This isn't complete. More needs to be said at a later date.
Ownership is very important to most of us. It's a necessity. But how far does one need to go for a certain type of ownership? This can become an important question in many contexts.
Now a traditional type of ownership might be one where you simply buy something you want, need or feel inclined to acquire. Won't bore you with the basics, as everyone realizes this. Ownership of a more abstract and even macro kind is a different ballgame altogether. This is part of what I want to focus on.
Ownership needs systems of all kinds to keep it all together; contractual legal agreements would be one. The more obscure the ownership or claim to ownership, the harder it may be to keep track of possessions and therefore, and at times, transfers of ownership. More on this later on.
Systems of ownership were once mostly and traditionally confined within national sovereign borders. There were exceptions, of course, but globalization along with other schemes has changed this. It's hard to keep track of who owns what, at times, these days.
Now one might argue that it's the US multinationals along with other global multinationals leading the way to globalize things, and they have been doing this for decades; and in some instances, for over a century.
A problem tho these days is it's not US multinationals, like it use to be, but multinationals in general, that might be based in the US or elsewhere. The point here is that these incredibly large institutions, companies etc might be using the US, for example, as a host (and using their valuable resources etc) but they have broken away (not completely) from the traditional boundaries from one's sovereign nation.
Well if this is happening all over the world, and not just in the US, then a nation might (and has in many cases) lose its sovereignty even more. The theory of the world eventually being run by sets of large corporations/banks etc is an old one. So is the formation of a one-world governed system, which will never take off, as stated in some of my other posts.
It does appear that large corporations and banks are dominating the world like never before, and their influence and power is gaining momentum, especially if the collective middle classes, via small to medium sized businesses can't compete with (yes) their rivals. Not always the case, but this is becoming more evident and an increasing problem.
The middle classes in many parts of the world are where they use to be a decade or so ago, but acquiring more and more debt; some of which wasn't theirs to begin with!
So where to next?
It seems like most of us will continue to help build these pyramidic organizations in some shape or form, while continually trying to build our own wealth etc, of course. The idea of a national identity might become increasingly obscured in some parts of the world, because of the lack of capital to finance sovereign-type projects, for example. Selling state-owned military assets to pay-down debts or just simply making cut-backs in the military are classic examples, and this is continually occurring.
If the middle classes are not functioning the way they should be then there are some serious trade-offs that affect a country's ie economic state and sovereignty. One way to weaken a country's military/defense is to make sure their citizens are struggling economically; ie the lack of tax revenue to pay for important public service jobs. As mentioned before in my threads, it's easier for some large multinationals, banks etc to do business in just about any country they see fit, if they don't have (the necessary) restrictions applied to them by, for example, the Pentagon.
Various multinational organizations, led by the large wholesale central banks, are increasingly seeking world domination, the likes of which we have never seen before. They have control of the complex economic systems that have strong controllable links to other systems that also govern our day to day lives. More to be said about this for sure!
A rebalancing of the world's economy is underway. Out of all the great economic minds etc, you would think that many of the sets of problems some countries face, like the ones in the EU, would be dealt with more appropriately than at present; austerity and growth don't go hand in hand. The so-called economic commentators and experts must know this. Allowing bond vigilantes and speculators, for example, to manipulate markets at the expense of nations and its people is adding to the problems; margin hikes, which aren't perfect but are effective, are one way to prevent the rampant speculation that goes on, but isn't really used all that often.
A rebalancing here would mean that the attempt is for countries to become more economically alike in various ways. But this is not working and is having disastrous consequences. It's disastrous for those countries, but not necessarily for those seeking world domination, as this is also strengthening their net positions relative to the rest. It also enables 'buyers' to come in and purchase many assets on the cheap! There is a predictability element there too, whereby a potential buyer would know or have a better understanding of the not so distant future value of a certain asset; ie, they're struggling and we can go in there and buy it for less.
The increasing presence of sophisticated financial modules and instruments, like derivatives, and the increase in volumes of traders of all kinds, is adding to the problems for many nations. A country like Greece or Spain, that have operated pretty much the same way as they did a decade and more ago, are easy targets for bond vigilantes and the like. There are more and more traders etc on the other side than in previous decades with more cheap money to do as they please. And a country's banks in Europe had to borrow from the LTRO window and use that money to counteract the attempts in the bond markets to push yields higher. So that money doesn't go into their real economy! A disgrace; not the retail bank's fault as they have to keep the yields lower.
A Potential Restructuring of the Geopolitical Landscape might be on the cards, but not to the extent that will be sought after by those seeking control. An aim would be to do away with the many restrictions already present, and do business in parts of the world, at levels never seen before, that is ie currently off-limits. But this won't happen like 'they' desire, for many reasons.
The aim would be for the US to lose its grip on patrolling several parts of the world. I don't see this happening for too long, anyway. But lets say it did. You would not have the relative order and stability needed to enable economic systems of all kinds to flourish in regions that can't, for one, relate to democratic and vibrant capitalist systems. Multinationals and banks would be able to set-up shop and do some business in some of those regions, but trade might be flatter than expected and potential serious problems, like regional and domestic conflicts might unexpectedly arise; which would potentially leave even the most bullish of investors net negative. Under this model, if it were to arise, multinationals and banks would not have the support of ie the US military, if things don't go their way. Contracts in some parts of the world are just pieces of paper.
Multinationals and wholesale banks etc eventually need the backing of a (or even better, their!) military at some point, even if it's just an indirect presence from afar. The newer world order types would not be able to function effectively and efficiently on their own and without the indirect (and sometimes direct) backing of strong, reliable defense organizations, that can provide protection and provide official and unofficial intel on regions, countries, cities, people, dynamics etc etc.
Some multinationals and central banks etc on their own could very easily cease to exist over, and in a short amount of, time, if they go at it alone and without the indirect protection of their defense agencies. Let's say the US wasn't patrolling or helping patrol the seas, skies around the world, what's to stop an aggressive foreign force from acquiring assets that belonged to those large businesses? This sort of thing happens a fair bit.
Furthermore, does anyone really believe that the void of world domination, even if it's a failed attempt, by other nations backed by their own military, doesn't need to be filled?! It has for centuries and will continue to be a sought after prize by many nations moving forward. So large corporations (that need to pay more tax because they can and need to) and central banks won't be able to travel too far on their own (and without the support of defense) into the geopolitical world, without meeting some serious opposition.
to be continued ...
Ownership is very important to most of us. It's a necessity. But how far does one need to go for a certain type of ownership? This can become an important question in many contexts.
Now a traditional type of ownership might be one where you simply buy something you want, need or feel inclined to acquire. Won't bore you with the basics, as everyone realizes this. Ownership of a more abstract and even macro kind is a different ballgame altogether. This is part of what I want to focus on.
Ownership needs systems of all kinds to keep it all together; contractual legal agreements would be one. The more obscure the ownership or claim to ownership, the harder it may be to keep track of possessions and therefore, and at times, transfers of ownership. More on this later on.
Systems of ownership were once mostly and traditionally confined within national sovereign borders. There were exceptions, of course, but globalization along with other schemes has changed this. It's hard to keep track of who owns what, at times, these days.
Now one might argue that it's the US multinationals along with other global multinationals leading the way to globalize things, and they have been doing this for decades; and in some instances, for over a century.
A problem tho these days is it's not US multinationals, like it use to be, but multinationals in general, that might be based in the US or elsewhere. The point here is that these incredibly large institutions, companies etc might be using the US, for example, as a host (and using their valuable resources etc) but they have broken away (not completely) from the traditional boundaries from one's sovereign nation.
Well if this is happening all over the world, and not just in the US, then a nation might (and has in many cases) lose its sovereignty even more. The theory of the world eventually being run by sets of large corporations/banks etc is an old one. So is the formation of a one-world governed system, which will never take off, as stated in some of my other posts.
It does appear that large corporations and banks are dominating the world like never before, and their influence and power is gaining momentum, especially if the collective middle classes, via small to medium sized businesses can't compete with (yes) their rivals. Not always the case, but this is becoming more evident and an increasing problem.
The middle classes in many parts of the world are where they use to be a decade or so ago, but acquiring more and more debt; some of which wasn't theirs to begin with!
So where to next?
It seems like most of us will continue to help build these pyramidic organizations in some shape or form, while continually trying to build our own wealth etc, of course. The idea of a national identity might become increasingly obscured in some parts of the world, because of the lack of capital to finance sovereign-type projects, for example. Selling state-owned military assets to pay-down debts or just simply making cut-backs in the military are classic examples, and this is continually occurring.
If the middle classes are not functioning the way they should be then there are some serious trade-offs that affect a country's ie economic state and sovereignty. One way to weaken a country's military/defense is to make sure their citizens are struggling economically; ie the lack of tax revenue to pay for important public service jobs. As mentioned before in my threads, it's easier for some large multinationals, banks etc to do business in just about any country they see fit, if they don't have (the necessary) restrictions applied to them by, for example, the Pentagon.
Various multinational organizations, led by the large wholesale central banks, are increasingly seeking world domination, the likes of which we have never seen before. They have control of the complex economic systems that have strong controllable links to other systems that also govern our day to day lives. More to be said about this for sure!
A rebalancing of the world's economy is underway. Out of all the great economic minds etc, you would think that many of the sets of problems some countries face, like the ones in the EU, would be dealt with more appropriately than at present; austerity and growth don't go hand in hand. The so-called economic commentators and experts must know this. Allowing bond vigilantes and speculators, for example, to manipulate markets at the expense of nations and its people is adding to the problems; margin hikes, which aren't perfect but are effective, are one way to prevent the rampant speculation that goes on, but isn't really used all that often.
A rebalancing here would mean that the attempt is for countries to become more economically alike in various ways. But this is not working and is having disastrous consequences. It's disastrous for those countries, but not necessarily for those seeking world domination, as this is also strengthening their net positions relative to the rest. It also enables 'buyers' to come in and purchase many assets on the cheap! There is a predictability element there too, whereby a potential buyer would know or have a better understanding of the not so distant future value of a certain asset; ie, they're struggling and we can go in there and buy it for less.
The increasing presence of sophisticated financial modules and instruments, like derivatives, and the increase in volumes of traders of all kinds, is adding to the problems for many nations. A country like Greece or Spain, that have operated pretty much the same way as they did a decade and more ago, are easy targets for bond vigilantes and the like. There are more and more traders etc on the other side than in previous decades with more cheap money to do as they please. And a country's banks in Europe had to borrow from the LTRO window and use that money to counteract the attempts in the bond markets to push yields higher. So that money doesn't go into their real economy! A disgrace; not the retail bank's fault as they have to keep the yields lower.
A Potential Restructuring of the Geopolitical Landscape might be on the cards, but not to the extent that will be sought after by those seeking control. An aim would be to do away with the many restrictions already present, and do business in parts of the world, at levels never seen before, that is ie currently off-limits. But this won't happen like 'they' desire, for many reasons.
The aim would be for the US to lose its grip on patrolling several parts of the world. I don't see this happening for too long, anyway. But lets say it did. You would not have the relative order and stability needed to enable economic systems of all kinds to flourish in regions that can't, for one, relate to democratic and vibrant capitalist systems. Multinationals and banks would be able to set-up shop and do some business in some of those regions, but trade might be flatter than expected and potential serious problems, like regional and domestic conflicts might unexpectedly arise; which would potentially leave even the most bullish of investors net negative. Under this model, if it were to arise, multinationals and banks would not have the support of ie the US military, if things don't go their way. Contracts in some parts of the world are just pieces of paper.
Multinationals and wholesale banks etc eventually need the backing of a (or even better, their!) military at some point, even if it's just an indirect presence from afar. The newer world order types would not be able to function effectively and efficiently on their own and without the indirect (and sometimes direct) backing of strong, reliable defense organizations, that can provide protection and provide official and unofficial intel on regions, countries, cities, people, dynamics etc etc.
Some multinationals and central banks etc on their own could very easily cease to exist over, and in a short amount of, time, if they go at it alone and without the indirect protection of their defense agencies. Let's say the US wasn't patrolling or helping patrol the seas, skies around the world, what's to stop an aggressive foreign force from acquiring assets that belonged to those large businesses? This sort of thing happens a fair bit.
Furthermore, does anyone really believe that the void of world domination, even if it's a failed attempt, by other nations backed by their own military, doesn't need to be filled?! It has for centuries and will continue to be a sought after prize by many nations moving forward. So large corporations (that need to pay more tax because they can and need to) and central banks won't be able to travel too far on their own (and without the support of defense) into the geopolitical world, without meeting some serious opposition.
to be continued ...
