04/4/19

Apple Corporation: Why Trump’s Demands Are Not So Easy

Since his installment as the President of the United States, Donald Trump has been at the very center of widespread media coverage due to his countless controversial outbursts on social media. One such outburst, earlier this year regarding the production of Apple products has attracted the watchful eyes of many political thinkers due to his realist undertone. The POTUS stated that “Apple makes their product in China. I told Tim Cook, who’s a friend of mine … ‘Make your products in the United States'” pointing a finger at CEO Tim Cook for undermining the economic benefits of the US. Subsequently, Trump stated that China was the biggest beneficiary of Apple’s production profits, taking away jobs from Americans and pawning them off to a much cheaper and foreign labor force that does nothing to fuel the American GDP.

The president made his statements seemingly to keep in line with his ongoing trade war with China and made it clear to the American public that the US needs to focus on supporting Americans financially by providing jobs on the home front. This call to action however, really isn’t as easy as it may seem, corporations like Apple who are based out of the United States cannot simply just up and leave from one country. In fact, if Apple were to truly bring its entire operation to the US, that would mean a withdrawal of operations from not just China but Germany, where the sensors of iPhones are produced, Korea, the place of origin for the iPhone’s screen, and Japan, where the iPhone’s memory is produced. The withdrawal of this complex supply chain of goods would call for an immediate surge of skills education in the United States which would need to be built from the ground up. Not only that, but even if the US had the skilled labor to produce these products, the corporation would be taking a major loss of profits due to the higher employment and production costs that would come with bringing all of Apple’s operations stateside.
In conclusion, the web of inter connectivity that MNCs have introduced into the global scale are of utmost significance and are fragile in terms of international affairs, but if this is the way the world learns peace and unity, I am all for it, I think that globalization is well worth the risks that realists claim that it brings to state sovereignty.
Sources
Wattles, Jackie, and Sarah Westwood. “Trump Again Says Apple Should Change How It Makes the IPhone.” CNN, Cable News Network, 4 Jan. 2019, www.cnn.com/2019/01/04/tech/trump-apple-china/index.html.
04/4/19

Multinational Corporations: Too Much, Too Little, or Just Enough?

Arguably one of the most debated topics in the world of multinational corporations, how do MNCs affect the existence and effectiveness of states? Many scholars throughout the course of political science often find themselves scattered in terms of their alignment with regards to this debate. While Liberals would state that MNCs are in fact strictly beneficial, offering jobs, catalyzing sustainable economic development, and helping the process of globalization along, Marxists and Realists would state otherwise. Marxists believing that while these multinational corporations may in fact be beneficial, there is an extent to which the benefit can be widely accepted; give MNCs too much freedom and power and Marxists would begin to see the owners/managers of these MNCs as a transnational class of elites that practically rule the world through fiscal methods. Realists on another front would state the plain negatives, claiming that these MNCs are undermining the absolute power of state sovereignty.

I wouldn’t be able to argue for which one of these schools of thought is right or wrong, but in terms of which school of thought expresses a fairly balanced perspective in terms of this debate, I’d have to hand it to the Marxists. I’ve always felt that liberal thinking on this matter, while positive and optimistic of the world we live in, sees too much of it through rose-tinted glasses, too much MNC involvement in a state can lead to economic dependencies as seen in Brazil during the 2002 re-elections. Some realists are a little bit too radical for me in terms of state-oriented thinking… Yes, I believe that state sovereignty is most definitely a structure that must be upheld and enforced on a global scale, but it is undeniable that the operation of MNCs does promote the idea of international cohesion and communication. The fact that humanity has gone over 70 years without a world war is not a coincidence, in fact, I’d assert that the fact that humanity has not plunged into a global-scale conflict most definitely has to do with the surge in development of international relations and MNCs do play a major role in that.

To conclude my thoughts regarding this debate of state power vs. MNC power, I’d like to reinstate the fact that while MNCs can bring job opportunities, technology, educational aspects, and most importantly, economic benefit to a host country, their level of involvement in host states must be considered by governments. Too much of a good thing can sometimes lead a vicious cycle of economic dependency in certain regions of the world, world leaders must take into account the premise that money can exit just as fast as it enters an economy.

 

Sources

Younge, Gary. “Who’s in Control – Nation States or Global Corporations? | Gary Younge.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 2 June 2014, www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/02/control-nation-states-corporations-autonomy-neoliberalism.