Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics |

2 Pages12>
Tag as favorite
Prompt #5 (Nickie)
Options
Previous Topic Next Topic
nicolelovat
#1 Posted : Tuesday, August 03, 2010 2:56:42 PM
Rank: Instructor

Groups: Registered
Joined: 6/8/2010
Posts: 149
Location: Winnipeg

Thanks: 0 times
Was thanked: 0 time(s) in 0 post(s)
Almost every great fortune is made at the expense of other people.

Write a unified essay in which you perform the following tasks. Explain what you think the above statement means. Describe a specific situation in which a fortune might be made without harm to other people. Discuss the principles you think determine whether or not fortunes are made at the expense of other people.

Instructions:
In 30 minutes, write an essay for the prompt and instructions above.

Use the Notepad accessory on your computer so word processing functions are turned off.

Note: Do not read other essays replying to this prompt on the Forum until after you have written and submitted your own essay.

Scorer: Nickie Lovat is a medical student at the University of Manitoba who can be reached by email at nickielovat@gmail.com.

How to submit your essay for scoring:
1. Post your essay in this thread on the Forum and Nickie will post her comments and score here.
2. Email your essay to nickielovat@gmail.com and Nickie will email her comments and score back to you. PLEASE USE the subject line 'Prompt 5 - YOUR NAME'. If you send in a word file, please name the document 'Prompt 5 - YOUR NAME' and use size 12 font or larger.

Deadline to post or email your essay: 11:59pm Monday August 9th
Back to top
Report?
umqually
#2 Posted : Tuesday, August 03, 2010 5:19:11 PM
Rank: Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 7/12/2010
Posts: 19

Thanks: 0 times
Was thanked: 0 time(s) in 0 post(s)
A famous buisness man who owned many traveling carnivals once said "There is a sucker borne every minute." It was in this mans understanding that his buisness relied upon the expense of others. In fact in western society it is difficult to amass a large amount of wealth, without taking it directly from other people. The best example of such is a casino. In the casino industry people will empty their pockets into machines and games that mathamatically favour the casino to win. Every now and then the games win in favour of the player. It is the rush of these wins which keep the players coming back. The games can become addicting and can cause many problems for those who frequently play them. Gambling habits have ruined lives, torn families apart, and emptied savings acounts, while the casino builds a great fortune.

There are some buisnesses however, that have managed to be very successful while not harming other people. In 2004 Mark Zuckerburg introduced the world to a website known as Facebook. "Facebook is a social utility that brings you closer to the people around you" is an exact quote which was pulled off the main log in screen of the facebook website. Users on Facebook can log in a check their profile, communicate with friends and families, and even play games. Since its launch, Facebook has revolutionalized social interaction amongst people, and is free to use. Mr. Zuckerburg has made a great deal of money on the site, selling advertising spots for large companies. Recently Google, a large internet search engine and advertisng company, offered to buy Facebook for two billion dollars. Since its beginnings Facebook has accumulated a great fortune and has not been an expense to other people.

Understanding wheather or not a fortune has come at the expense of others is a simple matter. If a buisness is building a fortune, while taking money off of each of its individual customers, such as in the case of a casino, then that buisness will build its fortune at the expense of others. On the other hand if a buisness builds its fortune on advertising costs and its own equity, such as in the case of Facebook then nobody is being harmed by its accumulation of money, and therefore does not build great wealth at the expense of others.
Back to top
Report?
jflear
#3 Posted : Tuesday, August 03, 2010 11:56:37 PM
Rank: Newbie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 6/9/2010
Posts: 4

Thanks: 0 times
Was thanked: 0 time(s) in 0 post(s)
The main concern of any business is their bottom line. In business, in order to be successful, a profit must be made. Although this goal is common to all businesses, the way in which the goal is achieved differs. In many cases, in order to maximize profits, it is necessary to give oneself the competitive edge by exploiting other similar businesses, and ultimately making the company's fortune at the expense of it's competitors. Take, for example, the introduction of Wal-Mart stores in small towns. Wal-Mart's large superstores which provide all the basic necessities for it's consumers, including clothing, sports equipment, groceries and furniture, pride's itself on providing the lowest prices possible for their products. By doing so, Wal-Mart jeopardizes the ability of local businesses to survive, because the smaller stores simply cannot compete for the low prices that are offered by the large superstore. In this case, the fortune that Wal-Mart makes when stores are introduced into smaller communities is made at the expense local business.

Opposing this concept of exploitation for success, some business achieve their fortune by recognizing opportunities where a niche exists which has simply not been filled. For example, in the small rural community of Southhampton, Ontario, a Tim Horton's was recently constructed, and since has become a very busy and successful business. Prior to the opening of this coffee chain, there was no other place in Southhampton similar to TIm Horton's. Although there were various restaurants where coffee could be purchased, there were no businesses such as cafe's, catering to people who wished to have a coffee on the go. In this case, Tim Horton's was able to make a profit, not by taking customers from other local businesses, but by simply taking advantage of an opportunity to provide a town with a service which was not being provided previously.

Thus, in order for businesses to make their fortune, it is often necessary to do so at the expense of others. However, some businesses can be successful and make a fortune without causing harm to other businesses. Perhaps a determining factor is whether or not the company which is making the money is establishing competition with other local businesses. In the case of Wal-Mart, customers are drawn to the lower prices offered by the large department store, while abandoning the previously established local businesses, who are unable to provide the same low prices. By competing with local establishments for business, Wal-Mart it able to make a great fortune, while the other businesses suffer. On the other hand, in the case of Tim Horton's, there was no other business providing the same service in Southhampton, Ontario. Therefore, Tim Horton's was not taking any business away from local coffee shops, and thus not causing harm to local businesses in the interest of their fortune.
Back to top
Report?
zandrosc
#4 Posted : Wednesday, August 04, 2010 4:19:56 PM
Rank: Instructor

Groups: Registered
Joined: 5/25/2010
Posts: 6

Thanks: 0 times
Was thanked: 0 time(s) in 0 post(s)
Almost every great fortune is made at the expense of other people.

In order to win a race, one must either become faster than his opponent, or push his opponent over. A great fortune is defined as having vasts amount of money and being extremely wealthy. In order to reach the point of having extreme fortune, often times, other people's concerns are sacrificed. A key example of this is ex-business president Conrad Black. Black was the president of the distributing company for news magazines such as Times and Macleans. Through means of insider trading, and corporate fraud, Conrad Black managed to steal multimillions of dollars from the everyday citizens. Black can be seen as someone who made a great fortune, however it only occured due to the expense of others.

Although great fortune is often made at the expense of other people, this isn't always the case. The British Columbia, and more significantly Vancuver, economy has recently exploded. Due to the recent 2010 Winter Olympic games, the economy saw millions upon millions of dollars enter the area through the means of the construction, tourism, and entertainment industries. The province as a whole is seeing some of the brightest days, even while recovering from the recent recession. The province was able to reach this great fortune not through the expense of others, but instead through a community effort with everyone contributing. As can be seen with this example, it isn't always true that great fortune comes at the expense of other.

Initially it is difficult to determine when, and when not, a great fortune occurs at the expense of other; however, a key determinant is whether or not the fortune is individual or communal. When Conrad Black reached his individual great fortune it was at the cost of other civilians; meanwhile, when the Vancouver (and the surrounding British Columbia) economy achieved great fortune by means of putting on the 2010 Olympics it was not at the cost of others; it was achieved by the community working together. In sum; individual fortune is achieved at the cost of others, but community success is achieved through group effort.

-thank you Nickie; it is much appreciated
Back to top
Report?
dhsia
#5 Posted : Wednesday, August 04, 2010 10:27:07 PM
Rank: Newbie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 7/9/2010
Posts: 6

Thanks: 0 times
Was thanked: 0 time(s) in 0 post(s)
The world is an entrepreneurial playground, full of opportunity to make money. The diversity of products and services available to the consumer grows daily, and these businesses, when successful, help to drive our economy. When business is good, a fortune can be made, but often at a cost to the consumer. This cost is most often in the form of money, but sometimes, like in the case of the tobacco industry, the cost may be more than just a few bills and change, and can be considered an expense. What distinguishes a cost from an expense depends on the impact it has on the consumer. Is it just money or is it more? The tobacco industry has made a fortune at the expense of consumer health. Whether through actively smoking or second hand smoke, exposure to cigarette smoke has been associated with lung disease. Because of the revenue that each smoker represents, tobacco companies have invested in strategic marketing, provocative advertisements, and even addictive additives, that make it difficult for smokers to quit. At five to ten dollars a pack, a “pack-a-day” smoker spends between a hundred and fifty to three hundred dollars a month, all the while damaging their lungs.

At the other end of the spectrum, certain businesses may offer products or services that benefit the consumer. Instead of exploiting the consumer, these companies meet projected earnings by offering the consumer a valuable product or service at a price that is reasonable. Fitness gyms for example, make a profit by selling membership fees to consumers. Although variable in caliber, most fitness gyms offer their members access to gym space, weight lifting equipment, and sometimes workout instruction— all at a nominal fee. These companies become successful through member retention and selling more memberships. In this way, member satisfaction motivates the owner and staff to maintain the facilities so that the business generates a larger income. This puts the consumer in a position of power, such that if they become dissatisfied, they can cancel their membership before this monthly cost becomes an expense.

At a time when money seems to be the bottom line, it is interesting to see how different businesses become profitable. Some sell products, others provide a service, but all are at a cost to the consumer. Whether this cost can be considered an “expense” depends largely on what the consumer is giving up. Is the cost just monetary or does it jeopardize more? For the gym member, who pays a monthly membership fee, the fitness gym profits by ensuring his or her continued satisfaction and subsequent commitment. Here, the consumer has greater power at no expense. In the case of the regular smoker, the tobacco company is making a profit off of their addiction- for which the expense is morbidly high. Maybe it’s time to quit smoking and put all of that money into a gym membership. It will definitely cost you less.
Back to top
Report?
ejb
#6 Posted : Thursday, August 05, 2010 11:15:52 PM
Rank: Newbie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 7/4/2010
Posts: 8

Thanks: 0 times
Was thanked: 0 time(s) in 0 post(s)
The early twentieth century novel 'The Jungle' by Upton Sinclair chronicles the harrowing tale of an immigrant family arriving to Chicago and taking up jobs in the local slaughterhouses. They face horrible working conditions, low pay, exploitation and little financial security. This story was common in the early decades of the Industrial Revolution, when the labour movement was in its infancy. The owners of the slaughterhouses accumulated great wealth and lead lavish lifestyles, all on the productive labour and suffering of the employees. The immigrant protagonist in Sinclair's novel questions his decision to leave his mother country, believing the harm to his family outweighs the benefits of their move to America.

However, business leaders do not always accumulate their wealth off of the suffering of their employees. Today, there are labour laws and unions to ensure that employees are treated fairly, get vacation time, get overpay, pensions and that the work environment is as safe as it can be. Some companies offer stock options to their employees, rewards for particularly good work and host company picnics. For employers, having a happy workforce is more productive and profitable than treating employees poorly.

Whether or not fortune is made at the expense of others depends on how well employees (those who help accumulate the money for the business owner) are treated. If the benefits of working for a business (a wage, health benefits) outweigh the costs (dedicating time, physical effort), then the owner is not becoming wealthy off of the expense of others. If the costs of working for a company outweigh the benefits, then the wealth generated is made off of the suffering of others.
Back to top
Report?
CarsonM
#7 Posted : Friday, August 06, 2010 7:11:43 AM
Rank: Newbie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 7/25/2010
Posts: 6

Thanks: 0 times
Was thanked: 0 time(s) in 0 post(s)
Throughout history, there has been an enormous disparity between the economically superior and those that struggle in life. Great fortunes have been made by people all over the world for various different reasons. However, many fortunes are made while putting society at risk or harming them by any means necessary in order to “get to the top”. The recent oil spill in the Gulf Coast demonstrates how an individual’s benefits can indeed result in the harm of others. The chief executive officer (CEO) of BP Global, Tony Hayward, made millions off of the global energy company throughout the years, and as a result of the recent mishap, people and animals have been killed. The oil spill not only killed these innocent people, but it also leaves a nasty environmental effect on society due to the excessive pollution and damaging of the waters. Hayward had initially said that the oil spill would be easily reversible, but this clearly proved to be incorrect. As people suffer and spend countless hours fixing the damage his company has done, he is traveling on his expensive yacht avoiding all possible blame.

On the other hand, there are certainly cases where a fortune is made solely from hard work and innovation without harming other people. An example of someone who has worked his way to the top throughout the years is the well known Bill Gates. Bill Gates is the owner and founder of Microsoft and has gained an incredible fortune throughout his career. He has continually worked hard during his career and has exceeded all possible expectations. Not only has Bill Gates done minimal harm to society through his work, he is constantly donating a portion of his wealth to charity. The Gates’ family themselves have several foundations to help out those who are less fortunate such as those in extreme poverty or in need of medical care. As a result, the founder of Microsoft himself worked his way to become a billionaire through perseverance and helped others along the way.

When then is a great fortune followed by the harm of others? It can be determined by looking at the actual individual responsible for the wealth he/she obtained. One’s career path and work values play a key role in whether or not others may suffer. An individual that does not care how the money is made or is not worried about any possible consequences of their actions may result in the harm of others while making their fortune. Tony Hayward exemplifies this as he was involved in a global company’s disaster and is avoiding blame for all of the harm caused. However, Bill Gates, an individual who has great work ethics and takes into consideration possible outcomes of his work, has achieved great success without impacting society in a negative way.
Back to top
Report?
melissahic
#8 Posted : Friday, August 06, 2010 9:47:27 PM
Rank: Newbie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 7/10/2010
Posts: 5

Thanks: 0 times
Was thanked: 0 time(s) in 0 post(s)
In order for the rich to get richer, the poor must get poorer. This can be illustrated by the slow disappearance of the middle class and the ever widening gap between the rich and the poor in regions all over the world. The accumulation of wealth is an idea that necessitates the expropriation of wealth from another source. Consider the Race for Africa, the wave of colonialism in the late nineteenth century spearheaded by the European powers of that time. The occupation and division of African territories proved successful in increasing the power, influence and wealth of the European countries involved. The riches gained were sourced from the raw materials of the African continent, such as cotton and rubber, and the uncompensated labour of the African people. Therefore, the European continent grew wealthier at the expense of the African continent.

When a vast amount of wealth is unclaimed, then great fortune can be acquired without necessitating the expropriation of wealth from another source. If one were to play Lotto 49 and win a lump sum of twelve million dollars, their new found wealth did not necessarily come at the expense of other people. The money was not previously available to a large number of people but rather owned by a corporation whose business it is to organize lotteries. When a person dies and leaves their estate to a living relative, that relative has just acquired a vast fortune at the expense of no one. This is simply an exchange or transfer of wealth from one body to another, the devaluation of other people is neither required nor necessary.

Unless goods or services are exchanged at equal value, there will be one who profits and another who loses. In most cases, the accumulation of wealth will necessitate the deduction of wealth somewhere else. There are too many people in the world and not enough resources to meet everyone’s needs, therefore acquiring more than one’s fair share means infringing on someone else’s claim to the resource.
Back to top
Report?
ddigrego
#9 Posted : Saturday, August 07, 2010 6:14:26 PM
Rank: Newbie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 7/8/2010
Posts: 4

Thanks: 0 times
Was thanked: 0 time(s) in 0 post(s)
Robin Hood is the classic tale of the mysterious man who protected the poor from the crooked and evil rich. The wealthy individuals in Robin Hood’s time largely profited from the hardships imposed on the average citizens. The tale of Robin Hood demonstrates that throughout history, much of the money gained by an individual is made at the expense of another. The individual who does not profit from the exchange often has less rights then the profiting party, and thus this individual faces monetary as well as physical punishments. One party making a profit at the expense of another can be seen in the practice of slavery in the United States (US). African- American slavery existed in the US from before the foundation of the country in 1777 until the end of the Civil War in 1865 with the addition of the 13th amendment to the Constitution which abolished slavery. The practice of slavery gave plantations owners in the South workers for the fields which the plantation owners did not have to pay. The slaves would work the fields of the plantation, ensuring the owners their income and a profit, while the slaves received no part of this profit and instead lived in deplorable conditions where they had no rights and faced numerous punishments if they did not follow the will of their owners. Slavery in the US demonstrates the profit of one party at the direct expense of another.

Although some fortunes can be made at the expense of others, this is not always the case. Some fortunes are made which profit all parties involved. Under the 13th amendment of the US constitution, no individual can be forced into involuntary servitude, thus employees of a company choose to work for the company because it provides them with a reward or profit. Employees of Apple design and manufacture products for the company, directly providing Steve Jobs with a profit. However, in exchange for this work the employees are rewarded with a salary as well as benefits from the company. Steve Jobs makes an enormous profit from the products which his employees design and manufacture, however this profit is not made at the expense of his employees because they are paid for their input into the product’s production.

Despite the difficulty in determining when a fortune is made to the detriment of other’s well-being, the distinguishing point which determines if a fortune is made at the expense of others is whether the suffering individuals have individual rights and thus are protected by law. Plantation owners in the Southern US could make a profit at the expense of African-Americans because African-Americans were not viewed as citizens of the US and thus had no rights and were not protected by the US Constitution. When a group is protected by law, then a fortune cannot be made at their expense. Apple makes a profit from the products which its employees manufacture, however the employees are paid for their efforts because they are protected by law, and thus their rights cannot be violated by Apple.
Back to top
Report? | Edit by user
nicolelovat
#10 Posted : Monday, August 09, 2010 2:28:36 PM
Rank: Instructor

Groups: Registered
Joined: 6/8/2010
Posts: 149
Location: Winnipeg

Thanks: 0 times
Was thanked: 0 time(s) in 0 post(s)
Feedback: 3.5/6
- Your opening quote is too vague i.e. if you don't know who said it, don't quote (or at least make it completely general by transitioning right into the quotation as in 'There is a sucker borne every minute'.
- Casino example is adequate, but it is not fully developed. You lose focus by explaining too many details of how casino's work (instead of focusing on how they generate wealth at others expenses).
- Again, the Facebook example is adequate. However, it does not fit the same theme as your casino example...
- Nice resolution given that your examples were not in the same theme.
- Various spelling & grammatical errors throughout

umqually wrote:
A famous buisness man who owned many traveling carnivals once said "There is a sucker borne every minute." It was in this mans understanding that his buisness relied upon the expense of others. In fact in western society it is difficult to amass a large amount of wealth, without taking it directly from other people. The best example of such is a casino. In the casino industry people will empty their pockets into machines and games that mathamatically favour the casino to win. Every now and then the games win in favour of the player. It is the rush of these wins which keep the players coming back. The games can become addicting and can cause many problems for those who frequently play them. Gambling habits have ruined lives, torn families apart, and emptied savings acounts, while the casino builds a great fortune.

There are some buisnesses however, that have managed to be very successful while not harming other people. In 2004 Mark Zuckerburg introduced the world to a website known as Facebook. "Facebook is a social utility that brings you closer to the people around you" is an exact quote which was pulled off the main log in screen of the facebook website. Users on Facebook can log in a check their profile, communicate with friends and families, and even play games. Since its launch, Facebook has revolutionalized social interaction amongst people, and is free to use. Mr. Zuckerburg has made a great deal of money on the site, selling advertising spots for large companies. Recently Google, a large internet search engine and advertisng company, offered to buy Facebook for two billion dollars. Since its beginnings Facebook has accumulated a great fortune and has not been an expense to other people.

Understanding wheather or not a fortune has come at the expense of others is a simple matter. If a buisness is building a fortune, while taking money off of each of its individual customers, such as in the case of a casino, then that buisness will build its fortune at the expense of others. On the other hand if a buisness builds its fortune on advertising costs and its own equity, such as in the case of Facebook then nobody is being harmed by its accumulation of money, and therefore does not build great wealth at the expense of others.

Back to top
Report?
nicolelovat
#11 Posted : Monday, August 09, 2010 2:32:25 PM
Rank: Instructor

Groups: Registered
Joined: 6/8/2010
Posts: 149
Location: Winnipeg

Thanks: 0 times
Was thanked: 0 time(s) in 0 post(s)
Feedback: 5/6
- Excellent opening remarks & example. Well developed, and focused.
- Again, your 2nd example is excellent. The same theme is kept, which makes your essay seem cohesive & developed.
- Resolution is good, but perhaps your 3rd paragraph is too lengthy. You have developed your previous examples very well, so simply referring back to them would be sufficient in order to support your resolution. Also, the resolution could have been stated somewhat more clearly as in 'When there is an atmosphere of competition, yadada. In contrast, when a niche market exists, yadada.'
- Great use of vocabulary. Limited (if any) small typos. No spelling or grammatical errors.

jflear wrote:
The main concern of any business is their bottom line. In business, in order to be successful, a profit must be made. Although this goal is common to all businesses, the way in which the goal is achieved differs. In many cases, in order to maximize profits, it is necessary to give oneself the competitive edge by exploiting other similar businesses, and ultimately making the company's fortune at the expense of it's competitors. Take, for example, the introduction of Wal-Mart stores in small towns. Wal-Mart's large superstores which provide all the basic necessities for it's consumers, including clothing, sports equipment, groceries and furniture, pride's itself on providing the lowest prices possible for their products. By doing so, Wal-Mart jeopardizes the ability of local businesses to survive, because the smaller stores simply cannot compete for the low prices that are offered by the large superstore. In this case, the fortune that Wal-Mart makes when stores are introduced into smaller communities is made at the expense local business.

Opposing this concept of exploitation for success, some business achieve their fortune by recognizing opportunities where a niche exists which has simply not been filled. For example, in the small rural community of Southhampton, Ontario, a Tim Horton's was recently constructed, and since has become a very busy and successful business. Prior to the opening of this coffee chain, there was no other place in Southhampton similar to TIm Horton's. Although there were various restaurants where coffee could be purchased, there were no businesses such as cafe's, catering to people who wished to have a coffee on the go. In this case, Tim Horton's was able to make a profit, not by taking customers from other local businesses, but by simply taking advantage of an opportunity to provide a town with a service which was not being provided previously.

Thus, in order for businesses to make their fortune, it is often necessary to do so at the expense of others. However, some businesses can be successful and make a fortune without causing harm to other businesses. Perhaps a determining factor is whether or not the company which is making the money is establishing competition with other local businesses. In the case of Wal-Mart, customers are drawn to the lower prices offered by the large department store, while abandoning the previously established local businesses, who are unable to provide the same low prices. By competing with local establishments for business, Wal-Mart it able to make a great fortune, while the other businesses suffer. On the other hand, in the case of Tim Horton's, there was no other business providing the same service in Southhampton, Ontario. Therefore, Tim Horton's was not taking any business away from local coffee shops, and thus not causing harm to local businesses in the interest of their fortune.
Back to top
Report?
nicolelovat
#12 Posted : Monday, August 09, 2010 2:38:36 PM
Rank: Instructor

Groups: Registered
Joined: 6/8/2010
Posts: 149
Location: Winnipeg

Thanks: 0 times
Was thanked: 0 time(s) in 0 post(s)
Feedback: 3/6
- Your opening sentence is somewhat confusing. Push his opponent over what?
- You could have developed the Conrad Black example further i.e. extend him as an example of a general population of greedy corporate types.
- Your 2nd example is not really in the same theme: how does corporate fraud & provincial economics equate? I like your resolution, as it brings your examples together. The only concern is that because the examples don't match, the resolution is not convincing (I can think of counter-examples of when communities have achieved fortunes at the expense of other communities, etc).
- Various grammatical, spelling errors & sentence structure problems detract from the understanding of the paper.

zandrosc wrote:
Almost every great fortune is made at the expense of other people.

In order to win a race, one must either become faster than his opponent, or push his opponent over. A great fortune is defined as having vasts amount of money and being extremely wealthy. In order to reach the point of having extreme fortune, often times, other people's concerns are sacrificed. A key example of this is ex-business president Conrad Black. Black was the president of the distributing company for news magazines such as Times and Macleans. Through means of insider trading, and corporate fraud, Conrad Black managed to steal multimillions of dollars from the everyday citizens. Black can be seen as someone who made a great fortune, however it only occured due to the expense of others.

Although great fortune is often made at the expense of other people, this isn't always the case. The British Columbia, and more significantly Vancuver, economy has recently exploded. Due to the recent 2010 Winter Olympic games, the economy saw millions upon millions of dollars enter the area through the means of the construction, tourism, and entertainment industries. The province as a whole is seeing some of the brightest days, even while recovering from the recent recession. The province was able to reach this great fortune not through the expense of others, but instead through a community effort with everyone contributing. As can be seen with this example, it isn't always true that great fortune comes at the expense of other.

Initially it is difficult to determine when, and when not, a great fortune occurs at the expense of other; however, a key determinant is whether or not the fortune is individual or communal. When Conrad Black reached his individual great fortune it was at the cost of other civilians; meanwhile, when the Vancouver (and the surrounding British Columbia) economy achieved great fortune by means of putting on the 2010 Olympics it was not at the cost of others; it was achieved by the community working together. In sum; individual fortune is achieved at the cost of others, but community success is achieved through group effort.

-thank you Nickie; it is much appreciated
Back to top
Report?
nicolelovat
#13 Posted : Monday, August 09, 2010 2:47:59 PM
Rank: Instructor

Groups: Registered
Joined: 6/8/2010
Posts: 149
Location: Winnipeg

Thanks: 0 times
Was thanked: 0 time(s) in 0 post(s)
Feedback: 4/6
- I don't recommend starting sentences with 'Because'
- I like your first example, but I think that it lacks focus. Its better to zoom in on a specific aspect, either health costs or monetary, in order to support the definitions related to your prompt.
- Your 2nd example could have been much stronger, if you had stuck with the 'health costs vs. benefits' theme. With this approach, you could have spun the gym example as a business acquiring a fortune by providing a health BENEFIT instead of a cost.
- Your resolution is decent, but again had you played off the strength of your examples, it would have been much more believable.
- Your last couple sentences are too strongly opinionated. You should refrain from giving out advice or definitive statements such as anti-smoking ones.
- Nice control of language

dhsia wrote:
The world is an entrepreneurial playground, full of opportunity to make money. The diversity of products and services available to the consumer grows daily, and these businesses, when successful, help to drive our economy. When business is good, a fortune can be made, but often at a cost to the consumer. This cost is most often in the form of money, but sometimes, like in the case of the tobacco industry, the cost may be more than just a few bills and change, and can be considered an expense. What distinguishes a cost from an expense depends on the impact it has on the consumer. Is it just money or is it more? The tobacco industry has made a fortune at the expense of consumer health. Whether through actively smoking or second hand smoke, exposure to cigarette smoke has been associated with lung disease. Because of the revenue that each smoker represents, tobacco companies have invested in strategic marketing, provocative advertisements, and even addictive additives, that make it difficult for smokers to quit. At five to ten dollars a pack, a “pack-a-day” smoker spends between a hundred and fifty to three hundred dollars a month, all the while damaging their lungs.

At the other end of the spectrum, certain businesses may offer products or services that benefit the consumer. Instead of exploiting the consumer, these companies meet projected earnings by offering the consumer a valuable product or service at a price that is reasonable. Fitness gyms for example, make a profit by selling membership fees to consumers. Although variable in caliber, most fitness gyms offer their members access to gym space, weight lifting equipment, and sometimes workout instruction— all at a nominal fee. These companies become successful through member retention and selling more memberships. In this way, member satisfaction motivates the owner and staff to maintain the facilities so that the business generates a larger income. This puts the consumer in a position of power, such that if they become dissatisfied, they can cancel their membership before this monthly cost becomes an expense.

At a time when money seems to be the bottom line, it is interesting to see how different businesses become profitable. Some sell products, others provide a service, but all are at a cost to the consumer. Whether this cost can be considered an “expense” depends largely on what the consumer is giving up. Is the cost just monetary or does it jeopardize more? For the gym member, who pays a monthly membership fee, the fitness gym profits by ensuring his or her continued satisfaction and subsequent commitment. Here, the consumer has greater power at no expense. In the case of the regular smoker, the tobacco company is making a profit off of their addiction- for which the expense is morbidly high. Maybe it’s time to quit smoking and put all of that money into a gym membership. It will definitely cost you less.
Back to top
Report?
nicolelovat
#14 Posted : Monday, August 09, 2010 2:51:12 PM
Rank: Instructor

Groups: Registered
Joined: 6/8/2010
Posts: 149
Location: Winnipeg

Thanks: 0 times
Was thanked: 0 time(s) in 0 post(s)
Feedback: 3.5/6
- Your opening paragraph reads like a book review, instead of focusing in on the prompt. Although your example is strong (perhaps made stronger by substantiating that it was based on a true story or was representative of actual events), you don't clearly make a link to the prompt.
- Your 2nd example is not really clear; you state that currently businesses act in a more ethical/fair manner towards employees, but it is debatable that they still don't acquire their fortunes at the expense of their employees.
- Decent resolution given the examples.
- Nice control of language

ejb wrote:
The early twentieth century novel 'The Jungle' by Upton Sinclair chronicles the harrowing tale of an immigrant family arriving to Chicago and taking up jobs in the local slaughterhouses. They face horrible working conditions, low pay, exploitation and little financial security. This story was common in the early decades of the Industrial Revolution, when the labour movement was in its infancy. The owners of the slaughterhouses accumulated great wealth and lead lavish lifestyles, all on the productive labour and suffering of the employees. The immigrant protagonist in Sinclair's novel questions his decision to leave his mother country, believing the harm to his family outweighs the benefits of their move to America.

However, business leaders do not always accumulate their wealth off of the suffering of their employees. Today, there are labour laws and unions to ensure that employees are treated fairly, get vacation time, get overpay, pensions and that the work environment is as safe as it can be. Some companies offer stock options to their employees, rewards for particularly good work and host company picnics. For employers, having a happy workforce is more productive and profitable than treating employees poorly.

Whether or not fortune is made at the expense of others depends on how well employees (those who help accumulate the money for the business owner) are treated. If the benefits of working for a business (a wage, health benefits) outweigh the costs (dedicating time, physical effort), then the owner is not becoming wealthy off of the expense of others. If the costs of working for a company outweigh the benefits, then the wealth generated is made off of the suffering of others.

Back to top
Report?
nicolelovat
#15 Posted : Monday, August 09, 2010 2:55:37 PM
Rank: Instructor

Groups: Registered
Joined: 6/8/2010
Posts: 149
Location: Winnipeg

Thanks: 0 times
Was thanked: 0 time(s) in 0 post(s)
Feedback: 4.5/6
- Define 'BP'
- Excellent opening remarks
- Your first example is too heavily opinionated, and injected with emotion (by saying things like 'he is traveling on his expensive yacht avoiding all possible blame'). Also, is the BP oil spill directly related to some kind of profit the company is experiencing? Instead, I think its more of an example of a loss that a business is taking that is also harming the consumers & the environment.
- Nice Bill Gates example (which is consistent with your first example).
- Excellent resolution.
- Nice control of language.


CarsonM wrote:
Throughout history, there has been an enormous disparity between the economically superior and those that struggle in life. Great fortunes have been made by people all over the world for various different reasons. However, many fortunes are made while putting society at risk or harming them by any means necessary in order to “get to the top”. The recent oil spill in the Gulf Coast demonstrates how an individual’s benefits can indeed result in the harm of others. The chief executive officer (CEO) of BP Global, Tony Hayward, made millions off of the global energy company throughout the years, and as a result of the recent mishap, people and animals have been killed. The oil spill not only killed these innocent people, but it also leaves a nasty environmental effect on society due to the excessive pollution and damaging of the waters. Hayward had initially said that the oil spill would be easily reversible, but this clearly proved to be incorrect. As people suffer and spend countless hours fixing the damage his company has done, he is traveling on his expensive yacht avoiding all possible blame.

On the other hand, there are certainly cases where a fortune is made solely from hard work and innovation without harming other people. An example of someone who has worked his way to the top throughout the years is the well known Bill Gates. Bill Gates is the owner and founder of Microsoft and has gained an incredible fortune throughout his career. He has continually worked hard during his career and has exceeded all possible expectations. Not only has Bill Gates done minimal harm to society through his work, he is constantly donating a portion of his wealth to charity. The Gates’ family themselves have several foundations to help out those who are less fortunate such as those in extreme poverty or in need of medical care. As a result, the founder of Microsoft himself worked his way to become a billionaire through perseverance and helped others along the way.

When then is a great fortune followed by the harm of others? It can be determined by looking at the actual individual responsible for the wealth he/she obtained. One’s career path and work values play a key role in whether or not others may suffer. An individual that does not care how the money is made or is not worried about any possible consequences of their actions may result in the harm of others while making their fortune. Tony Hayward exemplifies this as he was involved in a global company’s disaster and is avoiding blame for all of the harm caused. However, Bill Gates, an individual who has great work ethics and takes into consideration possible outcomes of his work, has achieved great success without impacting society in a negative way.

Back to top
Report?
nicolelovat
#16 Posted : Monday, August 09, 2010 2:57:55 PM
Rank: Instructor

Groups: Registered
Joined: 6/8/2010
Posts: 149
Location: Winnipeg

Thanks: 0 times
Was thanked: 0 time(s) in 0 post(s)
Feedback: 4.5/6
- Nice opening sentence: it sets a good tone.
- Excellent first example.
- Nice 2nd example, but you lose focus when you mention inheritance (stick with the lotto example, and develop it completely).
- Well done resolution, but you don't adequately incorporate your examples (which are strong) into the body of the conclusion.
- Strong control of language.

melissahic wrote:
In order for the rich to get richer, the poor must get poorer. This can be illustrated by the slow disappearance of the middle class and the ever widening gap between the rich and the poor in regions all over the world. The accumulation of wealth is an idea that necessitates the expropriation of wealth from another source. Consider the Race for Africa, the wave of colonialism in the late nineteenth century spearheaded by the European powers of that time. The occupation and division of African territories proved successful in increasing the power, influence and wealth of the European countries involved. The riches gained were sourced from the raw materials of the African continent, such as cotton and rubber, and the uncompensated labour of the African people. Therefore, the European continent grew wealthier at the expense of the African continent.

When a vast amount of wealth is unclaimed, then great fortune can be acquired without necessitating the expropriation of wealth from another source. If one were to play Lotto 49 and win a lump sum of twelve million dollars, their new found wealth did not necessarily come at the expense of other people. The money was not previously available to a large number of people but rather owned by a corporation whose business it is to organize lotteries. When a person dies and leaves their estate to a living relative, that relative has just acquired a vast fortune at the expense of no one. This is simply an exchange or transfer of wealth from one body to another, the devaluation of other people is neither required nor necessary.

Unless goods or services are exchanged at equal value, there will be one who profits and another who loses. In most cases, the accumulation of wealth will necessitate the deduction of wealth somewhere else. There are too many people in the world and not enough resources to meet everyone’s needs, therefore acquiring more than one’s fair share means infringing on someone else’s claim to the resource.

Back to top
Report?
nicolelovat
#17 Posted : Monday, August 09, 2010 3:01:53 PM
Rank: Instructor

Groups: Registered
Joined: 6/8/2010
Posts: 149
Location: Winnipeg

Thanks: 0 times
Was thanked: 0 time(s) in 0 post(s)
Feedback: 4/6
- Your link between Robin Hood & reality is not really established. In order to base your example on Robin Hood, you need to state something to the effect that Robin Hood was based on a real person or real events representative of the times.
- You should either talk about Robin Hood OR Slavery. The way that your opening paragraph is written makes it seem like you have two different examples (which detracts from the focus of the essay).
- You mention 'Steve Jobs' but you don't discuss why we care about him (pretend that the reader might not be familiar with him).
- I like how you used employment vs. slavery; good theme
- Nice resolution.
- Define all acronyms used.


ddigrego wrote:
Robin Hood is the classic tale of the mysterious man who protected the poor from the crooked and evil rich. The wealthy individuals in Robin Hood’s time largely profited from the hardships imposed on the average citizens. The tale of Robin Hood demonstrates that throughout history, much of the money gained by an individual is made at the expense of another. The individual who does not profit from the exchange often has less rights then the profiting party, and thus this individual faces monetary as well as physical punishments. One party making a profit at the expense of another can be seen in the practice of slavery in the United States (US). African- American slavery existed in the US from before the foundation of the country in 1777 until the end of the Civil War in 1865 with the addition of the 13th amendment to the Constitution which abolished slavery. The practice of slavery gave plantations owners in the South workers for the fields which the plantation owners did not have to pay. The slaves would work the fields of the plantation, ensuring the owners their income and a profit, while the slaves received no part of this profit and instead lived in deplorable conditions where they had no rights and faced numerous punishments if they did not follow the will of their owners. Slavery in the US demonstrates the profit of one party at the direct expense of another.

Although some fortunes can be made at the expense of others, this is not always the case. Some fortunes are made which profit all parties involved. Under the 13th amendment of the US constitution, no individual can be forced into involuntary servitude, thus employees of a company choose to work for the company because it provides them with a reward or profit. Employees of Apple design and manufacture products for the company, directly providing Steve Jobs with a profit. However, in exchange for this work the employees are rewarded with a salary as well as benefits from the company. Steve Jobs makes an enormous profit from the products which his employees design and manufacture, however this profit is not made at the expense of his employees because they are paid for their input into the product’s production.

Despite the difficulty in determining when a fortune is made to the detriment of other’s well-being, the distinguishing point which determines if a fortune is made at the expense of others is whether the suffering individuals have individual rights and thus are protected by law. Plantation owners in the Southern US could make a profit at the expense of African-Americans because African-Americans were not viewed as citizens of the US and thus had no rights and were not protected by the US Constitution. When a group is protected by law, then a fortune cannot be made at their expense. Apple makes a profit from the products which its employees manufacture, however the employees are paid for their efforts because they are protected by law, and thus their rights cannot be violated by Apple.

Back to top
Report?
Kalie
#18 Posted : Monday, August 09, 2010 10:49:50 PM
Rank: Newbie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 5/24/2010
Posts: 6

Thanks: 0 times
Was thanked: 0 time(s) in 0 post(s)
Almost every great fortune is made at the expense of other people.

Write a unified essay in which you perform the following tasks. Explain what you think the above statement means. Describe a specific situation in which a fortune might be made without harm to other people. Discuss the principles you think determine whether or not fortunes are made at the expense of other people.



While many people truly believe that money can't buy happiness, there are those that live their lives in the persuit of riches. The above statement demonstrates that often a person will obtain a great fourtune at the expense of other people - whether it be in terms of a persons income or their happiness. A "great" fortune can be defined as a sum of money hundreds of times larger than the average person in the country of the rich person of interest. For example, there is an international trial occuring concerning the President of Liberia. Part of the trial focuses on his involvement in the trade of diamonds, where the President is accused of using "blood diamonds" (diamonds used to strengthen a military force in times of war). If guilty of these accusations, then the use of these diamonds would have enahnced his political career, and therefore his fortune, at the cost of the citizens of Liberia. If the diamonds had been used for legal trade instead, there would have been a increase in the number of jobs available in the country, and Liberia's economy would have benefited. While his fortune may not be as "great" as a person like Bill Gates, it is great in relation to the poverty in which the majority of Liberia's citizens live.

However, there are also people that have earned their fortune honestly. Bill Gates, the founder of the company Microsoft, is a multi-billionaire who earned his fortune through hard work and intelligence. At no time has his fortune come from the expense of others - he simply met the demands of a growing market. Bill Gates continues to expand on his fortune by continually adapting to the needs and wants of consumers, and does so without jeopordizing the happiness or livelihood of others. In addition, he spreads his good fortune by donating generously to charities all around the globe. In this way, it is possible to make a great fortune without hurting the hapiness or livelihoods of others.

In conclusion, one can determine whether or not a fortune has been made at the expense of others by analyzing those around the rich person One can be accused of gaining a fortune at the expense of otheris if they have taken money from people, especially illegally, or if others have been directly harmed in the fortune bearers quest for riches. However, while some people gain their fortune at the expense of others, it is not the only path that can be taken. Like Bill Gates, fortunes can be made through intelligence and hard work, by meeting a market demand and continuing to adapt to those around you. This illustrates that not all great fortunes are made at the expense of other people.

Finished just on time. I struggled with finding an example for the first paragraph - is it ok to use a person who has not been proven guilty? I felt like it still illustrated the point, but I could not think of another better and more specific example...

Thanks so much!
Back to top
Report?
defeoluc
#19 Posted : Tuesday, August 10, 2010 1:42:49 AM
Rank: Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 7/2/2010
Posts: 10

Thanks: 0 times
Was thanked: 0 time(s) in 0 post(s)
Money makes the world go around…or so it would seem so. In today’s business world, everyone is trying to strike a fortune, or at least make a decent enough wage to support a family with the ever growing cost of living. Far too often companies will go to great lengths to create a fortune, even if it comes at the expense of the consumer’s health. This is most notable seen in the tobacco industry. It is public knowledge that tobacco smoke is harmful and is the leading cause of heart disease and death in North America. Yet tobacco companies, such as Marlboro, still bring in millions of dollars a year through the sale of their products. The cigarettes are loaded with many additives which make it hard for smokers to quit. Thus, regardless of the consumers understanding of the risks involved the tobacco companies still receive a huge demand for their product, and as a result lead one of the largest businesses in the modern world. This shows that in some situations, regardless of the expense to the consumer, in this case a health expense, some companies will go to great lengths to create a fortune.

There are certain situations where companies can make a great fortune, however there is no expense taken from the consumer. In fact, in ideal situations, a great fortune can be made while actually benefiting the health of the consumer. This idea is seen often in the 21st century. With more and more scientific research done, the benefits of being in shape and keeping a health body are becoming ever evident. This causes a growing demand for doctors; however because of the strenuous education and training needed in order to become a medical practitioner, greater incentives, such as larger salaries and more benefits, are needed in order to meet the demand. Most people would agree that the rising salaries of doctors are worth the benefit of good medical care. This sort of profession can be seen as gaining a great fortune, however benefiting the consumer for a mutualistic relationship.

This issue of consumer expense is not black and white. However it stands to reason that when companies are negatively affecting the health of their consumers, then their fortunes are coming at an expense to the people. This is seen through companies like Marlboro whom sell a product that is a leading cause of death. However, when a company’s product is benefiting the people, then the fortune is justified and is not coming at the expense of the people. This is again evident in the health care industry, where doctors make large salaries in exchange for the benefit of human health care.
Back to top
Report?
jblom
#20 Posted : Tuesday, August 10, 2010 3:01:59 AM
Rank: Newbie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 7/7/2010
Posts: 5

Thanks: 0 times
Was thanked: 0 time(s) in 0 post(s)

Progress in society is marked by every new invention. Often new ideas or contraptions are how historians identify an "age". Historians often measure the success of an invention by the monetary wealth accumulated by the inventor. However, what historians often do not consider how new inventions can harm the private financial security of the general populus. It is in this way that millionairres who make their money from the sales of a new product gain thier title of wealth at the expense of consumers. For example, Abbott Laboratories is one of the largest pharmaceutical giants in North America. The company takes pride in their efforts to find cures for diseases and to develop medications to suppress the symptoms of those diseases which they cannot cure. In recent years, the company developed a drug fundamental in the modern treatment of HIV/AIDS patients. The drug, given the generic name Norvir, was considered a sweeping success, and became a tremendous help to patients in need. However, in 2003, the company decided that due to its manopoly on the drug's structure, it could dictate its market value. As a result, Abbott laboratories raised the price of Norvir from just over US$1.00 to over US$8.00. As a result, the company made millions of dollars, and the expense of millions of HIV/AIDS patients who were spending all they had on medication. In this case, the company clearly made their "fortune" at the expense of the monetary comfort of HIV/AIDS patients.

Although many come to great success by exploiting other people, some famous millionaires gather their fortunes by the invention of products which come at no expense to the consumer. A prime example of this is the evolution of Ford Automobiles. Before Henry Ford, the automobile was a supreme luxury item, only afforded by the wealthy elite of society. Henry Ford's invention of the assembly line resulted in the ability to produce automobiles with much less cost. He created a whole new market by offering affordable automobiles to the middle class. Not only did he gain a fortune, but he also provided a means of efficient transportation to millions of Americans. Ford's fortune was in no way amounted at the expense of others, in fact his wealth is only representative of the millions of dollars that he saved for his fellow Americans.

All too often, history presents itself with many wealthy elite who amassed their fortunes at the expense of others. However, there are some cases, where citizens amount fortune and fame without exploiting other people. Perhaps it can be said that great fortunes are made at the expense of other people except when fortune comes from the invention of a product designed not to exploit those who need it, but to reduce product costs. It is in this way that Henry Ford was able to accumulate such wealth, and create a product known and used world wide.
Back to top
Report?
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages12>
Tag as favorite
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Clean Slate theme by Jaben Cargman (Tiny Gecko)
Powered by YAF | YAF © 2003-2009, Yet Another Forum.NET
This page was generated in 0.230 seconds.