Summary writing: before and after

It may seem that I'm a bit lazy this year because I'm not blogging on a regular basis (unless once a month is a "regular basis"). In fact, I had a lot to do for university and I was quite productive. For example, I wrote some beautiful summaries of texts and videos that I have to present now. 

This is supposed to be a "Before and After" comparison, but I will spare you the joy of reading all of my summaries twice because most of the changes are simple and short. I will just write the changes in Italics and do the comparison afterwards.

Text No.1: Great Profits during the Great War

In their article “Great profits during the Great War”, published in the Guardian on 28 October 2013, Elizabeth Bruton and Graeme Gooday discuss whether innovators during the First World War acted only out of patriotism or whether they did so with a view to profiting from warfare.

Following the German example, Great Britain ceased to send scientists to the front and started to invest in research early in the First World War by establishing the DSIR, the Department of Scientific Industrial Research. Without this co-operation between state and industry, the war could not have continued for four years. Some companies such as the Marconi Company seemed to offer their services voluntarily, without requesting payment: a seemingly patriotic and altruistic act. However, Bruton and Gooday point out that the Marconi Company was richly rewarded after the war, when a Royal Commission acknowledged numerous wartime innovations. The Marconi Company received even more money by accusing the state of patent infringement. On the other hand, less crucial innovations such as Fuller’s interception-proof phone were only poorly rewarded.

Bruton and Gooday conclude by implying that certain companies, however altruistic their motives seemed at first, might have taken advantage of warfare in order to make a profit.

In this summary, the exact source was missing. It was also too short, so I decided to add the piece about sending scientists to the front in order to get exactly 200 words.

Text No.2: Why we should give everyone a basic income

During his TED talk in Maastricht, Rutger Bregman presents the concept of basic income as a means to eradicate poverty and solve the welfare mess.

Basic income is a universal monthly grant for everyone, regardless of their social status. The idea is that states could combat poverty and save billions currently spent on welfare by replacing these services with basic income. Experiments, conducted mainly in the Southern hemisphere but also among the homeless in London, have proven the effectiveness of a basic income. However, there are three main points of criticism. The major concern are the costs, but Bregman sees basic income as an investment in the future. By combatting poverty effectively, the state will eventually save billions. Secondly, critics bevlieve that with a guaranteed monthly income, many would stop working. However, Bregman's argument is that the majority of people wants to contribute to society. Thirdly, the idea of basic income may resemble a utopia, something that is too big to be realised, but in fact, it was almost implemented in the USA under Nixon.

Bregman encourages his audience to read more on the topic. He believes that with enough patience and ambition, the idea of basic income can become reality.

The problem here was that I had written "millions", making it seem like I wanted to downplay the positive effects of a basic income.

Text No.3 (hold on, we're almost done!): The Crisis of Credit Visualized

The video "The Crisis of Credit Visualized" by Jonathan Jarvis explains the underlying causes and possible future impacts on the 2008 Credit Crisis.

When the Federal Reserve Bank stopped paying high interest rates after 9/11 and the dot.com crash in order to encourage spending, investors were seeking new possibilities for investing money. Lenders such as banks, who profit from low interest rates, start to connect investors with homeowners. Investors can profit from buying packs of martgages ranging from safe to risky. Due to a high demand for mortgages, eventually the conditions for receiving a mortgage are neglected and so-called subprime mortgages are given to unreliable homeowners. When a homeowner defaults, the lender receives the house and tries to sell it. This poses no problem until too many homeowners default. With too much supply and no demand, houses lose their value and house prices fall. Even solvent homeowners choose to leave their house since their mortgage is higher than the actual value of the house. Investors are not interested in acquiring unprofitable mortgages, leaving the lender with valueless mortgages and houses.

In a financial system where no one is interested in buying and selling mortgages or borrowing and lending money, a standstill is imminent.

Here I removed the explanation of what the Credit Crisis is and inserted more information on why there were low interest rates.

To sum up, I did not have to change a lot about my summaries. I have to pay attention to name the source and I should make sure to condense my sentences enough so that I don't have to leave out any information just because I'm over the word count.