9/17/14 - Tommaso Angelini

David Graeber's Debt presented a whole new side to the idea of debt. A side which I had scarcely thought about ever since I understood what the concept of debt is. However, what Graeber says that I found quite interesting and significantly accurate, is the fact that debt is incredibly misunderstood. He divides debt into two different cases: moral debt and economic debt. Economic debt is the type of debt that "most" people have a solid grasp of. For example, if I were to borrow 100 dollars from CitiBank I would then owe CitiBank 100 dollars plus interest. Interest is a percentage of the initial value of the money that I borrowed that I would have to pay back, on top of the money that I was lent, for every month (or every year depending on the loan) that I don't compensate CitiBank. The concept that is more difficult to understand is moral debt. Graeber goes into depth regarding how moral debt is ridiculously skewed as throughout history 3rd world countries have been plundered by major superpowers and used as refueling stations, military outposts, and strategic locations in wars, etc., These countries have had their resources plundered and their cities decimated, yet, for some reason they end up refinancing the "mother-countries"back. For example, in 1895 France usurped Queen Ranavalona III and colonized Madagascar. France then proceeded to build train tracks, military stations, bases, and other forms of infrastructure in order to mold Madagascar into a colony that would serve the purpose of enriching France and helping it claim a spot on the Indian Ocean. The people of Madagascar were then forced to pay taxes in order to allow these pieces of infrastructure to be built. And today, France still claims that Madagascar owes them money. After reading this piece I was given a new perspective regarding how the borrowers are treated on an international scale when it comes to countries borrowing from other countries, or being forced into submission to pay for things that they never wanted in the first place. 

Response to Burroughs Four Horsemen

In his address to the Ecotechnic Institute in 1980, William S. Burroughs argues the case that the proverbial Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse are Famine, Plague, War, and Death. Burroughs argues that human beings are in control of all four of these aspects, as opposed to the four horsemen proposed by Zizek. Burroughs discusses the practical applications of the four horsemen in terms of alliance in modern times. For example, he argues that War and Plague are in alliance and have been exerted most notably in the form of chemical and biological warfare. He argues that we have created the problem by merging these forces.
   Arguably the most salient point that Burroughs makes is that human beings are not operating at full capacity. He equates humans to the example of the first airplane. While this was a revolutionary invention at the time, the Wright Brothers' invention was incredibly limited in scope. Now, compared to the modern jetliner, this is a completely rudimentary device. Burroughs believes that human beings will never truly reach full potential.
I disagree.
In our era, humans strive to outdo those who came before each and every day. With so many advances in the fields of medicine and technology, human beings are constantly surpassing yesterday and moving towards a stronger tomorrow. Although Burroughs makes a very compelling point, the fact is that at the rate we are moving, it is very feasible for humans to operate at full capacity.