Archive for February, 2012
Posted on February 28, 2012 - by invest
Leadership Excellence Program: How to Lead with Impact! [HD]
ONLY FEW DAYS LEFT TO REGISTER! Seats are limited (to experience a more inclusive workshop) so please don’t delay. TIME/DATE Leadership Excellence Program: How to Lead with Impact Sunday, November 7th, 2010 1:30 pm – 4:00 pm at the Mississauga Central Library, CL3 (2nd Floor) Presented by Case Point | www.casepoint.ca Hosted by MYLC (Mississauga Youth Leadership Committee) | www.mylc.ca REGISTRATION Fee: $20 payable online (This workshop has been discounted for us to minimum cover costs of materials provided, and usually offered at a much higher price to professionals). Register at www.casepoint.ca/leadership.html WHAT YOU RECEIVE – Experience on how to lead effectively, using the official Ivey case method – Tools to improve your leadership capabilities – Great addition for your resumes & applications! – Certificate of Leadership This dynamic workshop is your opportunity to bring your leadership skills to the next level. Learn how to think strategically to create valuable and meaningful impact in any role.This workshop will cover core concepts in leadership, problem-solving, and teamwork. The leadership assessment will tell you what kind of leader you are, your strengths, your areas of focus, and how others perceive and work with you. A business case study will also be used to demonstrate leadership in action and give you an opportunity to apply what you’ve learned. If you are a leader in the making or if you are just getting started, this workshop is for you!
Posted on February 27, 2012 - by invest
When the supply shocks are demand shocks and the demand shocks are supply shocks
MATT YGLESIAS muses on the threat of oil prices to the American economy:
As Michael Levi writes we’ve traditionally wanted to distinguish between supply shocks and demand shocks as drivers of price spikes. When oil gets expensive because of a supply disruption, that hurts America. But when oil gets expensive because there’s lots of demand and economic growth, that’s just a sign of growth…
For things to go wrong for the U.S. economy something else has to go wrong over and above the oil. We can see what those “somethings” might be, related to exchange rate issues or the failure of the US government to issue a quantity of bonds commensurate to global demand. But it looks to me as if a demand-side oil issue is really just the same old issue of the trade deficit and the international balance of payments and not the second coming of a 1970s-style oil price shock. Perhaps it’s a monetary policy issue…The chain will only be broken here if the Fed decides to ignore its own self-guidance and target headline inflation instead of core inflation.
We need to be careful here, in a few different ways. First, one can talk about different fundamental changes in oil markets that potentially contribute to economic activity in different ways. For instance, there might be a shortfall in oil production generated solely by action that results in pipes that had been running full to run dry. Or there might be secular stagnation in oil supply. Or there might be a rise in price generated by rapid growth in global demand. Or their could be an oil-specific increase in demand prompted by concerns about the stability of future supply. These changes are likely to impact the American economy in different ways, but it’s sure to be tricky to pull apart the different oil-market causes (political supply shocks might well occur alongside global demand growth and precautionary demand growth), and trickier still to separate out oil-market causes from other shifts in the global economy. Rising oil prices generated by increasing global demand could be relatively benign while precautionary demand growth might be less so, but what if the first leads to the second? In practice, there is less agreement among economists about how differently oil-supply and oil-demand shocks affect the economy than we might hope for. While some argue that demand-driven spikes are less problematic, others, like James Hamilton, have written that the spike of 2007-08 had an impact very similar to that associated with the more political shocks of earlier eras.
Second, we also need to note that rising oil prices represent both demand shocks and supply shocks to the American economy. Dear oil can impact demand directly, by reducing real household income, and indirectly, by influencing consumer confidence. If rising oil prices were purely a problem of demand, then the only thing to fear would indeed be fear itself—by households or by overactive central banks. They are not, however. Soaring oil prices can also dent an economy’s productive capacity. America relies on petroleum as an input to production in lots of different ways—directly, in the case of things like chemicals and plastics, indirectly, in the role oil plays in supply chains and labour markets (as in commuting). When oil prices spike some American production becomes uneconomic. Were the central bank to treat this disruption as a purely demand-oriented phenomenon, it would generate lots of inflation without returning the economy to its previous output peak. For this reason, central banks tend to approach oil spikes by taking some of the hit in inflation and some in reduced growth (admittedly, they may opt for too much of the latter relative to the former).
The hit to supply needn’t be permanent. The spike may dissipate. Or production patterns may adjust such that the American economy can return to its previous potential path at a lower oil intensity. If we’re concerned about the effect of this latest price rise on the American economy, we need to be concerned about lots of things—the nature of the shock, its size and persistence, and the policy reaction—but also on whether firm and household behaviour has changed in recent years to adapt better to big increases in the cost of oil.
View full post on Free exchange
Posted on February 26, 2012 - by invest
Manuel Balsera.wmv
wellcome to a interactive business case study class, where rum tasting, strategy definition, entertaiment, participation, branding and learning come together in 13 minutes
Posted on February 24, 2012 - by invest
The largest migration in history
LEST you miss it, please let me draw your attention to this videographic on Chinese migration:
You can read more on the phenomenon here and here.
View full post on Free exchange
Posted on February 24, 2012 - by invest
ok this is a question for evryone about colege?
what would you prefer to do
take a collegee course you loved (in my case photography and music)
or take a course that you hate but may offer more money (in my case business)
also is it fair for a parent to force there child to do a course they hate because my parents are forcing me to study business but i hate it
they say its for my own good but i cant see myself doing it as a career
i love music and photography but they say only dropouts choose creative courses are they right.
Posted on February 23, 2012 - by invest
Is J&J a Good Buy?
View full post on Fool.com: The Motley Fool
Posted on February 22, 2012 - by invest
Can you help me devise three mission statements for 3 fictional businesses?
For my Business exam I have been given a case study which lists 3 business ideas. It is very likely I will have to devise a mission statement for each of these. Currently the business is a agricultural and animal farm but is looking to increase its profit margins, by having an extra line of business operation. The three options are:
1. a farm park where families can go and learn about the workings of a british farm.
2. Set up a caravan and camping site in the farms spare land.
3. or relaunch british beef
Im not very creative and finding it hard to create mission statements. the spec says
(i) For one mark: • A general/visionary statement (1); • a brief summary of a firm’s objectives (1); • immediate and long term goals (1); • any other valid suggestion;
(ii) Additional two marks: • Sets objectives only in qualitative terms (1); • will often focus on needs of customers (1) identifying specific service(s) to be provided (1); • may emphasise desire of business to become best in field
Posted on February 21, 2012 - by invest
Life on the Phillips curve
VIA Modeled Behavior, I see that Arnold Kling has written a post which reads:
Mainstream macro in the 1970s (which a lot of people seem to have gone back to) held that there was a NAIRU, meaning the non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment. If unemployment was above that, inflation would fall. If it was below that, inflation would increase. So, policy should shoot for the NAIRU.
These days, unemployment is 8.3 percent, and inflation is increasing. Just sayin’.
Just sayin’…what, exactly? Don’t imply, man, argue! Follow the point through to its conclusion and see if it actually holds together! Since Mr Kling didn’t, I’ll do it for him.
The NAIRU, as Mr Kling notes, is the non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment. It corresponds to maximum structural employment; the economy can’t sustain a higher level of employment than this without structural reform of some kind. Why is it called the non-accelerating inflation rate? Well, were the government to try to raise employment above that level, fiscally or monetarily, inflation would accelerate. Stimulus would raise demand for goods and services, which would lead to higher prices. Individual firms might respond to higher prices with increased production, by using higher wages to attract employees from other firms, but since there is no surplus labour at the economy-wide level, overall production can’t undergo a sustainble increase in output. Instead, price increases trigger higher wage demands (which firms must accommodate given the lack of surplus labour), and higher wages trigger price increases. Expectations begin to adjust to take into account this dynamic; firms build in larger price increases to take into account probable future wage rises, and workers build in larger wage demands to take into account probable future price increases. Inflation accelerates, and to prevent economic disaster the government must tighten policy to reduce labour and product demand back to the economy’s potential and re-establish inflation expectations at a steady level.
Got that? Now, Mr Kling says that according to this theory a rate of unemployment below NAIRU will trigger an increase in inflation. He then observes that with 8.3% unemployment, inflation is increasing. And he deploys the just sayin’ line to imply that the economy is therefore below NAIRU—that is, at structural full employment, suggesting that further demand stimulus is undesirable. He is wrong on multiple levels.
View full post on Free exchange
Posted on February 20, 2012 - by invest
Spirit Airlines: The One Airline Hedge Funds Can Fly With
View full post on Fool.com: The Motley Fool
Posted on February 20, 2012 - by invest
Google – Map My Summer Case Study
