Aside from enacting laws and the acceptance of social norms…held together, in part, by various consequences and/or repercussions imposed upon those who go astray, how does one successfully influence another about what they are doing may be wrong? And, if that tract is pursued, it’s quite possible, it will exacerbate the problem and any evidence of good, will likely be short-lived.
I very respectfully understand that should the executive proposal to impose tariffs on steel and aluminum…may produce some variously near-term benefits…for some U.S. companies and their employees and may God bless those who benefit. However, among the questions I pose below, aren’t the imposition of tariffs on steel and aluminum actually-far more complex today than voicing the assumption that tariffs ‘will make the playing field more even’ (for U.S. workers)?
But, aside from enacting laws and the acceptance of social norms…held together, in part, by various consequences and/or repercussions imposed upon those who go astray, how does one successfully influence another about what they are doing may be wrong? And, if that tract is pursued, it’s quite possible, it will exacerbate the problem and any evidence of good, will likely be short-lived.
Obviously, some strategies conceived – espoused by the executive…generate enthusiasm and support in advance of their execution, particularly among the presumed beneficiaries. And, some good, at some point following implementation, will accrue. But also, there seems to be an obligation to consider that the execution of a strategy may merely prolong an inevitable and may soon reveal itself as being little more than a temporary patch to a larger challenge. Should this occur, it will surely leave the initial (intended) beneficiaries variously worse off, to, once again face the inevitable. But, in the interim, the inevitable has become further encumbered with new and likely less generous options and/or recourse.
In response to the unintended – un-regarded outcomes of an impulsively conceived political strategy…the executive options to concoct defensive conclusions that obscure the rationale and underlying logic regarding any adverse outcomes.
Through my lens, and numerous others, echelons above me…will the current executive edict of imposing tariffs on steel and aluminum constitute a distraction from different types-levels of trade issues the U.S. should be engaged? One part of which has to do with the U.S.’s economic identity and future. It should no longer be rooted in a competitive context about which country can produce more (the most) steel and aluminum and at the lowest price?
Yes, the U.S. needs a robust steel and aluminum sector, but the absolute largest, producing the most, probably not.
Imposing tariffs on aluminum and steel are neither the outcomes, nor the assets that will represent most country’s economic and/or competitive futures. Perhaps a more important question should be, why engage in a strategy that will likely, post execution, be characterized as misleading at best and produces obvious international consequences, to merely perform CPR (cardio pulmonary resuscitation) on economic and competitive yesterdays?
This current (proposed) path of imposing tariffs on incoming steel and aluminum…through my lens anyway, suggest an absence of understanding-appreciation for negotiations which are light years away from the minimalisms sited in the ghost written ‘the art of the deal’. Instead, how to engage in increasingly complex negotiations between and within 50+ developed and developing countries, which as Jeff A. Weiss, President, Lesley University notes, requires (a.) listening, (b.) building understanding, (c.) creative thinking, (d.) leveraging differences, (e.) joint problem-solving, and perhaps above all, (f.) clear communication. Frankly, none of these appear to be in abundance for this issue.
Intangible assets are collections – collaborations of intellectual, structural, and relationship capital and intellectual property. It’s also an economic fact that 80+% of most company’s value, sources of revenue, and ‘building blocks’ for growth, profitability, and sustainability today, lie in – evolve directly from intangible (non-physical) assets, not tangible (physical) assets. Hence, the U.S. economy, not unlike the economies of numerous other developed countries, are becoming increasingly intangible asset intensive, dependent, and driven by…
• …unique knowhow a company (its employees) possess, and the special value that comes from understanding how, when, and under what circumstances to apply it best. (McKinsey & Company)
• …economic and competitive advantages and benefits embedded in companies’ IC (intellectual capital), i.e., knowhow, experience, etc., and its SC (structural capital), i.e., processes, procedures, and practices that set its products, services, and/or systems apart from its competitors to create efficiencies and value that build/enhance/sustain RC (relationship capital) with existing and prospective clients. (Michael D. Moberly)
• …internally developed narratives for articulating and differentiating products operating methods, processes, services, and best practices that create competitive advantages and build value in environments where deployed. (Michael D. Moberly)
• … distinctive and/or unique blends of business activities, processes, know how, and customer/client relationships that companies can exploit to differentiate themselves and create value. (Michael Porter, Harvard Business School)
Thus post was inspired by Chris Farrell, Minnesota Public Radio and Senior Economics Contributor, Marketplace, American Public Media.
Michael D. Moberly March 8, 2018 St. Louis email@example.com Business Intangible Asset Blog ‘where attention span really matters’!