Dosterxa

What what happens? We are at war we run hormigueantes, penniless of emotionality and overwhelmed by rampant imagination? Is our rational balance so capable that he breaks up with a rumor, with a scrap of fabric, with a suggestion, with one word? Is hidden the coconut in that corner, stalking us? Is it safe today we shall perish? The answer is Yes, it is true, we are war. You should not embarrass it say so, leaving us already hypocrisy humanistic, understanding that that, unfortunately, has been the prehistorial of man since their first genes. It seems that no social or human nature we contrariemos with the assertion. We are still at war. The war is the world.

There are hundreds of wars at the moment. I Warrior, you guerreas, they wage war. Peace is only a moment of rest for oiling the machinery. It was not only the first and second world wars, examples frames of the birth of modern humans on Earth. It was also the long cold war (I myself am, for example, the cold war).

So are the invasions that due to expropriation of sovereignty and natural resources perform Imperial countries on the most defenseless. It is colonization. It has always been the capitalist economic and political system that has been imposed on the world with the known results of exploitation and plutocracy. It will be the future. What remedy, therefore, is the reality! It is at war both which defends and attacks which, taking into account that neutrality is a State of potential accession to one of the ends. If not defending life itself, which is the extreme reason to justify conflict, defending a law, humanism, that human history has cherished as conquests (through wars, by the way), an idea, a concept of dignity, etc. There are war sometimes because we don’t have reasons to do it, if we can commit one folly less than the very act of war and say it.

However this is the eclipse point where I want to focus on me, making abstraction of the set of factors than to do so they influenced, inasmuch as they are also forming agents of culture and therefore are part of the object of study in question. Taking into account the previous situation what would happen if, at this point, the market emerged a new supplier extremely competitive in terms of costs, as well as innovative, thinking and recognized in the area in question, with a new component that would serve as a substitute to which both use as part of the manufacturing process of your main product? In the case of the first believe that it is important to define that it is probably a company whose structure is designed with a clear orientation to the processes, whose Achilles heel is the lack of flexibility to changes in the external environment precisely inasmuch as the internal and external relationships have been established in the long term in order to deliberate grant certain stability which serves as a platform for achieving higher levels of efficiency and specialisation. In my opinion, is an organization whose managers are concentrated on ensuring the results, in which case, the choice to be proactive or not to change would be conditioned to a minimum rate of risks in relation to the benefit. On the other hand, the emergence of a new supplier in the market with an alternative competitive but less experienced trucks, despite the prestige of its creators, high levels of uncertainty, instability and risks for those who decide to venture out. I therefore believe that it is likely that you adopting a conservatively reactive position in first instance, supported by a thorough evaluation in real time of the scope and depth of the effects arising from this new situation in the Middle environment. Only a case of success and its consequent change on a large scale of the environmental situation, the Organization would be forced to take a proactive stance with the aim not to lose its status as the market leader.