<p>I have my interview this Thursday and just had a question:</p>
<p>What do I answer for questions like these:</p>
<p>-Are you in it just for the money?
-management: what would you do to overcome the language and cultural difficulties after merger?
-what have you done related to economics which is different from what everyone else has done?
-What is the difference between buying and selling of slaves and the buying and selling of football players?
Why do firms exist?
-Why would you consider Toys R Us to be a failing business?
Should a Wal-Mart store be opened in the middle of Oxford?</p>
<p>Anybody do an interview for Economics and Management?</p>
<p>If by “this Thursday” you mean today, then this advice is too late (as was your question!) If you mean next Thursday you are more likely to get relevant advice if you go to the UK equivalent of College Confidential, i.e. </p>
<p>the student room.co.uk (take out the spaces). </p>
<p>BTW Wal-Mart own Asda, a downmarket UK supermarket chain, so your last question is perhaps more about the impact of supermarkets on competition - short term cost reductions versus longer term lack of choice for consumers as small retailers go out of business. In the UK there’s also an issue about supermarkets using their economic muscle to screw down on the primary producers, in particular farmers.</p>
<p>Money’s always nice to have, but I’m really in it for the groupies.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Which languages, which cultures, what kind of business?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ve studied human motivational psychology because I believe that, without it, games theory can never reach its potential.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Football players can walk away from the game and do anything else they would like to do. If they are good enough for their contracts to be purchased, they have some leverage with their new and old employers. They can threaten to retire, making the contract purchase a waste of money and, if there was a trade of players involved, walking away could put the employer in difficult straits on the field.</p>
<p>Having said that, it would probably be better if they were slaves.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The typical answer is one of capital formation. That explanation would have it that firms exist solely to enrich the owners. I say, if enriching owners is the sole purpose for business organizations, they can gain the most enrichment by selling illegal drugs. The fact is, business organizations exist because they serve society as win/win/win/win/win propositions. Owners win if they can attract enough customers and run the business well. Customers win because they are getting products and services they find of value. Employees win because they have jobs which gives them money to buy things. Vendors win because they have someone to buy their products and services. And society wins since some of the wealth the companies generate is siphoned off in taxes to go towards the general welfare.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’d need to see some hard data before I would know this to be a fact.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Is there a demand? Who would benefit? What would be the level of resistance, and could it jeopardize the enterprise?</p>