There are many examples of companies and countries that have improved their competitiveness and efficiency by adopting open source strategies. The creation of skills through all levels is of fundamental importance to both companies and countries.
The notion of the competitiveness of countries, on the model of the competitiveness of companies, is nonsense.
... Member Countries shall take necessary action and/or shall establish negotiations, individually or in groups, with the oil companies with a view to adopting ways and means to offset any adverse effects on the per barrel real income of Member Countries resulting from the international monetary developments as of 15th August 1971.
In those countries where income taxes are lower than in the United States, the ability to defer the payment of U.S. tax by retaining income in the subsidiary companies provides a tax advantage for companies operating through overseas subsidiaries that is not available to companies operating solely in the United States. Many American investors properly made use of this deferral in the conduct of their foreign investment.
You have companies over in different countries where they devalue their currency and they make it impossible for American companies to compete.
Growing up, I had a sense of the importance of commerce and trade to everyday life. Our family lived in several countries, and I was fascinated by the free exchange of goods and services between individuals and companies - the way both parties could benefit.
Multinational companies use their technological know-how in their foreign subsidiaries, so reciprocal multinational relationships are key - they lead to a vested interest in both countries to remaining open.
There are good examples of companies - Coca-Cola is one - that invested before there was a huge market in countries, and I think that ended up playing out to their benefit for decades to come.
There are highly innovative companies in the U.S., Germany, and India. And there are many stories of companies that failed to innovate in all those countries. This is good news because it means, regardless of your cultural background or where your company is based, it can become innovative.
At 25, I made many companies. I was thinking more like a businessman or entrepreneur than a CEO. I created many companies, small companies, medium companies. I tried to be involved in many kinds of activities, in finance, in real estate, in mining.
I do not have an issue with specific countries or companies; what I'm interested in are schemes which allow for preferential treatment, for selectivity... If this has to change, it's countries that will have to change this.
When you have countries that have a lot of minerals and diamonds and oil and are in business with companies from all over the world - but these companies don't share, really, their profits - this is called post-post-colonial.
Bad companies are destroyed by crisis, Good companies survive them, Great companies are improved by them.
It used to be that American and European companies built their products in low-wage countries, separated by great distances from the innovators who developed the products and the markets where they were sold. But companies increasingly find that is an outmoded way of doing business.
The real competitive advantage will come to countries and companies who differentiate their offerings through education, innovation, and productivity.
I am confident that there are hedge funds, banks or investment companies that could allocate five percent of their portfolios for risky investments. In any event, for countries like Afghanistan the formation of an entrepreneurial class is of vital importance.
In developing countries the situation could be even worse because developing countries do not have to count their emissions under the Kyoto Protocol. Private companies from industrialized nations will seek cheap carbon credits for their country in the developing world.