Debrief

In his blog post “Ethical Dilemma, why are we concentrating on oil companies paying for oil spills and not other companies for emitting greenhouse gases?“, my peer, Sean Fox, questioned why companies were not taking the onus on themselves in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. He argued that with things such as oil spills, companies, feeling the pressure of environmental groups, quickly had to correct their actions to avoid major public relations backlash.

My Opinions

Although bringing up an interesting argument, I believe the critical flaw in Sean’s thinking to be his faith in humanity and capitalism. In my (possibly pessimistic) eyes, most company’s in the natural resources industry do not inherently want to help the environment. The only reason BP had to
respond so quickly to their oil spill was the resounding pressure put on them by the public, media outlets, and environmental groups alike. The key word in that sentence was pressure; a verb not found in the fight to rid the world of greenhouse gases. It has become a forethought in mind’s of environmental groups, a inevitability that cannot be solved in the short term. The media, not seeing a return on their ratings, have pushed greenhouse gases to the shadows. In its overwhelming prevalence of this issue has caused it to become the norm,  and so, like the thousands of death occurring in Africa everyday, its curb appeal has vanished. However, I believe that greenhouse gas emissions can be brought back into relevance. It is my belief that if the public and media should put a substantial amount of pressure on companies to reduce emissions, these capitalists, fearing the loss in profits, will put this topic at the forefront, expediting the quest to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions and, in the process, restoring the health of the planet.

“Sean Fox.” Sean Fox’s Blog. UBC Blogs, 30 Sept. 2014. Web. 27 Oct. 2014.

BP’s Crude Awakening. Digital image. A Better World. Greenpeace, n.d. Web. 27 Oct. 2014.

People of the Tsilhqot’in nation marching on the Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court’s ruling gave the Tsilhqot’in people title to 1,750 km of land in Northern BC.

         As the Tsilhqot’in nation vehemently try to oppose the creation of a copper mine on the north tip of the Chilcotin forest, it brings to light the First Nation’s resolve in preserving their culture. As reported in the Vancouver Sun article, a 2014 ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada gave the Tsilhqot’in people title “to 1,750 square kilometres of land west of Williams Lake.” Taseko Mines Ltd. are trying to build the New Prosperity Mine (a copper-gold mine) just outside the legislated First Nation’s reserve lands, in nearby Fish Lake. To counteract this, the Tsilhqot’in people are proposing a vast stretch of forest, which includes the land designated for the mine, as a Tribal Park, thereby stopping Taseko Mines from progressing any further. Although this has caused some to question the legitimacy of the Tribal Park claim, it no doubt brings up an interesting theme. In my eyes, it appears as if the Aboriginal people are fighting for their culture, the sacred land on which they have lived for thousands of years. They are undoubtedly trying to protect their sacred wilderness from the plunder of profit-seeking corporations. I believe, more than anything else, this brings up a invaluable lesson about consent prior to action. Taseko Mines should have made sure that the Aboriginal people were satisfied before moving further in their proposal. By incorporating all stakeholders in the planning process, Taseko could’ve quelled all concerns and eliminated this controversy. However, by shutting out the Tsilhqot’in people, Taseko alienated the Tsilhqot’in tribe, making them rebel in protest. In its truest form, this shows how greatly business proposals hinge on incorporating all stakeholders into the strategic process.

Pynn, Larry. “Tsilhqot’in Set to Declare Site of New Prosperity Mine a Tribal Park.” Www.vancouversun.com. The Vancouver Sun, 11 Sept. 2014. Web. 07 Oct. 2014.

“March of the Tsilhqot’in.” Ctvnews.com. CTV News, n.d. Web.

Mark Cuban, author of Blog Maverick and owner of the Dallas Maveric

Exploring the stock trading market of the 1990’s and early 2000’s, Mark Cuban’s blog post The Stock Market gave an interesting idea into the reason why people buy stocks and stock prices act in the way they do. In the blog, Cuban argues that stock trading is nothing more than a popularity curve, where people invest in the stocks that are trending as popular and move away from those where people are removing their investments. This volatility can often boil down to how well companies market themselves, as, in the day of the Dot Com Bubble, the technology firms that had the best widespread publicity among investment banks often brought along a ton of secondary investment from the common investor. As a whole, I cannot help but side with Cuban on all frontiers, with his greatest success being his ability to correlate the stock market to human instinct.  I instantly related Cuban’s ideas about stock trading to fashion trends in high school. The popular kids always had the newest, coolest, most fashionable stuff, and, soon afterwards, the rest of the school was following in their footsteps. This leads to massive profits by the brands that produce their fashion trends. When the trend changes, the followers are left with newly purchased clothes that they can’t use out of fear of being out of date, rendering the clothes useless. This is essentially what Cuban is talking about, where investment banks, in publishing their buy rating, send a message to all amateur investors as to what

Cuban’s company Broadcast.com, whose stock, due to great marketing, went up 225% the first day of its IPO.

companies are on the rise. As a result, these investors flood the demand for a particular stock, causing the stock price to skyrocket. Cuban then goes on to explain the risk in such unwarranted stock prices. This is done by his explanation that companies, despite their sky high stock price, are not bringing in any real money, which means they cannot develop and enhance their products. This eventually leads to the company going out of business, rendering the stocks inept and costing many amateur investors their life savings. In its entirety, Cuban’s post does more than just tell the dangers of following trends in the stock market, it relates business to regular life and human instinct, causing his message to resonate on a much deeper level.

Cuban, Mark. “The Stock Market.” Web log post. Blog Maverick: The Mark Cuban Blog. Mark Cuban, 10 Jan. 2013. Web. 4 Oct. 2014.

Broadcast.com Logo. Digital image. Wikipedia: Mark Cuban. Wikipedia: The Online Encyclopedia, 5 Oct. 2014. Web. 5 Oct. 2014.

Image of Mark Cuban. Digital image. Blog Maverick: The Mark Cuban Blog. Mark Cuban, 5 Oct. 2014. Web. 5 Oct. 2014.

Mark Suster, the author of the blog

In his blog post What I Hate About Selling Companies, Mark Suster brings up an interesting idea about the family dynamic that accompanies the development of firms by venture capitalists. Suster, a venture capitalist, is constantly being assigned to work with a select team from his fund’s most recently acquired companies, working with the team until the time that the fund sells the company to another firm. Together, Suster and the team find ways to  increase the profitability and efficiency of the company. However, as time progresses, Suster no longer considers these people workers, but instead they become his friends, his family. As Suster writes, once his fund sells off the company, he cannot help but feel a sense of remorse over their diverting paths. Little does he know, this fundamental concept has the ability to change how people and  companies view business ethics and conduct as a whole. In the current state, firms are mostly interested in profits, with Suster remarking how his “job is to return money to LPs [limited partners, essentially investors].” The bottom line is all that counts, which, in the past, has caused people to act in immoral, illegal, and downright devious ways in order to fulfill their prescribed goals. Yet, by Suster’s personal connection to the company and its

Upfront Ventures, the venture capital firm where Suster works

workers, he has eliminated the impersonal aspect that is quickly becoming the norm of business. Venture capitalists have been known to buy companies and sell them off for parts, taking no regard to the workers and employees who would be left unemployed due to this process. Suster’s close relationship with these employees would make this betrayal less likely, as few people would knowingly and deliberately double-cross their friends, their family. By adding a face and a personality to the workers, he is making these employees real, and making himself empathetic to the prospect of their possible unemployment. Should all investment banks and hedge funds operate in this manner, the archetype of corporate America would quickly turn on its head, becoming a beacon for moral labor practices. In its truest form, the paradigm of hedge funds and venture capitalists will shift, no longer being regarded as the greedy bankers looking to make a quick profit, but instead an ethical profession that sees employees as more than just assets.

Suster, Mark. “What I Hate About Selling Companies.” Web log post. Both Sides of the Table. Mark Suster, 28 Sept. 2014. Web. 4 Oct. 2014.

“Both Sides of the Table.” Both Sides of the Table. Mark Suster, n.d. Web. 27 Oct. 2014.