Mr. Speaker: Debating Business Issues in Less than 200 Words

The third of three debates that I wrote for a business class a few years ago. The purpose of the assignment was to debate a business issue in less 200 words. I hope some Business Administration students will find this helpful.

Debate 3: Should the House Bail Out Big Businesses

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to debate the resolution that the House should bail out big business. As side government, we support this resolution and believe strongly that it must stand.

When the failure of a major corporation would reverberate through not only its own sectors but across several sectors, causing wide-spread unemployment, the government should intervene, buying shares in the company and monitoring its operations. Moreover, as a condition of its investment in a troubled corporation, the government should conduct a thorough investigation and audit to ascertain whether the company’s financial shortfalls result from criminal fraud or negligence, prosecuting managers and executives as evidence against them warrants.

“We used to say, ‘As GM goes, so goes the nation,’” North American GM President Mark Reuss quoted the old adage as he spoke with reporters in January. In General Motors, we see a compelling example of a government bail-out’s benefit. Within eighteen months of the government’s investment in GM, the company streamlined its operations, sold-off its unsuccessful ventures, won wage and benefit concessions from the unions, and returned both to profitability and market leadership. Emerging from bankruptcy and bailout as an industry leader, the “new” General Motors repaid its debt to American taxpayers with substantial interest. Timely government intervention in a large corporation’s troubled finances has exactly the remedial effects workers and shareholders want.

Side government, Mr. Speaker, would like to thank the House for its time and, for the reasons stated, reiterate that we believe strongly this resolution must stand.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

References:

Calello, P. & Wilson, E. (2010). From bailout to bail-in. Economist, 394(8667).
Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=47815765&login.asp&site=bsi-live

Morley, R. (2011, January 24). The Subprime Nation. The Trumpet.
Retrieved from http://www.thetrumpet.com/?q=7246.5799.0.0

Ruggles, D. (2010). How, Why We Saved Detroit?. Ward’s Dealer Business, 44(7). Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=52593968&login.asp&site=bsi-live.

Mr. Speaker: Debating Business Issues in Less than 200 Words

The second of three debates that I wrote for a business class a few years ago. The purpose of the assignment was to debate a business issue in less 200 words. I hope some Business Administration students will find this helpful.

Debate 2: Should the House Stabilize Gas Prices

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to debate the resolution that the House should stabilize gas prices. As side government, we support this resolution and believe strongly that it must stand.

The laws of supply and demand still determine the price of oil on the world market, and the laws of the free market prevail. The government is powerless to regulate them.

But in much the same way the government harmonizes taxes for initiatives in the public interest, it should regulate – or stabilize – the prices consumers pay for refined petroleum products: gasoline, diesel fuel, motor oil, home heating oil, and the full array of petro-chemicals sold for industrial and manufacturing purposes. Specifically, the government should tie consumer prices to the wholesale price of oil in much the same way home mortgage rates are tied to banks’ prime rate; and it should cap oil companies’ profits at a fixed percentage of the difference between the wholesale price of oil and the retail prices of petroleum products.

Government stabilization of petroleum prices has at least three objectives: first, keeping essential fuels affordable for Canadian consumers; second, eliminating the risk of oil companies’ gouging consumers at the pumps; and, third, gradually weaning the nation of its dependence on imported fossil fuels. Stabilizing consumer prices for petroleum products, the government simultaneously keeps the country moving and generates revenue for sustainable energy projects.

Side government, Mr. Speaker, would like to thank the House for its time and, for the reasons stated, reiterate that we believe strongly this resolution must stand.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

References:

Ajuzie, I. S. , & Ike, R. M. (2009). Oil Speculation: The Impact On Prices, Inflation, Interest Rates And The Economy. Journal of Business & Economics Research, 7(10). Retrieved from http://proxy.library.brocku.ca/login?url=/docview/194914223

Mehra, Y. P., & Petersen, J. D. (2005). Oil Prices and Consumer Spending. Economic Quarterly – Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, 91(3). Retrieved from http://proxy.library.brocku.ca/login?url=/docview/204877310

Risk, H. (2009). Commodity crackdown. Risk, 22(9). Retrieved from http://proxy.library.brocku.ca/login?url=/docview/201339289

Mr. Speaker: Debating Business Issues in Less than 200 Words

The first of three debates that I wrote for a business class a few years ago. The purpose of the assignment was to debate a business issue in less 200 words. I hope some Business Administration students will find this helpful.

 

Debate 1: Is it personal? or is it just business?

 

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to debate the resolution that it is not personal, it is just business. As side opposition, we do not support this resolution and believe strongly that it must fail.

“Business is business,” executives say, implying businesses are nameless, faceless, profit-making machines.  “It’s not personal. It’s business,” serves as the all-purpose rationalization for “downsizing,” improving the “ROI,” and fiduciary duty to shareholders.

Is the purpose of a business to make profit with utter disregard to its social responsibilities? Is it in the interest of a business to operate without considering its impact on the environment? Is it beneficial for a business to neglect the welfare of its employees, and the community at large, as long as it’s profitable? The answer is no.

Businesses should be responsible towards their employees, their communities, and the societies of which they are part. A few of the benefits of being socially responsible are enhanced brand image and reputation; increased sales and customer loyalty; reduced regulatory oversight; and more ability to attract and retain employees. Case studies conducted by the IIDS, confirm that communities will reject businesses who are not good neighbours.

Besides being responsible towards their communities, businesses need to be responsible towards the environment. By buying locally, reducing the use of non-renewable resources, using recycled materials and minimizing packaging, businesses will not only reduce their impact on the environment; they will also cut production costs. In a report, the EDA concluded that “Going green can be both environmentally and economically beneficial.”

Side opposition, Mr. Speaker, would like to thank the House for its time and, for the reasons stated, reiterate that we believe strongly this resolution must stand fail.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

References

BusinessLink.gov.uk. Corporate social responsibility and your business.

Retrieved from http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?itemId=1075408480

&lang=en&r.i=1075408504&r.l1=1074404796&r.l2=1074446322&r.l3=1075408468

&r.s=m&r.t=RESOURCES&type=RESOURCES

International Institute for Sustainable Development. Corporate social responsibility (CSR).

Retrieved from http://www.iisd.org/business/issues/sr.aspx

Economic Development Agency (2008). Benefits of Going Green.

Retrieved from www.eda.gov/PDF/EDAAmericaSummer2008.pdf