The United Nations may give those in need a fish, but social enterprises teach these people how to fish for themselves. Because the United Nations’ time and resources are limited, they are allocated to the place in the world that needs the most support, leaving those in less need without any more aid. In contrast, social enterprises give people the ability to help themselves, so that when they do move on, they leave behind a community that is capable of surviving.

Secondly, although the U.N is good at researching, it is impossible for them to identify every problem. They depend on the local social enterprises to uncover the needs of their people and fulfil them in accordance to the local culture and economic status.

Thirdly, the World Bank deals with loans, while the FAO and WFP are responsible for distributing food. However, in some nations, corruption results in government officials reducing the amount of money that actually goes to the poor, while the United Nations itself will also use some money for their administrative costs. Conversely, social enterprises can sustain themselves by expanding and identifying their value proposition and customer segments, and ultimately better serve those who are in need.

After reading the Apple article on Reuters, I related it to a personal experience. My friend had been having some difficulties in receiving my text messages since last week, despite my phone showing it as successfully sent. We could not figure out what the problem was, but after reading the article, I realized that it was because my friend had switched from an iPhone 4 to a Samsung.

I believe that this is probably just a technology issue that both Apple and Samsung had failed to consider. It is unlikely that Apple aimed to hurt Samsung users, because this would violate unfair competition law and only hurt Apple’s brand value. I don’t see any motivation for Apple to purposely stop messages from being received on an Android base phone. Although it is hard for users to recognise where the source of the problem is, many are likely to end up blaming their telecommunication provider, like my friend and I. Not understanding the source would not change customer’s preference from Samsung to Apple, and certainly would not increase Samsung’s cost.

In conclusion, Apple did not prevent text messages from going through; it was a technology issue, and Apple should not be sued.

After reading Cecile Ouillet’s blog post “Unemployment Among University Graduates”, I became more aware of our generation’s struggles after graduation. With an increasing tuition fee, as well as intense competition growth due to larger amounts of people possessing an undergraduate degree when applying for a white-collar job, most of us will not be able to find our dream job.

By paying higher tuition, we hope that our investment will have higher returns, which increases our expectations of our future career. Graduates therefore increase their search time in finding their desired job, while the firms that provide those job positions only have a limited demand. The university, graduates and employers are all responsible parities for this unemployment.

To tackle this issue, universities should provide better assistance – such as Co-op and internship opportunities – to produce graduates with a more competitive edge. Moreover, students need to lower their expectations, and realize that it is not possible to graduate and earn ten thousand a month. Otherwise, they can choose different career paths, such as starting a company of their own or working for a start-up company where they may be offered some shares of the company.

FTTAP is being pushed by President Xi at APEC this year. The FTTAP proposal is very similar to the one that the United States proposed before the APEC summit (TPP), with both urging free trade among Asia-Pacific nations. The biggest difference is that in TPP, China is not included in the 12-nation partnership.

My opinion on the APEC summit is that the U.S is trying to expand its backyard to Asia and hopefully limit the speed of China’s rise by establishing a smaller version of the WTO in Asia-Pacific. President Xi’s FTTAP plan is definitely a counter-strike to the U.S proposal of TPP.

I also found Japan’s change of attitude and diplomacy right before the APEC interesting. These changes are included in “The Four Point Consensus in Principle,” stating that the prime minister of Japan is now “open” to discuss the disagreements between the two nations. Japan’s compromise is largely due to its recent drop of GDP (7.1%), the lowest in five years, as well as Japanese enterprises operating in China wanting Japan to improve trade and increase investment in projects in China.

I look forward to seeing if Japan will stand with China this time after the APEC.

As new technology advances, cyber attacks have been causing multiple retailers – including Home Depot and Target – to lose large amounts of money. This has impacted various banks by increasing costs through issuance of new bank cards for consumers who were under the threat of data loss by the retailers.

The article “Banks Take on Retailers Over Who Foots Bill for Cyber Attacks” argues about the responsibilities of the two parties, but does not realize that there are other parties who may also be responsible. These additional responsible parties include card issuers, card proceeding vendors, retailers, cardholders, and others. All these parties are involved in every transaction; hence, it may depend on the flow point at which the date is exposed to find the vulnerabilities.

The article also mentions that both banks and retailers are hiring lobbyists to shift the law in a way that benefits them. I believe it is best if retailers use that money to increase the security of online transactions and train their employees against hackers. Banks should also invest some money in increasing their cardholders’ awarenesses of cyber attacks.

The third quantitative easing was ended by the Federal Reserve two weeks ago. Financial Times regarded the QE as a successful measure to improve the economy, and compared it to the unsuccessful European fiscal consolidation and the Japanese tax raise.

However, the article failed to discuss two of the possible aftermaths of QE. Firstly, monetary value in some countries rose during QE through global cash liquidity. When the QE stopped, asset values depreciated whilst USD cash appreciated. Secondly, QE stimulated the quantity demanded in the stock market; the price stocks exceeded their actual value, causing investors to continue hoping for an increased growth in their stock. When QE ended, the price of stocks dropped immediately, harming the investors.

In conclusion, although the QE eased the lash of the financial crisis by keeping the bulk stock at a constant and encouraging buying and selling in the market, it is not as perfect as the article on Financial Times describes. QE3 both harmed and benefited people and countries when it was declared to be over.