Nike vs Adidas Essay Example for Free

Nike vs Adidas Essay Nikes business strategy In order to get a grasp of Nike and how its changing the world today with its innovative products, we must first take a glance at the history of the company and how it all began. Bill Bowerman was a nationally respected track and field coach at the University of Oregon and the founding father of Nike. Bill was always seeking to find ways in order to give his athletes a competitive advantage experiencing with track surfaces, energy drinks but most importantly- innovative running shoes. Nikes business strategy is committed to providing athletes around the world with innovative products and committed to serving athletes, rewarding shareholders and being an industry leader in the shoe market in particular. A golden handshake between Bil Bowerman and Phil knight began the era of Nike over 5 decades and what it is today. Nike has adopted a differentiation focus by implementing what Nike call a consumer focused category strategy. Nikes business strategy is committed to providing the most innovative products around the world to athletes and consumers across the globe. Nike carries an arsenal of products that allow the company to continue growth through increased market place capacity and penetration with decisions that involve outsourcing manufacturing to low-cost areas in the world, investing in research and development of innovative products and aggressive marketing strategies that are beyond conventional. Their consumer focused strategy enhances gives them great leveraging ability to deliver great product and elevated consumer experiences which will help grow the NIKE Brand. http://www.nikebiz.com/crreport/content/pdf/documents/en-US/full-report.pdf http://www.nikeresponsibility.com/ http://www.nike.com/nikeihm/about/business.shtml http://nikeinc.com/news/nike-inc-introduces-2015-global-growth-strategy http://www.slideshare.net/joshuasteinberger/adidas-nike-case-study http://nikeinc.com/pages/history-heritage http://prezi.com/kg1omedww1k7/global-strategy-presentation-nike/

Macbeth: Contrasts Of Nature :: essays research papers

Macbeth: Contrasts of Nature Georganne Hampton In the play, Macbeth, Shakespeare uses contrasts of nature in various ways. He consistently shows us that Macbeth and his wife's actions go against nature. The first lines of the play are a condensed version of the unnaturalness of things to come. "In thunder, lightning or in rain?" ( I, i, 2). In nature, thunder, lightening and rain occur together, but Shakespeare's use of the word "or" infers the unnatural occurrence of one without the others. "When battles lost and won" ( I, i, 4), is also not a natural occurrence. Battles are either lost or won. Shakespeare is implying the future opposites of nature in the forthcoming play. "Fair is foul, and foul is fair" (I, i, 11), further shows the use of inversions and paradoxs in nature that Shakespeare will use throughout the play. One of the main controversies of nature for the reader is that in spite of Macbeth's evil deeds, we still find him likeable. We see him in the same way that the King does when he welcomes him by saying, "O valiant cousin! Worthy gentleman" (I, ii, 24). We perceive him as valiant, because he is afraid of sacrificing his humanity. "My thought, whose murder yet is but fantasticle. / Shakes so my single state of man that function / Is smothered in surmise and nothing is / But what is not" (I, iii, 139-41). Macbeth has doubts about the predictions of the witches. He knows that it could be a trick and his misgivings make him seem to be a better person. Another thing that makes Macbeth likeable to the reader is the contrast with his wife. It is clear from her beginning that she is evil. She has reservations about Macbeth not being evil enough. "Yet do I fear thy nature" (I, V, 14). She fears he is too good to do the kind of evil deeds that she is planning. After Macbeth murders the King, he realizes the extent of evil that he has committed, but also realizes that the deed is done and there is nothing that he can do to rectify it. "As they had seen me with these hangman's hands / List'ning their fear. I could not say ‘Amen!' / When they did say ‘God bless us!'" (II, ii, 27-29). The fact that Macbeth is very troubled, and continues his tirade, "Will all great Neptune's ocean wash this blood / Clean from my hand? No, this my hand will rather / the multitudinous seas incarnadine, / Making the green one red" (II, ii, 59-62), evokes compassion for him from the Macbeth: Contrasts Of Nature :: essays research papers Macbeth: Contrasts of Nature Georganne Hampton In the play, Macbeth, Shakespeare uses contrasts of nature in various ways. He consistently shows us that Macbeth and his wife's actions go against nature. The first lines of the play are a condensed version of the unnaturalness of things to come. "In thunder, lightning or in rain?" ( I, i, 2). In nature, thunder, lightening and rain occur together, but Shakespeare's use of the word "or" infers the unnatural occurrence of one without the others. "When battles lost and won" ( I, i, 4), is also not a natural occurrence. Battles are either lost or won. Shakespeare is implying the future opposites of nature in the forthcoming play. "Fair is foul, and foul is fair" (I, i, 11), further shows the use of inversions and paradoxs in nature that Shakespeare will use throughout the play. One of the main controversies of nature for the reader is that in spite of Macbeth's evil deeds, we still find him likeable. We see him in the same way that the King does when he welcomes him by saying, "O valiant cousin! Worthy gentleman" (I, ii, 24). We perceive him as valiant, because he is afraid of sacrificing his humanity. "My thought, whose murder yet is but fantasticle. / Shakes so my single state of man that function / Is smothered in surmise and nothing is / But what is not" (I, iii, 139-41). Macbeth has doubts about the predictions of the witches. He knows that it could be a trick and his misgivings make him seem to be a better person. Another thing that makes Macbeth likeable to the reader is the contrast with his wife. It is clear from her beginning that she is evil. She has reservations about Macbeth not being evil enough. "Yet do I fear thy nature" (I, V, 14). She fears he is too good to do the kind of evil deeds that she is planning. After Macbeth murders the King, he realizes the extent of evil that he has committed, but also realizes that the deed is done and there is nothing that he can do to rectify it. "As they had seen me with these hangman's hands / List'ning their fear. I could not say ‘Amen!' / When they did say ‘God bless us!'" (II, ii, 27-29). The fact that Macbeth is very troubled, and continues his tirade, "Will all great Neptune's ocean wash this blood / Clean from my hand? No, this my hand will rather / the multitudinous seas incarnadine, / Making the green one red" (II, ii, 59-62), evokes compassion for him from the

Incomplete

Froes explains that the â€Å"One Lesson of Business† is that, â€Å"Wealth is created when assets move from lower to higher-valued uses. † (p. 12) Froes goes on to spend most of the chapter talking about how taxation destroys wealth and that government subsidies (and all government spending is a subsist) also destroys wealth. Apply Frost's â€Å"one lesson of business† to a specific government tax-and- spend decision that you support or else use the â€Å"one lesson of business† to explain why you are an anarchist.AY) If you are not an anarchist, then explain how the government creates wealth by axing-and-spending to produce some program somewhere that you support. Why do you think that the tax dollars are worth less to taxpayers than the value of the government program you selected? This can't be a zero-sum game that happens to benefit you personally. The â€Å"One Lesson of Business† is about wealth creation. For example, I can't simply defend Me dicare because I like that it pays for my mother's healthcare. That doesn't explain whether Medicare creates wealth.I would need to justify whether Medicare's total benefits to society are greater than its cost to society. If government doesn't create value somewhere, then we would be better off without it and we should be anarchists. AY) If you are an anarchist, then explain why all taxation and government spending (subsidies) should be eliminated. In particular, you should take on the biggest spending programs of government: defense, healthcare (mostly Medicare), pensions (mostly Social Security), and education.These programs account for over 2/3 of total government spending (including state and local government), so if you are an anarchist, you should focus on where most of the money goes. . Froes says that businesses that are less bureaucratic and more free-market will be more successful. For example, on page 16, Froes says that, â€Å"Organizations impose ‘taxes,' Ã¢â‚¬Ë œsubsidies,' and ‘price controls' within their companies that lead to unprofitable decisions. Pick one of the following questions and indicate whether you have chosen to address X or Y: X) How do corporations and other organizations â€Å"tax† the individuals, divisions, and/pr departments within the organization? Give a specific example. Do not use any government mandated taxes as your example. Would the organization be better off if it completely avoided the kind of ‘taxation' in your example? Y) How do organizations impose â€Å"price controls†? Give an example where a bureaucrat (manager) imposes a price control (a pre-determined, fixed price) upon the people in the organization.Explain whether it is better to eliminate this particular price control. 7. Suppose you have capital that is currently worth $1,000 and your cost of capital (WAC) is 10%/year. How much operating profit per year would you need to earn to be generating economic value by staying in business according to EVA? 8. Think of a pacific example outside of the textbook where someone in an organization (team, school, business, government, etc. ) made a bad decision and use Frost's rational actor paradigm to diagnose the problem. A) What is the problem (very briefly)? B) What caused the bad decision?C) How could you fix the problem? Could anyone change the organizational structure, information, incentives, (or culture)? How well would your proposed change solve the problem? 9. You traveled to Memphis over the weekend but need to return to work in Columbus early Monday morning. On Sunday afternoon, your flight is postponed until Monday night due to hurricane Eke. Since this is a pleasure trip, you bought a non-refundable ticket for $250. You can still get a ticket on a Greyhound bus for $90 and still get home by 6:AMA. Under what circumstances should you buy the Greyhound ticket and â€Å"ride the dog† overnight? 0. You are the production manager for Widgets, Inc . Current production is 1,000 widgets and all have been ordered by your regular customers. The phone rings and a new customer wants to buy 1 more widget and offers you $1,000 if you increase production to 1,001 widgets. Should you accept this offer? Remember that it is often harder to make decisions if you Just try o estimate the cost than if you figure out the total profit. You do not need to know what the other customers paid. Below are your average total cost which is the total cost divided by the quantity of widgets.Quantity Average Total Cost Current Production 1 ,oho $200 Make One More? 1,001 $201 A) What is the marginal revenue of selling one more? B) What is the total cost currently (selling 1000 units) C) What would the total cost be if you sell 1001 units? D) What is the marginal cost of producing the 1st widget? E) What do you tell the new customer? 11. A) Your firm received an REP (request for proposal) on a wire harness from GM hat will require an investment with fixed costs of $1 million and a constant marginal cost per unit of $1 with expected sales of 1 million units.What is the break-even price per unit that you will need to quote in order to avoid losing money? B) GM agrees to the price you quoted, and then hands you with a POP (purchase order) for 0. 5 million units, what do you say? Why? 12. You have fixed costs of $100/year, and you can produce and sell 100 units per year but you sell a commodity, so you are at the mercy of the going market price and you cannot raise your price above whatever price the market is currently at. Your marginal cost is $5. If the market price declines, what is your break-even price below which you will shut down?Note that there are two different answers for two different possible scenarios. Give both possible answers for full credit. Don't worry about the opportunity cost of capital (WAC). Assume that that is included within the fixed cost figure. 13. Suppose there are two technologies for producing pizzas in M acaque. The solar oven requires $100 in fixed costs, but $9 in marginal costs versus the electric oven which requires $50 in fixed costs but $10 in marginal costs due to the high cost f electricity.What quantity of production will make you indifferent between the two different technologies? This is useful because in making capital expenditure decisions there is often this tradeoff and finding the break-even quantity helps strategies about which investment will be most profitable. The idea is that for small quantities one technology will have higher total costs and for large quantities the other technology will have higher total costs. Your Job is to see what quantity makes you indifferent between the two technologies because they have the same total cost.

House Republicans Move to Cut Federal Workforce

With their morale already about to bottom out, the nearly 3 million civilian employees of the federal government now face two Republican-backed bills that would eventually eliminate many of their jobs. Taking the Forced Attrition Approach First up to bat, Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyoming) introduced the Federal Workforce Reduction Through Attrition Act (H.R. 417), which Rep. Lummis says would reduce the federal workforce by 10% over the next 5 years â€Å"without forcing any current federal employees out of a job.† Instead, the bill would allow the federal agencies to hire only one employee for every three that retire or otherwise leave service, saving an estimated $35 billion over those 5 years, according to Lummis. Through attrition at that rate, the bill requires a net reduction of 10% -- or nearly 300,000 jobs -- from the federal civilian federal workforce by September 30, 2016.  The bill would not apply to Postal Service workers, who are not exactly government employees, anyway. â€Å"We’ve racked up over $18 trillion in debt simply because Washington has no idea when to stop spending,† said Rep. Lummis in a press release. â€Å"Attrition is a solution that requires the federal government to do what any business, state, or local government would do to cut costs -- limit new hires.† In addition, should even one agency fail to comply with the one-for-three attrition plan, the bill would slap that agency with an immediate total hiring freeze. â€Å"Instead of blindly filling empty desks, this bill forces agencies to take a step back, consider which positions are crucial, and make decisions based on necessity rather than luxury,† said Lummis, adding, â€Å"Real, productive job creation takes place on Main Street America, not in the bloated federal government.† Finally, concerned that the agencies would try to â€Å"backfill† their departing employees by simply hiring even more costly third-party contractors, Lummis’ bill requires the agencies to match their reductions in employees with cuts in their numbers of service contracts awarded. The last action on the  Federal Workforce Reduction Through Attrition Act  took place on Jan. 20, 2015, when it was sent to the  House Committee on Oversight and Government.   Defense Employees In the Crosshairs Meanwhile over at the Department of Defense (DOD), where morale is even lower, the almost 770,000 civilian employees will be watching the Rebalance for an Effective Defense Uniform and Civilian Employees (REDUCE) Act (H.R. 340), introduced by Rep. Ken Calvert (R-California). Rep. Calvert’s REDUCE Act would force the DOD to cuts its civilian workforce by a substantial 15% -- about 116,000 employees – by the year 2020 and keep it at or below that level until 2026. According to Rep. Calvert, the workforce cuts would essentially reverse the 15% growth of the civilian DOD workforce that has occurred since the 9/11 terror attacks. In his statement on the REDUCE Act, Rep. Calvert cites former Secretary of the Navy John Lehman as estimating that a 15% reduction in the DOD’s civilian workforce would save $82.5 billion over the first five years. â€Å"The continued growth in our civilian staff at the DOD comes at a time when we are reducing the number of active-duty military personnel -- something is clearly wrong with that equation,† Calvert said in a press release. â€Å"Simply put, if we fail to correct this trend our uniformed soldiers, not to mention American taxpayers, will suffer the consequences.† Perhaps even more menacing to DOD employees is that, unlike Rep. Lummis’ bill, which specifies attrition as the method, the REDUCE Act does not specify how the DOD is to cut its workforce.    Instead, the REDUCE Act requires only that the DOD find a way to â€Å"responsibly adjust† its number of civilian workers, leaving anything from attrition to â€Å"round them up and lay them off,† on the table. The bill would give the Secretary of Defense greater authority to consider job performance in personnel decisions and to use voluntary separation incentive payments and voluntary early retirement payments in order to achieve the required workforce cuts. â€Å"Our current and retired military leaders have widely acknowledged the need to establish a more efficient defense workforce in order to preserve our national security posture in the future,† said Rep. Calvert. â€Å"However, actions speak louder than words and I continue to believe Congress will ultimately have to force DOD’s hand to implement these necessary changes.† No further action on the REDUCE Act has taken place since Aug. 13, 2015, when it was referred to the House  Subcommittee on Readiness.   Federal Employee Unions Object Labor unions are designed to protect jobs, so as you might expect, federal-employee unions strongly oppose both of these bills. In a press release, American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) President J. David Cox said the size of the federal workforce as a percentage of the total U.S. workforce had already shrunk to a level unseen since the Eisenhower administration (1953 – 1961). Fearing the federal workforce will suffer a â€Å"death by a thousand cuts,† Cox said, â€Å"Federal employees protect Americans’ freedom to lead a decent private life without having to worry about basic necessities such as safe food and infrastructure.† â€Å"When anti-government lawmakers talk about cutting the already underfunded and understaffed federal workforce, it’s important to ask who they want to cut,† said Cox. â€Å"Do they want to get rid of employees who care for our veterans, inspect foods, keep air and water clean, forecast tornadoes, rescue victims of natural disasters, design safe roads and bridges, find a cure to deadly diseases, conduct research on energy efficiency, keep air travel safe, protect communities from criminals, analyze security and financial risks, advance science to drive further economic growth, protect people against discrimination in employment, ensure workplace safety and security, manage defense contracts worth billions of dollars, etc?†