Great, but terrifying, essay. You bring up two implications of isolationism: trade limitations that restrict product distribution and constrictions in the scientific talent pipeline. I see a third implication, as it pertains to the global health: complete lack of global self-awareness. Historically, medicinal therapies come from all different corners and cultures of the world. Isolationism kills diversity of thought. By prioritizing the U.S. or the U.K. over all other countries, inherently we run the risk of not seeing the bigger picture. I am far less worried about trade restrictions and scientific talent than I am about group-think eradicating the need for international diversity.
Thank you for this! By highlighting one small (but mighty) co-op, you make it easy to imagine the thousands of small suppliers that are harmed in a similar manner by global isolationism. In our prior economics classes, we learn about the system of a free market and the role of government intervention. In a free market, scarce resources are allocated by supply and demand to set prices. Government is meant to step in in when the rights of their citizens are forgone causing the market to be inequitable. In the case of Cayuga, we see government intervention hindering the free market forces. Cayuga has every right to publicly pressure the Canadian government to remove supply management. But I think an even more compelling tactic would be to engage in dialogue with potential Canadian consumers and potential Canadian competitors. Cayuga has compelling arguments to convince both of the merit of open borders. If they can get buy-in from the end consumer, and the potential competitor, they can collectively tackle the issue together.
Great article. I agree with TOM that Coke must address both sustainability and employment/economic implications in considering whether or not to shut down local production – Coke’s factories have multi-faceted implications and sustainability must not be considered in a vacuum. As I think about our TOM takeaways, my mind goes to utilization. Coke is not utilizing their raw materials efficiently. I have no problem with their sustainability campaign, but I find fault with their lack of self awareness and self improvement. The campaign allows them to clean up after the fact, rather than solve the root cause of their inefficiencies. Can they achieve a 0% waste, 1:1 ratio of water to product? If not, can they be completely transparent about why the ratio cannot be 1:1?
Fascinating topic. Thank you for informing us of this vital trend. But I can’t get over the feeling that investing in innovative technologies to combat food waste might not be the best first step for Walmart. Walmart is one of the most powerful food distributors in the world, and as you mention in your essay, the world’s largest grocer. They can use their platform to do so much good. They can do more to educate consumers and suppliers on food waste and how it impacts society by 1) launching social impact marketing campaigns that expose the severity of food waste around the globe, 2) promote misshapen or bruised fruits to make consumers aware of their visual biases, 3) inform consumers and suppliers about changes that can be made in their daily lives to be less wasteful. They can also lobby the USDA to decrease their unnecessary regulations that increase food waste (bruised fruit mentioned in your essay). Using their platform combined with exploring new technologies will allow them to be more successful at combating food waste and hopefully for them, more economical in the long run.
Very interesting topic. The first thing that comes to mind is the Netflix network effect. This can be exemplified in the fact that the term “Netflix” has become a part of millennial colloquialisms. The Netflix customer promise has historically been low prices, no commercials, and a wide-variety of content selection. Old content can arguably be considered a commodity, and while some customers might be disappointed with the Netflix’s decreasing selection, their new content simply amplifies their network effect. House of Cards and Orange is the New Black were viral hits that spread through word of mouth and social media. I think continuing to invest in their own content is the most salient business strategy as it sets them apart from the fierce competition in Hulu and Amazon. In terms of integrating forward, I think Netflix could burst into the virtual reality space. I could see them creating specific hardware for their original content, bringing in additional revenue from product sales, and providing an even more differentiated experience to their end user.
Great essay, although it truly terrifies me. I am continuously struck by the fact that the issue is political and so polarizing that cooperation is unattainable. I think the major gap in abridging all sides of the debate is unanimously accepted data and irrefutable forecasts of real tangible impacts. In your essay, you point out that “a tool was deployed in 2014 to assess the vulnerability of each DoD installation to climate change risks. The first wave of results from this assessment has been used to identify installations where a deeper evaluation of risk is needed.” The logical next step in my mind is for the DoD to push congress, or NGOs or private donors, for funding for innovative technologies that can accurately predict the monetary (and societal/security) impacts of climate change. Scientists have predicting the effects from climate change for a while now. Last year, ProPublica accurately predicted Hurricane Harvey (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/02/opinion/sunday/hurricane-harvey-climate-change.html and https://projects.propublica.org/houston/). And yet, many of our political leaders continue to view international terrorism as more of a threat to national security than climate change. It is human nature to seek out and believe information that confirms our opinions (confirmation bias), and to hold fast (stubbornly) to our beliefs. I think the DoD must hone in on the value system of those who deny climate change. What are the issues that matter most to them? How will climate change affect those specific issues? Perhaps they even substitute “economic development” and “resource management” for “climate change” to see how the naysayers respond.