How did changes in the morality of money in postsocialist Romania affect the rise of the pyramid scheme, Caritas? What does Verdery tell us about the religious ethos that also accompanied these shcemes?
Postsocialist Romanians were dealing with mass inflation and small producers specifically were having trouble with keeping up. Many Romanians saw Caritas as a viable investment in an attempt to keep up with inflation and Verdery describes the circumstances as "breeding panic and desperation" which lead to the rise of the scheme. Verdery also states that Caritas had "compelled Romanians to begin thinking in new ways about money," and "it focused their anxieties about the larger processes of Romania's transformation from socialism." Ioan Stoica, the owner of Caritas, portrayed himself as a man of faith and charity, which instilled trust in the Romanian people that he had their best interests at heart. The people also seemed to make very specific distinctions between the idea of Stoica's money and their own, where they would put their own money into the scheme but play the game using Stoica's money, making it impossible to lose by Caritas's logic. Romanians have a very strong belief on the notion of using unearned or "dirty" money which is what Caritas money was considered to be, since there was little to no effort involved on producing the payouts that Caritas provided. Some Romanians stick to these morals, saying that Caritas money is used by greedy or lazy people, while others change their minds--either by watching the payouts come in or deeming it as compensation for the years that workers went unpaid.
Religion also played a big part in Caritas, the scheme portraying itself as a form of "salvation" for the Romanian people. Christian imagery became intertwined with Caritas, including an old man's account of Stoica's generosity, claiming that he's been sent by God. Stoica himself was a very religious man, using scripture and his own beliefs to build a sort of cult around Caritas and paint it as a sort of miracle to help Romanians in need. He claimed that faith was needed to keep the scheme going and that other pyramid schemes fail due to lack of faith, while the Romanian people did have faith in Caritas. Others who were skeptical of Caritas and its "dirty" or unearned money described it as a work of the devil. Verdery says that these factors point to Caritas "teaching people not market rationality, but mystification."
During fall of communism in Romania, money was starting to be seen more and more as a necessity for daily life. The article also mentions that the scheme promised wealth to those that invested in it, even as the concept of investing wold have been something new for the investors. These new capitalistic investors would naturally want to invest, as now they are able to, with it being the right thing to do, to grow one's own wealth. This is in opposition to what one would have thought the era of communism, were investing and speculating would have been thought of as a immoral way to make money, that one should only make money by way of producing something.
Depersonalized credit certificates were controversial and made legal as well as moral problems. The invention of transferable and anonymous paper money and promissory notes did not do justice to the english law. Birch stresses, promoted and solicited companies to address the destitute, nearly unable to pay debts owned of national finance. The crown extends property rights and grants privileged to induce companies to act on behalf of foreign policy intersests. The triangular trade was made possible by innovations in long-term credit and fostered banking and financial trade in the home ports, but violence of its institution is written out of contemporary histories of finance. These historical developments, such as the "emergence of secondary markets in shares and credit certificates," and the invasion of....have been summarized as constituting a verible Financial revolution that entailed a critical transformation of English society.
Large gaps between the official and black market-rates for hard currency; and hard currency deposits totaled 30% deposits, which clearly shows that Romanians were fleeing from domestic assets. Problematic circumstances bred panic and desperation have historically guided speculative schemes in many parts of the world, including US in the 1930's In the 1990's. Crooked deals and considerable distrusts of authority; the government could be backing caritas and ahad several possible justifications: the authorities wanted to make each country thoroughly available for confiscation and monetary reform-to make an illusion of prosperity to foster inflation (hold down unemployment); or give the economy banknotes to background IMF hostility measures or meet IMF and world bank conditions for accepting the leg to float. Some people said that the government received large tax revenues for caritas, enough to finance the unfinished rebuilding and partisans of the government plot theory argued the caritas had ever gotten so large if the government didnt support it. “Caritas is dreadful; it encourages a beggar’s mentality, it undermines people's interest in working.” “people wont work anymore, they’ll just sit around and live off interest” earnings should come from productive investments, “ive heard of people quit their jobs and leave home, expecting that it will go on forever, “its based on greed and it creates inflation.” (pg 185) Stoica debated over the morality of Caritas he responded to the criticism, money as unearned, he earned the money for other people; he and allies argued for another marshal a number of other arguments of defence of the schemes of morality. Immorality is that of all market economies. If there is a dose of immorality in caritas, then this same dose of immorality exists also in life in general and even in the gospel “to him who has more will be given.” (pg. 187)
The fall of communism was a large factor in the changing of morality seen within Romanians with respect to money and financial schemes. Romanian's always held the belief that money should be earned, if not and should one receive money without doing work for it, it's seen as being lazy and the person has "dirty" money. Many still held this moral throughout the rise of Caritas, though several also changed their mind, being pursued by the payouts that others were receiving. With the economy transforming to socialism, inflation was rising and more money was necessary to live. Caritas was viewed as a viable way to earn money in order to keep up with the inflation. As Verdery points out, desperation in this time gave rise to the scheme. Religion also played a large part in the rise and credibility of the scheme. The owner of Caritas, Ioan Stocia portrayed himself as a very religious and charitable man, saying that he wanted Caritas to be a salvation to the Romanian people. This caused Romanians to ensue their trust into this scheme, believing that their best interest was being looked out for. Although as said before, not all became manipulated by this scheme, there were still those who held to their beliefs that this way of gaining money would be considered the gaining of dirty money, which many Romanians were highly against.
Postsocialist Romanians were dealing with mass inflation and small producers specifically were having trouble with keeping up. Many Romanians saw Caritas as a viable investment in an attempt to keep up with inflation and Verdery describes the circumstances as "breeding panic and desperation" which lead to the rise of the scheme. Verdery also states that Caritas had "compelled Romanians to begin thinking in new ways about money," and "it focused their anxieties about the larger processes of Romania's transformation from socialism." Ioan Stoica, the owner of Caritas, portrayed himself as a man of faith and charity, which instilled trust in the Romanian people that he had their best interests at heart. The people also seemed to make very specific distinctions between the idea of Stoica's money and their own, where they would put their own money into the scheme but play the game using Stoica's money, making it impossible to lose by Caritas's logic. Romanians have a very strong belief on the notion of using unearned or "dirty" money which is what Caritas money was considered to be, since there was little to no effort involved on producing the payouts that Caritas provided. Some Romanians stick to these morals, saying that Caritas money is used by greedy or lazy people, while others change their minds--either by watching the payouts come in or deeming it as compensation for the years that workers went unpaid.
ReplyDeleteReligion also played a big part in Caritas, the scheme portraying itself as a form of "salvation" for the Romanian people. Christian imagery became intertwined with Caritas, including an old man's account of Stoica's generosity, claiming that he's been sent by God. Stoica himself was a very religious man, using scripture and his own beliefs to build a sort of cult around Caritas and paint it as a sort of miracle to help Romanians in need. He claimed that faith was needed to keep the scheme going and that other pyramid schemes fail due to lack of faith, while the Romanian people did have faith in Caritas. Others who were skeptical of Caritas and its "dirty" or unearned money described it as a work of the devil. Verdery says that these factors point to Caritas "teaching people not market rationality, but mystification."
During fall of communism in Romania, money was starting to be seen more and more as a necessity for daily life. The article also mentions that the scheme promised wealth to those that invested in it, even as the concept of investing wold have been something new for the investors. These new capitalistic investors would naturally want to invest, as now they are able to, with it being the right thing to do, to grow one's own wealth. This is in opposition to what one would have thought the era of communism, were investing and speculating would have been thought of as a immoral way to make money, that one should only make money by way of producing something.
ReplyDeleteDepersonalized credit certificates were controversial and made legal as well as moral problems. The invention of transferable and anonymous paper money and promissory notes did not do justice to the english law. Birch stresses, promoted and solicited companies to address the destitute, nearly unable to pay debts owned of national finance. The crown extends property rights and grants privileged to induce companies to act on behalf of foreign policy intersests. The triangular trade was made possible by innovations in long-term credit and fostered banking and financial trade in the home ports, but violence of its institution is written out of contemporary histories of finance. These historical developments, such as the "emergence of secondary markets in shares and credit certificates," and the invasion of....have been summarized as constituting a verible Financial revolution that entailed a critical transformation of English society.
ReplyDeleteLarge gaps between the official and black market-rates for hard currency; and hard currency deposits totaled 30% deposits, which clearly shows that Romanians were fleeing from domestic assets. Problematic circumstances bred panic and desperation have historically guided speculative schemes in many parts of the world, including US in the 1930's In the 1990's.
ReplyDeleteCrooked deals and considerable distrusts of authority; the government could be backing caritas and ahad several possible justifications: the authorities wanted to make each country thoroughly available for confiscation and monetary reform-to make an illusion of prosperity to foster inflation (hold down unemployment); or give the economy banknotes to background IMF hostility measures or meet IMF and world bank conditions for accepting the leg to float.
Some people said that the government received large tax revenues for caritas, enough to finance the unfinished rebuilding and partisans of the government plot theory argued the caritas had ever gotten so large if the government didnt support it. “Caritas is dreadful; it encourages a beggar’s mentality, it undermines people's interest in working.” “people wont work anymore, they’ll just sit around and live off interest” earnings should come from productive investments, “ive heard of people quit their jobs and leave home, expecting that it will go on forever, “its based on greed and it creates inflation.” (pg 185)
Stoica debated over the morality of Caritas he responded to the criticism, money as unearned, he earned the money for other people; he and allies argued for another marshal a number of other arguments of defence of the schemes of morality. Immorality is that of all market economies. If there is a dose of immorality in caritas, then this same dose of immorality exists also in life in general and even in the gospel “to him who has more will be given.” (pg. 187)
The fall of communism was a large factor in the changing of morality seen within Romanians with respect to money and financial schemes. Romanian's always held the belief that money should be earned, if not and should one receive money without doing work for it, it's seen as being lazy and the person has "dirty" money. Many still held this moral throughout the rise of Caritas, though several also changed their mind, being pursued by the payouts that others were receiving. With the economy transforming to socialism, inflation was rising and more money was necessary to live. Caritas was viewed as a viable way to earn money in order to keep up with the inflation. As Verdery points out, desperation in this time gave rise to the scheme. Religion also played a large part in the rise and credibility of the scheme. The owner of Caritas, Ioan Stocia portrayed himself as a very religious and charitable man, saying that he wanted Caritas to be a salvation to the Romanian people. This caused Romanians to ensue their trust into this scheme, believing that their best interest was being looked out for. Although as said before, not all became manipulated by this scheme, there were still those who held to their beliefs that this way of gaining money would be considered the gaining of dirty money, which many Romanians were highly against.
ReplyDelete