Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Subscriber divegeester
    Nice suit...
    03 May '14 07:23 / 3 edits
    There is no doubt that one of the standout aspects of the human race is our ability to control our environment (the carnage to the natural world notwithstanding). This phenomena extends from the macro of rocket flight and exploration, through the micro of antibiotics and disease control to the connectivity of the internet; in comparison to the other species on this planet we are the masters of innovation.

    In the business world innovation is no less critical for long-term economic success than it is for our success as a species; in fact the two are completely conjoined. Steve Jobs said "innovation distinguishes leaders and followers", but we should remember that without leaders there are no followers. Without innovation there is no progress. Without progress we are going backward, there is no standing still.

    Two big stories in the media at the moment orbit the topic of innovation; the $64bn aggressive take-over of Astra-Zeneca (the last large independent UK Pharma company) by Pfizer and the $119mn payout by Samsung to Apple for patient infringement. There are of course others.

    http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/may/02/pfizer-writes-to-no-10-raises-bid-for-astrazeneca

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-27265633

    These two are examples of the modern corporate mindset:
    - It is cheaper and easier to buy your competitor rather than compete with them.

    - Rather than spend on innovation it is fiscally expedient to break the law and copy, rather than lose market share; just build the cost of the fine into your budget.

    Astra are battling the take-over citing the constriction of R&D and the inevitable binning of their competitive innovations which would challenge Pfizer's current market positions. Samsung just needed to get into the tablet market as Apple were so far ahead in terms of innovation it was almost impossible to catch up. Shame on them them then.

    Jobs also said that innovation was not about the size of the R&D budget. innovation is about vision, drive, the passion for exploration, the desire to improve the human condition through a commitment to breakthrough and overcome. The corporate giants are now killing innovation. Rumours have abounded for years that the suits at the top view a "cure" for cancer as not fiscally expedient when billions of revenue depend on "treatment" for cancer.

    Something needs to change in the corporate world and change fast.
  2. 03 May '14 10:49 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by divegeester
    There is no doubt that one of the standout aspects of the human race is our ability to control our environment (the carnage to the natural world notwithstanding). This phenomena extends from the macro of rocket flight and exploration, through the micro of antibiotics and disease control to the connectivity of the internet; in comparison to the other spec ...[text shortened]... on "treatment" for cancer.

    Something needs to change in the corporate world and change fast.
    To me a large corporation is like a mini government. Such centralist control tends to snuff out innovation and independent thinking. I think you will find that in the corporate world, free thinkers are frowned upon. Just like in a large centralized government, in the corporate world being PC is more important than being right. Looking at the economy, it is not hard to see that both the corporate world and the government shun prosperity which I think they view as a threat of sorts.

    Those in the corporate world, like those in the federal government, have already made their fortunes. Making money is no longer a goal. Instead, it comes down to control so that they don't lose their fortune and disallowing others to bypass them, thus making their power and influence wane.

    It is all about the human lust for power and control. Mankind has been fighting it since the dawn of time. Is there a cure? I think not.
  3. Subscriber divegeester
    Nice suit...
    04 May '14 05:41 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    To me a large corporation is like a mini government. Such centralist control tends to snuff out innovation and independent thinking. I think you will find that in the corporate world, free thinkers are frowned upon. Just like in a large centralized government, in the corporate world being PC is more important than being right. Looking at the economy, it i ...[text shortened]... d control. Mankind has been fighting it since the dawn of time. Is there a cure? I think not.
    And you call yourself a Republican!
  4. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    04 May '14 16:37 / 1 edit
    The measure of success for any entrepreneur is to build a new company from scratch, establish a position for it in the market and then sell it on to professional managers. It is generally accepted that entrepreneurs do not typically make good managers of established or growing firms. The entrepreneur needs to sell in order to achieve their own goal of getting wealthy. However, this dynamic also ensures that, while in theory market leaders are always vulnerable to threats from new and more nimble rivals, helping to prevent the market seizing up, in many cases the market leader will notice its new rivals, tolerate them for a while, then buy them. Often the new competitor then disappears or it is otherwise altered to remove threats to the market leader. In the absence of specific regulatory interventions, we are going to be eaten up by monopolies and in the joined up internet world that is happening.
  5. 04 May '14 17:53
    Originally posted by divegeester
    There is no doubt that one of the standout aspects of the human race is our ability to control our environment (the carnage to the natural world notwithstanding). This phenomena extends from the macro of rocket flight and exploration, through the micro of antibiotics and disease control to the connectivity of the internet; in comparison to the other spec ...[text shortened]... on "treatment" for cancer.

    Something needs to change in the corporate world and change fast.
    I am not familiar with the Pfizer v. Astra controversy and only externally familiar with the Apple v. Samsung battle.

    It seems to me that this greatly resembles the Apple vs. PC struggle of the early '90s, when Windows and Windows 95 tried to compete with Apple's innovative GUI operating system. Of course, at the time both Atari and Commodore had GUI systems that in some ways were superior to either the Apple or PC offerings. Windows until Windows XP wasn't even a true OS but a piggyback add on to MS DOS.

    In like manner, I find it hard to fault Samsung for imitating the OS of the I phone, without simply reverse engineering it. From what I've read, the whole series of Android OSs evolved out of various versions of open code Linux, not the Apple OS. Anyone is free to disagree, but I find the Android systems better on both their tablets and phones, when compared to the Apple products, and recent criticisms of Apple are that innovation died with Steve Jobs.

    Whatever the law suits may say, often the verdicts are based on what companies have paid in campaign contributions to various powerful lawmakers. Gates and Microsoft were pikers when they were found guilty of charges in the late '90s. They simply didn't pay the protection racket of the political class.
  6. 04 May '14 17:56
    Originally posted by finnegan
    The measure of success for any entrepreneur is to build a new company from scratch, establish a position for it in the market and then sell it on to professional managers. It is generally accepted that entrepreneurs do not typically make good managers of established or growing firms. The entrepreneur needs to sell in order to achieve their own goal of getti ...[text shortened]... we are going to be eaten up by monopolies and in the joined up internet world that is happening.
    I've heard the theory expounded by governmental control advocates, but see little evidence of this theory in practice.
  7. Subscriber divegeester
    Nice suit...
    07 May '14 19:45
    Originally posted by finnegan
    The measure of success for any entrepreneur is to build a new company from scratch, establish a position for it in the market and then sell it on to professional managers. It is generally accepted that entrepreneurs do not typically make good managers of established or growing firms. The entrepreneur needs to sell in order to achieve their own goal of getti ...[text shortened]... we are going to be eaten up by monopolies and in the joined up internet world that is happening.
    Exactly.
  8. Subscriber divegeester
    Nice suit...
    07 May '14 19:49
    Originally posted by normbenign
    I am not familiar with the Pfizer v. Astra controversy...
    It's big news here in the UK as Astra is one of, if not the last of the big UK owned/based Pharma companies. Pfizer is US of course so if you are based in the US it will be boring viewed as yet another US take over of a foreign enterprise.
  9. 08 May '14 01:23
    Originally posted by divegeester
    It's big news here in the UK as Astra is one of, if not the last of the big UK owned/based Pharma companies. Pfizer is US of course so if you are based in the US it will be boring viewed as yet another US take over of a foreign enterprise.
    It is a surprise to me that Pfizer is an American company. Not arguing that, but when Pfizer closed up its operations at Ann Arbor, MI, the companies CEO was British, and was returning to the UK. I think Pfizer is probably better categorized as a multinational.

    In any case, it appears that Astra is putting up a credible fight against the takeover.
  10. Subscriber divegeester
    Nice suit...
    08 May '14 18:30
    Originally posted by normbenign
    It is a surprise to me that Pfizer is an American company. Not arguing that, but when Pfizer closed up its operations at Ann Arbor, MI, the companies CEO was British, and was returning to the UK. I think Pfizer is probably better categorized as a multinational.

    In any case, it appears that Astra is putting up a credible fight against the takeover.
    The term multinational refers to multi country operations not where the business is headed from. So Pfizer is an American multinational.
  11. Subscriber divegeester
    Nice suit...
    08 May '14 18:31 / 1 edit
    Pfizer also se the Astra investment as a way of avoiding paying tax.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27291162

    Nice sound bite on US firms not seeing the UK as a tax haven. We are a "knowledge economy". Nice one.

    The CEO of Astra called the head of Pfizer a praying mantis, LOL.

    Potentially the largest take over in UK corporate history.
  12. 08 May '14 21:25
    Originally posted by divegeester
    Pfizer also se the Astra investment as a way of avoiding paying tax.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27291162

    Nice sound bite on US firms not seeing the UK as a tax haven. We are a "knowledge economy". Nice one.

    The CEO of Astra called the head of Pfizer a praying mantis, LOL.

    Potentially the largest take over in UK corporate history.
    Just curious. Where does Pfizer pay corporate income tax? By the way, the combination of Pfizer and Astra hold a great many of the most used medicines patents worldwide.
  13. Subscriber divegeester
    Nice suit...
    08 May '14 21:50 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by normbenign
    Just curious. Where does Pfizer pay corporate income tax? By the way, the combination of Pfizer and Astra hold a great many of the most used medicines patents worldwide.
    Here's some reading related to the US perspective on the tax thing.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2014/04/28/if-pfizer-escapes-u-s-taxes-by-buying-astrazeneca-will-congress-be-forced-to-act/

    Multinationals pay local tax but there are loopholes and loopholes. Corporate tax lawyers enable companies like Pfizer to get more in tax credits than they actually pay. It sucks.

    Yes Pfizer is the global #2 Pharma company (behind J&J) and Astra are number 6 I believe.
  14. 08 May '14 22:06
    Originally posted by divegeester
    Here's some reading related to the US perspective on the tax thing.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2014/04/28/if-pfizer-escapes-u-s-taxes-by-buying-astrazeneca-will-congress-be-forced-to-act/

    Multinationals pay local tax but there are loopholes and loopholes. Corporate tax lawyers enable companies like Pfizer to get more in tax credits ...[text shortened]... ks.

    Yes Pfizer is the global #2 Pharma company (behind J&J) and Astra are number 6 I believe.
    US corporate taxes are among the highest in the world, so it is advantageous that their income stream be counted on foreign soil where the corporate rate isn't so punitive, or can be avoided altogether.
  15. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    08 May '14 23:33
    Originally posted by normbenign
    US corporate taxes are among the highest in the world, so it is advantageous that their income stream be counted on foreign soil where the corporate rate isn't so punitive, or can be avoided altogether.
    Fear not Norm. Our Cameron is a very wealthy Tory git who will cheerfully wave through the sale of Britain's industrial and research base to an American led bunch of corporate thieves because it will make fat bonuses in the city of London, where his own family wealth lies (though naturally it is held in the Cayman Islands for tax purposes). The "march of the makers" he calls it - a bit like the reputed march of lemmings off a cliff into the sea.