Home My Political Opinion Global Economy

World Financial Structure

The world financial structure, like it or not, is a big capitalist market. That is correct. There are only a limited number of regulations telling anyone how to invest or what to invest in for the world market. There is no single body forcing one person / country to buy products from another. There are, of course, those governments combined with international banks and organizations that try to enforce some economic policy on another country through economic sanctions, tariffs, International Banking rules, the United Nations and other similarly worthless attempts at bulling other countries. Each new attempt to impose some form of international rule meets with the same end result. The imposition is short lived or costs everyone more money. During the time of the imposition other countries who see the market forces clearly take advantage of the restriction to gain a financial foot hold in the region. 

The USA is notoriously good at trying to impose their economic will on other countries. Each time they have done so the results have been more damaging to the USA than to the country the impositions were put upon.  Even in trying to clean up the air we restrict our own country while failing to secure the agreements from the other countries to do the same, although we do try to get the agreements. We contribute to needy countries while allowing them to sell their mineral rights to other nations. The list of economic mistakes goes on and on.

The problem is this the USA is a country of states. Each state assumes the right to allow their merchants to trade with whom ever they want. Seems reasonable enough. We are a country of free men. Some other countries have investment committees that look forward to the needs of the country to invest in oil reserves, mineral reserves and even offshore human resources.

The USA needs a similar committee that invests for USA businesses while distributing the resource fairly to businesses who manufacture or reside in the USA. Such a committee is counter to our culture and laws. We have needed such laws to protect businesses from the government and aggressive business practices of others. As communications, transportation, and the need for resources not held within the USA, the need to develop an offshore investment committee at the governmental level has become more important. Equally important is a fair way to distribute the resources invested by the governmental committee.

Unfortunately, human nature being what it is I don't see this point as practical even if needed. Having such a governmental committee would lead to graft and corruption on a grand scale.

Laws on monopolies and collusion have been enforced inconsistently. Even when they were enforced they have had little long term positive effect.

A footnote on global markets:

The political structure of each individual country only affects the way the country views the world market. The political structure in the country does not make the global markets any less capitalistic. 

 

 

Corporate Countries

Corporate Countries is a new phrase for international businesses. Corporate Countries have been around from the time people could walk from one community to another. In the beginning international business meant taking food, beads or some other item of trade to another community in exchange for some good of the others. During the first trades the items to be traded were most likely made or found within the domain of each of the individuals who carried out the trade. Local domain, living area, was important to both sides. Communication between trading partners was limited.Transportation of goods was limited to what could be carried by a human.

 

Corporate Countries

Implication to the USA and World Trade

I.E. Money and Jobs

Corporate Countries are a special from of financial structure. As stated in another blog article the Corporate Country has no allegiance to any sovereign power, physical land mass, or people. Their only allegiance is to the owners of the corporation. Even that allegiance is weak. Ultimately, the only allegiance is to the corporation. The corporation must survive. To survive it must at least profit minimally and at best profit grandiosely. The corporation is designed not to fail but to survive for ever.  The corporate country has no morality of its own.

 The implication of the lack of allegiance to any person, place or thing is actually easy to understand. 

1. The lack of allegiance to a physical land mass means the company will move around from region to region investing capital where its interests are best served. That is, the company will invest where it can make the most profit. 

2. The lack of allegiance to any physical sovereign county means the company will move from  country to county investing capital where it interests are best served. That is, the company will invest were it can make the most profit.

3. The lack of allegiance to any people means the company will move from  country to county, region to region, and person to person investing training capital where it interests are best served. That is, the company will invest were it can make the most profit.

 

Corporate Countries

Military

Corporate Countries are different from a region / country they have limited need for a military. Actually, I used military to get your attention. A Corporate Country needs to have security. They plan for the security. The cost of manufacture of a good has the cost of security build in. Different Corporate Countries have different factors built in for security. An oil company operating in Brazil will have less need for security than if they were operating in Eastern Africa. A semiconductor manufacturing plant will have limited security in the physical sense but will have a very high intellectual property security force.

Why the difference from a conventional country? Well for one a physical country must protect its residents and land from invasion. History has shown that a strong military presence helps deter invasion. History also seems to imply that a country only survives as long as the cost to maintain its military is low in respect to its gross domestic product. Each country seems to fall when new weapons become available that increases the cost of maintaining a standing military.  

There may be other causes for a nation to collapse but the cost of maintaining a military seems to be one of them.  The Corporate Country avoids the costs of a large costly military by being able to move from one region / country to another as the cost of security becomes high. Always moving to a region / country where the cost of maintaining a standing security force is well balanced with the return on investment in that country. Also a Corporate Country can invest limited resources in a country where they anticipate trouble. They thereby limit the risk.

Why do I bring up this point? As far as I can tell the only expenditure required by the USA constitution is for the protection of the country and enforcement of Federal laws. There are a few other rights the constitution gave the Federal government but they are less costly by far than the operation of a security force to protect the nation. 

 

Members Login

Joomla Templates by Joomlashack