Downloading music from the web is outrageous! It is unethical, horrible, degrading, and I would never, never, NEVER do it.

Just kidding.

Just like most people from these days, streaming has become a great tool to discover new artists. With just one click, I eliminate all opportunity cost. Streaming has practically no opportunity cost. Which is why I do it all the time: because I love music, but I never find myself in the mood to go around spending small bucks on iTunes or Amazon.

All these time I’ve been feeling guilty (not that much, I admit) about this. I always thought of the artists working really hard to make a living, and there I was, crushing their dreams. Good for me, my agony came to an end when Tom Dobrzanski, Sauder graduate and musician, came to speak at our fascinating and amazing Comm 101 class. To my surprise, when he was asked what he though of people downloading music from the internet for free, he said it was good!

Dobrzanski explained that easy streaming gave starting bands the opportunity to grow. Music junkies like me are a huge market for starting bands. We’re always looking for the next, next hit.

So, is piracy good business? Well, it is at least for starting bands. But the main thing here is that what has to happen is for labels and bands to change their business model and move away from a album-selling-oriented revenue to something more creative. I’m talking concerts, advertising, shirts, events, etc etc etc.

Going through my classmates’ blogs I found one that stood out. It’s written by Emily C, and it can be found here. Emily criticizes the modern trend of advertising to completely disregard ethics and values to sell a product. She says that the ad “screams sex” and that it also subordinates women.

I think differently. In a capitalist society with a free market although regulated to some extent by the government, companies should have the freedom to advertise as they wish. Why? Because they know better how to increase revenue. And by increasing revenue, they will expand and a) hire more people and b) pay more taxes.

Now, let’s not get too extreme. Of course there must be some rules. For example, full nudity might bee a little too out there. But to criticize sexism in advertising is to bring down one of the most important means of advertising! Who cares if the ads gets a little naughty?! It works, doesn’t it? We’re even writing blogs about it!

Listening to entrepreneur and Sauder graduate, Tom Dobrzanski, talk about how the music industry, gave me shivers all through my body. As soon as I got home I listened to all of his band’s (The Zolas) music, and I fell instantly in love with indie rock. Well, at least this one.

A couple of years back, I was very, very socially driven. Now, I’m more of a– pessimistic. I will leave all the world-saving to my fellow classmates who seem to be very enthusiastic about social entrepreneurship. Don’t get me wrong. It’s not that I don’t care about poverty and hunger. I’m from Costa Rica. I know what poverty looks like. And I care. I just don’t think I can solve it. After working in the Legislative Assembly of my country, I lost all hope whatsoever. Nevertheless, I truly wish the best for those who try.

Now. Music. I love music. Although I play very little piano, music has an unparalleled power over me. And I would love to work in the music industry. However, I have always felt a little guilty about music: as if I ended up working for a big label, I would just become a commercial puppet and not do any good in the world. Is it just that my generation is obsessed with fixing the world, and we all desperately want jobs that “make the world a better place” blah blah..?

Why is it that people are more happy to pay a waiter or waitress an additional tip (on top of their salary and the cost of the meal) than to pay taxes to the government (who will in theory use that revenue for good)? It seems a little ironic… Waiters don’t need that tip, it’s more of a courtesy, a “thank you”. Governments on the other hand rely heavily on taxes, and in many cases (for example in Canada) the taxes are put to well use (don’t debate this– I’m from the third world).

After some thorough analysis, I’ve come to the wise conclusion that there are three reasons for this:

First. People identify with the receivers of the tips. They can see themselves in their positions and understand the importance of such. On the other hand, sometimes it is difficult to sympathise with the government and happily pay the costly taxes.

Second. Most people and mostly everywhere are skeptical about their government. Critics come easily and often unfounded. Therefore, one can see a tip as a just reward, while taxes are often questioned and often used ineffectively.

And third. There is a very strong popular culture that hates taxes. It seems like everyone wants all the benefits (cheap education, good public transportation, health care, social security programs, etc) but they never fail to groan when it comes to paying taxes.

Come on, humanity, why not change our view on taxes?!

PS: as long as taxing is fair, of course.

In an article on The New Yorker, titled “Out of the Office”, written by Kelefa Sanneh, some interesting arguments about progress are made. Sanneh talks about the book Shop Class as Soulcraft written by Matthew Crawford. In the book Crawford describes his experience quitting his prestigious job to open a shop that fixes motorcycles. Long story short, Crawford’s book is about how he’s so happy about his “small shop” and that everyone should do the same! He is an anti-big-corporation advocate.

The article discusses the notion of change, and how it is so engrained in American politics (Democrats and Republicans) with a very positive connotation. Change, progress, forward. .. And in theory, it seems that something is good when it advances. Going back is falling behind. After learning about chain supply and operations, I started thinking about the inevitability of big corporations. The “big guys” in an industry are usually the ones with cheaper prices and greater productivity. Both business and life are competitions. Imagine if you put hundred children in a new planet. Hierarchies would probably rise, some would be stronger, or better at different things. Groups would appear, and although there might be alliances and peace, it is hard to imagine that each kid had the exact same power as the others. The same happens in capitalist economies.

So, which one is better? Big corporations that offer cheaper, good products or local “happily-made” products?

Chatting about a research paper with a high school teacher, we drifted a bit and ended talking about the ethics of world size corporations such as Walmart. If Walmart were a country, it would be the 25th largest economy. Read more about it here. Now, this is worth our time to stop and analyze. A corporation grater than 157 other countries?! Let’s remember that by definition a government is supposed to “take care” in some form or another of its people (in theory, that is), while a corporation’s primary or sole purpose is not usually understood to be benefit-giving to the majority of the citizens.

Now, regarding Costa Rica, the entrance of Walmart would have major long lasting effects: starting with the urban immigration, local shops pushed to bankruptcy, and new hundreds of job positions. Jessica Barry writes in her blog about Walmart’s involvement in scandals and its tendency to get away with it. Nevertheless it’s worthwhile to stop one second, and see what’s going on here. Do we feel okay about the tradeoff of pushing to bankruptcy many small businesses for many new jobs?

https://blogs.ubc.ca/florazhu/

Flora Zhu’s blog, “Taking from the rich to assist the poor” questions the fairness of taxing the “hard working” top class. Flora states that actually 70% of the 1% actually hold top academic positions, which reflect their diligence and dedication. The debate between trickle down economics and social equality has been going on forever and will probably go on forever. However, there is a yet more interesting approach to the question of poverty, fairness, etc.

New Yorker writer, John Cassidy asks, “how poor is poor?” This (very interesting) article article can be found here.

The article is titled “Relatively Deprived”. Cassidy argues that poverty is not an isolated condition, but rather a result of comparing oneself to others around you. It’s the fact that we compete with others that we feel poor, or not poor. Therefore, poverty standards should be redefined into taking into consideration psychological factors of comparison.

Now, that been said, what I’m trying to say is quite simple. We have endlessly discuss whether to help the poor out, or leave it to the rule of the jungle… But, why not redefine poverty? Is it not more affordable to encourage people not to compare themselves to others and thus encourage them to redefine themselves out of the poverty line? This would be revolutionary to poverty standards, economic measures, and international relations.

Among the many problems that haunt Costa Rica, inflation is one of the most common ones. Foreigners, travelers and immigrants often complain about the high prices in Costa Rica. As a former nationalist, I was used to defending my “beloved nation” by saying that you get what you pay for, and that the living quality in Costa Rica hadn’t fallen from the sky… Taxes, regulation policies, and laws that protected the workers made the final prices of consumer products much, much more expensive than those of the region. I would probably then say that Costa Rica is not like the other countries nearby: we have stability, peace, and happiness. So, let us leave it at that and don’t complain, just pay the inflated price.

But I was wrong. Inflation is an issue that must be faced. More than five hundred colones buy one dollar, and the economic environment in Costa Rica is not welcoming for foreign investors that are looking for cheaper modes of production. The relative political stability is an incentive, though. The high cost of living in Costa Rica is not at all a byproduct of high living standard. On the contrary it is caused by an inefficient political system that prints too much money and has no idea whatsoever how to deal with debt. The current 5.7% inflation rate (indexmundi.com) may get out of control and then there will be no way for me to defend Costa Rica.

Morality has always been the ultimate gray area, a concept that instantaneously encourages debate. I believe that the true essence behind business ethics is not the debatable definition of what is right and wrong, but rather the question of when is it okay to “let it slide”, for the sake of business; when is it necessary to play dirty. Some moralists may state that there is no money, nor business, nor corporation above ethics. And some businesspeople may respond, that they haven’t been out there, that things are tough, and there is no time to be a saint. It’s survival of the fittest—isn’t?

Well, playing dirty is just not cool. And here’s my story about it:

Short after my dad started a business called Tauro, a factory that makes plastic bags, he received a call from the CEO of “Yamber”, his competition. This man was an acquaintance of my dad. My dad saw the call as an act of good faith; they talked about prices and costumers. Later on, my dad realized that the CEO of Yamber had lowered significantly the selling price of his product after learning at how much Tauro was selling. Tauro lost an important client, but kept going at its own pace…

Ten years after, Yamber went from being a monster in the industry to a failed company. Hmm… the results of playing dirty?

Conclusion: don’t play dirty. It ain’t nice.

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