Skip to main content

View Diary: The World Economy: into the Wild Blue Yonder (33 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Fascinating points (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cliss, northerntier, David Seaton

    It being the end of a work day, I apologize in advance if what I say is more stream of consciousness than substantive.

    But I get your angle on this "stateless-imperialism." It's a concept I've not put to wording, but have sort of understood as manifested in globalization. My observation is that the sovereign powers of individual nations has waned even as corporate power has increased globally. This is explained as businesses continue to seek new frontiers in the world, because it must fulfill its endless growth mantra, and, because there is no international sovereignty so to speak, the outcome is more hegemonic. The world is "flat", indeed, because what cultural identities remain has now been masqueraded by branding. We are better identified by what we're consuming than what we're creating from within. I guess that's my cynical side talking.

    Sovereignty is more reactive and passive (India or Turkey shall ban GMOs, for example) to corporate power, whereas the state may have been a more powerful tool to meter corporations back during, say, the Progressive Era during the Roosevelt-Taft years in the United States, containing corporations to the host country. Instead of setting up colonies, businesses open up shops or outsource services or manufacturing to countries that can offer something their headquarter country does not (no environmental regulations, low labor costs, tax relief, and the like.) As another example for why it's passive, sovereign countries may try to compete to bring those corporations back into the mix by slashing taxes or regulations. In some cases, public spaces in the EU have recently given way to billboards for H&M and other companies to reduce budget deficits. Romney wants to sell out Sesame Street to advertising agents for McDonald's and others? Creepy. There's a pattern to this. So, I think the "autopilot" of which you speak is more tangential to the notion that sovereign countries abdicate their rights or the powers for the sake of corporate growth.

    The multi-nationalization of companies like Coca-Cola, Nestle, P&G, Monsanto, etc. seems less bounded by individual nations than before. In this way, public power has diminished. This seems to make collusion all the more possible. In addition, joint-stock corporations with multiple stockholders spread liability, so no individual can commit a crime so heinous that it's detrimental to the entire conglomerate. I guess, sliding into less on-topic points, this segues into how companies are "too big too fail." Nouriel Roubini had an invaluable interview over the weekend with Bloomberg, arguing how banks like Bank of American and J.P. Morgan have become even "too bigger to fail", as they've cannibalized smaller banks, brokerages, or mortgage lending outposts.

    "Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell." ~Edward Abbey ////\\\\ "To be a poor man is hard, but to be a poor race in a land of dollars is the very bottom of hardships." ~W.E.B. DuBois

    by rovertheoctopus on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 03:18:16 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site