New Testament Essay Example for Free

New Testament Essay â€Å"This weakness is displayed in the special terms that are employed by the theory —innocent, combatant, aggression, authority and so on. These terms are subject to the slipping and sliding of deconstructive analysis and forever need further, technical definition. For example, what constitutes an act of ‘aggression’? Is it Ð ° physical assault on one’s territory? An insult to the national pride? Ð  trade embargo, an attack on one’s ally? Osama bin Laden justifies his attack on 9/11 as an act of self-defense against American ‘aggression’, which has destroyed the ‘religion and life’ of his people. For over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into Ð ° spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples. If some people have in the past argued about the fact of the occupation, all the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it. The best proof of this is the Americans’ continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as Ð ° staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, but are helpless†¦ All these crimes and sins committed by the Americans are Ð ° clear declaration of war on Allah, his messenger, and Muslims. And ulema [religious leaders] have throughout Islamic history unanimously agreed that the jihad is an individual duty if the enemy destroys the Muslim countries. This was revealed by Imam Bin-Qadamah in ‘Al-Mughni’, Imam al-Kisa’i in ‘Al-Bada’I’, al-Qurtubi in his interpretation, and the shaykh of al-Islam in his books, where he said: ‘As for the fighting to repulse [an enemy], it is aimed at defending sanctity and religion, and it is Ð ° duty as agreed [by the ulema]. Nothing is more sacred than belief except repulsing an enemy who is attacking religion and life’. In fact, this same justification is not so remote from what we hear in our own country, where the left-wing often blames American imperialism and the international system of capitalism for raping the cultures of third world countries, exploiting the people, producing poverty, and sowing the seeds for Ð ° violent response. The criteria do not seem to help the special problem at hand. Most scholars seem to think that just war theory allows for pre-emptive strikes, but the conditions and details are not so clear. The Bush administration and the ‘National Security Strategy’ contend that pre-emptive strikes against Iraq are consonant with just war theory, international law, and Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. Legal scholars and international jurists are said to sanction the right of Ð ° pre-emptive strike based on the condition of an imminent threat. † (Gabriel 2006 27-33) â€Å"However, the Vatican seems to interpret its own codes as Ð ° justification for fighting Ð ° defensive war against Ð ° particular act of aggression, and most scholars seem to agree with its interpretation of the tradition. Jeff McMahan, Ð ° professor at the University of Illinois, says that the theory has Ð ° strong aversion to pre-emptive war. Normally we prefer to punish Ð ° crime already committed, rather than speculate over future possibilities. Just war theory does not like to exchange its certitude for Ð ° more problematic or sordid enterprise. 18 William Gaston, professor at the University of Maryland, finds it necessary to create more criteria to justify his opposition to the administration’s policy, he concedes that ‘anticipatory self-defense has Ð ° place in international law and just war theory’, but he does not concur with the current application of this most difficult step. His criteria would involve Ð ° consideration of the enormity, probability and imminence of the threat, as well as the cost of delay, According to these criteria, the Bush policy is unnecessary in the present circumstance—at least for the time being. Saddam Hussein is not Ð ° present danger (imminence); other options for Ð ° number of months could prove fruitful (cost of delay); and it is unlikely that Saddam would hand WMD to terrorists based on his past actions and present interest. The conclusion is that ‘the case for Ð ° pre-emptive strike has not been made’. Those who list criteria often cast Ð ° negative vote toward an action. Just war treatises often demand fulfillment of all of its conditions. Thomas Aquinas, when he composed his conditions for just war (proper authority, just cause and right intention), insisted that all three conditions must be met as Ð ° necessary apologia for war. The scholastics went on to develop the maxim bonum ex integra causa, malum ex quocumque defectu. â€Å"However, with the United States issuing Ð ° â€Å"with us or against us ultimatum after September 11 and simultaneously dangling the carrot of long-term economic and military assistance in return for logistic support for Americas war effort, each Central Asian state rushed to strike unilateral deals with the United States based on its own self-interest, thereby allowing the United States to establish Ð ° strategic foothold in Central Asia with little or no thought for Chinas concerns. For Central Asians, it was Ð ° golden opportunity to lessen the overbearing influence of their neighboring giants (Russia and China). They view the expanded U. S. military presence in the region as an insurance policy against any future bid by Russia and China to reassert control. However, the lack of strategic policy coordination post-September 11 among the SCO member states left the multilateral forum seriously weakened, undercut the groups solidarity, and represented Ð ° â€Å"major failure for the fledgling group† established to provide Ð ° regional response to terrorism in the region. 65 It also highlighted the tenuous nature of Chinas â€Å"strategic influence† in Central Asia where local ethnic and religious rivalries and conflicting interests present formidable obstacles to Beijings desire to knit the regions governments into Ð ° solid security partnership to further Chinas grand strategic objectives. â€Å" (Mohan 2002) This meant that an action cannot have any moral defect if it is to find justification before God. Ð  war must involve the perfection of God, or it cannot proceed under his blessing. The conditions of war is wholly good, universal and absolute. They do not serve as simple rules of thumb, which may have tensions and become subject to compromise between them. However, this preference for absolute, deontological ethics does not allow the tradition to meet the changing needs of the human condition. It becomes Ð ° pretext for doing nothing because it is based upon past concerns and does not relate to modern times. Its view of the world comes from the Greek philosophical notion of kosmos, not the biblical concept of history, Its world is Ð ° closed shell of eternal laws that contain no openness to the changes of history or the historical nature of humankind. It often strait-jackets its proponents into following rules and failing to take the best course of action in the present circumstance. It limits itself to Ð ° past set of rules that are composed without the prescience of future, historical constellations. The absolute dogmatic claims of the system are somewhat surprising since so much of the analysis depends upon the power of human reason. Its basis of authority does not reside in scripture so much—maybe because the questions it asks are removed from the basic message of the New Testament. † (Elizabeth 2004 6)

New Testament Essay Example for Free

New Testament Essay â€Å"This weakness is displayed in the special terms that are employed by the theory —innocent, combatant, aggression, authority and so on. These terms are subject to the slipping and sliding of deconstructive analysis and forever need further, technical definition. For example, what constitutes an act of ‘aggression’? Is it Ð ° physical assault on one’s territory? An insult to the national pride? Ð  trade embargo, an attack on one’s ally? Osama bin Laden justifies his attack on 9/11 as an act of self-defense against American ‘aggression’, which has destroyed the ‘religion and life’ of his people. For over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into Ð ° spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples. If some people have in the past argued about the fact of the occupation, all the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it. The best proof of this is the Americans’ continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as Ð ° staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, but are helpless†¦ All these crimes and sins committed by the Americans are Ð ° clear declaration of war on Allah, his messenger, and Muslims. And ulema [religious leaders] have throughout Islamic history unanimously agreed that the jihad is an individual duty if the enemy destroys the Muslim countries. This was revealed by Imam Bin-Qadamah in ‘Al-Mughni’, Imam al-Kisa’i in ‘Al-Bada’I’, al-Qurtubi in his interpretation, and the shaykh of al-Islam in his books, where he said: ‘As for the fighting to repulse [an enemy], it is aimed at defending sanctity and religion, and it is Ð ° duty as agreed [by the ulema]. Nothing is more sacred than belief except repulsing an enemy who is attacking religion and life’. In fact, this same justification is not so remote from what we hear in our own country, where the left-wing often blames American imperialism and the international system of capitalism for raping the cultures of third world countries, exploiting the people, producing poverty, and sowing the seeds for Ð ° violent response. The criteria do not seem to help the special problem at hand. Most scholars seem to think that just war theory allows for pre-emptive strikes, but the conditions and details are not so clear. The Bush administration and the ‘National Security Strategy’ contend that pre-emptive strikes against Iraq are consonant with just war theory, international law, and Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. Legal scholars and international jurists are said to sanction the right of Ð ° pre-emptive strike based on the condition of an imminent threat. † (Gabriel 2006 27-33) â€Å"However, the Vatican seems to interpret its own codes as Ð ° justification for fighting Ð ° defensive war against Ð ° particular act of aggression, and most scholars seem to agree with its interpretation of the tradition. Jeff McMahan, Ð ° professor at the University of Illinois, says that the theory has Ð ° strong aversion to pre-emptive war. Normally we prefer to punish Ð ° crime already committed, rather than speculate over future possibilities. Just war theory does not like to exchange its certitude for Ð ° more problematic or sordid enterprise. 18 William Gaston, professor at the University of Maryland, finds it necessary to create more criteria to justify his opposition to the administration’s policy, he concedes that ‘anticipatory self-defense has Ð ° place in international law and just war theory’, but he does not concur with the current application of this most difficult step. His criteria would involve Ð ° consideration of the enormity, probability and imminence of the threat, as well as the cost of delay, According to these criteria, the Bush policy is unnecessary in the present circumstance—at least for the time being. Saddam Hussein is not Ð ° present danger (imminence); other options for Ð ° number of months could prove fruitful (cost of delay); and it is unlikely that Saddam would hand WMD to terrorists based on his past actions and present interest. The conclusion is that ‘the case for Ð ° pre-emptive strike has not been made’. Those who list criteria often cast Ð ° negative vote toward an action. Just war treatises often demand fulfillment of all of its conditions. Thomas Aquinas, when he composed his conditions for just war (proper authority, just cause and right intention), insisted that all three conditions must be met as Ð ° necessary apologia for war. The scholastics went on to develop the maxim bonum ex integra causa, malum ex quocumque defectu. â€Å"However, with the United States issuing Ð ° â€Å"with us or against us ultimatum after September 11 and simultaneously dangling the carrot of long-term economic and military assistance in return for logistic support for Americas war effort, each Central Asian state rushed to strike unilateral deals with the United States based on its own self-interest, thereby allowing the United States to establish Ð ° strategic foothold in Central Asia with little or no thought for Chinas concerns. For Central Asians, it was Ð ° golden opportunity to lessen the overbearing influence of their neighboring giants (Russia and China). They view the expanded U. S. military presence in the region as an insurance policy against any future bid by Russia and China to reassert control. However, the lack of strategic policy coordination post-September 11 among the SCO member states left the multilateral forum seriously weakened, undercut the groups solidarity, and represented Ð ° â€Å"major failure for the fledgling group† established to provide Ð ° regional response to terrorism in the region. 65 It also highlighted the tenuous nature of Chinas â€Å"strategic influence† in Central Asia where local ethnic and religious rivalries and conflicting interests present formidable obstacles to Beijings desire to knit the regions governments into Ð ° solid security partnership to further Chinas grand strategic objectives. â€Å" (Mohan 2002) This meant that an action cannot have any moral defect if it is to find justification before God. Ð  war must involve the perfection of God, or it cannot proceed under his blessing. The conditions of war is wholly good, universal and absolute. They do not serve as simple rules of thumb, which may have tensions and become subject to compromise between them. However, this preference for absolute, deontological ethics does not allow the tradition to meet the changing needs of the human condition. It becomes Ð ° pretext for doing nothing because it is based upon past concerns and does not relate to modern times. Its view of the world comes from the Greek philosophical notion of kosmos, not the biblical concept of history, Its world is Ð ° closed shell of eternal laws that contain no openness to the changes of history or the historical nature of humankind. It often strait-jackets its proponents into following rules and failing to take the best course of action in the present circumstance. It limits itself to Ð ° past set of rules that are composed without the prescience of future, historical constellations. The absolute dogmatic claims of the system are somewhat surprising since so much of the analysis depends upon the power of human reason. Its basis of authority does not reside in scripture so much—maybe because the questions it asks are removed from the basic message of the New Testament. † (Elizabeth 2004 6)

New Testament Essay Example for Free

New Testament Essay â€Å"This weakness is displayed in the special terms that are employed by the theory —innocent, combatant, aggression, authority and so on. These terms are subject to the slipping and sliding of deconstructive analysis and forever need further, technical definition. For example, what constitutes an act of ‘aggression’? Is it Ð ° physical assault on one’s territory? An insult to the national pride? Ð  trade embargo, an attack on one’s ally? Osama bin Laden justifies his attack on 9/11 as an act of self-defense against American ‘aggression’, which has destroyed the ‘religion and life’ of his people. For over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into Ð ° spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples. If some people have in the past argued about the fact of the occupation, all the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it. The best proof of this is the Americans’ continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as Ð ° staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, but are helpless†¦ All these crimes and sins committed by the Americans are Ð ° clear declaration of war on Allah, his messenger, and Muslims. And ulema [religious leaders] have throughout Islamic history unanimously agreed that the jihad is an individual duty if the enemy destroys the Muslim countries. This was revealed by Imam Bin-Qadamah in ‘Al-Mughni’, Imam al-Kisa’i in ‘Al-Bada’I’, al-Qurtubi in his interpretation, and the shaykh of al-Islam in his books, where he said: ‘As for the fighting to repulse [an enemy], it is aimed at defending sanctity and religion, and it is Ð ° duty as agreed [by the ulema]. Nothing is more sacred than belief except repulsing an enemy who is attacking religion and life’. In fact, this same justification is not so remote from what we hear in our own country, where the left-wing often blames American imperialism and the international system of capitalism for raping the cultures of third world countries, exploiting the people, producing poverty, and sowing the seeds for Ð ° violent response. The criteria do not seem to help the special problem at hand. Most scholars seem to think that just war theory allows for pre-emptive strikes, but the conditions and details are not so clear. The Bush administration and the ‘National Security Strategy’ contend that pre-emptive strikes against Iraq are consonant with just war theory, international law, and Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. Legal scholars and international jurists are said to sanction the right of Ð ° pre-emptive strike based on the condition of an imminent threat. † (Gabriel 2006 27-33) â€Å"However, the Vatican seems to interpret its own codes as Ð ° justification for fighting Ð ° defensive war against Ð ° particular act of aggression, and most scholars seem to agree with its interpretation of the tradition. Jeff McMahan, Ð ° professor at the University of Illinois, says that the theory has Ð ° strong aversion to pre-emptive war. Normally we prefer to punish Ð ° crime already committed, rather than speculate over future possibilities. Just war theory does not like to exchange its certitude for Ð ° more problematic or sordid enterprise. 18 William Gaston, professor at the University of Maryland, finds it necessary to create more criteria to justify his opposition to the administration’s policy, he concedes that ‘anticipatory self-defense has Ð ° place in international law and just war theory’, but he does not concur with the current application of this most difficult step. His criteria would involve Ð ° consideration of the enormity, probability and imminence of the threat, as well as the cost of delay, According to these criteria, the Bush policy is unnecessary in the present circumstance—at least for the time being. Saddam Hussein is not Ð ° present danger (imminence); other options for Ð ° number of months could prove fruitful (cost of delay); and it is unlikely that Saddam would hand WMD to terrorists based on his past actions and present interest. The conclusion is that ‘the case for Ð ° pre-emptive strike has not been made’. Those who list criteria often cast Ð ° negative vote toward an action. Just war treatises often demand fulfillment of all of its conditions. Thomas Aquinas, when he composed his conditions for just war (proper authority, just cause and right intention), insisted that all three conditions must be met as Ð ° necessary apologia for war. The scholastics went on to develop the maxim bonum ex integra causa, malum ex quocumque defectu. â€Å"However, with the United States issuing Ð ° â€Å"with us or against us ultimatum after September 11 and simultaneously dangling the carrot of long-term economic and military assistance in return for logistic support for Americas war effort, each Central Asian state rushed to strike unilateral deals with the United States based on its own self-interest, thereby allowing the United States to establish Ð ° strategic foothold in Central Asia with little or no thought for Chinas concerns. For Central Asians, it was Ð ° golden opportunity to lessen the overbearing influence of their neighboring giants (Russia and China). They view the expanded U. S. military presence in the region as an insurance policy against any future bid by Russia and China to reassert control. However, the lack of strategic policy coordination post-September 11 among the SCO member states left the multilateral forum seriously weakened, undercut the groups solidarity, and represented Ð ° â€Å"major failure for the fledgling group† established to provide Ð ° regional response to terrorism in the region. 65 It also highlighted the tenuous nature of Chinas â€Å"strategic influence† in Central Asia where local ethnic and religious rivalries and conflicting interests present formidable obstacles to Beijings desire to knit the regions governments into Ð ° solid security partnership to further Chinas grand strategic objectives. â€Å" (Mohan 2002) This meant that an action cannot have any moral defect if it is to find justification before God. Ð  war must involve the perfection of God, or it cannot proceed under his blessing. The conditions of war is wholly good, universal and absolute. They do not serve as simple rules of thumb, which may have tensions and become subject to compromise between them. However, this preference for absolute, deontological ethics does not allow the tradition to meet the changing needs of the human condition. It becomes Ð ° pretext for doing nothing because it is based upon past concerns and does not relate to modern times. Its view of the world comes from the Greek philosophical notion of kosmos, not the biblical concept of history, Its world is Ð ° closed shell of eternal laws that contain no openness to the changes of history or the historical nature of humankind. It often strait-jackets its proponents into following rules and failing to take the best course of action in the present circumstance. It limits itself to Ð ° past set of rules that are composed without the prescience of future, historical constellations. The absolute dogmatic claims of the system are somewhat surprising since so much of the analysis depends upon the power of human reason. Its basis of authority does not reside in scripture so much—maybe because the questions it asks are removed from the basic message of the New Testament. † (Elizabeth 2004 6)

Free Essays - The Metamorphosis of Holden in Sallingers Catcher in the Rye :: Catcher Rye Essays

The Metamorphosis of Holden in Sallinger's Catcher in the Rye In J.D. Sallinger's Catcher in the Rye, is based on the sullen life of Holden Caulfield, a 16-year-old teen-ager is trying to find his sense of direction. Holden, a growing adult, cannot accept the responsibilities of an adult. Eventually realizing that there is no way to avoid the adult life, he can only but accept this alternative lifestyle. What Holden describes the adult world as a sinful, corrupted life, he avoids it for three important reasons: His hatred towards phonies and liars, unable to accept adult responsibilities, and thirdly to enshrine his childhood youth. Holden uses the word phony to identify everything in the world that he rejects or encounters with. People are too talkative, too quiet, or dissimilar. Holden, himself, believes he is this perfect person, but no one believes that he is. This is why Holden believes he is surrounded by "phoniness." For example, Ossenburger of Pencey Prep, emphasizes that "he talked to Jesus all the time, even when he was driving his car." Holden thinks this is a load of crap and asserts, "'that killed me. I just see the big phony bastard shifting into first gear and asking Jesus to send him a few more stiffs" (17). Holden sees why he would pray to Jesus, only to send him some more dead bodies to get more business. Not only do phonies bug Holden, but liars and crooks. Another example is Sunny and Maurice, the elevator boy. Maurice offers Holden a prostitute for the night, "Innarested in having a little tail t'night" (90)? Holden decides to take up on this offer, and later that night, as promi sed Sunny knocks at his door. After entering the room, Holden cannot make a decision to sleep with the prostitute, an example of Holden clinging on to his childhood. He instead pays the prostitute for her trouble getting to his room, but after leaving, she barges back in with Maurice, complaining of how little she got. Maurice roughs up Holden and gets to his money, where Holden thinks more deprecate towards phonies and liars. Realizing what a real phony and liar people bound to be growing up, he decides to avoids the real world Free Essays - The Metamorphosis of Holden in Sallinger's Catcher in the Rye :: Catcher Rye Essays The Metamorphosis of Holden in Sallinger's Catcher in the Rye In J.D. Sallinger's Catcher in the Rye, is based on the sullen life of Holden Caulfield, a 16-year-old teen-ager is trying to find his sense of direction. Holden, a growing adult, cannot accept the responsibilities of an adult. Eventually realizing that there is no way to avoid the adult life, he can only but accept this alternative lifestyle. What Holden describes the adult world as a sinful, corrupted life, he avoids it for three important reasons: His hatred towards phonies and liars, unable to accept adult responsibilities, and thirdly to enshrine his childhood youth. Holden uses the word phony to identify everything in the world that he rejects or encounters with. People are too talkative, too quiet, or dissimilar. Holden, himself, believes he is this perfect person, but no one believes that he is. This is why Holden believes he is surrounded by "phoniness." For example, Ossenburger of Pencey Prep, emphasizes that "he talked to Jesus all the time, even when he was driving his car." Holden thinks this is a load of crap and asserts, "'that killed me. I just see the big phony bastard shifting into first gear and asking Jesus to send him a few more stiffs" (17). Holden sees why he would pray to Jesus, only to send him some more dead bodies to get more business. Not only do phonies bug Holden, but liars and crooks. Another example is Sunny and Maurice, the elevator boy. Maurice offers Holden a prostitute for the night, "Innarested in having a little tail t'night" (90)? Holden decides to take up on this offer, and later that night, as promi sed Sunny knocks at his door. After entering the room, Holden cannot make a decision to sleep with the prostitute, an example of Holden clinging on to his childhood. He instead pays the prostitute for her trouble getting to his room, but after leaving, she barges back in with Maurice, complaining of how little she got. Maurice roughs up Holden and gets to his money, where Holden thinks more deprecate towards phonies and liars. Realizing what a real phony and liar people bound to be growing up, he decides to avoids the real world

John Rawls’ Theory of Justice: Contribution to Solve Some Political Issues in the Philippines

John Rawls is perhaps the most significant intellectual in philosophical ethics to have written in the past hundred years. It is nearly impossible to address ethics in contemporary philosophy without saying something about John Rawls. Central to his theory of justice are the concepts of fairness and equality from behind what he terms a â€Å"veil of ignorance†. Rawls's veil of ignorance is a component of the way people can construct society. He refers to an â€Å"original position† in which a person is attempting to determine a fair arrangement for society without any preconceived notions or prejudices. In this original position, people are behind what Rawls calls a â€Å"Veil of Ignorance† and do not know where they will fall in the social hierarchy in terms of race, class, sex, disability, and other relevant factors. Rawls is a Kantian liberal in that he believes that principles of justice should be universalizable, and so the only way to ensure that people will select fair principles of justice is to be certain that they do not know how the principles they select might affect them as individuals. A person behind the â€Å"veil of ignorance† does not know which side of a social contract he or she will be on, does not know his or her race, class, sex, or status in society. You can read also  Justice System Position Paper A person who does not know what privileges he or she will be born with (or without ) is, in Rawls' view, more likely to construct a society that does not arbitrarily assign privilege based on characteristics that should have no bearing on what people get. Rawls believes that a society cannot be just without fairness and equality and believes this veil of ignorance both reveals the biases of current society and can help to prevent biases in establishing future social arrangements. Rawls is often thought of as a liberal philosopher given his position emphasizing fairness regardless of social status. His philosophy can be used to justify programs like affirmative action but has also been used by the more politically conservative to argue that the American political system allows each person a fair chance and that most people would choose the American political system from behind a veil of ignorance. Source: John Rawls-A Theory of Justice

Financial Performance And Analysis Of Sainsbury Plc - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 7 Words: 1955 Downloads: 3 Date added: 2017/06/26 Category Finance Essay Type Analytical essay Did you like this example? Supermarket cell J Sainsbury Plc was established in 1869 by John James and Mary Ann Sainsbury in the UK. The business was started in weak circumstances but it took a short period to be known as qualitative food market providing affordable prices. From 1882 the company started to sell products under its label. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Financial Performance And Analysis Of Sainsbury Plc" essay for you Create order Since, there has been a considerable increase in the number of shops. At present Sainsburys owns 872 selling objects in progressive sites, which are selling around 30,000 different kinds of products. The revenue for 2010 reached 21,421. For 2009 Sainsburys was named Supermarket of the Year. For nowadays the company is considered as worlds leader in fair-trade and is the largest UK retailer of freedom food. The company holds strong competition with other dominant supplier companies in UK such as Tesco Plc and Morrison Plc. Appendix A Historic performance and analysis Whilst analysing sales growth from 2007 to 2010 it results hesitant data. Sales for 2007 indicate on growth about 7.0% whilst for 2008 the sales growth was slightly reduced about 4.2%. The growth for 2010 is 5.0% but in compare with previous statement it is reduced as for 2009 sales growth was 5.6%. In contrast the operating profit from 2007 to 2010 has increased with 80%. The profit analyses for five years period indicates that the company has increased its profit perceptibly as for 2006 the profit of the year was 58m, for 2010 the year profit is 582m. Given data indicates that j Sainsbury has positive profitability but 2010 performance looks much better this can be explained with stock which was bought from cheaper supplier for keeping the lower expenses than in previous year (2009) therefore company has updated its responsibilities of business. The Sainsburys income statements points out that gross profit percentage are higher but net profit percentage is low this may be explained with high operating costs (day to day costs wages, rent and insurance), which urges company to take out too much profit from the business. Therefore action is required to reduce operating costs. Sainsburys does not have high gross profit for given five years, in addition the percentage of gross profit margins are reducing slightly. Whilst 2006 the Morrisons profit margin was 1.1% for 2010 there was achieved higher gross margins 7.4%. As overall the companies are holding satisfactory percentages but there is needed work to achieve cheaper costs of goods, or increase somehow its selling prices. If raw materials and wages will considerably rise, the gross margin will reduce. Basically Sainsburys has positive Net profit Margins. However from given five years Morrison Plc generally has higher margin data except 2006, whilst they have invested big amount into property equipment and profit margin was negative as it fell to -2.6% but for next year their net profit margin was updated onto 3.0%. Somehow Sainsbury organised to achieve disburse of account for properties without negative data but during five years period there was not any substantial rise. There is similar situations regarding ROCE (return on capital employed). for 2010 Sainsburys ROCE is 6.8% which is at a reasonable stage, means that if the sales will disappear the company still will be able to balance its current obligations with enough convertible funds. In contrast Morrisons 2010 ROCE analyses are higher about 9.8% which indicates increase from 2006 where it had -4.2% but for next year competitors grew to 5.0%. The interest rate of Sainsbury at the bank is higher than is seen, therefore it ma y be questionable for investors to put the money in. After 2006 the shareholders funds of j Sainsbury has sufficiently increased return on equity for 2006 was 1.46% whilst for 2010 it reached 11.78%. Morrisons had harder circumstances as for 2006 it had -6.85% of return of shareholders funds but 2010 statement indicates that they achieved 12.08% higher ROE percentage than Sainsburys did. Whilst discussing liquidity ratios of j Sainsbury there is important data regarding acid test ratio. For 2006 quick ratio points on 0.7:1 this is not considered satisfactory for the company. It is more complicated for next years as the quick ratio time is reducing as for 2009 it was 0.3:1. In result it might be argued that the company does not have enough working capital. From another point the company is in a better position compared with Morrisons, which is bearing around 0.2:1 within whole 5 years. The final picture of liquidity ratios seems poor as it has not reached 1.5:1 in any year and are much less than norm. This kind of result is explained with high payables in balance sheet, which is over 2,000m each five years. There is not big gap between current and liquidity ratios which says that the company is still able to cover it bills. If the given liquidity ratios had more healthy data it would not be so complicated for the group to meet debts that need to be paid for the near f uture. This result similarly with previous ratios indicates that investment in Sainsburys does not look advantageous or secured. Since 2006 the company keeps strong efficiency ratios. For five year history the company takes around 14 days to sell stock. The quick turnover of stock points that the sales profit of the stock is generated quicker but fast turnover is one of the reasons of the companys low gross profit margin. J Sainsbury is not keeping its stock in warehouse too long which in result allows business to not increase their fixed assets. Morrisons turnover period is quite similar but they take less time about 11 days (for 2007) to sell their stock. Furthermore the statements show quite positive numbers regarding settlement period for trade receivables. For 2006 it needed 7 days to collect the debts but last four years look considerably improved as from 2007 to 2010 customers take 4 days to pay the debt to company. In contrast Morrison takes from 5 to 6 days for the same time period. There is similar situation regarding creditor payment period Sainsburys manages to get amount back from suppliers within 34 days (2010) which is similar with Morrisons indicator. Therefore there is less risk to lose money by both companies. For last five years the efficiency ratio of Sainsbury illustrates on managing its working capital effectively. Moreover the company has more risk when it has high loans the gearing ratio for 2006 was 100.2%. This is impelled because of loan for property as mentioned before. Instead of this Sainsbury paid its loans on time and has reduced gearing for 2007 to 57.6%. But later the company again raised its gearing ratio for 2010 onto 62.3%, which is considered as high gearing and more risky for the business. The result does not show any complication to pay the loans back. If looking at Morrisons they have a notably better situation as for 2010 their gearing ratio is 33.5% which is not considered as high data. The above mentioned loans do not look risky if taking into account the explanation of company. After the huge refinancing of the business in 2006, Sainsburys has funded itself through the secured debt market. As there are used shorter-term credit lines which are not described as unsecured or outstanding debts. The company points on more need of funding required plans and cares less about the corporate rating by saying that Sainsburys has 3 billion debt and facilities which may be used to cover current debts for goals or for required developments. For late 2010 J Sainsburys earns 18.2p per share. Five year statements show an increase on EPS as for 2006 the company was earning 15.2p per share. In contrast with Morrison, Sainsbury earns less as Morrison has gained 26.2p per share for 2010. This kind of earnings is provoked as Morrison has less risk factor therefore it earns more on share than Sainsbury. Summary of historical review points on importance to reduce risk factors by balancing loans which will improve gearing ratio. Sainsburys has profitable ROCE 6.8% for 2010 which had grown about 1.8%, somehow it is not enough high as it is still lower than bank interest rate. The company as well have enough current assets to cover the payment schedule of its current liabilities with a margin of safety to avoid loss regarding current assets. Value Driver The analyses of company statements clarifies that the business is being updating well. Here will be discussed the main reason value drivers of the supermarket which reinforces the company performance, as well it will be compared with Tesco Plc. As a leading food retailer for 2010 it is found 250 lines of products in J Sainsbury. The company keeps focusing on high qualitative fresh food moreover the group has been named as worlds largest fairtrade by values regarding fresh meet like beef, pork, lamb, cheese and egg supplies. Sainsbury trademark has won more quality food awards than any other retailer for 2010. For now there is 19 million customer transactions per week, a million more than in 2009. The company manages to launch trading of non-food products which show 3 times faster grow than TU clothing or food sales. The increase of product line has grown the operating profit to 19 million. Moreover J Sainsbury has launched non-food online trading from 2009. The catalogue is listing 8,000 products available nationally with delivery service. In result the online sales has increased rapidly by 20%. Innovation supported supermarket with 5.1% sales increase as revenue has updated from 20.4 to 21.4% as for march 2010 (Cio. 2010). The UK dominant market Tesco Plc launched its non-food online trading earlier in 2006 with similar amount (8,000) of products (Higginson. 2007). This resulted online sales growth by 30% and underlying sales grew by 5.9% in total of 150 million (Charlton. 2007). Web sites offer different price range on different products, as example bestseller new computer game call of duty which retailer price is 54 pounds, here Sainsburys are selling for 26, whilst Tesco as marketing for fans offers it for 25 (Saggan. 2010). Sainsburys web market development is still weak in comparison with Tescos, but the company still stays close with giant trader which latest on line year income is around 5 billion (Digitalstrategyconsulting. 2010). In contrast Guardian (2010) has published the latest data which explains that Sainsburys have more progress than Tesco regarding trading. The above mentioned online sales have increased with 25% for October 2010. The total sales are 5.2% whilst like-for-like sales have climbed to 2.9%. These results will upgrade the annual profit forecasts. Unexpectedly Tesco reported 0.4% growth of like-for-like sales which in contrast excludes VAT. Some analysts explained the case as the reason of fall in sales volumes of Tesco (ibid). The chief executive of Sainsburys Justin king challenges Weve delivered another strong performance and grown market share. The group plans to increase Vat up to 20% from 17.5% for January. Moreover the non-food lines are increasing three times more than food rate, whilst food range is going to increase for September with 1,000 product range. This comes from gained popularity of new bistro range. Conclusion The development of the company indicates on its strong reinforcement. As the chairman of J Sainsbury David Tyler declared they manage to: update revenue, controlling product quality and creating outperformed competition. The chief executive Justin King added for 2010 total sales have increased 6.7% whilst over five years the increase reached 25%. In addition there is sharp increase of customers as a result of qualitative product with balanced price. After all the company is creating about 6,000 new jobs per year and thus supports the UK economy. Sainsburys is a strongly Cash-Generative business says the chairman and points on operating cash flow (1,2 billion in last year). We have strong asset backing from our Freehold property he adds to indicate that they are ready to continue the way to leadership of trading. (1985 words) Bibliography J Sainsbury Plc Annual report 2006 J Sainsbury Plc Annual report 2007 J Sainsbury Plc Annual report 2008 J Sainsbury Plc Annual report 2009 J Sainsbury Plc Annual report 2010 Morrisons Plc Annual report 2006 Morrisons Plc Annual report 2007 Morrisons Plc Annual report 2008 Morrisons Plc Annual report 2009 Morrisons Plc Annual report 2010 Tesco Plc Annual report 2010 Tesco Plc annual report 2007 All the used graphs on this essay are made from above mentioned reports.