Neil Bortz, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity- extreme exposure to politics at wary age which pushed me into political future
Exposed to video games at age 3- gave me a passion for games
Exposed to military movies/environment as long as I can remember- pursue military service
Meeting politicians later in life reinforced the desire to pursue politics
Janet is a much weaker writer than Roger, One of my notes talked about how Janet started off the paragraph weak
Janet summarized paternalism
Roger gives a scenario followed by question
Outline-
Don’t start paragraph off with “this paper..”
Summarizing a term isn’t good for an introduction to the term
An example won’t always work either
Jacob Gann
ERH 101
Ms. Garriott
September 24, 2016
An analysis of The Economist ’s “Origins of the financial crisis” article
Over the past several decades (arguably since the Great Depression in the early 20th century) the study of Economics has become increasingly prevalent among scholars. Since then, The Economist has become a very prominent figure in the discourse of Economics with articles ranging from global evaluations (such as the recent Chinese market crash) to domestic issues (such as the market crash of 2008). One article in particular, “Origins of the Financial Crisis,” addresses the issue of the 2008 market crash through the examination of Politics and the Economy, which at face value are two separate fields but seemingly overlap here. This article has become a widely used source for quick explanations that capture what really happened in 2008. Due to this, economists, politicians, and the general public have access to and used this, both on the internet and through the magazine “The Economist”, to educate themselves and make sure it does not happen again.
“Origins of the financial crisis”, written and published by The Economist, asserts a direct relationship with the Economics discourse. They are able to achieve this through, whether intentional or not, following John Swales guidelines of a discourse. These guidelines include incorporating its specific lexis in such a way that novices can understand it just as well as experts, examining the relationship between Economics and Politics and how they influenced the market crash and its repercussions, and allows for feedback and further explanation which greatly increases its usefulness to the reader.
The Economist masterfully weaves sector specific terminology into their discussion and incorporates it in such a way that all members of the discourse can understand it regardless of experience. They begin by discussing, what The Economist has coined, “The Great Moderation” and “subprime mortgages.” To any outsider both terms would be confusing, however The Economist explains both so that insiders and outsiders can understand as opposed to other articles that simply assume the reader already knows what’s occurring (experts in the discourse). The Great Moderation” was a time years before the 2008 market crash marked by “low inflation and stable growth”, which is what you want in a country, but also characterized by “complacency and risks taking”, something you do not want (The Economist). This risk taking led to the subprime loans. Subprime loans were loans given to “subprime borrowers with poor credit histories who struggled to repay them” (The Economist). Because of this, people had loans (often multiple on the same house or even multiple houses) that they could not pay off- inevitably collapsing.
Another important term found later in the article, common in the economic and banking discourses, are “CDO’S.” All the Subprime mortgages banks offered are pooled together into what’s known as a CDO, or Collateralized Debt Obligation. This term is specifically important and widely mention when discussions of modern day banking as well as the market crash are brought up. By incorporating CDO’S into the article, as well as several other terms, The Economist immediately captures the attention of both experts and novices in the discourse of Economics primarily because it shows a masterly understanding of the material being written about and it expresses complex terms in a simple way.
The next characteristic The Economist demonstrates in its article is showing the relationship between two separate discourses- Economics and Politics. At face value they seem one in the same, but the opposite is true. Economics is not always effected by politics (just look at the attempts by the American Government to legislate our way out of a recession- it does not work) and politics is certainly not governed by the current economic situation. The specific field of politics The Economist explores relates to rating agencies and the SEC. The SEC stands for “U.S Securities and Exchange Commission”- they basically regulate the rating agencies (SEC). This relates to the 2008 market crash in the sense that these rating agencies were charged with determining how safe CDO’S are. Unfortunately, “The Agencies were paid by, and so beholden to, the banks” that they gave whatever rating was asked. This is another important characteristic of the article because instead of reporting what happened in 2008 at face value, The Economist goes a step further and reports about what is a not popular/uncommon topic in the public eye-corruption. Politicians, Economists of all levels of experience, and the general public are still drawn to articles like this because they do show the truth about what happened and by reading this the audience is educated on topics beyond economics and the 2008 market crash. Moreover, the concepts being discussed here are essential to the validity of the article. If The Economist left this out their credibility as a member of the discourse would be in question due to a possible bias.
The Economist also offers a feature unparalleled in the discourse of economics. They allow readers to comment on, request feedback, and collaborate online directly through the article. Utilizing this has allowed for any confusion to be quickly answered and other members of the discourse to discuss angles of the topic not explored by the author. One such angle was raised by The Economist subscriber “jonfid.” He raised the point that “the greatest cause of the financial crisis [is] the negative effect of political interference in the US housing market.” He goes on to explain that he is referring to the ability of “subprime” borrowers to borrow in the first place: leaving any default on their part or inability to pay to the tax payer. This ability to provide and receive feedback is utilized by both experts and novices proving how essential it is. The diffusion of ideas is key to the longevity of a discourse and that is what The Economist is utilizing here.
The Economist ’s ability to communicate within its discourse is heavily reliant on John Swales characteristics of a discourse: A specific lexis, the relationship between politics and economics, and the ability to provide feedback are only a few of the traits The Economist uses but the most powerful. Without them, there would be no standard, guideline, or commonality to follow and communication would differ from discourse to discourse making it even hard to assimilate into a different one. Not only has this article attracted the attention of current members seeking explanations or differing views but it has also attracted new members curious into the events covered: bankers, politicians, and the general public are attracted to this article when it was originally targeting members of its own discourse. This article relies on logos to build and support its argument, which in turn adds to The Economist’s Ethos through seemingly knowing what they are talking about. It is this combination that allows The Economist to remain a dominate figure within the economist discourse.
Word count: 1200
Work Cited
1. Company Author. “Crash Course.” The Economist. The Economist Newspaper, 07 Sept. 2013. Web. 25 Sept. 2016.
2. Swales, John. ”The Concept of Discourse Community.” Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Boston: Cambridge UP, 1990.21-32. Print.
3. “HOME.” SEC.gov. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Sept. 2016.
Jacob Gann
ERH 101
Ms. Garriott
September 24, 2016
The Economist “Origins of the financial crisis” analysis within its Discourse
Over the past several decades (arguably since the Great Depression in the early 20th century) the study of Economics has become increasingly prevalent. Since then, “The Economist” has become a very prominent figure in the Discourse of Economics with articles ranging from global evaluations (such as the recent Chinese market crash) to domestic issues (such as the market crash of 2008). One article in particular, “origins of the financial crisis”, addresses the issue of the 2008 market crash through the examination of Politics and the Economy, which at face value are two separate fields but seemingly overlap here. This article has become a widely used source for quick explanations that capture what really happened in 2008. Due to this economists, politicians, and the general public have access to and used this, both on the internet and through the magazine “The Economist”, to educate themselves and make sure it doesn’t happen again.
“Origins of the financial crisis”, written and published by The Economist, asserts a direct relationship with the Economics Discourse. They are able to achieve this through, whether intentional or not, following John Swales guidelines of a Discourse. These guidelines include incorporating its specific lexis in such a way that novices can understand it just as well as experts, examining the relationship between Economics and Politics and how they influenced the market crash and its repercussions, and allows for feedback and further explanation which greatly increases its usefulness to the reader.
Looking at Swales first characteristic, A specific Lexis, The Economist masterfully weaves terminology into the article making it understandable for all members of the Discourse- regardless of experience. They begin by discussing, what The Economist has coined, “The Great Moderation” and “subprime mortgages.” To any outsider both terms would be confusing, however The Economist explains both in such a way that even members outside of the Discourse can understand. “The Great Moderation” was a time years before the 2008 market crash marked by “low inflation and stable growth”, which is what you want in a country, but also characterized by “complacency and risks taking” (The Economist). This risk taking led to the subprime loans. Subprime loans were loans given to “subprime borrowers with poor credit histories who struggled to repay them.” Understanding these terms are essential to being part of the Discourse, and the sole responsibility of explaining them lies within the Discourse itself. Thankfully, The Economist does an excellent job at making sector specific terms easy to understand.
Another important term found later in the article is “CDO’S.” All the Subprime mortgages banks offered are pooled together into what’s know as a CDO, or Collateralized Debt Obligation. This term is specifically important and widely mention when discussions of modern day banking as well as the market crash are brought up. By incorporating CDO’S into the article, The Economist immediately captures the attention of both experts and novices in the Discourse of Economics because the term is common to the experts, and the novices strive to better themselves within the field.
The next characteristic The Economist uses in its article is showing the relationship between two separate Discourses- Economics and Politics. At face value they seem one in the same, but the opposite is true. Economics is not always effected by politics (just look at the attempts by the American Government to legislate our way out of a recession- it doesn’t work) and politics is certainly not governed by the current economic situation. The specific field of politics The Economist explores relates to rating agencies and the SEC. The SEC stands for “U.S Securities and Exchange Commission”- they basically regulate the rating agencies (SEC). This relates to the 2008 market crash in the sense that these rating agencies were charged with determining how safe CDO’S are. Unfortunately, “The Agencies were paid by, and so beholden to, the banks” that they gave whatever rating was asked. This is another important characteristic of the article because instead of reporting it in a good light, The Economist shares the truth of what happened. Politicians, Economists of all levels of experience, and the general public are drawn to articles like this and The Economist has tapped into that pool. Moreover, the concepts being discussed here are essential to the validity of the article. If The Economist left this out their credibility as a member of the Discourse would be in question due to a possible bias.
As for the final guideline Swales discussed, that “a discourse community… [provides] feedback”, The Economist captures it as well (John Swales). Via The Economist website there is an option for comments and questions. Utilizing this has allowed for any confusion to be quickly answered and other members of the discourse to discuss angles of the topic not explored by the author. One such angle was raised by The Economist subscriber “jonfid.” He raised the point that “the greatest cause of the financial crisis [is] the negative effect of political interference in the US housing market.” He goes on to explain that he is referring to the ability of “subprime” borrowers to borrow in the first place: leaving any default on their part or inability to pay to the tax payer. This ability to provide and receive feedback is utilized by both experts and novices proving how essential it is. The diffusion of ideas is key to the longevity of a discourse and that is what The Economist is utilizing here.
The Economist’s ability to communicate within its discourse is heavily reliant on John Swales characteristics of a discourse. A specific lexis, the relationship between politics and economics, and the ability to provide feedback are only a few of the traits The Economist uses but the most powerful. Without them, there would be no standard or guideline to follow and communication would differ from discourse to discourse making it even hard to assimilate into one. Not only has this article attracted the attention of current members seeking explanations or differing views but it has also attracted new members curious into the events covered. This article relies on logos to build and support its argument, which in turn adds to The Economists Ethos.
Word count: 1096
Work Cited
1. Company Author. “Crash Course.” The Economist. The Economist Newspaper, 07 Sept. 2013. Web. 25 Sept. 2016.
2. Swales, John. ”The Concept of Discourse Community.” Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Boston: Cambridge UP, 1990.21-32. Print.
3. “HOME.” SEC.gov. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Sept. 2016.
“The Economist” has become a very prominent figure in the Discourse of Economics. From the eyes of John Swales, The Economist has masterfully captured readers through their website and magazine, “The Economists”, created a specific lexis (which further separates the Discourse from the general public,
9/12 Class work: Primary Sources- “Fox business news, The Economist”
“The Economist” and “fox business news” use several key conventions in everyday communication. They rely heavily on statistical data and visuals (can be without/with cited work), use sector specific terminology (mostly, will discuss further later), and highly organized as to make it easy for viewer to get the material they need. Both sources have, and are expected to, publish books and other papers about sector specific events (market crashes, unique happenings, etc).
Both primary sources occasionally break these conventions with the primary intent, I believe, to educate and make their texts more accessible to the public. An example of this is breaking sector specific jargon to help the everyday consumer understand what is going on in their world. One of the most surprising breaks in conventions that I found was the incorporation of politics and other fields into economic discussions. Thinking upon this, it makes sense; However, it was still shocking to witness.
9/9 homework: Primary source- “The Economist” WEB
Tools: “The Economist” uses a website, magazine, and sector specific jargon to participate in the Activity system. Examples of the specific language include in depth studies of interest rates, offshore investments, and equity- simply to name a few.
Subject: Regarding the economy, everyone is a participant. From the everyday consumer buying toothpaste to the multi-billion dollar corporations.
Rules: It is a long held tradition to remain unbiased when evaluating the economy and how to address specific problems. As for specific laws, you can get as intricate as you want- from insider trading laws to payments between country governments.
Motives: There are many motive and incentives to study the economy. The “object” being purely knowledge (since any corrections or actions thereof take a good amount of time to complete). The “outcome” is the primary focus for this activity system: determining what corrections on a public or private sector should be made to stabilize and provide optimal economic growth.
Division of labor: Labor is divided between everyone equally. It only takes 1 person to crash an entire economy (mensa musa, great depression). However, corrections mostly come from the government.
Community: In the sense of “shaping” this activity Highly learned studiers (who participate in the public sector) and politicians effect this system the most.
HR: None. Jacob Gann (electronic signature)
Discourse communities are “communities” inside the general population which are separated by common interests or varying levels of education.
For example:
A high school wrestling team would be a discourse community within the larger population.
The organization MENSA would be another discourse community because of the IQ requirements to join (almost a personality/hobby difference that separates discourse communities from everything else).
9/5 homework:
My discourse communities:
RAT
Conservative (possibly in a boarder sense of the term, being politically up to date)
ARMY ROTC contracted
Christian
Wrestling/boxing fan
At this point in my life these are all the Discourse communities that apply to me. These are considered Discourse communities because each uses their own “jargon”, Has methods of intercommunication, all are aligned toward a common goal, and are separated from the general population based on views.
9/7 homework:
Gee’s theory differs from Swales in several key way. Simply to name a few: Gee implied that you could leave a Discourse community whereas Swales did not reference that, Gee also elaborated and defined a Discourse in far more depth than Swales did (primary, secondary, dominate, nondominate), and Gee also defined “novice’s” and “master’s” in the Discourse.
This perspective adds a new angle at which to view how language affects communities. Language not only is a way to communicate as a whole in society but, even when speaking the same dialect, separates us. It’s an interesting concept.