How to Prevent Businesses that Use Hydraulic Fracturing - Math Problem Example

Name Course Tutor Date Articles about business Q1: Should Pennsylvania communities try to prevent businesses that use hydraulic fracturing to extract natural gas from operating within their boundaries? Why or why not? Currently, the major common mode of extracting natural gas employs high-pressured horizontal hydraulic and drilling fracturing. The process of cracking entails injecting lots of gallons which is chemically treated water on the underground so as disintegrate shale formations and discharge natural gas. It takes place with outdated or little regulation from the states and with considerable exemptions from the federal laws, as well as facets of drinking clean water and the clean air laws. According to Leber, the communities living around the extraction sites has been worried about the consequences of hydraulic fracturing of shale gas for sometime. The Economist of 2014 maintains that they need not to worry because there are several benefits that will come of extraction, not just the gas itself. For this reason, the Pennsylvania communities should not prevent businesses of extracting natural gas in that region. In February 2014, Leber claimed prices of oil have stayed high for quite sometimes, exploration of shale gas through fracturing is expected become alternative in this industry. The process is expected to create jobs for the people in not only Pennsylvania community but also other states. The article by Economist of 2014, reported that the study about the natural gas extraction concluded that by 2020, oil and shale gas will contribute between $380 billion and 690 billion to annual GDP of the US. This process will also create 1.7m permanent employments in its course. According to Economist 2014, another report ‘America’s New Energy Future’, by HIS also holds this is a manufacturing renaissance and projects a $532 billion increase to American GDP in 2025, and creating nearly 3.9 million jobs. Preventing the process means creating more jobless Americans. Similarly, other benefits will also be felt by the Pennsylvania communities in energy sector itself, including building of road, ports and roads, and any other activity required to manufacture and transport natural gas. Production of electricity will be transformed; gas fired-power stations will be built to substitute dirty coal-fired stations. In 2014 February Leber contended that so far, the situation is claimed to have led to a 10 percent drop in greenhouse gas emissions between 2010 and 2012 in America. The Economist 2014 postulates that gas-propelled stations will provide 33 percent of electricity in the US by 2020, far much more than 21% that was provided in 2008. Q2: Why haven't the Wall Street individuals and firms who brought down the economy been criminally investigated? Do you agree or disagree that they should be? The topic of corporate impunity and capitalism has drawn a lot attention in the recent past due to its effect on the general economy. In fact, more businesses are now forced to learn ways to beat the economic downtown, just like the one that happened in 2008. For a long time, businesses have diverted from the role of addressing society needs to enriching the business owners’ needs. Managers are used to advance capitalism through their role of agents’ of the business owners. Its since been established that it was the under dealings and principles of capitalism of the Wall Street managers is what led to the collapse of the economy in 2008. There has been a power struggle between capitalism and democracy. However, free markets that have been put forth by democracy which in turn has allowed inequalities in terms of income and wealth. In fact, no democratic country is efficiently managing the negative effects of capitalism because the concept raises an economic pie of an individual and nothing more (Reich 2). It is because of the capitalistic concept that the Wall Street individuals and firms who brought down the economy were never criminally investigated. The concept created technicality in the cases. Reich claimed that Capitalism runs in the government systems and is mainly influenced by politicians (3). The case had a long hierarchy and the justice department believed that it would implicate the US government. It is also believed that prosecuting individuals would have done greater effects than prosecuting the company they work for. Some of the individuals whom the US wanted to prosecute were actually used by other managers to cause the global crisis. In 2014, Eisinger claimed that one such figure is Kareem Serageldin who people thought would be jailed for several years or even for life but received only 30 months imprisonment. Eisinger also in its article of 2014 “The rise of corporate impunity “ contended that many people assume that the government lacked the courage to prosecute powerful Wall Street bank managers, but that conceals a more complex dynamic. Eisinger also asserted that the Justice Department failed to investigate and prosecute Wall Street individuals and firms citing business prosecutorial fiascos that resulted crucial shifts on how it handle white-collar offense. Some companies have paid the government protect them from prosecution; a case which can be termed government friendly companies. This was witnessed during the early years when the cases started. Q3: Should businesses be allowed to influence regulators/regulations? Why or why not? Is there too much or too little business influence on government in the U.S. these days? Over the years, businesses have been known to influence the society on what they consume and other social welfare like sport and other activities. However, business is now used by politicians to get to power. Ablow stated that businesses fund political campaigns with aim of receiving favors or tenders from the government. To some extent, conflict of interest arises because it is the same politicians who make laws that regulate these companies. Business therefore should not be allowed to influence regulators because it makes the regulators also to make laws that are lenient on those companies. In doing this, the politician will be politically rewarding the business without a sound and effective law or without fear or favor. The article “On the money: Four years after Citizens United” by Ablow posits that, allowing business to influence regulators is a long basis of corruption. Once the companies funds campaigns activities, they will demand political rewards which is mainly government tenders. Such vice will favor the company and look out some qualified companies. The amount the companies can spend in the federal election has since been controlled by the Supreme Court, yet still billions are splashed on politicians undisclosed. The National journal claims that in 2014 numerous smaller groups normally pour big money into individual houses and senate races with intentions of influencing their outcome. Ablow reports that Virginia former governor; Bob McDonnell was charged in January 2014 on corruption charges. The charges came following a national government investigation into accusations Bob and his wife got gifts and money worth over $150,000 from Jonnie Williams who is a businessman and provided political supports to him in response. These vices has not reduced, and Bob McDonnell charges is just one of the cases that is happening in US today. Q4: What are some of the pros and cons of wealthy businesses/ businesspersons donating their wealth to community causes? Do you think that businesspersons or communities and their leaders are better prepared to decide what communities need? Business philanthropy has become one of the contentious topics today. This aspect of donating wealth by businesses or business persons is one of the oldest things in which they use to influence the society to their favor. From the point of advantage, experts argue that this is a form corporate social responsibility. From the CSR point of view is that, business should not only be concerned with accumulating profit at the expense of the public. Such experts believe that there are numerous social phenomena which affect the lives of the society which companies and business persons should not ignore. Such phenomena include pollution, hunger, education and sports among others. For instance, Bill and Melinda Gates have taken it upon themselves to transform lives of people who are suffering from hunger. Many now see him as liberator of the poor. In other words, he is using philanthropy to improve his own image and that of the company; something which is not bad. Some firms also create philanthropy initiatives more as a defensive step to circumvent negative image or to tackle it. Birrell in 2014 claimed Bill Gates philanthropy has added £9.6bn to his name making his wealth to be equivalent to £48bn. It also led to increase in share price of Microsoft. Philanthropy activities also attract investors to a business. Charitable initiatives also inspire business peoples to take part in joint beneficial ventures. However, also have cons for the whole economy. Normally, some companies involve themselves in philanthropy to avoid tax breaks. Birrell states that Bill Gates ought to question the example which Microsoft Company is setting to other firms by avoiding tax. He claims he pays personal tax, but risk being perceived as a hypocrite because he has no problem with tax avoidance. It is the same tax that is used by the government to provide services for the public. Without his company paying tax he undermines development. In January 2014 Birrell claimed in Britain, the company reported profits of £1.8bn in one year for its online sales. It should be noted that these profits were made without paying corporation tax. All in all, leaders, businessmen and any other person have every right to do what they want with their money. In fact, uplifting the lives of the vulnerable is a noble course and should be encouraged. However, paying taxes is a responsibility of every citizen and philanthropy should not be used as a scapegoat to avoiding tax. Works cited Ablow, G. On the money: Four years after Citizens United. Bill Moyers. 22 January 2014. Web. 18 June. 2014. http://billmoyers.com/2014/01/22/on-the-money-four-years-after-citizens-united/ Birrell, I. Bill Gates preaches the aid gospel, but is he just a hypocrite? The Guardian. 6 January 2014. Web. 18 June 2014. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/06/bill-gates-preaches-fighting-poverty-hypocrite-microsoft-tax?CMP=fb_gu Eisinger, J. The rise of corporate impunity. Propublica. 30 April 2014. Web. 18 June. 2014. http://www.propublica.org/article/the-rise-of-corporate-impunity Leber, B. Exxon Mobil CEO comes out against fracking project because it will affect his Property values. Climate Progress. 21 February 2014. Web. 18 June. 2014. http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/02/21/3316881/exxon-ceo-protests-fracking/# Reich, F.B. How Capitalism Is Killing Democracy. Foreign Policy, (2007): 1-4. Print The Economist. American industry and fracking: From sunset to new dawn. The Economist. Nov 2013. Web. 18 June. 2014. http://www.economist.com/news/business/21589870-capitalists-not-just-greens-are-now-questioning-how-significant-benefits-shale-gas-and Read More