While reading Connor Wilson’s on over optimistic CEO I began to think more and more about the entire social networking industry (if you can even call it that). As he mentioned in his post, snap chat- this massive social network, isn’t even profitable. I always wondered how these massive corporations like Facebook and Twitter are able to create revenue. I’ve heard it thousands of times “it’s from the adds” but this all seems very questionable to me. Perhaps I just simply don’t understand this marketing strategy, but I have never once paid attention to an add on the side of Facebook. Especially with the amount of spam that can be found on the internet today, I can’t see how an add on the side of a website can be effective. I feel like all these companies just saw the amount of people using these social networking sites and assumed that where there’s people, there’s money. Not necessarily realizing why people go to these sights in the first place- to interact.

Connor Wilsons Blog

In Maclean’s Business Blog I was informed on West Jet’s recent plan of offering international flights, mainly to Europe. They plan on “connecting Canadians to the world while bringing the world to Canada” allowing customers access to low cost flights to more than 100 cities in Europe. While it does seem almost necessary for an airline company to eventually fly internationally, I’m not sure if it’s such a good idea. First of all, the airline industry is a rare one in the sense that economically, it is extremely close to having perfect competition. This is a disadvantage because it is almost impossible for West Jet to create a substantial PoD- leaving it with huge amounts of competition in the international flight market. Second, is that West Jet is already known as an airline that provides customers with consistent low cost flights using Boeing 737 aircrafts. If West Jet wants to compete in this new market, it must first spend huge amounts of money on new aircrafts such as 767s and 787s as well as all the maintenance and luxuries that come with them. It is true that the actual airplanes themselves are fixed costs and would seem to be less significant in the long run, but are tons of variable costs that come with them such as fuel that will be extremely hard to pay off.

The world today is full of social problems. From climate change, to deforestation, to hunger, to poverty ect. Many people look to big businesses and corporations to be key factors in creating these problems. One could argue both ways, but business definitely has a part to play in most major social issues. This has casted a shadow over the reputation business in general and has seemed to skew the population’s view of the matter. People today don’t trust business and it’s hard to blame them since business today is experiencing a low in terms of it’s reputation. But instead of looking at business in terms of the problem, one could also look at it in terms of the solution. Businesses such as not profit organizations are currently the best opportunity we have for solving these socials issues. Like we talked about in class, it is important for businesses to look at the shared value and the possibilities of being sustainable for the long run. In Michael Porters TED talk video he referrers to the positive side of capitalism as “meeting important need” which is exactly what business has the opportunity of doing.

Michael Porter TED talk

In response to Peter Chen’s post in relation to the Enbridge Pipeline, I have to say that I completely agree. In this day in age the world is literally addicted to oil. It seems as if we don’t even understand how many products, tool devices ect. use or require oil. It’s easy to just see people protest, not understand the benefits or necessities, and join in. Like Peter mentioned, when you don’t have a personal connection or understanding of the other side of the argument it seems obvious to oppose it. There are also no other alternatives. I doubt that all the people protesting are whiling to give up the use of oil in general- which is the only actual alternative to this environmental threat.

Peter’s Post

I just recently finished a 2,000 word essay for my Political science class about globalization. I focused more on the economic side of it and carefully weighed the pros and cons. I’m not sure how familiar the people reading this post are with the idea of globalization, but I will assume they at least know what it is. While doing the research I began to look at everything through a capitalist point of view, thinking that since the overall standard of living and GDP are increasing then it is an overall positive to the economy. While this statement is technically true there are still plenty of people not benefiting from the international market and the divide between rich and poor is still getting bigger. This doesn’t mean that the poor are necessarily becoming poorer, but the rich are becoming richer at a faster rate. This is partly due to the lack of international business regulations, such as varying wage laws between nations (allowing certain businesses to outsource and exploit lower wage rates in other countries).  I came to the conclusion that globalization is overall good for the economy, but could benefit from an international organization that regulates trade.

Pro and Cons of Globalization