Korea impacted by cold war, changes of the country 1991-2014 Assignment

Korea impacted by cold war, changes of the country 1991-2014 - Assignment Example In terms of economics, the greatest change was that South Korea came to integrate with the global economy to a more full and complete degree. As a result of the continual threat of invasion and the protective shield the United States provided, South Korean markets were almost entirely restricted to US export. Although this was not based on extant treaty obligations, it is clear and apparent that the United States sought to defray the massive cost of having a military presence in South Korea by essentially creating a captive market for American products and a captive market for most exports (Ginsberg, 2014). Societal changes that have taken place within Korea are mainly contingent on the societal changes that globalization has provided over the past several decades. Essentially, recognition of the fact that Korean culture is unique but not the only means by which social norms should be constructed has come to play a primary role with respect to the way in which individuals live their lives, order their families, and seek to deport themselves (Dong-Hoon & Jungmin, 2014). Changes to expectations of morality and other issues pertaining to the way in which the average Korean lives their lives have also fundamentally changed as a result of the fact that after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War there has been a much lower focus on the need for upholding existing tradition. Whereas this is not to say that tradition does not play a valuable role in the life of the average Korean, its prominence now as compared to 20-30 years ago is most demonstrably diminished. Of all of the changes that have been effected, the area of gender roles are likely the most recognizable shift that has taken place since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. With the impact of globalization and western norms that flooded South Korea as a result of this geo-political shift and the increased

Enterprise Development Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Enterprise Development - Essay Example No it is not! It is also not possible for a gambler to gain consistently over a large period of time. Even the best of gamblers lose money consistently which proves that the role of chance is quite significant in gambling. This is not the case in entrepreneurship because there are many examples where entrepreneurs have earn large returns over a long period of time. Entrepreneurs and gamblers are different in the way that gamblers leave many things to chance whereas entrepreneurs do not (Wee, Lim, & Lee, 1994).There is no doubt that the role of chance in the success of an entrepreneur is also not negligible but this is nowhere similar to chance taken by gamblers. Entrepreneurs like Bill Gates, Mark Zuckeberg etc all started their business as entrepreneurs but today they are known to the whole world. This cannot be said for any known gambler of the world. Entrepreneurship is not gambling because there are many controllable factors in entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurs have a lot of control in how they manage their business and risk which is why entrepreneurship is not equal to gambling. Entrepreneurship is much more than gambling as it involves studying markets and taking calculated risks in hope of yielding high returns. One can easily gauge customer demand and using sampling and other procedures to do a trail run in order to test a particular product or service. Measures like these can be taken to cut down the risk and decrease uncertainty of any business. This is why gambling cannot be equated to entrepreneurship. There are many factors that play a role in the success of entrepreneurs like innovation, strong will, and farsightedness. All these factors decide whether an entrepreneur will be successful in the longer run or not. This shows that the success and failure of entrepreneurial ventures is not dependent on chance but on factors like innovation. Will innovation, strong will, and farsightedness makes a gambler

Shareholder Wealth Maximization And Stakeholder Capitalism Model Economics Essay

Shareholder Wealth Maximization And Stakeholder Capitalism Model Economics Essay The Anglo-American markets are described by a philosophy that a firms objective should follow the shareholder wealth maximization (SWM) model. Anglo-American is defined to mean the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. This theory presumed that the firm should try to maximize the return to shareholders, as measured by the total of capital gains and dividends, for a certain level of risk. On the other hand, the firm should minimize the risk to shareholders for a given rate of return. The SWM model assumes as a universal truth that the stock market is efficient. The share price is always correct because it reflects the expectations of return and risk as perceived by investors. It quickly incorporates new information into the share price. Share prices, in turn, are considered as the best allocators of capital in the macro economy. The SWM model also treats its definition of risk as a universal truth. Risk is defined as the added risk that the firms shares br ing to a diversified portfolio. The total operational risk of the firm can be eliminated through portfolio diversification by the investors. Therefore, this unsystematic risk, as known as diversifiable risk, the risk of the individual security, should not be a prime concern for management unless it increases the prospect of bankruptcy. Systematic risk, as known as non-diversifiable risk, the risk of the market in general, cannot be eliminated. This reflects risk that the share price will be a function of the stock market. Corporate wealth maximization model In contrast to the SWM model, Continental European and Japanese markets are characterized by a philosophy that a corporations objective should be to maximize corporate wealth. Thus, a firm should consider shareholders on a par with other corporate interest groups, such as management, labor, the local community, suppliers, creditors, and even the government. The goal is to earn as much as possible in the long run, but to maintain enough to increase the corporate wealth for the benefit of all interest groups. This model is also called the stakeholder capitalism model. The definition of corporate wealth is much broader than just financial wealth, such as cash marketable securities, and unused credit lines. It includes the firms technical, market, and human resources. as a result, it goes beyond the wealth measured by normal financial reports to take in account the firms market position as well as the knowledge and skill of its employees in technology, manufacturing processes, marketing and administration of the enterprise. The corporate wealth maximization (CWM) model does not assume that equity markets are either efficient or inefficient. It does not really matter, as the firms financial goals are not fully shareholder-oriented. In any case, the model assumes that long-term loyal shareholders should influence corporate strategy, not the transient portfolio investor. The CWM model assumes that total risk, that is, operating and financial risk, does count. It is a specific corporate objective to generate growing earnings and dividends over the long run with as much certainty as possible, given the firms mission statement and goals. Risk is measured more by product market variability than by short term variation in earnings and share price. Comparison of Shareholder Wealth Maximization and Stakeholder Capitalism Models Shareholder Wealth Maximization Model Stakeholder Capitalism Model Based on the assumption of share price efficiency i.e. the share price in the market reflects intrinsic value and shareholders wealth No assumption on share price efficiency Firms objective is to maximize shareholders wealth by achieving the highest possible total return to equity (including both capital appreciation and dividend distribution) Firms objective is to maximize corporate wealth but return to equity is constrained by the interest of other stakeholders such as creditors, employees, governments, etc. Only systematic risk is a prime concern for management as unsystematic risk is supposed to be diversified Total risk (operating and financial risk) is considered by management Corporate strategies are directed by the board on behalf of shareholders Corporate strategies are influenced by long-term stakeholders rather than mobile portfolio investors Journal 2: Shareholder Wealth Maximization According to the maximization model, there are three types of maximization in a company, which are shareholder maximization, stakeholder-owner maximization and total stakeholder maximization. Shareholder maximization is a particular case of stakeholder-owner maximization, where only the pure owner interest as supplier of risk-capital is considered in the maximization. The stakeholder-owner has particular resources and interests which are important for the commitment of other stakeholders and thus for the economic performance of the venture as a whole and for the distribution of stakeholder benefits. Examples of such stakeholder-owners would include managers within the company who were also shareholders or suppliers who had an interest in the ownership of the company. Total stakeholder maximization includes the advantages for all groups, such as employees, local communities, shareholders, suppliers, customers, investors and partners. Among the three maximization of a company, shareholder wealth maximization plays a significant role and indeed more important than the other two, which are stakeholder-owner maximization and total stakeholder maximization. Many assume that total stakeholder maximization is the most important maximization for a company, yet in reality, such maximization is not easy to achieve. Under the new field of corporate social responsibility, many company are encourage to take the interests of all stakeholder (not only shareholder) into consideration during their decision making process. This is a process where the conflict of interest between shareholder and stakeholder eventually happen. For example, if the general public is part of the stakeholder considered under corporate social responsibility (CSR) governance, a conflict might occur when the company decide to carry out operation that would increase the profit of the company, specifically shareholder but at the mean time the operation may c ause more pollution to the environment, which is at the disadvantage of the public (the stakeholder). In short, total stakeholder maximization can be hard to achieve as a profit and earning for a group of the stakeholder (shareholder) can sometime be the disadvantage and loss of another group of stakeholder (group other than shareholder) or vice-versa. The general type of maximization that companies pursue is stakeholder-owner maximization. Maximization of shareholder value is actually a special case of stakeholder-owner maximization. Under restrictive assumptions, the shareholder maximization is larger or equal to stakeholder-owner maximization. Generally, the main objective of most companies is to maximize its value to its shareholders.   Value is represented by the market price of the companys common stocks, which is a reflection of the firms investment, financing, and dividend decisions. Otherwise, the companies should minimize the risk to shareholders for a given rate of return. In reality, companies are more concern about shareholder wealth maximization as this is what the company is portraying to the public. Take an example, if a company focus more on its stakeholder-owner maximization rather than the shareholder wealth maximization, the shareholder (including general public who own an amount of the stock of the company) m ay gain less or no profit and in some cases even suffer a loss. In this situation, it can bring a negative influence to the perspective of others towards the company which will then lower the value of the company and in the long run, curbs the development of the company. In conclusion, shareholder maximization is more important than the others. This is because shareholders are solely the holder that finance a company or provide finance for a company development. However, stakeholder-owner maximization too must be taken into consideration as they may be the human resources or the resources that mainly contribute to the performance of a company. Journal 3: Is Shareholder Wealth Maximization immoral? Shareholder Wealth Maximization A company that implements shareholder wealth maximization indicates that its goal of management is strive to maximize the return in term of capital gain and dividend paid to its shareholders. The ultimate objective of all activity within the firm is the maximization of shareholder wealth. However, financial economists should be increasingly aware of growing dissent from, or at least equivocation on, that standard finance definition of corporate objectives. The idea in shareholder wealth maximization model is that shareholders are the group that take the greatest risks and thus deserves special treatment is a fiction. In shareholder wealth maximization model, managers make decision on the basis of stock price maximization. The first myth is that making decisions on the basis of stock price maximization is amoral, that is morally value neutral. The second myth is one commonly held by business ethicists, namely, that decisions premised on shareholder wealth maximization are strictly immoral. The myth that making decision on the basis of stock price maximization is morally value neutral held by financial economists because belief in it can exempt them from any moral self-examination. Shareholder wealth maximization serves as a conduit of ethics rather than a net determinant of ethical behaviour. Besides, every firm strive to pursue shareholder wealth maximization leads to maximum aggregate economic benefit, they think that its not just benefit to the shareholder but also the society. This will come about as scarce resources are directed to their most productive use by businesses competing to create wealth. The implication of such a defense is that shareholder wealth maximization is morally neutral. In addition, a manager acting in accordance with shareholder wealth maximization is not exercising any particular moral judgment. For example, the manager makes decision that act in the interests of whoever has the greatest economic influence on the companys stock price. On the other hand, the business ethics literature clearly rejects shareholder wealth maximization as an ultimate justification for decisions in business, and they apparently proffer some more ethereal, less material ultimate justification as an alternative. Besides, as a justification for behavior, shareholder wealth maximization is rarely sanctioned by business ethicists because this model just emphasis on the interests of shareholders. This model focuses on the equity market value which is revealed in the companys stock price. A manager pursuing shareholder wealth maximization is concerned with anything that affects the company value. In fact, stock price is increasingly being determined by a series of intangible factors such as employee relations, credit quality, environment sensitivity, product reliability, cultural sensitivity and whatever society values. A management group that is insensitive to the needs and concerns of stakeholders will not flourish financially and, of course, a company that does not flourish financially will not be able to help stakeholders. So, shareholder wealth maximization is not morally neutral and not simply immoral. It neither favors strictly material objectives, nor does it unfairly favour stockholder over other stakeholders. In accepting shareholder wealth maximization as the objectives, business professional should not abrogate all moral common sense when making any decisions. Only through sound moral judgment on the part of individual managers can the organizational premise of shareholder wealth maximization be morally justified. Journal 4: Globalizing Asia: Towards a New Development Paradigm Journal 5: The U.S. Capitalism Model Has Failed Stakeholder Capitalism Model Stakeholder capitalism model says that company should make decisions by taking into account the interests of all the stakeholders in the firm. Stakeholders include all individuals or groups who can significantly affect the welfare of the firm in the aspects of not only the financial claimants, but also employees, management, customers, local community, supply chain members, local or national government and creditors. One of the important variables in this model is considering all stakeholders interest as they are people who support and sustain the company. In the stakeholder capitalism model, it is argued that firms should pay attention to all their supporters that can affect the firm. Managers and boards of directors of company have vital roles on making decisions that suit multiple competing and inconsistent constituent interests. However, there are different demands and interests from stakeholders. Customers want low prices, high quality, expensive service and so on. Employees want high wages, high quality working conditions, and fringe benefits including vacations, medical benefits, pensions and the rest. Suppliers of capital or known as shareholders want low risk and high returns. Communities want high charitable contributions, social expenditures by firms to benefit the community at large such as build hospital, donation, stable employment provided, increased investment, and so on. In making these critical decisions, company must specify how to make the tradeoffs between these often conflicting and inconsistent demands from vario us stakeholders. Many managers and directors of organizations still embrace stakeholder capitalism theory even will be failed at last if they are competing with firms that are behaving so as to maximize value. The theory allows managers and directors to manage company resources in the way they like because the management of the resources in stakeholder capitalism model is inexplicable. Therefore, this allows self-interested managers to pursue their own interests at the expense of society and the firms financial claimants. It may permit managers and directors to invest in their favourite projects that diminish firm value. As a result, agency cost increases because management of company does not act in shareholders interest. Management is given free authority to do almost whatever they want to. So, they may not follow or implement what shareholders require them to do. The other variable is free power. Managers are empowered to exercise their own preferences in spending the firms resource. If the manage ment uses the authority given wisely, company will sustain growth and vice versa. I would prefer stakeholder capitalism model because not only owners, investors, and managers able to share profits but also employees, suppliers and other individuals or groups that related to firm. In stakeholder capitalism model, employees are involved in management decisions and profit distribution. The benefit of the stakeholder capitalism model is cooperative relationship between employees and management that allows steady productivity for sustainability of the firms. If there is few goals such as maximize profits, market share, growth in profits, and others, this will make management has no idea what to achieve. The management cannot focus on a single goal thus makes the firm inefficient. As to solve this, firm can specify the tradeoffs among different groups of stakeholders. Effects of the decisions no matter good or bad that are affecting firm are listed out. For example, cash flow, operating and financial risk which are the main concerns of every corporation. Another variable is single goal. Single goal set allows company to concentrate on accomplishing single purpose as to satisfy stakeholders interest and it requires a deep knowledge on choosing the single goal to achieve.

Global Warming Essay -- Environment Climate Change

Global Warming Human kind has entered a brand new relationship with the earth. The constant and increasing pressures we are exerting threaten our planets ability to sustain life itself. Change-in the way we think , and in the way we live-is needed now.Global warming is the most urgent environmental problem the world will face in the next decade and the next century. Few, if any, trends are more important to our future than climate change caused by human activities. Scientist around the world are warning us that global warming poses a major threat to our future quality of life, previously there has been little information on this problem. Right now, the rate of global warming may be 100 times faster than it has ever been. Very soon the earth may become hotter then at any time in human history. In the last decades the problems of atmospheric change have been gravely advanced by pollution resulting from human activities. These environmental changes pose a real threat to the lives of people and wild life.It is vital to all of us that we fully understand the complex relationship between the atmosphere and the earth. The earth is getting warmer. the changes are small, so far, but they are expected to grow and speed up. Within the next 50 to 100 years, the earth will continue to heat up hotter than it has been in the past million years. As oceans warm and glaciers melt, land and cities along coasts may be flooded. Heat and drought may cause forests to die and food crops t...

Learning log

This Viking shield has 4 mirror lines and 4 but It has only two unique mirror lines. (mm) What was the most surprising or interesting fact you learnt from Week 1 lectures (20 – 30 words) (2 marks) The interesting parts are the unique mirror lines and the number rotation angles correspond to which type of shape.It can be expressed in a notation like mm. Complete at the end of Week 2 Image 2 Describe the symmetrical elements you see in this Japanese embroidery. (20 – 30 words) (2 marks)This image has an asymmetric unit. It is a threefold rotation and there is no mirror line in this picture. Hence, there is no point of symmetry. Can you add anything to your Week 1 description of the Flung shield? Creates the remaining parts of the picture. PART II – Plane (AD) and Space (AD) Symmetry You can't criticize geometry. It's never wrong. Paul Rand Period Complete at the end of Week 3Image 3 Use the formal descriptors of plane symmetry to describe this bathroom tile tessell ation. (up to 40 words) (2 marks) This image has a glide line located at any point of the pattern because it has horizontal and vertical mirror line with translation. It has 4 fold tetras which rotates 90 degree. Hence, This image is a poem. How are you now more observant of symmetry in your surroundings? Use examples. (up to 20 words) (2 marks) My perspective about shape has change. For an example when I am look at fancy design, I will analyses what type of plane symmetry and etc.Complete at the end of Week 4 Image 4 The triangle in Image 4 is weird. Was Paul Rand correct – geometry is never wrong? (30 – 40 words) (2 marks) Yes. People have been using geometry to solve various problems such as engineering problems. People may interpret picture differently and give opinion. In my conclusion, it is important how the shape is drawn by the artists. Do you believe the world around us is completely described in AD and AD? (up to 20 words) (2 marks) No. We may encounter more than Just AD and AD in the future as life around the world keeps changing. Learning log This Viking shield has 4 mirror lines and 4 but It has only two unique mirror lines. (mm) What was the most surprising or interesting fact you learnt from Week 1 lectures (20 – 30 words) (2 marks) The interesting parts are the unique mirror lines and the number rotation angles correspond to which type of shape.It can be expressed in a notation like mm. Complete at the end of Week 2 Image 2 Describe the symmetrical elements you see in this Japanese embroidery. (20 – 30 words) (2 marks)This image has an asymmetric unit. It is a threefold rotation and there is no mirror line in this picture. Hence, there is no point of symmetry. Can you add anything to your Week 1 description of the Flung shield? Creates the remaining parts of the picture. PART II – Plane (AD) and Space (AD) Symmetry You can't criticize geometry. It's never wrong. Paul Rand Period Complete at the end of Week 3Image 3 Use the formal descriptors of plane symmetry to describe this bathroom tile tessell ation. (up to 40 words) (2 marks) This image has a glide line located at any point of the pattern because it has horizontal and vertical mirror line with translation. It has 4 fold tetras which rotates 90 degree. Hence, This image is a poem. How are you now more observant of symmetry in your surroundings? Use examples. (up to 20 words) (2 marks) My perspective about shape has change. For an example when I am look at fancy design, I will analyses what type of plane symmetry and etc.Complete at the end of Week 4 Image 4 The triangle in Image 4 is weird. Was Paul Rand correct – geometry is never wrong? (30 – 40 words) (2 marks) Yes. People have been using geometry to solve various problems such as engineering problems. People may interpret picture differently and give opinion. In my conclusion, it is important how the shape is drawn by the artists. Do you believe the world around us is completely described in AD and AD? (up to 20 words) (2 marks) No. We may encounter more than Just AD and AD in the future as life around the world keeps changing.

Furman V. Georgia

Furman vs. Georgia In Furman vs. Georgia Furman was convicted of murder and two others for rape. â€Å"Juries had convicted Furman for murder and two other individuals for rape—all three were African American—and then imposed the death penalty. † (Source A). â€Å"Furman v. Georgia (1972). † American Government. ABC-CLIO, 2010. Web. 19 Apr. 2010. . The three pleaded that the death penalty is against the eighth amendment, which prohibits any man from suffering cruel and unusual punishment, and when Furman and his counterparts case reached the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court ruled the death penalty unconstitutional. So the Court ruled for the first time that capital punishment violated the Eighth Amendment. † â€Å"All executions were put on hold following the decision. †(Source B). Hinds, Maurine. Furman v. Georgia and the DEATH PENALTY DEBATE. Berkely Heights, NJ: Enslow Publishers, Inc. , 2005. 79-80. Print. The significance of Furman v. Geo rgia is that this case was the first case that was ruled violating the Eighth amendment and that it halted every man on death row in the United States. The decision of the Supreme Court is a superior choice because it is not within the right of another person to choose which man should die and which man should live and that the death penalty is not something that are forefathers saw as constitutional. In Furman v. Georgia â€Å"On the night of August 11, 1967, 29-year-old William Joseph Micke, Jr. , came home from work to his wife and five children in Savannah,Georgia. He went to bedaround midnight. Two hours later, the Mickes were awakened by strange noises in thekitchen. Thinking that one of his children was sleepwalking, William Micke went to thekitchen to investigate. Micke found 26-year-old William Henry Furman in the kitchen. Furman was a poor, uneducated, mentally ill African American who had broken into the house and was carrying a gun. When he saw Micke, Furman fled the house, shooting Micke as he left. The bullet hit Micke in the chest, killing him instantly. Micke's family immediately called the police. Within minutes, the police searched the neighborhood and found Furman still carrying his gun. Furman was charged with murder. † (Source C). http://www. enotes. com/supreme-court-drama/furman-v-georgia. N. p. , n. d. Web. 19 Apr 2010.