Final answer:
Pfizer, operating in the pharmaceutical industry with high barriers to entry and strong drug patents, often holds stronger market positioning than a fast-food giant like McDonald's, facing fierce competition and lower profit margins in an industry with lower barriers to entry. Generic drugs are less costly due to lack of R&D expenses post-patent expiration. Global antitrust policies can impact U.S. firms' international competitiveness.
Step-by-step explanation:
To compare Pfizer and McDonald's in terms of their market strength, we must consider the industries they operate in and their respective market positions. Pfizer, a major player in the pharmaceutical industry, is recognized for its R&D capabilities and portfolio of patented drugs. These aspects contribute to its financial strength and market resilience. The pharmaceutical industry is also characterized by high barriers to entry due to stringent regulations and the significant investment required for drug development. This can limit competition and allow companies like Pfizer to maintain stronger pricing power.
In contrast, McDonald's operates in the fast-food industry, which has lower barriers to entry and intense competition, often leading to price wars and reduced margins. While McDonald's is a global leader in its field, the nature of the fast-food business does not typically allow for the same level of control over pricing and profitability as seen in the pharmaceutical sector. Generic pharmaceuticals are significantly cheaper than name-brand ones because they do not have the same developmental costs and often rely on marketing the established name’s formula once the patent expires.
Considering the global market context, breaking up large firms on antitrust grounds might not have the same impact as in a domestic context. U.S. firms like Pfizer compete against international firms, and antitrust enforcement must factor in global competitiveness.