This is a very interesting problem. In a lot of ways it is a catch 22 because there is a large push for alternative energies to combat climate change and protect the US’s energy independence yet as companies begin doing this, typically the less expensive way includes outsourcing to other countries. One of your recommendations is for NEE to beging to build relationships with US solar panel manufacturers. While I agree this is a good idea, especially when looking long-term, I also tend to prefer your previous recommendation of forming a coalition. While it may not have the immediate affects they would like, in the long-run I think it is an important step in making the business of alternative energy affordable.
I agree with both angles you took on this, one being the obvious that digitizing healthcare will reduce costs and demand for doctors. But I appreciated the more unique viewpoint of looking at it from a lens of patient convenience and accuracy. I imagine this accuracy comes a lot from cutting down on stresses that many medical establishments currently face and allowing doctors to diagnose in a more relaxed environment with access to more resources than they would have in a hospital environment while speaking to the patient. I think digitizing medicine scares a lot of people because they worry that it is a step towards eliminating any human interaction in medicine. But like you said I think there will always be a need for medical professionals and patient – doctor interaction, but transferring the simple things to a computer will allow doctors to do their jobs better by eliminating some of their workload.
I completely agree with you that both protectionism and technology advancements are hurting once successful businesses like Infosys. However, I struggle with your recommendations that accept the government dictating who companies can hire. It is most likely good business for Infosys to start focusing on their business mostly being run by big data and digitization. However, I worry that just accepting the government’s pressure of who to hire is a slippery slope. As a business founded on outsourcing skills, it seems like they and others like that would be right to defend their business model.
I agree that the media supply chain has changed drastically as streaming services gain popularity and availability. This does lead to the M&A problem discussed above. These traditional media companies find themselves in trouble and look to innovate and expand their control. However, this can lead to trouble for consumers as anti-trust issues come up and often lines get blurred. However, you assert that Disney removing its content from competitors and launching its own streaming service will give it an unrivaled and differentiated product, but that might not be true if Disney is successful. With Disney’s acquisition of Fox and streaming service launch, I worry it will encourage similar companies to do the same, eliminating the variety services like Amazon and Netflix currently provide. Media entities all moving to providing their own streaming companies could leave consumers required to purchase a variety of different subscriptions to access the variety of content they desire.
Climate change and its effect on water scarcity is an interesting topic especially in relation to agriculture. Yet, I worry about some of the largely capital intensive projects you recommend, especially those that are not NPV positive anytime in the foreseeable future. Of course, becoming more efficient in its use of water will be good for the environment and for business and a lot of gains can be made with little investment, such as training and implementing industry best practices. However, before a significant investment I believe it would be important to understand the long-term viability of the California wine landscape. As mentioned above, over time climate change is only expected to get worse and with it the expense and risk of agriculture in California. Therefore, CB should first ensure that California will still be viable for growing before investing a significant investment. Conversely they could make that investment in regions that are projected to be less affected by climate change and water scarcity.
One of the most interesting discussions touched on above is discussing who should regulate Exxon, themselves or the consumers. The answer is most likely somewhere in the middle however consumers hold a lot of power they often don’t utilize. If consumers began to change their habits and therefore drive down demand, Exxon would be forced to change their habits. However, even without consumer pressure Exxon has a responsibility to protect the environment but also to protect its future as a company. As the energy landscape changes, I believe for Exxon to stay relevant instead of focusing on upgrading or replacing existing infrastructure, Exxon should, and to a certain extent has, focus its resources on alternative energy. Below is an article on some of the ways Exxon is diversifying into alternative energy.