it are that it was written by an American. Also it accurately represents America at the time. Finally the main family live in America and has to deal with the struggle most families in America, at that time, had to deal with. In retrospect, the book contrast with traditional American values and beliefs. Also it pulls a negative quilt over the American system, portraying it as a desperate society that is in need of a change. Finally it refutes the American dream by showing death and depression in an “American family”.

Ap English- the Jungle by Upton Sinclair Essay