Summary Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words - 70

Summary - Essay Example The author’s major argument was that an extended conflict in Libya would lead to increased global fuel prices and subsequently derail economic growth. Though Libya was presented as a minor supplier of global crude oil, its product was of high quality and was as a result preferred by many of the European countries that did not have facilities for refining low quality oil that is majorly available in the global market. Its crude oil was also preferred by the United States’ market (Krauss, p. 1). Krauss further argued that failure to solve the Libyan crisis would force dependants of the Libyan oil to shift their demand to two alternative suppliers, Nigeria and Algeria. This would however lead to increase in fuel prices as had earlier been witnessed in the United States. According to the author, quality of oil from Libya, Algeria, and Nigeria concentrates focus on their crude oil instead of alternatives from other global suppliers. As a result, relative supply shortage, due to the conflict, with respect to demand would hike prices as had been previously witnessed. Though the article noted adverse impacts of the conflict on major European economies, it reported that the United States would not be a victim due to its ability to refine sour crude oil, unlike many of the European nations that heavily depended on Libyan oil. The author supported his opinion of the impacts of the Libyan conflict on global crude oil market by experts’ views from academic and corporate fields. With the fact that oil industries in Middle East countries are majorly controlled by the government, national security forces ensures protection of to oil companies. Production in Libya, according to the author, was however vulnerable due to privatization that made it highly sensitive (Krauss, p. 1). The article directly relates to concepts of scarcity and competition. Sowell defines scarcity as a condition of limited supply relative to demand that consequently means

Knowledge management structures in NATO versus the United Nations Essay

Knowledge management structures in NATO versus the United Nations - Essay Example n and knowledge far better then it was previously possible, knowledge management in organizations has also the added dimension of interaction, knowledge sharing, communication and analysis. A lot of organizational knowledge is contained in the heads of personnel within the organizations. Because humans have a finite life – span and ambitions about better opportunities, all organizations have structures which not only create new knowledge but also transfer existing knowledge to those in need of it. The nature of the knowledge which is important to an organization is dependant on the task or mission which the organization is expected to perform and different organizations may have different requirements associated with the speed, reliability, volume of information or knowledge which has to be communicated for organizational use. The knowledge management structures which are put into place within organizations are shaped by the organizational requirements for knowledge management , which are different for various organizations. In this essay, an attempt has been made to compare the knowledge management structures within NATO with those which exist in the United Nations. NATO, which is a military alliance, has a requirement to manage large amounts of information which can quickly become obsolete and convert this information into knowledge for reliable and secure communications for the use of designated personnel. The pace at the United Nations is more leisurely. Hence, the knowledge management structures at these two organizations are slightly different. The term knowledge management refers to the management of intellectual capital which has bee described as: â€Å"Intellectual capital is intellectual material – knowledge, information, intellectual property, experience – that can be put to use to create wealth. It is the collective brainpower†. The term knowledge is subjective to the organizational and social context in which it is being thought of. Knowledge