Between the open of October 30th and close on October 31st on Nasdaq, Facebook’s shares dropped 3%. The decline in adolescent interest on this popular social networking site has resulted in Facebook hoping to gain more members through Snapchat. The Wall Street Journal reported on November 14, 2013 that Facebook offered to buy Snapchat for an absurd amount: $3 Billion. And Snapchat rejected.

According to Om Malik, Google offered Snapchat $4 Billion the next day which CEO of Snapchat, Evan Spiegal, rejected once again. With approximately 26 million users and a vast amount of members flocking from Facebook to Snapchat, it is no wonder why Spiegal declined the offer. Also, Snapcat was established with virtually no assets, but made its way to one of the top apps that big companies are vying for.

So did Evan Spiegal make the right decision? Only time will tell.

Bercovici, Jeff. “Facebook Tried To Buy Snapchat for $3B In Cash. Here’s Why.” Forbes. Web 11 November 2013.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2013/11/13/facebook-wouldve-bought-snapchat-for-3-billion-in-cash-heres-why/

Wismer, David. “Snapchat: How To Make $4 Billion- Or Was It $4 Billion- Disappear. (And Other Quotes of The Week).” Forbes. Web 17 November 2013.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidwismer/2013/11/17/snapchat-how-to-make-3-billion-or-was-it-4-billion-disappear-and-other-quotes-of-the-week/

Poverty in America has been a struggle for a long time, exacerbated after the Great Depression with 15% of Americans living below the poverty line of $11,945. The Atlantic’s Matt Bruenig and Elizabeth Stoker brought up an idea to solve this problem in their article, “How to Cut The Poverty Rate In Half (It’s Easy)”. The solution? Give every American $3000.

Hypothetically, if the Government gives every American citizen a cheque for three grand, it could cut poverty in half; however, this project would also cost around $907 billion or 5.6% of the nation’s GDP. This sum is almost equivalent to the government’s current expenditures of $750 billion on low income families and by implementing this idea, the government can also eliminate other costly social welfare programs. This sounds like a simple and potentially successful solution to a very complex problem, but there must be reasons for why it’s highly unlikely to pass congress.

I believe, along with Danny Vinik from Business Insider, that this could decrease the incentive to work for many low income bracket Americans, especially if the money given is wasted. If those in poverty receive the money and decide to rely on the Government instead of work, it could worsen the economy.

Switzerland will be holding a referendum to give each adult $2800; if this vote is successful, Switzerland will be the first country in the world to give its citizens a basic income. Whether it will be applied to the US is still questionable down the road.

Works Cited:

Bruenig, Matt et al. “How to Cut The Poverty Rate In Half (It’s Easy)”. The Atlantic. Web 29 October 2013.

Vinik, Danny. “Everyone’s Talking About This Simple Solution To Ending Poverty By Just Giving People Free Money”. Business Insider. Web 12 November 2013.

In response to Zilue (Sunny) Zheng’s post, “A New Way To Create Healthy Fast Food”, I believe that Fast Food Companies’ doubt in branding their food as healthy, legitimate. Although these companies are being pressured to make their food healthier, the delicious, cheap and simple meals; although it is a healthier alternative, it is removing a major point of parity. This could greatly reduce the amount of customers as healthy food is often associated with a bland taste, according to Zilue Zheng’s blog post.

Also, I believe that making fast food slightly healthier will not attract more customers that value living or eating healthy; health-conscious customers would most likely eat elsewhere rather than a fast-food restaurant with the reputation of producing low quality food trying to promote “low sodium”. In conclusion, I strongly believe that if companies like McDonald’s or A&W try to change their menus or food ingredients to appeal to healthier customers, their sales and profits will eventually decrease.

Recently, Joye Kwon wrote a blog on Mercedes-Benz’s new CLA Sedan. This car will cost just from $31,000 which is targeted towards the middle-class populace to increase sales. According to Joye, this is an insufficient marketing strategy because Mercedes-Benz “is a brand of exclusivity” and this new release will only “diminish the company’s luxury image”. However, I believe that although Joye made a reasonable point, the CLA Sedan is potentially a good strategic move for the future of Mercedes-Benz. The lower cost will broaden the brand’s target audience, resulting in an increase in price and profit. The main issue brought up of the diminishing luxury image which is a point of difference for Mercedes Benz, can be counteracted. The company can still maintain its high-end reputation without having to be completely exclusive; they already released smart cars, Smart For Two, costing around $25,000 and the brand is still associated with class. They can sell a variety of cars, including the expensive AMG models and the more affordable CLA Sedan, to a wider range of customers. Also, Mercedes-Benz can still soldify their reputation among the car-buying populace by maintaining their quality and design (valued points of differences by customers) in the new cars. For example, car company Toyota, has a luxury car devision called Lexus for a specific range of customers. I believe that Mercedes-Benz can follow suit without damaging their reputation and that the CLA Sedan will benefit the company in both sales and reputation among middle-class buyers.