Big Question: Scoring Goals

The Big Question: Scoring goals

            Basically this article is talking about how sports can really transcend sports.  Sports can have such a profound impact on people and countries that we have no idea what it means until we look back on it.  For instance, the baseball team that was made in China opened the eyes of many of those players to other forms of life that they would have never known.   Also for somebody like Arvydas Sabonis, somebody that I really enjoyed watching as a basketball junkie, he transcended all of the country of Lithuania and became an rock star there for winning a medal.  He won back to back bronze medals for the country.  And something that seems so simple for us here in the United States because we are so powerful in sports can mean the world to some of these smaller countries.  A small thing for us could mean mighty things for others.

            I know this from personal experience having taken basketball trips overseas.  Those people treat even me, a player at Campbellsville who no one really has heard of, like rock stars.  They soak up every word that you say and just want to know everything because you play basketball in the States.  I think sometimes here we get wrapped up in what size school we play at, or if we play at all.  Even in high school, this is a big deal for people elsewhere.  I think the best thing we can do is be grateful for the opportunities that this country gives us and run with it.  There are millions and millions of kids that would change places with us in a heartbeat, and we need to take more advantage of what we really have and use it for the positive.  

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment
GLOBAL AGENDA | ECONOMY

<nyt_headline version=”1.0″ type=” “>Let’s Stick Together

<nyt_byline>GORDON BROWN

Published: November 30, 2012
  • FACEBOOK
  • TWITTER
  • GOOGLE+
  • SAVE
  • E-MAIL
  • SHARE
  • PRINT
  • REPRINTS
<nyt_text><nyt_correction_top>

WHEN I was asked a few years ago what the financial crisis taught me, I replied, “It’s the global economy, stupid.” Well, what I actually said was it taught me that “global problems need global solutions.”

Keith Negley

 

IHT Magazine Global Agenda November 2012

Global Agenda: Turning Points

 

The International Herald Tribune magazine looks ahead to 2013, and finds that even if great storms are rising, they are no reason to be forlorn.

I would now go further: My 13 years in government have taught me that the pre-eminent international issue is whether we can develop a level of global cooperation that matches the global dimension of our problems.

We need little proof that our world is more interdependent than ever. As Britain’s prime minister in 2008, I saw how reverberations from a banking collapse anywhere can affect stability everywhere. I found that leaders, who previously had talked only intermittently, were in constant telephone contact. As chairman of the G-20 at the height of the crisis, I found myself working the phones on a near 24-hour cycle, moving through time zones from Asia to America.

Since then, we’ve seen how a nuclear disaster in Japan can send shock waves across every land; how economic difficulties in Greece can hurt confidence across the globe; how protectionism in just a few countries can disrupt the whole of world trade.

We’ve also seen evidence that international cooperation on economic issues is not working well. The year 2009 should have brought an era of enhanced cooperation. Instead, that cooperation hit a high-water mark, then receded. Global coordination is still regarded by too many countries as an optional extra, a sideshow compared with domestic issues.

From my own experience I can see that there are changes we can make, institutional reforms we can embrace, and specific policies that we can adopt that would improve cooperation and make for a far healthier, more prosperous world.

Let me focus on the five great economic and social challenges of our time — all global in nature, all requiring coordinated action, all matters on which the world community has been called upon to act but has failed to do so effectively: financial stability, climate change, global growth, open trade and the Millennium Development Goals.

The failure to coordinate global finance

Given the global financial crisis — which cost $4 trillion in lost output and an estimated 28 million jobs, as well as surging debt and deficits (much of the cost borne by countries, businesses and individuals who did not directly cause the crisis) — the case for global financial coordination is indisputable.

As Mark Carney, the chairman of the Financial Stability Board set up in 2009 to monitor and make recommendations about the global financial system, has said, “Given the reality of global finance, it is not enough to have our own house in order — unless we seal ourselves off from the world, and if we were to do that we will end up much poorer. An open, resilient global financial system will be central to the transformation of the global economy. In order to achieve that, financial sector reform is a must.”

Yet while much has been promised, Europe, America, Switzerland and other financial centers are today regrettably agreeing to their own separate and distinctive financial regimes. The world is at risk of a race to the bottom in financial standards, with the good undercut by the bad and the bad by the worst.

There has yet to be agreement on the oversight and regulation of shadow banking, the terms of securitization, how money-market funds are managed, and how we manage the links between the regulated banking sector and shadow banks.

The failure to coordinate global action on climate change

No matter what action a nation seeks to take on climate change, its policy outcomes are influenced by other nations.

When Copenhagen failed in December 2009, it was not because of a failure to reach any agreements. In fact, we achieved agreements in four major areas — on national carbon-reduction plans, on transparency requirements, on immediate help for poorer countries to mitigate climate damage, and on a long-term framework for transferring resources from rich to poor.

Yet because we could not agree on a treaty or even on an overall framework we could not usher in what was needed — a carbon price guaranteeing sustained investment in renewable industries. The result is that aside from China (where a state decision has been made to sponsor renewables) investment in that industry is flagging. While there was some progress in Durban, South Africa, with an agreement about standards on transparency, and in Cancún, Mexico, where new standards were set for corporate social responsibility, the much-promised decade of low carbon investment has been postponed, a victim of an international failure to agree.

The failure to coordinate growth strategy

The world is also unable to agree on what to do about stalled global growth amid the fallout from the euro zone crisis. In 2009, when world leaders agreed on a bold strategy, I and others insisted that first aid measures were not enough. The G-20’s Action Plan included a commitment by its members to coordinate fiscal, monetary, trade and structural policies and to use the I.M.F.’s mutual assessment process as its vehicle.

What was intended to be a global growth pact quickly bogged down in “currency wars.” The result is that growth is much lower than it need be and I estimate we have lost between 25 and 50 million jobs. Much-needed global initiatives, such as an infrastructure plan to mobilize private savings and generate higher growth, are stillborn.

The failure to secure a world trade agreement

Negotiations on a new world trade round have also broken down. Some may argue that it’s impossible to agree on what to do because the nature of imports and exports — and of global supply chains — is changing so fast. Yet each successful trade round since the 1940s has had to deal with a rapidly changing world.

Today the world is being remade yet again. Intra-Asian trade, which is now about a third of intra-European trade, will surpass European trade before 2030. China, which has less than 5 percent of world trade today, will have 15 percent by 2030. India’s share will rise from less than 2 percent to 5 percent.

Given their need to sell to rising Asian markets, my view is that more than ever before free trade is in the interests of America and Europe. Yet we face the prospect that, for the first time in 40 years of trade negotiations, protectionist pressures will make a world trade deal impossible.

The failure to deliver the millennium development goals

In 2000 every major world leader and every significant international institution agreed to deliver, by 2015, education for every child, a two-thirds reduction in infant mortality, and a three-quarters reduction in maternal mortality on top of a halving of poverty in every continent. They promised to secure gender equality by 2005.

Despite big progress in reducing poverty in China, none of these bold health and education goals are on track to being met. One reason I have accepted the U.N. secretary general’s offer to be his special envoy for global education is that, unless we fast track resources to meeting these goals from now to the end of 2015, one generation’s betrayal will haunt the next. The credibility of the post-2015 goals will depend on how much we do in the next three years to meet the current goals.

In five central areas where policy coordination is essential, the world has not moved forward with sufficient force; indeed, in certain important respects it has moved backward.

Where are the powerful, globally minded voices that can do something about this?

Certainly, what China does will matter more than ever before. Zheng Bijian, a prominent adviser to the government in Beijing, argues that there is now a “convergence of interests” across the world but that the immediate challenge is whether global governance can be established without one dominant power or set of interests insisting on calling the shots. In other words, China wants global cooperation to work. It does not want to overturn the current global system, but to reform it, and it wants America and Europe to engage in that process of reform without trying to dominate it.

Events, however, are forcing Europe to retreat from its long-held desire to deliver a joint approach to global cooperation. While emerging markets outside Asia want to embrace global economic integration, at least in theory, Brazil and South Africa are not especially interventionist on global issues, and India and Russia, both with historically strong world-views, have become self-absorbed. When the BRICS meet, their lofty communiqués disguise widespread internal disagreements about how to engage. This is also true in the United States, where people are divided not so much on whether America should engage in the world, but on what terms.

In every country, politicians are having to deal with the nationalist and protectionist impulses that arise in difficult economic times. In a recent study of global public opinion, Jeffery Sellers of the University of Southern California found that there is a shift — not toward a stronger sense of global or even national citizenship, but to a “stronger territorial attachment” at the local level.

Problems may be increasingly global but politics remains local. I’ve found to my cost that while I talked to domestic audiences about the benefits of global cooperation, there were far more votes in redefining a global problem — low growth — as a national problem — high public debt. Even when a problem was beyond the control of one country’s leadership, it was much easier politics to hold the national government responsible.

A pessimistic conclusion would be that governments will turn to international action only when they are unable to solve domestic problems by the old methods. I am far more optimistic, not least because we have had some experience of global action that has worked.

Nevertheless, international institutions built in 1945 are now wholly inadequate for the challenges of a global economy. We must make the I.M.F. a more effective tool for global surveillance, give the G-20 teeth to coordinate international economic policy, ensure that all non-G-20 countries are included in consultations; and set detailed timetables for agreements on global bank rules, on growth and trade, and on fast-tracking progress toward the Millennium Development Goals.

The stakes are high, our collective prospects depend on what we do. Despite our first faltering steps to forge the first truly global civilization, the prize is great. Without diminishing the vitality of our national identities, we are on the way to creating the first global system of governance.

Brown was the prime minister of Britain and Labour Party leader from 2007 until 2010. He previously served as chancellor of the Exchequer from 1997 to 2007, becoming the longest-serving holder of that office in modern history. Currently serving as U.N. Special Envoy for Global Education, he also is the author, most recently, of “Beyond the Crash: Overcoming the First Crisis of Globalisation.”

 

<nyt_correction_bottom>

 

The global economy is not able to work without the cooperation of the countries all around the world.  There are issues that face the global economy, but without a global answer, there will be nothing that will be able to be done with the problem.  This article goes in to how a nuclear disaster in Japan and the mess that Greece is in can affect everyone, and everyone has to try and figure out a solution to help the problem, not just one country. 

            Global finance and the ability to coordinate all of that with one another is key.  If countries cannot get on the same page, they will not be able to correct figure out the problems that are facing our world today.  Also, if the world does not have a plan that will help grow the countries all around the world and try to work together to get that done, it will be very difficult for some countries to start to prosper.  A world trade agreement is needed, and the fear is that if they do not do something about the agreements now that are slowly starting to digress, that world trade will be very difficult to accomplish. 

            The article is basically saying that all countries across  the world need to be on the same page or we will never go anywhere with the world economy.  The best thing that we can do is try and work together and make this a better place to live and make the world work as well as possible.  While in theory I agree with the ideas that are presented in this article, I don’t know how feasible it is that all of these can really work out.  Yes it would be great to have one vision as a world economy, but I do not really think that is possible.  There are too many countries out there, probably more of them than not, that are looking out for themselves and only want what is best for their people and for the country in general.   This article makes some good points, and I do agree that we should be working towards a common goal and trying to figure this out to the best of our ability, but at the same time with some of the knuckleheads that we have in the world, I really don’t know how possible it is to achieve it. 

 

<nyt_update_bottom>

 
Aside | Posted on by | Leave a comment

This video is about how Israel is very nervous about the potential threat of nuclear war that could happen between them and Iran. They have presidents running campaigns about it, they have commercials, and they have people who are very worried that this situation could quickly escalate out of control.
Iran continues to deny the fact that they are making nuclear weapons. To Israel, they do not believe that and they are very scared about what could happen. Like the guy said in the movie, they could kill as many Jews as Hitler did is six years in about six minutes. This is a huge threat to the Jewish people and I believe that they have every right to be scared about it. Some people, like the guy in this video, are so nervous that they have made videos about how Iran is doing all of this. It poses a huge threat to the country of Israel, and it could really cause a lot of world conflict as well.
Most Israelis want peace, they do not want to get into a conflict with Iran, and I believe with good reason. This potentially could become a very problematic matter for the world and the United States. Israel is our ally, and if a war starts over there, especially with nuclear bombs and weapons, this could be a potentially very dangerous situation for us as well. I believe that we need to be very tactical about what we do with the new development that come with this story. If we are not careful, we could get into a huge conflict and I really don’t believe that is what the US needs right now.

Video | Posted on by | Leave a comment

Social Media and Politics

                This video has direct correlations to what we have been talking about in class all week.  This deals directly with politics and how they are now moving their way into social media.  It is the world we live in now, and if the political parties expect to stay up with one another, they are going to have to use this platform in order to help themselves and be able to reach a ton of people fast, to influence them to vote the way they want to. 

            The first real try to incorporate the internet was John McCain in 2000.  From there, it has exploded and it is hard not to find a campaign that has not been on some sort of social media.  It is the new way to be able to get a ton of people, fast.  With one click of a button, millions of people can read something about you and be able to access it.  Almost all politicians will be using this now, but the thing about it is that they were kind of late to the party.  Many times, citizens have been getting on Facebook or YouTube or whatever form they like, and they are trying to influence other citizens about the way they should vote.  You can imagine that most politicians will be using this now.

            Social media has taken over the world.  It is the way we communicate with other people, post views and ideas we have, and it is the most efficient way to do it.  Whether we like it or not, at some point when we are one of the 433 things that we have on the internet, we will see political ads.  I think that it is a good idea, but at the same time it is scary where this is going.  With the political thing, I don’t really think it is a bad thing.  But, in other ways, if it gets too much, the aspect of dealing with individuals and having face to conversations, I think it’s not good.  But if Obama wants to promote things on there, more power to him.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Social Media across the World

ow to Connect Globally With Social Media

by 

inShare

Here is my article which was first published on :

Do you know how to use social media to target a global audience? After all, social media provides a low-cost solution to engage your prospects, customers and partners located in different regions of the world.

As Scott Monty, head of social media for Ford Motor Company, says, “U.S. brands looking to leverage social networks internationally know that while their messages need to stay consistent regardless of the region, the language, cultural reference points, platform and tactics, all need to be tailored for each market.”

He continues, “Whether it is customer service, IT, HR or product development, there are a number of uses for social media. And when you add to that all of our constituents—customers, employees, shareholders, dealers, retirees—it becomes a very complex assignment.”

Here’s a look at a few of the difficulties and how you can overcome them…

 

The Information Available

In the past, statistics on social media were difficult to come by and they were not always relevant. But there are more Internet statistics available today even for social media. McCann’s Wave 4 Power to the People report is one resource available to gain insights into how to use social media internationally.

The trouble with an international social media strategy, as Erik Qualman of Search Engine Watch points out, one size does not fit all. Having more relevant statistics does not get you very far. You still need to learn how to adapt what you do on social media to effectively connect with people in other countries. And before you can do this, you need to know a bit more about what social media is like over there.

Social Media in Different Regions of the World

A good place to start is to look for general insights into the social media environment in the places you would like to reach.

The Nielsen report Global Faces and Networked Places clearly explains why localization has won the day in many countries and says, “Succeeding in China takes more than producing a translated version; it requires investment in a local infrastructure and a mentality of running a Chinese social network that understands the domestic nuances of social network behaviour rather than simply rolling out a generic social network in Chinese.”

Here are more insights from two social media players well-known in their own countries:

Have a look at this interview of Laurel Papworth in which she gives an analysis on what’s happening in social media in Australiaand Southeast Asia.

Fred Cavazza says, “The main differences in France‘s social media are based on the local offering and local players: Dailymotion, Skyblog, Viadeo, Dofus, BlogSpirit, CanalBlog, OverBlog… and there are 3 distinct groups in France around culinary, political and IT gadget blogs.”

Fred Cavazza raises a good point. Let’s have a look at the main challenges presented by local offerings and local players. These are areas where you will need to adapt to fit in with what works in the local social media environment.

Cultural Differences in How People Respond to Social Media

Cultural differences always impact how people use social media. Here are some insights from a few culturally minded social media players.

Engagement—Jack Yan says, “There seems to be a gap between Americans and New Zealanders on Twitter usage, for instance. Kiwis, for the most part, seem to engage a bit moreand there are relatively fewer accounts, proportionally, made up of automated tweets. There seems to be more of a demand on American tweeters, for instance, to provide a lot of content, and I suspect that this drives the automation. This arguably comes back to the different cultures: one historically more collaborative, the other historically more individualistic.

Hesitation—France shares a trait with many countries: hesitation and observation before engaging in new social mediaThierry de Baillon says, “Where Anglo Saxons are prone to quickly dive into new platforms and get new habits, Frenchies stick with old ones, watching others acting while taking their time.”

Networking—Lucy Chatburn sees more networking activity on both LinkedIn and Facebook in Turkey than in the UK. “This could be because networking doesn’t come naturally to many British people. And a LinkedIn profile is definitely not seen as an essential career tool in the UK.”

Shyness—Mixi, a leading social network in Japan, added a special feature to make it easier for people to make friends.

Of course, there are many more ways cultural differences impact social media. Before you can find the right way for your business to connect with people on social media platforms in different countries, you do need to:

  • Develop cultural awareness
  • Do your research
  • Adapt your communication and social approach

Evolution in Local Players

Other challenges in international social media are related to changes in popularity of social media platforms. A snapshot of the social media environment in any country may not remain current for long. Social media environments change.

Facebook’s growth has had an impact on many countries outside of North America. Orkut’s popularity in Brazil and India is changing.

This is why it is difficult for businesses to know how to:

  • Anticipate where to spend time
  • Identify the most relevant social media platforms for their business

Good monitoring practices and a local presence are keys to success.

Can Social Media Help Your International Business?

There are many reasons why this is a tough question to answer. As we have seen above, statistics do not always reflect how people use social media. There are also:

  • Different speeds of adopting social media
  • Differences in how locals use social media
  • Differences in how businesses can use social media in different countries

On the one hand, local statistics can be misleading. Another culturally minded social media player, Martin Lindeskog points out that “The broadband/high-speed Internet connection is very common here in Sweden.” However, he also notes that “you can’t find many examples of companies that have embraced a new type of media strategy in full scale yet. There is a lot of talk about Twitter, but you don’t see many companies microblogging.

On the other hand, although statistics only tell part of the story, a detailed view of the local social media environment can give you valuable insights. According to Fred Cavazza, the social media market in France was evangelized long ago by local players, and this made the road to success easy to maneuver for Facebook in France.

Successful International Social Media

If you are serious about using social media within an international marketing strategy, you will need:

  • Strong cross-cultural skills
  • Local professionals

The right people will help you through the complexity in finding:

  • Preferred offers
  • Communication preferences
  • Use of different platforms
  • Where and how the people you want to reach use social media in their country

A Source of Inspiration

In addition to connecting with business networking partners abroad, there is another good reason to keep an ear open for what is happening in international social media: there is richness in diversity. And this can help you stay in tune with social media as it evolves for everyone.

Monitoring how businesses in other countries use social media helps you to:

  • Get ideas for new things to try in your own country
  • Spot new trends in other areas of the world which might, in time, affect your own industry

As different people around the world adapt social media to their own cultural tastes and the driving forces in their local markets, we are sure to see:

  • More innovation
  • Different uses for social media in business
  • Opportunities to adapt the strategies and tools we are familiar with to new international markets

Observing these changes and understanding why they fail or succeed increase our understanding of what social media is all about. Although North American businesses are using social media more than businesses elsewhere, there are many examples of innovation and inspiration to be found outside of North America. This alone is why following international social media is useful to many businesses.

Now, over to you…

  • What have you learned by observing social media in other countries?
  • What is the most interesting difference in international social media to you?
  • What anecdotes can you share about social media in different countries?

 

 

This article deals primarily with the functions that social media has in the world today and how it connects different countries together.  With the developing world that we have with technology, it is almost a must to have a good, strong connection to the internet and social media, because if you don’t, you will more than likely get left behind.

All over the world, there are countries that are using social media and they are able to keep up with one another and how the others are doing and get new ideas.  They talk about many countries that are using social media, including Brazil and the United Kingdom.  It is a great way to keep other countries very close to you and know exactly what they are doing with products and things like that.  What would once take years to get from country to country can now get there in a matter of minutes if it is put on the internet or some social media site.  This makes things very convenient for countries and they can keep tabs on one another.  On another note, though, it makes the distance that these countries are from each other very much closer.  You can get ideas so quickly that it come sometimes be a bad thing.  There is so much that countries can find out about one another, and it makes it difficult to keep to yourself; most everyone in the world knows your business.

Whether it is a good thing or not, it is what the world is going to.  Whether you agree or not, it is something that international competition has become and countries have to do it.  I personally think things are going extremely quickly, and people do not understand exactly what is going to happen, but that doesn’t really matter.  The world we live in almost requires that you do this, and it can be scary at times.  If you are going to stay up with the global market, you have to be on social media; otherwise, you will be left in the dust and will never be able to compete with the other countries around the world.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Globalization Article

Globalization” has become a dirty word.

Americans associate it with jobs being shipped overseas, falling wages and living standards, and the unsettling rise of China as a world power. But there are upsides to globalization too, even if they’re less apparent. The cost of many consumer goods, for example—think most of the stuff at Wal-Mart—has stayed low or gone down in recent years, thanks largely to cheap imports from Asia and other low-cost manufacturing regions.

[See 11 corporate honchos who were rewarded after failing.]

Globalization has also been an enormous boon for some of the biggest names in corporate America, along with investors who own the stocks and even some of the people who work for those companies. Big U.S. firms—often called “multinationals,” for good reason—have increasingly followed global growth, with about 40 percent of profit for firms listed in the S&P 500 stock index now coming from overseas. Foreign exposure allows U.S.-based companies to capitalize on rapid growth in emerging markets like China, India, and Latin America, and earn much stronger profits than if they were totally dependent on the struggling U.S. economy.

That’s one reason the stock market has generally been strong over the last two years, despite lackluster growth in the big economies of the United States and Europe. “The S&P 500 is not U.S. GDP,” says David Bianco, head of U.S. equity strategy for Bank of America Merrill Lynch. “The S&P 500 continues to outgrow the U.S. economy. Earnings power is decoupled from U.S. GDP.” That decoupling is why he and many other analysts expect the S&P 500 to resume its upward momentum later this year, despite a slowdown in the U.S. and European economies.

It’s true that some U.S. multinationals hire cheap foreign workers instead of Americans, and keep certain profits overseas to avoid paying U.S. taxes on them. But they also sell their goods and services in global markets that would be dominated by foreign competitors if the American firms weren’t there. To explore the extent to which U.S. firms depend on foreign sales, I reviewed information supplied by data and analytics firm Capital IQ, showing foreign sales for all the S&P 500 firms that report such figures. The data show that for most big U.S. firms, foreign sales are a significant portion of total revenues, while firms with little or no foreign revenue are the exception. To highlight the importance of foreign sales, I used Capital IQ’s data to provide snapshots of the leading U.S. firms in 15 industries. Here’s how foreign sales contribute to overall revenue at 15 well-known American companies.

Wal-Mart. Total revenue: $420 billion. Portion from overseas: 26 percent. With humble roots in Arkansas, Wal-Mart began as a homespun American retailer. But it now operates nearly 5,000 stores in 14 foreign countries, including China, India, the U.K., and Latin America. Most of those stores operate under names other than Wal-Mart. Foreign penetration is one area where Wal-Mart maintains a competitive edge, since other big American retailers have a smaller overseas footprint, or none at all.

[See 5 reasons taxes are going to rise.]

Exxon-Mobil. $342 billion in revenue, 45 percent from overseas. Like other big oil companies, Exxon goes where the oil is and sells to customers throughout the globe. Exxon derives slightly more revenue from overseas operations than rivals like Chevron or ConocoPhillips.

General Electric. $149 billion in revenue, 54 percent from overseas. GE prides itself on its international footprint, although a few industrial firms, such as Caterpillar and 3M, earn an even larger portion of their revenue overseas. GE has sizeable operations in Europe, China, Russia, and India, along with a significant presence in Africa, the Middle East, and other parts of the developing world. Overseas operations include infrastructure development and investment activities led by GE’s financial arm.

Bank of America. $134 billion in revenue, 20 percent from overseas. Conventional banking tends to be a domestic business, although big firms with an investment banking arm, like B of A’s Merrill Lynch division, do business wherever their big corporate clients do. Europe is the biggest overseas region for Bank of America. Other financial firms have a stronger focus on China and India.

[See why gas and food prices are likely to drop.]

Ford. $129 billion in revenue, 51 percent from overseas. Foreign automakers sell a lot of cars in the United States, but U.S. carmakers are global, too. Ford, like General Motors, has a strong presence in Canada and Europe, while GM, through a joint venture, is one of the biggest carmakers in China—where its profits sometimes exceed those earned in the United States. Ford, meanwhile, has emerged as the strongest domestic automaker, which should help overseas sales.

McKesson. $112 billion in revenue, 9 percent from overseas. This big healthcare and pharmaceutical firm has mainly stayed in the United States, with relatively small interests in Mexico and Canada. With the exception of pharmaceutical companies, American healthcare firms tend to stay rooted at home, partly because the market here is so big, and partly because healthcare in many other countries is heavily regulated and dominated by government.

IBM. $100 billion in revenue, 64 percent from overseas. Like GE, IBM is another old-line firm that has grown roots throughout the globe and profited handsomely from globalization. IBM piggybacks on the global growth of its many corporate clients, while also pursuing new initiatives such as a big wireless-phone network in Africa. IBM aims to draw nearly 30 percent of its revenue from emerging markets by 2015.

[See 5 reasons to stop fearing China.]

UnitedHealth Group. $94 billion in revenue, none from overseas. Like other big health insurers, UnitedHealth does all of its business in the United States, where employer-paid healthcare represents a unique business model that’s not easily exportable to other countries. That’s one reason many jobs in healthcare are considered invulnerable to offshoring.

Boeing. $64 billion in revenue, 41 percent from overseas. Airlines in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East are important customers, but Boeing still sells the majority of its planes to airlines in the United States. Boeing would love to increase foreign sales, but Europe’s Airbus poses tough competition, and now Chinese manufacturers are getting into the commercial airline business.

Dow Chemical. $54 billion in revenue, 67 percent from overseas. Dow is another big beneficiary of globalization, with most of its growth coming from exploding sales in overseas markets where demand for plastics, building materials, paint, and other Dow products is skyrocketing. By 2012, Dow hopes that 35 percent of revenue will come from emerging markets like China, eastern Europe, Latin America, and Africa.

[See where to work if you want a raise.]

Intel. $44 billion in revenue, 85 percent from overseas. Intel sells its chips and processors mainly to producers that build computers, which is why the company’s biggest market is Taiwan, followed by China. The United States is third. Many of those chips sold overseas obviously make their way to the United States inside imported computers. Other companies that make technology components, such as Texas Instruments and AMD, earn a similar portion of revenue overseas.

Amazon. $34 billion in revenue, 45 percent from overseas. A lot of dot-com businesses take their time expanding overseas, since growth in the digital sector here in the United States is usually brisk enough to keep them busy. But Amazon has been around long enough to have set up robust operations in Canada, several European countries, Japan, and even China.

McDonald’s. $24 billion in revenue, 66 percent from overseas. The fast-food chain might seem as American as 79-cent apple pie, but McDonald’s earns the majority of its revenue from Europe and Asia. McDonald’s learned long ago that it can’t necessarily sell the same burgers and fries in foreign markets, which is why global operations focus on making sure foreign outlets fit into the local culture. At about 400 stores in China, McDonald’s even delivers.

[In Pictures: How 15 U.S. Firms Depend on Foreign Sales.]

Nike. $21 billion in revenue, 50 percent from overseas. Sales in North America grew a healthy 13 percent last year, but in China they grew 16 percent—and in emerging markets, 19 percent. Americans may think of Nike as a ubiquitous sponsor of athletes in professional baseball, football, and basketball, but it also backs huge international events such as soccer’s World Cup. Nike manufactures about one-third of its shoes in China, but also considers China one of its most important sources of sales growth in the future.

Marriott. $12 billion in revenue, 16 percent from overseas. The big hotel chain, which includes Marriott, Courtyard, Fairfield Inn, Residence Inn, and Ritz-Carlton properties, has a smaller overseas presence than other chains like Starwood and Wyndham. But it expects foreign sales to become a bigger part of its portfolio in the future. Of 700 hotels Marriott is developing, about 45 percent will be located outside North America. Their patrons will no doubt include a lot of American businesspeople scouting foreign markets.

http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/flowchart/2011/06/30/why-us-companies-arent-so-american-anymore

Article Review

Globalization, in this articles opinion, is a double edged sword that can be a very good thing for the United States and for the world, while on the other hand it can be a very bad thing as well.  Globalization can be a great way for people to make money and be able to impose what they are believing and run a company in a different country.  At the same time, though, you are taking away jobs from Americans and it is becoming an increasingly patchy and rough economy here in the United States.

            There truly is a double edged when it comes to outsourcing jobs.  There are some huge negatives to moving companies overseas and having globalization occur. Jobs for Americans are being lost because of the shifting of this.  The companies can go overseas and hire cheap labor that will do the jobs that we won’t do here in the United States, without getting paid a lot more.  Also, this trickles down and affects all people with their wages, the way they can live, and what they do on a day to day basis.  Jobs are being lost and it really hurts people that had those jobs in the first place.  People cannot do what they used to do now because of the loss of jobs.  It also takes the influence of these companies and spreads them out to other places.  Yes, that can be a positive in the other countries, but it also makes it less prominent here in the United States. 

            While all these negative things are happening, you have to realize that there are positives to Globalization.  For one, countries are getting things that we here in the United States are getting.  With Nike, Wal-Mart, Marriot, things of that nature going overseas, it allows for people in other countries to experience some of the great things that we, a lot of times, take for granted here in the United States.  Not only does that happen, it does provide jobs for those people in other countries.  Yes, we lose them domestically, but there is two sides to every coin.  People around the world get a chance to do work for an American company.  Whether it is ethical or right or all that is another argument for another day, but they do get jobs.  One thing that is really positive for us here in the U.S. is that even though our economy is struggling, we still have low price because of this.  This allows for the companies to keep their prices low here in the states and I don’t think that there are many Americans that mind that too much.

            At the end of the day, positives and negatives come out of globalizing these companies.  There are many other aspects of globalization, and this is just one.  Whether people like it or not, we better get used to it; it is the way the world is going today. We will continue to globalize and make things easily accessible and other countries and move things to other countries.  There are some drawbacks to this happening, but for right now it is alright.  Now things could dramatically change and I could have a different opinion, but for now it’s ok.  We as people just need to work together to try and help make this monster of globalization work, because whether we are ready for it or not, it’s coming and it’s coming in a hurry. 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment