Paul Dhaliwal recently commented on my post about the Tar Sands. I’d like to clarify my stance on the subject, because I felt that he misunderstood my opinion when writing his post.

My purpose was to show that although the tar sands have eco-problems, hoping that the industry will shut down is irrational- the best option available now is to work with the industry so that we can try to make it as green as possible. Seeing as paul’s final paragraph is essentially re-worded from my final statement, I am confused as to why if we have come to the same conclusion, he disagrees with my post.

Paul asserts that there is no way for the industry to be sustainable at all, and that trying to do this would be too costly. However, in my linked article there is no evidence of this. Adding cheap scrubbers to smokestacks would greatly reduce air pollution. Up to 40% of habitat could be saved by the restoring method mentioned in my post, which wouldn’t affect oil production. This is 40% that otherwise would not be saved. Steps can be taken to make the industry greener while having a negligible impact on company profits.

A theatre-esque setup is more appealing to some than a 13-inch laptop

Reading Troy Ochipinti’s blog, I was in agreement with his post “Netflix Jumps the Gun” which concerned Netflix’s change in price layout due to the separation of it’s streaming and DVD rentals.

I largely agree with what Troy has stated. Streaming movies is obviously, as he puts it, “the way of the future”. It is rapidly increasing in popularity, and there is no doubt that it will soon become the dominant way to watch films.

However, I would contend that there is a future for a greatly downsized DVD delivery industry. It needs to be taken into account that we are leaving an age where virtually every household has rented DVD’s. It’s true that a massive amount of the DVD market has been eaten up by streaming videos, but I believe that after the dust settles there may be a significant, albeit smaller, demand for DVDs. They can be easily played off of TV’s, which are bigger and better for watching movies on than computers. Netflix may still be able to capitalize on being the dominant company in a much smaller market.

I recently came across a blog from the economist about the re-opening of Marks & Spencer in Paris, which hasn’t been in europe since 2001. The store’s product focus this time around to primarily “women’s clothing and convenience food”. To my surprise, the blog describes how parisian masses (who were largely female) were lined up outside the store. Although this is a company that has been out of the local market for a decade, it had made such an impact on customers that they were willing to stand in a long, crowded line on a weekday to browse the shop. Marks & spencer have powerfully established themselves as a niche market that is made possible to the company’s attention to very different and specific conditions.

The blog asserts that multiple changing conditions have drawn even more french support to the store. Some of these situations, such as the rising demand for a quick lunch break and the convenience of food and shopping for a new target market of young office workers are fairly obvious. others, such as the link to smoking bans in cafes which necessitates a quicker lunch, would’ve been much harder for the company to forecast.

Ottawa unveils plastic money

The Bank of Canada has started to introduce new plastic bills that have more security features that will make them harder to counterfeit. I find that my opinion is divided regarding this decision, mostly because I don’t specific information concerning the upgrade is available yet.

Initially, I was enthusiastic about the switch. The new currency is more practical and durable- not only is it waterproof and harder to rip but it also can be recycled after its use. As well, the heightened security of the bill has instinctive appeal, because it would limit the problems associated with the circulation of counterfeit bills.

However, in looking into the counterfeiting problem in Canada I was surprised to find that counterfeit bills make up less than one percent of all bills circulated. This lead me to thinking, “how much will this introduction of the new bills cost?”. The answer is not very clear, especially if you factor in the effort put into taking older notes quickly out of circulation. Although the benefits might well outweigh the costs, it would be interesting how much the new money is worth. All things considered I would say I am for the introduction of the new currency.

This article is concerned with Steve Jobs’s Stanford commencement address, in which he discusses his belief about the importance of loving your occupation, and believing in “what you do” to achieve success. The writer asserts that loving your work may not be as dependant on your area of work, but rather how you tackle the job. As is the case with Jobs, people who bring imagination and enthusiasm to their job will place more value on it, regardless of what their occupation is.

I agree with the article that there is just as much of an impact on job happiness from work enthusiasm as there is on the type of occupation, but I would also go a step further. I would contend that being stylish and innovative in your job is a crucial quality of an entrepreneur. Being intellectually invested in a business will mean that the entrepreneur will be intrinsically motivated to do what is best for the company, rather than being motivated by personal gain. Also, there is a rising importance placed on companies to be innovative, so if an entrepreneur has these qualities, it can send a strong message to the people about the company.

http://www.economist.com/whichmba/mba-careers-jobs-worth

Today I checked out a great article suggested in our Comm. class. The article concerns the organization “one percent for the environment”, which pledges businesses to donate 1% of their annual revenue to environmental projects. This article, combined with today’s environmental class and pre-reading, has got me very excited to see businesses taking serious consideration and action in helping the environment.

I had become quite pessimistic about environmental change. I felt that the people who were pro-environment were not making a significant impact on changing things. It turns out that I underestimated the influence that these people could have on consumers by simply informing them on the issue. In my opinion eco-change will only happen If it’s implemented through people with influence and capital, ie. Politicians and businesses. Now, thanks in part to increased awareness about the issue, the popularity of environmentalism has tipped. I also believe that business will only go green if there’s an economic incentive to. Now that being green has gone mainstream, there is a clear benefit to market a company as being green, in that companies will attract more eco-aware customers. I’m now optimistic to see how businesses will innovate to develop green.

This article concerns the heavily argued debate over whether or not the benefits of getting a post-secondary education outweigh the costs. Although I agree with the article that college is worth it (I am a bit biased), I believe that just physically being at college is not enough. There are clear things that students can do in 4 years to make college tenure truly worthwhile.

In my opinion, what students get out of college depends what they put in. Another article that was linked on the original that advises against college enrollment says that many students never end up graduating from college. However, much of this dropout group consists of people who were in the bottom quarter of their high school class. If academics don’t play to student’s strengths then they shouldn’t force themselves to go to college. For many students, if they hard then they can minimize their risk of this happening.

The second, and perhaps more important thing to do is get as involved in college groups as possible. Especially in business, employers are looking for students who are executives of clubs and activities. This shows initiative and a willingness to work, while also giving you access to higher paying jobs than non-college(fig.1).

It’s pretty hard to disagree with what Justin’s blog (and his posted article) are saying. In business, some level of jerkiness is required. The people who are shrewd and can make controlling and potentially unpopular decisions in the workplace often have the advantage against people who aren’t. However, I would point out that executives with a “for the good of my company at all costs” mentality could obscure for themselves what is ethical business practice, and what isn’t.

In class we talked about how the most dangerous kind of unethical practice is when people come to believe that what they are doing wrong is actually right. When you are a “jerk” about your company, ethics can take a back seat to company hegemony. If Steve Jobs was willing to authorize a break-in into someone’s house over the early release of an iphone prototype, then how much farther away is breaking into a competitor’s office building for business information?

Do success and jerkiness have to come as a pair? Warren Buffett, a well known business “nice guy”, is also one of the most successful businessmen alive, his net worth $39billion. Businesses can be successful without resembling the “Gestapo”.

If companies restored the land after they were finished mining in the area, they could change much of this landscape back into natural habitat.

There has been an ongoing debate surrounding the Alberta Oil Sands, the estimated 15.7 trillion dollar business that has pitted environmentalists against the tar sands business. It frustrates me that the debate can only have two seemingly incompatible stances- environment or profit. Why can’t it be both?
Tar sands certainly have serious environmental problems which there are no easy solutions to. Efforts to reduce tailings, the economically unprofitable toxic waste from the open pit mines, have been largely ineffective. However there are many simple solutions to environmental concerns that have been ignored by oil sands companies. For example, If before companies moved on to a new mining area they had to restore a previously mined area of similar size to its natural state, Pembina, a pro-environmental institute, contends that there would be “no impact on oil production”*, making it a much more ethically attractive business for people concerned about the environment.
Environmentalists, on the other hand, must realize that there is very little chance of the hugely profitable business shutting down, given its economic potential. Instead of condemning the business entirely and alienating themselves from others, environmentalists should focus on the simple solutions to the environment that are compatible with companies making their profits.

This article concerns the issue of the Canadian government exporting a toxic resource called asbestos to underdeveloped nations such as India, where they know it is being mishandled and causing severe health consequences for everyone in its proximity.

Although this article is primarily involved with what the government should be doing to stop this from being exported, I believe that there is a large question that should be asked of the asbestos companies themselves. That question has to do with their business ethics.

How long can you look purely at your companies profits and write off “social responsibility” as irrelevant to a business, when a severe ethical violation is staring you in the face? Asbestos companies know that their product is being mishandled. They know that they are making a profit directly at the cost of people’s safety. I understand (and agree) with Milton Friedmans argument that businesses shouldn’t be concerned with social issues such as poverty and foreign aid. But in my mind, when you knowingly sell a toxic product which has been all but banned in Canada to an impoverished nation and profit off of their cancer, then it does become the companies issue.