Are quotas actually there to aid the ones in need, or do they just create an inefficient economy, where the people are not motivated by incentives?

Coming from a country where there are an abundance of quotas, mainly for “promoting” women’s rights, I must say I am a little tired of the idea. This is the same thing (refer to this) that the French government is doing. They are trying to make women sit on thrones of 40% of the big French companies.

This might seem like a step towards equality from a philanthropic side, but what I believe is really happening is that the government is making the economy inefficient. It is valuing gender (or whatever any quotas (or whatever the government favors in different cases) than what really matters (in this case, the skills). This will give rise to a lot of slackers in women because they know at least 40% is bound to be one of them.

Thus I believe it is very important to use the quota tool carefully. It might be beneficial in some cases but cause some severe issues in others.

This is a blog that I came across when I was trying to compare the US and Canadian mobile rates. I believe it was a fairly inaccurate comparison because…they just were not comparing it right!

The data provided some of the rates of the big names in America (AT&T, Verizon, Sprint) with small Canadian brands (Koodo, Mobilicity). The writer completely ignored the major companies like Bell and Rogers that run the Canadian market. These companies actually do charge a very high price on their rates.

The problems arise when “apple to apple” comparisons are not made. While comparing, it is important to compare two objects of the same nature or type. It is hard to compare big names with small ones because small companies will constantly try to grab a bigger chunk of the market, thus providing cheaper rates. That is not the case for bigger companies since they are already enjoying a bigger piece of the pie.

So the moral of the story is, comparing “apple to orange” is actually as wrong as it sounds.When comparing, it is important to compare things of the same nature.

When I read my friend David Tran’s blog which focused on the issue of America thinking about increasing the taxation rate on the upper class, this is what I thought.

The great thing about capitalist economy is, what you give is what you get. Survival of the Fittest. While from a philanthropic point of view, it might seem appropriate to extensively tax the richest for wealth redistribution amongst society, the whole essence of capitalism is lost. It is an incentive-driven economy, and taking that away  by  increasing the tax rate is only going to make the economy inefficient.

High taxation can have a daunting effect on the public. The fact that the government is taking away a huge portion of something that consumes one’s blood and tears can sometime be hard to accept. I am an international student and the amount of provincial tax, and the product taxes scares me from considering a permanent residence in BC. It seems to me that I almost would not want to be successful if the government comes and takes almost 40% of my income away. The effort just does not seem justified even after all the free medical bills.

A lot of model modern nations seemed to have digressed from the above motto, as quoted from the movie Troy, but not Japan…not completely…

As mentioned in this blog, Japan still seems to be stuck in the old times when it comes to this case. Women with college degrees end up in a dead-end job, or are prevented from utilizing their potential. There is a rift in the workplace too, although it is a little better than it was before.

I believe it is the make-women-submit Asian culture that is in play, canceling out the effect of Japan’s exposure to the modern world. It is mentality inscribed into their genes. Equality does not seem to be as easy for them to build as a modern highway would be.

The main issue is- Who does Japan turn to when their ongoing crisis of an aging labour force hits its peak? Can they still afford to nurse an unproductive potentially-productive female population when the ratio of workers to dependants change to 1:1 from a current 7: 1?

In our economics lectures, we recently delved deep into the world of demand and supply, and came across a form called the “conspicuous consumption” goods. These two words were the first things to strike me when I read my classmate Katherine Caverly’s blog about Walmart trying to introduce luxury brands into its shelves, rather than adapting their age-old tactic of “discounts” throughout the year.

So what is “conspicuous consumption”? In brief, it is a product that is attractive for its “snob appeal”. In other words, it is something that is wanted because it is expensive (a little strayed away from our concept of demand). Think about diamonds- would it be as craved for as it is now, if it cost 50 dollars per gram? Sierra Leon would be a much peaceful nation.

The group of customers that Walmart is trying to attract now with this project are the types that only enter a shop if they know that the products have an outrageously high price tag- in other words, people who like to show off their wealth. Will Walmart, with a brand image of selling products for bargain deals- be successful in this high end niche??

When we talk about entrepreneurship, there is no bigger example than Bill Gates and his brainchild Microsoft Corporation. The Microsoft back in 1975 was a far cry from what it is now. It was a desperate move to a better life by a college dropout. Bill Gates, along with childhood friend Paul Allen, essentially started it off as a garage business, and did not look back ever since.

From what started off as a risky venture, Microsoft bloomed to a multi-billion dollar industry in the later years, elevating both its founders amongst the status of billionaires. With a more user friendly interface, it took the technology market by storm and exploited a market – the home computer market – which was previously deemed worthless. With cheaper computers for the home, it became a popular household name. Its operating system, Windows won high accolades. Later Microsoft also branched off into other markets like the console market  with xbox and the smartphone market with zune.

I think this is a great example of entrepreneurship because this business started from dust, implementing innovation in the best of ways and made the risks taken by the owners worth it, bringing them an abundant supply of benjamins.

One of the 3Rs seems a little overhyped to me. “Recycle” would only happen when you throw the product away after using it. What if you did not? What if the “Reuse” was preached more?

I think the media is advertising sustainability in the wrong way. I recently read an article which goes in the same line as my thoughts. Recycling requires millions of dollars every year, so why not shift to more permanent alternatives?

Beer bottles could replace cans. The customers could be offered incentives if they returned the bottles. Those bottles can be refilled. Glass pickle jars could be used constantly instead of the plastic jars. Permanent products are more cost-efficient than one-time ones.

Recycling requires energy-consuming machines like furnaces which could be avoided otherwise. To promote the good for environment, we are using up non-renewable fuels.

Think of it like this: we are throwing away plastic plates after eating, because let’s face it- they are plastic. Would we have done the same for chinawares? It would have gone straight to the dishwasher.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economy-lab/frances-woolley/are-mason-jars-the-model-for-a-sustainable-economy/article2194345/

The first thing we experience of a company with one of our 5 senses is the logo. A logo is essentially a QR code for our head, referring to all the information of that particular company in our head. It is not surprising that extensive R&Ds have to be performed before unveiling one.

As this article suggests, there are so many do’s and don’ts while thinking for logos. For me, a logo should essentially be a simple symmetric collage that should remind me of the company. We are bombarded with so many brandings everyday, it’s hard to distinguish one from them. Thus a logo easy to remember is a clear winner.

A logo does not necessarily need to send a direct message of its operations. It just needs to be a platform. Some firms go through drastic logo changes or jump for the trends, which just creates confusion.

Another thing companies should keep in mind is: Will the design fit into all advertising platforms? Some platforms require an enlarged version. Others (like facebook) need a square avatar. Thus it is strongly suggested to have a versatile logo and one that stays alive through the ages and the change in times.

article: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/small-business/digital/innovation/keep-your-logo-simple-but-smart/article2025246/

Shale gas, the newest discovery in the long lists of fuel sources, seems to be the talk of the world. As usual, the US seemed to get a headstart in the extraction. But this time China says no.

The lower-carbon is not the motivation behind China’s initiative, but the fact that China has a bigger reserve than USA. It also needs an alternate source because it has been having issues regarding prices with Russia, its primary source of natural gas.

The extraction of shale has been deemed controversial because of the drilling techniques and the impact on the public life and sustainability, and has been banned by a few countries.

I believe China will take over USA in this competition too. The government rules with an iron fist. The consideration of human rights is right at the bottom of the to-do list. China is so determined that it is even willing to incur losses due to low price of natural gas in order to secure domestic supply. The US with its profiteering and  “by the people, for the people” mentality seems to be losing another battle to China’s “Country comes before people” mentality. 

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