I think this is a really interesting application on the prompt. I think you’ve done a great job of making a case for action given the size of the investment and huge percentage of Raytheon’s costs that come from its materials/ supply chain.
Your point about expanding their reach is a particularly poignant one – reducing their suppliers costs will in turn reduce their own costs. In fact instead of packaging and selling their software/ operating model, perhaps they could enter a revenue sharing agreement.
My question is how could blockchain also help to increase the efficiency of this system? Putting all of their suppliers onto the same ledger seems like it would have tremendous benefits in finding efficiencies.
This is a great writeup on how the internet of things and blockchain can have a huge impact on the supply chain of these shipping companies. To tie this into one of the other themes of the TOM challenge, I wonder how efficient supply chain management in this space will have a positive impact on the emissions of shipping (on a % of emissions basis)? Having more truck availability in locations where it is needed, and better optimizing supply chains are sure to reduce emissions.
Great points, and well written essay. Your points on not only the shortened supply chain, but the environmental impact of that supply chain are an especially good response to our prompt.
I think you are asking the right questions about whether this will garner enough public support. Grant brings up a great idea mentioning that the price of regular beef may rise significantly, helping to level the playing field a bit more. And I wonder if perhaps the lobby that he proposes could also highlight how much science/ tech goes into our current beef to help shrink the conceptual gap between lab grown meat and the beef we typically serve now. This article mentions “Important technologies that have been adopted include antibiotics, implants, ionophores, parasiticides, genetics, vaccines, physiological modifiers, and nutrition ” which already is changing my perception of “natural” beef! 
Interesting point about the mining of this scarce supply. To your point I do not think it is realistic for them to expect to be able to monopolize the cobalt market. And your ideas about how to get ahead of the demand are certainly good ones.
Considering all of the research going on in the space, it seems feasible Tesla may be able to find a more abundant similar element. Furthermore perhaps it was overly restricting to only source the cobalt from North America as you pointed out.
All of the challenges of finding new cobalt raise the question if recycling spent batteries might become financially viable going forward. This article shows additional research in that space where they seemed to have devised an economically efficient answer. 
Great points that you raise. Where I am having difficulty thinking about this issue is whether Tesla is responsible for the entire lifecycle of the battery. While I agree it would be great if they made recycling factories, I wonder how much business sense reusing those batteries makes.
According to this article, the batteries preferred by Tesla may not have great second-life characteristics (bad cycling damage and wrong type for stationary applications). But with more lithium ion batteries in circulation, the upside for figuring out better recycling techniques will grow. 
Great writeup. I believe that Ford still did make the right decision moving the manufacturing to China. In China, where there is now more expertise in similar manufacturing operations, Ford will likely be able to find efficiencies at a quicker rate to offset losses from border tariffs.
While I initially thought that it was conceivable to start selling some of their cars in China as well, it seems that consumer demand for vehicles is down  . Given that, it perhaps was a riskier move than anticipated.
Great writeup and a spot on example of the threat of protectionist policies to these global entities. It seems like BMW is now adjusting to the real threat of such changes by moving their manufacturing elsewhere, which seems like the opposite effect of what Trump was hoping to encourage.
Furthermore it is interesting to think about what sort of cost implications this will have for the supply chain of the South Carolina plant itself – if they are sourcing their materials from abroad might an increase in tariffs still lead to an increase price of the cars?