I appeared on the CBS Evening News this Saturday night discussing Wael Ghonim and Google. This builds on a story that originally appeared in the Wall Street Journal on a similar topic (see Google Tiptoes Around Hero).

The original discussion (both with the WSJ and CBS) centered on the responsibility of Google for the behavior of its employees in foreign countries. The basic question was: How should multinational firms behave in foreign countries?

I mentioned that this debate is really not all that new, and certainly not unique to Google. These issues have affected multinational firms for as long as they have existed – e.g., pollution of the local environment, treatment of host country workers.

The questioning then quickly turned to the possible repercussions for Google to having an activist like Wael Ghonim as an employee. This is where this specific case differs quite substantially from the “typical” problems faced by multinationals.

The interesting thing in this case is that every time we hear the name Wael Ghonim we generally also hear “Google Executive”, as if it meant something that he were an employee of Google.

In my opinion, this issue has very little to do with Google per se. Sure, Ghonim is an employee of Google, but he pursued his interests on his own time, …and those pursuits had very little to do with Google’s day-to-day. It’s not like he engaged in his activism as a representative of Google, or even on its behalf.

But that begs the question: Regardless, is it a good thing or a bad thing for Google that the media associates Ghonim with the company?

That’s more complex. To the extent that his actions jeopardize Google’s relationships in Egypt, throughout the Middle East, or in any other country that views Google as a potential threat to political stability, Ghonim’s celebrity could have some negative ramifications for Google. But conversely, there are some for whom the brand just became more valuable – e.g., those who, for whatever reason, make positive associations between Google and civil liberties/human rights. And for some (think disenfranchised youth yearning for a voice), Google just became a pretty cool place to work.

Anyhow, the entire CBS piece appears below…

…for those who cannot view the embedded video, you can view it on the website at http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7344453n

The Council on Foreign Relations recently posted an interesting graphic on the U.S. trade balance in the wake of the financial crisis (see It’s Almost All Good).

The basic idea: Since the financial crisis, the U.S. trade balance has improved with just about every country but China.

That the trade balance has improved vis-a-vis most trading partners is not surprising given the 15% (or so) drop in the value of the U.S. dollar since 2006. That it has worsened vis-a-vis China in spite of that stylized fact virtually assures that it will continue a hot-button issue among U.S. policymakers, and further threaten to escalate bilateral trade tensions (see also So Much for the Flexible Yuan and China Not a Currency Manipulator?).

As I mentioned last summer:

…don’t be surprised if the trade deficit and cries of unfair trade practices begin to occupy a more prominent place in political discourse.

We certainly live in interesting times…