Synthesis Ex

Wal-Mart

Wal-Mart is trying to attract hordes of happy customers to its business. It was successful to increase hold attention millions of customers in the US every day. According to USA Today, "it averages 100 million customers a week. That's 88.5 million more people than U.S. airlines fly in a week" (2003, p.1). Wal-Mart is one of the best wonderful stories. E. Locke says "Wal-Mart is one of the most impressive success stories in the history of business" (2004, p.4). There are three basic regulations in order to keep happy such a large number of customers; offer the best service to their customers, struggle for excellence, and create jobs.

First, I believe Wal-Mart’s policy of commercialism catches shoppers who have low income; those people are more easily made complacent than high class of shoppers. So Wal-Mart looks for normal people. E. Locke says, "Wal-Mart is especially popular among low-income shoppers who cannot afford the prices of the more upscale stores… In a free economy, companies that offer the best value for the dollar win and losers invest the money elsewhere.” (2004, p.2). Wal-Mart is a leader in management control, distribution and customer service. This is a result of the company’s ability to coordinate management supplier relations.

Second, I usually visit Wal-Mart every week. I am impressed by the way everything has been set to catch the attention of customers, the shelves looked full and tidy, the product clean and beautiful, and the prices. I enjoy when I visit Wal-Mart; it is not common that I faced a bad experience because it had many great suppliers. E. Locke says, “Wal-Mart’s key role in the 1996-99 economic boom came partly because of its legendary use of technology to analyze costs and speedy delivery of goods from its 30,000 suppliers to dozens of sprawling warehouses, say retail and financial analysts” (2003, p.28).

Finally, Wal-Mart has a good lead to the US economy because the largest private employer has given it more jobs. J. Hoenig says, “In 2005, Wal-Mart created 125,000 U.S jobs, and is continuously adding thousands each month” (2004, p.16).

Opponents of Wal-Mart say it is very good for shoppers and bad for competitors. Wal-Mart leads to many stories closing or not having success, even Walgreens; if it does not have a pharmacy, I believe it is not a winner. Many people, when they see Wal-Mart close any store, they are going to Wal-Mart because it is cheap and has everything. Also, there is a bad thing for its employees, according to the UFCWIU author who says, “one 200-employee Wal-Mart store may cost federal taxpayers $420,750 per year” (2005, p.1). Instead, Wal-Mart does not care about small stores.

In conclusion, Wal-Mart is my favorite place to shop. It catches many American people and internationals also. It has been a great service. It is the most famous store I have heard of in my life. I did not see anybody hate it in the U.S. I wish to have only one of them; I’m going to be rich. The U.S. should thank Wal-Mart because it has given many jobs, a great service and struggle for excellence.

Rainforest Beef

Do you eat Brazilian beef? Brazil is a country with so much rainforest that many countries are criticizing Brazil because they have been making tree species extinct. Some people have argued that deforestation has led to many different troubles. However, H. Walsh (2005) said, Brazil is trying to remove the rainforest and change it to beef raising. Changing the rainforest might have cause and affect the environment. It seems that Brazilians are so eager to make money, they’ll cut down rainforest, and not even worry about the health of the beef. I plan on writing about trying to stop extinction of forest. First, government should give the farmers other resources to do their business. Second, the EU should ban Brazilian beef. Finally, Brazil should make cutting the forest down more difficult.

First, the government should give farmers other ways to make money. Usually people are trying to make money in any way. First, planting crops is a good way to increase exportation. Also, a new way can help them increase their growth and improve their position in the world. There are many ways that can lead them to making money.

Second, the EU should ban Brazilian beef and cripple the international beef export market. A call for a total beef ban might change the enforcement of the farmers business. Some of them may care about a safe environment, or others may fear for their business if they stop imports. This call is like an advertisement; any advertisement will affect the business in several ways. A number of issues related to converting forest land to beef raising. Therefore, if the farmers do not see that side, they are going to lose their money. Maybe some people cut forest without a permit. Therefore, those people have to be given punishment because they do not care about risk to the environment. Also, this punishment will give farmers a great warning if they cut without permit.

Third, there are many ways to stop extinction of rainforest by making cutting it down more difficult. Brazil’s government should give warnings and punishments for anyone who breaks the rules. The law has to be conclusive to keep the environment. There is another way to make it difficult. Tax is a good idea to decrease the number of people who like the rainforest because tax will feel the farmers are unsuccessful business. Also may they going to change their mind. Usually people hate the tax, so I think it is a great plan. I believe punishments or tax is a good solution for the problem of the rainforest.

Opponents of replacing some farmers do not believe the problems are rainforest cut down because they did not see the problems. Brazilian beef is one of best meats in the world so it's difficult to ban it. On the other hand, farmers would like to feel freedom in business because it's easy to make money. Some time forests use wood for project power plan. Usually they can't use the trees or trees might make less money than beef.

In conclusion, removing the rainforest and changing it to animal raising will lead Brazil to big environmental problems. The Brazilian government has to ban cattle raising before it gets risks. Stop changing forests to animal rsisinf; that will stop the risk to the environment. Warning and punishment will scare the discordant farmers Government should show people another way to make money. I deducted three solutions for that, government should give the formers other resources to do their business; EU should ban Brazilian beef and the make cutting down more difficult.

Reference:

Cheap Brazilian beef imports are subsidised by slave labour. (2006, January 5). Irish Times. Retrieved November 07, 2007, from Lexis Nexis database.

Fears for Brazil rainforest rise with beef sales. (2005, October 28). Irish Times. Retrieved October 22, 2007, from Lexis Nexis database.

Kaufman, M. (2007, April 24). New Allies on The Amazon. Irish Times. Retrieved November 07, 2007, from Lexis Nexis database.

Rocha, J. (2006, December 22). How a 'Flying Squad' is stamping out the slave farms of Brazil. Irish Times. Retrieved November 07, 2007, from Lexis Nexis database.

Walsh, H. (2005, October 28). New call for total beef ban. Irish Times. Retrieved October 22, 2007, from Lexis Nexis database

New call for total beef ban

In H. Walsh’s article, "New call for total beef ban," he writes about people who ban buying beef from Brazil. Brazilian beef has risk and affects the environment. There are impacts to environment and society. The farmers were cutting the forests and changed it to beef selling. Also there are many people who hated it that people were changing from trees to beef selling. Diseased beef was the reason people feared risk in the market of beef selling. I agree with what the author says; there are three reasons for total beef ban, trying to stop the cutting of the forest, having a kind of punishment and crippling process of selling.

First, many people are trying to stop decreasing forests in Brazil. When the people around the world, see a ban like this imposed, after an outbreak of environment risk in Brazil, if they read this article, they might stop importing Brazilian beef. It will influence demand.

Second, we note a number of issues related to converting forest land to beef raising. If there is anyone who would like to sell, they should have clearance to sell. However, maybe there are some people who do it without a permit. Therefore, those people have to be given punishment, because they do not care about the risk to the environment. Also this punishment will give farmers a great incentive to do it with a permit.

Third, a beef ban will cripple the international export market. A call for a total beef ban might change the enforcement of the farmers' business. Some of them may care about a safe environment, or others may fear for their business if they stop imports. This call is like an advertisement; any advertisement will affect the business in several ways. Therefore, if the farmers do not see that side, they are going to lose it.

In conclusion, the presence of the rainforest helps protect us from global warming and keeps some of the rarest and most beneficial animals and their homes alive. If we stop changing forests to animal products, that will stop the risk to the environment. Punishment will scare the discordant farmers. The author was trying to cripple the process of selling. The call for a total beef ban is looking for three effects trying to stop the decreasing of the forest, having a kind of punishment and crippling the process of selling.

Reference:

Walsh, H. (2005, October 28). New call for total beef ban. Irish Times. Retrieved October 22, 2007, from Lexis Nexis database.

Fears for Brazil rainforest rise with beef sales

Fears for Brazil rainforest rise with beef sales

In the author’s (2005) article, "Fears for Brazil rainforest rise with beef sales," he writes about the beef raising business which faced many problems in sales. Brazil is a country with so much rainforest that foot and mouth disease was diffusive, which led to affecting its level of imports to the EU. A group campaigned saying, “What about the rainforest?’’ This group was Irish, and supported Irish farmers against the threat of Brazilian imports. Many countries are criticizing Brazil because they have been making tree species extinct. Some people argued that deforestation has led to many different troubles. However, he said, Brazil is trying to remove the rainforest and change it to beef raising. There are three solutions that Brazil’s government can use to save Brazil’s rainforest: ban cattle raising, make it more difficult and give people other choices to make money.

First, the rainforest is very important in the environment. Plowing will impact the Amazon; because of that banning cattle raising is going to save its life. The Brazil government should let farmers know the risks to the environment.

Second, there are many ways to stop distinction of rainforest by making cutting it down more difficult. Brazil’s government should give warnings and punishments for anyone who breaks the rules. The law has to be conclusive to keep the environment. There is another way to make it difficult. Tax is a good idea to decrease the number of people who like the rainforest. Usually people hate the tax, so I think it is a great plan. I believe punishments or tax is a good solution for the problem of the rainforest.

Third, government should give farmers other ways to make money. Usually people are trying to make money in any way. First, planting crops is a good way to increase exportation. Also, a new technique can help them increase their growth and improve their position in the world. There are many ways that can lead them to making money.

In conclusion, removing the rainforest and changing it to animal raising will lead Brazil to big environment at environmental problems. The Brazil government has to ban cattle raising before it gets risks. Punishments or tax is going to be difficult for anyone who wants to change the rules. Government should show people another way to make money. I deducted three solutions for that: ban cattie raising, make it more difficult and give them other choices to make money.

Reference:

Fears for Brazil rainforest rise with beef sales. (2005, October 28). Irish Times. Retrieved October 22, 2007, from Lexis Nexis database.

Global Warming

Mohammed R
EAP-2

According to Bhattacharya, global warming is coming on around the world. It is very dangerous; it may cause extinction for the animals and plants. Some researchers studied and evaluated animals and plants affected by global warming. So people have to be ready for drastic effects of global warming. It is likely to have an impact on people’s health or the climate. Next, some of the mutations may inherently change people’s lives. How can we stop global warming? Some researchers say, it comes from nature, but other people say it comes from the environmental pollution. I believe global warming may affect the environment, and that we should control air pollution, use alternative solar energy and battle the deserts.

First, I think the air pollution problem is due to actions of industry. The best solution should be changing the burning policies of industries. For example, every country has an industrial area and it affects air pollution very much. In the past, we did not suffer from air pollution.

Second, solar energy would decrease global warming. We can use alternative energy such as another energy without the burning of fuels. Alternative solar energy will be able to help us to avert the problem of global warming. Alternative solar energy could be used for running of cars. Solar energy is more important than other energies because it does not pollute the earth.

Finally, battling deserts is going to be healthy for our environment. Some people would like to raise forests and gardens to use them. Deserts are giving us a negative result, so it would be great to keep saving the trees. People are using trees to make fires for energy; those people cause two problems, not saving the wood, and causing air pollution.

In conclusion, global warming will be inevitable and we should take care of it. Controlling air pollution’s impact might affect the environment. Next, we can change burning of fuels to alternative solar energy. We might decrease global warming by battling deserts. Those three, air pollution, alternative solar energy and the deserts battling would be the best solution for global warming.

Reference:

Bhattacharya, S. (2004, January 7). Global Warming threatens millions of
species. Newscientist.com. Retrieved October 18, 2007, from http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4545-global-warming-threatens-millions-of-species.html