“Denmark has imposed a ‘fat tax’ on foods such as butter and oil as a way to curb unhealthy eating habits.”—-Associated Press on The Christian Science Monitor

We know heavy weight can cause health issues, but we don’t know if a $0.40 increase of price on butter would actually decrease the consumption of it. Raising weight awareness issues can be done through other methods, yet the government decided that the public will be more concerned should they pay more for products with high fat contents.

Ultimately, the government would receive a large sum of money while food producers and consumers share the burden of the tax. Personally, I don’t think this is very efficient because it is very focused on a group of people yet the whole population would have to pay a higher price, including those that only consider butter and oil as a daily necessity.

It is mentioned in the article that other countries have had similar strategies regarding unhealthy food consumption. If the policy continues, does that mean whenever the government wants the public to decrease consumption, they would put a tax on the item or service? There should be another more effective solution to the problem.

original article click here

(google image)

Game Theory, as mentioned by the article, “Game Theory in Practise”, is a “computing software that models human behaviour” and thus making forecasts and predictions. In an economic point of view, this software allows investors to “see” a guideline to the future through massive database and long-term observations and interviews with the characters within a certain environmental setting. The benefits of this system are the profits and efficiencies that it can bring to a company for better operation.

This article pushed my doubts of predicting the future from 100% to 30%. 70% went to the assumption that everyone will act in the situation of their best interest, while 30% still lied within the unexpected personal sentiments and sudden emotional changes. The article thus pose questions of “Game Theory”‘s standing in the future of the business world. How will values be traded when some, or even most aspects could be predicted? Will compromises and negotiations be necessary when you know the bottom line of your opponent?

Nonetheless, I believe “Game Theory” will continue to thrive since its major selling point is “know the future and make more money”.

Here is the link to the complete article:
Game Theory in Practice

The Business Ethics Blog provided a thorough definition of “Business Ethics”. Concluding from that, I think to determine how ethical something is in the business world can be measured on an imaginary scale of how affective is the matter on others in relevance with the company’s profitability. The article Shaw, Cisco to build Wi-Fi super network in major cities on Vancouver Sun exemplifies an ethical issue with its actions to build a super Wi-Fi network that will ultimately inhabit every spot of the Lower Mainland. The company’s profitability comes from the lowered cost of building a wi-fi network instead of a wireless phone network; as well as the potential customers since the service will only be available to Shaw Internet users. On the other hand, with Shaw being the only company that holds this feature, people would be limited to contract only with Shaw in order to enjoy the Wi-Fi network. Also, it would break the somewhat balanced competition between the large wireless carriers. Personally, i think it is not unethical for Shaw to act out of self-interest besides the inconvenience it has brought. Rather, it would bring internet accessing to a brand new and innovative level.

Welcome to UBC Blogs. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!