In his interview today by Maria Bartiromo on Fox News, Trump made an interesting comment about "time horizons" in the context of the increasing anxiety that the US economy is being pushed to a recession - "If you look at China, they have a 100 year perspective, we go by quarters." Now, I have been studying corporate short-termism for a while. It's generally viewed as disproportionately high focus on short-term outcomes, while putting long-term health of firm at stake. And in all organizations I have worked with, this has been a phenomenon I couldn't reconcile with. But then, the other extreme is excessive focus on long-term at the cost of short-term pain and chaos, which is also fundamentally flawed - because human lives are short, and so are firms' resources; they can't be stretched beyond a point in hope of a distant future while sustaining in the present becomes too challenging. Firms therefore need to achieve a balance of short-term and long-term so that they thrive in the present but are also building themselves for long-term competitiveness.
There is definite truth to what Trump said. Research has established that excessive financialization and shareholder focus have made American firms more and more short-term oriented, and it has been partially responsible for many industries within US losing their competitiveness over the past several decades. Aside from the above statement, it is hard to infer anything concrete on Trump's temporal orientations though, which can sound either way based on which statement or move you analyze. I think one way to view politics is as an art which is meant to achieve a balanced temporal agenda, assuming the politicians are well meaning. Art has various manifestations though, some of which have abilities to push boundaries."You can’t turn a no to a yes without a maybe in between"
- Francis Underwood
No comments:
Post a Comment