I hear about all these different natural resources from poor countries that developed countries profit from. I thought this was a video that would people realize the difference between how much an Afghani farmer makes and how much the middle man makes.
FIRM ASSET VIDEO —
Recently, while wasting time and watching television, I saw a commercial that I thought was a FIRM ASSET. It was the same commercial that was played during the Super Bowl. During the first fifteen to twenty seconds, the commercial had short clips of professionals who said what they created. For example, the first guy was named Philippe Kahn who created the camera phone, the next guy was Ray Kurzweil who invented text-to-speech synthesis and speech recognition technology, followed by a few others like Matti Makkonen who created text messaging and so on and so on. Immediately, the commercial had me hooked because all these everyday things that I see, use, and watch other people use, I can now know who created them. Usually, the only tech guys that an average Joe will know are Steve Jobs and Bill Gates. Other than that, we do not really know who invented the Hi-Def television or the person who created the GPS and all the other great technological advances that have happened in the past two and a half decades.
This made me assume that the commercial was for a social media website or some innovative new company that was trying to explain the power of innovation. Better yet, maybe it was an inspirational commercial that was trying to inspire us through the economic problems of today. I waited patiently to see what this commercial was trying to sell me or in fact what statement it was trying to make. Also, I should admit the background music was a great way to create suspense. It was a great usage of mellow tones with a slight progression. So I listened and waited….
While watching and hearing all of this I knew this commercial was going somewhere with a strong statement. What was interesting was that it was not. The commercial ended with a staff of employers from Best Buy, the electronic department store. That was a pretty big let down. However, Best Buy was smart in creating social recognition for all these great innovators, while manifesting a brand image that was trying to connect them to that type of environment.
Yet, in the end, all Best Buy was stating that all these great innovations for smart phones can be seen and bought at their stores with all the notable carriers in the U.S.A. I would give kudos to the marketing team behind this idea because the emotion stirred from the music and the filming was done very well and hit home. On the other hand, I felt that this message could have been better used to create inspiration for young aspiring inventors to create something on their own. I do have to say, Best Buy is not doing too well economically, so maybe when people do want to buy a smart phone, people will likely remember to go to Best Buy first.
Firm Asset Writer Fahad Shariff
Make More Sense Than Mitt Romeny
This past semester in my Economics class, I learned the impact of property rights. In specific, the professor went into depth about the Coase Theorem and how as long as property rights are well established and there is a low cost of fees to do business, each firm can interact with each other to gain a benefit that the other may need.
For example, say you have a chemical plant and a boat ride company located near a river. If there are no established property rights, then the chemical plant is free to pollute the water and make the boat ride company lose business. However, if a regulatory agency states that the boating agency has property rights over the river than the chemical plant does not have the right to pollute the river. Since property rights are now established, there can be an interaction between the two companies. The chemical plant can discuss with the boat ride company if he can compensate the boat company by producing his chemicals and continuing his business. The boat company can receive a money amount from the chemical company that will make him content. This form of compensation allows the two companies to create a better environment by utilizing market forces instead of outside enforcement.
In China, many foreign companies’ products’ are copied and sold in fake markets. Property rights may not be well defined in outside markets however is the same true on the internet? Recently, Burberry has been awarded $100 million dollars by a Manhattan federal court, on a counterfeiting lawsuit against Chinese websites that were selling fake Burberry products. This lawsuit is also contingent on third party sites that direct visitors to places that sell fake products, i.e. Facebook, Twitter, and Google. With this being said, I believe Burberry has utilized regulatory agencies to establish well defined property rights on their products over the internet. However, will this finally benefit both sides? Clearly not, because the Chinese manufacturers will lose money and there will be jobs lost in China, yet Burberry has one less fake producer to worry about and they can protect themselves from other infringing companies.