Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree that the "insider trading" part of the deal was involved, and yes, I had forgotten about it. However, I still strongly believe that the "anti-Trump" forces were so strongly against the deal that they took advantage of ANY mud that they could sling at it.
Let's give this some perspective....put aside, for a moment, the 300 potential jobs that could have been created by this business move, as that's really a small number of jobs, when you look at the "big picture". But walking away from the opportunity to wean the US pharmaceutical industry off of Chinese ingredients was a FAR GREATER opportunity by this business deal, yet the "swamp" was willing to take that route, just because it might have looked good for the Trump organization, was an insult to the country.
The fact that a handful of executives might have made some quick money would have been far overshadowed by the good that could have been derived for the country, had this deal gone through. And not that I'm suspicious, or anything, but this action also solidifies in my mind, that the "liberal Dems" are truly "owned" by the CCP., therefore they were influenced to kill this deal....
Great points!
We can't forget that all of the subsidized housing, section 8, food stamps, and dozens of other programs that have raised the cost of doing business in the US, is why so much manufacturing has moved overseas.
I know there are a couple people here looking to purchase a house. I would recommend the house on Winona Blvd. It's a very nice street. Houses on the west side of the street back up to Seneca Park, and the zoo. Also, it is in West Irondequoit. Good price, but I'm sure it will sell for more. Open house tomorrow, 2/17. Costs nothing to look.
We can't forget that all of the subsidized housing, section 8, food stamps, and dozens of other programs that have raised the cost of doing business in the US, is why so much manufacturing has moved overseas.
I agree that the "insider trading" part of the deal was involved, and yes, I had forgotten about it. However, I still strongly believe that the "anti-Trump" forces were so strongly against the deal that they took advantage of ANY mud that they could sling at it.
Let's give this some perspective....put aside, for a moment, the 300 potential jobs that could have been created by this business move, as that's really a small number of jobs, when you look at the "big picture". But walking away from the opportunity to wean the US pharmaceutical industry off of Chinese ingredients was a FAR GREATER opportunity by this business deal, yet the "swamp" was willing to take that route, just because it might have looked good for the Trump organization, was an insult to the country.
The fact that a handful of executives might have made some quick money would have been far overshadowed by the good that could have been derived for the country, had this deal gone through. And not that I'm suspicious, or anything, but this action also solidifies in my mind, that the "liberal Dems" are truly "owned" by the CCP., therefore they were influenced to kill this deal....
Right, let’s not allow the facts to get in the way of all of the hyperbole from above.
I’m among the legions that cannot wrap their arms around Trump having any genuine interest in a relatively small number of new jobs, unless he somehow stood to gain monetarily on the other side of the deal. Otherwise, there definitely wasn’t much to be gained from this deal of little consequence outside of the region that would have benefitted him politically in NY or in any swing state for that matter, so no need for any group to waste time and energy to have attempted to sabotage it.
There’s constant bordering on obsessive dialogue on this forum concerning perceived waste of taxpayer money on non-business growth initiatives. I’m a proponent of smart business growth, so let’s take a look at the failed proposal from Kodak for 300 new jobs at a $750M taxpayer cost.
Given that Kodak leadership allowed one of the world’s most beloved and iconic businesses to free-fall to the ground, some concern is warranted whenever the company is mentioned in the context of a new venture. Regardless if there is new leadership at the helm or if there are still some remnants of past leadership around, they don’t appear capable of picking the company up off the ground. The insider trading was evidence enough to demonstrate that the leadership was not trustworthy and lacked the competence to even execute the deal, let alone manage it to success. If the execs thought about doing something for the good of the country and resurrecting the once proud company, they wouldn’t have allowed themselves to be overcome by their own selfishness, avarice, and stupidity in the process. Once again, Kodak self-inflicted the death of another great potential opportunity, but in the process they may have saved the taxpayers a nice chunk.
Perhaps if Kodak had partnered with an external group of pharm tech investors to do the project as a joint venture or outsourced it altogether, it may have had a greater chance for success. But IIRC, Kodak said at the time that they would be moving forward on it with or without the grant. So it would be interesting to learn how it’s working out, if at all.
Right, let’s not allow the facts to get in the way of all of the hyperbole from above.
I’m among the legions that cannot wrap their arms around Trump having any genuine interest in a relatively small number of new jobs, unless he somehow stood to gain monetarily on the other side of the deal. Otherwise, there definitely wasn’t much to be gained from this deal of little consequence outside of the region that would have benefitted him politically in NY or in any swing state for that matter, so no need for any group to waste time and energy to have attempted to sabotage it.
There’s constant bordering on obsessive dialogue on this forum concerning perceived waste of taxpayer money on non-business growth initiatives. I’m a proponent of smart business growth, so let’s take a look at the failed proposal from Kodak for 300 new jobs at a $750M taxpayer cost.
Given that Kodak leadership allowed one of the world’s most beloved and iconic businesses to free-fall to the ground, some concern is warranted whenever the company is mentioned in the context of a new venture. Regardless if there is new leadership at the helm or if there are still some remnants of past leadership around, they don’t appear capable of picking the company up off the ground. The insider trading was evidence enough to demonstrate that the leadership was not trustworthy and lacked the competence to even execute the deal, let alone manage it to success. If the execs thought about doing something for the good of the country and resurrecting the once proud company, they wouldn’t have allowed themselves to be overcome by their own selfishness, avarice, and stupidity in the process. Once again, Kodak self-inflicted the death of another great potential opportunity, but in the process they may have saved the taxpayers a nice chunk.
Perhaps if Kodak had partnered with an external group of pharm tech investors to do the project as a joint venture or outsourced it altogether, it may have had a greater chance for success. But IIRC, Kodak said at the time that they would be moving forward on it with or without the grant. So it would be interesting to learn how it’s working out, if at all.
I cannot in a general sense, agree with you. The way I see it, it's NOT the 300 jobs (or more) that would have/could have been created, had EK gone through with the deal. The far more important point was the ability to distance the United States from foreign dependency, for a critical component of American life and existence.
Secondly, your phrasing, "Kodak leadership allowed one of the world's most beloved and iconic businesses to free fall to the ground", is totally inaccurate. The film based technology had allowed EK to be a dominant force in the field of photography. The scope of that dominance created a tremendous amount of cash flow for the company, and what many people didn't realize that EK plowed that money back into general R&D efforts. Kodak had a very large engineering and research staff on hand, "just because they could".
Unfortunately, so to speak, for the company, one of those engineers they hired, was a very sharp "electronics guy", and HE discovered/invented digital photography. His name was Steve Sasson. Don't believe me? Look it up, the info is out there. The catastrophic fallout was that digital picture taking has a 0% reliance of film, therefore it decimated EK's business.....simple as that.
And yes, Kodak licensed other corporations to access the technology, but that only provides a "one time" infusion of funds. Selling film, processing that film, then printing pictures, on the other hand, produced a constant influx of money, something that electronic image capture doesn't do.
I agree, that there were some serious mistakes made in the board room, which resulted in a couple of "fools" put into positions of power, but by that time, the damage had been inflicted, and NOBODY could have reversed it......
^ Although not mentioned in all of this, if they have a company making the base product for pharm companies, it would seem logical for end product manufacturing in Rochester as well. And that would mean more jobs.
I don't remember Kodak freefalling either. In fact the management engineered a soft landing for the employees, and unbelievable severance packages. There's no way they could have saved even close to the 58,000 local jobs.
^ Although not mentioned in all of this, if they have a company making the base product for pharm companies, it would seem logical for end product manufacturing in Rochester as well. And that would mean more jobs.
I don't remember Kodak freefalling either. In fact the management engineered a soft landing for the employees, and unbelievable severance packages. There's no way they could have saved even close to the 58,000 local jobs.
I cannot in a general sense, agree with you. The way I see it, it's NOT the 300 jobs (or more) that would have/could have been created, had EK gone through with the deal. The far more important point was the ability to distance the United States from foreign dependency, for a critical component of American life and existence.
Secondly, your phrasing, "Kodak leadership allowed one of the world's most beloved and iconic businesses to free fall to the ground", is totally inaccurate. The film based technology had allowed EK to be a dominant force in the field of photography. The scope of that dominance created a tremendous amount of cash flow for the company, and what many people didn't realize that EK plowed that money back into general R&D efforts. Kodak had a very large engineering and research staff on hand, "just because they could".
Unfortunately, so to speak, for the company, one of those engineers they hired, was a very sharp "electronics guy", and HE discovered/invented digital photography. His name was Steve Sasson. Don't believe me? Look it up, the info is out there. The catastrophic fallout was that digital picture taking has a 0% reliance of film, therefore it decimated EK's business.....simple as that.
And yes, Kodak licensed other corporations to access the technology, but that only provides a "one time" infusion of funds. Selling film, processing that film, then printing pictures, on the other hand, produced a constant influx of money, something that electronic image capture doesn't do.
I agree, that there were some serious mistakes made in the board room, which resulted in a couple of "fools" put into positions of power, but by that time, the damage had been inflicted, and NOBODY could have reversed it......
There was never a question that Kodak invested heavily in fundamental and applied research. As such, there was no shortage of technological innovation occurring within its walls, and its vast amount of IP backs that up…and yes I’m aware of Mr. Sasson.
However, over time Kodak became equally infamous for the inability to successfully commercialize, market, and capitalize on some of its best and most promising innovations.
If there was no way to offset declining film related revenue with digital photography, then it was incumbent of its golden parachuted brain trusts to rectify the problem with a better or different business strategy instead of just allowing it to tank the business. So what happened that allowed local employment to drop to 1/20th of that from its early 80’s peak of 63K by the mid 2000’s without impedence is utterly indefensible.
What’s most sad about its plight was that unlike many companies that find themselves stumped in the face of major technology shifts (up the creek without a paddle so to speak), Kodak as you well know pioneered much in the way of modern imaging, optical, photonic, and various other technologies that it should have been able to advance to far greater success.
If anything, Kodak simply has been unable to pivot and adapt (not unlike many other companies) to the rapid pace of digitalization, technological change and advancement occurring at today’s leading and most recognized companies. Consequently, and to put it mildly they became somewhat obsolescent. The world is far different now than it was just 5 - 10 years ago in terms of relative rapid speed to market with increasingly shorter technology lifecycles to boot, so what may change the game today can just as easily become tomorrow’s film, photopaper, and buggy whips.
As noble as one might try to make it sound, 300 jobs probably won’t make a dent to lessen foreign dependency on anything. Lastly though, what wasn’t made clear at least to me was if, and specifically how those 300 jobs could be expected to spawn more jobs, and how many. Just to be clear, were Kodak to do this by itself or via partnership or outsourcing, for my $0.0002 all of the work would’ve been performed locally.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
