Franchising: A Case Study

Charles states as his number one point that economics is really unpredictable. He uses the Coca-Cola Company as a fine example for this. That company starts of turning out to be loss and failure but within 10 years since it started it turned out to be very profitable. Charles also states that markets are extreme powerhouses over individual’s daily lives. Markets are also self-correcting because they use prices to allocate their resources. Individuals all work for their own self-interest so they can be better off in the society. One very good example the author provides is the Soviet’s socialist economy and how it failed because the bureaucracy controlled the economy, or basically he’s saying that

The information needed to operate effectively in a complex market is that of the supply and demand. To illustrate Hayek presents a disruption in the tin market. If there is disruption of tin on the global market, this will lead to less tin to be supplied. This disruption will spread through information into the markets and consumers will economize tin, without knowing the causes of the disruption. This will lead to an increase in the price of tin, and because consumers economized they will eventually look for substitutes, instead of tin cans they might buy in bulks. Relevant information was communicated by the tin’s price which led the complex market economy operate effectively.

Stone argues that in the market model people and government look to capitalize on making the best decision that will benefit themselves given perfect or almost perfect information. The market model requires

The ideas of John Maynard Keynes and Friedrich von Hayek have dominated the economic landscape since the end of World War II. Both of these influential economists had distinct ideas about economic freedom--ideas that were very clearly in opposition to each other. Following World War II, one major economic question dealt with the appropriate role for government in the economy. That has often been portrayed more recently as a battle between two economic titans. Hayek, in the 1970s, came to be seen as opposing everything Keynes and the Keynesian consensus stood for. More recently, many see the change towards more free-market ideas since the 1980s as the victory of Hayek's ideas over Keynes'—a process that has since reversed as a result of the Great Recession. This academic battle of ideas has even made its way into popular media.

Friedrich von Hayek views about government were the opposite. Hayek believed that in the pursuit of prosperity, society’s attempts at central planning will inevitably lead to totalitarianism. He believed that central planning was inherently undemocratic because the people of a nation would be subject to the will of a small minority, becoming a means for the ruling minority in service of “social welfare.” Hayek also postulated that socialism would be inferior to a democracy for assuring equality. The competition of the free market also would provide superior regulation to the economy because the market would adjust without input from any authority, unlike the coercive nature of central planning. Hayek stated that the only way to improve the

Milton Friedman’s ideas where thought to be radical, but he was the most authoritative figure in the economics field in the 20th century, (Placeholder2) and was known most for his thoughts on free enterprise, classical liberalism and limited government. (Placeholder3) His views shaped modern capitalism. (Placeholder2) He was against government intervention and favored free markets (Placeholder6).

Furthermore, Hayek discussed issues occurring in the money supply of the central bank and problems associated with artificially low interest rates. Moreover, Hayek was a supporter of less government intervention and more economic freedom for the people. Hayek suggested that the economy functions more efficiently when the people are provided with the freedom to make choices, a free market approach (Econedlink). The PBS “Commanding Heights” segment disclosed that Hayek believed that a competitive system would at some point “work itself out” (PBS Commanding Heights). Thus, there

Unlike Keynes, Hayek, in his book The Road to Serfdom, points out that any form of government intervention is dangerous and leads to serfdom. He argued that central government planning leads to serfdom or servitude which destroys personal freedom. Society has tried to ensure continuous prosperity by centralized planning which leads to totalitarianism. For example, socialism was supposed to be a means of assuring equality through restrain and servitude whereas democracy seeks equality in liberty-personal freedom and economical freedom. On the other hand, planning which is coercive is the least method of regulation where as cooperation of free market is superior because it is the only method that can adjust our activities with each other without the intervention of the authority. Furthermore, he argued that central planning is undemocratic because it imposes the will of the minority upon the majority. In pursuing their centralized goals, they take money or properties of the majority thus, destroying individual freedom. In addition, centralized planning reduces the individual to merely a means to be used by the authority as well as, giving away individual’s economic liberty. Unlike centralized planning, an open society offers more personal and economical freedom even to the very poor. He concluded by saying “The guiding principle that a policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy remains as true today as it

He concludes on this thought stating, “What the market does is to reduce greatly the range of issues that must be decided through political means, and thereby minimize the extent to which government need participate directly in the game.” Friedman more narrowly believed the government should intervene with “indivisible matters.”

I believe to first understand Hayek argument and what it is that he was trying to convey to his audience, we would thoroughly have to understand the definition of collectivism and what it entails. Collectivism refers to the extent in which groups are held as priority over each individual maintained in the group. When referencing the market it is said that it dictates what you’re allowed to do whether it’s completed out of labor of love or for revenue, the choice is yours. In regards to that notion of “free market” you have to make your own decisions. From the view of the free market you should have the right to benefit and control property and it is essential part in economic freedom. For this theory, it is the only way that self-development can occur. For you to be truly free in the eyes of Hayek, the market has to have few restrictions in allowing choices to be made. Do what you want, but be smart bout it because the market is what responds to your actions, are your actions successful or detrimental? A collectivist attempt to control the market is denying the right for people to develop and choose. Essentially you are giving up you individuality when you act as a collectivist because its more majority based versus what you believe individually through morals and ethical reasoning. It is signaled as something that you want as a producer

The planning that Hayek refers to goes back to an enforceable legal system in addition to the tools needed for a free marketplace. Hayek states that even with a capitalistic society, there should be a safety net. He points out that new technology often displaces workers from their jobs. Part of this safety net would include unemployment benefits which would provide a basic standard of living. Hayek believes in this type of security for the people since the economy can oscillate greatly. ¡§¡Kthe very necessary efforts to secure protection against these fluctuations do not lead to the kind of planning which constitutes such a threat to our freedom.¡¨ (Hayek 135).

The Advantages and Disadvantages of Franchising in France 1 Running head: International Trade: Licensing and Franchising The Advantages and Disadvantages of Franchising in France Presented by: Deon E. Boswell Of Team McWorld University of Maryland University College AMBA606 November 4, 2005 The Advantages and Disadvantages of Franchising in France 2 Executive Summary The tremendous growth in franchising over the last decade can be traced directly to the explosion of growth in international trade and globalization. As organizations, attempt to enter new markets they are finding that direct investment via subsidiary creation is an expensive proposition and that their capital expenditures could be used for other opportunities

Franchisors are increasingly having to be more and more selective in the adoption of franchisees with factors such as economic climate and the potential difficulty with growth playing key factors in the decision making process. It is not simply an ability to grow which creates a successful Franchise and nor is it the desire of any franchisor to adopt every potential franchisee. Franchisors are becoming more and more scrutinising as the global economy declines. There is a general understanding within any franchised

Advantages & Disadvantages of Franchising Franchising is ‘a continuing relationship in which the franchisor (the owner of a company) provides a licensed privilege to the franchisee (the buyer) to do business and offers assistance in organising, training, merchandising, marketing, and managing in return for a consideration. It is a form of business by which the franchisor of a product, service, or method obtains distribution through affiliated dealers (franchisees).’ (http://www.business.gov) A franchise is essentially a replica of an existing business. When you purchase a franchise, you buy the rights to use the parent company's name and to sell its product or service in exchange for an up-front franchise fee and ongoing royalties, which

Profitable opportunity- Depending on the variables it is possible to make money owning a franchise.