Sep 18 2011
Comments to other blogs
Comment on Ethics
Niloufar’s blog post on ethics highlights the abundance of companies who secretly deal with external threats.
As “Corporations are people,” they have a responsibility to maintain their reputation (brand) – as all people in society. A business hiding its true intentions indicates unethical behaviour – as, for example, insider trading and illegally setting prices.
A competitive market only works if businesses have transparent actions – Talisman’s actions create inequitable competition for businesses who have adapted to government rules. If one company invests in green technology, it has a higher cost structure, and is incapable of price competing against other firms. Being able to match and compete on prices is especially important in the oil industry, where an undifferentiated product makes firms unable to justify higher prices to consumers. On a soccer field, is it ethical for a team to influence the referee to specifically change the rules for their team? Donating to anti-global warming efforts devalues the idea of a economy: a fair platform for “players” to compete with their abilities as the only advantage. A government’s role must be unhindered to maintain our values of environmental stewardship and open competition. Any company – especially Talisman – whose actions discredit society’s values is unethical.
https://blogs.ubc.ca/niloufark/
Comment on Energy Drinks
A restriction on caffeine is highly unfair for producers. The selling point of energy drinks – the point of difference for the entire industry – is their high levels of caffeine. The restriction would hurt producers by diminishing their customer base as consumers start to find caffeine in coffee or other products. Yes, many students consume too much caffeine which mainly comes from energy drinks. But the restriction does not truly help consumers. Going to the grocery store, I am still able to obtain many other products with a higher caffeine content. If anything, the restriction limits consumer choice, would not change the demand or consumption for highly-caffeinated products and would unfairly drive unsatisfied customers out of the energy-drink industry into other sectors.
Econbrowser: Taxing the 1%
Econbrowser’s new blog post, “Taxing the 1%” by James Hamilton, highlights the common issue faced by civilizations for hundreds of years: tax the rich or tax the poor? Income inequality in the United States has consistently increased over the generation – which Hamilton effectively illustrates by a graph. Hamilton, by showing that the income taxes of the top 1% have decreased from 2005-2010, allows the reader to deduce their own conclusion. It is unfair that such a developed society has incentives that encourage the rich while further neglecting those already disadvantaged. Much as a company must have incentives within a structure to ensure its objectives are met, a government should ensure its policies do not discourage the values it once chose to uphold: to promote the equity between all citizens.
http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2011/11/taxing_the_1.html