Bitcoin was established in 2009. Many people would point out the fact that the era it was established in was tech savvy and more importantly tech friendly. However, bitcoin was born in an era of ignorance about crypto-currency. It identified a “pain” that was oblivious to consumers and set out to solve it. This was the mission statement set out by the founder of the digital currency who referred to it as a “pain killer”.

Bitcoin gained popularity in 2016 with increasing knowledge about crypto-currency.

Fast forward nearly 8 years and the platform has done wonders. Its incredibly secure design has gained the trust of consumers and the sheer speed of transactions has left financial institutions baffled. Add to it the opportunity for third parties to earn money through authorizing transactions in a decentralized  transaction system, it has received an astounding reception. So much so that a single bitcoin has hit a high of being worth $7800. Even through all the positivity, some observers have raised the concern that this is too good to be true.

Bitcoin has faced a downward trend over the past two days.

And there concerns may well be validated. The past weekend has seen bitcoin lose over 25% in value, falling from a high of $7800 to nearly $5900. Why has this happened? An intrigued individual might ask. The answer is simple. Bitcoin’s entire Value Proposition is that transactions happen rapidly without delays. This has been put into jeopardy by the fast paced growth of the currency itself. Bitcoin has a hard-cap of 1 megabyte of space per block  which was fine with a small number of transactions. However, since the number is increasing rapidly, the current model is not efficient as it only allows for seven transactions per second.

Whats worse is that Bitcoin’s nearest rival, Bitcoin Cash, has doubled in value through the past four days reaching a value of more than $1500. This comes as no surprise as the civil war between these currencies is an old one. Bitcoin Cash offers faster transaction services with lower fees but takes away some of the decentralization from the process, something proponents of Bitcoin have continuously highlighted. They argue that this makes Bitcoin Cash like any other currency, volatile and not a safe way of preserving wealth.

The shakiness of both major crypto-currencies can possibly be traced to the fact that developers are uncertain over which version will be the primary version of digital currencies. However, one statement can be said with reasoned deduction. Even if minute details about these currencies are fixed and code rewritten, skepticism from the financial world will haunt Bitcoin. Banks, among other large corporations, use the media to establish an anti-bitcoin culture which is detrimental to future prospects. Thus, optimists and investors in Bitcoin will also need to fire back with marketing and research that cements Bitcoin as the currency of the future.

Word Count: 454

Works Cited:

Hoang,M. (2017, October 15). What is the deal with Bitcoin anyway?

Retrieved November 12, 2017, from https://blogs.ubc.ca/markhoang/2017/10/15/bitcoin/

Lee,T. (2017, November 11). Bitcoin rival doubles in price in four days as Bitcoin price slumps

Retrieved November 12, 2017, from  https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/bitcoin-rival-doubles-in-price-in-four-days-as-bitcoin-price-slumps/

Dhaliwal,S. (2017, November 12). A Tale of Two Bitcoins: Where Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash Are Headed 

Retrieved November 12, 2017, from https://cointelegraph.com/news/a-tale-of-two-bitcoins-where-bitcoin-bitcoin-cash-are-headed

Cheng. E. (2017, November 12).  Bitcoin briefly drops 15% in rocky weekend amid controversy over digital currency’s future

Retrieved November 12, 2017 from https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/12/bitcoin-briefly-drops-15-percent-amid-debate-over-digital-currencys-future.html

Trudeau has come under fire for advancements of trade with China.

NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) is at a critical stage. The U.S.A, which is coincidentally the most powerful negotiator in NAFTA, wants to break away from it or at least make major amendments to the deal. This poses a huge threat for Canada in particular. 20% of Canada’s GDP comes from goods exported to the U.S.A. (1) This increased dependency has been taken in a negative light by the current Liberal government who are trying to diminish Canada’s reliance on the U.S.A. They are doing so by looking towards the other major powerhouse in world trade, China.

The implications of this can already be seen. Chinese construction firm CCCI has already made a bid to buy Canadian construction firm Aecon for $1.5 billion. (2) Prime Minister Trudeau has said that “he welcomes the prospect of investment” although the security concerns around the deal will be thoroughly assessed and rigorously solved.(3) This decision by the Liberal government has been severely criticized by their Conservative counterparts. James Moore, a former member of the Canadian NAFTA council, has explicitly stated that free trade with China would give President Trump more “ammunition” to badmouth Canada. He went on to say that cheap Chinese goods dumped into Canada would make their way to the U.S.A and would further deprecate their manufacturing sector.(4) This doesn’t have a positive aftermath on  the Canada-US relationship.

NAFTA meetings have Canada, US and Mexico at the forefront but are very rarely able to achieve results.

Although the risk of damaging trading terms with the U.S cannot be denied, the prospect of diversification in trade is certainly a lucrative one in the 21st century. In an increasingly globalized world, dependence on a few countries seems to be naive at the least. Diversification in trade makes countries less likely to get affected by fluctuations in price, changes in political atmosphere and domestic issues of other countries. These are the arguments highlighted by Liberals and many other academics like Paul Evans, Professor at the School of Public Policy and Global Affairs at UBC. He claims that currently Canada is being held “hostage” by the United States when it comes to negotiating about NAFTA since the US is well aware of its significance in Canadian trade. Trade deals with other countries would inevitably strengthen Canada’s position in NAFTA and improve its terms of trade with the US as well. (5)

The “correct” decision to make in this scenario is one that is affected largely by political stance and economic thought. However, one thing is for certain. In the short run Canada will have to bear hiccups and losses to re-establish its trading position if it chooses to move away from the US. It will then have to use its new trading position to re-negotiate deals more suited to its goals. This requires the use of unparalleled democracy and charisma. Something PM Trudeau has tried his best to show he possesses.

Word count: 453

Works Cited:

(1) USTR, https://ustr.gov/countries-regions/americas/canada

(2) The Canadian Press, Chinese construction firm CCCI to buy Canadian Aeconn for $1.5B,  http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/aecon-ccci-takeover-1.4372766

(3) Reuters Staff, Canadian review of China bid for Aecon to look at security: PM, https://ca.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idCAKBN1CW2S4-OCABS

(4) Katie Simpson, Trudeau dismisses concerns free trade with China will hurt Canada-U.S. relationship,  http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/china-aecon-purchase-warnings-trudeau-liberals-1.4377577

(5) Canadian Press, Chinese bid for Calgary’s Aecon construction comes with warnings for Trudeau Liberals,  http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/james-moore-china-nafta-plan-1.4374026

Tesla CEO Musk has been vocal about the company’s prospects of future prospects leading to its roughly $60 billion dollar valuation.

Missionary. Pioneer. Entrepreneur. Whenever one thinks about either one of these words, or a combination of all three, Elon Musk comes to mind more often than not. Founder of Space-X, Pay Pal, Hyperloop and SolarCity to name a few. But perhaps what Musk has generated most fame by is his automobile manufacturing company Tesla. A household name,especially in North America, Tesla has accumulated a reputation for being a pro-environment manufacturer with tremendous potential for the future. Which leads to the current criticism that the company faces: When will this future ultimately arrive?

Tesla faces one problem that doesn’t have a simple solution: How does it penetrate into the mainstream sedan market that is already so saturated? One approach that CEO Musk has tried is setting up over-ambitious production targets which include increasing production five-fold over the next year. Also, meeting production for it’s latest mainstream Sedan called the Model 3 is turning cumbersome. When the Model 3 was announced it generated positive reviews because it was priced (at nearly $ 35000) (1)to compete with mainstream fuel consuming vehicles. The response was so huge that it generated a wait list of almost 500,000 consumers.(2) However, Tesla has failed to deliver on its promises .

The Model 3 has received a positive response due to its sleek shape and good mileage.

Tesla has only delivered 220 Model 3 sedans so far and has only produced 260 more in the entire third quarter.(3) When a customer on the wait list inquired about the status of the Model 3, Musk simply responded through twitter that currently Tesla is in “production hell” (3) and he would communicate the status as soon as he himself knew. This could have severe implications for the brand reputation of Tesla as customers would eventually grow tired of unprofessional responses and not seeing concrete work done. Furthermore, Tesla has recently fired several employees after poor performance reviews (2) due to the overburdened staff not being able to deliver quality work. Thus, the over-ambitious approach that Musk has taken could’ve backfired.

One of Tesla’s main arguments in its value proposition is that it provides a car that consumers can drive with the surety that it is neither harmful to the environment nor violates any other ethical law. Thus, the entire authenticity of Tesla’s value proposition could be in jeopardy if the Model 3 crisis is not resolved.

One simple way to resolve the crisis could be to have tighter accounting procedures and budget controls installed and a better communication set up within the hierarchy. This would ensure that the targets set are achievable keeping in mind the company’s current potential and that all stakeholder’s are satisfied. As Stakeholder Theory states, a company will remains profitable as long as it aims to satisfy the needs of most stakeholders in an efficient manner. Thus, the explosive creativity of Musk needs to be hit with the cruel reality of financial limitations in order for a viable product to be produced.

Word count: 467

Citations:

1 Danielle Muoio, Here’s the real price of a Tesla Model 3,http://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-model-3-price-2017-8

2 Associated Press in Palo Alto, California, Tesla Motors fires hundreds of workers for poor performance reviews, https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/oct/15/tesla-motors-fires-hundreds-workers-performance-reviews

3 Reuters, Tesla in “production hell” to meet model 3 deadline, says Elon Musk, http://www.smh.com.au/business/innovation/tesla-in-production-hell-to-meet-model-3-deadline-says-elon-musk-20171006-gyw790.html

Microsoft’s research facility in Cambridge

On first glance the title of this piece seems like a mere mistake or a simple error. Closer inspection of post-modern times, however, gives more sanity to the statement. Yes, there is a real possibility of machine learning helping  put artificial intelligence (A.I) in charge of healthcare. Indeed such is the case when Microsoft announced its new facility in Cambridge,UK to aid research in healthcare.(1) With its goal to “revolutionize healthcare” with technology, Microsoft launched this new healthcare division to keep patients on track with illnesses such as diabetes with constant reminders after key measurements.

Ian Buchan will take charge of the healthcare division

Microsoft has hired Ian Buchan, who was a clinical professor for public health bioinformatics at the University of Manchester, to head the division. (2) Having over 25 years of experience as a data scientist constantly looking to improve healthcare, Microsoft seems to think that he’s the right man for the job. Buchan’s main focus is to provide personalized health monitoring systems that would monitor data and produce warnings to alert individuals of health hazards.

The prospects for machine learning are increasing exponentially as time passes by. Healthcare, education, engineering, there is no field left untouched by A.I. If one takes a moment to contextualize, a subscription based A.I application could save billions of dollars in a world where on average countries spend 10% of GDP on healthcare. (3) It not only saves money for governments that can reallocate expenditure elsewhere, it saves consumers valuable time which is of essence in a society fueled by consumerism. From a more humanitarian perspective, it gives access to health monitoring in geographically challenged areas or areas that cannot bear the cost of healthcare facilities.

Microsoft’s logo is a household image in modern times

From a business perspective, this venture would give Microsoft an unprecedented business edge. Several big technology companies (most recently Facebook with its A.I) have tried to experiment with A.I but nothing concrete has resulted.   Having a certain degree of mastery over A.I would enable Microsoft to merge two of the most dynamic (not to mention profitable) industries together and provide a product that is nothing short of sheer brilliance. The challenges they face, however, are many. The high cost of research is a starting point. Furthermore, this money could be invested elsewhere and result in a more profitable return. Although it is logical to assume that the accounting team must have done intensive calculations taking into account discounting rates and present values, there is always a certain fear that such big scale ventures would fall flat on their face.

Perhaps both the best and worst aspect about technology is its tendency to be disruptive. Over the last hundred years technology has changed aspects of the human life that were perceived as being unchangeable. A more recent example is that of crypto-currency especially Bitcoin. No one imagined that they would be able to send and receive money without fraud so quickly and without a third party who’s constantly looking to make their own profit. Similarly it is hard to imagine a world where going to a hospital is no longer required. Where, depending on the magnitude of the project, avoiding disease is simpler sitting at home than doing tedious check ups. The dreamer within all of us would also mumble: the possibility of free for all healthcare. It is truly amazing to be witnessing such inspiring times.

Citations:

1 Cara McGroogan , Microsoft launches new healthcare division based on A.I software,
Retrieved from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/09/24/microsoft-launches-new-healthcare-division-based-artificial/

2 Mike Millard, U.K Microsoft division explores new ways to bring A.I to healthcare,
Retrieved from: http://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/uk-microsoft-division-explores-new-ways-bring-ai-healthcare

3 World Health Organization Global Health Expenditure database
Retrieved from: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.TOTL.ZS

Science is crucial for human betterment. Business is necessary for human survival. When science and business mix, there is an explosion of creative energy that reaps profits as well as progress. However, a spillover of this explosion almost always raises a question of morale or in other words, ethics. Since over a decade, largely due to social media, Monsanto has been at the center of attention with hashtags such as #monsantoevil trending on twitter and several memes emerging bashing the company. The question then arises: how can a company which is, in the simplest term, producing seeds, be the recipient of so much hate?

One of the several memes on social media criticizing Monsanto’s products

Monsanto started off as a chemical company and would sell Agent Orange and its main product known as dioxin. It then ventured into more controversial hormones including the dairy cow hormone and Aspartame, a sweetener linked with cancer. It wasn’t until the 1990’s when it re-branded itself as an agricultural company by acquiring several bio genetic research facilities. In 1994 they first produced their patented genetically modified organism (GMO) seed also known as the ‘Round Up Ready’ soybean.

GMO didn’t come into attention until Monsanto started selling in Europe and consequently the U.K suffered a Mad Cow Disease epidemic. The British were quick to trace the dots back to a possible role played by GMO and the public became suspicious about GMOs safety. There were massive protests against Monsanto organised by Greenpeace and although approved by the EU, GMO seeds were boycotted by the British people. The situation got so serious that even Prince Charles denounced GMO seeds as ‘intruding in the realm of God’.

Farmers protest GMO seeds produced by Monsanto

Monsanto tried to respond to these allegations by clever ad campaigns but they failed miserably. The company was not only producing a product that was considered controversial it was also holding onto patents and loyalties which enabled it to amass huge amounts of capital and acquire company’s like the Climate Corporation for almost $1 billion which hindered anti-GMO research. Also, since the company’s board consists of several powerful personnel,(including Gregory Boyce, chairman of the worlds largest privately owned coal company) Monsanto has strong lobbying potential and rarely faces government backlash. In fact the US signed what is known by critics as the Monsanto Protection Act which allowed deregulated sales of GMO for a period of 6 months.

It might be a shock to some that the Monsanto controversy might just be getting started. In 2016, Bayer, another pharmaceutical powerhouse offered to acquire Monsanto for $66 billion. It seems daunting that the phenomenon of monopoly power might also be added to this situation of controversy and uncertainty. This could allow Bayer to have even greater lobbying power, completely take out government resistance and re-define business ethics to suit the company.

Here, the optimist would quote with hesitation that ‘destruction’ itself does not have to be negative. Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter has famously coined the term ‘creative destruction’ where corporations with immense power (in this case Bayer and Monsanto) eventually have to work towards positive  innovation and the betterment of society if they aim to maintain their status. Let us hope that ‘destruction’ in this case is not of lives, health and ethics but of redundant methods and inefficient practices that make the world more sustainable.

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