COMM101 Blog Project

There has been a lot of discussion lately on the relevance and overall impressions made by the Occupy movement. As Connor Eden accurately pointed out in his blog, the occupy movement does argue that the “rich” pay more taxes. He goes on to call the movement “foolish”. It this that I would like to respectfully address.

What Connor doesn’t seem to properly understand is that by taking such a critical stance towards the Occupy movement, he is limiting himself from hearing both sides of the argument. Perhaps the Occupy movement isn’t as well versed in the complexities of the American income tax system as Connor is, or maybe they aren’t as well acquainted with the concept of trick-down economics as Connor seems to be alluding to in his post. While I agree that maybe these individuals aren’t as well educated on these mattes as some people may be, their protest can be boiled down to something very simple. They feel that it is unfair that 1% of the American population controls approximately 40% of the country’s wealth. They are protesting against the destruction of the middle class, a very real and credible threat to the American economy, much more dangerous than increasing the corporate tax rate. But even more important than this, even more crucial to the foundations of our society, the occupiers are protesting against something that they feel is against their interest and the interest of their country. I believe that these are patriotic acts.

I am very proud to live in a country where we tolerate and encourage such active participation in our democracy. I commend their protest, because to take action as they have, is to say that you care, and that you want to work to change things. So what if this Occupy movement isn’t considered that effective by many? So what if there are those in their number who are only there to feel apart of something exciting ?  At least they are doing something. At least they’re getting involved. Apathy has no place in democracy, and it’s very disheartening to see so many people condemn the protests without properly considering the situation. A famous quote by Evelyn Beatrice Hall is “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” I think that this may be a guiding principle in how we should feel towards the protests. Even if you think the entire movement is misguided, at least support them for their involvement in their democracy. So long as their expression doesn’t violate the rights of anyone else, either ignore them, or applaud their dedication to your country’s future.

There is a new addition to the list of reasons why it is great to be a Canadian citizen, and that is the resilient  structure of the Canadian economy. We are a physically large country with a relatively small population; our country is very much like an untapped well. We are uniquely situated in the world as a country with large natural resources, incredible opportunity for growth, in a democratic and stable society. We are in an enviable position over our southern neighbors, whose credit was recently downgraded, while ours retained its AAA rating. Canada has weathered the economic slump in remarkably good fashion, everything considered. Our unemployment, as mentioned in Cam’s Blog https://blogs.ubc.ca/camerondavis/, is at a remarkably low level.

It is interesting to predict the future for Canada’s economy. I feel very privileged to live in a country with such great potential as ours. Whatever may come in the future, Canada seems to be sitting very well. We have an abundance of natural resources and a well structured economy. We are ranked 7th in the world for ease of business, which is pretty impressive seeing as Canada is rarely in the top 10 of the world in anything but winter-sports.

Solar Panels haven’t received the attention that I think they deserve. Too often they are dismissed as an infeasible and expensive environmentalist dream. Myths about high costs and low yields have plagued the product since its creation. But as Nelson Smith pointed out on his Canadian Finance Blog ( http://canadianfinanceblog.com/how-to-screw-the-power-company/ ), consumers need to start evaluating the costs/benefits of installing solar panels in their own homes. Smith argues that it can actually be quite economically sound to install solar panels in ones home, provided that the cost is off-set by a long life cycle. Not only would this decision be considered a green initiative, but it could in fact provide a source of free power after a number of years.

Government subsidies are also available for those who opt to adopt the solarpanels. This changing consumer mentality and the initiatives for renewable sources of power seem to come together very well. Solar panels may not be the answer to both a financially and environmentally sound future of energy, but I believe that they may be a step in the right direction. Equating the need to be both environmentally friendly and economically sound should be a priority for both consumers and governments.

Joseph Schumpeter defined entrepreneurship as creation and innovation which leads to a wealth producing demand. One example of a business I believe to be very entrepreneurial in nature is Facebook. I’ve discussed the company Facebook before in my blogs, but with an emphasis on finance and not on the spirit of entrepreneurship that was the cause of Facebook’s success. 

Mark Zuckerberg and the founding members of Facebook were entrepreneurs in the sense that they saw a need, and created something to fill that need. In this case, Facebook was created to fill the lack of a viable social networking site. Facebook simultaneously created the demand and the supply of a new industry. Facebook is entrepreneurial in nature because it continues to innovate and develop an industry which it helped form, and is now a majority stakeholder in. Examples of the innovation which Facebook continues to exhibit can be found in their constantly improving methodology, and their foresight into consumer trends.

If an entrepreneurial company is one which, through innovation and creation, produces wealth, then Facebook is an excellent example. By taking an idea and related skills, the founders were able to create one of the most impressive technology companies ever created.

There is a lot of discussion and disagreement as to whether it is right for a business to have a social conscience. There are those who think, as Milton Friedman did, that the only responsibility of a business is to maximize its profits, and not be deliberately negligent, and there are those who believe the ideas of Freeman, that a business must be ethical and work its way around key stakeholders.

I think that there is a middle ground between the two philosophies. Because if a company truly wants to maximize profits, it must be willing to explore all options open to making profits, and it must be able to realize every opportunity to increase profits, including having a socially responsible business model. Not only is being a socially responsible company a positive choice for the brand of the company, it can also lead to many new opportunities.  Even if the company is only being environmentally friendly or socially responsible to propagate an identity,  the effect of this decision will still be positive.

I think it’s evident that being socially conscientiousness can in fact be the road to profit maximization. The two don’t need to be at odds.

It might surprise you to learn that your Facebook account, considered to be very personal by many, is making someone you’ve never met and never will, a lot of money. Facebook is so much more than a free means of social media, it’s a complex business, and there are those who would challenge if it is even free.

Facebook is much more often viewed as a social media outlet, rather than a thriving business entity. But the company behind the world’s popular website is a very interesting example of corporate finance at work. Facebook makes a great deal of profit off its “free” users. Facebook predominately takes in it’s revenue from the enormous amount of advertising on their site. Third party companies are willing and eager to advertise on your homepage, especially if their products are tailor made for you.

With its IPO scheduled to take place within 18 months, Facebook is following the example of tech industry giant Google by waiting as long as possible before going public.

Analysts predict that Facebook will launch with one of the highest IPO’s ever for an internet company.

One interesting thing about mixing political ideology and business strategy the miscommunication that can occur in the ensuing exchange. The Keystone Pipeline project, currently under review by the State Department, is an excellent example two drastically different tones being used to discuss. On one hand you have the environmental activists, who call the project “all-out war to battle”. On the other hand you have the TransCanada corporation and the Canadian government, who refer to the project as a “no-brainer”. How is it that such discrepancy can occur over a relatively simple concept?

The answer lies in the unfortunate blending between political activism and business. Objectively it’s actually very easy to boil down the concerns that were raised by the protesters. Most of them are unfounded, or baised in ideology rather than fact.  But political fervor isn’t easily diffused. Sometimes when political passion and a vague understanding of the issue at hand are mixed together the result can be disastrous for the well being of all involved concerns.

I wouldn’t suggest that the average person doesn’t know what’s good for them, but as Winston Churchill once said “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”

Nalgene has developed a reputation as being one of the strongest and most durable water-bottle producers in the market. Their brand is, in the mind of many consumers, the first in high quality and functional water bottles. A brand’s image is one of it’s most valuable assets, and recently Nalgene proved to what great lengths a company will go to protect that image.

In 2008, a study was released that indirectly implicated Nalgene water bottles as having a major health concern. The BPA scare ensued after consumers discovered that at a certain range, Nalgene’s were capable of secreting a dangerous chemical.

In response to this negative publicity, Nalgene underwent an extensive damage control operation in order to protect the quality and perception of their brand. By introducing a “BPA free” sticker onto their bottles, the company hoped to educate consumers and alleviate concerns over the safety of their product.

This example highlights how even a company with a solid reputation and good brand value is susceptible to the perceptions of consumers. Perception, not fact, is what counts in branding. Even if Nalgene was producing safe products, if perception was that their products were dangerous, the company would have suffered huge losses.

As we begin to approach Thanks-Giving many Canadians will feel their thoughts drifting towards the Thanks-Giving feast, and more specifically, turkey. Turkey and the holidays have been linked in the collective mind of Canadians forever it seems. Because of this special relationship, and the warmth that many feel towards their holiday meals,  it may be of great interest to learn that one of the centerpieces of the Thanks-Giving meal is in jeopardy.

This Thanks-Giving marks the beginning of a decline in the North-American turkey supply. Butterball Turkey, a major producer of turkey, has announced their decision to shut down a production plant in Colorado.

The reason for this closure isn’t a decline in the demand for turkey. It’s interestingly linked directly to the rising prices of food; specifically corn and soyabeans. Food prices are mercurial at best as they’re subject to numerous factors. When they rise quickly, poultry is often the first to get axed. Because of this, it has become too costly to raise turkey.

It is both interesting and somewhat concerning when one thinks about the future prices of food, and the affects that they may have on consumers way of life. Thanks-Giving and turkey are prime example of this.

It is not an entirely new phenomenon that consumers look to the products that they eat and drink for guidance with their personal health goals. For the past half century diet trends and nutrition fads have plagued the average consumer.

“Healthy” products are seen as more valuable alternatives and therefor have a better brand behind them than alternatives.

This notion is very evident if one looks at vitaminwater as an example. When Glaceau first introduced vitaminwater, flavoured water marketed as a healthier alternative to regular thirst quenchers, to a wider audience, many consumers looked no further than the advertisements and name of the product for information regarding the health benefits of the drink.

Because consumers have the perception that vitamin water is nutritionally superior, and therefor a healthier alternative, many flocked to purchase a bottle and ease their health conscience.

Recent legal action has struck a serious blow to the brands image. The Advertising Standards Authority ruled in January 2011 that an advertisement for vitaminwater was misleading due to the use of the word nutritious. The amount of sugar found within one bottle of vitamin water, an amount per capita comparable to Coca-Cola, was cited as the basis for the ruling.