Jonathon McCarthy's Profile
A great real world look at the impact of isolationist agendas on startups looking to improve services for everyday Americans.
Many interesting solutions are offered to manage the growth of Hubble in a world where trade barriers to the US go up yet one potential solution is missing – Hubble simply stop serving the US market. Canadians, Europeans and the emerging wealth in Asia could all benefit from this excellent service. Much is discussed about the potential impact of the Trump agenda on jobs but is this an insight into a world where Americans will miss out on great new technology and services when the trade barriers go up?
An excellent article highlighting a critical issue in all OECD countries around the world. Blue Apron is a start and the imperfect produce initiative has been wildly successful in Australian supermarkets since deployment of cut price “odd bunch” produce across the nation but with the rise of restaurants, busy people and food delivery it would be interesting to know the waste statistics for restaurants and fast food.
Arguably, these businesses have a strong role to play in the reduction of waste, even lobbying for changed food hygiene standards to allow produce to be re-used or sold at a reduced price rather than wasted.
Is this an easier place to start than with individual households and can this be a starting pad for regulators to show some real endeavor on this topic instead of leaving it to startups such as Blue Apron?
Having worked in the Rio Tinto Iron Ore division several years ago while the remote operations center was being established, i can confirm the enormous impact on the efficiency of the entire system. This impact is well conveyed in the article and serves to demonstrate the value of digitization in supply chains. This roll-out across a supply chain entirely owned and operated by Rio Tinto provides a good example of the inefficiencies gained when a supply chain works together. The friction points that exist between separate owners of production/rail/port are removed and this connected solution can thrive. Anecdotally, this connectivity has reduced unit costs by over 10% on the worlds largest raw input material, iron ore. Imagine the impact if the global mining industry could replicate this for the majority of production in all metals. The raw input costs of durable goods would drop and provide a genuine boost to global GDP through increased construction and consumption at a lower price point. How do we take this model and apply it to supply chains with different actors to increase the pie for everyone? Will this realistically ever happen or will individual company preferences stifle this productivity gain.
This article raises the core issue – Competitiveness – that underpins the short term political march toward a protectionist agenda and a rollback of globalization. The examination of Goodyear’s investment in 2014, made without the lens of a Trump agenda, serves to underpin the real business fundamentals that are driving these decisions in boardrooms around the world. How could Goodyear make a US investment profitable? Can they realistically invest into new non-union plants, as their peers have done, or will their current unions simply present to much of a risk to this business case? The article serves to suggest that tire manufacturers do believe in a profitable business model onshore in the US which tends to highlight the entrenched Union issues at Goodyear as the differentiating factor in their investment decision.
If the US wants to bring jobs onshore, should it really be putting up trade barriers or should it be focusing on the root cause of its lost competitiveness. This is a country who has readily reinvented itself time and time again in the face of adversity to come out on top and the cheap energy situation now present solves much of the problem for manufacturers. Why then, is the US resorting to trade barriers when it appears that labor cost remains the final straw on bringing production onshore? Lower wages are not the path to a happy and productive society but tariffs will never beat productivity and cost base, as the shift from China to SE Asia in 2009 clearly showed.
An excellent and insightful article that really begs the question, what is everyone else doing? Why is the SMG so far ahead in this integrated dynamic solution to congestion while the remainder of the OECD largely has not followed. The SMG is clearly happy to share their technoolgy and insights, evidenced by the enormous number of professional visits, yet there are few global stories of success that begin to rival this outcome. You have used the phrase, “impact of this fine-tuned monitoring is massive”, yet it would be compelling to quantify in terms of GDP or perhaps more importantly, quality of life or at a stretch maybe we could even stop to consider human happiness?
In fact, these measures in many ways are one and the same with an INRIX study in 2016 showing that “the average New York commuter footed a $2,533 bill each year due to congestion”. I am sure each of these residents could think of almost anything they would rather put their savings towards.
What sets Korea apart so that they can continue to drive this innovation? In a world of amazing liquidity and ‘capital looking for a home’, are the OECD countries so stuck in a public/private battle for responsibility that we cannot begin to implement the building blocks of a digital transport system. It should be easy, Seoul has shown the way.