-

-

Compartmentalization Stifles Realities-

of Manufacturing Market Sector!

Through the synergism of highly improbable circumstances and great effort, I have attained a rarefied perspective of the world of business. This, relates to manufacturing in the United States having reached critical mass, has a severely detrimental impact on over 99 percent of the companies involved, and a vast majority of the 14.1 million currently employed in the sector; and, for the continued survival of those companies and well-being of their employees (and families), should not be ignored. This document will establish the unknown and catastrophic disparity between the realities of the U.S. market for manufactured goods, and facing challenges for which they are unprepared, the errant perceptions of domestic manufacturers. It is neither an entertainingly wordsmithed [sic] nor a casually ingested read, but, in terms of personal relevance, may be among the most important documents you have ever encountered—and is certainly among the most original.

It is first necessary to define the universe of commerce by establishing the size of the global market; in 2007, the projected midyear population of the world was 6,602,274,812, with a projected Gross World Product of $51,511.2 billion (on an exchange rate basis). World exports are projected to total $16,139.2 billion this year, including $14,137.0 billion for goods and $2,002.2 billion for services.

While the magnitude of a $53.5 trillion market base may challenge one’s view of commerce, it can be seen as a more easily manageable potential from the perspective of big business. Although a ubiquitous term, most would be hard-pressed to define “big business”; it is used here to describe companies variably known as transnational or multinational corporations, which are comprised of a corporation headquartered in one country owning and/or operating subsidiary companies in the same and/or other countries of the world. Due to the economy of scale at which they typically operate, and the creative ways they leverage geoeconomic activity to market advantage, these corporations are the movers and shakers of global commerce; individually, the largest are monolithic, but collectively, their, size, power and influence on the human condition, from the cradle to the grave, is nearly incomprehensible.

Though it may seem power is too blithely attributed to transnational corporations, consider this… the combined $20,900.34 billion sales revenue of Fortune’s Global 500 companies accounted for 43.41 percent of the $48,144.47 billion Gross World Product in 2006—that’s substantially more than the 27.51 percent represented by the U.S. Gross Domestic Product last year! More evidence in their economic power can be seen in the evolutionary changes having a profound effect on our everyday lives and the way business around the world is conducted: Wal-Mart’s (Fortune magazine’s #1 Global 500 company, based on its $351,139 million revenue in 2006, when compared amongst global economies by Gross Domestic Product, ranked 23^rd) aggressive distribution and expansion strategies contributed immensely to the decimation of Hometown, USA’s Main Street; the Foreign Direct Investment of trillions of dollars over several decades, by what is now over 280,000 foreign affiliates (2005 estimate) of transnational corporations having a presence in its economy, empowered China’s transition from a Second World nation to one having an extraordinarily robust economy (second only to the U.S., based on Purchasing Power Parity—up from its rank as ninth in the last 25 years) able to usurp both jobs and consumer market base from all major developed economies; and a quantum leap in the communication infrastructure enables companies, possessing the resources to implement such strategies, to globally outsource order fulfillment, customer support and a broad range of other business services from countries able to provide them at a fraction of their domestic costs. The universe of transnational corporations (2005 data), across the full spectrum of commerce, was comprised of 77,175 parent corporations (2,418 based in the U.S.) and 773,019 foreign affiliates (24,607 based in the U.S.).

Proving the power and influence of transnational corporations, without objectively measuring their geopolitical clout, would be an exercise in futility; fortunately, the U.N. Convention on Trade and Development tracked 2,267 regulatory changes to Foreign Direct Investment in over 100 countries between 1992 and 2005; of those, 2,078 were decided most favorably to transnational corporations—that’s a 91.66 percent success rate!

The midyear population of the United States was 301,770,947, and its projected Gross Domestic Product for 2007 is $13,794.22 billion; that places the U.S. economy in the unusual position of representing only 4.56 percent of the world population, yet possessing 25.85 percent of its projected wealth for the year. Viewing the U.S. economy from an outside perspective, as are the native views of 75,993 parent corporations and 753,040 foreign affiliates of transnational corporations (2006 data) around the globe, it offers the advantage of being accessible via a single language. What may initially seem lost in Political Correctness is gained in practicability; in 2005, only 4.8 percent of U.S. households were determined to be linguistically isolated. As defined by the U.S. Census Bureau: “A linguistically isolated household is one in which no member 14 years and over (1) speaks only English or (2) speaks a non-English language and speaks English "very well." In other words, all members of the household 14 years and over have at least some difficulty with English.”

When basing analysis on multiple source data, it can only be correlated on the data series with the slowest publishing date; as that is the case here, so that all of this data meshes as precisely as possible, it incorporates company financial, international trade, exporter profile and business pattern data from 2005. With that stated, in 2005, there were 333,460 manufacturing establishments in the United States. It is also important to understand that all statistical data herein relates to manufacturing as a whole; so although there will be sectoral differences, given the level of market erosion revealed, there is little reason to believe more than a few manufacturing sectors remain relatively unscathed by the competitive onslaught revealed—contributing to the attrition of several thousand U.S. manufacturers each year.

This involves intense macroeconomic insight into the U.S. economy and impact of geoeconomics on manufacturers, and ultimately proves their lack of awareness is as demonstrable as it is counterintuitive to their future survival, and without the implementation of remedial strategies, predictive of their not-too-distant future demise. I’ll start by defining the size of the U.S. market based on its demand for manufactured goods; this will provide what economists refer to as the “apparent consumption” of the U.S. consumer market. In 2005, U.S. manufacturers reported $5,385,929 million in gross sales, but it is first necessary to deduct the $708,406.41 million in exports of manufactures, and then add the import of $1,370,916.36 million in manufactures to determine an accurate assessment of the domestic market’s true size. That brings the apparent consumption of manufactured goods by the U.S. market to $6,048,438.95 million—for simplification, $6.05 trillion.

Exports are deceptive in economic analysis, typically addressed indirectly as if they were a generic national credit allocated to offset a portion of the incursion of our economy by foreign companies; a tendency hiding a tragic flaw in the conceptual interpretation of the data—viewing them independently of imports is more revealing and much more disturbing. It is important to know that only 65,413, or 20.22 percent, of all U.S. manufacturers exported in 2005, and perhaps even more important that the top 2,000 manufacturing exporters accounted for 89.7 percent of $708.41 billion in U.S. exports of manufactured goods in 2005. This establishes that 63,413 exporting companies received only marginal benefits from their international trade activities, which enables us to conclude that 99.40 percent of all domestic manufacturers are dependent on the U.S. consumer market base for survival. With the awareness that exporting is of substantial benefit to less than one percent of all manufacturing enterprises, we are better prepared to comprehend the devastation of U.S. imports.

To better understand the apparent market’s competitiveness level, it must be viewed layer by layer; for example, using the “Quarterly Financial Report for Manufacturing, Mining, and Trade Corporations” publication, it is possible to determine that the small number of manufacturers having over $1 billion in assets, accounted for 71.95 percent of the gross sale of manufactured goods (a concentration ratio). However, after having 89.7 percent of $708.41 billion in U.S. exports deducted from their revenue, only 55.22 percent of the “apparent market” value. These same companies also earned more than double, 232.09 percent, the after tax profits (8.59 to 3.80 percent) on the combined earnings of all other domestic manufacturers. This analysis required some estimation, since by company type, manufacturers accounted for only 64.45 percent of the exports of manufactured goods in 2005, the remaining 35.55 percent were identified as “wholesalers, others, and unclassified” entities; but, regardless of seller type, because they were originally sourced from domestic manufacturers, half the value of those goods were deducted from manufacturers having over $1 billion in assets and half from the all other manufacturer group to arrive at final figures for calculating share of the apparent market. Although the statistical difference is negligible, I have gone to considerable length to present the data as factually, forthrightly, and with as much statistical integrity as possible.

As to the foreign competition of U.S. industry, a cursory view of the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis data indicates the “Share of Gross Output by Industry” for the Compensation of Employees in Manufacturing is 20.7 percent, taken in conjunction with the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics release ”International Comparisons of Hourly Compensation Costs for Production Workers in Manufacturing, 2005” which indicates that average hourly compensation costs in U.S. dollars for production workers in manufacturing among 32 foreign economies were 80 percent of the U.S. level in 2005 indicates that domestic industry is not well positioned to face foreign competition. However, even that is deceptive, since just crossing the border to Mexico brought the U.S. hourly compensation down from an average $23.65 to $2.63 (2005 data); and that data also excludes China, our number one source of manufactured imports. Beyond that, it is perhaps best to look to precedent; on December 31, 2004, three decades of trade quotas for a range of textile goods expired, but the U.S. was flooded by imports from China before Congress had restored the quotas, and by the end of the first quarter of 2005, 14 textile plants in five states had been closed, and 17,200 jobs had been lost! In all probability, the loss of these jobs in old mill towns had a devastating impact on the local economies.

With an apparent market value of $6.05 trillion, manufactured imports of $1.37 trillion represent a usurpation of 22.67 percent of the U.S. market by foreign companies; however, unlike exports, their market impact wrought competitive damage across the full spectrum of domestic manufacturers! When combined with the 55.22 percent market share captured by billion dollar domestic enterprises, that totaled 77.89 percent—leaving just 22.11 percent of the domestic market for manufactured goods, by value, for roughly 331,460 U.S. manufacturers. Because the extent to which the largest manufacturers control the U.S. market is not widely known, the outperformance of all other U.S. manufacturers by foreign competitors is completely overshadowed. To illustrate, from the prospective ordinarily presented, the $662,509.953 million U.S. trade deficit would be measured against its $6,048,438.95 million apparent market and viewed as a foreign incursion of 10.95 percent of its value—raising very few, if any, alarms; thus revealing how U.S. manufacturers have unknowingly faced what amounts to their own genocide for decades. However, to more clearly assess the assault on 331,460 U.S. manufacturers, if companies owning over $1 billion in assets were eliminated from the equation, the $1,337,582.78 million in gross sales (after export deductions) by remaining U.S. manufacturers accounted for only 49.38 percent of the $2,708,499.14 million apparent market; revealing the $1,370,916.36 million in imports dominated the U.S. market with a 50.62 percent market share! U.S manufacturers would have to increase their sales by 102.49 percent in foreign markets to counterbalance the incursion of imports; and that applies only to external competition, not their most powerful domestic competitors!

The more ways I have attempted to check the data and verify conclusions drawn, the more startling these findings have become. It occurred to me that a straightforward comparison of growth among the three entities fighting to dominate the U.S. market might be helpful. In order to base such calculations on a continuous period ending with the most current like data, it could start no earlier than 1997, the year the North American Industry Classification System was implemented. So, for U.S. manufacturers owning over $1 billion in assets, the Compound Annual Growth Rate between 1997 and 2006 was 6.44 percent; for all other U.S. manufacturers, it was 0.46 percent (that is correct, weighed to reflect market share that’s a near zero growth rate over a nine year period!); and for U.S. imports of manufactured goods, a sound 8.12 percent. This serves as a clear indication of the relative erosion, at the hands of their competitors, of the market share upon which most U.S. manufactures (those having under $1 billion in assets) depend for survival.

As bad as things seem for U.S. manufacturers, there are additional dynamics to consider. On December 19, 2006, President Bush signed the “U.S.-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act,” an agreement that will enable U.S. businesses to become involved in helping to complete reactors currently under construction and construct new reactors forming a nuclear power grid helping meet its energy demands of the 21^st century. While a long-term consideration, the industrialization that will accompany such a construction effort will be substantial. Having a midyear population of 1,129,866,154 this year, India is well-primed to be exploited by the army of transnational corporations that are so successfully plying opportunities in China to great advantage. In India, due primarily to the colonization of Great Britain, English is widely spoken among the governmental, business and academic sectors. As described in the Central Intelligence Agency’s publication “The World Factbook 2007”: “English enjoys associate status but is the most important language for national, political, and commercial communication; Hindi is the national language and primary tongue of 30% of the people; there are 14 other official languages: Bengali, Telugu, Marathi, Tamil, Urdu, Gujarati, Malayalam, Kannada, Oriya, Punjabi, Assamese, Kashmiri, Sindhi, and Sanskrit; Hindustani is a popular variant of Hindi/Urdu spoken widely throughout northern India but is not an official language.”

Should the above be found wanting, there are two other vital elements to consider. The first is, given the magnitude of the U.S. market share usurped by foreign competitors, the only hope for salvation is through expansion into foreign markets; however, the feeble export intensities of the small percentage of U.S. manufacturers having tried to do that are meaningless against the challenges facing U.S. industry. It is important to note those efforts have failed despite the broad range of governmental and private sector export assistance services currently available, their best efforts have proven inadequate and they are too limited by compartmentalization (the primary reason all of this has gone unnoticed by so many experts for so long) to significantly improve the services they provide. Secondly, under the best of circumstances, remedial efforts are time-dependent; even with all of the right strategies implemented, it would take a considerable amount of time for a company to develop export intensity (share of gross sales) of sufficient value to help withstand and overcome the damage inflicted on its domestic market base. Whether companies implement “offset” expansion, due to the differences across market sectors, vulnerabilities specific to individual enterprises, and variations in their ability to accommodate company growth; there is no way of predicting a point of no return for an unknown (pardon the expression) drop-dead date… yet, the reality of such a date, for each and every company, is certain. The only possible ways to avoid inevitable inviability is to make acquisition of domestic manufacturers by transnational corporations irresistible propositions, or to implement the most powerful remedial strategies available stat, in the hope there is sufficient time remaining for those efforts to secure salvation from the further erosion of their market base.

As for human resource managers of all levels, please take no offense, but deciding such matters is beyond your purview; yet, as you are among the most likely of company representatives to review this document, it is essential to the long-term survival of your company that it be brought to the immediate attention of company principals. U.S. manufacturers are being decimated because they are not fully aware of the perils they face!

In the open letter below you will find an empirical basis for having extraordinary capabilities, and beyond that a single-page résumé and cover letter—by then, the veracity of both will be self-evident.

An Overview of the Most Empowering

Business Paradigm Able to be Seamlessly

Integrated into Existing Enterprises!

“In summation… by capturing its essence in a mosaic of geoeconomic data, I have distilled a macrocosmic to microcosmic overview of global commerce to a conceptual level sufficiently coherent to demonstrably indicate its ease of integration into novel and practicable business strategies developed to most effectively leverage the advantages gained in doing so; though imprudent to divulge explicit details, they are as reliable as the underlying data, and can do, as much, and in most cases, more, to increase growth and ensure economic viability, as any measure ever conceived to enhance the facilitation of commerce.”

-

Thomas J Judge Jr

985-285-8472

tjudge@usa.com

Dear Sir or Madam:

I recently received an intriguing email solicitation from a company specializing in the placement of senior level executives; I delayed responding by two weeks, awaiting release of the Feb. 13, 2007, “FT900: U.S. International Trade in Goods and Services” publication (which is coincident with the monthly update of the International Trade Commission’s Trade DataWeb database), containing end-of-year data for 2006. After sending the original version (it has since been modified to address both recruiters and potential client companies) of this email in response; within two hours I received a brief phone call from the company’s owner, during which several comments were made revealing he had neither completely, nor carefully, read the document—one, originally solicited by, and inspiring a response to, him—at that point, I realized the opportunity would come to naught. Pardon the cynicism, but assessing a multiple-page document verifiably detailing global commerce from its totality of a $48.1 trillion Gross World Product (in 2006), which is then methodically stepped-down to a level of detail able to sustain individual companies in their struggle for survival against the increasing competitiveness of globalization, as evidence that, “You sure do like to type”—was interpreted as being somewhat sophomoric (if you need an under 200 word assessment of globalization's impact on industry; check out my blog, “The Imminent Ruin of U.S. Industry…”). He then stated, “You’ll be in our database”; so, from the outset, allow me to allay any confusion by clearly stating that this document provides a glimpse of the most extraordinarily powerful business paradigm you have ever encountered—you must either be willing to invest the time and effort necessary to determine the legitimacy of that assertion (which can be accomplished by reading this eight-page document), or move on. Based on novel strategies and unconventional methodologies, the program I have developed can facilitate sustainable growth at the most accelerated rate a company is able to maintain—in globalizing markets becoming more competitive each day, such capabilities are highly relevant and of potential benefit to over 50,000 companies (pragmatically, all U.S manufacturers having over 50 employees; although a much broader range of client companies, including those that are service oriented, throughout the world can benefit from the services I am able to provide); yet, they are unknown to exist, and due to that… should not be expected to be sought out by even the most progressively-managed businesses! A serious conundrum for any executive placement service that would accept this challenge, but be aware there are considerable incentives for doing so; future revenue resulting from the ability to accept multiple clients is foremost among them. Because this document was inspired by the need to answer an email from an executive placement service, my response covered issues I would not have otherwise addressed; for that reason, although it now serves a broader purpose, I’ve decided to maintain the perspective used in my original email; but be aware that it may seem as though I’m addressing someone that does not exist—please, pardon the awkwardness, but I believe it mutually beneficial. As for the hyperlinks, since most of this document’s content, in terms of common knowledge, is beyond the norm; they establish that not only are these claims fact-based, but supported by the most authoritative sources available—what better foundation for the incredible and highly relevant capabilities I have developed to empower companies in seizing control of their destinies in the ever-expanding globalization of 21^st century commerce, a transition too critical to be speculative. The link on my name above, leads to a traditional single-page cover letter and résumé (PDF versions)—you can also find those documents below, by paging down to the “Cover Letter & Résumé” section; it may be best to begin there, as that will more closely align with the expectations of most while also providing incentive for a more thorough examination of my capabilities.

Your email stated, “Our methods are unique in that we are the only people in the country using this approach. Simply put, what we do is uncover real positions that match your skills, identify the actual decision maker for the position, not HR, and provide extensive research on the company that is utilized to differentiate you from the many thousands of candidates competing for the same position.” This also serves to effectively (IMHO) differentiate the services provided by your company from those of other executive placement services. That is a need I recognized long ago, and although I attempt to reference it deferentially in my online résumé (not the single-page PDF version), “Due to the magnitude and nature of the factors involved, this is beyond being the sole purview of the human resources manager; nonetheless, who is better qualified to vet such a unique and serendipitous opportunity relative to company needs?” I thought a backdoor approach through HR may prove helpful, but I lack your expertise and resources in dealing with the issue more directly. I address this because you assert being unique in the country in your methodologies—I do not dispute your claim, I celebrate it; and hope your “we” (you and your four colleagues—I had done some company research on ZoomInfo.com) have developed the most effective program possible, because only its existence would enable you to grasp, in a limited sense, my capabilities; they are even more rarefied because I can do what no other can! My situation is unlike any you have dealt with, I have created a service that is most accurately described as a Geoeconomics Strategist ( Google it, via the hyperlink; the term is unknown to exist elsewhere); within that context I have developed the most powerful business paradigm ever conceived. Through it, I am able to stem the rising tide, on a company-by-company basis, of globalizing competitiveness drowning U.S. manufacturing companies (in addition to those in other developed markets, while keeping smaller enterprises in developing markets mired in poverty) every day… although I have minor competitors, a small number of Export Management and Export Trading Companies (of dubious value at best, because they typically operate on a commission basis, and thus drive up prices of the very goods being sold, thereby diminishing their client’s competitiveness in foreign markets); be assured no equals exist among them (it would require an in-depth review of historical tax policies for Foreign Sales Corporations and IRS records involving the international sale of goods, but their general ineptitude is unambiguously provable).

End-of-year trade data for 2006, applied in conjunction with other economic data, has enabled determining that U.S. manufacturers having an export intensity (share of gross sales) less than 30.37% for 2006 (more accurately measured, as detailed in opening paragraphs, than the conventional method indicated in the table below), have lost ground in the domestic marketplace due to the extensive incursion of foreign-made goods. Can one number be so important? As a benchmark able to provide a clear indication of the tenuous nature of manufacturer viability in a dynamic marketplace under siege, it may provide the impetus for manufacturers to implement life sustaining measures in sufficient time for them to have effect; in addition, as an original, simple to understand example of relevant thinking, novel strategies, and a fresh perspective, it is… invaluable!

To the heart of the matter… I possess macrocosm-to-microcosm insight, sufficiently explicit to render exploitable, transaction-level commerce valued at several trillion dollars across major portions of the industry spectrum in nearly all markets of the world each year. Although that statement could be viewed as implying last year’s global total of $14,464 billion of international trade in goods and services; I consider the Foreign Direct Investment of Transnational Corporations, comprised of an estimated 77,175 parent companies and 773,019 foreign affiliates (as of 2005) throughout the world, to have blurred the distinction between the domestic and foreign sale of goods and services—therefore, from my perspective that insight extends to the full extent of the International Monetary Fund’s $48,144 billion Gross World Product estimated for 2006 (its projection for 2007 is $51,511 billion). Having stated that, it becomes necessary to take this missive from that ultimate macrocosm of commerce, worry not, I’ll keep it simple via the CIA’s “The World Factbook 2007,” and the World Trade Organization publication “World Trade Statistics 2006” (downloadable as a 274 page PDF document). We then transition from the Gross Domestic Product and foreign trade total of each individual nation, to socioeconomic statistics of the world’s most wealthy one; the Jan 31, 2007, Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) news release, enables us to determine that the $13,770.3 billion U.S. Gross Domestic Product for 2006 , represents 26.73% of the global economy—that’s quite impressive for a population representing only 4.58% of the world’s total. Although not obvious to Americans; the inverse is also true, 73.27% of the world’s economic power, and 95.42% of its population exists beyond our borders! Realizing the BEA to be a comprehensive compendium of U.S. economic data, one might consider the possibility of correlating trade balance data, specifically the difference between exports and imports expressed as surpluses and deficits, with Gross Domestic Product by Industry data, to devise an effective evaluation of the state of the U.S. economy on an industry-by-industry basis; however, it would soon be discovered that comparing like data series (that is, apples to apples, and oranges to oranges) is not an easy task in the data sets made available by the BEA.

Before going any further, allow me to explain that I began developing my own economics and international trade statistics over a decade ago to find solutions to questions unanswerable with the same pabulum being regurgitated by anyone wanting to appear being knowledgeable in the trade arena; familiarity with the variety of raw data, its many forms and the plethora of sources from which it is available, have enabled me to answer what I consider to be the most relevant questions facing companies involved in international commerce. Routinely outperforming “indigenous experts” (a term used to describe any group of professionals assembled to ply their efforts to common purpose, too often having unintended consequences) is not new to me, and since having had the good fortune to express some of those ideas on public forums (an activity given up long ago), although some have vaporized along with earlier-era Internet publications, in the wake of the Dot-Com Bust of 2000 – 2002; there still exists obscure trace evidence of having done so on more than one occasion. Here’s a monumentally-scaled example, relative to the commercial potential of the Internet; if not the very first, I was certainly among the first few (originally posted on Market-L, one of the oldest and most prestigious marketing oriented email discussion lists, on March 2, 1997) to project the economic potential of Internet commerce in terms of “trillions” of dollars. Nearly a decade later, here's a link to the last surviving (it remains strategically relevant despite its age) example of the brief article, “The Ultimate Market Potential of the Internet,” based on that posting. Within the constraints of a brief document, I have gone to considerable length to make all assertions self-evident. I cannot claim to possess abilities driven by a singular vision without realizing the self-serving nature and inability of substantiating such assertions; however unlikely, and to some degree, another brief article posted on the Internet years ago, supports that claim. Fortunately, I believe it to be relevant to the content of this document on multiple levels… “English-Only Web Sites Can Still Be Successful Internationally” ; it can be Googled with the following search parameters: “English appropriate markets” [ sic]. There are important factors to consider… first, given the billions of web pages indexed by Google, the difficulty of conducting an Internet search using simple parameters that return only a single web page (the direct link to search results verifies this fact); secondly, the length of time it has been on the Internet without the originality of its content having been compromised (obscurity, has its advantages); and finally, despite the simplicity of its premise, the singular nature of the article's content from a conceptual perspective (while relevant, I cannot recall encountering any other attempt to estimate the economic potential of the English language in commerce). I am an equal opportunity offender when detecting all manner of things amiss, and when feasible, often attempt to alert those involved in an effort to remedy the situation. “Pondering… …Imponderability”, is a collection of real-world incidents in which the limitations of a diverse range of indigenous experts are clearly differentiated from my own. Bear in mind that this document contains but a select few of similar incidents too numerous to remember, let alone have been documented; although most have prima facie value, to be fully appreciated, the incident concerning the “Encuentro” (“Welcome,” in Spanish) Trade Show needs a bit of background information. Encuentro, was an annual international trade show based in New Orleans, and although I prove it to have been ill-conceived, was a premiere event planned and sponsored by a highly prestigious group: the City of New Orleans, U.S. Department of Commerce, USAID, The Inter-American Development Bank, The Center of Democracy, The National League of Cities and the U.S. Export Assistance Center, among others. Worsening matters, it was only March 1994, when initially compelled to direct energies toward the void I perceived to exist in international commerce, and just 18 months later when my analysis of Encuentro enabled me to more fully grasp just how widespread was the nescience of those, even at the highest levels, involved in that endeavor. If naiveté was revealed in the handling of that situation, consider it due to my having been a novice in the trade arena, I’ve come a long way in the decade since… and my level of knowledge at the time (even if, beyond that of the principals involved in the planning of Encuentro), as compared to now, was that of a neophyte.

Since manufacturers accounted for approximately 12.1% of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product by Industry in 2005, the trade deficit on manufactured goods is substantial, and having a detrimental impact on U.S. companies and the jobs they create. In the case of a deficit for a particular commodity or industry sector, which is necessarily filled by imports to meet the demand of the U.S. market; the deficit represents a measure of the incursion of foreign companies (even if they are domestically owned) into the U.S. marketplace—displacing our industrial base. Being more thorough, it is possible to discover the International Trade Commission’s “Shifts in U.S. Merchandise Trade 2006,” a publication released on Aug 13, 2007; although a document in which trade deficits are added to industry sector outputs to indicate levels of apparent consumption within the U.S. economy—published on an annual basis and being over seven months old upon release, this report is inadequate to serve as a pulse on the state of the U.S. economy and industries. However, by using the U.S. Census Bureau’s “Manufacturers’ Shipments, Inventories and Orders (M3)” database, in conjunction with the International Trade Commission’s Trade DataWeb (using expert mode, and Chapter B of the “Manufacturers’ Shipments, Inventories and Orders (M3) 2005 Benchmark Publication,” (to correlate groupings of NAICS-6 level import and export data with the industry segmentation of M3 classifications), it is possible to adjust manufacturers’ shipments to reflect the surpluses and deficits of foreign trade. For the purpose of illustration, and to be expeditious, in this document I have included only All Manufacturing Industries. This is as current as national-level statistical data gets, less than six weeks old (and nearly six months ahead of the ITC’s release of its 2006 publication), can be updated monthly; and in all likelihood, is available nowhere else on the planet (certainly not as this is being read!). Aside from U.S. government statisticians, it is unlikely to find anyone recognizing the value of such information and knowing how to calculate it (the difficulty lies in locating and correlating the data, not the calculations); and in this instance, the governmental statisticians have been bested.

Although growth in the output of American industry closely mirrors the increase in U.S. demand; the trade imbalance absorbed by the U.S. economy provides clear evidence that the incursion of foreign-made goods, instead of primarily meeting new demand, goes right at weakening the domestic market base. Notice that the negative compound annual growth rate of the trade deficit for manufactured goods is 4.78 times greater that of the sector’s growth in total shipments, and 3.86 times that of the growth in domestic consumption; the difference is the extent of incursion into the domestic market by foreign made goods! Future decreases in the trade deficit are improbable—awareness that China’s economic growth is in its infancy; of business expansion into Eastern Europe; and that U.S. built nuclear power plants across India will, in a not-too-distant future, function as a catalyst for the industrialization of the world’s second most populated country (that as a former British colony, is well prepared to take full advantage of the opportunity that enables) …serve to ensure the fall of U.S. industry and declination of America’s middle class will continue to accelerate well into the early decades of the 21 ^st century. We are engaged in a revolution; but not as most would believe, it is driven by the shareholder primacy of transnational corporations—and, cannot be avoided by our government for two reasons: protectionism is an equally dangerous policy; and all government policies are profoundly influenced by the interests of business (in all markets of the world; and yes, it’s provable). Unfortunately, manufacturers stand alone in waging their life-or-death struggle for self-preservation; but, at the company level, a problem of this magnitude cannot be addressed by either the whim of management or a company’s 10-year plan. There is so much involved in mastering the intricacies of foreign trade—and, for non-exporting businesses (even most exporters), as decided underdogs, mastering geoeconomics is their only hope of securing victory (i.e., survival)—that it would take most companies over a decade just to begin building an ideal corporate culture, and that, only in the best of circumstances. The final two columns of the table above represent powerful indicators of my own devise (providing data unable to be found elsewhere); although the 14.53% export intensity necessary to offset U.S. market erosion is for the manufacturing sector as a whole (and subsectors will vary considerably)—its value is not to be underestimated; first, regardless of the data specific to any given subsector, relatively few U.S. manufacturers have substantial export intensities; and secondly, in 2004 (latest available data), fewer than 1-in-5 manufacturers exported! Although it is impossible to know whether manufacturers are too myopic to know their only hope of survival lies in mastering that which is bringing about their doom, or if they just have no clue on how to begin; I do know that complacency on their part will result in their demise—and that is not a fate that must be accepted without a fight!

The Microcosms… based on the North American Industry Classification System, the manufacturing sector of U.S industry is divided into 473 six-digit NAICS code level sectors* for statistical data analysis by the U.S. Bureau of the Census. In terms of foreign trade, most of these industry sectors are represented by tens of billions of dollars in international commerce activity. If a domestic manufacturer making XY Widgets were over-burdened by the pressure of foreign competition; based on the billions of dollars in XY Widget data I am able to analyze, and the results of that analysis were applied in conjunction with strategies I’ve developed, that competitive pressure could be eased until overcome; in fact, it could, in relatively short-order (based primarily on the adeptness of a company’s sales force, given barrel-loads of screened and sorted fish, and how quickly it could meet increases in product demand), lead to expansion balanced by a sustainable growth rate. These methodologies were developed solely by me, and to the best of my knowledge are unique in the world. They are also, in some respects, counter-intuitive, and therefore, unlikely to be duplicated by competitors (either the widget-makers or those within the trade arena). This program transcends typical trade expansion efforts by a quantum leap, and represents a power (relative to the sale of trillions of dollars in merchandise) that is nearly beyond comprehension.

• Although I often use NAICS data to make it easier to relate directly to industry sectors (the apples to apples, oranges to oranges, analogy); it should be known that international trade is conducted using a 10-digit commodity classification system (the first six digits of which are internationally standardized), in the U.S., the Harmonized Tariff System for imports, and Schedule B for exports—each of these contain approximately 8,000 commodity classifications for helping understand and conduct trade in more manageable segments. If one starts with the $12,896 billion projected for merchandise trade in 2007, considers the 230 entities (independent states, dependencies and areas of special sovereignty) or particular ports within them, with which the U.S. conducts trade, then spreads that trade across the full spectrum of merchandise traded (among its 8,000+ subsectors); it becomes more clear how it is possible to both comprehend and precisely navigate the universe of commerce.

Addressing company level operations, it’s important to recognize the serious challenges involved in conducting business of any type; this is perhaps best illustrated through the Pareto Principal, which can be interpreted as stating that 20% of “cause” is responsible for 80% of its related “effect.” Relative to industry, there is no more pragmatic example than, “Concentration Ratios in Manufacturing” (PDF), a quinquennial publication released as a part of the U.S. 2002 Economic Census. It advises, that in 2002, the top 201 manufacturing companies accounted for 56.9% of the total value of shipments in the United States—leaving the rest to be fought for among the 344,140 remaining manufacturers (comparing “companies” to “establishments”; not perfect, but like “Red Delicious” to “Golden Delicious” apples). This aspect of manufacturing sector business is made even more clear by a thorough examination of current earnings data; the latest available, for fiscal year 2006Q1 – 2006Q4, via the Census Bureau’s, “Quarterly Financial Report for Manufacturing, Mining, and Trade Corporations: 2006,” reveals that manufacturers having assets valued over $1 billion earn over twice (209.09%) the after tax profits of all other manufacturing enterprises (excluding only those having assets valued under $250 thousand) combined—another of my exclusive statistics intended to enable a better understanding of the impact of transnational corporations on the greater business community. Even though small in number, those same companies account for over 72.61% of shipments by value from manufacturing enterprises in the U.S.

This section involves putting the world of opportunity within reach of any company yearning to seize that chance. A U.S. company should begin with two things, “A Basic Guide to Exporting”; and by knowing the correct way to proceed, via the Export Administration Regulations; new users should not be intimidated by their volume, they are easily navigated by most companies (that is, most products, to or from most markets, are covered by preexisting license exceptions—that’s government-speak for “no export license required”). It is important to note that U.S. entities are barred from doing business with certain foreign entities, a line that is easy to avoid and should not be crossed, details can be found at the Lists to Check. The Trade Information Center, is a valuable resource; but before becoming too enamored with government assistance, note that the all-important “Export Programs Guide: A Business Guide to Federal Export Assistance” (PDF), is outdated (the one I have hyperlinked is the latest available version, 2006); but the TIC’s National Export Directory, is good to know about. This is a bit off the beaten path, but, the publication “Electric Current Abroad” (PDF), can come in handy in many ways. The easiest and most cost effective way for any company to amplify efforts to make itself known is by developing a web page (if it does not already have one) that is hyperlinked or referred to at every opportunity. Prior to exporting, for self-protection, a company should understand, the International Chamber of Commerce’s “Incoterms 2000,” and use them as specified on the link (extremely simple, but of vital importance) on any and every offer or pro forma invoice ever made. There are far too many issues to be addressed here, but for a broad range of general and country- and/or industry-specific trade advice and guidance, a good place to start is Export.gov. Lastly, the World TradePoint Federation’s Electronic Trade Opportunities, provide free access to that world of opportunity. For companies that are fiscally able to be a bit more adventurous, “Commercial News USA,” provides the biggest bang per advertising buck for gaining worldwide exposure to those most active in the trade arena. Now, imagine the odds that a typical trade intermediary would provide the information contained in this document to anyone, much less a prospective client company (which I imagine you may choose to do); yet, conversely, consider the futility of concealing the many resources available to exporters, rather than integrating them into an even more effective and powerful program—these, also, can sometimes be plied to advantage when handled properly.

As for more practical matters… when time to accommodate mobilizing the tools of trade, an ATA Carnet (often called The Merchandise Passport) will ease the financial burden of temporarily importing/exporting support equipment to/from various international markets. When it becomes necessary to have documents for international use officially certified, Apostilles are the preferred method, can be obtained at the state level via offices of the Secretary of State, are applicable in these 92 countries (as signatories of the Hague Apostille Convention), and paperless e-Apostilles are beginning to be implemented. When certified documents are required for use in other countries, it is necessary to turn to the U.S. Department of State’s Office of Authentications.

There are numerous ways to measure the effects of globalization, all of them revealing a net loss to U.S. industry; perhaps what is most important to understand, is that not only will the U.S. trade deficit’s growth continue to accelerate, but will broaden to include industry sectors that currently have a trade surplus (it is now time to implement business and marketing strategies.enabling survival of the paradigm shift in commerce resulting from globalization). A check of enterprise statistics reveals that between 1997 and 2003, U.S. manufacturers have suffered a net loss of 28,207 establishments, with company deaths and contractions accounting for a net loss of 3,699,722 U.S. jobs. The occupational perspective provided by the U.S. Department of Labor’s, “International Comparisons of Hourly Compensation Costs for Production Workers in Manufacturing” reveals, that based on 2005 data, the hourly wage disparity of $23.65 here to $2.63 in Mexico (which accounted for over 10.21 % of U.S. imports for consumption of manufactured goods, and over 7.34 % of their trade deficit). In 2006, the U.S. had a $691,596.7 million deficit in the trade of manufactured goods, approximately 60 % by value involved trade partners in which a significant disparity in wages was a major factor in their competitiveness; given the low profit margins of all but the largest U.S. manufacturers, that’s approximately $414.96 billion in trade last year with which domestic enterprises had almost no chance to compete. More industry-specific wage data is available at the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ publications, “Hourly Compensation Costs for Production Workers in Manufacturing, 32 Countries or Areas, 22 Manufacturing Industries, 1992-2004,” “MEXICO: Hourly Compensation Costs for Production Workers in All Manufacturing Industries and in Maquiladora Manufacturing Export Industries, 1975-2004,” or “Labor Costs of Manufacturing Employees in China: An Update to 2003-04” (PDF). Other sources of international wage date are the Import Administration’s Wages of Non-Market Economy Countries, or International Labor Organization’s LABORSTA Internet. For comparative purposes, the Bureau of Economic Analysis’s table. Shares of Gross Output by Industry, reveals that “Compensation of Employees” accounted for 20.7 % of the manufacturing sector’s gross output for 2005.

In summation… by capturing its essence in a mosaic of geoeconomic data, I have distilled a macrocosmic to microcosmic overview of global commerce to a conceptual level sufficiently coherent to demonstrably indicate its ease of integration into novel and practicable business strategies developed to increase profits, expand sales and reduce costs; though imprudent to divulge explicit details, they are as factual as the underlying data, and can do, as much, and in most cases, more, to increase growth and ensure economic viability, as any measure ever conceived to enhance the facilitation of commerce!

This document, while sufficient to embarrass nearly any professional involved in foreign trade, touches only the most basic of its many elements and issues; if that seems excessive, understand that I learned the importance of breaking the constraints of compartmentalization from direct involvement in the greatest intelligence failure in world history—the U.S. intelligence community’s inability, after more than 50 years of directing extensive resources to the task, to detect and/or prepare for the political and socioeconomic collapse of the Soviet Union. Involvement in the intelligence community, and four years of day-to-day life in the circumvallated city of West Berlin, gave thinking “outside the box” more dimension than is typically associated with its use as a metaphor for abstraction—while assigned to that sometimes surrealistic isle of freedom, the juxtaposition of capitalistic and communistic ideologies were so deeply influencing that I could not help but leave that city with a profound sense of the power of macroeconomics, and that , before the Wall was toppled. Although having no more awareness than any of what was to come; in retrospect, I have great appreciation for having been privy to witnessing the world stage being set for its impending fall. Several years later, once able to begin internalizing my Cold War experience, define and assimilate its lessons, and redirect this uniquely acquired savvy toward the private sector; recognizing in the evolution of the Internet and implementation of free trade , the synergistic revolution of geoeconomic commerce certain to follow, it became necessary to develop an all-encompassing awareness of global commerce (but its foundation had already been lain by world events). That need had been instilled more than a decade before the necessity of obtaining such insight became the primal lesson of the 9/11/01 tragedy. Unfortunately, most of those associated with international commerce, whether in service of the government or private sector; suffer from having had functional restrictions imposed on their vision fields through the limitations of assigned duties—they are experts within a limited range of parameters: industry sectors, regions, issues, or even less (myopia is a side-effect of compartmentalization). As an example, although nearly every word in this document has been oriented toward exporting, I am keenly aware of the need for manufacturers to reduce costs to the greatest extent possible through all means, including imports (very few trade experts would concern themselves with such matters)—it has been left unstated, but will never be overlooked or forgotten by me (my program was developed to reduce costs, while increasing both profits and sales!).

In case you have an interest in seeking the comparative visions of private sector trade professionals (the National Export Directory referenced above can provide access to governmental agencies), here’s the Federation of International Trade Associations’ Directory of U.S.-Based Export Management Companies (it includes 272 in all—click on “Print” and they are all available on a single web page, but only print to a file, it’s a 50 page document; InfoUSA.com has 409 business listings nationwide for, “export management” and “export consultants”).

As for final thoughts on company-level microcosms, if every U.S. company had this document, most would mistakenly conclude that with all of these free resources and means of assistance available, there is no need to pay a consultant. Well, despite the free resources, governmental assistance, and professional trade intermediaries (the aforementioned Export Management Companies and Export Trading Companies) available; history proves, via the “Profile of U.S. Exporting Companies” publication series, that very few companies have export intensities (the percentage of gross sales that are export-based) sufficient to secure their futures in the ever-flattening global market arena. Unlike most trade intermediaries, I will never come between a seller and its buyers (no commissions or noncircumvention agreement); so, although it would be necessary to factor the cost of my services into the mix, they will never directly drive down the competitiveness of goods being sold. A half-hearted, or wing and a prayer approach, is far short of a best effort; and companies, their employees and families (and by extension, their communities), all deserve no less than a best effort to embrace global opportunity to maintain viability in an intensely competitive world; I do not accept mediocrity, and have put forth a Herculean effort in developing a program making expansion into international markets as certain to be successful as possible. Given access to the proprietary databases necessary to implement my program, the tens of billions of dollars representing most of the 473 six-digit NAICS codes for the manufacturing sectors of industry, minus the amounts of trade activity between transnational corporations and their subsidiaries (or, “Related Party Trade – 2006,” as it is known and published), can be made exploitable by client companies. Although, due to publishing dates and nature of the data involved, it is impossible to project exploitable commerce in exact dollar amounts; by six-digit NAICS sector, they are all measured in billions of dollars.

You wrote, “Speaking of research, we utilize the skills of some of the finest researchers on the planet. They have access to a wide variety of knowledge bases that contain information not available to individuals, information that gives my clients a definitive edge over their competition.” As a user familiar with such exclusive data, you are well suited to assess my capabilities using nonproprietary information and databases; of course, if you have followed some of the hyperlinks, you will know that I rely on the most authoritative resources available (in fact, quite often, the originating sources of much of the data made available in proprietary databases). Although I have never thought of myself as a researcher, it is secondary to nearly everything I have ever done; so I hope to have made a respectable impression in that regard.

For all that I’ve attempted to encompass, this is surprisingly sparse; without knowing a better way of addressing an abstract without specifics, I’ll jump right in. I’ve described my program as a “paradigm for 21 ^st century commerce”; in my view that’s a model, a template, and means much more than a couple unique strategies—it was developed to improve upon and replace the trade intermediary business model, and encompasses a whole new approach to the seamless integration of foreign trade into an existing operation. Well, imagine a program so powerful as to enable completely changing the way a company could choose to participate in industry trade shows; of course, if the primary reason for participation is direct exposure to the consumer public, that cannot be changed. However, for an industry insider or dealer show, I can prove how it would be much more profitable to send a scaled-down specially selected team as attendees focused on gathering competitive intelligence, rather than as participants in the show. While this applies to all industries, it is best used at select shows within each; however, it does apply to the domestic, as well as, foreign markets.

Here’s another of those, gotta stick it someplace, streams of consciousness. It occurred to me that this document is mostly about shrinking the world to the size of a page in order to demonstrate the reality of something so colossal being strategically relevant and exploitable in the day-to-day operation of a normal businesses. What I have to explain, is that my approach also encompasses the minutiae, while difficult to even consider outside the context of a specific issue, let me state that it extends in all directions and is likely to include any and all things, not all of them considered directly relevant to business (imagine the impression made to an Australian business person, by an American counterpart showing even the most rudimentary knowledge of that country’s fine wines); and primarily because it enhances the possibility of understanding things more profoundly than others, or doing things more right than others. As an example, I will use my interpretation of culture; in my view culture is an amalgamation of time (both historic and contemporary), circumstances, influences (religious, political, organizational and societal), ethnicity, geography and climate. Populations are typically more heterogeneous than we would expect them to be, and among the tools I use to better identify the cultures of a particular country is, “Ethnologue: Languages of the World”; it is just one small way to indicate thinking in a really big one—but, some time ago, I reached the conclusion; that by necessity, doing business with the world, is all-encompassing. So, please allow that the term “microcosm” as used throughout this document, generally extends well beyond its context in a particular sentence. Perhaps the most important thing is the ability to perceive macrocosms without losing sight of the many microcosms of which they are all comprised; after all, they are mutually dependent, and each one is important in its own right!

The business paradigm presented here is of a magnitude, breadth and depth beyond the comprehension of most—and what has been shown barely scratches the surface; have any of your previous clients mentioned the psychological aspects of color on foreign consumers, the perception of time in foreign cultures, or even the practical advantages of using OpenType fonts (click on View the OpenType Tour) because the 65,000+ glyphs Adobe Pro fonts support a much broader language and typography base than the 256 glyphs in standard TrueType fonts; the methodologies alluded to are unlike anything existing in the strategic arsenals of contemporary businesses, and that they are almost universally applicable across the spectrum of industry (well beyond the manufacturing sector), is, if possible, even more amazing. It seems there is no better perspective from which to evaluate the power and potential of this program, than from the viewpoint of one having helped many formidable individuals secure senior level executive positions across a diverse range of industries. While there can be no doubt this is unlike anything seen before, the issue is far more complex than that; and I suspect, also, a much greater challenge to the resourcefulness of your company—on the other hand, if you are often able to accomplish company goals in as little as 48 hours, what’s a little more time to transcend a greater challenge. Besides, since I am able to differentiate myself through my familiarity of the world of business existing outside a prospective company, your world-class researchers may get a break. There are other factors to be considered, foremost among them is the need to protect my intellectual property—which I would now hope has been made obvious as being extensive and invaluable. For that reason, I see myself contractually involved in long-term business relationships of a consultancy nature; unfortunately, I fear this as an obstacle for your company, one I hope it is able to overcome, even if that requires making an exception in this case. It is important to state that there are mutual advantages to that, the most important of which is that I will be able to take on multiple client companies; of course, I do not mean immediately, I fully appreciate the fact that the integrity of your company is inextricably linked to each candidate for which a placement is made—but, within several months, any client company would be able to affirm the extraordinary nature of the program I have developed. I should also point out that the $120,000 annual fee, is just a minimum intended to keep the availability of my services within the budgetary constraints of most small- to medium-sized enterprises; subtract the cost of accessing necessary databases, taxes and social security, and there would be little left; but, it would secure the database access necessary to pursue more lucrative contracts. As for multiple clients, I consider my personal limits to range between two and six clients, depending on company parameters and product lines, before needing expansion myself—but would prefer not to rush that, and given the complexities involved, doubt that I could, even if I desired immediate expansion. I’m not certain this will have any relevance, but due to my familiarity with the geoeconomic and socioeconomic statistics of the United States, the fact that the U.S. government and many statistics-gathering enterprises produce more data on every aspect of life here, than any other place in the world, and, the awareness that it represents 27.75% of the world’s economic power; may all factor together in making my services most valuable to foreign companies. Before dismissing this opportunity, consider one last thing; no matter the collective experience of you and your partners, your company is young, look back from five, ten and more years from now, then imagine the benefits of having had the vision to play an instrumental role in helping secure American manufacturing jobs (and there is little doubt that could be independently verified by having your researchers identify a client company’s growth and export intensity)—such a prestigious reputation would be a tangible benefit to a company like yours!

This business paradigm was developed to be universally applicable across the complete spectrum of enterprises able to export to, import from, and/or expand into international markets; including businesses* located or headquartered in nearly any market of the world. A business paradigm… relative to its potential, value, and power… that is unparalleled; but there is one caveat:

• Provided they are not prohibited by U.S. trade regulations or policies from conducting business with companies in the United States. Such prohibitions include companies, entities or individuals that are located in an embargoed country, on the “Denied Persons List,” “Unverified List,” “Entity List,” “Specially Designated Nationals List,” “Debarred List”; for which “Nonproliferation Sanctions” have been imposed; or exporting or reexporting merchandise subject to the control of “General Order 3 to Part 736.”

I would like to think that increasing your awareness of the perils of foreign trade facing domestically owned and operated manufacturers, will, as opportunities (and candidates) present themselves, serve as a catalyst in motivating you to place well-qualified candidates with manufacturing companies in dire need of the best and brightest available. So it is not overlooked, be aware that your efforts to “provide extensive research on the company that is utilized to differentiate you from the many thousands of candidates competing for the same position.”—with regard to manufacturing enterprises, has been greatly enhanced in ways that will not be duplicated among those many thousands of candidates. Please circulate both this document and my résumé (email version) among your partners, I am curious to know whether or not, in their 28 years of collective experience, they have ever encountered correspondence from a prospective client as equally able to empower their own efforts? I make an effort to empathize with the needs of and assist any company with which I have contact, by coincidence (with that intent, of course), I come dead-center from the largest blind spot existing in the vision fields of U.S. businesses.

Unfortunately, the lives of every individual and family in this area have been seriously affected by hurricane Katrina; in part, due to the hardships imposed since, I am almost certainly unable to afford the services of your company. Of course, I detest the helplessness of this position; but after giving it serious thought, have reached the most mutually beneficial conclusion. Since you are the company owner, I humbly request that your company’s retainer fee be deferred until I “secure employment as a result of our efforts”; it seems the ability to take on multiple client companies would greatly minimize the risk mentioned. The most important question is whether you consider me an acceptable candidate; once that question is resolved , the rest become more clear. I can do things that are inconceivable, based on that fact alone there is no justification to delay our working together. With so much at stake, if your concerns center on my attempting to defraud you out of what would be rightfully yours; than I suspect working together would be ill-advised under any circumstances.

Although many of your clients may delight in your discovery of this document (provided it is shared), it should not be mistakenly construed as a gratuitous repast, be advised that the true cost of this gastronomic delight is greater than they may imagine; for it, with regard to the multifaceted threat inherent in the globalization of industry, they have surrendered their innocence and inviolability. Because the veil of ignorance has been lifted, their inculpability has been compromised—once a company has been made aware of the magnitude of the imminent threat to its continued existence, the complacency of its principals, with regard to that threat, can no longer be justified. Should they remain unconvinced of the need to secure my services; as an alternative, it is possible to opt for an internally driven effort in identifying the thousands of vital data resources necessary for key staff members to prioritize, collect, sort and correlate the information required to assimilate into knowledge-based strategies to secure your company’s future in transitioning global markets—but, be advised, that would be a less than prudent decision; if a company’s IT department is currently unaware of, and unable to cope with, a threat able to end its existence, just how reliable could it possibly be in dealing with such matters? Or, a company could choose to rely on existing academic, governmental and/or private support services; but because the program I’ve developed is significantly beyond their best efforts, their methodologies are much less effective—otherwise their and other companies would not be in the dire straits they are facing. In either case, I earnestly wish them the best of luck (and have provided significant resources to assist in their struggles); but warn that their own 20-20 hindsight will ultimately prove that either option incurred a higher price for this meal than they would have wish to have paid. That’s no threat… just the reality of the situation; even on the off-chance of success, victory would be substantially less than what otherwise might have been—but, at least the jobs created by your client(s) will have been saved; and the free lunch will have proven itself a fortifying takeout buffet, bon appétit!

Thank you for giving me this opportunity; I know you expected a much earlier telephone response; but I think we can agree that it would not have been possible to convey what is presented here in a phone call, and it’s quite important that this be understood to the greatest extent possible. Take all of the time you need to consider the contents of this document, and feel free to contact me whichever way you prefer. In closing, I have no way knowing if this will have any weight in your decision making process, but if anyone has ever needed the expertise and assistance of your company, I am that person.

To broadening horizons…

Thomas J Judge Jr

© 2007 Thomas J Judge Jr

-

Cover Letter & Résumé

Thomas J Judge Jr

29076 Highway 190 West

985-285-8472

Lacombe , LA 70445-3174

tjudge@usa.com

-

Dear Sir or Madam:

Though convention dictates a pithy missive attempting to establish command of an incisive awareness of a prospective employer’s business, citing factors germane to phenomenally greater advantage is the more judicious use of this opportunity. It is, in view of the genre’s compromise through equivocation, hyperbole and prevarication, a daunting challenge to indicate, adequately, attributes plotted near the uppermost limits of a bell curve; alternatively, consider the genesis, evolution and self-actualized application of such faculties. While supporting SIGINT operations against the Soviet Bloc during a historic Cold War juncture, a seed of inspiration was sewn that later sparked an epiphany revealing the profound advantages of securing exclusive and relevant macroeconomic to microeconomic data for application to private sector objectives; the inestimable value of such leverage having been indelibly instilled through involvement in U.S. intelligence. A cognizance, which, in conjunction with the sedulous effort crucial to distill unparalleled actionable insight from a multi-sourced data universe representing the $51.5 trillion Gross World Product projected in 2007, provides a singularly efficacious synergism for inferring exploitable competitive intelligence pertinent to industry- and company-specific business goals.

Although resistance to unfamiliar methodologies is de rigueur, given the unrelenting expansion of transnational corporation market dominance, reticence to embrace an initiative encompassing the most decisive means for domestically owned and operated enterprises to offset disadvantages inherent in the commerce paradigm shift driven by the increasing economic interdependence of global markets is imprudent. To a keen observer, an analytical review of business procedures, processes and/or personnel utilization, satisfaction and motivation, reveals unobvious and cost-effective ways of leveraging untapped advantage from ubiquitous resources, with none providing more unrecognized and underutilized potential than the computer. Now, more than ever, a PC with Internet access enables tapping into and applying the collective knowledge of humankind; an unprecedented and endless expanse of source material applicable to accomplishing or creating, within limits set by only ability and imagination, works on any subject matter and across an extraordinary diversity of media. It then provides the medium and means through which such efforts are presentable to a global audience. The PC, therefore, represents the ultimate synergism of technology, creativity and possibility; empowering with virtually limitless potential. However, despite its capacity to imbue such ability, due primarily to flawed implementation at both systems developer and end user levels, without remedial intervention, human potential is inadvertently diminished—thus, at least partially nullifying that promise of possibility.

Whatever a company’s operational parameters, a macrocosm-to-microcosm perception of the global business spectrum provides incomparable advantages over propositions based on more limited geographic and/or industrial segmentations of commerce, ensuring an enhanced range of practicable options for increasing value, productivity and sales, while reducing costs. Novel integration of the most powerful tool in existence… knowledge—not in a generic or abstract sense, but as an edge forged for 21^st century commerce—with focus, relevance and goal-orientation more intent than convention enables, is a derivative bonus. This power infusion, with strategies for leveraging its application to optimal advantage in transcending future challenge, integrates seamlessly into existing operations.

Pardon the seeming discursiveness to establish singular abilities, and sacrifice of amenities to empirically complement such claims. You are welcome to contact me, but time is of the essence. Thank you.

Sapere aude…

Thomas J Judge Jr

Enclosure: Résumé

Uomo Universale

-

Thomas J Judge Jr

29076 Highway 190 West

985-285-8472

Lacombe , LA 70445-3174

tjudge@usa.com

Singularly empowering a progressive enterprise to achieve unparalleled competitive advantage and maximum sustainable growth via synergistic dynamics fueled by acute strategic vision guiding innovative resource application, geoeconomic savvy, galvanization of latent process, procedural and personnel potentials, and proactive implementation of practicable problem solutions…

Managed the computer maintenance section, from 1983-87 and 1987-90 respectively, of U.S. intelligence units in West Berlin and West Germany [ sic] tasked by the National Security Agency to direct SIGINT operations against Cold War adversaries; thus participating in history’s greatest intelligence failure—the U.S. intelligence community’s inability to detect/foresee the political and economic collapse of the former Soviet Union. Ultimately, after internalizing and thoroughly processing this life-altering event, then assimilating its lessons in macroeconomic power, their application to the private sector inspired attaining macrocosm-to-microcosm insight into the Gross World Product—a vantage from which substantial portions of the projected $51.511 trillion in 2007 economic activity is precisely and advantageously exploitable.

Perceptive to intricate layers of interconnectedness and causal relationships oft revealing both problems and/or solutions eluding indigenous experts, regardless of seniority, discipline or qualifications; complemented by the capacity to preventively or remedially offset the inclination of enterprises to commit inadvertent gaffes counterintuitive to core competencies—too abstruse? A simplistic, yet verifiable example: PC manufacturers too infrequently update the optional flash memory card readers/writers (the latest available models are certified to support up to 52 memory card types) provided in state-of-the-art systems, indicating systemic ineptitude. Even more profound than their failure to enhance product versatility/functionality is the culture’s unforgivable obliviousness to the synergistic nature of the PC/user relationship—cited as indicative of the extent of corporate incompetence hidden in plain view, and characteristic of the myopia endemically afflicting the business arena.

Equivalent to a BSc in Computer Science, based on U.S. Air Force and contractor provided technical training, augmented by accreditation awarded Professional Military Education, and successful completion of CLEP and DANTES examinations. More relevant are self-actualized efforts to acquire knowledge competent to ensure conceptual, as well as, pragmatic competitive advantage universally applicable to commercial endeavor; hence, rendering education a completely academic issue, an assertion self-evident through multiple aspects of this document, including its doctoral Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level rating.

“In this document, you will be made privy to a forward-looking perspective on how the developing regional trade alliances (the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, European Union, and Free Trade Area of the Americas) will impact the future dynamics of global commerce for decades to come.”