 |
     
|
| COURSE CONNECTOR |
| ARTICLE SUMMARIES AND QUESTIONS |
"Got Cash?," pp. 21-26: It's time again for DEMO, the bi-annual entrepreneurial beauty contest that draws striving start-ups by the dozens to parade their latest high-tech creations before Silicon Valley's biggest financiers. With a record number of corporate bidders expected, a lot of little companies will leave the gathering a lot richer. What deals might be made? Microsoft would do well to consider Mint.com, named start-up of the year at an industry conference last fall. The free web-based money management service, which has picked up 100,000 members in less than six months, could help Microsoft compete with Intuit's market-leading Quicken — something Microsoft Money has failed to do. Apple might take a look at Move Networks, a company whose technology has become Hollywood's favorite way to stream and manage high-definition content. It would fit well into Apple's plans to expand its digital video offerings. With 8,000 employees spending 20% of their time on pet projects, Google wouldn't seem to need outside help. But there are other companies doing the exact same thing as Google — and, in some cases, doing it better. Take Earthmine, for example, a Berkeley-based startup whose 3-D maps put Google's Street View application to shame. Just more proof that there's something for everyone at DEMO.
This article reveals the potential DEMO shopping lists of three of the wealthiest tech power players — Microsoft, Apple, and Google.
Discussion Questions:- In what ways would Yelp be a wise acquisition for Microsoft? How could it help Microsoft compete more successfully with Google?
- Why do you think Steve Jobs' Apple has been so "aggressively unacquisitive"
despite its deep pockets? Given Apple's past behavior, what makes Green
Plug a good match for it?
- How has TiVo become a valued partner of the television industry? Why would it make a smart buy for Google?
"100 Best Companies to Work For: A Perfect Season," pp. 62-66: Four Seasons Hotels have had the distinction of being named one of FORTUNE's 100 Best Companies to Work For every year since the list's inception in 1998. There's a very good reason for that. Founder, chairman, and CEO Isadore Sharp's unofficial motto is, "How you treat your employees is how you expect them to treat the customer." And if you've ever stayed at a Four Seasons Hotel, you know how well they treat the customer. But how does Sharp find the right people? Every applicant, regardless of position, goes through at least four interviews, including one with the general manager. The interview process is important because Four Seasons is less concerned with experience than with a positive, helpful attitude, which can only come across in person. It's definitely worth the effort. Employees get competitive salaries, automatic 401(k) and profit sharing contributions, free meals, and even bigger perks for managers. And after six months' employment, all staffers get to stay at any Four Seasons Hotel in the world for free for three nights — a number that increases steadily with length of employment. No wonder the hired hands are as happy as the hotel guests!
Students take a closer look at the Four Seasons Hotels' corporate culture, hiring practices, and impressive employee benefits package.
Discussion Questions:
- How are Four Seasons employees trained? What does the hotel chain's annual turnover rate suggest about the working conditions?
- Four Seasons is planning a significant expansion over the next decade. How is this possible? How do hotel chains differ from most other industries in terms of real estate ownership?
- What does Thomas Steinhauer, a Four Seasons general manager and regional vice president, consider the most important qualities of a Four Seasons employee? Why?
"The Economy in Crisis: Make the World Go Away," pp. 104-108: "It's the economy, stupid." That was the battle cry of Bill Clinton and the Democrats in 1992, when they wrested control of the White House from Republicans after 12 years. Clinton went on to sign the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), linking the United States, Canada, and Mexico to create the world's largest trading bloc. So began the era of globalization, which many Americans embraced with characteristic 1990s optimism and entrepreneurial swagger. Fast-forward 15 years. A new FORTUNE poll indicates that the current economic crisis has triggered a backlash against free trade. A large majority of those surveyed (68%) says America's trading partners — not the United States — are profiting the most from free trade, and 78% of Americans believe that the growth in international trade has made things worse for American workers. Ironically, another Clinton is campaigning for president this time around, but Hillary is taking a different approach to free trade than Bill did. Like her husband before her, she is loathe to label herself a protectionist, but Hillary and most Democratic economists agree that NAFTA has "serious shortcomings," and that globalization is costing the middle class and enriching the elite. Sounds like the makings of another Democratic battle cry.
In this article, students read about the state of international trade — in the minds of Americans and in the political strategies of the presidential candidates.
Discussion Questions:
- Why will free trade take, in the words of Hillary Clinton, a "time
out" next year, regardless of who takes up residence in the White House?
What reforms to the current system might occur during that time? Which
do you believe will best serve the United States? Explain your answer.
- What do most analysts believe are the underlying reasons for public anxiety over globalization? According to economists, what factors are behind these external signs of decline?
- In your opinion, how can presidential candidates — and Democrats in particular — best connect with voters on economic issues without coming across as isolationists?
"The Cost of War," pp. 126-132: In the latter part of 2002, as the Bush administration and Congress actively debated the pros and cons of an invasion of Iraq, Lawrence Lindsey, then President Bush's chief economist, was crunching numbers. His task was to guesstimate as accurately as possible the financial cost of the invasion and ensuing war, and to determine whether the domestic economy could reasonably absorb it. His answer to the latter question (yes, it could) pleased the White House, but his answer to the former, not so much. Lindsey's upper estimate of $200 billion was widely criticized by administration colleagues as "very, very high" and "off message." The reaction initially puzzled Lindsey, who couldn't understand why hard numbers were being politicized. Then he realized the problem was that he mentioned a hypothetical cost at all, while the rest of the administration had adopted a uniform code of silence, particularly with regard to any issue that could raise objections in Congress. Turns out, Lindsey's estimate came as close to the real tally — nearly $400 billion so far — as any other. His only miscalculation, like most everyone else's, was the length of the war. Had it lasted as long as he assumed (2-½ years), his figures would have been dead on.
Students examine former White House economist Lawrence Lindsey's prediction of the Iraq War's price tag and his current outlook on the war's economic impact.
Discussion Questions:
- What steps does Lawrence Lindsey believe President Bush could have taken early on to bolster long-term support for the war effort in Iraq? Do you agree with his assessment? Why or why not?
- What is Lindsey's opinion of the widely held belief that wars are good for the economy? Why? How does he think economic historians in the future will regard the Iraq War in budgetary terms?
- Despite his differences with the Bush administration, Lindsey suggests that the Iraq War is not necessarily the mistake many Americans believe it to be. What are his reasons? Are they valid, in your opinion? Explain.
|
