Do You Feel that Shift: Do You?by Pat Darnell
Going Global Issues are more prone to be “unrealized” stumbling blocks that impose restrictions on freedom. It seems like issues for global business should be usable as implements to cultivate at least a navigable path to global markets.
In post 9 / 11 global business, eight years later,
Tariffs and
Terrorism are still two stumbling blocks in the path of blinded operatives. Moreover, nuclear threats aside, what commerce offerings are available from isolationist countries, if any? Security measures our USA imposes because of post 9 / 11 have been providing
spin-off beneficial windfalls for neighbors, such as Japan who often becomes more Oriental than Western, when it is high Yen time. Ouch; that economic shift almost knocked me down!
Vision for New Millennium is also
hope. To
become a global firm, and world’s lowest-cost volume producer of the highest-quality products requires
total cost management strategy? It will be the only trail blazer of any help for business to business. Who is the master of that? Let's look at some mile markers.
We have had eight years to discover what impact the attacks of 9 / 11 are on the global economic arena. All indicators point to a weakened state of affairs, for an already limp idea. Global commerce on shaky ground due to post 9/11 recourse, has a price tag that is bankrupting business to business enterprise. Choices for continued spread of USA-centric commerce, is on pause, almost the same as in one year after --
September, 2002: “For starters, financial markets have certainly hunkered down in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks. Global equities are still down about 13% from their September 10, 2001 levels (dollar-based ACWI index). Not surprisingly the US -- which still accounts for 54% of world equity market capitalization -- has led the way. The S and P 500 remains some 16% below its pre-attack reading, whereas the NASDAQ is off some 22%... “(Roach, Stephen, and Sept 03, 2002) Global: “One Year Later” (New York) Global Economic Forum, The latest views of Morgan Stanley Economists.
1. What is globalization? So far it has meant about 33% reduction in sales of automobiles in 2008-09 USA. “Globalization is a contentious process.” (Copyright 2000-2001 – Lechner, Frank)
It turns out, as a business pursuit; global business remains in the realms of controversial, debatable, arguable, litigious, and above all touchy universal context. At this point I highly advise to change the term global to something else.
Global > Comprehensive Corporate Come-on > One Size Fits All
Globalization: “...The question of globalization is this-- Are we better off through specialization or do we switch to focus on a diverse economy by limiting out-sourcing? Is this a
too simplistic view or is this the
center of what we as a nation must face?” There is still no answer to that.
2. For Example: "What does Mexico have to gain and lose from say
Acme Autos operating in Mexico including issues of international sovereignty, employment, and GDP?"
Three million manufacturing jobs are gone from our Midwest USA. Mexico will gain entry level manufacturing jobs. Plants are established outside USA to assemble and produce products in the automotive industry. But even that trend has become unsteady, trendy, and in a state of
flux.
Global Specializing: “...Economies are now non-static, meaning all of us in this class of business are here to find new marketable skills in the new economy. The pain of retraining is always tough to measure and to stomach but specializing in technologically superior products means less job loss in the future.”
“The challenges to respond to employee social and cultural forces increases as organizations expand operations globally. [In addition] each country has a different culture, when companies expand their operations abroad, [or across the borders], [organizations] encounter vastly different social values, beliefs, and attitudes.” (George, J. M. and Jones, 2006)
Limit outsourcing, is only applied to those countries that have special contracts with the USA. Mexico has NAFTA, which tries to control trade deficits. NAFTA is a mandated exertion to combine efforts; however, China and India have no such agreement with USA. Mexico may therefore lose opportunities due to their agreement with USA in NAFTA.
The difficulty of achieving global agreement on simultaneous policy may render such measures at best
advisory - and thus not
enforceable. Will people would be unwilling to undergo a depression or even sustained recession in order, for instance, to remediation of lost ecosystems?
It is noteworthy that the “quest for self-esteem is not a major driving force in collective cultures, such as Japan, where negative self-appraisals are taken as a path to self-improvement” (Fineman, 2004) The USA is not wholly a collective society. It is about individuality and self expression -- forms of perceived freedom -- of Americans and of its immigrants.
It turns out;
Sovereignty is defined in as many ways as there are number of Countries. Some sovereigns are displaying “knee jerk” to attempts to industrialize their emerging markets. The countries in need will shift business without popular consent, and possibly create problems for themselves. For instance, again using USA as a point of reference: NIKE founder and controlling owner, did try to give back a factory to the Northwest where he started his products. He determined that Americans will not sit in a factory and make shoes all day, all year. It would be a "global" waste of time to bring "home" shoe manufacturing to Oregon workers.
Next time:
Knee jerking as a hasty reactive reflex, is caused when an autocratic authority circumnavigates the culture of the society. For instance in India, when lower caste individuals are employed at the outsource site, next to upper caste cultures, days are numbered for the smooth operations of that particular Business to Business, B2B.
