The UN is an international organization of 193 member states. According to the Charter, found at www.un.org, it has four main goals all members work towards;

1)    Maintaining international peace and security

2)    Developing friendly relations among nations

3)    Cooperating in solving international problems and in promoting respect for human rights

4)    Being a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations.

By upholding these beliefs, it helps resolve international conflicts and formulates policies on matters affecting the entire world. However, even if it were fully funded, I believe the UN would not be as effective in dealing with some of the issues in particular countries as the Arc initiative or social enterprise would, as it is simply too large.

With a focus on the exchange of knowledge and business skills, the Arc Initiative at the Sauder School of Business sends students over to communities in South Africa, Ethiopia, Colombia and Rwanda. Through internships and workshops, they are directly immersed in the businesses they are trying to help. This would give them a specific understanding of the organization, and the problems it faces. A company would be much better benefited through this initiative as opposed to through the UN, which has its own broad goals and lacks focus. An organization that large would often misallocate funds, and have difficulty communicating with those they are trying to help due to lack of understanding.

Similarly, social entrepreneurs target a specific problem their country/community faces and works to solve it in a mission driven, strategic way. They specialize in a particular problem they understand very well, perhaps as a result of actually facing or having faced its consequences. Thus, any resources acquired will be used wisely and effectively.

Every morning, I wake to the grinding of cranes and beeping of trucks outside my window; the construction crew have begun their day. For two months now, they have been building UBC’s new Vantage College out of what used to be an old parking lot. This two towered building, costing the university more than $127 million, will soon be home to 1000 international students who are to be part of UBC’s latest attempt to improve English skills while graduating on time. With a tuition cost of more than $50,000, only those whose families are affluent can afford to attend at all, and Canadian students need not apply. As CBC states, many students are upset with this usage of their tuition money, and believe that Vantage College will only create an elitist group who will not be fully integrated with the rest of the community. They also speculate that this is a scheme to create more revenue for the university. I believe that as an institute of higher education, the university has the right to value profit, however it should also strive to contribute to its own country. Those who have recently become Canadian citizens and need help with English cannot become Vantage College students, although they hope to live their lives here, and contribute to the Canadian economy. Instead, the College draws in people who are not planning on staying in this country, and uses them as an opportunity to earn money for itself.

Facts and figures from: http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/canada/british-columbia/ubc-s-vantage-college-canadians-need-not-apply-1.2826142

In the spirit of the Halloween season, I recently stumbled upon Kyle Chayka’s blog “The Halloween Industrial Complex” in which he describes the amount of money Americans spend on all things “Halloween”. The National Retail Federation (NRF) reports a total of $2.79 billion spent on costumes alone, not to mention $2.23 billion in candy, and even more in decorations. One reason why such a large amount of money is spent on this seasonal celebration is due to the fact that Halloween appeals to people of all ages. At the early toddler stage, children enjoy dressing up as their favourite TV characters, teenagers get a kick out of being something they’re not for a night, and adults buy costumes to entertain their children. Even pets these days are being given a Halloween makeover. These days, people are increasingly choosing to buy costumes rather than make them themselves due to the lack of time, especially when Halloween falls on a weekday. Thus, anyone in the costume business is bound to have a large customer segment, especially since Halloween has a large focus on the costume aspect, unlike other seasonal celebrations. Near the end of October, stores begin to stock up on costumes of all sizes, candy, fake blood and spider webs. However, the inventory piles up, and anything left over after the 31^st ends up sitting in the back until next year. This can be disadvantageous due to the space it takes up, and the risk of it going out of fashion. Thus, Halloween is a celebration that can be extraordinarily profitable for store owners, however, care must be taken to estimate demand and manage inventory levels accordingly.

FIFA recently released their men’s shortlists for the Ballon d’Or award of 2014, and to many astonished football fans, ex Liverpool player Luis Suárez was not among the named. Despite having scored 31 goals with Liverpool in the past season, being named best player in the Premier League, as well as top scorer in the South American section during the 2014 FIFA World Cup qualification campaign, Suárez did not make it onto the list of 23 best male players in the world. There are many speculations as to why this is so. Did the inclusion of Javier Mascherano mean FIFA already had their full of South Americans who moved from Liverpool to Barcelona? Was FIFA offended by his latest appearance in a Uruguayan TV advert, in which he causes trouble in an office environment? Or was it, as mirror.co.uk claims, because of the biting incident during the FIFA World Cup 2014 match against Italy after which he was banned from all football related activity for 4 months?

No matter what the reason, I believe it’s safe to assume that Suárez was not included in the shortlist due to something that had no relation to his extraordinary performance on the pitch. The fact that FC Barcelona recently signed Suárez for a five-year deal at a transfer fee of £75m (the third biggest in football history) shows that his skill is evidently worthy of recognition. With his exclusion from the best in the world, we can see a flaw in FIFA’s reward system. Evidently, this is an organization created for the love of the sport, and should reward its players based on their performance rather than political issues. But instead of providing recognition where recognition is due, FIFA decides to leave him out from the list of elites and upset football fans around the world.

My fellow classmate Yuwei Yan recently wrote a blog post titled “Why [Is] [the] IPhone So Popular around the World?” in which she argues that Apple’s popularity is dependent upon its brand culture as well as its “incomparable insides”. I am a hundred percent in agreement with her statement that Apple has created a popular image around its products. It currently has the standing of a “conspicuous consumption good”; one that consumers buy simply because it is expensive and because the brand holds a certain amount of prestige. However, I am doubtful that the latest iPhone is “incomparable” in terms of specs. Upon comparing this hotshot of a phone with its greatest competitor, the Samsung S5 on GSM Arena, the iPhone 6 pales in comparison. The S5 has a quad-core, 2.5 GHz CPU while the iPhone 6 only has a dual core, 1.4 GHz. The S5 has a longer battery life, a finer camera, greater internal storage space, and a memory card slot. Yet despite the clear advantages the S5 has over the iPhone 6, Apple is still able to sell its phone for more.

Often times the high price misleads consumers, like Yuwei, into believing that the product is actually worth what it’s selling for. In her post, Yuwei states the iPhone has “incomparable insides” while comparing the iPhone 6 solely with its predecessor. Given the prestige and price that comes with the Apple brand, it probably never even occurred to her that there could be other phones on the market that are better in so many aspects. As a firm believer in the actual product rather than the brand name, I believe that it’s only a matter of time before Apple’s popular image becomes insufficient in hiding its inferior technology and other companies like Samsung and HTC begin to dominate the mobile phone market.

On September 16, 2014, Quant Motors’ e-Sportlimousine, a vehicle that uses an electrolyte flow-cell powered system, was certified for use on German and European roads. Using saltwater in a series of redox reactions, the “nanoflowcell technology” (ref website) allows the car to travel at speeds up to 380 km/h for a driving range of up to 600km, according to www.examiner.com. Quant is currently seeking to attract investors into their technology, and many claim it will one day challenge Tesla in the hunt for alternative energy vehicles. They certainly do share many elements of the business canvas model. In terms of design, the e-Sportlimousine is in no way lacking. With its flashy shark gill design, it can easily be considered a luxury vehicle that would appeal to a wealthy customer segment.

In terms of value proposition, it provides an alternative to gas powered cars, and boasts a more power than electric vehicles (Tesla’s top speed is 201km/h). However, the infrastructure for saltwater cells is currently not available, and if Quant was to market its vehicles to a North American market today, the technology would be marveled at but not well received. Perhaps one day in the future, it will draw enough interest to further expand and become a larger segment of the market.

A fellow classmate of mine, Richard Lee, recently posted a blog post titled “Innovation Versus the Environment – Where Do We Draw The Line?” discussing the environmental challenges that the now advanced industrial nation of China is currently facing. He states that “Only three out of 74 Chinese cities met the official minimum standards for air quality in 2013,” and that “its most populated city surpasses 15 times the level of pollution considered hazardous to health.” Although I recognize this as the unfortunate truth, I must also say that it comes for a reason. China is home to roughly 20% of the world’s population, according to The Atlantic, and as the standard of living increases with the nation’s new found wealth, so does the creation of pollutants. More citizens are now able to afford vehicles, modern technology, and a generally more luxurious lifestyle. Or in other words, they are becoming more like us. Canadians have an ecological footprint of 7.6 global hectares per person, according to the Global Footprint Network, 2010. On the other hand, China’s is 2.1. An easy comparison of these numbers shows that each Canadian is actually using more area to produce the resources they consume than each Chinese person is. It is only the small population of Canada that is keeping it from developing into the environmental disaster that is China.

According to ChinaDialogue, the main cause of air pollution in China is car exhaust and coal burning. The nation is trying to combat these issues by regulating driving to a few days a week, and closing down coal-powered power stations. But the factories continue to operate, producing goods that are shipped out all around the world. Their smoggy skies are partially attributable to our constant demand for goods in the developed world. In a way, we are directly responsible for the pollution that is affecting China.

Thus, the environmental problems that China faces are due to their own overpopulation, as well as the consumerism culture of the rest of the world.

Often times, when we think of smartphones, we think of them as luxury that only citizens of developed nations can afford to buy. The average smartphone costs around $500 without the plan, and with giant companies like Apple and Samsung standing in the way, there doesn’t seem to be much market share left over.

However, Google has found a way to reach untapped markets in the developing world through their new “Android One” smartphones. Teaming up with three Indian phone manufacturers, Google launched its new family of phones for under $120 each. These phones feature a 1.3 GHz quad core processor, a 5 MP primary camera, 4GB of memory that is expandable to 32GB, and the ability to take two different SIM cards. It also comes loaded with Android Kit Kat (4.4) and will be given the free update to Android L once it’s released. With this affordable device, many more people will be able to join in on the digital world that is currently dominated by developed nations. This could mean a lot to Google’s competitors, namely Apple and Samsung. By reaching a greater population, Google is not only gaining more market share, it is also establishing its name in the developing world. By branching out and collaborating with international companies, it is gaining new insights and technology to continue to expand it’s business, as well as a larger customer base.