JWST 240 Lecture 6: lecture 6 JWST

24 views4 pages

mcgillian1820

12 Dec 2021

School

McGill University

Department

Jewish Studies

Course

JWST 240

Professor

For unlimited access to Class Notes, a Class+ subscription is required.

Document Summary

Morality death becomes a central issue. Bloodiest war since the 17th century no one who is alive in 1914 has any recollection of war at all. Everyone initially believed that it would be a very quick war (many countries believed within 6 weeks it would be over) The lowest death toll estimate is 9 million. Brings the end of the key empires of the time a-h and ottoman empires done. 1. 5 million jewish soldiers fight on all of the sides depending on geography. On the russian side, as many as 500 000. About 4 million jews lived in the territory where heavy combat took place pale of. Yiddish is often used as proof in russia that jews were sympathetic to germany; Germans were in turn suspicious that jews were sympathetic to russia. All of the nazis, including hitler, were veterans of ww1. Have military experience, and have experienced brutality. Europeans became accustomed to violence during ww1 familiarization with mass murder.

Related Questions

Case Study #2

WHO OWNS THE ART ANYWAY?

* Moscow recently announced that the so-called Priam's Treasure (which was excavated on the site of ancient Troy between 1873 and 1890 by the German amateur archaeologist Heinrich Schlieman and then looted by the Red Army from Nazi Germany) is still in Russia at the Pushkin Museum and went on public view in early 1996, for the first time since the Second World War.

The public admission by Moscow of the Treasure's existence raises questions about the 30,000 to 100,000 other stolen works of art that the German embassy in Moscow estimates are still in Russian Hands. Whose property are they? The Germans say they are stolen and should be returned. The Russians say the Germans stole thousands of artifacts during the occupation of the Soviet Union, many of which have been disbursed into private and public collections in Europe and the United States and are impossible to trace. The Russians state that while many journalists call it theft, it is really reparation for the damages inflicted on their country in World War ll.

How can one argue with that, given the loss of millions of Russian lives during the long war and the flagrant and wanton destruction of the Russian Royal palaces during the retreat of the Germans from Leningrad (now St. Petersburg)? Who has the moral high ground here? Who has the right to the property now, 50 years after the war? Whose property is it anyway?

If the treasures had been excavated under today's standards, the Treasure would have had to remain in Turkey. It would never have gotten to Germany in the first place. Shouldn't the Turks be brought into the negotiations between the Germans and the Russians since they could have a claim on the objects taken to Germany by Schlieman 50 years before?

* What about the heirs of Frank Calvert, the British field archaeologist and diplomat, who preceded Heinrich Schlieman as excavator of Troy? They are planning to file a claim to a portion of Schlieman's Trojan treasures that were found on his land in Hisarlik, Turkey. Frank Calvert owned the eastern half of the Hisarlik mound, site of the ancient city, and the Turkish government the western half. If during the 1873-90, excavations, Schlieman recovered artifacts on Calvert's land, Calvert's heirs might have a basis for claiming a share.

In the morality of determining ownership of archeological materials, who has priority: the country of possession or the country of origin? Modern day Turkey would have a tough claim to make if it said it and Ancient Troy are in any way one and the same.

If the country of possession should have priority, then wouldn't Russia have just as much of a claim as Germany since it has possession and promises to exhibit it in 1996?

IF YOU ARE THE JUDGE, WHAT HAPPENS TO THE TREASURE?

viridianweasel783

Need a 150 word discussion response to the following discussion post.

Overpopulation of the planet is not something that we are at risk of. Over population is even considered a myth based on the work Rev. Thomas Malthus. Rev. Thomas Malthus was an English cleric and scholar who had many influences in the field of political economy and demography (UCMP Berkeley, 2016). Malthus believed that food production increased incrementally and people reproduce exponentially. Based on his calculations he estimated that he world would run out of food in 1890. This led him to suggest that it would be in the best interest of the world to get rid of the worst of the population. Then in 1968 Paul Ehrlich, who was an American biologist from Stanford university, took on the same argument of the consequences of population growth (Too Many People, Too Much Consumption, 2016). He believed that reckless human reproduction had overwhelmed the earth and there would be famine. This would result in the death of one fifth of the population by the end of the 1970âs.

However, based on the information from the U.S. Census, the worldâs population is 7,344,149,500 as of August 13, 2016 at 4:00pm (Iinternational Programs, 2016). We can take everyone in the world and fit them in the great state of Texas, which has a landmass of 268,820 square miles (7,494,271,488,000 square feet). If we can divide 7,494,271 square feet by 7,344,149,500, you get 1020.44 square feet per person. That means that each person can live comfortably in Texas in a plot the of land that is the size of a small apartment.

Reference:

International Programs. (n.d.). Retrieved August 13, 2016, from http://www.census.gov/population/international/

Thomas Malthus (1766-1834). (n.d.). Retrieved August 13, 2016, from http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/malthus.html

Too Many People, Too Much Consumption. (n.d.). Retrieved August 13, 2016, from http://e360.yale.edu/feature/too_many_people_too_much_consumption/2041/

graygoose99

Case 15-2 Burying the Hatchet Mighty Mufflers Corp. (MMC)manufactures exhaust systems that automakers use in the productionof new vehicles. Competition in this market has waned in recentyears. Many competitors exited the business in the economicdownturn and few have returned because of the capital-intensivenature of the manufacturing process. In 20X1, the Department ofJustice (DOJ) launched an investigation involving MMC and twoadditional auto parts suppliers, alleging anticompetitive behaviorinvolving price collusion between suppliers. Shortly after the DOJinvestigation commenced, a number of customers formed aclass-action lawsuit against the three suppliers, alleging that thesuppliers fixed prices and overcharged customers as a result ofthese anticompetitive behaviors. Certain entities opted out of theclass-action lawsuit and separately undertook legal action againstthe individual suppliers, including MMC. These entities areexisting customers of MMC. In 20X2, MMC reached a settlement (theâFirst Settlementâ) with several of those entities that opted outof the class action lawsuit (the âPlaintiffsâ). The terms of theFirst Settlement provide that MMC will pay the Plaintiffs paymentsof: â¢ $20 million â consisting of $10 million due in 20X3 and $10million due in 20X4. â¢ $10 million â structured in the form of avolume incentive payment whereby the Plaintiffs, as a group, willreceive a 5 percent rebate on their purchases during 20X3 in anamount not to exceed $10 million. All payments are paid to the lawfirm representing the Plaintiffs, which disburses the funds at itsdiscretion. MMC believes it is reasonably assured the Plaintiffs,as a group, will earn the maximum $10 million volume incentivepayment, since the sales volume required is only a fraction of thePlaintiffsâ annual purchasing. Further, if the Plaintiffs, as agroup, do not achieve the maximum $10 million incentive payment asa result of any action of MMC (e.g., plant closure, inventoryshortage), then the full $10 million will be deemed to be earned bythe Plaintiffs. Finally, a separate amount (the âTrue-Up Paymentâ)will be payable from MMC to the Plaintiffs, or vice versa,depending on the settlement (the âSecond Settlementâ) MMC reacheswith the remaining entities that opted out of the class-actionlawsuit but were not party to the First Settlement. This amount,and whether it is owed by MMC or the Plaintiffs, will be determinedbased a formula applied to the Second Settlement amount and iscapped at $5 million. Required: 1. How much should MMC accrue forthe First Settlement as of December 20X2? 2. How should MMCclassify the debit resulting from accrual of the First Settlementin the statement of income? 3. How should MMC account for theTrue-Up Payment as of December 20X2?

Can someone tell me which ASC sections areinvolved?

There is a posted solution:

1. How much should MMC accrue for the First Settlement as ofDecember 20X2? Amount Accured for the first settlement = $10million + $10Millionx (1-5%) = $10,000,000 + 9,500,000 =$19,500,000

2. It will treat as an expenses,will be added to the concernedexpense and it will be treated as current liability.

3. True up Payment = $10,000,000 - $9,500,000 = $500,000,

But this doesn't explain where the backup for thesecalculations came from.

ultramarinegerbil13

JWST 240 Lecture 6: lecture 6 JWST

Document Summary

Get access

Related Documents

JWST 240 Lecture Notes - Lecture 8: Total War, Walther Rathenau, Archduke Franz Ferdinand Of Austria

RS121 Lecture Notes - Lecture 2: Extermination Camp, Einsatzgruppen, German Christians

History 1265 Lecture Notes - Lecture 15: Weimar Constitution, Wolfgang Kapp, Philipp Scheidemann

Related Questions