The Dark Side of Charisma by Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic is an interesting post which makes me wonder why the word Charisma carries a positive connotation. Most business leaders and politicians use it a lot which helps them create a positive image for themselves in the eyes of the population. I think it can also be said that marketing uses some kind if charismatic techniques to establish credibility for products the company wants to sell and influences people to buy  various products even if the may be harmful. The same way charismatic leaders attract followers is the same way companies through marketing somehow attract consumers. After reading some of the strong points describing the dark side of charisma, I guess people should be more careful and wise in deciding which products to buy among many alternatives.  All companies through many forms of advertising try to attract as many customers as possible and sometimes these charismatic companies use various means that dilutes our judgment.  With an increasing competition in business and so many information bombarding consumers about which product to buy, I guest consumers should learn to avoid falling into traps disguised by some positive advertisements which could be lies.

http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2012/11/the_dark_side_of_charisma.html

This is a response to Julia Amelio’s  “Money isn’t everything…” I have a problem with all these aggressive legal measures in business. In this world we all hugely rely on others people’s ideas. In the case like the Samsung & Apple legal case, I do not see why people should not be allowed to improve on something already done if it provides benefits to consumer. All Samsung did was to create more interesting and appealing which I do not think should cause a problem. Julia says that that people put their time and creativity to produce a product hence no should steal their creative property. I do not think this should be called stealing if Samsung is not producing the same product. Why deny people a chance to buy something different?  The companies should be allowed to use existing knowledge if this leads to innovation. This trend of such legal measures reflects selfishness of companies which does make the world better off since there is restrains on consumers’ satisfaction.

However, if  the reality is that the companies are only interested in their profits, then these rules makes sense but I do not think that is how things should be.

https://blogs.ubc.ca/juliaamelio/

In response to Hwang, Min Young‘s  article “The Rising Power of Barriers to Entry” I would say that there will always be a problem when the big Industries like Shell and the Environmental agencies chose to work on opposite sides instead of working together. The environmentalists would continue to criticize the industry and the industry will continue to keep them away of its business.

Personally, I think it is a very serious problem which seems to have no definitive solution. Big oil companies like Shell are involved in a very tough and competitive industry. They want to make as much money as possible to dominate the industry but this comes with huge costs to society such as environmental impacts which is more of a problem to those less well off to protect themselves from the harm  than to the richer guys who make huge profits from oil production.

Limits for oil industries are set but not always respected and it seems to me that the environmentalists opposing these big industries are less likely to prevail as long as the business structure these industries operate in involves so much competition and most of the times get the backing of the governments.

https://blogs.ubc.ca/minyounghwang/

For the past two decades, China’s global political and Economical power has significantly increased. This is not good news for the United States of America and most of the leading powers of Europe that believe that China is more of a threat than an opportunity according to a study done by Transatlantic Trends. This struggle of economic power can be seen between USA and China as the two continue to take tough stances against each other in terms of economic policy. Whatever the reasons to brand China as a threat, China’s booming economy has created many businesses which have brought back confidence in the global economy after global economic crisis of 2008.

I think this is worrying because the world leading powers especially the Europeans and the Americans do want China to take over as the most powerful nation. It becomes clear to me how the world of business is strongly intertwined with the world of politics. If politics is defined as the struggle for power and very much related to business and economy, what we will happen to the world if China’s rapid economic growth is unstoppable. Will the USA ever cede its position as the most powerful nation?

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/09/daily-chart-11

When it comes to legalization of drugs, I get a problem understanding why some drugs are legal and others are not. I just want to compare Hard Liquor which is legal in most countries and Marijuana which is still illegal in most countries. It is not in my interest to enumerate the different consequences of consuming any of these two products; I just want people to think from simple observation which of the two is harmful and if one of them should be legal, which one should be the best option to legalize keeping in mind the well being of the people.

I know Marijuana causes people to get high and unable to operate normally but how about how hard liquor? As a UBC student living in residence, I encourage anyone who wishes to pass by on Friday nights and whiteness what drinks like Whiskey, Vodka, Gin, Tequila, Rum, and Brandy do to students. Since I came to Canada, I haven’t seen a weekend without an ambulance coming to take one, two or more students to the hospital due to the consumption of these drinks. How is Marijuana different to be illegal or it’s all about business?

http://whyprohibition.ca/blogs/jacob-hunter/conservative-republican-leads-effort-decriminalize-marijuana

Nestle, the world’s biggest food company may be loved for the delicious chocolates it produces but it is interesting how the many consumers of the company’s products never ask themselves what it takes to produce these delicious chocolates. Child labor plays a huge role in the production of cocoa in Ivory Coast where Nestle gets most of its coca to produce chocolate. An estimate of over 600,000 children is working on cocoa farms for little or no pay in excruciating working conditions. In Ivory Coast, there is evidence of serious injuries, mainly with machetes that slice into the children’s legs as they harvest the cocoa pods. Also, the children that work in the farms work for long hours which stop most of them to even attend school. The numbers of the working children is shocking and it is also chocking to hear Nestle’s Executive Vice-President for Operations Jose Lopez say:  “the use of child labor in our cocoa supply chain goes against everything we stand for.”  This is conflicting news where the company says it is strongly against the use of child labor but at the same time, evidence shows that without it the company wouldn’t be that successful since child labor reduces significantly it cost of production.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-18644870

The article talks about the present situations of social enterprises in China. The social enterprises are involved in helping senior citizens who need to be taken care of, they introducing innovative of ways of using energy such as the use of solar cookers in rural villages to reduce the massive scale of the environmental and health problems faced by villagers caused by the burning of solid fuels such as wood, dung and coal, and they involved in other social activities.

From reading the article, I think businesses should be approached in a different way if businesses are really for the benefit of society. If the various big businesses can work to solve many society’s issues which is possible, the world could be better off. Or is the economist that has wrongly described the human nature by connecting money making and human’ maximum happiness? The government can encourages more social enterprises to take part in businesses with the main aim to make the world better. Capitalism should be redefined since the current capitalism encourages people to be only money making creatures who disregard in many instances, the well being of the whole society.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19652712