Question 3: In 400words choose three  ethical principles from the list to answer the case study below,  Nonmaleficence, Beneficence, Mills Harm principle, Mills principle of liberty, Greatest Happiness principle, communitarianism, Principle of Utility and personhood

An elderly gentleman who lives alone arrives for his appointment with his middle-aged son who reports that his father is becoming increasingly forgetful and is having trouble taking care of himself. He has not been eating well and has lost weight. The son states that he would like to have his father moved to a facility rather than continue to live on his own.

The patient is on multiple medications including medication for congestive heart failure and diabetes. The patient states that he wants to “stop taking all those stupid and expensive drugs!”   The patient’s son tells his father that he needs to “take his medicine or he will die”. The patient states, “I’ve lived long enough. I would rather die than move to a damn nursing home!”

The patient’s Mini Mental Status examination is within the normal limits . You have concerns that he may be at risk and are unsure of what you should in regard to the patient’ s request to be taken off his medications. What should you do and why?

An elderly gentleman who lives alone arrives for his appointment with his middle-aged son who reports that his father is becoming increasingly forgetful and is having trouble taking care of himself. He has not been eating well and has lost weight. The son states that he would like to have his father moved to a facility rather than continue to live on his own.

The patient is on multiple medications including medication for congestive heart failure and diabetes. The patient states that he wants to “stop taking all those stupid and expensive drugs!”   The patient’s son tells his father that he needs to “take his medicine or he will die”. The patient states, “I’ve lived long enough. I would rather die than move to a damn nursing home!”

The patient’s Mini Mental Status examination is within the normal limits . You have concerns that he may be at risk and are unsure of what you should in regard to the patient’ s request to be taken off his medications. What should you do and why?

As we emerge from COVID-19’s lockdowns, there will be many new features to the landscapes of our lives. The most significant will be the shifting economic path from the capitalism of interdependent free trade to the mercantilism of independent economic nationalism.

To those who study the future, the COVID-19 pandemic is a singularity — an event, usually unanticipated, that fundamentally upends the way we live. In other words, it is a major paradigm shift.

One classic example is the mass production of the automobile early in the last century, shifting transportation from organic sources (horses) to mechanical alternatives (cars). A more recent case is the development of the Information Superhighway in the 1980s that ushered in the world of the personal computer in which we now live.

The COVID-19 pandemic originated late last fall in Wuhan, China. Wuhan is a city in Central China with 10 million people and a major transportation hub for domestic rail travel and international air flights. It was also the host of an international athletic meet and a Chinese New Year celebration that attracted tens of thousands of tourists who then unwittingly spread the deadly new virus rapidly across the globe.

For whatever reasons, both the Chinese communist government and the United Nations’ World Health Organization failed to alert the world in sufficient time to stop this spread. As a result, it has now reached literally every country in the world.

At this writing, there are more than 3 million COVID-19 cases and more than 200,000 deaths worldwide. The United States is the world’s leader with in excess of 1 million cases and about 60,000 deaths.

To break the spread of this pandemic, stay-at-home orders have been imposed for individuals and shutdowns for most nonessential businesses (variously defined) for the past six to eight weeks. As we emerge from the wreckage, what we behold are eerily invisible societies and ruined economies.

In the United States, there are nearly 30 million unemployed and a contraction of the economy not seen since the Great Depression of the 1930s.

From these horrendous statistics, there is an automatic compulsion to assign blame. Since President Trump is at the national helm, it is easy to blame him, and his sub-par performance at the daily White House press conferences has not helped. If he was a little slow to recognize the threat of COVID-19, Democrats such as Nancy Pelosi, Charles Schumer and Andrew Cuomo were no faster.

If blame is to be pinned on anyone, it must be on the communist government of China, which withheld information on the pandemic for far too long. And, bluntly, the World Health Organization was complicit in this silence.

In truth, we have much to be proud of in the American response. Under the capable leadership of Vice President Mike Pence, the COVID-19 Task Force has brought before the American public the reassuring medical expertise of Drs. Anthony Fauci and Deborah Birx. For all the bitter partisanship to our politics, a welcome bipartisanship between Republicans and Democrats in both houses of Congress, together with the White House, has enacted several pieces of legislation that has brought some $3 trillion of financial relief to individuals and businesses.

Further, government and private industry are cooperating to achieve massive production shifts — like General Motors’ switch from making cars to manufacturing ventilators in just weeks — at a level of coordination not seen since World War II.

In confronting the COVID-19 singularity, three new features immediately come to mind. One is a migration from crowded, vulnerable cities to the safety of small-town America. Another is a dramatic increase in the reliance on the internet for employment, retail spending, education and even health care, and away from the brick-and-mortar settings of person-to-person interactions.

The most far-reaching of this paradigm shift, however, will be the rise of mercantilism at the expense of free trade liberalism. Since much of our pre-COVID-19 prosperity came from this interdependence of resources, labor and capital to the least costly place of production, this may seem strange.

The beneficiary of this “free” trade was the global consumer who enjoyed the reasonable prices that came from cheap imports. The flaw to this “prosperous” system was that most of the global supply chains, and especially that of medical supplies and equipment, led to China. Indeed, by 2020, fully half of all global manufacturing is “made in China.” The flaw lies in the loss of independence, both economic and political, to the winner of such interdependence.

The father of mercantilism, Friedrich List (1789-1846), contended that an industrial economy was the bedrock of national power, and that the goal of any economy was to achieve trade surpluses to preserve the nation’s economic independence and political sovereignty. Indeed, such mercantilism has been the guiding light to China’s massive growth and trade surpluses all over the world. Hopefully, rising from the invisible devastation of COVID-19 will be a visible counteracting forest of signs saying “made in the USA.”

• Summarize the article
• How do this relate to the 16^th century theory of mercantilism?

Established in 1891 in Eindhoven, the Netherlands, Koninklijke Philips NV is one of the world’s oldest multinational companies. The company began making lighting products and over time diversified into a range of businesses that included domestic appliances, consumer electronics, and health care products. From the beginning, the small Dutch domestic market created pressures for Philips to look to foreign markets for growth.

By the start of World War II, Philips already had a global presence. During the war, the Netherlands was occupied by Germany. By necessity, the company’s national organizations in countries such as Australia, Brazil, Canada, United Kingdom, and the United States gained considerable autonomy during this period. After the war, a structure based on strong national organizations remained in place. Each was in essence a self-contained entity responsible for much of its own manufacturing, marketing, and sales.

Most R&D activities, however, were centralized at Philips’ Eindhoven headquarters. Reflecting this, several product divisions were created. Based in Eindhoven, the product divisions developed technologies and products, which were then made and sold by the different national organizations. During this period, the career track of most senior managers at Philips involved significant postings in various national organizations around the world (a career development practice often seen still in multinational corporations).

For several decades this organizational arrangement worked well. It allowed Philips to customize its product offerings, sales, and marketing efforts to the conditions that existed in different national markets. By the 1970s, however, flaws were appearing in the approach. The structure involved significant duplication of activities around the world, particularly in manufacturing. When trade barriers were high, this did not matter so much, but the significance of its effect became important when trade barriers started to fall and competitors came into the marketplace. These competitors included Sony and Matsushita from Japan, General Electric from the United States, and Samsung from South Korea. They gained market share by serving increasingly global markets from centralized production facilities, where they could achieve lower costs.

Philips’ response was to try to tilt the balance of power in its structure away from national organizations and toward product divisions. International production centers were established under the direction of the product divisions. The national organizations, however, remained responsible for local marketing and sales, and they often maintained control over some local production facilities. One problem Philips faced in trying to change its structure at this time was that most senior managers had come up through the national organizations. Consequently, they were loyal to them and tended to protect their autonomy.

Despite several reorganization efforts, the national organizations remained a strong influence

at Philips until not too long ago. Former CEO Cor Boonstra famously described the company’s organizational structure as a “plate of spaghetti” and asked how Philips could compete when the company had 350 subsidiaries around the world and significant duplication of manufacturing and marketing efforts across nations.

Boonstra instituted a radical reorganization. He replaced the company’s 21 product divisions with just 7 global business divisions, making them responsible for global product development, production, and marketing. The heads of the divisions reported directly to him, while the national organizations reported to the divisions. The national organizations remained responsible for local sales and local marketing efforts, but after this reorganization they finally lost their historic sway on the company.

Philips, however, continued to underperform its global rivals. By 2008, Gerard Kleisterlee, who succeeded Boonstra as CEO in 2001, decided Philips was still not sufficiently focused on global markets. He reorganized yet again, this time around just three global divisions: health care, lighting, and consumer lifestyle (which included the company’s electronics businesses). These are also the three divisions that are in place under the most recent CEO, Frans van Houten, who became the CEO of Philips in 2011.

The three divisions are responsible for product strategy, global marketing, and shifting of production to low-cost locations (or outsourcing production). The divisions also took over some sales responsibilities, particularly dealing with global retail chains such as Walmart, Tesco, and Carrefour. To accommodate national differences, however, some sales and marketing activities remained located at the national organizations.

QUESTION: Describe how, without setting up any new subsidiaries or changing where any of the subsidiaries were headquartered or how they operated, the company might have transferred profits from subsidiaries in high tax jurisdictions to those in low tax jurisdictions in order to reduce the total amount of tax it had to pay to all of the various host countries where its 350 subsidiaries were located.

Established in 1891 in Eindhoven, the Netherlands, Koninklijke Philips NV is one of the world’s oldest multinational companies. The company began making lighting products and over time diversified into a range of businesses that included domestic appliances, consumer electronics, and health care products. From the beginning, the small Dutch domestic market created pressures for Philips to look to foreign markets for growth.

By the start of World War II, Philips already had a global presence. During the war, the Netherlands was occupied by Germany. By necessity, the company’s national organizations in countries such as Australia, Brazil, Canada, United Kingdom, and the United States gained considerable autonomy during this period. After the war, a structure based on strong national organizations remained in place. Each was in essence a self-contained entity responsible for much of its own manufacturing, marketing, and sales.

Most R&D activities, however, were centralized at Philips’ Eindhoven headquarters. Reflecting this, several product divisions were created. Based in Eindhoven, the product divisions developed technologies and products, which were then made and sold by the different national organizations. During this period, the career track of most senior managers at Philips involved significant postings in various national organizations around the world (a career development practice often seen still in multinational corporations).

For several decades this organizational arrangement worked well. It allowed Philips to customize its product offerings, sales, and marketing efforts to the conditions that existed in different national markets. By the 1970s, however, flaws were appearing in the approach. The structure involved significant duplication of activities around the world, particularly in manufacturing. When trade barriers were high, this did not matter so much, but the significance of its effect became important when trade barriers started to fall and competitors came into the marketplace. These competitors included Sony and Matsushita from Japan, General Electric from the United States, and Samsung from South Korea. They gained market share by serving increasingly global markets from centralized production facilities, where they could achieve lower costs.

Philips’ response was to try to tilt the balance of power in its structure away from national organizations and toward product divisions. International production centers were established under the direction of the product divisions. The national organizations, however, remained responsible for local marketing and sales, and they often maintained control over some local production facilities. One problem Philips faced in trying to change its structure at this time was that most senior managers had come up through the national organizations. Consequently, they were loyal to them and tended to protect their autonomy.

Despite several reorganization efforts, the national organizations remained a strong influence

at Philips until not too long ago. Former CEO Cor Boonstra famously described the company’s organizational structure as a “plate of spaghetti” and asked how Philips could compete when the company had 350 subsidiaries around the world and significant duplication of manufacturing and marketing efforts across nations.

Boonstra instituted a radical reorganization. He replaced the company’s 21 product divisions with just 7 global business divisions, making them responsible for global product development, production, and marketing. The heads of the divisions reported directly to him, while the national organizations reported to the divisions. The national organizations remained responsible for local sales and local marketing efforts, but after this reorganization they finally lost their historic sway on the company.

Philips, however, continued to underperform its global rivals. By 2008, Gerard Kleisterlee, who succeeded Boonstra as CEO in 2001, decided Philips was still not sufficiently focused on global markets. He reorganized yet again, this time around just three global divisions: health care, lighting, and consumer lifestyle (which included the company’s electronics businesses). These are also the three divisions that are in place under the most recent CEO, Frans van Houten, who became the CEO of Philips in 2011.

The three divisions are responsible for product strategy, global marketing, and shifting of production to low-cost locations (or outsourcing production). The divisions also took over some sales responsibilities, particularly dealing with global retail chains such as Walmart, Tesco, and Carrefour. To accommodate national differences, however, some sales and marketing activities remained located at the national organizations.

QUESTION: Describe how, without setting up any new subsidiaries or changing where any of the subsidiaries were headquartered or how they operated, the company might have transferred profits from subsidiaries in high tax jurisdictions to those in low tax jurisdictions in order to reduce the total amount of tax it had to pay to all of the various host countries where its 350 subsidiaries were located

As a member of an international negotiation team, you have been requested to prepare a short summary (no more than 1 page) of the cultural situation the CEO will face when s/he visits The United Kingdom. Include as many sections as you think relevant. Include sources as well. The CEO likes to be well prepared

You currently have $5,200. First United Bank will pay you an annual interest rate of 8.7, while Second National Bank will pay you an annual interest rate of 9.8. How many fewer years must you wait for your account value to grow to $12,100 at Second National Bank?

subject course is E business

the topic is about: covid 19 and the impact on e commerce in United Arab Emirates.

the output of this work should be a research oriented format.

using appropriate methodology. it should include literature review, methodology, analysis, discussion, and conclusion. (the research should be specific to UAE) without plagiarism please.

In your opinion, how this pandemic changed the way of engineering education in universities as well as engineering career post-Covid-19 and how you as a newly-graduated engineer can still contribute to the United Nation Development Plan (UNDP) Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 2030 despite this pandemic challenge?

USE TYPING

In your opinion, how this pandemic changed the way of engineering education in universities as well as engineering career post-Covid-19 and how you as a newly-graduated engineer can still contribute to the United Nation Development Plan (UNDP) Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 2030 despite this pandemic challenge?

USE TYPING

By around the year 1000 the most “Carolingian” kingdom in Europe was that of the English while the least “Carolingian” was the lands that had formerly been “West Francia.” Write an essay that considers the factors that led, between roughly 850 and 1000 to a united and rather “Carolingian” kingdom in England and to the “feudal revolution” in France during those same years.