President Donald Trump has demanded that pharmaceutical companies cut drug prices in return for fewer regulations. As a matter of economics, this plan makes no sense.
Politically, however, it might just work. But traditional critics of the industry should think long and hard about whether going along with the president out of fear of his wrath is a cause for celebration. Pharmaceutical firms should also consider the long-term dangers of aligning themselves too closely with the new president and his volatile brand of policy making.
Brick-and-mortar retailers have been on a bit of a roller coaster ride this holiday season as early expectations of strong consumer spending were weighed down by the uncertainty prompted by the election.
That’s on top of the usual jitters about the slow demise of Black Friday and more consumer cash gravitating to online retail.
That has made projections about this year’s holiday shopping season more of a guessing game than usual, but one aspect has now become clear: The rush by retailers to deeply discount merchandise will likely not prove to be beneficial to these retailers in the long term.
My research in “business to business” marketing suggests that instead of enacting ever-steeper price cuts that erode margins, both major retailers like Macy’s and small mom-and-pop stores would be much better off leveraging their physical presence as a source of strength rather than weakness by focusing on the personal touch that only they can provide.
According to Democracy Index of The Economist magazine, today about 47% of the countries are democratic; 53% are either authoritarian or are a hybrid of democratic and authoritarian regimes. The election of Donald Trump as the 45th president of the United States must have given an electric jolt to that non-democratic 53% of the world. Authoritarians cheered. Vladimir Putin was among the first to call to congratulate and so did President Xi Jinping of China.
In an opinion piece for the New York Times, Eric Li, a Chinese venture capitalist, who rose to prominence for his fierce defense and assertion of the superiority of the Chinese political system, wrote that many people in China supported Trump’s candidacy. Trump, Mr. Li argues, is a business pragmatist and will engage with China without what he calls “the shackles of ideology”—i.e., an ideology of democratic and liberal values. This would be good for China.
Donald Trump’s campaign appears to be a test case in whether this old adage is true or not. His business interests are intricately linked to the Trump brand, which has been taking a hit as a result of his more extreme statements and proposals on the campaign trail.
At least in terms of political support, his comments have appeared only to improve his numbers. He’s dominated the polls since July, and repeated predictions that the latest remark would send his numbers tanking have all been wrong.
But how long can Trump continue to alienate and disparage various groups without harming his own brand and broader business deals?