answer

watching

views

magentachinchilla603Lv1

28 Sep 2019

In my mind, it is hard to imagine any competitive advantage that technologies give to businesses without considering efficiencies. To me, technology is meant to either streamline business processes or automated them altogether. While many argue against this I think that a successful application is one that improves a business process. It can either make the process faster from start to finish or it can make it more accurate. Either way, to me this minimum requirement is a necessity. While I am sure there are many examples, have any of you ever witnessed the implementation of a system that did not improve a business process in some way?

answer

watching

views

For unlimited access to Homework Help, a Homework+ subscription is required.

You have 0 free answers left.
Get unlimited access to 3.8 million step-by-step answers.

Get unlimited access

Already have an account? Log in

Darryn D'SouzaLv10

28 Sep 2019

Unlock all answers

Get 1 free homework help answer.

Already have an account? Log in

Related questions

Hello, could I get some assistance summarizing this article for a discussion:

Read the articles and discuss the problems of Economic Inequality in the U.S.economy, summarize key points and post in the Discussions area:

Competition police crossing continents

Competition authorities are increasingly reaching beyond their country's borders

Feb 22^nd, 2014

WHEN TWO AMERICAN presidents, Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft, embarked on a trustbusting mission a century ago, they were taking government into a new policy area: competition. Industrialization was still relatively new, and any monopolies that had emerged, such as the British and Dutch East India companies, had been created by governments.

The robber-baron companies of the late 19th century were accused of using their industrial muscle to drive competitors out of business. Private monopolies, the argument ran, diminished the benefits of capitalism; by definition, the existence of a monopoly made it impossible for a free market to operate.

Since then, governments have generally had some kind of competition policy, though not necessarily a coherent one. Politicians have tried to juggle several different priorities, among them putting the government in control of "strategic" industries (a category that has always included defense but often also a range of other industries, from airlines to car manufacturing, power generation, and telecoms); shielding domestic businesses from foreign ownership or competition, and protecting consumers from price-gouging.

In the past two decades, a new concern has emerged: that monopolies may be restricting innovation. The technology industry seems to have been particularly prone to creating near-monopolies, from Microsoft in software to Amazon in retailing and Google in an internet search. This is due to network effects. Consumers gravitate to the dominant technology, either because it offers more products or because many of their friends are already using the network concerned. These monopolists, it is feared, will be slow to introduce new technologies that might cannibalize their existing business; and they will be so entrenched that new competitors will find it hard to get a foothold.

Microsoft bundled its Internet Explorer browser with its dominant Windows operating software on personal computers. America's Department of Justice saw this as an attempt to force Netscape, a rival browser, out of the market. In a long court case that began in 1998, Microsoft was initially ordered to break itself in two. This ruling was overturned on appeal and a less onerous settlement was arrived at.

At the time many commentators felt that the authorities had overreached themselves. Internet Explorer was provided free of charge, so it was hard to see how consumers were being harmed. But this is a tricky area. On the one hand, rapid technological change can cause once-dominant companies to lose their position very quickly if they do not adapt; look at Nokia's and BlackBerry's mobile-phone businesses. Some argue that if the market is capable of such adjustment, governments should not get involved. The fact that some consumers make the wrong decision some of the time is not the basis for intervention, as long as all consumers are not being ripped off, says Simon Bishop of RBB Economics, a consultancy. On the other hand, such rapid change makes it hard to tell whether monopoly positions are being exploited, or whether a more competitive market would have produced more innovations.

Competition authorities have also had to rethink their role in cross-border deals. If one multinational takes over another, that might not create a monopoly in the country where the two groups have their headquarters, but it could do so in another country. A proposal for a merger between General Electric and Honeywell, announced in October 2000, was cleared by America's Department of Justice but blocked by the European Commission the following year. That objection appeared to herald a new era of transatlantic takeover disputes; in fact, it remains the only deal so far to have been cleared in America but blocked on the other side of the Atlantic.

However, there have been other instances of transatlantic disputes. In 2009 the European Commission imposed a 1.06 billion ($1.4 billion) fine on Intel, a chipmaker, after a complaint brought by an American rival, AMD. The ruling seemed to suggest that multinationals faced the prospect of double jeopardy because of inconsistent international rules.

We do it our way

There are some philosophical differences between Europe and America. Europe has a long tradition of state ownership of industry; even after privatization, many such companies retain dominant positions, at least in their national markets. In America, by contrast, market leaders have got there the hard way, by having superior technology or being more efficient. In Europe competition policy tends to be rules-based, with the European Commission issuing guidance for future mergers to follow; in America merger decisions tend to be hammered out in the courts, establishing legal precedent.

But multinationals also have to deal with competition policy in emerging markets. China is a particular challenge. The Chinese use competition policy to achieve other ends to keep out foreign firms or attack existing foreign businesses says, one expert. Latin American countries have tended to adopt the American model of competition policy, whereas eastern Europe has followed the example. Merger authorities from different countries have set up the International Competition Network to share the experience. Such efforts may reduce the double-jeopardy problems in international mergers, if only because rules may be applied more consistently.

In the longer term, the question is whether national competition policies will prove adaptable enough to cope with a globalized economy. It may make economic sense for global companies to exploit economies of scale and bring down prices for consumers, but national governments may be reluctant to accept the loss of control involved. In air travel, for example, fares have been reduced under pressure from low-cost airlines, but these newcomers are still being held back by policies that favor flagship carriers. If regulators in rich countries were to prove more zealous than their counterparts in emerging markets in restricting the size of multinationals, Western firms might be put at a competitive disadvantage.

New concerns for competition authorities are emerging all the time. Chris Walters, the acting chief economist of Britain's Office of Fair Trading (OFT), cites the practice of pay-for-delay, whereby a firm that holds a drug patent pays a generic manufacturer not to launch a rival drug to preserve the patent-holders monopoly profits. And David Currie, the chairman of the Competition and Markets Authority (which will take over from the OFT in April), recently pointed to a vast new potential problem, which he described as the growing collection, processing, and use of consumer-transaction data for commercial ends. This is proving an increasingly important source of competitive advantage; we need to be alert to the possibility that it will be an increasing source of consumer detriment.

aquamarinemoose208

Need help revising, and recommendation for a conclusion.

Throughout this paper is my understanding of what I have learned in class chapters 1-4, expressing my understanding and opinions. Economics is the study of how we deal with scarce resources. Microeconomics specially deals with business in the home country exclusively. This type of economics affects small businesses in the home country only. On the other hand, macroeconomics concerns our national welfare concerning trade and international business.

I believe that many things affect our economy on a microeconomics level. Things such as our understanding of our country in reflection to the world are very important. That is why we study ourselves before we study the macroeconomic principle of the world. Understanding ourselves is what microeconomics teaches us. Working from the inside out. The world is a place where there are differences in our wants and what we get. That is what makes items scarce. That is what positive economics is. Positive economics deals with what is and what we have. The other type of economics is called normative statements. This deals with what we should receive instead of what is and deserved to some extent. It's our scarce resources that determine our allocation of resources and how we use our resources and time. This is where opportunity costs come in, giving up something to do something. A successful business or country never ignores opportunity costs. We must ensure that we have a comparative advantage instead of the absolute advantage. Our resources must be used to achieve maximum output. Comparative is met when we have fewer opportunity costs to make some certain products than the other person or entity.

My initial understanding was scarcity was oil potentially running out, but we have so much of it that you can always find more with techniques such as fracking. Now it's obvious to me, one of our most scarce resources is time. You cannot avoid the 8,760 hours in a year. I understand that people have unlimited wants but limited resources. Everything has a cost and we must make a choice as we don't have unlimited farms, factories workers, etc. scarcity forces choices and this ties in with opportunity cost, for every gun made, a theft from the hungry is made. The opportunity cost not being used to feed the poor, but to make guns. And I find it easy to understand no one can have everything choices must be made on benefits. If I'm going to school, imp giving up making cash, as I'm giving up money for an education, I value education more. Scarcity is also related to the invisible hand. As it's an achievement that leads free markets and capitalism through competition for scarce resources.

My understanding of the invisible hand is a person neither intends to promote public interest and does not know how much he is promoting it. Only intending on his own gain. Without being his intention a person can be lead by the invisible hand to do good for society by pursuing one's own self-interest. Going into equity and efficiency the invisible hand does ensure both equity and efficiency. People work in their selfish ways to maximize profit while also contributing to the economy as a whole. It can also be argued that as the invisible hand wants to ensure efficiency, it cannot guarantee efficiency, because it can fail to produce an efficient allocation of resources, which in turn lead to a market failure. It can also be argued that it can't guarantee equity because not everyone gets a fair price. The way I like to remember efficiency is with a real-life example, like a reduction in the number of workers needed to produce a particular good for a particular amount. Equity refers to the ownership interest in an asset, for example, if a person owns a house with a market value of $800,000 and owes $100,000 on the mortgage leaving a $700,000 equity in the home.

It can be predicted that if the price of beef increases - ceteris paribus-the quantity of beef demanded by buys will decrease. In other words, if the price of beef increases, then the quantity of beef increases, then the quantity of beef demanded will decrease because all things have to be equal. In-class lecture thought me all other things remaining the same. Economists use ceteris paribus to determine the effect of a factor when all other factors have been held the same and helps simplify the study and get a more refined data set.

Economists deal with many issues that pertain to assuring that both a countries domestic output is efficient and that there is an effective trade balance. This means that there are a balance and limit on the amount of imports. Also, this means home production must be able to meet export demands. There are many factors that affect the production of goods and their effect on shifting the production possibilities frontier. This involves evaluating every detail including knowing the products and any close substitutes and compliments. It also involves knowing how an action or other external force will affect demand. This is called price elasticity; Substitutes are products that can replace any given product or service. An example of this would be Coke and Pepsi. The presence of substitutes affects price elasticity because if there are other options, then any change to the price or quality of the product will cause a shift of the demand curve. O course, price is a huge reason why the demand for a product decreases or increases yet it doesn't shift the curve because of the price only. This price change will cause a domino effect that will end with the shifting of the demand curve because it will cause an increase or decrease in demand of the substitute good if the price change is either lower or higher respectively. This price change serves as a catalyst that will change people's desire to spend more money on a more expensive product and that will instead choose to buy the substitute good for cheaper or buy more of the desired product. The change in the price of actual products will not shift the demand curve yet the change of the price of substitutes will because it serves to change people's purchasing behavior. On the other hand, compliments serve to boost demand when there is a decrease in price. The use of complementary goods is dependent upon another product. An example of this would be hot dogs and buns. If the price of hotdogs decreases then, conversely, the demand for hot dog buns will increase because of this change in price. In this scenario, the decrease in price will cause a positive shift in the demand curve because of people's desire and willingness to buy more buns. This is an example of a demand shifter. There are a few other demand shifters. The shifters of the demand curve are changes in expectations, disposable income, price of substitute goods and complements, tastes and preferences, and population size and composition. Changes in income affect the demand curve because if income is lower then people tend to save any extra income instead of wasting it. Disposable income is minimized and spending is lower. This also causes people to see a perceived value of things and distinguishing between what is necessary and what is a relative luxury. The lower the income, the higher the saving and avoidance to spend. An example of this would be if someone needs to buy some medication and it is relatively expensive, that doesn't mean that someone won't buy the medication just because it is expensive. It is necessary. Other factors that contribute to spending and demand are having a price ceiling and price floor. Having a price ceiling is a limit on the price of the product this is a government-imposed idea that is meant to protect consumers from unfair pricing and other conditions that may be malicious or obscure. This affects demand because if there is a price ceiling there is a limit on profit on a unit-to-unit basis. The other factor is the price floor. This price floor was created to encourage competition and affect consumers' willingness to pay because sometimes this new price may be higher than the original price. This causes a negative impact on a product that has a less than wanted perceived value. Many factors contribute to economic prosperity and certainly do help assure that information is analyzed and implemented into an economic and business plan.

limejellyfish231

What do you believe is the ultimate impact of technology on job creation? Should there be curbs to the pace of modernization?

(Answer in a paragraph(around 200 words))

What Econ 101 Can Teach Us About Artificial Intelligence

Here's why advancing technology often leads to more jobs for humans, not fewer

A Tesla Model X 75D semi-autonomous electric vehicle is parked at the Governor's Mansion in Olympia, Wash., this year. Goldman Sachs predicts that 25 years from now, driver employment will be growing by 300,000 less per year because of autonomous vehicles.

By Greg Ip

Aug 9, 2017

The first chart you draw in Economics 101 is the downward-sloping demand curve. It shows that when the price of something drops, people consume more of it.

This elementary rule of economics is remarkably helpful in discussing the effects of technological change. As I wrote last week, when technology makes something cheaper, we consume more of it, often by finding new uses. This lesson repeats through history: When coal-fueled steam power became more efficient in the 1800s, demand for steam power and coal spread. When automated teller machines made it cheaper to operate bank branches in the 1980s, banks opened more branches.

My column cites spreadsheet programs like Lotus 1-2-3, whose arrival in the early 1980s made repetitive recalculation vastly simpler and faster. This reduced demand for bookkeepers but created more demand for people who could run numbers in new and interesting ways, such as accountants and management consultants.

In a recent article for the Harvard Business Review, Ajay Agrawal, Joshua Gans and Avi Goldfarb, economists at the University of Toronto who study artificial intelligence, say that in the 1990s, economists didnât buy into the hype that the internet and the World Wide Web would upend everything:

âIt wasnât that we didnât recognize that something changed. It was that we recognized that the old economics lens remained useful for looking at the changes taking place. The economics of the âNew Economyâ could be described at a high level: Digital technology would cause a reduction in the cost of search and communication. This would lead to more search, more communication, and more activities that go together with search and communication. Thatâs essentially what happened.â

They apply that lesson to artificial intelligence and more specifically to machine learning, the use of powerful algorithms to make predictions from patterns in large quantities of data. Machine learning, they say, means many problems will be reframed as prediction problems. Autonomous driving no longer involves programming the car to respond in a certain way to a variety of controlled scenarios, but instead, to watch what humans actually do and then respond the same way.

How does this affect jobs? The authors says it depends on whether the technology competes with or complements what you do. Spreadsheets competed with what bookkeepers do (record keeping and calculation) and thus made them less valuable, but complemented what accountants and consultants do (analysis), and made them more valuable.

Mssrs. Agrawal, Gans and Goldfarb say that AI reduces the value of those who predict things for a living, such as whether a mark on an X-ray is a tumor, but it raises the value of those who use predictions to make judgments:

âWhen prediction is cheap, diagnosis will be more frequent and convenient, and thus weâll detect many more early-stage, treatable conditions. This will mean more decisions will be made about

medical treatment, which means greater demand for the application of ethics, and for emotional support, which are provided by humans.â

So AI will create winners and losers within and among industries and occupations. But what will the net effect be? More jobs or less, and for whom? This isnât knowable, but history suggests that while a specific occupation or industry may suffer losses, the aggregate effects will be positive. The growth in accounting and analytical jobs since the early 1980s is much larger than the loss of bookkeeping jobs.

Nor did all those bookkeepers necessarily lose jobs; many probably became accountants or analysts. As Mr. Gans told me, bookkeepers may have been best placed to exploit the capabilities of spreadsheets: âIf you were doing calculations all day as a bookkeeper, chances are you thought a bit about why you are doing that. When you got a spreadsheet, rather than doing one calculation per day you could do 10 to 50, so you had a better sense of what the [calculations] might say.â

Some readers said AI is a much bigger threat than spreadsheets because it has so many more potential applicationsâand they displace uniquely human abilities. I agree with the first part, less so with the second. I suspect workers in previous eras, whether they drove a horse and plow, handled a stock trade or connected a phone call, thought there was something about their job that a machine could never replace.

Will the disruptions this time around be greater? Maybe, but not necessarily. Goldman Sachs predicts that 25 years from now, driver employment will be growing by 300,000 less per year because of autonomous vehicles. Thatâs 25,000 jobs per month to make up, compared with the 5,000 per month that the decline in bookkeeping since 1985 represents. But itâs hardly insurmountable in a labor market where five million jobs are created and destroyed each month.

Others said I was ignoring the potential for rogue algorithms and robots to turn on us or strip us of our freedom.

The experts, of which I am not one, tell me AI is nowhere near that capability. (Before the robots can kill us they must first stop killing themselves.) And donât assume spreadsheets have been all benign. Excel may not have slain anyone Terminator-style, but it did help wound J.P. Morgan through its role in the âLondon Whaleâ trading disaster.

Which brings me to the final point. We should not confuse what technology enables us to do with how much better off it makes us. Spreadsheets enabled analysts to construct much more intricate forecasts of stock prices and the economy, but didnât make those forecasts any more accurate. AI may enable companies to better manage the risks of their products and actions, but those products and actions may not be more profitable. Many a CEO has wondered whether the money they spend on spreadsheet-wielding consultants yields any real value. Some day they may wonder the same thing about their AI-wielding consultants.

Weekly leaderboard

Home

Homework Help 3,900,000

Economics 400,000

Unlock all answers

Related textbook solutions

Principles of Economics

Principles of Macroeconomics

Principles of Microeconomics

Related questions

Weekly leaderboard