Man For All Seasons Essays - A Man For All Seasons, Robert Bolt

Man For All Seasons Neither Thomas More or the Common Man are able to serve two masters In the play A Man for All Seasons by Roger Bolt, The Spanish Ambassador Chapuys says to Steward, a role played by the common man, "No man can serve two masters..."(Bolt, 24). Within the play this statement is proven true for all the characters, especially for The Common Man and Sir Thomas More. The Common Man, shows himself time and again that he truly serves one master and that master is himself; whereas with More attempts to serve two masters. More attempt to serve King Henry of England, and God. By the end of the play it is shown that More cannot serve two masters despite all his efforts. It is apparent within the play that the Common Man is serving himself as his only master and no one else. In the play it may seem that he is not a self-serving character due to the fact that he obeys what people tell him to do, for instance in his conversations with Cromwell, and Chapuys, they ask him for knowledge about his master, Sir Thomas More. Firstly Cromwell asks him information concerning More's attitude towards the King's divorce of his wife the Queen. The Common Man replies, "Sir, Sir Thomas doesn't talk about it...He doesn't talk about it to his wife, sir...Sir, he goes white when it's mentioned!" Cromwell (hands coin): All Right."(Bolt, 23.). Later with his conversation with Chapuys he is asked about More's spirituality, "Sir Thomas rises at six, sir, and prays for an hour and a half...During lent, sir he lived entirely on bread and water...He goes to twice a week, sir. Parish Priest. Dominican..."(Bolt, 24). Chapuys then replies to the Common Man, "Good, simple man. Here. (Gives coin. Going)..."(Bolt, 24). As you can see he does what he wants for himself and no other especially divulging information for money. The Common Man also only holds loyalty unto himself and no other. At the first sign his needs will no longer be met to his satisfaction he leaves. For when More loses his job and no longer has an income, the Common Man collects his belongings and leaves, "Now, damn me isn't that them all over...I nearly fell for it...`Matthew, will you kindly take a cut in your wages?' `No, Sir Thomas I will not.'"(Bolt, 57). The Common Man is a very sly person, and holds nothing back when it comes to him and a job. This is evident as he acquires a position with Richard Rich, another very self- serving person by easily manipulating him. Richard Rich had no inclination to hire the Common Man; he was manipulated so well that the Common Man gets a job, "Oh. Oh, I must contradict you there, sir; that's your imagination. In those days, sir, you still had your way to make. And a gentleman in that position often imagines these things. Then when he's risen to his proper level, sir, he stops thinking about it...Well - I don't think you find people `disrespectful' nowadays, do you sir?"(Bolt, 61-62). Now, Sir Thomas More, through out the play tries to balance his life between God and King. More as he obeys God and King prays for his King, "Dear Lord give us rest tonight, or if we must be wakeful, cheerful. Careful only for our soul's salvation. For Christ sake. Amen. And bless our lord the King."(Bolt, 8). To continue his service for both God and King, More is willing to sacrifice everything if it will allow him to serve both; "There is my right arm. (A practical position.) Take your dagger and saw it from my shoulder, and I will laugh and be thankful, if by that means I can come with Your Grace with a clear conscience."(Bolt, 31). For in the play More is forced with a choice, to either continue in his service to King Henry and go against the Catholic Church or quite his job and continue in his service to the King, "If the Bishops in Convocation submitted this morning, I'll take it off...It's no degradation."(Bolt, 48). In the play the Act of Supremacy is passed. The purpose of this act is to affirm that the King is the Supreme Head of the Church in England. If More were not to swear to this act he would be committing high treason against the King. Since More believes that he can serve two masters, he roots through the act looking for a loophole. A loophole

Rates Of Return Essays - Investment, Income, Financial Markets

Rates Of Return Essays - Investment, Income, Financial Markets Rates Of Return The issue of rates of return on foreign owned companies through foreign direct investment. On Wednesday Oct. 25th.2000,at a meeting in Montreal, the finance Minister of Canada Mr. Paul Martin in his opening address to the G20 group on promoting Globalization, stated that globalization will have a more human face with measures to ease financial crises and social safety nets to protect the poorest. The meeting concluded with all the participants agreeing on a package of measures, which they say, will lead to more financial stability in the world. From a political perspective this endorsement may seem realistic. However this futuristic goal will require more foreign direct investment from corporations and other sources of private enterprise at a time when most expatriate firms are complaining about the decline of the (R.O.A) rate of return of foreign owned companies, specifically in the U.S.A. Firms based in one country increasingly make investments to establish and run business operations in other countries.U.S firms invested US$133 billion abroad in 1998,while foreign firms invested US$193 billion in the US.Overall world FDI flows more than tripled between 1988 and 1998,from US $192 billion to US$600.The share of FDI to GDP is generally rising in both developed and developing countries. In addition to this information the World Bank further stated that developing countries received about one quarter of the world FDI inflows in 1998-1998 on an average, though the share fluctuated quite a bit from year to year. It would seem that this is the largest form of private capital inflow to developing countries. This data will seem to encourage more foreign investment. Hence, one will ask if there are truly low rates of returns on investment by foreign owned companies. If this is the case then why are there so many foreign direct investment by small as well as multi-national corpo rations? In order to answer this question there must be an examination of the actual low rates of return from foreign-owned companies. This examination will be based on the performance of U.S.owned companies. A research done by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) provided new estimates of the rate of return for foreign owned US nonfinancial companies that are disaggregated by industry and valued in current-period prices for the years 1988 to 1997.The new estimates. Along with company-level estimates for US owned nonfinancial US companies, were used to examine factors that help explain the low rates of return. The rate of return measure was the ( ROA) i.e. the return on assets.. This is also looked at as the ratio of profits from current production, plus interest paid to the average of beginning and end of year total assets. Also profits from current production are profits that result from the production of goods and services in the current period. Both profits and assets are valued in prices of the current period. Profits reflect the value of inventory withdrawals and depreciation on a current-cost basis. These have been adjusted to remove the income from equity investments in unconsolidated business and the expense associated with amortizing intangible assets. Total assets reflect the current cost of tangible assets. These have been adjusted to remove assets for which the return is not included in the numerator of the ROA ratio e.g. equity investments in unconsolidated businesses and ammortizable intangible assets. The new ROA estimates for foreign-owned companies indicate that: - The new current-cost estimates show that the average ROA of foreign owned companies in 1988-1997 was 5.1 percent. In contrast, the historical-cost estimates show an average ROA of 5.7 percent. - The ROA of all foreign non financial companies was consistently below that of US owned non-financial companies in 1988-1997,but the gap narrowed over time from nearly two percentage points in 1988 to one percentage point in 1997.The narrowing of the gap appeared to be related to age effects. Acquiring or establishing a new business add costs such as startup costs that disappear over time. - ; Additionally, experience can yield benefits, such as learning by doing that accumulates over time. - High startup and restructuring costs related to acquisitions also lower the profitability of foreign-owned companies. Newly acquired foreign-owned companies showed very low or negative rates of return. - Many foreign owned companies had a tax-related incentive to shift