SOPA, PIPA and more or less globalisation?

In the world of the near future, the idea you express, the song you sing, the story you tell, etc has to be your own or you pay to use it. Why? Read below!

Here is a selection of the thoughts I expressed on the subject during many Twitter debates and discussions brought about by SOPA and PIPA.

Intellectual Property and Copyright are the "global finance" of the not so distant future. The new capitalism. They are replacing land and money as "capital".

The internet and social media of global appeal, as well as the issues raised by SOPA and PIPA, are reinforcing the rationale for a "world government" with a world legislative body (parliament).

Other than the ole taxation w/o representation, globalisation (& things like SOPA) raise the issue of legislation w/o (world) representation. In a globalised world, laws of all kinds need to have global application but only if voted by a global parliament (global = UN or WTO). In a globalised world some countries (USA, Germany etc) cannot expect to decide the laws or rules & then others to accept them.

The issue of IP will keep emerging in the agendas of the West as the US & Europe economy produce little but Services and intellectual products.

Eg the US unilaterally passed DMCA a few years ago and now is trying to expand its application via ACTA after failure via WTO

Those countries who do not want to share their sovereignty via a world government and parliament, will be outside the global system of trade, media, www, etc much like "gated communities" because, simply, no country can have its "independence" cake and eat it too, be it UK, HUN or any! Opt-outs will be total not a la carte. Thus it is not loss of sovereignty but sharing of it. Those who don't wish to share can optout of the "globe" (or for now, EU)

All I'm saying is that there must be (systemic, rational, political etc) consistency: Either a) real global or b) real national. Hybrids fail

And how are national interests or POVs represented in such a world parliament and law making? Well, by analogy, in a national parliament one expects his local MPs to ally with other to represent the POVs of the area in the grand scheme! So, by the same method they are by/in national parliaments eg in Germany, in the US, UK, France, etc! As per  religious/cultural/custom differences, the same. law enforcement inside systems  for religious/cultural/custom differences, applies to many countries today. They solve it. The world can, too.

Otherwise, we may as well start thinking of going all the way back to city-states of past milleniums to preserve sovereignty in its purest (?) sense? Yet single state homogeneity is a myth! Even single city homogeneity is a myth, was and is.

So what we cannot have is "global systems" of any kind that are based on the legislation of one country (eg USA). The other option is to stop everything global or international (including www, world trade and global finance) and revert to gated countries

What is a world government and parliament politically viable?
Need I remind you that if the city-states of Ancient Greece had united into a federal state, History would be quite different?
So what is politically sustainable and what is not evolves. SOPA/PIPA is a rude awakening for much of the world!

After all, EU, UNASUR, ASEAN, etc are a step towards eventual global union. Or return to city-states!

My last word on this: USA must realise that it cannot legislate for the whole world (or www). It's the US of America not US of World. So, as I wrote to an American lawmaker, a balance between protecting intellectual property & internet freedom is a matter for a world parliament to decide, not the US or EU bc the 1st W in www stands for world not US.

See also my post: >Globalisation, today and in 300 BC

The new capital? How and for whom?

Humankind that gone from real estate & farming land Capital to monetary Capital and now to patent & copyright (intellectual) Capital.

The US did not manage to convince the WTO members to do an agreement on it and tried in a much smaller ad-hoc group with the EU, Canada & 1-2 more (ACTA).

Will this new form of capital be the cause of future friction between countries?

In principle, intellectual capital (and intellectual goods) are one way for the US and EUrope to be able to compete in the international trade game. The other is to erect fortresses in manufactured goods trade. Many services are or can be traded (after all tourism related services count as exports ie they bring revenue to an economy that are equivalent to the one from export of goods).

But what types of "intellect" or "great matter" intensive goods (as opposed to labour or monetary capital) can act as an adequate basis for a modern economy? Can eg an economy live & prosper by producing music, films, TV series, pop art and pop culture, ibn addition or instead of more traditional forms such as traditional R&D "products" (high tech etc)?

Pact, reform, meetings, IP, jazz and inflation hawks

1) Some 36 hours before the EPP and Socialists' meetings in Helsinki and Athens to discuss the Merkel-Sarkozy competitiveness pact, a very important opinion article by Guy Verhofstadt, Jacques Delors & Romano Prodi re the pact appeared in the FT: Europe must plan a reform not a pact

One of the things that the Delors, Prodi & Verhofstad article misses IMO is that if European Commission is involved that means also UK & Czech Rep, ie won't lead to the type of breakthrough needed. But they are right that a pact is not enough!

In a relevant communique, ALDE stresses that Europe needs a Community Act for economic convergence & governance

IMO, and for political union! EMU of 17 or 27 cannot work w/o real single market & real federal budget - income tax! It's now or ....!

2) According to The National, the UAE and Qatar are to help out Spain

3) According to the CBI: UK IP is fundamental to growth.

IMO, Intellectual Property is the capital of the 21st century (as opposed to land & financial equity/bonds etc) but how does one defend it? Via ACTA??

4) The jazz (hype) re innovation reminds me of the jazz re HR (Human Resources & Human Capital etc) before the current crisis. All was forgotten when the crisis arrived!

5) According to France24 (EN) The French lament their shrinking role on world stage
C'est la vie? IMO only EU can play such a role anymore, not France, neither the UK or any other EU country on its own.

6) BBC News reports that the ECB said that Eurozone interest rates could rise in April
The inflation hawks are out! Oh my! Are some in the Eurozone trigger-happy re anti-inflationary measures (ie raising interest rates)? Can the Eurozone afford anti-inflation mania?

If the ECB interest rate goes up next time (because of inflation-phobia?) what will be the effect on financing cost & access of SMEs & the GIIPS (PIIGS)? What is the effect on Eurozone firms' ability to a) export b) defend their markets since the Euro will rise vs USD, Yuan, Pound etc? Effect on jobs in the Eurozone?

So why this monolithic fear/phobia of inflation? For a long time now ECB interest rate is 1%, UK 0.5%, US 0.0-0.25%! So policy-wise, if the EU has higher propensity than UK & US for inflation consider that maybe that is because of its incomplete single market & union! Who realises that the EU;s micros & SMEs (and people) need EU-wide single laws in everything for the EU to work and provide jobs?

Globalisation? What globalisation? More like a figment of imagination or at best, an impression!

The US, EU, Canada, Japan and 9 more are negotiating a controversial "ACTA" (google it). If one adds 27 EU, that still makes only 40 out of 153 WTO members Another WTO "fail"? Or is it another sign that globalisation is a figment of imagination and what actually exists is an unbalanced (eg no economic immigration freedom, ie freedom of movement of "human capital"), largely unpopular system? A system that has failed to capture the imagination of the average citizen of this planet as well as the micro firms (1-9 ppl) and SMEs? A state of being that promises much more than it actually delivers via so called "free trade" of goods (in reality, merely "more free" or "less unfree" than before), services (how many services, esp. those that concern the average person or company are actually trade-able) and capital (that issue deserves a separate post)?

It is no surprise IMO that Simon Evenett's Global Trade Alert, that records not that obvious forms of barriers and distortions (ie "sneaky" acts of protectionism) has found (see "Protectionism: Pantomime villain fails to materialise" in the FT, by Alan Beattie, June 25, 2010 http://bit.ly/aqZhyy) that since the first G20 crisis-related summit of November 2008 where 20+ governments declared their commitment to free trade etc etc, governments around the world have put in place not only 99 traditional restrictions such as anti-dumping and countervailing duties but 397 other new "sneaky" protectionist policy measures. The latest report of Global Trade Alert is coming out this week and should make very interesting and telling read. It would also be interesting to know how many and which types of protectionist measures have been put in place by the US and the EU as well as the BRICs and of course China and Japan!

IMO the bottom line is that in spite of rhetoric, media and other hype, etc, globalisation is not an accurate name for the process that has been going on since post WWII GATT and the establishment of the WTO in the 1990s. IMO real globalisation would be a great thing. But, much like the European Integration (or even worse, NAFTA), it would require a much more humanist, systemically balanced establishment of real freedoms for real companies and real people. The world breaking news, the Internet, e-commerce, the social media etc do give the impression of a globalised world. But it is largely, just that, an impression. Eg how many companies other than those based in North America and some European countries (eg UK) have truly been able to engage in world trade via e-commerce at a substantive level? What % of the world's SMEs and micros?

So, what globalisation? The fact that there are now global players from Japan and the BRICs next to the traditional football, sorry, I meant trade and economic, traditional powers, plus the fact that most countries do some exporting of goods, does not constitute globalisation. And while the US and the EU are largely finally coming to terms with the idea that they are Services economies, while, strangely most of their export trade is still in the minority of GDP "manufactured goods" category, while some, including the author of this post, are claiming that the US (and maybe the EU) should depend more and more on meta-industrial age "intellectual products" for their export revenues (because sweat shop high labor intensity low skill low pay jobs do not for a better future or quality of life make), and while it of course makes perfect sense that many in the EU and the US are upset about the initially secretive method of ACTA negotiations, one is IMO allowed to ask:

What globalisation are you talking about (or is it "globalization")?

Posted via email from nickpthinking

Remember: It's a Services economy now (US, UK, etc)

US and UK Services show indications of rebounding! It makes sense, these are Services economies, like many OECD ones! Services and SMEs

Thinking "Economy" in industrial age terms is IMO Ancient History in the US, UK and other OECD post-industrial member countries

Thus
Reminder: policy makers in US, UK + other OECD countries must think Services, SMEs + intellectual products when they think Economy (and design policy and expect growth and jobs).

A solar, windy and intellectual EU?

IMO "intellectually intensive" services + products must become cornerstone of the EU economy based on solar and wind energy sources.

But self reliance on solar + wind may require radical back 2 basics way of life in EU, ie a much more intellectual than materialist one!

Socio-economic modeling in a meta-industrial Services era

Socio-economic modeling in a meta-industrial - Services era:


1) which Services sectors should an OECD country base its economy and jobs on - how large/wide a portfolio?

2) how much can intellectual products contribute to an economy + its jobs?

The intellectual economy

How much can intellectual products such as music, films, TV content (series etc), #books, etc contribute to the export revenues of a meta-industrial economy?