Interesting idea about Gildan hiring a lobbying team as a possible way to influence the emerging trend of isolationism. I would guess that collaborators withing Canada could be and are interested in joining forces to lend their weight to these discussions. I would not recommend that Gildan collaborate with the Canadian Dairy Industry though, as their opinions on the issue differ significantly.
Your question about further vertical integration is a great one that applies across all industries being effected by isolationist policies. While there is an obvious temptation to take more control of production to avoid being seen as an outsourcer or as “part of the problem,” I’d argue that the greater value is still to be found in focusing on core competencies. While trade policies may change, Gildan can still adapt by proactively building the best supplier relationships possible in each segmented market instead of fundamentally changing their value proposition. That said, consumers would likely notice the difference in cost if Gildan chose to work with more expensive “in country” suppliers instead of consolidating and hoping for increased efficiency.
It’s great to see a leading company in an industry still be willing to “try” new things (I like that no one will get that joke).
It seems to me that one application for autonomy devices in shipping would be on speed/route adjustments to optimize for fuel efficiency. Just like autonomous vehicles promise greater fuel savings for cars, constantly monitoring external conditions and then making course adjustments to reduce drag and better position in a current could offer small but scale-able savings for the industry. A system like this could range from making small adjustments to a predetermined route or it could be used to optimize a route as a whole. This may also allow for reducing labor costs for personnel on the “boats” (again, only you and I will get that reference).
I agree that the DOD is right to identify climate change as an important strategic issue and that the best way forward is to develop and execute mitigation projects immediately. However I vehemently disagree with your recommendation that the DOD should utilize its expertise in national security issues to lobby Congress for more funding for climate related expenditures. Firstly, any foray by the DOD into politicized issues is bad for the department. It is not, nor should it be, the role of the DOD to influence members of Congress and any attempt to do so dangerously confuses the concept of the military being subordinate to the government. Secondly, the DOD historically holds no specific advantage over politicians on identifying important national security threats and developing solutions. The National Security Advisor, MG H. R. McMaster, wrote a book “Dereliction of Duty” capturing how senior military officers exerted their influence over a number of administrations in order to maintain and intensify the Vietnam War at the cost of offering sound strategic advice. Given that the DOD should maintain a higher level of expertise in military strategy than environmental science, the example of Vietnam offers a constant reminder to the DOD of its role to support and not make strategy. Finally, public trust in the military depends on the DOD maintaining neutrality in political arguments. While lobbying for climate change mitigation funding would run counter to the military as a conservative organization narrative, the outcome of that lobbying could only be a loss of trust in the DOD as a whole.
However, there are plenty of things that the DOD can do without lobbying Congress in order to prepare for the effects of climate change. Developing natural disaster plans, strategic “O-Plans” and building resilient infrastructure are all things that each department can do without wading into the political argument. As the world’s single greatest emitter I would love for the DOD to be able to take an active role in supporting legislative change, however I believe the nature of the DOD as subordinate to the civilian government and the risks to its reputation are too great for the department to consider the option.
I had no idea that the MLB was so tech forward! Thank you very much for expanding my knowledge!
I agree that the MLB has a number of decisions regarding their content distribution that will have a great affect on the league’s revenue. Cable networks are already pushing “build your own” packages that will allow consumers to choose whether or not to purchase channels that show the baseball which could greatly affect how many incidental viewers particular games might have. Distribution rights will have to be negotiated with the upcoming digital players, especially since the $100 price premium seems unsustainable when compared to competitors.
Part of the value proposition of MLB.TV is that you can in a way bring your home team with you when you live away from the team that you cheer for. While this can help MLB maximize profits, the MLB also answers to each individual team as a stakeholder as well. I wonder what impact distributing “home team” content will have on consolidating fan bases into major market teams. In the past, when people moved, exposure to a new home team may have eventually led to changing their team preferences. However, distributing content allows people to maintain their attachment and could contribute to a trend of “bandwagoning” on big market or successful teams. Does the MLB have a plan to reinforce local team loyalty in order to satisfy each team’s interest?
A great representation of how most companies and people espouse free trade as a value, but actively support protectionist policies when they are in their favor. Reminds me of the Canadian dairy industry actually….
I agree that all of Boeing’s work to isolate themselves only gives them a short window with which to increase their efficiency before the policies are removed. Future administrations (of either party) are much less likely to be supportive of protectionism and removing tariffs from the airline industry is an easy win for any politician looking to win international favor while claiming to support average consumers over big business. However, 3-8 years is a long time in any industry and Boeing can use that time very effectively to streamline their operations and build their supplier’s capabilities. While supporting controversial policies is not generally a good decision for most companies, Boeing does find itself in a position to maximize the current opportunity it is presented.