Drug Wars in Mexico - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 2 Words: 485 Downloads: 5 Date added: 2017/09/14 Category Advertising Essay Did you like this example? Drug Wars in Mexico The Juarez Drug Cartel is earning about $250 million a week by 1995. The Mexico Drug Cartels are not only effecting Mexico, but also the U. S. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Drug Wars in Mexico" essay for you Create order If the United States decides to help Mexico by expanding development assistance, they could also increase law enforcement, have stricter laws, and even legalize drugs. The best solution is to increase law enforcement, have stricter laws, and legalize drugs. Is organized crime a problem in Mexico? Brazen assassinations, kidnappings, and intimidation by drug lords conjure up images of Columbia in early 1990’s† (The Real War 63). ‘Ethnographic anthroplogical studies of trafficking of organizations†¦ are limited† (Female Drug Smugglers 239). Organized Crime in Mexico is a big problem, because drug cartels are killing and getting drugs smuggled into the U. S. Because organized crime is such a problem in Mexico they need to do something about it. The United States should also help create opportunities within Mexico. This means expanding development assistance, rather than just security assistance. At least $5 million for 2009, current U. S development aid to Mexico is paltry. The spending has also been far too slow, although $700 million had been released by congress as of April 2009, only $7 million had been spent (The Real War 63). Even though only $7 million had been spent they could spend more money to help stop drug smuggling into the U. S. If this solution doesn’t work or they don’t spend more money they would need an alternate solution. Mexico could also increase law enforcement, have stricter laws, and even legalize drugs. These include not just pistols, but also cartel favorites, such as AR-15S and AK-47 style semi-automatic rifles (The Real War 63). If they increase law enforcement they could bust more drug cartels but by legalizing drugs, more and more drugs would be sold and smuggled into the U. S. This is the best solution because with stricter laws, drug cartels, might be more careful on smuggling drugs across the border. The best solution is for Mexico to increase law enforcement and make their laws stricter, and also legalize drugs. Banners hung by drug traffickers in public places and uploading videos of gruesome beheadings to YouTube. â€Å"Over 10,000 drug related killings have occurred since president Felipe Calderson took office in December 2006; in 2008 alone there were over 6,000† (The Real War 63). This is the best solution because if they legalize drugs and have stricter laws there wont be as many murders as there are now. The best solution is for Mexico to increase law enforcement, have stricter laws, and legalize drugs because the United States is aiding Mexico to increase development. There will always be crime when there is poverty, and there will always be a demand for illegal drugs. In order to counter these threats we will need to make and enforce new laws. The Juarez Drug Cartel is obtaining large amounts of money, but it is the corrupt way of doing so.

Graduate School Interview Dos and Donts

If you have been asked to come in for an admissions interview, congratulations! Youre one step closer to being accepted into graduate school. The interview is typically the final evaluation stage in the graduate school application process, so success is imperative. The more prepared you arrive, the more likely you are to leave a lasting, positive impression on the interviewers. Remember that for the institution, the purpose of the interview is to get to know the applicant beyond his or her application materials. This is your chance to distinguish yourself from the other applicants and show why you belong in the graduate program. In other words, its your chance to make your case for acceptance over other applicants. An interview also gives you the opportunity to explore the campus and its facilities, meet professors and other faculty members, ask questions, and evaluate the program. You are not the only one being evaluated—you too have to make a decision about whether the school and program are right for you. Most, if not all, applicants view the interview as a stressful experience: What do you bring to a graduate school interview? What do you wear? Most importantly, what do you say? Help ease your nerves by learning what to expect and, specifically, what you should and should not do during your graduate admissions interview. What to Do for Your Graduate School Admissions Interview Before the Interview: Make a list of your strengths and achievements, as well as any recognitions youve received.Complete thorough research on the school, graduate program, and faculty, especially the person conducting the interview.Be familiar with common admission interview questions.Practice answering questions with friends, family, and graduate school advisors.Rest the night before. The Day of the Interview: Arrive 15 minutes early.Dress professionally and with polish—no jeans, t-shirts, shorts, hats. etc.Bring multiple copies of your resume or CV, relevant papers, and presentations.Be yourself, honest, confident, friendly, and respectful.Shake hands with the interviewer and anyone else you meet during your visit.Address the interviewer by both their title and name (e.g. Dr. Smith).Make eye contact.Stay alert and attentive.Use body language to convey your interest by sitting up straight and leaning forward slightly.Smile as you interact with the interviewer.Express your ideas and thoughts in a clear, straightforward manner.Demonstrate your interest in the school and program with genuine passion and enthusiasm.Discuss your achievements and goals.Explain flaws that exist on your academic record—without making excuses.Keep your answers consistent with your application.Ask knowledgeable, specific questions that show youve done your research (e.g. questions about the school, pro gram, or faculty).Ask for clarification if you dont understand a question.Sell yourself. After the Interview: Try to relax.Send a brief thank-you email to the interviewer.Stay optimistic. What You Shouldnt Do for Your Graduate School Admissions Interview Before the Interview: Forget to research the school, program, and faculty.Neglect to review common admissions interview questions and brainstorm your answers.Cancel or reschedule the interview unless you absolutely must. The Day of the Interview: Arrive late.Let your nerves get the best of you. Practice deep breathing to relax.Forget your interviewers nameRamble. Its not necessary to fill every silent moment, especially if youre not saying something worthwhile.Interrupt the interviewer.Lie or exaggerate about your accomplishments.Make excuses for weaknesses.Criticize yourself or other individuals.Speak unprofessionally—no slang, curse words, or forced humor.Cross your arms or slouch in your chair.Broach controversial or ethical issues (unless asked to).Let your phone disrupt the interview. Turn it off, put it on silent, or activate airplane mode—whatever you need to do to ensure it remains quiet.Give one-word answers. Provide details and explanations for everything you say.Say only what you think the interviewer wants to hear.Forget to thank the interviewer before you leave. After the Interview: Go crazy overthinking about your performance. Whatever will be, will be!

Fedex vs. Ups Free Essays

string(52) " as the key financial success than maximizing RONA\." THE BATTLE FOR VALUE, 2004: FEDEX CORP. VS. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC. We will write a custom essay sample on Fedex vs. Ups or any similar topic only for you Order Now Executive Summary: As the U. S. package delivery business segment matured, International segment became the battle ground for the two package delivery giants – FedEx and UPS. FedEx is considered to be the innovative, entrepreneurial, inventor of customer logistical management, and an operational leader. UPS, on the other hand, is considered to be big, bureaucratic, and industry follower, although UPS is shedding this negative image with newer innovations. FedEx Corp. started in 1971, by the end of 2003; it had nearly $15. billion in assets, net income of $830 million on revenues of about $22. 5 billion and shipped more than 5. 4 million packages daily. UPS, Inc. founded in 1907, by the end of 2003; it had $28. 9 billion in assets, net income of $2. 9 billion on revenues of $33. 4 billion, and with excellent (AAA) bond rating. The struggle to deliver value and dominate the package delivery market between FedEx and UPS has reached titanic proportions and clearly evident from th eir respective expenditures. Between 1992 and 2003, capital expenditures for FedEx and UPS rose at an annualized rate of 34. 64% and 36. 78%, respectively. Currently both companies are matching each other’s investments in capital almost exactly. Placing ourselves in the center of the battle of giants and using the data provided in the Exhibits 1 through 11, we try to answer the following questions in this case analysis. 1: Who is creating more value and how? 2: Who is destroying the value? FedEx’s growth strategy is â€Å"Produce superior financial returns for shareholders by providing high value added supply chain, transportation, business and related information services through focused operating companies competing collectively, and managed collaboratively under FedEx brand†. UPS’s growth strategy is â€Å"Serve the evaluation distribution, logistics and commerce needs of customers with excellence and value in all services. With strong financials and broad employee ownership provide long-term competitive returns to the shareholders†. FedEx’s financial ratios are improving while UPS has far better ratios in liquidity, leverage, and profitability. UPS has consistently paid and increased dividends while FedEx just started paying dividends in 2003. FedEx’s EPS comp. annual growth rate (CAGR) 1992 -2003 is 27. 54% compared to UPS’s 13. 9%. However, since going public 1999, UPS has better EPS Compounded Annual growth rate (CAGR) compared to FedEx– 34. 30% vs. 6. 98%. UPS has far better Cum. Total market returns than FedEx – 705. 95% vs. 528. 02%. UPS has far better EVA(2003) compared to FedEx – $1,195 million vs. $170 million. MVA(2003) for UPS also far better than FedEx – $11,816 million vs. $69,31 5 million. By looking at the calculations above we can clearly say that both UPS and FedEx created value, but UPS has created more value for shareholders than FedEx. Case Analysis Detail: We start with analyzing both companies using the data provided in the book in the exhibits 1 through 11. We start the Economic profit analysis of both FedEx and UPS by review and analyzing the Return on Net Assets (RONA). A Return on Net Assets Ratio determines whether the institution is financially better off than in previous years by measuring total economic return. A decline in this ratio may be appropriate and even warranted if it reflects a strategy to better fulfill the institution’s mission. An improving trend in this ratio indicates that the institution is increasing its net assets and s likely to be able to set aside financial resources [pic] to strengthen its future financial flexibility. Looking at the graph generated from data presented in Exhibits 9 10, shows from 1992 to 1994 the ratio for FedEx is improving while it is decreasing for UPS, although it is still well below UPS figures. A quick look at Exhibit 4, we did not find any competitive developments to supp ort the movement of the ratio for both companies. To get more insight into this movement for FedEx and UPS we check the Activity Analysis specifically the Asset turn over ratios for both companies. Review the Fixed asset turnover and Total asset turnover for FedEx and UPS for the period 1992-1994, it is observed that UPS is utilizing its assets better during this period – see graph below. [pic] Although by itself this ratio number can be misleading, since companies with lower margins can have higher asset turnover rations. In order to understand the real impact of asset turnover ratio we need to combine with margin ratio and then determine if it’s pricing strategy by UPS that is generating this high ratio or in fact UPS is much more efficient in using its assets than FedEx. Looking at the numbers for this period for both companies using Exhibits 23, we observed that UPS has far better Net profit margins compared [pic] to FedEx’s, that points to high asset turnover due to its pricing strategy. As we see in the above graph, UPS Asset ratios are declining while FedEx assets ratios are improving and correspondingly FedEx-RONA is also improving though lacking behind UPS’s RONA ratio even though FedEx has greatly improved their asset turnover ratios, the Net Profit margins are still well below UPS (see Net Profit Margin graph above). Does this mean UPS is creating more value than FedEx as shown by RONA graph? We need more concrete data to answer this question. Although RONA has a strong virtue of usage, as compared to traditional methods for measuring company success, is that it also considers the assets a company uses to achieve its output. However, RONA can’t alone be used to determine who is creating value to destroying value, because managers might bypass value-creating activities because they would reduce RONA (a risk if RONA is greater than WACC), or they might undertake value-destroying activities because they would increase RONA (if RONA is less than WACC). Moreover, since RONA does not explicitly measures capital charges, we need to analyze Economic Value Added to determine who is creating or destroying value. Ultimately maximizing EVA should rather be seen as the key financial success than maximizing RONA. You read "Fedex vs. Ups" in category "Essay examples" [pic] Above graph shows from 1992 to 1994 both companies were destroying Economic value, UPS less than FedEx. 1995 UPS created $217 million value while FedEx was still in the negative territory. This is when UPS launched â€Å"guaranteed 8 A. M. overnight delivery† (Exhibit 4 – Timeline of Competitive Developments). This was frontal attack on FedEx who has â€Å"offers 10 A. M. delivery† (Exhibit 4 – Timeline of Competitive Developments). UPS EVA dropped to negative $138 million due to the strike by its union workers which cost UPS $700 million revenues. Interesting to see from the graph is that FedEx could not capitalize on this opportunity as its EVA was down by $215 million. In fact the graph shows, FedEx destroyed EVA from 1992 till 2002 and the only year it was able to create EVA was in 2003 by the amount of $170 million compared to UPS of $1,195 million. In year 2003, UPS EVA was whopping 703% more than FedEx. Reviewing numbers and graph, in the tech bubble of 2000-2002, UPS still maintain positive EVA while FedEx delivered negative EVA. Looking at the above graph and correlating it against the Exhibit 4, the positive EVA of FedEx can be lined up with Kinko’s Purchase in year 2003. [pic] Analyzing the cumulative Economic Value Added (EVA-Cum) graph, from year 1992 to 2003, FedEx destroyed $2. 2 billion ($2,252 Million) economic value while UPS has created $4. billion ($4,328 million) in economic value. This answers the questions put forward in the executive summary. But we will go further and analyze the Market Value Added (MVA) for each company to support our argument that UPS created more value than FedEx. [pic] Since going public in 1999, UPS has created close to $70 billion in Market Value Added (MVA) as compared FedEx’s $11 billion MVA. This shows UPS has created substantial values for the shareholders far better t han FedEx. Since FedEx’s MVA is not negative, it shows they did not destroyed value for the shareholders but UPS created more value for the shareholders. This is amazing achievement for UPS that is considered big and bureaucratic while FedEx is considered the innovative. What is the key to UPS’s success even being heavily unionized? The Key is efficiency. Business week wrote â€Å"Every route is timed down to the traffic light. Each Vehicle was engineered to exacting specifications. And the drivers endure a daily routine calibrated down to the minute. We can analyze UPS’s efficiency by analyzing the ratios and comparing them against FedEx’s financial and analytical ratios. Using exhibits 2 and 3, graphing the data, comparison shows UPS activity ratios are weakening and FedEx is doing great job in improving. [pic] The Average days outstanding for UPS have increased from approximately 25 in 1992 to over 50 in 2003. FedEx on the other hand, has done better job to manag e the average days outstanding. Average Days outstanding by itself doesn’t mean much and it must be analyzed with other activity ratios to conclude result. pic] The working capital turnover comparison shows except for 1993 FedEx has done better compared to UPS. The WC_Turnover for FedEx was 41. 25 in 2003 compared to 7. 72 for UPS, indicated FedEx is generated far more sales compared to cash it uses to fund these sales as compared to UPS. [pic] FedEx’s fixed and total asset turnover ratio is better than UPS. This indicates FedEx is using its asset better than UPS to generate sales. Although by itself this ratio number can be misleading, since companies with lower margins can have higher asset turnover rations. In order to understand the real impact of asset turnover ratio we need to combine with margin ratio and then determine if it’s pricing strategy by FedEx that is generating this high ratio or in fact FedEx is much more efficient in using its assets than UPS. Looking at the numbers for 2003 for both companies, FedEx with 3. 69% Net profit margins compared to UPS’s 8. 65% seems to have high asset turnover due to its pricing strategy. The above graph shows that activity financial ratios of FedEx are improving while they are weakening for UPS. Next we analyze Liquidity Ratios of both companies to see which company has the ability to pay its obligations in timely manner with minimal cost. [pic] The Current Ratio of UPS is better and improving than FedEx. The anomaly in 1999 for UPS was due to the public offering of its securities. The graph shows both companies can service their short-term debt, its UPS that has more efficient operating cycle than FedEx. The graph shows FedEx’s CR is improving but still behind its top competitor UPS. [pic] UPS has better cash ratio and thus can service its short term debt more comfortably than FedEx. This also indicates that UPS has less debt than FedEx too. The anomaly in 1999 is due to public offering of UPS securities. The graph shows UPS Cash ratio offer better safety of margin than FedEx when it needs to service its debt. Although FedEx’s Cash Ratio is improving but it is still behind UPS. Reviewing the Cash flow from operations ratio and Defensive interval shows that UPS has better liquidity ratios than FedEx and can handle short term cash requirement more efficiently, though FedEx’s ratios are improving. The above graphs show UPS has better liquidity ratios than FedEx. Now we review the Long-Term Debt and Solvency analysis of both companies. The below graph shows FedEx is more leveraged than UPS, though FedEx’s leverage position is improving. Graph shows UPS’s leverage was high in 2001 and 2002, we can find the answer in Exhibit 4 – Timeline of Competitive Development – UPS acquired all-cargo air service in Latin America 2000 and acquired Mail Boxes Etc. retail franchise in 2001. While in 2003 FedEx acquired Kinko’s which could explained higher leverage compared to UPS. pic] The Capital Expenditure Ratio shows, both companies actually almost matching each other’s Capital expense. Exhibit 4 –Timeline of Competitive Developments shows the details of the major Capital expenses by both companies in competition to gain competitive advantage. Both companies made acquisitions to grow in different fields. [pic] The above graphs shows UPS is co nsistently leveraged low while FedEx is improving. Next we analyze the profitability analysis for both companies. Data from Exhibit 2 3 shows, FedEx’s profitability is worse UPS. PS beat FedEx in almost all profitability ratios by handsome margin. It is evident from 2003 numbers for Net Profit Margins 3. 69% and 8. 65% for FedEx and UPS respectively. The following graph shows the comparison of profitability of both companies. [pic] Finally, we review the growth analysis of both companies. Exhibit 2 3, provides the picture that shows FedEx growth is higher than UPS. [pic] The below graphs summarizes and compares both companies EPS, Dividend payout, Stock price, and PE ratios. [pic] UPS’s stock price shows since going public, it has delivered better value to its shareholders than FedEx. [pic] The above graph shows, UPS has consistently paid and increased dividends to its shareholders, while FedEx started dividend payout in 2003. [pic] UPS has a higher EPS growth than FedEx implies that FedEx has been unable to translate net income growth into high EPS growth. Hence, our analysis conclude that both UPS and FedEx created value for their shareholders, but UPS created more value than FedEx in the long run. How to cite Fedex vs. Ups, Essay examples

Contributory Negligence Commentary on Tort

Question: Discuss about the Contributory Negligence for Commentary on Tort. Answer: Introduction One of the tort laws in Australia is the tort of negligence. Negligence takes place when a person, who owed a duty of care to some other person, undertakes or does something, as a result of which, the other person is injured or incurs a loss. An aspect or concept, which is used against negligence, is contributory negligence (Latimer, 2012). In the following parts, the case of Tamara has been analyzed, using these two concepts. Whether or not Tamara can sue Aldi Supermarkets for her losses due to their negligence? As highlighted in the introductory segment, negligence is a tort law, which fixes the liability on a person, for their failure in exercising the reasonable care, which a prudent person, in similar circumstances would undertake, and which results in an injury, loss or harm to the person to whom the duty of care was owed. Negligence takes place when there is a duty of care, this duty of care is breached, this breach results in a loss or injury, the loss is not too remote and there is a direct causation, and the loss is foreseeable. When a case of negligence is established, the aggrieved party can claim for damages in form of monetary compensation (Gibson and Fraser, 2014). The first step in establishing negligence is to establish a duty of care. In Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605, 618, the Court of Appeal gave a threefold test to establish the duty of care for establishing negligence. These included that the harm has to be reasonably foreseeable through the acts or conduct of the defendant; there has to be a relationship of proximity between the parties; and the imposition of liability has to be reasonable, fair and just (Lunney and Oliphant, 2013). In Bolton v. Stone [1951] AC 850, [1951] 1 All ER 1078, the damages were not awarded to the plaintiff, as the court held that the defendant could not be claimed to be negligent due to the lack of reasonable foreseeability of damage, as a result of his conduct (Swarb, 2016). The next step is to establish that the duty of care is to establish that the duty of care was breached (Harvey and Marston, 2009). In Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951] AC 367, the Council was held in breach of duty of care, and as a result, negligent. Paris, in this case, was employed as a fitter in the garage of the Council. The Council was aware that Paris was blind in one eye and even then they failed to provide him the protective goggles to do his work. While he was working on a rusty bolt, a chip of metal flew and stuck in his good eye, due to which he was blinded completely. As it was the duty of the Council to provide Paris the necessary gear, they had to compensate Paris for his loss arising due to Councils negligence (Martin and Lancer, 2013). The damage has to be the result of such negligence and it has to be significant. If a loss is remote, negligence cannot be established. Only when all these elements are present, a case of negligence can be made (Latimer, 2012). Contributory negligence is the most common defense which is used to decrease the liability arising due to negligence. Under contributory negligence, the person who is injured as a result of negligence of the defendant contributes to the injury. And so, the amount of damages which are awarded to the plaintiff are reduced by the amount of contributory negligence, which is decided upon the discretion of the court (Dongen, 2014). In Hamilton v Duncan [2010] NSWDC 90, the plaintiff failed to maintain a proper lookout for the hole, even when he knew about the hole on which he had tripped. Moreover, he had even warned another person, who later on became the witness, regarding the presence of the hole in the ground, just moments before the accident took place. As a result, the plaintiff was declared as 30% contributory negligence and so, the damages were reduced by 30% (Bannerman, 2015). Application When a person enters any supermarket, it becomes the duty of the supermarket to ensure the safety of its consumers, while in their premises. And so, a duty of care was owed by Aldi supermarkets to Tamara, being their customer. Applying the threefold test given in Caparo Industries plc v Dickman, the loss was foreseeable. This was because any person could fall on a puddle of ice cream and such puddle had to be cleaned. There was proximity between the parties, as Tamara was a customer of Aldi Supermarkets and so, the supermarket owed a duty of are towards their customer. And in case, the supermarket is held liable for negligence, the imposition of liability would be reasonable, fair and just. Further, the case of Bolton v. Stone suggests that foreeseability has to be present, which was clear in this case, as any person could easily fall on wet surface. Failing to clean the surface, resulted in Tamaras injuries, in the same manner as was seen for Paris in Paris v Stepney Borough Council. Since all the necessary elements of negligence were present, it can be deduced that Aldi committed the tort of negligence. The defense which can be used by Aldi is that they had cleaned their supermarket on regular intervals, i.e. in every 40 minutes, for any spillage and hence, it was not their fault. Moreover, Tamara ran as she feared that the last piece of chocolate would be sold out, due to which she fell. She knew the surface was wet, and yet she ran, so she contributed to her injuries. And as was seen in case of Hamilton v Duncan, the amount of damages awarded to her would be reduced. Conclusion On the basis of above analysis, it can be concluded that Tamara can successfully sue Aldi supermarkets for their negligence. Though, the amount of damages which would be awarded to Tamara would be reduced by a percentage amount, due to her contributory negligence. And such percentage would be decided by the court. References Bannerman, D. (2015) Contributory Negligence In "Slip And Fall" Cases - No Control Over The Plaintiff's Own Action Or Inaction?. [Online] Bannermans Lawyers. Available from: https://www.bannermans.com.au/insurance/articles/public-liability/331-contributory-negligence-in-slip-and-fall-cases-no-control-over-the-plaintiff-s-own-action-or-inaction [Accessed on: 26/01/17] Dongen, E.V. (2014) Contributory Negligence: A Historical and Comparative Study. Boston: Brill Nijhoff. Gibson, A., and Fraser, D. (2014) Business Law 2014. 8th ed. Melbourne: Pearson Education Australia. Harvey, B., and Marston, J. (2009) Cases and Commentary on Tort. 6th ed. New York: Oxford University Press. Latimer, P. (2012) Australian Business Law 2012. 31st ed. Sydney, NSW: CCH Australia Limited. Lunney, M., and Oliphant, K. (2013) Tort Law: Text and Materials. 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Martin, J., and Lancer, D. (2013) AQA Law for AS Fifth Edition. 5th ed. Oxon: Hachette UK. Swarb. (2016) Bolton v Stone: HL 10 May 1951. [Online] Swarb. Available from: https://swarb.co.uk/bolton-v-stone-hl-10-may-1951/ [Accessed on: 26/01/17]