Analysis of When I Was a Boy in China Research Paper

Analysis of When I Was a Boy in China - Research Paper Example Education equips people with understanding of the various phenomena affecting people. It is the foundation of all discoveries. Education enables people to think and reason from their vicinity, removing ignorance from the people. It thus enables people to think about the future more, especially specialists in various areas. Just like Sinha points out, education is essential for long term planning and prediction. It may take long for education to transform the economy, although its effects are long term. Lee and his friends were sent to America for fifteen years to receive education, and would latter return, fully equipped with knowledge and skills to transform the Chinese country and the general economy. Through this, evidence of the contributions of education to the transformation the world economy is seen. Long term plans are possible with education. The differences between the Chinese people and the Americans during Lee’s time were significant, especially in terms of civilization. By then, a very few Chinese people could read or write, with the educated ones having designated jobs. His uncle for example, lived a good life and had a good job working in an American firm due to his education. He was part of the few citizens who contributed to the economic development of the country. In Lee’s view, the civilized people dressed weird, spoke in funny languages, and behaved in a funny manner. This showed the level of un-civilization among the Chinese, a reason why they could not communicate directly with the Europeans. However, with the acquisition of formal education, they were in a position to communicate efficiently with the Americans, giving them an opportunity to easily and efficiently interact with them. The interaction would then enable them discuss economically and politically oriented ideas. This is a key contribution of the formal education to the country and the world general Lee (1877). Regardless the willingness of the

New discoveries in physiology in last 5 years Research Paper

New discoveries in physiology in last 5 years - Research Paper Example Recent studies are exploring ribosome biogenesis’ role in inflammatory pathologies that include cancer (Blalock et al., 2014) and how dysregulated rRNA synthesis could contribute to or be a product of malignant cellular changes (Nguyen et al., 2015). Studying ribosome biogenesis and its dynamics and effects on malignant tumors can improve the understanding of cancer cell proliferation and may lead to more precise treatments/therapies for cancer (Blalock et al., 2014; Nguyen et al., 2015; Penzo et al., 2015). Ribosome biogenesis involves multiple steps, including rRNA transcription, development of pre-rRNA transcripts towards maturity, gathering of preribosomes, and RNA processing into mature ribosomes (Nguyen et al., 2015). Ribosomal DNA (rDNA) goes through the transcribing of the RNA polymerase I (Pol I) into a 47 S rRNA precursor, which later becomes processed and turns into 18 S, 5.8S, and 28 S mature rRNAs (Nguyen et al., 2015). rDNA becomes multicopy genes in arrays, wherein the number of active genes in any specific time has epigenetic regulations (Nguyen et al., 2015). Furthermore, various cellular signaling pathways connected to cell growth impact the activity of proteins that are in charge of rRNA transcription and which can be co-opted through the oncogenic processes (Nguyen et al., 2015). The following studies provide novel discoveries about the genetic expressions of different kinds of cancers. Nguyen et al. (2015) studied the epigenetic and the post-transcriptional mechanisms that may give some explanation on how dysregulated rRNA synthesis could influence or be a product of malignant transformation. They learned from their studies that Akt has a function in pre-rRNA synthesis. Their findings and other research showed that the pro-cell survival PI3K/Akt axes are similarly connected to and may cause

How Has Amazon Used Technology Essay Example for Free

How Has Amazon Used Technology Essay 1. How has Amazon used technology to revamp the bookselling industry? Amazon uses technology envelop in search engine of a website. The company captures comments and recommendations of buyers for site visitors to read and also recommends which book to buy. The website captures all the information of the customer such as what pages they are looking at, how much time they spend on site, no of visitors etc. This information is used by the company to evaluate buying and selling patterns of the book industry. 2. Is Amazon using disruptive or sustaining technology to run its business? Amazon is using disruptive technology where it uses new ways to do things that doesnot satisfy the existing customers. This technology brings up new market and destroy the old one to run the business successfully. 3. How could Amazon use kiosks to improve its business? Amazon released a free website that enables its business partners to interact with its website. This website allows partners to create, access to data, populate and even initiating checkout process so that business can improve. This is the way Amazon uses kiosks to improve its business. 4. What is Amazon’s e-business model? Amazon uses Business-to-Customer model because here it sells the product or services to customers over the internet. 5. Which metrics could Amazon use to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of Amazon’s website? Efficiency: Amazon uses following metrics for its efficiency. Throughput: amazon introduces new techniques and brings infront of the customers in a given time and according to time Transaction speed: the website speed is so fast that all transactions of the customers are done quickly. Availability: amazon provides everything for the customers so that it is available for everyone and everything is available in its website. Effectiveness: amazon uses the following metrics for its effectiveness. Customer satisfaction: amazon always thinks about the requirements of the customers so that they will be satisfied.  Ã‚  Conversion rates: amazon charges for the customers for using their site but it be reasonable for the customers to bear.  Sell-through increases: as amazon fulfills the requirements of the customers, sales also increase automatically. 6. What are some of the business challenges facing Amazon? Amazon has been spread global wide. But there are some issues with some countries where language became the main barrier. Site has been forbidden because they include foreign languages through which bookseller site could not be operated. So amazon have to face this challenge for its business improvements.

Cadbury: Porters Five Forces, and PESTEL Analysis

Cadbury: Porters Five Forces, and PESTEL Analysis In order to recommend what strategy is needed for a company to follow is essential to analyze the competitive environment where they operate. When analyzing the competitive environment of Cadbury, the factors that should be considered are both factors from the confectionery industry and factors from the macro environment, which would have an effect on the successful operation of the company. I have chosen Porters Five Forces, and PESTEL analysis. 1.1 Porters Five Forces Bargaining power of buyers: Porter (2008) stated that where the product is a small  fraction of buyers costs or expenditures, buyers are usually less price sensitive. Cadbury has to categories of buyers namely, consumers or retailer. Retail buyers are the group that has the most effect for Cadbury and other confectionery producers. They are mainly large retailers like i.e. Tesco, Asda in UK. There is competition for shelf space and threat of backward integration especially with brand only products. That is a very important group, which is directly correlated with the revenue. It could have high effect. Bargaining power of suppliers: Group that has big impact on the final product, in terms of quality and price. The main commodities used by Cadbury are cocoa, milk, and sugar. Any change in the price of those commodities will affect directly the price of the product and the profitability. Confectionery manufacturers are facing increasing cost pressures as Cocoa prices hit their highest levels for 23 years due to fall in Cocoa production (BBC, 2008). Cadbury is using commodity derivative contracts for cocoa and sugar. Cadbury Cocoa partnership is established to insure sustainable supply of Cocoa by supporting Cocoa farmers in Ghana, India, Indonesia and Caribbean (Cadbury, 2008). Another way perhaps to strengthen their position would be a backward integration, where they would acquire one or more of their suppliers to ensure that they have control over the commodity price (Johnson et al, 2008). Moderate effect. Rivalry among existing competitors: Confectionary is an industry with stiff competition amongst its players. There are five major players competing globally in confectionery industry: Nestle, Mars Wrigley, Cadbury, Ferrero Rocher and Hershey with about 42% share of global market (Cadbury, 2008). All of the major players in the industry have very sound brands worldwide. There is a high growth rate of 5% in the developed countries, and about 10% in the emerging markets, which makes the confectionery industry very attractive. Because of the high competition, there is possibility of competition of prices, which will cause the company to operate with lower margins. High effect. Threat of substitute products: World Health Organization (WHO) (2008) estimates that in 2005 at least 400 million adults worldwide were obese and forecasted that this figure in 2015 will be 700 million. USA, UK, and Germany are among the countries with largest number of people that are obese, overweight, and have cardiovascular health problems on the other hand those countries are the largest confectionery markets in the world. Consumers are becoming more and more aware of healthy eating, so the snacking habits are changing. There are numbers of substitutes emerging on the market, products like cereal bars and fruit bars are threat for the chocolate industry, as health conscious parents especially, would opt for the healthier option. Chocolatiers try to add value to their chocolate, with vitamins or antioxidants or by removing fat and sugar from the confection (Scully, C., 2006). Moreover consumers want firms to avoid e-numbers or synthetic colours and require instead organic substan ces In this regard many people think of the possible health benefits from the chocolate they eat. Consequently a further development will start. Special groups like diabetics or allergy sufferers will rise in importance. (Vreeland, C., 2007). The other main direction in the confection industry is the tendency to pure black and high quality chocolate. Thus, the sweet is turning into a way in which people express their selves. Candy Industry (2006) clarifies this with the headline of one of their reports Dark and Decadent vs. Milk and Mainstream. The statement is underpinned by several data. In 2006 the sales of dark chocolate increased by 40%, every third chocolate released was a dark chocolate and the premium market was foretold to grow over 20% in the next periods. The bitter chocolate has the benefit of a low sugar rate and a lot of antioxidants that makes it much more healthy then normal sweets. A dark chocolate is a bit of luxury at a reasonable price, perhaps thats a reason why this kind of sweet is so popular. The last point which supports the trend is that premium chocolate is for a multilateral use, for instance as a gift or decoration, optimally suitable (Rehan, 2007). The effect is high. Threat of a new entry: as the confectionery market is dominated by well established brands, as sated while analyzing the rivals, and they are Nestle, Mars Wrigley, Cadbury, Ferrero Rocher and Hershey, with 42% of the market (Cadbury, 2008) for a new company is very difficult to enter the market, unless they come up with new interesting product, something to go in line with the healthy lifestyle perhaps, as discussed above. However, it will be difficult to take a considerable market share, as they would be competing against very well established companies, with also established brand names, distribution channels and high capital investment. Other barriers for new entrants are economies of scale and experience of major operators in production and distribution (Johnson, et al 2008). On the other hand those barriers might not be effective for a company that is diversifying, like Nestle, they used their strong position of the confectionery market to enter the ice cream market (Reader, 2 006). The effect on Cadbury is low. 1.2 PESTEL Analysis Political: Only 10 countries in the world produce more than 90% of the worlds cocoa (Worlds Coco Foundation, 2007). The major problem in those countries is poverty. The main concern for the companies trading with those countries is political stability, as instability can have effect on the price, and the supply. Economic: Recent fall in the value of the pound, is one economic factor that affects all the companies that operate in UK, and have business connections with other countries. Cadbury operates in more than 60 countries in the world. Cadbury suppliers of their main commodity cocoa are not British, as outlined above. The depreciation of the pound makes the prices of cocoa more expensive; even though Cadbury had future contracts to hedge against situations like that it will still affect the operation in longer run, when new future contracts need to be made. On the other hand interest rates are very low in England at the moment. The base rate is only 0.5% (Bank of England, 2010). Companies can benefit with lower interest borrowing. Social: Fair trade with cocoa farmers is a social factor, as affects how the company is perceived by the consumers. Fair trade means that a company buys a tone of cocoa at the market price and pays a social premium for the commodity. This benefits the planter because of a steady income stream, which is more independent from the volatility of the market price. Furthermore a company with a fair trade label pays a percentage of the selling price to the centralized fair trade organization. Corporations try to redeem these disadvantages through a higher quality of cocoa beans (Westen, 2006). Furthermore an enterprise could gain a competitive advantage because of their social commitment. The customer can see a fair trade certification on the package and this is becoming more and more important. As outlined above Cadbury operates in more than 60 countries in the world. When a company operates in more than one country potential problems are conflicts between different cultural groups, language difficulties, stereotyping, and mutual misunderstanding (Greenhause, et al, 2010). Technological: Availability of high-tech machinery enables the company to produce high quality product at lower prices, which helps the company to gain competitive advantage. Another point is the widespread of the internet and satellite television, makes it easier to advertise to bigger audience of potential consumers. Environmental: The cocoa plant needs a stable climate. But the ideal conditions in  Africa and South America are in danger because of global warming. The weather will be  unpredictable and natural disasters are possible. Consequently the plants get hurt and the productivity decreases. Moreover disease destroys over 20% of the cacao beans that should be use for chocolate production every year (Ogodo, 2006).Therefore companies should search ways to secure a steady flow of cocoa in the required amount and quality. Cooperation with the World Cocoa Foundation could be a solution. Confectioners like Ferrero, Lindt, Thorntons and Nestle realise this potential and try to improve future expectations (World Cocoa Foundation, 2007) Legal: Affecting the industry are two new legislations that came into force in 2003 in UK. Regulations concerning contaminants in food and organic products force firms to obey and perhaps change their own practices (Baxter, 2006). The company had a very strong financial position with sales revenue growth of 14.6% compared with the previous year, which was due to increase in price, rather than increase in volume of sales, (Bonfield, 2009). Increasing price with no increase in the quality results in higher margins, however it is a very risky strategy to follow as the consumers might not agree with it, the company can lose market share (Johnson, et al 2008). The profit margins have increased from 5.41% in 2007 to 7.43% in 2008, and are higher than the average which stands at 6.42%. That is an indicator of successful cuts in cost. Main reason for that is cutting the number of employees, in 2007 the number of employees was 50,465, and in 2008 was nearly 4000 less down to 46,517. ROCE was nearly doubled in 2008 rising from 3.78% to 7.29%, and was much higher than the average ROCE for the industry, which was 5.53%. This increase in part can be from divestment of Americas Beverages in 2008 during 2008 that had lower R OCE than other companies in the group. According to Cadburys annual report (2008) In July 2008 Company issued new  £350m sterling bond with a coupon of 7.25%and underlying interest rate for Cadbury in 2008 was 6.5%. This means that Cadbury is not producing ROCE much more than its current cost of capital. On the other hand Nestles ROCE is an impressive 21.5% that indicates that the operating costs in UK are much higher, like wages, rent, administrative expenses etc. Current ratio which indicates the companys liquidity is 0.86% for 2008 for Cadbury, which is an improvement from previous year when it was 0.58%. That indicates that their liability has decreased during 2008. Compared to the competitors is obvious that they are not as liquid as Nestle, with current ratio of 1%, however their performance for 2008 compared with the industry average which is 0.72% indicates that they are doing better than the majority. Gering Ratio has decreased from 123.69% to 89.66% in 2008 mostly because of the demerger with the Americas Beverages which was financed by debt. At 2008 their gearing was lower than the average that was 106.6. That is an indicator that if the company needs to borrow, it will not be difficult to find a lender, as they are outperforming the average. Return on shareholders funds is 11.36% nearly doubled compared to year before when it was 6.10%. Nestles return is again much higher at 14.76%. However Cadburys Return on Shareholders funds is again better than the average for the industry which seats at 8.73%. (Weetman, 2006) (Nestle, 2008) (Fame, 2009)(Cadbury, 2009) CORPORATE STRATEGY CURRENTLY BEING PERSUED Vision into action is the name of the strategy pursued by Cadbury. The main outcome of the strategy is to achieve mid teen margins by 2011, alongside with 4-6% organic revenue growth, and improved return on capital employed. If all of that is achieved Cadbury PLC is going to be in an excellent position financially and marketwise, and would deliver outstanding return for their shareholders and become the largest confectionery company in the world. Cadburys priorities stated in the strategy were: growth, efficiency, and capability (Cadbury, 2009). In order to achieve the priorities cost reduction was very important, which resulted in increase in profit by 2.02% the de-merger of US Beverage happened in May 2008, as it was difficult for a British company to compete against American giants such as Coca Cola and Pepsi Co (Market Watch, 2008). And because it was an unrelated diversification from Cadburys main focus on chocolate, gum, and candy. Originally Cadbury wanted to sell the business, as Colley et al. (2002) suggests that a company may not have the time or resources to focus on particular division. Selling the units that lack long term prospects would bring in cash that can be used in what would be considered more advantageous ways. However a lack of interest from cash shy investors forced it to split the business instead. Instead of adding value to the Parent Company, if that given unit adds in management costs, adds to bureaucratic complexity and obscure financial performance, it is not feasible to continue with their oper ation (Johnson et al, 2008). The recent acquisition of Adam business is of immense benefit to Cadbury having gain number two position in gum business. They are focused in Integrating these recent acquisitions for sustainable growth. In order to implement strategy successfully there should be match between strategy and organisational structure. Roquebert et al. (1996) argue that in essence the structure of the organisation and its fit to environment determines the relative degree of profitability. Alfred Chandler (1962) concluded that structure follows strategy. New group structure of seven business units instead of four was introduced and de-layering organization for faster decision making and reduction in administrative cost. Strategic business unit is a part of an organization for which there is a distinct external market for goods or services that is different from another strategic business unit SBU (Johnson et al, 2008). The definition for SBU by CIMA, (2006) adds that SBU has a significant degree of autonomy, typically being responsible for developing and marketing their own product. In the case of Cadbury there is no evidence that shows these business units will have any autonomy in developing their own m arkets and products. Alongside what I have mentioned several other activities had been carried out in order to implement the strategy, such as the reconfiguration of production in Australia and New Zealand to reduce complexity of production, ant the closure of the nonperforming plants i.e. Barcelona and Turkey Gum plants and Somerdale Chocolate plant (Cadbury, 2009). Cadbury is a large company that only concentrates in one industry. In a study carried out by Schmalensee in 1985 was found that the industry effect is very significant and accounts for at least 75% of the variance of industry rates of return on assets, which is directly correlated with the profit of the firm. He also found that market share effects exist it share has positive relation with profitability but its effect is negligible and industry and market share affects are negatively correlated. Within the industry this is competitive advantage that accounts for profitability of company. Cadbury at the moment does not have competitive advantage over its rivals. Profit target set for 2013 that is operating margin of 16%-18% (11.9%for 2008) shows that understanding this fact managers are trying to gain competitive advantage over other global players by focusing on performance and increasing profit (Hill and Jones, 2007). RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings regarding the competitive environment where the company operates, and on Cadburys financial performance and current strategy, l can give recommendations for a strategy to be followed, supported by a Balanced Scored Card provided in Appendix 1. The main goal as it was outlined in the existing strategy is Increase in Shareholders Value. For the goal to be achieved every department in the Company should be involved. I will explain the implementation of the strategy starting from implementation in the process of learning and growth, than the implementation across the internal processes, followed by what would the strategy mean to the customers, finishing with how will the strategy affect the financial perspective. In order for a company to be successful the most important asset are the employees. Very important part of any strategy is how happy the employees are? Are they driving the business towards the goal set by the management? In order to achieve the points made is very important that the team fully understands the strategy and the underlying assumptions. The employees should work as a team with a successful communication between them, which contributes to faster decision making. For best results Cadbury should employ and retain high performers, for example high performing managers, or specialists in the field of RD. Once those employees are on board is very important to retain them, by appropriate pay, safe conditions, training and development to achieve their full potential. After the Kraft take over, and numerous job cuts, the team morale is low (BBC, March 2010), and it is very important that they get the support needed, and understand the big picture. Another crucial area of successes is investing in RD. As outlined by the analysis using the Porter Five Forces, there is a threat of substitutes, to develop products in line with the changing consumer habits (WHO, 2008) healthier variety of snacks should be introduced. Consumers are becoming more health concern, and are happy to pay higher price for a good quality, example of that is Innocent, focused on healthy food and drink, 100% smoothies, packed fruits and vegetables, which in the nine years they exist has grown from just a three employees to 268, and is one of the fastest growing companies with revenue of over 120 million pounds (Innocent, 2009). As explained by Ansoffs Matrix possible growth opportunities are found in this particular case by introducing new products in already existing markets (Richardson, et al, 2007). I think that Cadbury PLC should be one step ahead and introduce similar products as well. However, introducing new products is very costly and it will relate i n lower growth prospects. There are two factors that the power of substitutes depends on: Relative Price/Performance; and The extent of switching costs (CIMA, 2007). By using Porters Five Force was found that the competition in the confectionery industry is fierce; in order for Cadbury to maintain their market share, or better to enlarge it, constant improvements of the products should be maintained. Black and Green line should be developed further, as the demand for dark chocolate is growing (Rehan, 2007). As Porter (1980) says the goal of a competitive strategy for a company is to find a position in its industry where these competitive forces, will do it the most good or the least harm The Cadburys brand is large and global. Kraft had done a lot of acquisitions in the past where the brand has been kept intact like Jacobs Coffee in Germany. The company should continue that with the Cadbury Brand, as that is key to success. In the long run that will result in improved sales revenues , and better profit margins. In the Balanced Score Card I have outlined that Cadbury should be environmentally friendly. Ogogdo, (2006) had pointed that there is a threat to the cocoa trees in the long run, by the global warming. Cadbury should do their part and be involved in projects helping the environment, like using fair trade, or following their competitors examples. Nestle USA is helping to safeguard the environment through pollution prevention and control, energy conservation and recycling/solid waste management practices (Nestle Global, 2010). Entering new markets is a way of driving the business forward. By acquiring Cadbury, Kraft had positioned themselves on the Indian market where Cadbury has a very strong position, on the other hand Kraft can help Cadbury to penetrate the Chinese market, where they have a solid position, and use their distribution channels (Riches, 2010). Being global as refered to in the PESTEL analysis comes with its negative sides. To overcome that Cadbury should work towards minimizing conflicts and have procedures in place to supplement the strategy. Even though the current liabilities had decreased from the year before, there are still high. Restructuring the debt to a lower interest loan, would result in substantial savings. The interest debt on the existing debt is 6.5% (Cadbury, 2009). As outlined from the financial analysis, the performance had been stronger year after year, where almost all of the ratios had improved. If all the recommendations outlined above are followed the financial performance can only get stronger. When all standards are met for quality and the product meet and exceed customer expectations, there are possibilities for higher margins and increase in profit. On the other hand when the profits increase after interest and tax, the shareholders return would increase as well, which makes the final goal achieved increase in shareholder value. Market Watch Drinks; Apr2008, Vol. 7 Issue 4, p14-14, 1p Porter, M. E., (1980), Industry Structure and Competitive Strategy: Keys to Profitability, Financial Analysis Journal, Vol. 36, Issue 4, p30-41, 12p Strategy in Action Applying Ansoffs Matrix.Full Text Available By: Richardson, Mark; Evans, Carl. Manager: British Journal of Administrative Management, Summer2007, Issue 59, pi-iii, 3p

German Public During WW2

German Public During WW2 To what extent were the German people supportive of Nazi anti-Semitic policy? Only a few years ago, a remarkable book exploded on to the academic scene which initiated a heated and sometimes acrimonious debate amongst historians. The Harvard historian Daniel Goldhagen had argued in his book Hitler’s willing executioners[1] that Germans were culturally predisposed to mistreat and kill Jews. This essay will look the extent to which Germans were supportive of Nazi anti-Semitic policy mainly through the lens of the Goldhagen debate. It will have to explore three interrelated but distinct conceptual questions. Firstly, it will have to determine the nature of the anti-Semitic policies themselves. Secondly, the essay needs to clarify what type of support was typical amongst Germans. Thirdly, the essay needs to ask how support was articulated and how reliable the various types of historical evidence is to reach so dramatic conclusions as Goldhagen did in his work. Goldhagen’s thesis can be summed up briefly by saying that he believes to have identified the single most important motivation of Germans to kill Jews. He writes: ‘[There was a] widespread profound German cultural animus towards Jews that evolved from an early nineteenth century eliminationist form to the more deadly twentieth century incarnation.’[2] While Germans throughout the past two centuries harboured this ‘eliminationist anit-Semitic attitude’ towards the Jewish people, ‘only with the control of Eastern Europe could Germans finally act upon Hitler’s pre-existing exterminationist intentions.’[3] Goldhagen attributes to Germans a general voluntarism and enthusiasm for cruelty in performing their assigned and self-appointed task of exterminating Jews.[4] Goldhagen maintains that all other ways of explaining German anti-Semitic behaviour during the various phases of discriminatory Nazi policy have failed for some reason. The only viable explanation must be, so Goldhagen argues, that Germans were somehow pre-disposed to kill Jews. His claims rests on an analysis of the actions of ordinary Germans, the Police Battalion 101 and their general willingness to execute the exterminationist orders of the Nazi leadership. He then claims that ‘all conventional explanations explicitly or implicitly p osit universal human traits’[5] so that explanations must hold true for everyone. Something Goldhagen insistently rejects. This, he exclaims, is ‘obviously and demonstrably false’[6]. He uses a two-pronged, methodologically questionable, strategy however. First, his thesis undergoes a daring generalisation when he claims that the actions of some Germans, those who willingly engage in mass murder, are indicative of the attitudes of all Germans (something that implicitly accepts by the way the Nazi assumption that assimilated German Jews are not Germans!). The second step is even more audacious methodologically. On some grounds he now claims that this attitudes is a trait specific only to Germans, no one else. He writes: ‘The one explanation adequate to these tasks holds that a demonological anti-Semitism, of the virulent racial variety, was the common structure of the perpetrators cognition, and of German society in general.’[7] In short, Germans killed Jews because they were Germans, and every German would be subscribing to the same eliminationist anti-Semitic attitude. If that is the case, the extent to which Germans were supportive of Nazi anti-Semitic ideology and policy is clear. All Germans potentially supported them, even or especially if this included the physical elimination of the Jewish people. They did so, not because they found Nazi ideology particularly persuasive, or were convinced that this is for the better good of German society, but simply because they were Germans. This identification of an ethnic group with a particular character trait of course is, strictly speaking, no explanation at all.[8] It is a conjecture that awaits evidence and elaboration. Goldhagen provides neither. His logic, as Josef Joffe writes, is simplistic and defies any reasonable historical method. ‘The killers were ordinary Germans, ergo the ordinary Germans were killers.’[9] Goldhagen’s book therefore lack the rigorous methodological standards of any decent historical work. Methodologically his work offers a circular thesis and is conspicuously devoid of argument and evidence. If such a simplistic approach fails to provide an answer to the question, we should look further. First, what was Nazi policy towards the Jews? Historians stress that Nazi policy greatly differed throughout the years of their twelve-year terror reign. Although Hitler had sketched the main outlines of his anti-Semitic attitude even before January 1933 and although Hitler and others were very sympathetic to the sporadic killings, beatings and other reprisals against Jews in German cities, they also feared this would diminish the widespread popular support that the Nazi government enjoyed in the first months after the appointment of Hitler as chancellor. What was needed was to reign in and organise properly the anti-Semitic actions, effectively basing them on a more legal basis and thereby giving them a faà §ade of legitimacy. Behind this problem stood the issue of competency of policy, and a constant state of confusion as to who was responsible for what in the many layers of the new regime. The fact however that Hitler and his inner circle deemed it necessary after coming to power to curtail the actions of the SA and place an ti-Semitic boycotts on a more legal basis indicates that, although many Germans agreed with Hitler’s assessment that Jews had a too prominent role in German economic and social life, they did not necessarily support haphazard, extralegal and sporadic anti-Semitic attacks on a daily basis. The Nazi leadership hence adjusted their policy and from now on favoured a slower approach to eliminating Jews from German public life. Graml notes that a process took place that may be termed the ‘disciplining the persecution of Jews’. He writes: ‘Disciplining the persecution of the Jews meant above all a move away from the terror of the stormtroopers to formal anti-Semitic legislation.’[10] Another significant difference in anti-Semitic policy is equally overlooked by Goldhagen but of great relevance to the question of why Germans supported Nazi policy. With the start of the war in 1939 and the occupation of Poland and other Eastern European countries is became clear that Nazi policy towards Jews distinguished sharply between assimilated German Jews and Sephardic Eastern European Jews. While the former were gradually frozen out of German public life, East European Jews suffered from exterminationist policies almost immediately after the start of the war. The goal of the Nazi leadership with respect to them was immediate and radical obliteration of any Jewish culture and life in this area, something that was eventually extended to the German Jewry as well but only as late as 1943. The difference of treatment is significant since it may indicate that Germans harboured different attitudes to their widely assimilated neighbours and Eastern European Jews. Eventual exterminat ion of German Jews may have been anticipated by the Nazi leadership fairly early on, but the regime lacked the popular support to introduce any radical measures to initiate this process. In fact, historians point out that the progrom of 1938 (Reichskristallnacht) was received with widespread horror and disapproval amongst the German population.[11] The government never engaged in similar boycotts and overt actions against German Jews until the beginning of the war. Graml writes: ‘[to implement] the anti-Semitic message into policy was not simple, other priorities existed, amongst others to solidify their [the Nazi’s] power base. The brutal and open anti-Semitic agitation practiced by the Nazi party failed to make any positive impression at all on the majority of the population.’[12] That does not mean that German Jews did not suffer a horrifying slow marginalisation in German society which culminated in the visible stigmatisation and discrimination of Jews in all parts of public life. Jews were rapidly becoming second class citizens and this process was visible and obvious to every German. It is this process of gradual marginalisation of Jews in German society that probably received most support from ordinary Germans, and which eventually led to a broader acceptance of their ‘final destination’: physical extermination. The broad catalogue of discriminatory measures against German Jews were in effect removing them from German society and ensured that the final step, their physical obliteration, was accepted as inevitable fate as they were increasingly associated with the guilt for war in Nazi propaganda.[13] To summarise, the differences in policy vis-à  -vis Jews in Germany and the occupied territories after the start of the war also elicited different responses by Germans and hence indicate different levels of support. Kulka notes that Germans probably viewed ‘racial legislation as a permanent solution of social, cultural and biological segregation but conditional upon the preservation of public law and order.’[14] Thus Germans distinguished between Eastern European and German Jews, although this differentiation grew less and less significant as the war progressed and as Nazi ideology managed to portray German Jews as similar to those of the Sephardic Jews. The second important issue concerns the constituency of supporters of Nazi ideologies and policy. Who were they? Did they all equally endorse anti-Semitic policies? Goldhagen claims that all ordinary Germans were in fact anti-Semites, and bases this claim on his account of the role of ordinary Germans in the mass killings that occurred in Eastern Europe. His conclusion is a swift and methodologically flawed one: ordinary Germans did the killing, so every ordinary German must potentially be a killer. In this logic, all ordinary Germans would be supportive of the most radically eliminationist policy. A closer look at the evidence reveals a different picture however. Goldhagen was not the first who looked at ‘ordinary Germans’ and emphasised their voluntary and at times sadistic attitude to mass murder. In fact not even the particular focus of his inquiry, the Police Battalions operating in the hinterland of the Eastern front were original. Christopher Browning already published a book on the unparalleled brutality of the Police Battalion 101 and attempts similarly to identify a plausible explanation for the behaviour of the policemen. Although Browning is equally perplexed by the cruelty and viciousness that the policemen displayed throughout the murderous procedures, he rejects any simplistic explanations but instead argues that a whole range of factors may are contributed to the callousness of the men. He stresses in stark contrast to Goldhagen, that at the root of every action lies an individual decision which must be accounted for in individual not generalist terms; an explanatory approach that deeply resonates with the opinion of other scholars.[15] Therefore, dealing with a whole group of murderers, explanations can only sketch some of the most significant factors which may have played a role in stripping the men of their humane and cultural inhibitions. Browning does not shy away from references to the wider German society, but the tone of his propositions is remarkably different to that of Goldhagen. Browning writes: ‘The men of the Reserve Police Battalion 101, like the rest of German society [sic], were immersed in a deluge of racist and anti-Semitic propaganda.’[16] However, he declines to extrapolate from his evidential base to German society as a whole. Instead he is sympathetic to a complex social explanation of their actions. ‘Insidiously, most of those who did not shoot only re-affirmed the ‘macho’ values of the majority according to which it was a positive quality to be ‘tough’ enough to kill unarmed, non-combatant men, women, and children – and tried not to rupture the bonds of comradeship that constituted their social world.’[17] According to Browning, the men were motivated by a raft of socio-psychological aspects not by simply being German. This should illustrate that talking about Germans as a collection of individuals who feature that same preternatural anti-Semitic disposition makes little sense. It fails to acknowledge the variance of opinion on Nazi ideology and policy as well as cannot explain why some become inhibited murderers and others do not. Their ethnic identity (being German) does not add up to be a plausible explanation of their allegedly eliminationist anti-Semitism since it cannot take account of the fact the Germans frequently intermarried with Jews since their emancipation in 1867. German had long ceased to be a homogenous ethnic group, tied together by ‘purity of blood lines’ as Nazi ideology suggested. Now let us proceed to the last issue, the forms in which Germans may have expressed their support for anti-Semitic policies. Again, a methodologically difficulty lies at the heart of this issue. How to distinguish between those who gave their tacit support and those who engaged in demonstrative actions of support? Which form was a more accurate reflection of endorsement for Nazi policies? Historians have pointed out that about half a million Germans were actively involved in the Final Solution, the physical extermination of Jews after 1943. This included administrative work as well as the actual killings. Important sections of the economy and government were directly involved in the killings by providing crucial assistance in terms of resources, material and time to the Holocaust.[18] Interestingly, we do not have to engage in a flight of fancy guess work but have some hard facts that may shed some light on the forms and extent of support for anti-Semitic policies amongst the German population. Nazis as well as the victorious armies conducted extensive surveys that were supposed to demonstrate the extent to which anti-Semitism messages were favourably received by the German population. Kulka sums up the evidence: ‘the post 1945 surveys†¦ give [us] a reliable indication of attitudes amongst Germans: twenty percent were supportive of Nazi policies towards Jews; nineteen percent were generally in favour [of anti-Semitic policies] but said that Hitler had gone too far. Overall the surveys found that identification with the Final Solution was quite widespread among the public in the Third Reich.’[19] The question however remains whether the silence on the Holocaust was due to indifference or reflected endorsement of physical elimination of Jews. Norbert Frei argues that the extent to which workers had been won over by Nazi policies may give us a reliable clue as to the amount of support. He argues that the Nazi slogan of Volksgemeinschaft (people’s community) somehow captures the essence of anti-Semitism and the gradual acceptance of this idea would in turn show how far Germans had consented to discriminatory measures against Jews. By the mid 1930s, Frei argues, the German workers had virtually be convinced the idea of people’s community was constitutive for German society, a concept that would preclude any participation of Jews in German public life.[20] This hints at those pockets of resistance to Nazi propaganda which many historians conventionally identify as conservative, catholic milieus and whose resilience to Nazi propaganda can only be explained by social and cultural factors, an explanation that Goldhagen explicitly rejects. Overall, to what extent were Germans really supportive of anti-Semitic policies? The question evokes a complex answer. Policy changed throughout the regime and hence the degree of support differed. Also, policies varied with regard to different ethnic groups of Jews throughout Europe, and so did the response and support of Germans for these policies. And finally, German people were not a unitary entity. Their responses to Nazi policy was influenced by their educational, cultural, religious and social background, by the different level of sympathy for the wider Nazi ideology, as well as by the way in which they were affected themselves by Nazi policies throughout the regime. Given this wide range of variances, no serious historian can offer only one universal portrait of German support for anti-Semitic measures. Bibliography Christopher R. Browning. Ordinary Men. Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland. New York: Harper Collins 1992. Norbert Frei. People’s Community and War: Hitler’s Popular Support. In Hans Mommsen (ed.). The Third Reich between Vision and Reality. New Perspectives on German History 1918-1945. Oxford New York: Berg 2001. Daniel Jonah Goldhagen. Hitler’s Willing Executioners. Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust. London: Abacus 1996. Hermann Graml. Anti-Semitism in the Third Reich. Oxford: Blackwell 1992. Josef Joffe. ‘The Killers were ordinary Germans, ergo the ordinary Germans were killers’: The Logic, the Language and the Meaning of a Book that conquered Germany. In Robert R. Shandley (ed.). Unwilling Germans? The Goldhagen Debate. London: University of Minnesota Press 1998. Otto Dov Kulka. The German Population and the Jews: State of Research and New Perspectives. In David Bankier (ed.). Probing the Depths of German Anti-Semitism. German Society and the Persecution of the Jews, 1933-1941. Jerusalem: Yad Vashem 2000. Hans Mommsen. From Weimar to Auschwitz. Essays in German History. Cambridge: Polity 1991. P.G.J. Pulzer. The Rise of Political Anti-Semitism in Germany and Austria. New York e.a.: Wiley 1964. Roger W. Smith. ‘Ordinary Germans’, the Holocaust, and Responsibility: Hitler’s Willing Executioners in Moral Perspective. In Franklyn H. Littell (ed.). Hyping the Holocaust. Scholars answer Goldhagen. Merion Station 1997. 1 Footnotes [1] Daniel Jonah Goldhagen. Hitler’s Willing Executioners. Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust. London: Abacus 1996. [2] Goldhagen, Willing Executioners, p.375. [3] Goldhagen, Willing Executioners, p.375. [4] Goldhagen, Willing Executioners, p.375. [5] Goldhagen, Willing Executioners, p.389. [6] Goldhagen, Willing Executioners, p.389. [7] Goldhagen, Willing Executioners, p.392. [8] Cf. Roger W. Smith. ‘Ordinary Germans’, the Holocaust, and Responsibility: Hitler’s Willing Executioners in Moral Perspective. In Franklyn H. Littell (ed.). Hyping the Holocaust. Scholars answer Goldhagen. Merion Station 1997, p.48-49. [9] Josef Joffe. ‘The Killers were ordinary Germans, ergo the ordinary Germans were killers’: The Logic, the Language and the Meaning of a Book that conquered Germany. In Robert R. Shandley (ed.). Unwilling Germans? The Goldhagen Debate. London: University of Minnesota Press 1998, p.217. [10] Hermann Graml. Anti-Semitism in the Third Reich. Oxford: Blackwell 1992, p.96. [11] Hans Mommsen. From Weimar to Auschwitz. Essays in German History. Cambridge: Polity 1991, p.241. [12] Graml, Anti-Semitism, p.89. [13] Otto Dov Kulka. The German Population and the Jews: State of Research and New Perspectives. In David Bankier (ed.). Probing the Depths of German Anti-Semitism. German Society and the Persecution of the Jews, 1933-1941. Jerusalem: Yad Vashem 2000, p.274. [14] Kulka, Population, p.273. [15] Cf. P.G.J. Pulzer. The Rise of Political Anti-Semitism in Germany and Austria. New York e.a.: Wiley 1964, p.31. [16] Christopher R. Browning. Ordinary Men. Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland. New York: Harper Collins 1992, p.184 [17] Browning, Ordinary Men, p.185. [18] Mommsen, Weimar, p.225. [19] Kulka, Population, p.279f. [20] Norbert Frei. People’s Community and War: Hitler’s Popular Support. In Hans Mommsen (ed.). The Third Reich between Vision and Reality. New Perspectives on German History 1918-1945. Oxford New York: Berg 2001, p.63.

1929 Stock Market Crash :: essays research papers

The 1929 Stock Market Crash   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  In early 1928 the Dow Jones Average went from a low of 191 early in the year, to a high of 300 in December of 1928 and peaked at 381 in September of 1929. (1929†¦) It was anticipated that the increases in earnings and dividends would continue. (1929†¦) The price to earnings ratings rose from 10 to 12 to 20 and higher for the market’s favorite stocks. (1929†¦) Observers believed that stock market prices in the first 6 months of 1929 were high, while others saw them to be cheap. (1929†¦) On October 3rd, the Dow Jones Average began to drop, declining through the week of October 14th. (1929†¦)   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  On the night of Monday, October 21st, 1929, margin calls were heavy and Dutch and German calls came in from overseas to sell overnight for the Tuesday morning opening. (1929†¦) On Tuesday morning, out-of-town banks and corporations sent in $150 million of call loans, and Wall Street was in a panic before the New York Stock Exchange opened. (1929†¦)   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  On Thursday, October 24th, 1929, people began to sell their stocks as fast as they could. Sell orders flooded the market exchanges. (1929†¦) This day became known as Black Thursday. (Black Thursday†¦) On a normal day, only 750-800 members of the New York Stock Exchange started the exchange. (1929†¦) There were 1100 members on the floor for the morning opening. (1929†¦) Furthermore, the exchange directed all employees to be on the floor since there were numerous margin calls and sell orders placed overnight. Extra telephone staff was also arranged at the member’s boxes around the floor. (1929†¦) The Dow Jones Average closed at 299 that day. (1929†¦)   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  On Tuesday, October 29th, 1929, the crash began. (1929†¦) Within the first few hours, the price fell so far as to wipe out all gains that had been made the entire previous year. (1929†¦) This day the Dow Jones Average would close at 230. (1929†¦) Between October 29th, and November 13 over 30 billion dollars disappeared from the American economy. (1929†¦) It took nearly 25 years for many of the stocks to recover. (1929†¦)   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  By mid November, the value of the New York Stock Exchange listings had dropped over 40%, a loss of $26 billion. (1929-1931) At one point in the crash tickers were 68 minutes behind. (1929-1931) An average of about $50,000,000 a minute was wiped out on the exchange. (1929-1931) A few investors that lost all of their money jumped to their deaths from office buildings.

Sara Lee Essay -- essays research papers

Businessman Nathan Cummings bought the C.D. Kenny Co., a Baltimore coffee, tea, and sugar wholesaler, in 1939. Cummings soon purchased several grocery firms and later changed the company’s name to Consolidated Grocers—1945. The operation went public in 1946 and was renamed Consolidated Foods Corporation in 1954. Two years later CFC bought the Kitchens of Sara Lee, a Chicago bakery founded by Charles Lubin 1951. Introduced in 1949 and named after Lubin’s daughter, Sara Lee cheesecake had become his most popular product. Soon after, CFC began building its international markets with its first European acquisition in 1962. Subsequent to that purchase, it expanded its global presence with the purchases of Douwe Egberts (coffee, tea, and tobacco; the Netherlands; 1978), Nicholas Kiwi (shoe care and pharmaceuticals, Australia, 1984), and Dim (hosiery and underwear, France, 1989). Using one of its most respected brand names to enhance the public’s awareness of the company, CFC changed its name to Sara Lee in 1985.1 While cheesecake might have brought the company fame, it’s the underwear and hot dogs that bring in more than half of Sara Lee’s sales. The company operates five separate business units in the U.S. and abroad, these include: Sara Lee Foods--a major U.S. packaged-meat processor with brands such as Ball Park and Jimmy Dean, Sara Lee Bakery Group--the number two bakery company in the U.S. (behind Interstate Bakeries) and responsible for fresh bread as well as frozen cheesecakes, The Branded Apparel group—which tops in U.S. intimate apparel and hosiery (Hanes L’eggs, Playtex, and Wonderbra), its Coffee & Tea Worldwide group—that creates beverage sales worldwide, while the Household & Body Care group sells Endust furniture cleaner, Kiwi shoe polish, and body care products in non-U.S. markets. Chicago-based Sara Lee Corporation is a global manufacturer and marketer of high-quality, brand-name products for consumers throughout the world. They have three lines of businesses: Food and Beverage, Branded Apparel, and Household Products. Sara Lee has operations in 58 countries, with products in nearly 200 nations and has 150,400 employees worldwide. Some may wonder how one company, with thousands of employees in numerous locations, makes sure everyone is basing his or her decisions on the corporation’s values. These are questions Sara Lee executives and em... ...Lee’s decentralized structure, for this problem. Although COO McMillan has worked to change this, by centralizing 10 separate meat companies into one, they still have remnants of these decentralized firms. This is why the corporation is currently depending on their newest addition to the firm, Brenda Barnes. Sara Lee is banking on Barnes to bring her operational and branding skills to her new position. Barnes’ resume is filled with successes at well-known consumer product companies, which include Pepsi-Cola North American division. Although Barnes will be starting from behind when she takes over Sara Lee’s day-to-day operations and segmentation strategy, the corporation remains optimistic in her attempt to get Sara Lee cooking.6   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚     Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Sara Lee's mission is to feed, clothe and care for consumers and their families the world over. Keeping this in perspective is what Sara Lee will need to remain focused, and reclaim their throne as one of the most successful retailers in the industry. Though this accomplishment may not come easy, with hard work and strategic planning, Sara Lee has the ability to become number one in its class.