In I&S we have been doing research to see why stocks fall and rise and what influences this.
The reason why Kellogg has been growing so much lately is mainly due to the fact that they have opened up many new stores in South America and parts of Europe. They having been having an increase but it if you only focus on a short time it is easy to see that it is constantly going slightly down and then rising again so in the long run it is not actually steady. There is no clear reason why this is happening but I think this is because Cereal is not something people constantly want the same amount of.
The reason why I believe Kellogg is going to do well in the long run is as following. If you look at its trend it has been rising at a somewhat steady rate recently. This might mean that it will fall soon but I believe that due to the current pattern it will continue rising for about one more year and then it will start falling steadily. In the short run it is rather unpredictable as it is constantly changing. It is only when you look at it over a long time that you can actually see how it has been increasing.
I think the reason why Starbucks has been doing well recently but is now slowly going down, might because of the temperature. In winter when it’s cold hot coffee will be demanded more frequently and once it gets warm people will want cold frappuccinos but in between those times Starbucks will not be selling much.
In the short run Starbucks is going to do well. The trendline of SBUX.SW has been very steady in the past 2 weeks. There was almost no change. However if you look at the pattern over the past year or so the trendline is rather wobbly and goes up and down rapidly. This is why I assume that in the long run SBUX.SW is not going to do well.
The decrease in demand for VW was greatly influenced by the scandal of late 2015. This scandal changed the people’s view of the company and decreased the demand. VW will have to work hard to regain their image and it will take at least a few months before their share prices can regain their previous value.
The nature vs. nurture debate is something that has been going on for years now. The nature side supports that our DNA determines who we are and the ways we behave. The nurture side apposes to this and states that it all depends on the ways we are brought up and what we learn during our lives. Many of the studies done to support either side of this debate has been done on identical twins. The reason for this is that they have identical genes meaning that scientists can make analysis ignoring the possibility of differences in the DNA. There are many arguments that support both sides and people say that its pretty much 50-50 and that there is no really winner in this debate. Here are some of the arguments.
One way in which nature has a significant impact on who we are is that the environment we grow up in can change parts of our genes. A study done by students at the University of Manchester supports this. They took a group of mouse pups and cross fostered them. They divided to group of pups into two groups. One was nursed by their birthmother and the second group was given to a mother none of them were related to.
The students then checked the genomes of each of the pups and found ten gene loci that had been affected by cross-fostering. Of these ten identified loci, four showed imprinting by cross-fostering interactions. These “epigenetic effects of genomic imprinting” mainly occurred in pups nursed by foster mothers. This suggests that the young can have changes in their genomic imprinting through environmentally influences. (McLeod)
However on the opposing side of this there is the statement that nature has a greater influence on who we are than nurture does. There was a study preformed by students of the Edinburgh University to support this side of the debate. These researchers studied a total of 800 pairs of identical and non-identical twins to see if their genetics of the environment they are up in had a greater influence on their intelligence and behavioral attributes.
They then asked the twins a series of questions. Through applying their answers to a phycological scale, researchers could identify and compare personality traits for each twin. By doing this the researchers found that identical twins were twice as likely as non-identical twins to share the same personality traits, suggesting that their DNA was having the greater impact. (Collins)
Looking at and comparing these two opposing sides I believe the nature side of the nature vs. nurture debate has stronger evidence and support. DNA is something that we are all born with that effects us through out our entire life. The experiences we have do influence parts of who we are but our DNA is still present.
The reason I think that the studies done on mice pups is not as trustworthy as the study done on human twins is because we are not certain which percentage of the mice had identical genes to start with.
On the other hand I can see why it can be kind of scary to think that a lot of our life was already determined by our genes before we were born. However it is something we have got to learn to live with.
Collins, Nick. “It’s Nature, Not Nurture: Personality Lies in Genes, Twins Study Shows.” The Telegraph. Telegraph Media Group, 16 May 2012. Web. 02 Dec. 2015.
McLeod, Saul. “Nature Nurture in Psychology.” Debates in Psychology. Simply Psychology, 2007. Web. 26 Nov. 2015.
”The Nature-nurture Debate.” Philosophy of Nature. WordPress.com, 01 Dec. 2009. Web. 24 Nov. 2015.
The first I&S project we did this year we creating your own business. What we did for this was that each pair chose an idea and made a video to get investors interested in sponsoring our product. One of the more important parts of this project was that the video really was only meant to get investors interested and not the public.
Here is the link to the video Hyewon and I made
The idea of my group was a company that lets you design your own backpack (DyB). The idea is that DyB will be an online service where you can select the parts you want and we would then fit them together to make the perfect bag for you. The prize of each individual part would be shown when you select it so you have an overall view of how much the end product will cost. However the current overall prize would also be viewable on your screen whilst you are still designing the bag. To make sure you know what the bag would look like when all the parts are put together there would be a sample bag that will change from your selections. To make the decisions easier for you, suggestions would be linked on the page.
The website would let you pick out each part of your own unique backpack. We would let you add features like paper organizer, protection cases, portable chargers fixed in the bag, customized pockets for your phone or train-pass. If you have a snack box for school we can give you just the right space for that. You can chose if you want to have pockets on the side for water bottles or other necessities. Additionally there would be a large color choice and many different designs.
To run this company we would need 40-50 people. The general overview of what we would need people for would be 5-10 truck drivers, 10-20 managers, 10-15 mechanics, 7-10 forklift drivers. The numbers may change due to demand but for now these would be the approximate numbers.
The product would be available to everyone and it would be as cheap as we could make it. An approximation of the price of one bag would be 150 US $ but it would obviously change due to what people chose. An example of this is that if they chose the portable charger it will be more expensive than when they don’t.
We would need quite a bit of money to start the company as we would have to preorder a lot of the supplies. 50,000 US$ would probably be enough for the beginning and then we could see how much profit we make off of this. Then we would decide if we need sponsors or if we already make enough profit. We would get the first 50,000$ by putting our idea on Kickstarter to get the attention and financing of investors. We could also get sponsors to help the project in getting started. We may even be able to start the company before all of the money is collected but we would not be able to offer all of the pieces that would be available later on.
For InS we had to compare how much two different countries developed over the last 50-60 years. To do this we had to look at different factors/indicators of development.Some of these were life expectancy (how old you are expected to turn in this country), population growth, and birthrate (how many live births there are in one year).
I chose the countries Iceland and Germany. I found that they were both different and similar in many different ways. For example, for life expectancy they both went forward for a while, but then in 1945 (which is when WW2 ended) Germany’s life expectancy suddenly jumped down to only 25 years. Then for population growth they both have a similar pattern. First they stay around the same area, then they go a lot lower and then gradually go up again. However Germany’s population is constantly lower than the one from Iceland and in the end Germany actually has one of the lowest population growths. For birthrate they both again have a similar pattern but in the end Germany stops at 1.5 children and Iceland stops at 2.2. In 1960 Iceland actually went up to 4.3 children and the highest Germany ever went was around 2.5.
As you can see there are many differences in numbers between Iceland and Germany, but when you look at the patterns they are usually similar. I think some of these patterns might have been because of World Wars as they effected most of the world. Then the differences in numbers could have been because of certain rulers or natural disasters. All of this shows that even when countries are not geographically close they still are affected by certain people or things in certain, similar ways.