How Does Vertical Integration Affect Society?
U.S History Question?
1. Andrew Carnegie use__________to gain the upper hand on his competition buying out the suppliers that made the steel industry possible. A.Horizontal integration B.Vertical integration C.Diagonal integration D.Social integration E.None of the above 2. _________was a business strategy where Andrew Carnegie bought out his competition in the steel industry to limit his overall competition. A.Horizontal integration B.Vertical integration C.Diagonal integration D.Social integration E.None of the above
1. Vertical integration
This enabled him to own or control both upstream suppliers such as coal mines and iron ore supplies and downstream buyers of steel that his factories made. In addition he owned the transport infrastructure that shipped his steel (or the raw materials). This saved him money, therefore increasing profits.
2. Horizontal integration - this allowed him to control a large sector of the market and therefore not be undercut by competitors charging lower prices than him.
How did horizontal integration limit competition?
Horizontal integration is when you have a monopoly on part of an industry. Say you have all the trucks, rubber plantations, oil wells, or stores. Whatever it is, you have all of them. It limits competition because smaller companys can not compete with larger companies who can offer lower rates, if they aren't bought out. Vertical integration is if you own every step of production-the rubber plantation, rubber factory, rubber delivery trucks, and rubber stores....you know what I mean.
Is AOL/Time-WArner merger example of horizontal or vertical integration? And why?
Please explain your choice and also why it is not the other option.
Vertical integration is when an idea/product goes through the different parts of one medium....
For example--- A movie goes through Production, Distribution, and Exhibition.
Horizontal is the idea/product going through different mediums(internet and cable)
With time-warner and AOL merging, they can advertise and promote products through multiple mediums
--AOL can promote time-warner cable products/shows on websites and time-warner will promote AOL on tv.
If almost all information were available on a compact, easyto-use device,how do you think it'd effect society?
Would people be more knowledgeable or active in society? Would they become more apathetic, or would they be more or less the same? How might this device affect different people within society such as rich versus poor, or various language or ethnic groups? How might this device affect you and your family and peer groups specifically?
They'd call it the iPad or iPhone, and it would be really expensive, and the service provider would be part of an oligopoly charging ridiculous rates to use it.
How do the energy resources available to a country affect that country’s technological development?
Energy resources and technological development are not directly related.
General view suggest that if an economy has abundant energy resource it must facilitate the industrial development...some times this does not happens cause macroeconomy reasons...
I see technological development like a phase later than industrial development, more related to this than energy resources...
Technological development was born with technical apply to manufacturing (not industrial); the industrial revolutions did mean massive adding of techniques to production and we did obtain many industries, soon, after more than one industrial revolutions we can see there is technological development...We see in this process we did not find the energy resource like an important actor...
When the industrial development is located in a high level is vital to ensure energy resources (vertical integration) for not to disappears...
Today, energy resources has high value in the markets; so a country with enogh energy resources can find the macroeconomic goals, this is create enough wealth...This fact demotivates the search of productivity and technologies because the society seach technoogies not for those are pretty else those provide to productive process certain advantage that can be reflected in more wealth...Down this point of view, we can say energy resources affect negatively the process of technological development...
The reality confirm this theory but partially...The country with abbundant energy resource do not resign to adquiere technology because it is exists the fear to an scenario of absence of energy resources...but there is not human resources oriented to create technology (because there is not a big industrial plant developed) else to make the "transfer of technology"; this is create "deposits of technology" in the society; these "deposits of technology" are used only a little in the productive process...given that in these countries the productive process are inefficient.
An example of "deposits of technology" is an employee of a company with a high level degree in US with advanced knowledge of nanotechnology; of course he does not use the knowledge but have it...