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

A Global Polity for the Global Economy and the de-globalisation option

A "global" (or WTO-wide) Economy does not work properly & cannot be
sustained w/o a global (or WTO-wide) Polity.

That is source of current problems.

Other options include de-gobalisation (eg regionalisation, eg EU, ASEAN, Trans-Pacific Partnetship, Mercosur/USAN-UNASUR, African Union, ...) of global finance and even goods trade!

The German market plunge: An episode in Agorocracy vs. Democracy

The "plunge" in the German market after the short selling ban (see DW English news report) is IMO but a new episode in the "war" between Democracy and Agorocracy that I described in my guest article in the New Europe magazine ("May 7-13, 2010: A Game Changer week?") last Monday (written May 14).

Democracy vs Agorocracy

Which are these forces and systemics that are referenced by the generic term "financial markets"?

IMO, "financial markets" are a complex system that does not have a "spokesperson" and its actions, that are in effect the "cumulative effect" from various different actions in different directions, do not constitute a "directive" for the social, political, policy and non-financial economic and business aspects of this world.

Unless we agree that Democracy has given its place to a new system of governance, Agorocracy (meaning "rule of the markers") and more specifically "Chrimatagorocracy" (rule of the financial markets). I do not think that we can agree to that.

No matter how imperfect politics and Democracy can be, politics cannot surrender their role to non-political forces.

How ambituous is more ambitious in Doha, WTO, world trade and globalization terms?

Karel de Gucht, the EU trade Commissioner, says there is need for new goals for Doha WTO talks

His "Doha Lite" proposal seems OK to me, but an ambitious new agenda should be much more far-reaching, IMO.

Maybe it is time for either

1) a 2 speed WTO; The Mach2 WTO to include WTO members willing to move towards a US or EU type system of democratic (federal) government (not G20), or

2) How about a World Community or Union (a la EC/EU) with a WFTA (a la EFTA) for those not wishing to join the WC/WU?

I agree M. Lamy! Let the public debate commence now on trade vs protectionism!

Things are finally getting more interesting. Hopefully a world public debate will take place! What do I mean?

The WTO's Director-General. M. Pascal Lamy, addressed facts and "fictions" about international trade economics economic myths when he spoke to the Paris School of Economics on 12 April 2010.

"Comparative advantage is dead? Not at all, Lamy told Paris economists" is the title that headlines his speech as posted in the WTO's site (wto.org).

Among others, he said:
"... In my comments today, I wish to identify and address some of these fallacies. We need to bring sound economic analysis to centre-stage in this debate. Secondly, I want to locate trade policy in a wider policy setting because it is at our own peril that we take trade policy and all its political complexities out of their proper context...."

He covered the theory underpinning trade economics, what trade statistics show, how trade deficits should be tackled, the impact of trade on jobs, the “race to the bottom”, and why liberalization needs regulation (link to his full speech on the WTO,org site)

And he ended his speech with a direct challenge to trade-skeptics and pro-protectionists:

"Let the public debate commence now"

Here are my initial comments to Mr. Lamy's speech:

IMO neither trade nor protectionism can hold the intellectual - theoretical high ground.

The economic reality around the world today, not the economic theories, show, IMO, that the current situation is worse than both a) protectionism and b) a real globalization (see also my post: "the cases for a) more and b) less globalisation!!!!" (Tuesday, 3 February 2009) which contains two audio analyses of mine, one arguing for more and one for less globalization!

A global economy needs global laws and a global democratic government IMO. Else it becomes survival of the cheapest.

In any case, I agree that a public - world debate on trade vs protectionism and globalization vs regionalization vs localization must take place and let the people decide after that.

BTW, IMO, free trade of goods etc w/o free migration of people is economically, socially and above all, humanly unfair.

Plus it's the failure of WTO as a whole to close a Doha DA deal that is quite responsible for the protectionist fashion (and vice-versa, the two feed on each other).

More contributions of mine on the trade vs protectionism coming up. But I propose you also check out my existing posts on this blog under the "labels":
a) "

Beyond the national vs global debate

IMO globalization is not cutting it in its present version and that is largely the main cause of the re-focus on national levels in recent years. The same can be said of one of the main aspects of globalization, free trade. Having national leaders and other key figures make pro free trade and anti protectionism declarations, IMO, does nothing to address the systemics factors behind a) the protectionist and b) national focus dynamics of recent years. Free trade does produce extra world GDP but one has to consider and discuss who gets most share of that "added value" from trade and any other benefit of a global focus. And I re-iterate my view on the need to reconsider David Ricardo's "comparative advantage" theory, with relevance to modern systemics and dynamics.

On the state and potential of world systemics and dynamics

I am, in principle a "globalist", ie a believer in global (1) freedom of movement not only for goods and capital, but services and workers/job seekers as well. And humans in general, be they of employment age and potential or not (ie free immigration of all kinds). And in a world (1) democratic government to provide the IMO needed balance to the economic side (world markets). In other words global markets balanced by a global democratic government (USA or EU, ie United States or Union style).

But my main concern is that any system works for the so called "average citizen" (I prefer "real people") and for the micro and small (as well as middle size) companies. And I must thus admit that IMO the type of globalization that we have at this stage in the world is not working for the above, thus willing to consider, especially as a thinker, not only fuller/better globalization models but also models that move away from globalization and world (WTO) free trade of mostly goods and capital.

For more on my rationales for a) more and b) less globalization see: The cases for a) more and b) less globalization (including audio files, Feb 3. 2009).

12+ months after those "cases" let me add the following thoughts (or, rather, food for thought):


1) Is the future of free trade regional rather than global, ie Europe, Africa, South & Central America, ASEAN, China+, Russia+, US+, etc?

2) Is an eventual US + EU Single Market "political-economic Sci-Fi"?

3) Paul Krugman has proposed tapped a 15% tariff on all Chinese imports to the US as a way of convincing Beijing to alter its exchange rate policy.
The US could afford to become protectionist - an "economic fortress" because of the size & effectiveness of its internal (50-state) market

4) Could the EU afford to do it? Hm!
Some EU countries export mostly globally, some mostly within the EU Single Market.
Maybe an economic fortress EU would be a way for its "peripheral" members to do better in the EU's internal market. Maybe. After all, how many economies can (and/or want) to become like the German one, how many have the assets and elements (eg climate/weather?) to produce German-type products?

Hence, in terms of EU competitiveness modeling: Some EU countries/economies would benefit, some others the opposite if the EU became an "Economic Fortress".

Of course (3) and (4) would mean that the US and EU would have to leave the WTO. Maybe the future of the WTO was sealed in 2001 when a certain country entered it.

Maybe Russia has a point in having stayed out of the WTO so far. For one thing, it allowed it to raise tariffs to protect certain industries (eg cars) during the world economic crisis.

Complicated, huh? Less than one would think, IMO. The main problem, IMO, is systemic imbalances and inconsistencies. And above all, not nearly enough focus on the problems of real people and micro and small companies, in most policy making centers around the world.

Footnote (1): When I say "global" or "world" I do not necessarily imply all countries of this planet but the ones wishing to participate in a "common" socio-economic system and political government.

"No more globalization please, we are human"

Short Story, semi-fiction:


"Because the world has changed" he said.

That is why his country (which one is not the point) has changed radically in recent months. When asked about events and actions of the past and how they correlate with the new attitude, he replied that these either took place because of the way things were then, in the world, in the US, in the UK, in Europe, not just his country or that events were not as they were reported to be.

He felt sea sick. Maybe he was feeling like that a bit already because of the weather, this climate change "thing". Maybe because some things happened today that did not settle well in his stomach (aka subconscious/instinct), maybe something he actually ate today and actually did not settle well with his stomach. Maybe.

"Go get your blood pressure checked" advised someone. She runs from doctor to doctor, many years now, every time she feels something is wrong. She has actually made it to 78, so far! She is hyper, but she has adjusted her lifestyle and living parameters to fit her quirks! And by the mere fact that she has made it this far in spite of chronic health issues since many decades ago, and a phobia for germs, among other things, which she freely admits, she is a winner in the game of life.

Game of life? Since when is life a "game"? To some it is an "arena", or a "Colosseum", to some "war", everyday in the trenches. like WWI, to some "a mission", to some "a committed relationship with .. themselves", etc, etc. Life philosophies, or philosophies on living or mindsets.

Some people are becoming "born again virgins", some are finding comfort in a drink or two every night, some in work, etc, etc!

"Because the world has changed"! Winning formula, realism or flagrant opportunism?

The world always turned, it was always volatile, it was always risky, but it seems that human nature drives us to want some stability. Some benchmark, some place to call home, some value to hold on to, or a life to hold on to!

"Get a life"! Well, many people today self label themselves as "spiritual". Others are re-discovering religion. Not many self label themselves as "philosophical" or "rationalists".

The world was always volatile, but the perception varied. Today, in the global 24/24 news era, one can run but cannot hide from globalisation's "effect", something like "sea sickness". A butterfly in ... China affects things in ... Smallville, USA, for example!

"May you live in interesting times" was not a wish, but a curse, an Ancient Chinese curse.

No more volatility please, we are human! How much hot to cold and cold to hot showers can we really take?

"The world has changed". Yes but, still, it way too radical for the world to .. stomach, in such a short time. Needs time to settle. Like "Breaking News"!

In NYC the idea of "Safe" (aka "Panic") rooms is not new (see eg the "The Panic Room" movie with Jodie Foster). Some people, mostly kids, invent imaginary friends. Maybe some construct imaginary "safe rooms". When in bonkers times ....

'Driver, you are driving this bus too fast, either you slow down or make a stop and we get out" said the mother. She had a child to protect, and she did not like the way the bus was being driven in combination with the weather!

"No more globalisation, please, we are human"?
Or a more balanced one (not just trade and news and stock markets)?


March 2008

On a major rethink of capitalism, moral trade, Davos, G20 and global governance, etc!

Recent intellectual policy endevours:

1) Who elected the G20 to make policy and regulatory decisions that the whole world will then "have" to adhere to?

That is one of the tweets I made in the last few days (again). A question I began to pose ever since a few months ago, under US/Obama Presidency, the G7/G8 decided to pass the torch of global leadership if not governance to G20 (after the end of the Canadian presidency).

What prompted me to tweet it again? Some of the comments by the "philosopher king", in Plato's use of the term, Nicolas Sarkozy, probably the only major political leader who cares to brainstorm in public (and upsets the balance of some other leaders who are not used to that "kind of thing"). Especially one where he says that G20 may be the sign of things to come, a global governance. But whereas I would be for a democratic global government (see below), I do not consider G20 "representative" of the world or even the UN members world or even the WTO members world.

So here is what I can think of in terms of models of real global governance:

G20 may be "more" representative (of the world) than G8 but leaves out 100+ WTO and UN members.

IMO a World Commission, Council and Parliament a la EU (EU style) is one solution.

IMO again, an other solution would be for the world to be structured into regional blocs, EU or US style, and have bloc leaders and reps meet to decide world policies and laws. In other words, instead of G20, a global government group should consist of: reps of the EU, African U, China, India, USA, 2-3 American Unions, 2 Asian Unions, Russia ....

I know that both models I sketch above are kinda radical thinking, but hey, a) that is my task as a policy thinker and b) that, fundamental (re)thinking seems to be the "in" thing these days, not only because of Nicolas Sarkozy.



2) One other major thing that Nicolas Sarkozy said in Davos at the World Economic Forum was his view of the need for a "fundamental rethink of capitalism".

Here are my comments (most were tweeted in the last 2 days)

* A fundamental rethink of capitalism? Of which capitalism (note: of all versions floating around these days)?

* A fundamental rethink of capitalism that N. Sarkozy proposes: Is that a task for economists, politicians, sociologists, philosophers, all?

* A capitalism that includes moving away from profit as the MAIN goal of business, ie give emphasis to micro and small companies instead of corporations. Via a new socio-economic model that includes among others much less regulation and simpler laws. Why? Because, IMO, in micro and SME based economies, profit maximisation is but one many goals, unlike large corporation based ones. Because micros and small firms are motivated by owners' ambitions, pride and other non-profit related goals, not maximising shareholder value per se.

* IMO it is not just capitalism that need a fundamental rethink: Most models and theories of past centuries still "in circulation" do!
In need of fundamental rethink: capitalism, marriage, sovereignty, national interest, "work", economy, trade, legal systems, finance, etc. But most of all, in need of fundamental rethink are: our ways of life especially in the "West" (Europe, USA, etc)


3) A "moral dimension" to "free" trade Nicolas Sarkozy is "searching" for!

IMO, that moral dimension would be "free" immigration among WTO member countries.


4) Other fundamental rethinks that IMO are in order:

a) In view of discussions re sovereignty and national interest (in the UK, US, etc), is there not a need for a 2010 relevant redefinition of them?
I find most recent discussions re sovereignty and national interest a tad "selective". Are trade, sovereign wealth fund and other investments, trade agreements, WTO, COP15 etc consistent with traditional definition of sovereignty? Why are then not included in the lists of those who think the EU is "violating" sovereignty of member states (IMO the Lisbon exit clause that allows/describes how a member state to/can leave the EU is an "ultimate" guarantee of the sovereignty of the member states)? Or are concerned about "foreigners" (see other posts in this blog re oxymora that I detect in the "foreign" discussions/rationales)?

b) Corporatism, in business, public sector, and other aspects of life is another candidate IMO for a major rethink in the way Nicolas Sarkozy proposes.


PS 1. New world economy order: China has approx. USD 2.4 trillion in foreign currency reserves and half of world output comes from developing countries these days!

"Vagabonding" or "Fortress Building"?

Vagabonding/roaming - being mobile vs. building a "fortress":

What is the best way for a person or family or company to deal with the challenges and parameters of what people like to refer to as "globalization"?

Both options seem to have pros and cons! Capital's main reputed advantage is that it is very mobile! Can humans compete with capital in that "game"? Go where the proper work is to be found?

Or merely "hitchhike" around, experiencing the beauties of this Earth?

Can they do both?

Questionning the status quo in world trade and globalization: Some thoughts

A few hours after the beginning of 2010, here are a few thoughts of the state and future of inter-national trade (global-WTO, regional, etc) and globalisation's systemics and dynamics in general, inpired by the entry into force today, Jan. 1, 2010, of a free trade area between China and 6 of the 10 ASEAN countries.


1) The free trade area between China and 6 of the ASEAN 10 (more of the ASEAN members may join within 5 years) that eliminates tariffs in 90% of products. Is it another "nail in the coffin" of the WTO and Doha?
The 6 are: Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore and Thailand and happen to be the founding members of ASEAN!


2a) Was the Trojan War, circa 1300-1100 BC, a result of a trade pact between the city-states of Ancient Greece (and thus Homer, pop story teller rather a historian, a few centuries later, used, in his stories re the Iliad and the Odyssey, "Helen" as a poetic license type of proxy for trade)?
2b) Were the Hellenistic Times (after the death of Alexander the Great, 4th century BC, probably the most "balanced" globalisation that humankind has seen so far? IMO, yes!

3) Does Regional free trade make more sense these days than the Global (WTO) one?

4) Should the EU and the USA leave the WTO (World Trade Organisation) and base their trade on existing + future bilateral and regional agreements? More thoughts on the rationale for such a scenario coming in future posts.

For previous posts on this and related matters check the posts labelled "globalisation" and "WTO" in this blog.

A matter of both fairness and balance

The President of France Nicolas Sarkozy and the Prime Minister of Britain Gordon Brown co-authored an opinion article in the Wall Street Journal on December 9 titled "For Global Finance, Global Regulation: Proposals that deserve consideration include taxes on financial transactions and 2009 bank bonuses"

That tempts me to extrapolate on their rationale and ask why not global (uniform) regulations for trade and for business in general? Why not for labour laws?

Globalisation is in crisis these days, IMO. One of the main reasons is that it remains largely irrelevant to the average citizen of this world as well as the average (micro or SME) company. Why? One of the reasons, IMO, is that for a company to be active outside its "home" country/economy, it has to face different laws on almost everything in different "foreign" markets/countries.

I have argued before that globalization of capital and goods (and to some extent Services) needs a) to be coupled with globalization of the job market (at least between WTO member countries and for the citizens/workers of these countries) and b) be balanced by global governance. In other words, a global economy needs a global political counter-dimension. Otherwise, it becomes an opportunity for speculation and "economic piracy", in that it makes things very difficult even for large law abiding companies and easy for business "pirates" who use this chaos of national regulations and laws as a platform for avoiding any regulation.

That compared to the current state of globalization either a) more - full globalization or b) less globalization even a return to "economic fortress" models of the past would IMO make more sense and work for the average company and the "average citizen".

Thus, IMO, a Global Parliament and a global government are not only a matter of fairness but also a matter of balance.

Survival of the cheapest?

The "survival of the cheapest" culture.

"Value" seems to be a key word in today's societies. Yet, I argue that "value" is a term without any "real" meaning, at the end of the day. I am even prepared to argue that the notion of "value" is misleading in today's market systems.

I propose that the concepts "I deserve" or "what is my value" have no face .. value in the market.

Cost, utility and price are terms which have more applicability. They are more "real" in market terms. What is more, these terms go well beyond economics. Supply and demand, cost, utility and price are not necessarily measured in money. After all, money is but a measurement tool.

It's about give and take, transactions, exchanges. It's about supply and demand, economic or "non-economic".

And price is after all, as I learned in my college economics courses, the point of equilibrium between supply and demand.

My thinking is not economic, it is interdisciplinary. After all, I have had some training in economics, but I am not an economist.

Utility is also a relative term. What is for example is the utility of a match in a desert island? For a non-smoker, for a smoker? A smoker who has cigarettes nut no matches or a smoker who possesses neither matches or cigarettes?

What is "quality"?

To me, "quality" means standardisation. I.e giving the same every time, with minimum variation.

Machines offer quality. Humans offer "value"

There lies the strategic problem for humans in today's "Globalia".

If humans have a competitive advantage in producing "value", and "value" is an irrelevant term, then where is the bottom line?

With more and more manufactured goods being produced in China and services offered remotely from India, what will Americans and Europeans produce in the future (assuming that globalisation and free trade do not fall to pieces)? How many services, even offered locally, cannot be based on survival of the cheapest?

Maybe our future lies in relocating to China where cost of living is much lower!

I propose that the competitive advantage of the USA and Europe (OECD countries) lies, for a while at least, in capitalising on the relative and volatile utility of intangibles.

The competitive advantage of the human factor (vis-a-vis capital and machines) lies in producing goods and services with high intangible added-utility (e.g. branding).

I also argue that humans, after all, are at their best not in repetitive, but non-repetitive, creative, intellectual, based "products".

When you play not to lose, you play more conservative football (or soccer, if you prefer)!

Humans will beat the machines by capitalising on what makes them human.

Let us assume that in the future, robots and other machines produce most products and services. Humans will then have a lot of time on their hands. But what about money?

Will we all get paid for being poets, painters, singers and doing other ultra-human activities?


Living with "too many" options?

Freedom of choice and availability of many options does requires a "philosophised" person, ie a person who knows what he/she wants and does not want and has developed a personal philosophy on life, as well as not being lazy in using his/her brain. no matter what the IQ is.

I can thus see how some people and daters may prefer totalitarianism, monopolies as well as not like the benefits of online dating, for them and for others!!!!

Is the world too big to be someone's "village"?

Is the world too big to be someone's "village"? Part 1

The global village concept seems to be proving not so easily applicable.
How many people, for example, wake up every morning "in the world"?

What does each person perceive as "home" and a his/her "space"?
It is a question of personal choice and factors.

For some their "agora"/"market" is their neighborhood, for some their city, for some their district, for some their region (e.g. Alsace, Surrey) or land (e.g. Bavaria) or state (e.g. California), for some their country, for some their region (e.g. South America, Southeast Europe (aka the Balkans)), for some their continent (Europe, Africa, Asia, America). How many people can perceive the world as their oyster?

The interplay between all these levels of "space" does bring confusion. So do all these regional agreements on Free Trade Areas, Unions (European, African), and the large numbers of bilateral agreements. Which, in effect, do compete with the WTO, UN and other multilateral formats. How much more confusion can the man in the streets of London, Leeds, Lille, Amsterdam, Rome, Warsaw, Budapest, Seattle, Hong Kong, etc. handle?

Is so much choice of frameworks too much choice?

Are nations and countries a depasse notion?
Can they be replaced by regional (EU, NAFTA, African Union, Mercosur, ASEAN) or global (WTO, UN, etc.) "notion"/"frameworks of mind"? And how can they deal with the transition.

The faltering WTO talks and the EU's Constitutional problems are mere indications of the difficulty. Is the transition too fast, too slow or too fuzzy (not clear enough)?

We seem to be living in times which are so transitional that they are too confusing.

People need some stability and some liquidity, some fixed and some variable parameters in their lives. Are they getting that? Can people live with total liquidity or everything fixed? It seems that most cannot. Most need a balance of the two.


"Is the world too big to be someone's "village"? part 2

Some people travel around the world "intellectually" ie in their minds (and the www and modern media - thematic channels help), some travel "in person" - physical presence. I guess the optimum is a healthy mix of the two.

I know some people who have actually travelled - been around the world and still it is as if they have never left their house (those voyages have not "opened" up - expanded the mindsets, on the contrary, it has made them more "parochial" than before).

Globalisation and risk fatigue syndrome?

"Love", in its most general form, for one's self, for family, friends, people in general, is a key dynamic in making this world a better one. And if loving someone is not possible, at least it is worth trying tolerance.

Easier said than done, true.

The key is to try to contribute to win-win situations in our daily lives.

To slow things down when they seem to be getting out of hand.

Back to basics, as gurus suggest, does not mean abandoning our lifestyles. It means better priorities in our daily lives.

The western world is more and more specialising in the production of intellectual rather than industrial products. And high end (value added) services.


Maybe the world is suffering from globalisation and risk fatigue syndrome?

More thinking and a slower pace in our daily lives is a good way to address it.

Dynamics: Coping with Globalisation

For many people globalization feels like being in a small boat in the middle of an ocean. There is a feeling of being overwhelmed by the "chaotic" dynamics of it all.

How many persons and organisations (eg governments or companies) can grasp and take into account of all the dynamics and elements which are at play on Earth today and which affect, directly or (mostly) indirectly their decisions and "interests"/well being? In such highly volatile situations what does a "rational" decision maker do (in terms of decisions in business, policy, work, family, home, relationships, personal life)?

In the face of uncertainty, some view it as a threat, others view it as an opportunity. It depends on their so called personal appetite for risk (risk converse and risk adverse appetites). I would venture to say that today the "ocean" of globalization is mostly seen as a threat by a very large majority of the people on this Earth. Why? Because most do not think that they have the "ships"/"vessels" to "sail" with reasonable expectation of "success" or even "survival" in this ocean, like Christopher Colombus did.

A venturing sect of the Vikings chose to cross the Atlantic more than 1000 years ago and reached the NE edge of the American continent. But met a lot of resistance from the inhabitants and most had to return to Europe some years later.

Millions of Europeans were "desperate" enough (more to win and less to lose, ie had to "embrace" the uncertainty as a "forced" opportunity) to cross the Atlantic in recent centuries and go through the Ellis Island experience and create a new home in the then "New World". They either left families behind or took them with them.

Millions of people from around the world today choose to immigrate for a better tomorrow. They leave some of their family behind and either send money or go to visit from time to time when and if they can.

Written: 2006

some thoughts on WTO "free trade" - World Economy a runaway train?

The WTO's Seventh Ministerial Conference is taking place in Geneva, 30 Nov.-2 Dec. This session is not dedicated to the ongoing (since 2001) and much troubled "Doha Round" of negotiations. At least not directly.

Here are some thoughts due to the occasion (I also tweeted them):

* Has the World economy outgrown the Doha WTO Round or the World?

* IMO the world economy has become a runaway train and the G20 is not the proper driver for it.

* Since the 2003 Cancun failed WTO meeting, most countries have hedged their bets via bilateral agreements and memberships in Free Trade Areas etc

* IMO either a) globalization acquires a political dimension or b1) regionalization (EU, Mercosur, ASEAN, etc) or b2) "fortress" economies/countries with bilateral agreements between them

On the G8, G20, WTO and "world governance"

IMO either a) more or b) less globalization make sense, not the current level.

Real people and real (SME + micro) companies need a real economy, local, national, regional (eg EU, ASEAN, Mercosur, etc) and global (WTO area) and real policies to create real growth + real jobs, not virtual ones.

Who "elected" the G20 as a new world economic "government"? IMO neither the G8 or G20 have the political legitimacy to formulate world economic policy and make decisions - global democratic deficit.

Should the WTO instead of the G20 assume the role of the G8 in "world governance"?

There are many legit ways to achieve a democratic governance system that will include most of the world (Earth), but the ones being put forward are not them.

Maybe the EU or the US are models for a World Union or a United States of the World. Other, more complicated models exist too, IMO. But any legit model can to entail the participation of the people (democracy) concerned.

8 or 20 or 50 countries cannot formulate policies or make decisions that affect the rest of the countries and their people (members of UN or at least the WTO).

The entrepreneurship vs regulation oxymoron within the context of global socio-econ trends and dynamics

What oxymoron?

Well, if you have been reading this blog or following my tweets in the last few weeks, you should know what I mean:

a) Free market capitalism seems to be losing popular support, all around the world, even in the US.

b) Much of public opinion around the world again is in favour of more regulation on business.

So, while micro firms and SMEs are suffocating in over-regulation and red tape, world public opinion is asking for more business regulation.

Analyse this!

As I have pointed in numerous posts and tweets in recent months, many people (be they men in the streets or policy makers or media etc) when they think "business" they continue to be "tied" to states of the past (large industry, esp. international), whereas, at least in the US, EU and orher OECD at least countries/economies, 70-80% of the economy is Services and the companies ("business") is mostly SME (small and medium) or even micro (0-9 employees).

Hence: they could be talking of different business, but that is IMO lost in .....

Plus I ask you to consider this:

1) IMO globalization will gain popular support only when most micro and small companies can feel the global market + its niches as "theirs"/ Plus, IMO the EU will gain popular support only when most of its micro + small companies can feel the EU Single Market as their market.


2) Many young people are opting to start a business rather than become "corporate material": An "Entrepreneur or corporate manager" dilemma? Yet, corporate bureaucracy may be bad these days but the red tape a #micro company faces is not cool either.

3) Real capitalism vs. pseudo (fake) capitalism? Which of the two is prevalent in your part of the world? Many people cannot tell the difference!

4) IMO we need either more or less of "Europe" + either more or less globalisation, current levels of both EU and globalization make no sense (and do not work for the micro and small firm and the "man in the street").

Is free market capitalism fatally flawed?

(605 words)
While the OECD (The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is saying that major economies across the world are showing strong signs of recovery, 23% of 29000 people in 27 countries who participated in a BBC World Service poll feel free-market capitalism is fatally flawed.


Here are my observations and comments re the scope of the above analysis (OECD) and poll (BBC World Service):

1) The BBC World Service's poll is not global (covered 27 countries, WTO has 152 and UN over 190)
2) Neither do major economies constitute the "global economy"
3) Nor do the G20 constitute the global economy, even if they represent some 70-80% of its GDP

And here are my observations and comments re the essence:

I) The current (economic) system in the 27 countries surveyed may be either "fatally" or "very" flawed but has to consider: In how many of them is the system real "free market capitalism"?

Communism vs Capitalism (and people's memories from the former and experience with the latter): Aren't the good old times due to bad or selective memory? Plus, again, in how many countries do people experience a real - genuine "free market capitalism"?

II) What is equally if not more worrying IMO is that the BBC World Service poll in those 27 countries (as well as other surveys that have come to my attention recently) indicates there are majorities almost everywhere (in those 27 countries) that want government to be more active in regulating business!

More active in regulating business? Does that mean more regulation or better regulation, one may ponder?
Of what business? What do they respondents have in mind when they express or agree to that view? Large and small or micro business? In general or specific sectors (eg financial)? Domestic or foreign ?

The above are very crucial IMO, if one is to get any useful conclusions out of the popular view for regulation that seems to exist.

III. Thus, IMHO:

a) The economic system in many countries today is flawed but that system is not free market capitalism

b) A key factor leading to the flaws and resulting popular dissatisfaction with the current economic systems are major flaws in competition laws and related supervision of the markets.

c) the BBC World Service poll results show need for better functioning free markers and better welfare state, both!

d) The BBC World Service poll results show the need to secure peoples' basic needs and for giving people more freedom in pursuing wants and dreams in their work/economic or social or other aspects of their lives.

e) Neoliberalism and conservatism tend to underestimate the fundamental human "need" for basic needs including the security of social security

f) Most political parties and platforms miss the concept that some things are better done by the market, some better done by the public sector. Each sector has activities where it is stronger.

Instead we are flooded by ideologies that either theologise the markets and demonise the state and its public sector (eg most Libertarians) or, to an increasing again level, the opposite, ie theologise the state and its public sector and demonise the private sector.

Modern systemics and dynamics are complex and volatile thus they are difficult to grasp. Thus some resort to the aforementioned and other simplistic models that have IMO confused the public opinion.

What is the solution? Not simple, but a basic element of any model I have in mind is:

To have the state/Society guarantee all its members that rain or shine their basic needs will be covered and then let them go out to real free markets to pursue their wants.