Nicely framed pictures are panned in what seems to be a family home. Two pictures of a smiling little boy are shown. In one, he is wearing something casual, making it seem like a candid that the family treasures. The other is more posed, he is wearing something formal in front of a blue background; the family most likely got it done professionally. A third picture is a wedding photo, most likely belonging to the parents of the little boy. The bride and groom are mid-dance, embracing and smiling. They seem to be a very happy family. Each picture is nicely framed and appear to be on a wooden stand, indicating comfortable financial standing.
0:04-0:07
The camera moves to the wall beside stairs in the home, and a shadow is seen. It moves as the camera does, indicating that the person who owns it may be pacing, possibly in anger. The shadow appears male, it is tall and lacks a female figure, so it is most likely the father. Is he talking to the mother? Is he angry at her?
0:08-0:11
A little boy, the one from the pictures, is seen sitting on the aforementioned steps. He is maybe four or five years old. He sits with his yellow toy truck, possibly as a security measure. Some kids have blankets, maybe he has a truck. He is wearing a white patterned onesie as pajamas, indicating his young age. He looks up from his truck, a bit startled, and is watching what is transpiring in the room below the stairs. He is not smiling; he seems concerned for what is happening.
0:12-0:13
The shadow is seen a second time. The boy’s brown head of hair is seen from behind, and the wall next to him shows the shadow of what is most likely his father. A hand is shown, it looks as if it is pointing in authority to its counterpart, or possibly threatening to strike. The head moves with the hand, indicating an emotion so strong it takes over the body.
0:14-0:23
The boy’s face is shown in close-up. He is trying to ignore what is happening, and begins to play with his toy truck, indicated by him looking down and his arms moving back and forth. Then he is startled out of his play, he jumps as he looks at the room below, frightened. His shoulders rise and fall with heavy breathing as his eyebrows rise in surprise. He looks forlornly at what has happened, he does not want it to be this way, but it is.
0:24-0:26
White, all capital text reads “Children have to sit by and watch. What’s your excuse?” What was he watching? It is an ad for domestic violence prevention, so the odds point to the fact that his father has hit his mother. Maybe for the first time, due to his surprise, or maybe it happens all the time and this is just the first time he has seen it.
0:27-0:30
A multitude of logos appear. A blue and black logo outlined by white has text inside it that reads “There’s NO excuse.” Text below it in italics reads “for Domestic Violence.” Under that, a phone number for victims and bystanders to call reads “1-800-END-ABUSE.” An Ad Council logo is seen in the bottom left corner, and text in the bottom right reads “Family Violence Prevention Fund.” These are probably the producers of the PSA. The logos fade, and one is left with a sense that they have to do something to help this little boy and those like him. The ad has hopefully done its job to inspire action.
The opening scene starts off with a middle aged man turning the volume louder on his stereo. His facial expression shows that he filled with good, lively energy. Based on his dress shirt, it seems he is trying to impress someone. However, his sleeves are rolled up slightly to indicate that he is comfortable and relaxed. He is in great physical condition. The shirt outlines his build, which resembles that of a body builder. The wall suggests that he is indoors, possibly a house of some sort. The speaker shows that this took place in the past because there is a tape player. The father seems mesmerized by the sound of music. Is the music for his own personal enjoyment or for the enjoyment of others? Regardless, the volume indicates that he is getting ready for something.
0:02-0:03
The man is breaking and putting ice cubes into a bucket, which suggests that he is having company. The amount of ice shows that their might be more than one person. The ice bucket could have multiple purposes such as holding a bottle of wine or keeping a variety of beverages cold. Often times a bucket of that size is used plainly to put ice in a soda or glass of wine. His careful precision with the ice into the bucket shows that he does not want to make a mess and indicates that his company is very important to him.
0:04-0:05
Here, this man is pouring pretzels into a bowl. The combination of ice and pretzels shows that this event is casual. Up to this point, the man has not prepared anything fancy or romantic, which suggests this could be for a friend or a child. Pretzels are not a necessity, but can be used as comfort food when people are talking. The colorful bowl hints to the idea that his guests are children or close family. The bowl is meant to be seen as playful and appealing. Also, the bowl is small to show that there could only be one or two guests.
0:05-0:06
The camera angle shifts a little further back to get a full view of the refrigerator and a few beverages that the man seems to be placing into it. The cans are colorful and resemble a kid’s drink such as tomato juice. Once again, the video suggests that his company are younger based solely on the variety of lively colors. His facial expression seems a little more flushed with fatigue. Setting up for his guests has taken its toll on him, but he still seems anxious for his guests to arrive. The size of his refrigerator suggests that he does not live alone. The refrigerator alone is enough to feed a few people. The amount of drinks that he is putting into the refrigerator suggests that he is more than prepared for his visitors.
0:06-0:08
A delivery man appears at the door with a box and a separate bag of food. He is dressed in all red to solidify his role as a delivery man. Without these matching colors, the audience may have been confused about his role. The man at the door gladly retrieves his food with a big smile. He showed no hesitation when he answered the door, which shows that he was expecting the delivery man. The man is leaning slightly forward in an effort to communicate with the delivery man. This could mean that he is comfortable and orders food a lot.
0:09
A green table is carefully placed in the middle of a living room type setting. The green table shows the repetition of the playful colors placed in this video. The table is small which indicates that there can only be a few people coming. Also, a green table is usually used for some type of card game, which suggests he wants to entertain his guests. His hand placement reveals that he wants everything to be perfect and neat. The painting on the walls shows a mixture of colors, which could be intriguing to an infant. The kitchen in the back has marble counter tops and tiles on the walls to give it more of a modern look. The modern look in his house also portrays wealth. The various kitchen supplies on the kitchen counter show that multiple people live in the house. The kitchen seems massive for just one person.
0:10
A chair is placed beside the table furthest away from the man. This seat implies that he plans to play something with his guest. What game? The audience has yet to find out. However, his efforts to set this whole thing up seem to be strenuous and exhausting. His dedication to make this a perfect night obviously shows that he cares deeply for the people coming over. In the background the audience gets another look at a big piece of furniture. The multiple drawers are meant to show that many people live there. There would not be large pieces of furniture for any other reason than to show he does not live alone.
0:11-0:13
The camera angle shows that there are three seats surrounding the table. The man sits between both, which signifies that he is entertaining two guests. He sits down on his chair to show that he is ready for his guests to arrive. He has prepared everything and now he has to play the waiting game. He has a deck of cards that he stacks on the table. There are no chips or anything that would suggest he is gambling. The cards symbolize the playfulness of the event. His sleeves are rolled up. His shirt is unbuttoned. His mindset is ready for a fun night rather than a serious, romantic dinner.
0:14-0:15
The cards are being dispersed into three piles, including one for the man. This gesture assures the audience that there are most likely two guests. The three piles of cards give us an idea that the game could be gold fish or some child-like game. His hands are moving faster, which suggests his guests are arriving soon. Also, his hand motion shows his energetic attitude towards this event. If the cards were distributed slowly, it could indicate that he is dreading this occasion.
0:16-0:17
The camera angle switches to a close up to the gentleman’s face. His facial expression has gotten very serious. His hand placement is very important because he trying his very best to hide his cards from his opponent. The cards are very close to his face. He is looking out the corner of his eye to possibly see if someone is or was looking at his cards. He is taking this event very seriously and seems eager to win. There are five cards in his hand, which reveals that the game is most likely gold fish or some other fun, kid-like game.
0:18
Here, the camera angle switches so that the entirety of the man is visible. However, the guests are still cut out of the frame. The man lowers his cards. His lip posture suggests that he is about to say something verbal to his opponent on his right. He seems like he is about to say something offensive. His eye brows are pointing downward towards his nose which shows that he is angry about something. Perhaps he is accusing someone of cheating or discussing the rules of the game. Either way the man seems displeased by one of his guests.
0:19
Two young boys enter the screen. This shows that this man is the possible father of these two children because they are very close to one another and seem comfortable. Once again, the kitchen enters in the background with a bundle of kitchen supplies. The background is meant to express the idea of family. The man is looking towards the boy on his right annoyingly. He seems intrigued with what the boy has to say. The boy on the other side is about to say something. Yet, he also seems fascinated with what the other boy has to say. Everyone at the table is actively participating in the conversation one way or another. The young children both have cards in their hand. The deck of cards is placed directly in the center of the table. This set up advocates that they are playing a playful card game. There are no chips or anything of that nature at the table.
0:20
The boy on the right is making a silly face towards the man. His jaw drops and he seems surprised by what just happened. The man’s facial expression shows that he slightly grinning and it could be inferred that he thinks the scenario is funny. The boy to the man’s left is shouting something across the table. This occasion looks lively and filled with positive energy. The camera angle has moved back a little revealing the children’s drinks. There is a juice box and a cup of what looks to be tomato juice or some other flavorful juice. In addition, the children have a plate of healthy foods such as peanut butter and jelly and oranges. This frame portrays the importance of family and eating healthy. The purpose of the food and drinks could be to encourage people watching the video to eat healthier.
0:21
The mood has drastically changed. The man is now visibly happy and content. All of the preparation for this occasion looks like it has finally paid off. The child on the left is laughing as the other is making a goofy face. This picture portrays a happy atmosphere and perhaps symbolizes what family is all about. This “father figure” has meaning and is shown to stress the importance of spending time with family. Making other people happy can lead to one’s own personal happiness.
0:22
The children are celebrating a victory. The “father figure” places his cards down with a comical expression on his face. His eyes are shot in disbelief that these children have beaten him. Perhaps he let them win to make them happier. Regardless, the man’s smile shows that his happiness does not lay in the game itself. His happiness is found by surrounding himself with people he cares deeply about. The child on his right is doing somewhat of a victory dance as the child on the left is laughing in the man’s face. The setting has not changed, but the people’s attitudes have.
0:01 The ad opens up with a middle aged man peaking from behind a hand crafted picture frame. The camera is zoomed in close to his head. The shot is of the picture frame and his eyes to the top of his head. His eyes are directed to his left. He seems to be looking at something or expecting something to be in that direction. His eyes are wide open like he is surprised by something.
0:02-0:03 The camera zooms out to show a wide shot of the man and the frame. The frame happens to have a portrait of woman looking to her left with a white dress on. The frame of the picture is a wood hand carved gold painted frame. The picture is probably a very old expensive piece with an expensive frame to match. The man is holding the picture, but not in a way that he can hang it on the wall behind him. He seems to be holding it up to show someone what it looks like in that spot. The picture is big, almost the size of the man. The room he is in looks to be a office in his house. There are two windows to his right and left with two chairs approximately 8 feet away from the windows. The chair to the left looks to be a older antique chair, while the other chair is a regular brown chair from around the 80’s or 70’s. The man has on blue jeans and he is not wearing shoes. His socks are black with a grey patch at the toes.
0:04 The camera is a wide but focused shot of the man in the room.The man is now in a room that looks like a living room. He is now inside the couch under the pillows of the couch. He is very noticeable because the pillows are uneven and his body is visible from the cameras position. He is looking out from inside the couch as if he is looking to see if anyone is coming.
0:05 The man tucks his head into the couch as if he doesn’t wan’t to be seen.
0:06 The man in now in a different room standing on a shelf that is at the base of a window. The room looks to be his bed room. He is standing straight up with his back against the wall. His full body is shown in this camera shot. He is dressed casually with a dark blue sweater on with a light blue dress shirt under it. He is still shoe-less in this scene.
0:06-0:07 The man is now in a chair seated hiding under a knitted blanket. He seems to be hiding in fairly obvious spots around the house. The chair is a brown leather single chair. The room he is in seems to be the living room. There is a wall behind him with a book shelf built into it. There are a good amount of books and pictures placed on the shelves. There is a flat screen T.V on the wall at the center of the shelves.
0:08-0:10 The man is now hiding behind a curtain with a view of his upper shoulders. He is looking to his left as if he is expecting something to come from that direction. His facial expression is calm, like he is trying to be as quiet as possible. Again he is choosing the most obvious places to hide.
0:11-0:13 The man is now in the hallway near the front door. He seems to be sneaking through the hallway. The front is open but he is not walking toward the door. He is walking to the room directly across from the room he was just in. He is looking up the steps as if he doesn’t want the person he is hiding from to hear him. His shoes are still off and that might be because he don’t want to be heard sneaking around the house. The hallway is floored with hard wood. He is trying to step very lightly through the hallway.
0:14-0:15 The man is now hiding standing in the chimney with the lower half of his body exposed from the cover of the chimney. There are two gold objects to his right and left. There is a chain to his right that is used to put the cover on the chimney.
0:16 The man is now walking down the steps peeking down the steps into a room behind the steps. His body language indicates that he is looking to see if anyone is down there.
0:17-0:18 The man is now peaking from the door way across from the steps.
0:19 The man is in the laundry room crawling out of a white cabinet under the folding counter. The counter has laundry folded on it. The cabinet is big enough to fit a fully grown person in it.
0:19 The man is now closing himself in the cabinet. It is now obvious that he is hiding from someone or something.
0:20 The man is near a door in the corner of the room looking into the room from behind a plant he is holding. He is very noticeable behind the plant. The plant is green with a lot of long leaves hanging out the pot its in.
0:21-0:23 He is now in what looks to be a child’s room. He is behind a shelf full of stuffed animals looking from a open space in the shelf. The room looks to be a girls room. There are a variety of girl toys in the vision of the camera in the room. The man has a smile of joy on his face as he looks in the room.
0:23-0:25 There is a little girl running in the hallway. She seems to be running after someone.She is wearing pink and purple pajamas with no shoes on.
0:26-0:28 The man is hiding under clothes in a closet. He is looking out into the hallway where the little girl was running. The little girl is probably looking for him. They probably are playing hide and seek. The man is smiling from under the clothes in the closet.
0:00 – Ad starts with a shot of the lower half of a man on a rocking horse in the park on a sunny day.
That’s a reasonable description, CollegeKid, but not an analysis. How do we react to such an image? It’s a big jarring at first since the horsies are almost exclusively ridden by children, are in fact difficult for adults to mount. Do we register anything? Confusion? Disbelief? Curiosity? Do we think the rider might be unhinged? Bored beyond belief?
The only unacceptable answer is that we register nothing at all—that we simply withhold judgment until more evidence helps us correctly judge the situation. We do not. We jump to conclusions and later alter them if necessary.
0:00-0:04 – The camera moves up to show the man bouncing and rocking back and fourthwith a huge smile on his face. The man, who appears to be of hispanic decent, is wearing a navy blue sweat jacket, a grey t-shirt, kaki shorts, white socks, and black sneakers.
Well, yes, but in addition, he changes his motion from an innocent back-and-forth rocking to a slightly demented humping-the-horse motion that, depending on who he’s smiling at, could mean a couple of things.
What are we to make of that smile? Is he simply enjoying himself, or getting someone’s attention? Does the smile say “Look at me!” or “Come join me” or “Aren’t we having fun”?
What do the clothes suggest? Is he well-off? Working today and on his lunch break? Enjoying the park on a day off? Is the patch on his sleeve significant? Where’s the park? Inner-city? Suburbs?
0:04-0:05 – The camera moves to a white woman who is sitting on the park bench with a baby stroller. She looks at him and smirks but then diverts her attention back to the stroller.
She does indeed. Why? Tell us about her. Does she know him? Does his childish horse-humping amuse her? She doesn’t merely “divert her attention” to the stroller, does she? She pulls it closer in a protective gesture. Is the strange man threatening?
0:05-0:08 – A white man, in a green jacket, makes a weird face and presses it against the glass while looking to the right. When it hits 0:08 seconds, the man removes his face from the glass and has a blank expression.
What glass? Is there glass in the playground, or is this a new scene? What is the significance of his “looking to the right?” Can we tell what or who he’s looking at? He fixes his gaze first on something below and to his left. Then presses his nose against the glass (through which he can be seen, presumably, standing as he is at the service window of a hot dog counter). Then checks to see what reaction he’s getting from someone. Then wipes his expression. It’s a game, right, in which he pretends he hasn’t done anything gross like wipe his nostrils on the window?
What can we conclude from his age, size, clothing, grooming? Is it too early to notice a pattern in just two examples? Middle-aged men in casual clothes in the middle of the day acting foolishly?
A figure passes behind him during his act, indicating (like the female observer in the park) that he’s acting out in public knowing he can be observed by adults.
0:08-0:10 – An African American man looks up andthe white man with a puzzled face as if wonderwhat just occurred. (HUH?)
Where is that AA man? On the other side of the glass? Has he seen the goofy face pressed against the glass? His gaze is at first fixed lower (at a cash register or computer?). Then he looks up. Is he making eye contact with the face-presser? In two seconds, how many shades of curiosity, suspicion, disfavor does he register? He blinks. Does that suggest disbelief? A shaking off of the first image and a chance to look at it again?
What do you make of the odd coincidence that all three men so far have sported facial hair?
0:10-0:12 – Camera is angled upwards where you see the tops of the trees and the sky. An African American man, in a white short sleeved button-down, tan trousers, and a blue with whit polka-dotted tie, is bouncing up and down while smiling and waving to something/someone.
You have yet to conclude that three men now are behaving childishly. If you’re trying to be matter-of-fact and strictly objective for some reason, CollegeKid, you should stop that. We judge at all times when watching little movies like these 30-second spots. Your job is to analyze how you’re being manipulated to draw conclusions from what you’re being shown. If you don’t share your impressions, you’re not analyzing, merely reporting.
0:12-0:15 – The shot shows the back of a neighborshead as theyare looking over the fence at the man. He continues to jump in circles while smiling and then he does a ballet spin with his hands above his head.
Once again, the waving indicates that the man knows he’s being observed (so the other cast members are not accidental.) The woman in the park, man behind the glass, and neighbor are all essential to make the men’s actions Public Acts.
0:15-0:21 – The camera goes to a little white girl, wearing a pink jacket and glasses, laughing at the man making faces pressed up to the glass. The white man then sticks his tongue out, puts his hands up to his head (as if making moose antlers), and wiggles side to side. The little girl (assumably his daughter) then proceeded to put her thumb up to her nose and wiggle her fingers at him. The African American man then looks at them both and smiles at them. The white man salesback at him and then continues to make another weird face at the little girl.
From which we conclude what? That his intended audience was the girl, but that he was willing to appear idiotic in front of another adult for the sake of amusing her?
0:21-0:24- The camera shows the African American man jumping on a trampoline with his son. The little boy is wearing a brown, white, and green stripped short sleeved shirt with jeans. The pair are both smiling and jumping over one another.
From which we conclude what? That his actions were intended to amuse the boy, but that he was willing to appear idiotic by striking ballerina poses in mid-air in front of his neighbors for the sake of amusing the child?
0:24-0:27- The shot shows a little Hispanic boy smiling and bouncing on a rocking horse. The camera then pans over to the father doing the exact same thing int the rocking horse in front of him.
From which we conclude what? That we were wrong to assume in the first take that the Hispanic man was trying to get the attention of the woman with the stroller? His attention was always focused on the boy in front of him, and his glee was joy shared with a child, most likely his child?
0:27-0:31- The camera shows the neighbor looking over the fence at the African American man bouncing on the trampoline.
From which we conclude what?
Spend a short paragraph after the time-stamped material to draw any overall conclusions you can after considering the impact of the entire 30-second spot. You may discuss its particular effectiveness or its shortcomings as visual argument.
You may also (following your visual analysis) report on any dialog or soundtrack elements that influence your reactions to the argument when you combine the audio with the video.
Thank you for permitting me to invade your space this way for the sake of all.
0:00- Ad starts with a shot of a forest that has just been destroyed by a fire. The ground and barks of trees are black and and still are burning as you see the red tint from the heat.
0:00-0:06- A reverse time lapse shot is showing a burning wooden cabin and a burning four door car. Tall trees are behind the house and there are random patches of tall dry grass in front of the cabin, both are sparked and burning. The car is parked on some of the burning grass patches.
0:06-0:08- Reverse time lapse is still going. Changes camera view and now it shows the side of the house and back of car, both burning. There is a family of 4 walking from the car. An Asian man, wearing a casual button up shirt and shorts, carrying a blue back pack. On his left is his Caucasian wife in a t shirt and khaki shorts carrying a blanket. In front of the wife is their daughter with a huge smile on her face. She is wearing a blue dress with a pattern on it and looks to be about 6 or 7. To the daughter’s right, is her big brother, looks to be about 10 or 11 and he is wearing a striped red and white t shirt with khaki shorts and is carrying a white frisbee. He also has smile on his face.
0:08-0:09- Reverse time lapse continues. Camera changes view again. Now showing the back passenger door of the car and the left side of the front of the house. This view also shows that the house is off a stone path. You can smoke and sparks emerging under the back tires of the car.
0:09-0:12- Reverse time lapse continues. Camera changes view again. This time it is directly behind the driver side rear tire and muffler. The patches of tall dry grass are under the car and the heat from the muffle has ignited the grass and it starts to burn.
0:12-0:13- Reverse time lapse continues. Camera changes view back to a shot of the family walking away from car . They just got out of the car and the father beeps his key and locks the doors.
0:13-0:15- Camera view stays the same and freezes the reverse time lapse. In regular forward time, Smokey The Bear walks in from the right and takes the keys away from the father.
0:15-0:17- Smokey The Bear gets in the car and starts the car.
0:17-0:19- Camera changes view from the sky looking over the boarder of the dirt path and the grass. Smokey puts the car in reverse and turns the steering wheel to the left and drives back a few feet and pulls off the grass. Then puts the car in drive and turns the wheel to the right and pulls up a few feet. The car is all the way off the grass and on the dirt path.
0:19-0:21- Camera changes view to underneath rear of car again. This time it has Smokey laying on the ground looking at the muffler.
0:21-0:22- Camera view goes back to freeze frame and Smokey gives the keys back to the father.
0:22-0:23- Camera view backs up until can see the whole car, the front of the cabin, Smokey, and the family. The family is now walking away from the car.
0:23-0:30- Camera view stays the same and a wooden sign shows up. It says, “SPARK A CHANGE, NOT A WILD FIRE, ONLY YOU CAN PREVENT FOREST FIRES”. The sign also has a picture of Smokey’s face centered at the bottom. Under the sign there is a website, “SMOKEYBEAR.COM” and under that there is the AdCouncil stamp, and two other stamps that promote forest safety. The family continues to walk away from the car in the background.
In a society where monetary payment is the one thing that is asked of individuals in return for their acquisition of goods and utilization of services, it can be argued that sooner or later those individuals will eventually develop a desire, if only strictly need-based, to get their hands on as much money as circumstantially possible in order to provide for themselves in terms of both everyday necessity and, if fortunate enough, materialistic desire. The United States is a perfect example of a nation in which the above claim might hold true, except for one major flaw; most Americans, be they impoverished, wealthy, or somewhere in between, rarely “get their hands on” the full extent of the wealth they believe lies in their possession, or physically see the stacks of bills they understand are sitting in a vault somewhere with their names on them. In today’s society the dollar, a rectangular piece of cotton fiber and linen that was once used to represent the value of a certain amount of gold, is no longer backed by any commodity or resource of worth. As NPR News’ Jacob Goldstein would argue, money is nothing but fiction, and the dollar is only worth something as long as the federal government says it is; the fictional quality of money is inherent in the very idea of money, in any system of currency, no matter how simple it may be.
For centuries the Islanders of Yap, which is the “most westerly” of Micronesia’s Caroline Islands, have used a system of currency that is far less complex and sophisticated than the one Americans are accustomed to today. According to William Henry Furness III, an American anthropologist who spent several months living amongst the natives of Yap in 1903 and who wrote a book detailing the customs of its people titled The Island of Stone Money: Uap of the Carolines, their currency is called “fei, and it consists of large, solid, thick, stone wheels, ranging in diameter from a foot to twelve feet, having in the centre a hole varying in size with the diameter of the stone, wherein a pole may be inserted sufficiently large and strong to bear the weight and facilitate transportation.” Along with the physical peculiarity and impracticality of the fei, which can individually outweigh a car, Furness noted other interesting characteristics of the stone currency, including that it is not actually necessary for the owner of fei to physically possess their limestone money to claim it belongs to them. He wrote that after “concluding a bargain which involves the price of a fei too large to be conveniently moved, its new owner is quite content to accept the bare acknowledgment of ownership and without so much as a mark to indicate the exchange, the coin remains undisturbed on the former owner’s premises.” To further illustrate the culture’s strange concept of monetary ownership, Furness retold in his book a strange story he heard on the island that involved an enormous fei of incomparable quality and value that, supposedly, was lost at sea by the same men who crafted it.
As the story goes according to Furness, these men encountered a violent storm while sailing back from this particular fei’s island of origin (limestone cannot be found anywhere on Yap), and were left with no choice but to untie the immense piece of stone from their rudimentary raft in order to stay afloat. When they returned home empty handed, “they all testified that their fei was of magnificent proportions and of extraordinary quality, and… it was universally conceded…that the mere accident… ought not to affect its marketable value, since it was all chipped out in proper form.” This event occurred decades before Furness visited Yap, however the man who told him the story assured him that the descendants of the same men who lost the fei to the depths of the ocean were still rich because of that very stone; the family’s wealth remained unquestioned and was known to everyone on the island, almost as if the limestone was “leaning visibly against the side of the owner’s house” for all to see.
The story above along with other bits and pieces of Furness’ book can be found within the first chapter of an essay written in 1991, also titled “The Island of Stone Money,” by a man named Milton Friedman. In this essay Friedman reveals to his audience that his initial reaction to the story above was: “How silly. How can people be so illogical?” He makes the assumption that his audience will react in the same way he did, and in my case his assumption held true because I found myself thinking the exact same thing about the Islanders of Yap. However, when I stopped reading and seriously considered how strongly the islander’s currency system relies on their own faith in abstract concepts, such as the unquestioned purchasing power of a stone lying at the bottom of the ocean that never even made it back to Yap, I realized that Americans in the present day are really no different than those islanders. In today’s society we almost never see the monetary income we earn from the jobs we work; the only compensation most people receive for their efforts in the workplace is a growing number on their monthly bank account statements, a figure that soon falls when it comes time to make regular bill payments online and through the mail. These changing digits on computer screens and pieces of paper are meant to represent tangible dollars changing hands from one individual or entity to the other, yet in reality nothing is actually changing in the physical world. If this is not a perfect illustration of unwavering faith in abstract financial concepts then I do not know what is.
My point is, whether you’re an Islander of Yap buying a house with limestone or a middle class American paying for airplane tickets online, the fiction that is money is apparent in all systems of currency and finance. According to AFP News’ journalist Anne Renaut, there is now a type of digital “e-money” in existence “that is made of strings of dazzlingly complex code created by raw computing power.” This impressive and complex computer currency was developed in 2009 and has soared in value since, however it is still considered “a very uncertain, speculative venture” to invest in as reported within Renaut’s article “The bubble bursts on e-currency Bitcoin” because it is not backed by a commodity, providing further evidence for my argument that the value and worth smoney is often nothing more than a figment mankind’s imagination. Not even the American dollar is backed by a scarce commodity or resource anymore, and the cotton fiber and linen that makes the fabric of our greenbacks has practically no intrinsic value, making our tangible currency as well as the ink on paper checks that often represents it worth only what people are willing to trade for that currency. On any given day a food vendor on the street might be willing to trade one bag of chips for a dollar bill, and on that same day a different food vendor down the road might be willing to trade two bags of chips for that same dollar, indicating that our currency is only worth the most we can possibly get in return for handing it over to others. I believe that deep down most people understand that money is just a fairy tale, a fiction that keeps the economy going; my own concept of money did not change much at all after doing research for this assignment, the only thing that did was my previously unquestioned belief in its worth through the eyes of society.
Works Cited
Friedman, Milton. “The Island of Stone Money.” Diss. Hoover Institution, Stanford University , 1991.
“The Invention of Stone Money.” 423: The Invention of Stone Money. This Is American Life, WBEZ. Chicago . 7 Jan. 2011.
Furness, William Henry. The Island of Stone Money: Uap of the Carolines. N.p.: J.B. Lippincott, 1910. Print.
Renaut, Anne. “The Bubble Bursts on E-currency Bitcoin.” Yahoo! News. Yahoo!, 13 Apr. 2013. Web. 23 Oct. 2016.
Money today seems to be what is most important to people. In this generation “Money is power”. Once before I believed that money was everything. I use to think that all i needed was money to make it in this world and that my happiness would fall into place as long as I had money in my pocket. As I got older I have come to realize that money is not everything. There is a lot of things in this world that money can not buy but will still make you happy.
After reading “Stone Money “, my thoughts on money have not changed. Based on the article came to conclusion that money is not all that important. It is important for certain things that we need to survive and keep us on grid with technology, food, and clothing however there are people who live their lives using as little monies as possible. The text states,”….. as soon as money fails, papers means nothing anymore.” I agree with this quote because money is not everything that we think it is. If money lost its value then there would be no need for paper especially with the way technology is advancing.
The way the world works today money is the center of it all. Our environment has programmed us to think that we need a lot of money to live a good life or if you don’t have a certain amount of money then you are not going to be successful or obtain true happiness and that is not true. If money was to vanish from this world tomorrow I believe people would go absolutely crazy and wouldn’t know what to do. I am happy that I changed my views on money early on in life and didn’t let money control me.
Money is something that is involved in all aspects of life around the world. Even though each country uses a different type of currency, they all still use a form of money to be able to live their everyday life in society. What really makes each type of currency different though is how exactly each economy values the money they have and in what way they use this currency to trade.
The island of Yap is a great example of how there is an economy based on money but they do not value physically holding their money yet still having possession. Yap does not value direct ownership of money in their hand to know that they are wealthy, yet they value the idea of ownership even when it is not their direct possession. For some that may seem very odd, the idea that I own this stone that is worth so much but I may never actually have it in my hands or may not even see it. While this seems very far fetch to some it is not much different from what we do here in America or Brazil does when it comes to URVs.
As they talked about in the NPR broadcast this is really not much different from what we do here in the United States. When we get paid from our jobs and it is deposited directly into our accounts. We see that we have this money digitally but we never actually physically possess this money. Then we pay a bill from our account and now that company has that money yet no one has ever physically held this money. This just proves that what we do here in the United States is not all that much different from what the people of Yap did, just theirs was not done electronically.
This is also similar to the Brazilian currency of URVs. URVs was a fake currency designed to help the economy grow and the value of something be consistent. All of this was done virtually creating a sense that there was money even when nothing physically was being traded, it was all just numbers on a screen. This also helped the Brazilian economy realized the worth of certain things and helped their economy flourish instead of becoming more and more in debt.
The way people trade and value their money is something that is all very abstract and obscure, in a sense that the way one person views a stone can be the same way another values a dollar, which is simply just paper, or the way someone else values gold locked in a box three thousand miles away. Money is really just fictional and is only worth whatever the person viewing it perceives it.
Work Cited
Friedman, Milton. “The Island of Stone Money.” Diss. Hoover Institution, Stanford University , 1991.
Money. One word with countless definitions. To understand the concept of money, I searched the internet and came upon the article by Adriene Hill, “Money: The Myth We All Believe in.” In the article, I found one quote that truly embodied my definition and explanation of money – “Money is a shared illusion.” Money is not a physical paper or metal, but a pure and dedicated belief in an object with no real value other than the value of what others believe it to be. If every citizen in the United States thought buttons or sea shells had monetary value, then the use those objects would become our currency. To a seven year old, the colorful Monopoly game hundred dollar bill could have the same value as a real hundred dollar bill if that was what their parents made them think. In reality, that child couldn’t use the Monopoly money to buy their favorite candy from the dollar store because Monopoly currency isn’t excepted as “real” money to the cashier ringing up the treats. Literally anything can be money if everyone thinks it has monetary value (Adrienne Hill).
Take for instance, the natives of the island Yap mentioned in Friedman’s essay “The Island of Stone Money.” While here in the United States we make our deals and purchases with paper money and copper pennies, the Yaps use large, carved limestone wheels called fei as their physical money. The fei was an immovable stone where its owner can change with only an agreement between two people where one basically states, “It’s yours now” and the other responds with, “I own it.” Am I exaggerating? In the essay, Friedman mentioned how a family’s wealth is “acknowledged by every one” despite the fact that no has seen the fei which makes the family as wealthy as it is. How can anyone, let alone everyone, believe that the family owns some stone only seen by the family’s ancestor and his expedition crew? It is only because they believe that the stone exists that the stone has value. The “illusion” that a carved piece of stone, seen or not seen, has value because everyone says it does is baffling, but they’re not the only ones in the world with this view on money (Friedman).
Similar to the Yaps, the United States relies on the customers of banks and business to believe in what we call credit. Today, many U.S. citizens use credit to purchase items despite the only evidence of one having “money” is a plastic card, maybe containing a chip, that according to the bank has a value of so-and-so dollars. We neither see the money that is acknowledged as ours by the bank and the establishments we use the credit to buy merchandise from nor move the money physically because we trust that the credit will move from the bank to our account to the establishment through virtual means. The only difference to the Yaps is that we have a third party involved, a.k.a. the bank, during agreements of “I own this, now you own this.”
As I mentioned previously, the value of money is due to the pure and dedicated belief that the currency used is real. My point is further proven by NPR’s article about Brazil’s currency change from cruzeiros to reals. In the beginning, Brazil suffered from inflation that made the cost of items in cruzeiros increase day after day. Brazilians lost faith in the cruzeiro’s value. The government then introduced a virtual price, URV, that had the price f items remain at a constant price unlike the ever-changing prices in cruzeiro. Overtime, the URV was trusted and believed in more than the cruzeiros, thus leading to the end of the cruzeiro and the beginning of the Brazilian real. The real was only able to be made the new currency because of the collective thought that this currency was better than the old cruzeiro currency. Money is valued only by how much everyone believes in the currency as seen by how the Brazilian cruzeiro became obsolete when a better looking, new currency was introduced (“How Fake Money Saved Brazil”).
The German government, as mentioned in “Bitcoin Recognized by Germany as ‘private money'” on CNBC, planned to have Bitcoin potentially become the new currency if the faith in the euro decreases like it did for the Brazilian cruzeiro. Bitcoin is more similar to the Yap islanders’ money exchange because of the lack of the middle man, the bank, and how the lack of physical evidence does not affect the value of the Bitcoin, since it is purely an electronic currency. This raises the questions, Is this real money? Is there any value? All I can say, is that the value of the Bitcoin will be what the people of Germany and the world will believe it to be (Clinch).
Physical money can be paper, metal, or stone, but the true value of money depends on the thoughts and beliefs of the people who use it.
Works Cited
Clinch, Matt. “Bitcoin Recognized by Germany as ‘private money'” CNBC. CNBC, 21 Aug. 2013. Web. 13 Sept. 2016.
Friedman, Milton. “The Island of Stone Money.” (n.d.): n. pag. The Hoover Institution, Feb. 1991. Web. 13 Sept. 2016.
Hill, Adriene. “Money: The Myth We All Believe in.” Money: The Myth We All Believe in. Marketplace, 12 July 2013. Web. 13 Sept. 2016.
The idea that money has any value, is a myth. Money is simply the physical representation of a person’s wealth. No matter the object used as currency, it will always be a placeholder for something imaginary. It’s important to remember that there’s a difference between value and worth. As Americans, we use dollar bills as our form of money. The literal dollar bill is nothing but a piece of paper, yet we measure our worth using it. The idea that we are either rich or poor based on how many pieces of paper we have, is quite odd on the surface, but it works. Our idea of money is similar to that of the people of Yap, as well as Brazil. Money is given power by people, and can only exist when a person believes it has value.
The exchange of goods from person to person has existed from the beginning of time. The only thing that has changed, is the object various people use as currency. On the island of Yap, large stones are used as money. A person in possession of a stone, would hand over their stone, in exchange for other goods. In many cases, these stones were too large to actually be exchanged, and transactions were essentially made on “good faith”. An example of this is a family who lost their stone before ever receiving it. The people of Yap acted as if the stone was never lost, and treated the family accordingly. This practice was accepted as a logical means of trade for the people of Yap, regardless of physical possession of stone. To the modern person, the people of Yap, probably seem like fools. I myself even questioned their logic, until I compared their stones to our bills. Our methods of trading are very similar to those of the Yap. We trade pieces of paper for other goods, given that another person believes our paper is worth the exchange. With the use of banks and credit cards, we don’t necessarily see the money we give or receive, but we accept it as gospel. Our monetary system may be more modernized, but at its core, is just as “crazy” as trading stones for actual goods.
In the 1990’s, Brazil faced one of their worst economic problems, inflation. The president at the time printed an excess of money, which resulted in the downfall of the cruzeiro. In the blink of an eye, the price of an item would change. Stores changed prices daily, sometimes hourly, leading people to believe nothing could be done to control inflation. This trend continued, until four men introduced a fake currency. Unlike the cruzeiro, this fake currency, URV’s, would stay stable. The only thing that changed was how many cruzeiros a single URV was worth. When people noticed the stability of URV’s, Brazil’s economy also stabilized. Like the people of Yap, Brazilians had to believe in their currency for it to flourish. The price in URV’s gave people the idea that priced had stopped steadily rising, when really they rose and fell like any other currency.
Prior to my research, I thought my $1 was actually worth $1. In reality, that $1 could be worth more or less than the value printed on the bill. I never realized how we operate on a system of good faith, especially in our modern lives. If my bank failed tomorrow, I have no physical item to prove that I’m worth something. We’re simply trading pieces of paper, given value by the government, as representations of worth. Don’t get me wrong, this system is needed in order to make transactions, but if we as a society stopped believing in the dollar, are we really worth anything?
Works Cited
Friedman, Milton. “The Island of Stone Money.” The Island of Stone Money(1991): 3-7. Web. 10 Sept. 2016.
Rowan Counterintuitive 