BC Hydro is facing external challenges that could prevent the company from building “a dam and 1,100-megawatt hydroelectric generating station on the Peace River in northeastern British Columbia.” They face a political and legal issue in the sense that the dam would be on Native territory, prohibiting its construction without legal consent. Furthermore, there are environmental implications, as the dam would flood 83 kilometres of land, destroying farmland and wildlife habitat.
This puts the government in a conflict of interest. Clearly, they would want to build the dam because it would generate much needed clean energy. Nevertheless, they are obligated to respect the privileges of the First Nations, who do not want the project to be approved.

Personally, I agree with First Nations people that the dam should not be built. BC Hydro published a poll that suggests most of the B.C. population is in favour of the project. However, the majority of the B.C. population is in the south where people are not directly impacted by the flooding. I would be interested to see how the poll results would differ if more people were directly impacted by the project’s flooding. Perhaps then, the project would be more opposed.

Sources:

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/First+Nation+chiefs+stage+Site+showdown/10215965/story.html

https://www.bchydro.com/news/press_centre/news_releases/2014/site-c-opinion-poll-2014.html

This summer, Adidas sponsored nine teams at the FIFA World Cup, the world’s most watched sporting event. Two of the teams they sponsored were Germany and Argentina who ultimately played each other in the final. Despite Adidas’ success at that event, the company has been struggling recently.

The root of Adidas’ struggles lies in the U.S., the market responsible for nearly a quarter of their revenue. The company focusing on soccer, a sport that is not entirely popular in North America, as its primary sport, has caused part of their struggle. This has helped top competitor Nike win over North American consumers in the football and basketball industry, two of the most popular sports in the U.S.

This seems to me like the classic battle between the number one and two competitors in an industry. Adidas can try, but it is hard to see it overtaking Nike as the number one brand in competitive areas where Nike has led for ages. If they continue to see negative growth in sales in foreign markets in the long run, it may be in their best interest to focus more on what has made them a global success – the soccer industry.

Source:

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-10-02/adidass-u-dot-s-dot-sales-drop-as-hedge-funds-circle

This video highlights the ever-growing wage gap between younger and older workers. Older, more experienced workers will obviously always earn more than those entering the workforce; however, a recent study by the Conference Board of Canada shows the wage gap between workers in their twenties and workers in their forties is growing. The difference in disposable income between people of those ages just thirty years ago was 47%. Today, that figure is 64%.

This is sobering news for anyone my age trying to earn a degree. It is incredibly disheartening to know that there are more qualified students graduating than ever, meaning more competition in the workforce, while also knowing that the lucky few who do land a job will begin well behind the eight-ball. Although a degree is still incredibly valuable, its value has become slightly saturated as more and more students are earning them.

So what else does this mean for us? In all likelihood, it means more years of dependency on our parents than we originally intended. Sorry mom and dad, looks like I’m here to stay.

Source:

http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Business/ID/2533381457/

Alibaba, a Chinese e-commerce company, closed its first day on market at a $233 billion market value – a record breaking IPO. 

Despite this, there are five reasons why Warren Buffett, the greatest investor of the century, would not invest in the company.

First, it lacks global. Although it is extremely popular in China, it is questionable whether it will be able to replicate this in America and other markets.

Secondly, its business model will not be difficult to replicate for companies based in countries where relationships with the government aren’t as strong.

Also, its appeal to consumers does not tap elemental forces, meaning that it will be hard to keep first time buyers coming back.

Furthermore, technology could erode its moat. This means that Alibaba will have to work very hard to update their mobile shopping technology to compete with Amazon and Ebay.

Finally, its high margins are a competitor’s opportunity. Alibaba has a 57% operating margin. If Amazon lowers its advertising prices, it could severely cut Alibaba’s revenues.

The purpose of this article is clear to me; no matter how good a particular investment opportunity may seem, guaranteed returns on investment are a myth in today’s economy.

Source:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2014/09/19/5-reasons-not-to-invest-in-alibaba/

This article, published by The New York Times, details the privacy updates implemented by Facebook last year. Facebook’s new search tool update allowed complete strangers to browse user profiles and see just about anything they want. The issue that arose was that Facebook users were already uneasy about what information could be leaked via their Facebook profile. This update only increased concerns.

It is well known that Facebook generates most of its revenue from advertisements. The update was tailored towards advertisers so that it could be easier for them to build target audiences. They would then be willing to pay for more advertisements, thus increasing Facebook’s revenue stream.

The question to be asked is whether it is ethical for Facebook to make users’ personal information more accessible to generate profit. In my opinion, Facebook has done nothing wrong. To paraphrase Milton Friedman, it is the duty of a business to do whatever it takes to maximize profits so long as they are abiding by the law. This is exactly what Facebook has done. I believe that if Facebook users are paranoid about certain information being exposed, then that information should have never been posted on social media to begin with.

Source: