Recent orders
Monopoly and Competition in U.S.A.
Name:
Tutor:
Course:
Date:
Monopoly and Competition in U.S.A.
Monopoly Is a term in economics that describes how a specific individual or a company has gained control over the provision of a particular service or product in a way that they determine the terms and conditions of how other individuals will have access to these products or services. On the other hand, competition is whereby there is a contest between individuals or companies for the provision of products or services whereby the price is set by the market itself and the other individuals determine the terms by which they will access these products or services. So competition is where two or more individuals/companies strive for a specific goal that cannot be shared. In business, competition always arises as most companies are in constant competition with one another over the same group of customers.
In the quest to remove monopoly, the United States of America came up with the competition law. This law’s aim is to maintain and promote healthy market competition through regulation of anti-competitive behavior. In the U.S.A, it is also referred to as the antitrust law. According to Kenneth, the U.S.A has the longest history and the toughest policy of anti-monopoly. This monopoly policy is strictly based on structural approach unlike the U.K. one that is based on cost-benefit approach (407). The U.S. monopoly policy started in the 17th century with the Act of Sherman of 1890. This act clearly states that “Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any person or persons to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among several States, or with foreign nations, shall be found guilty of a misdemeanor” (409). However some kind of monopoly can be found not to be illegal in the U.S.A if it comes through cost saving, innovative and product improvement policies rather than anti-competitive strategies.
Another example of monopoly and competition is that given by Richard. He tries to describe monopoly and lack of competition in the telecommunications industry. According to Richard, monopoly has been considered to be natural in the telecommunications industry (21). He describes how one company can be able to produce more services by use of a few resources compared to a group of companies using same resources and producing less output. Thus monopoly is no longer natural in telecommunications but it is rather driven by technological change and innovations. For example the use of electrical wires to string telephone wires thus telecommunication traffic can be carried through electricity networks, and also technological advancement such as use of microwaves. Even if theoretically a single company can provide telecommunications services more economically than several competitors, such a theory cannot be achieved in practice. This is because of monopolies making bad decisions such as choice of investment plans and technologies, neglect of the consumers by favoring the investors and staff or basically become lazy.
Therefore the competition between several companies seems more viable in practice than a monopoly because competition is a sure and efficient way of making companies lower their prices and basically improve the quality of their services and their service delivery. Thus according to Terry, democratic nations tend to favor the producers more than the consumers and so in the U.S.A pro-competition policies are implemented and highly guarded whereas monopoly policies has been abolished and deemed illegal except in some special cases where by they bring innovation and technological advancement (122).
Works Cited
Kenneth, Caroline. Industrial organization: competition, growth, and structural change. 408. Routledge Press. New York. (2000). Print.
Richard, Cristina. New Media, new policies: media and communications strategies for the future. 23. Polity & Blackwell Press, (1996). Print.
Terry, Angela. Competition in theory and practice. 122. Croom Helm ltd.USA Print
According to the GAAP rules of accounting, the description of an audit failure can assume various perspectives
First Name, Last Name:
Course Title:
Professor/ Tutor:
Date of Submission:
Article AnalysisAccording to the GAAP rules of accounting, the description of an ‘audit failure’ can assume various perspectives. As stated in this case study, misstated financial statements are good example that provides an indication for an audit failure. Secondly, an audit failure can be represented by lack of properly documented work papers in a business enterprise. This implies although the right procedures and judgment were utilized, an audit failure may be reported due to inadequacy in the documentation.
Thus, some of the concerns stipulated by Jay Hanson in the case study are relevant. This is because Hanson’s allegations are aimed to dispute the term ‘audit failure’, which is a term that covers a relatively broad segment of a business firm. According to Hanson, the term ‘audit failure’ as utilized by PCOAB forms a basis for confusion to several stakeholders of a firm such as the audit committee, investors, etc. In my opinion, while this rationale is true, Jay Hanson and his supporters should not focus on altering the term rather focus should be reinforced in educating the stakeholders on what ‘audit failure’ means. Focus should also be augmented in providing specific details on the ‘audit failures’ as reported by PCOAB.
The reason for suggesting that focus should be altered from changing the term to educating stakeholders is because changing these terms increases the venue for fraudulent activities to occur. The aggravating realities of compromising on audit reports particularly on its procedures, terminologies, etc. can be demonstrated by the consequence of Enron Corporation case study. This article is relevant as it identifies accounting issues that face the business operations of the modern world. It also supports the use of GAAP rules as well as other accounting rules through the use of PCOAB inspections.
Can Wisdom be taught
Name
Professor Course
Date
Can Wisdom be taught
Unlike knowledge, which is about intellectualizing things instead of finding a deeper meaning, wisdom is working to understand the limits of one’s knowledge. Wisdom can be equated to learned intuition, which means it cannot be taught. It is learned instinctively through experiences and understanding how to apply knowledge in decision-making (Ferrari & Potworowski). Knowledge is about learning to be a mason, but wisdom is about using the masonry skills to build oneself a house. Wisdom cannot be taught.
Wisdom is essentially good judgment and without good judgment knowledge and experience are lost (Kets de Vries). The ability to make good judgment cannot be taught. Humans have weaknesses including lust, greed, anger, envy, and pride all that could judgment laying knowledge and experience to waste. An individual who overcomes all these weaknesses masters wisdom. How to overcome these vices and weaknesses is not something that cannot be taught. Wisdom is the ability to draw interconnections between various ideas, bits of knowledge, and situational awareness. It is surprising to know that a lot of people are not able to get these things correct and end up not benefiting from either the knowledge or experience.
Wisdom cannot be taught because it is important to teach experience or good judgment, but institutions can create opportunities for young people to gain experience. The opportunity to reflect and feed the knowledge back to real life and use it for situational awareness when dealing with problems is very important in a system trying to increase wisdom. However, the gaining of wisdom is solely dependent on the individual and their choices. Experiences and knowledge will impact the judgment of some more than others. So there is no way to learn wisdom, it is something that develops from within shaped by knowledge and experiences.
Works Cited
Ferrari, Michel, and Georges Potworowski, eds. Teaching for wisdom: Cross-cultural perspectives on fostering wisdom. Springer Science & Business Media, 2008.
Kets de Vries, M. “Why Wisdom Can’t Be Taught.” INSEAD Knowledge, 23 June 2017, knowledge.insead.edu/blog/insead-blog/why-wisdom-cant-be-taught-6456.