Many large companies managed to dodge the sizable amount they pay in corporate income tax through a loop hole called outsourcing.

By declaring their profits in countries like Bermuda, where corporate income tax simply doesn’t exist, Google UK has cut down on its overall taxation.

This calls to question the current laws regarding the taxation of multinational corporations.  Currently, the corporation must abide by the laws of the particular country it is stationed in.  The parliamentary Public Accounts Committee (PAC) has called attention to Google’s truancy in tax payments and has called on the government to change multinational corporations’ tax laws.

But what problems would arise from a multinational law?  The reason the status quo is where it is now is due to a lack of a competent organization that would police such a law.  The closest the world has now to a global police is the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court, places that should be reserved for grievous faults against humanity, not such petty things as tax evasion.

http://www.bnn.ca/News/2013/9/30/Google-pays-55M-tax-in-Britain-on-2012-sales-of-55B.aspx

The past year has been a less than fortunate one for many of the major car companies around the world.  Due to safety problems, many of the more popular models of these companies, such as the Toyota Sienna minivans, are being recalled to their designated companies.

While this is not the first time a recall has happened, in fact, Toyota had another such recall earlier this month, it has not happened so simultaneously between the main car manufacturer brands.

The question then arises, what does this do to the market?

And even more pressingly for the manufacturing companies, what does this mean to their operations.

With recalls come replacements, where Toyota and its competitors will have to gift brand new versions of the faulty models to avoid any suits in regard to safety being filed against them.

In a still recovering economy, it begs the question of whether or not consumers are still willing to buy new cars when safety can apparently be so easily compromised.

http://www.bnn.ca/News/2013/9/30/BMW-Hyundai-and-Kia-recall-over-180000-cars-in-China.aspx

http://www.webpronews.com/toyota-recalls-vehicles-for-8th-time-this-year-2013-09

RIM reports a loss of nearly a billion dollars for its second quarter.  Due to this not quite so unexpected blow, the company is expected to lay off 4,500 workers, a number that makes up 40% of its current staff.

The company’s lack of success is mostly credited to the disappointing sales of its newest contribution to the smartphone market, the BlackBerry Z10.  The phone came into the market a few weeks after its Apple and Samsung competitors, which put it at a significant disadvantage after so many patrons pledged their loyalties to the rival brands.

This is far from the first time RIM has been late to the party.  When the iPad ushered in the tablet craze, RIM’s playbook came several months later and had to compete with Samsung’s Galaxy tab as well.

This begs the question, what exactly does the Blackberry bring to the table?  What exactly sets it apart from iPhones and Samsung tablet-phones?  Without the advantage of business oriented BBM, is there anything left for the BlackBerry to offer its clientele?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/does-blackberry-have-a-future-1.1862945

Normally, prices in a free market are largely controlled by consumers.  Prices will rise only as high as a consumer is willing to pay, and supply is dictated by consumer demand.  However, this happy equilibrium is set askew during times of natural disaster.  In the midst of hurricanes and floods, the demand for necessities such as bottled water, canned goods, and batteries sky rockets.

As it is in most companies’ best interests to generate as much revenue as they can, is it proper for establishments to raise the price of such necessities to capitalize on undeniable need?

Price gouging is the act of raising market price when no other retailer is available.  From an ethics stand point, it is a low blow.  With the stress of being displaced from their homes, losing a sizable amount of their possessions, and possibly dealing with illnesses, the last thing natural disaster victims need is an extra figure to weigh on their bank accounts.

But moral compass aside, there is an economic downside to the unethical price hikes.

As Freeman explains in this week’s video on his Stakeholder Theory, a company in decline is one that disappoints its community.  And what better way to disappoint your community than to charge them a few extra dollars for their pain?

While the windfall temporarily pads their pockets, companies that practice price gouging will suffer in the long term, losing loyalty and consumers in the decline Freeman so vividly outlined.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/story/2013/06/22/calgary-price-gouging-floods.html  (Calgary Floods)

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/price-gouging-hurts-consumers-amid-hurricane-frenzy-183842221.html

http://business.time.com/2012/11/02/post-sandy-price-gouging-economically-sound-ethically-dubious/ (Hurricane Sandy)

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