Why real estate developers don't do foreign policy
Making large amounts of money in real estate is a zero sum game. Even the most neophyte real estate agent will tell you, location, location, location. Well, two different companies can't own the same piece of land. I win, you lose. I own it, you don't. Your distress is my opportunity. This is really different from business, where win-win is real. I make widget A for a profit, you take widget A and incorporate it into widget B, You sell widget B for a profit, and we walk arm in arm to the bank. Really, it's a big deal.
Foreign policy has to be win-win. Effective diplomacy successfully answers the other side's question, "What's in it for me?" If the answer is, "absolutely nothing, because I win and you lose," it will be tough going.
The next major shakeout of nasty negotiation is an explanation of why no one knows exactly what is going to happen next. If your plan is to take as much advantage of the next guy as possible, well yeah, keep the other guy off balance. If you are working for an end game where everyone gets something out of it, the ability to plan helps.
My final observation has to do with the president's seemingly random willingness to say almost anything to anyone. Scold your friends, entice your enemies. Say whatever comes into your mind. Talk to everyone. I think the key here is engagement. Make it so you never leave the consciousness of a potential partner or adversary. First, they won't know what you are up to (see above) and second, they'll be thinking about you. All the time. So, when the time comes for another deal or transaction or whatever, you are right at the tip of their tongues. The problem here is that a real long-term partner is looking for constancy, because otherwise you can't plan.
I guess my problem is fundamentally, I think this should be played out win-win. When the US was really rich, and everyone else wasn't, and we had to fight the Commies, we threw around money and made some agreements that were fine at the time but aren't now. Now, we're not as rich and other countries are richer and the agreements don't look nearly as appealing. Let's renegotiate. It still can be win-win.
Foreign policy has to be win-win. Effective diplomacy successfully answers the other side's question, "What's in it for me?" If the answer is, "absolutely nothing, because I win and you lose," it will be tough going.
The next major shakeout of nasty negotiation is an explanation of why no one knows exactly what is going to happen next. If your plan is to take as much advantage of the next guy as possible, well yeah, keep the other guy off balance. If you are working for an end game where everyone gets something out of it, the ability to plan helps.
My final observation has to do with the president's seemingly random willingness to say almost anything to anyone. Scold your friends, entice your enemies. Say whatever comes into your mind. Talk to everyone. I think the key here is engagement. Make it so you never leave the consciousness of a potential partner or adversary. First, they won't know what you are up to (see above) and second, they'll be thinking about you. All the time. So, when the time comes for another deal or transaction or whatever, you are right at the tip of their tongues. The problem here is that a real long-term partner is looking for constancy, because otherwise you can't plan.
I guess my problem is fundamentally, I think this should be played out win-win. When the US was really rich, and everyone else wasn't, and we had to fight the Commies, we threw around money and made some agreements that were fine at the time but aren't now. Now, we're not as rich and other countries are richer and the agreements don't look nearly as appealing. Let's renegotiate. It still can be win-win.
Comments
Post a Comment