Globalization a new playing field with new rules

Globalization has been slowly moving along since the creation of the silk trade route from China to Europe that was around 200BC. After that communications between countries and continents did develop, but at a very slow rate. It wasn't until the 20th century when telephones were invented that people could communicate with other people in other parts of the world without having to travel or wait for mail. Though globalization rapidly started to evolve in the past couple of decades.
In the book The World is Flat by Thomas Friedman, he talks about the ten "flatteners" of the world that allowed everyone to play on the same playing field and to communicate with one another. One of the first flatteners was the ability to upload a file on the internet. People of my generation cannot fully comprehend how amazing this was to the world. For the first time someone was able to download a document or a thesis online and gain from it. It was a way that everyone in the whole world became connected. The flattener that caught most of my attention was UPS. I never realized it but not only does UPS connect the world, but it also allows everyone to be playing on the same field. For example, a small business would only be able to sell its products to the local community. It would be impossible for a small town flour shop to sell its products to people in China. Only a large company would have the resources to do something like that. This is where UPS comes in. With the help of UPS the small business is actually able to sell its product on a global scale. For the first time the distance boundary between people has been broken and it opens up many new opportunities to businesses. Advancements in Globalization is the reason why people are able to do something like this.

The counter argument  though of why globalization is bad is because it is destroying the culture of the nation. Which is true. When the western world started to trade with Asia in the 19th century, Asians started to wear more western clothes and use Western products. This changed the way of life for those who communicated with the Westerners and the argument is that the culture was lost due to the increase of communication and trade with the western world. The issue with that argument is that in most cases of globalization no one is forcing anyone to buy anything.
For example say that there is a  family that has worked on a farm for the past 100 years. Everyone in the family has their own roles and they have been using a hoe and plow to do all the farming. then because of the improvement in globalization it is possible for a salesmen to come to the farm and sell them a tractor. The family buys the tractor but it changes their way traditions and their way of life.
Is this a bad thing?
That is basically one of the outcomes from globalization, but one can easily trade that story about fashion or the diet of the people. Either way it all comes down to what the people choose. the reason why the culture on the farm changed is because the family on the farm wanted it to change. They were not forced into buying the tractor and kept their culture. If one is so committed to their own culture they don't have to change it. All I would have to do is drive from my house for a couple of hours and find an Amish town where they chose to keep their culture, so its not an impossible task. Globalization is an option that many choose to take.

Another helpful thing about globalization is that it provides relief for 3rd world countries. Now we have things like KIVA which allows investors like me invest money into someone or a business from a 3rd world country.
 Why is this different for pre- globalization?
The reason why it's different is because it allows people to be connected to who they are helping. If I came up to you and said "hey can you send $50 to someone in Africa for something" the reply would most likely be "no" but if I came up to you and said "hey Champoo is a 27 year old girl from Mali who needs a stand to run her business and you would get to see how she and her business is doing" the answer would be more likely to be "yes" than the previous statement. Globalization isn't just about changing culture, it is also about adding the ability to help others with greater ease. Especially with the support of resources like UPS.
For the good and the bad, globalization also opens up business opportunities. For example it became easier for a company to outsource its jobs to other countries where labor is cheaper. This fact creates a lot of controversy about Globalization though. On one had the producer is able to invest in cheaper labor and then be able to turn around and sell their product at a cheaper price, which benefits the consumer. The issue that some people have with that is that the outsourcing of jobs affects the original holders of the jobs. For example, Pennsylvania was well known for its coal production and it had many towns that were economically founded by coal mining. As globalization grew and it became easier and cheaper to outsource many coal miners lost their jobs and many coal mining towns are now ghost towns. So it is now easier to buy a product, but some people lose their job. Globalization has been that way for centuries, and it is nothing new to complain about.

In conclusion Globalization has opened up thousands of new doors to us. Whether we are a small business looking to expand our network of consumers, or someone in Mali that needs a loan. There are countless different things that are possible for people all over the world. It is almost impossible how greatly the world has changed for the better because of globalization. Because of communication with each other and learning about each other we have all greatly expanded our network of possibilities.

colleges that never were

In the blog The Social Network- college Edition the author Tom Dretler talks about college transfer students in America, and what he said was surprising to me. I knew that many college students weren't particularly happy with their college and that they would possibly then transfer out. I also knew that it was very expensive to do that and that if one transferred out mid-year, they would have catching up to do. I have no idea why but I just never put two and two together. One of the points that was made in the blog is the fact that when a student transfers between different colleges, it costs roughly $25,000 now this is done by about 2.5 million students. Adding it all together gives you a total just over 60 billion dollars. that doesn't even seem to be possible, but the math is their. That is about .6% of the GDP of the US. I know families could use that money else where, and I know that there are ways to prevent families from losing that money. Even though its the colleges/universities that get the 60 billion, they still don't want to see their students unhappy, and they don't want students to be spending the extra money to transfer.
When I visited Clark University, one of the first things that the counselor told me was that he wanted me to go to the school, but only if I knew I was going to be happy here. He told me that in the end it all comes down to me and not the school, and that is something that I really liked about Clark. Clark also did a well job in staying in touch with me when I was in the undecided stage. I was even able to talk to a representative from Clark a number of times in my home town. That was amazing to me. Clark University is at least a 6 hour drive from my house but because the University has such a great network and because it attracts good people, I was able to talk to them. I cannot even stress how important that was to me. No other school contacted me and asked if I could talk to a representative, and the rest of my schools were only an hour or two away from me. I decided to go to Clark because of those conversations I had with the representative.
 I felt as if Clark did a very good job in showing what campus life was like. when I visited, there was a fair to show all of the prospective students different clubs and activities that are open to them if they went to Clark, Clark was the only school that did that. Thing only thing that I wished Clark did, was have panel of upperclassmen where we could ask them different questions about Clark life. A couple of other schools that I visited did that but I don't recall anything of the sorts at Clark. There was the option of asking someone when you passed them by or you could call a student at some point, but when a student is applying/deciding for or on a college, a lot can slip their mind. So I believe that having a whole room of prospective students with different questions will not only help the student with a question he or she may have, but it will also help other students in the room that would have the same question but just didn't come up with it. Regardless of that one thing, Clark did a very good job in portraying its campus, and it's exactly what I thought it would be, and I'm very glad that I came to this school.

Steve and Dale

Sometimes it takes someone their whole life to figure out what they want to do with it. They keep looking and looking until they find something that interests them and makes them want to continue for the rest of their life. This is similar to the life Dale Carnegie. Dale is the famous author of the book how to win friends and influence people. Though he was 48 when he first wrote the ground breaking book. Dale's parents worked on a farm, and therefore, they weren't very wealthy. The farm has seen many hardships with floods and poor harvests. Dale swore that when he grew up, he would become rich and famous. One day, Dale saw a public speaker from the Chautauqua Movement, and that is when he realized that he wanted to do something with that wasn't farming. Dale would then get up early in the morning to work on the farm and then he would go to college for the day. Dale then moved to New York without finishing college, where he had an assortment of jobs. Non of which really interested him, nor paid him well. It wasn't until he was living at the YMCA when he started teaching public speaking, and he was very good at it. It's almost as if he traveled in one giant circle, because it was public speaking that started him on the path of a new world with jobs other than farming, and in the end he became a public speaker.
through his teachings, Dale realized that what prevented salesmen from reaching their greatest potential was fear. People were afraid of public speaking and meeting new people. It was then when he wrote the book how to win friends and influence people. This book was a great success. Even today it's a best seller. Dale was the most surprised at the success of his book. With his help, it became possible for someone who was terrified of public speaking to be able to speak in public. His book was one of the first self help books in the world and it is estimated today that 15,000,000 copies of this book have been sold worldwide. Dale went from a poor farm boy who was going to grow up to be a poor farmer, to a poor farm boy who could be whatever he wanted to be. And he did just that he went from poor to rich, and it was all because he opened his mind to possibilities.

Someone that you could compare to Dale Carnegie is Steve Jobs. Steve Jobs was adopted by a not too wealthy couple. His father worked with machines and it was there when Steve began to get an interest for them. He didn't think that he could have an actual career with them though. even in grade school, his genius was showing. He was actually offered the ability to skip a couple of grades and then go straight to high school, though his parents declined the offer. Steve started to work on computers in his garage when he was in high school. At the time though it was just for fun and not profit. when Steve then went to college, he was only there for six months and then dropped out. the next 18 months he would visit different classes that interested him, but he had absolutely no direction of where he should go with his life. He later met up with his computer friend again and they started to work on apple computers as a business. Apple computers took off!
What make the story of Steve Jobs one in a million is that he came from nothing. Steve was lucky enough to become adopted by a kind and loving family. He else sets him apart from not everyone else but the rest of the world is his computers. They were completely different. Image the awe someone would feel when they found out that they didn't need a whole room for a computer, and that it would be possible for them to buy one. Something else that sets him apart is that for the majority of his young life, Steve had no idea what he was going to do. He was interested in art, history, computers, and he loved the liberal arts. He could have done anything with his life, but he went back to his square one. which was mechanics, just like when he would tinkering with machines in the garage with his father.

 The greatest difference between the two is the fact that they were born in different times, and this has a major affect of what people do. In the early 1900's salesmen were needed and so public speaking became a necessity, where in the 70's and the 80's computers became the next big thing. what else is very different between the two is their inventions/ products. Steve Jobs created something that no one knew was impossible. He gave the public an item that they didn't even know that they wanted/needed it. Where Dave Carnegie became a teacher for public speaking. In other words, people came to him because they already knew what they needed and Dave just filled the void. This is without a doubt one of the greatest differences between the two. Dave was given a problem in which he created an answer for. Steve Jobs was never given a problem. He created a solution to a problem that people didn't even know  existed.
What Makes these two the same though, is their ability to create a solution. Public speaking has been a problem that was plaguing man kind for over a millennium, and all of a sudden Dale rises up out of no where and he is able to sell 15,000,000 copies of his book allowing people to speak in public. Steve Jobs was the same exact deal. though the size of computers haven't been a problem for thousands of years, but it was still a big problem. then just like Dale, Jobs comes up from a small income family and shows the way to a computer someone can have in their own home. That is actually the greatest thing that both innovators have in common. they both came from low income families and rise up to fame and riches. What else makes them similar is the fact that for the beginning of their life, they had no idea what they were going to do with it. Both of them explored the world and different opportunities that it holds. Only to come back to what their first interest was. For Steve Jobs it was machines, and for Dale it was public speaking

The effects of a room of "junk"

It wasn't until a year ago when I first heard of the Mercer Museum. I was looking for a place to volunteer at and one of my teachers told about this old museum that is really cool and is always looking for help. Personally I love history and the the idea of working in a museum was astounding to me. I have no idea why I haven't thought about it before!
My First day at the museum, they told that I had to spend the whole day learning about the museum and its roots, and I did as I was told. I spent the whole day at the museum learning about this one of a kind place. When I first walked into the great hall, I was shocked. The only thing that you can do is look up as far as you can for as long as you can. When I said that I spent the whole day at the museum I meant it. I spent hours upon hours upon hours in that scary dark castle, and if I went back today, I would still find things that I missed. What I loved about this place, was that it was created by one man. (Technically the museum was built by a team of 7 or so but you get my drift). When Henry Mercer first started his expedition for tools and gadgets that people were throwing away, he was seen as insane, but of course today he is seen as an innovator and a genius. One of my most favorite aspects about his collection was that in his collection he owned no more than 20 guns, but he had thousands of shoe horns. This just shows that Mercer wasn't concerned about the items that everyone knew about, but really the items that no one cared about.
That is probably the creates lesson I learned when I went to that museum. I learned that in order to become a good innovator you not only have to look at what people are collecting, but what they are throwing away. As in we can't just look into the future for new inventions or new idea, because chances are, the idea was already thought of and everyone just forgot about it. If something wasn't thought of, the best way to come up with a new one is to look into the past. the more you know about the past, the better prepared you are for the future

Here is a link that you can use to look at the Central Court of the Mercer Museum. (it is the one at the bottom)
http://www.mercermuseum.org/visit-us/online-tours/

Apple v. Samsung debate

In the Harvard Business Review, there is a blog about the recent lawsuit between Samsung and Apple. The lawsuit ended with Apple walking away with a couple billion in spare change from Samsung. The problem was that Samsung was being sued for copying Apple products like the iPhone. The blog states that not only does Apple own the ability to zoom in on a smart phone by pinching the screen, but it also owns other features of the sort, making it difficult for competition to follow/copy. The blog also mentioned that android isn't loved like Apple, and the reason for that is because Android is trying to become the phone that is like the iPhone but just a little different. Therefore it will never be loved by the same standards that Apple is.

This is something that I completely agree with in today's world of communication, it is impossible to copy something without be caught or sued for it. Even if one did copy another well known company, that's all their product is going to be. A copy. therefore one should never want to create a copy of another product. Since when was creating a good copy of someone else work someones goal. I agree with the article in saying that if android wants to get the "love" that Apple does, it needs to step out of Apples shadow and create its own style. Possible even completely start from scratch and change the way everything is done on a smartphone. The day that Android is loved more than Apple is the day that they revolutionize the way we look at phones or even how we use them.

The 7 sources of Innovation

Within the enterprise industry, there are seven different sources of innovation. Here I will be going through each one and respond to each of them. the first four are from within the enterprise industry while the last 3 are from the outside.
1. The first source of innovation is the unexpected this would include success, failure, or basically anything else that could happen. The unexpected comes every single day and it is hard for many companies and even innovators to cope with it. A company has to be extremely flexible if it is to survive. In other words, they have to expect the unexpected. A company and an innovator have to know if the failure of a product will put them under or if it's a success, they would be able to profit from it.
2. The second source of innovation is incongruity. An innovator has to be able to see something the way everyone else sees it and then a way that no one else sees it. In other words, an innovator is looking for something out of place that no one else see's. This out of place object can be a great source of inspiration for the innovator, and the innovator would never had noticed it if he looked at things the same way as everyone else.
3. The third source of innovation is process need. there are things in this world that people want or need. An innovator was able to look at something that was needed in society and was able to create something that fulfilled the need. An example of this is in many places around the world, if one slept outside, they would be bitten up by mosquitoes, and it was deadly in some places in the world. An innovator saw the need for something that would prevent people from getting bitten up, so they created the mosquito net that prevented people from getting bitten up at night.
4. The fourth source of innovation is changes in industry structure or even the market structure. this is one of the most interesting sources because in a way, it is the most dangerous. Innovators are able to keep even the largest companies in check for power because of this source. This is when an innovator comes up with a new process or product that completely changes the way business is done by businesses. An example of this would be when netflix came out. Video rental stores were caught completely off guard  and most of them went out of business because of it.
5. The Fifth source of innovation is Demographics. this plays a huge role in innovation. Basically it states that an innovator has to know the population that he wants to give his product to or who they're' going to make the product for to begin with. An innovator can't make a high price car to sell in specific city, and have it turn out that most of the residents in the city are poor and the city has no roads to drive on. An innovator has to know who or what the population is.
6. The Sixth Source of innovation is perception, mood, and meaning. This source is referring to the fact as to the ways that everyone else would see the product or idea. The idea or product has to be able to gain support from others almost as soon as they see it.
7. The Seventh and final source of innovation is New knowledge. If an innovator is to be able to come up with new ideas and compete with other innovators, they absolutely must be able to keep up with todays advances in technology and ideas. With these new advances, it could create inspiration for any innovator, and it could even open up the opportunity for an innovator to create a new advance in technology and ideas

Mayor's challenge

July 16 2012 was the first deadline for cities to sign up for Bloomberg Philanthropies Mayor challenge. The idea of this challenge is to help cities create new innovated ideas on how to save their cities. As many know, cities and the people living in them are taking a toll with the economy the way it is. This challenge opens a possibility of relief and hope for cities that are struggling. Though the first thing I wondered when I first saw the challenge, was 'why should a city spend time and resources working on a challenge when it clearly has other things it has to do. Then I saw the grand prize of 5,000,000. Don't get me wrong, this challenge is a great idea and a great way for cities to find creative ideas to save themselves and possibly others. though is it really necessary to pay the city to do what it was suppose to be doing in the first place?
I can't help but wonder how many cities are doing this just for the grand prize and not to find a new innovated idea. On the other hand something that newspapers talked a lot about though is that the prize creates competition, and nothing gets people going better than a competition. The other upside of the reward is that it is only for the cities and not the people who came up with the idea, so it's not as though they win 5,000,000 if they have the best idea. It is puzzling though, where the money is coming from, but I suppose during times like this, no one really cares.

All in all this is actually a really good idea. It is very rare for a challenge like this to appear, and in this great time of need as well. From 2007-2011city revenues decreased by 39 billion. This challenge gives cities the opportunity they need to help dig themselves out of their hole. If this idea is worth even half of the total prize money, it could not only help, but possibly save hundreds of cities. Image that just one innovated idea and save hundreds of cities and thousands of people. If you want to learn more about the challenge the link is bellow

http://mayorschallenge.bloomberg.org/