Taking a UK Public Service provider of your choice what might its Essay

Taking a UK Public Service provider of your choice what might its Business Objective(s) be - Essay Example This is because it is going to support the macroeconomic structures of the country and this will ultimately improve lives in the United Kingdom. Macroeconomics is the performance, structure and behaviour of the entire economy of a nation and how it links to the wider global as well as internal economic units (Imrie et al, 2009). In order to assess whether the London 2012 Olympic Games is beneficial to the UK or not, it would be better to approach the whole situation through the study of trends in the macro economy. Expenditure It is noted that there is a budget of ?9.35 billion that was set aside for the London 2012 Olympics (Department of Culture Media & Sport, 2011). This amount is to be funded mainly by the International Olympics committee, thereby inferring that the funds for the games would be generated from the global community and not the British Government. This implies that there will be an injection of funds and capital that would help to develop the UK economy and add up t o the current infrastructural base of the country. Also there will be enormous injection into the economy that will boost the various economic units of the economy to enable the economy to make important gains that would help it into the future. According to PriceWaterhouseCoopers, the UK economy would benefit from the London 2012 Games from three main angles: 1. Global Economic Support 2. Business Support, Innovations & Diversification & 3. People Skills & Employment Global Economic Support The UK will benefit from the concentration of foreign investment in the country. This is because the International Olympics Committee will be involved in funding the budget of ?9.35 Billion which would be used to develop the various components of the economy to enable the nation to meet all the necessary requirements of the Games. This money will provide various levels of financial and economic support to important elements of the economy. This will enable the country to report gains and this is likely to improve the standards of living in the UK on an aggregate level. The Gross Domestic Product is a measure of the worth of output in a given economy in monetary terms at a given point in time. It is a concept that seeks to evaluate the net worth of economic activities of the various sectors in a given economy at a given point in time. PriceWaterhouseCoopers reports that the Gross Domestic Product of the UK will enjoy about ?2 billion increase between 2005 and 2016, which can be linked directly to the London 2012 Games and the corresponding investments made by the international community in the country. Out of this figure, London alone will get an increase of ?0.5 billion which can be directly attributed to the event. Secondly, the London 2012 Games is to inject much needed infrastructure into the nation's economy. This is through the building and renovation of stadiums, sporting facilities, accommodation, airports and other important facilities throughout the country. Out o f this, it is expected that the infrastructural base of London will increase by a total of ?0.6 billion whilst infrastructure in the rest of the UK will increase by ?0.2 billion. The increase in infrastructural units attributed to the London Olympics is a major addition and economic injection into the country's economy. This is because these infrastructure will add up to the asset base of the country and long after the games are over, the

Aol Time Warner Merger By Nina Munk Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Aol Time Warner Merger By Nina Munk - Essay Example During the same year the group's recording and music publishing arm was sold for US$2.6 billion to a consortium led by Edgar Bronfman (former head of Universal), becoming Warner Music. ''Fools Rush In,'' by Nina Munk, a contributing editor at Vanity Fair, is the best so far. Marrying exemplary reporting with lively, lucid writing, she makes a convincing and devastating at the same time case that Levin wrecked the legacy of Henry Luce, the founder of Time Inc., in the service of his ego. Levin wanted to redeem his weak performance at the company's helm with what he liked to call a transforming transaction. He had already transformed Time once, in 1990, when he helped engineer its merger with Warner Communications. That was another lousy deal. What he transformed in the AOL merger was $200 billion of his shareholders' money into nothing. Munk's entry to the growing list of books about the AOL Time Warner merger provides a thorough recap of the catastrophe, with the author coming to her own conclusion on the causes behind the merger's failure. After more than 100 pages of the obligatory background on AOL and its chairman, Steve Case, and Time Warner and chairman Jerry Levin, Munk begins to make her argument that Case and Levin, who ran their companies with few checks and balances, bear the greatest responsibility for orchestrating a deal that had little chance to succeed. She presses her case by hitting hard on the fact that few Time Warner executives knew about the pending deal until hours before it was announced, and that even fewer executives supported the proposal. That due diligence for the $165-billion merger only took three days and that many of the merged company's top managers sold large chunks of stock (including Case who sold shares worth $100 million) shortly after the deal closed is further proof to Munk that the combination was not well thought out and that many managers had doubts about its success from the very beginning. For readers looking for a quick review of events surrounding the AOL Time Warner merger, Munk's book fits the bill, but for those who are already well versed on the subject, Munk (a contributing editor at Vanity Fair) adds little new information. Many readers will find Munk's book comparable in terms of entertainment value (especially humor) as well as quality of thinking and writing. Both were thoroughly researched. The completion of each was aided and enriched by dozens of rigorous interviews of key participants. However, there is one significant difference: senior-level executives at Enron (notably Jeffrey Skilling and Andrew Fastow) have been accused and some charged with serious illegalities whereas none of those involved with the merger of AOL and Time Warner have, at least until now. "This is a the story of how two men, Jerry Levin and Steve Case, caused what may be the biggest train wreck in the history of corporate America." Munk goes on to suggest that "In broad terms, the disastrous merger of Time Warner and AOL epitomizes the culture of corporate America and Wall Street in the late 1900s." Part Three The Big Deal: AOL and Time Warner, 1999-2000. Step-by-step, Munk traces the process which eventually resulted in "the biggest train wreck in the history of corporate America." I was fascinated to learn about the nature and extent of Ted Turner's involvement amidst corporate intrigues which would have made the Medici envious. Part Four