Tag Archives: international trade

US Foreign Policy

Since the Treaty of Maastricht in 1992, The European Union has grown to 25 member-nations in a series of enlargements. It is now preparing for the next enlargement, adding 3 more countries by 2007. They have merged their currencies and are aligning their laws and governance procedures. This is a big deal. I think that Europe is going to give America a run for the position of global nation of hope, honor, currency strength, and political influence. There is a similar story developing in Asia. The only way to be strong in this century is to be Good.

American foreign policy is always a balance between idealism and reality: the idealism of freedom and cooperation, the reality of deception, oppression, and violence. We could spend all of our time and energy fortifying America against attack. We could also spend all of our time and energy aiding the oppressed. Where we find our balance is up to the administration, and you chose the administration. Both political parties are generally well balanced in their approaches to these issues. Democrats generally lean more toward aiding the oppressed in an effort to help them rise up for their own freedom and lawfulness, while Republicans generally lean toward fortifying America and targeting those who threaten America or support cultures of oppression. Balance is the key.

Freedom is worth fighting for. We should fight to protect our own freedoms, and we should help others as they fight for their freedoms. We should use every tool at our disposal in an order that places killing as a last resort. Political negotiation should start with tariffs, trade, and travel restrictions, include secondary trading partners, and increasingly squeeze to influence positive political change. If it becomes necessary, our military should be agile and overwhelmingly capable. Such scaled pressure should be used to influence international labor law, weapons programs, terrorist regimes, and the broad range of foreign policy negotiations. We should have long term strategies for every nation, and short term tactics that reflect the realities of the times.

Globalization

Improvements in communications and distribution of goods and services

Leads to

Increased benefits to the lowest marginal-cost producers,

And therefore

Increases the volume supplied by the lowest marginal-cost producers.

Concentration of production

Leads to

Concentrations of wealth

Concentrations of wealth

Lead to

demographic and cultural changes.

Also,

Increasing supply from the lowest marginal-cost producers

Leads to

lower prices.

Lower prices

Lead to

Reduction or elimination of the profit potential for less efficient producers,

and therefore

reduces the number of producers

As the number of producers shrinks

And

The distribution volumes of the lowest marginal-cost producers increases,

Then

The ratio of employees to employers increases.

This demographic shift

Leads to

a gradual, or sometimes rapid, cultural shift.

In addition,

Economies of scale (a core strategy in the minimization of marginal-costs)

Lead to

consolidation.

Gloablization has clear advantages as measured by efficiency and profitability, however, also involves the consolidation/alignment of cultures, practices, language, currencies, and other social and demographic factors.
If people want to lessen these cultural shifts caused by globalization, the dynamics or boundaries of capitalism would have to be modified:
either economies of scale would have to be disassociated with competitive advantage, or the regulations concerning consolidation and/or distribution will have to be more restrictive.
The first option is not realistic, and the second option would limit freedom to trade. Neither option appears very attractive.

Competition in the information age

Consolidation is the result of economies of scale – essentially horizontal integration, vertical integration, and resource sharing. These methods create competitive advantages in powerful ways that make it difficult for smaller players to compete in the same markets. There is nothing necessarily wrong with this trend, but it creates large barriers to entry and often leads to larger profit margins than would be otherwise possible.

In the information age – yes, now – this effect is greatly increased, and the limitations of transportation and capacity have been eliminated. The ability to integrate and share resources is much easier, and new extra-strength synergies are created. For example, if a website allows you to shop for both books and music, then it is possible to tailor your music shopping experience based on your book purchasing preferences. This is a very simple example of a much more powerful trend. It may be impossible to enter into any sort of competition with large information companies after the next 20 years.

You can already see it beginning to happen: Yahoo builds from scratch any web business that seems to make sense. Then because of its existing market coverage, and the ability to integrate new businesses with existing businesses and data, Yahoo is able to capture so much synergistic value that they gain an insurmountable competitive advantage. In this way, I think that Yahoo and the other major aggregators and integrators are great companies.

There are risks. Big ones. And the FTC may not be able to do anything about it.

It may be inevitable that the consolidation will lead to a stable equilibrium under monopoly – where there would be no reason to be a competitor because the types of services being provided rely on historical information and broad business integration that is impossible to recreate or beat. Then this monopolist would have virtually limitless pricing discretion, and the ability to manipulate markets and cultures in unprecedented ways. Humanity, in many ways, would be at the mercy of the monopolist. (I hope that its leaders are benevolent democrats with philosophically sound motivations and long time horizons – but what if they are not?)

The only way to eliminate this market dynamic is to eliminate the factors that make it possible, namely, the opportunity to use your market dominance in one field to create dominance in another field. More specifically, eliminate the competitive advantage created by archival data. This can be accomplished by sharing archival data freely. But what about my privacy? Good question. We have a big problem here. The private information about you and your preferences plays a large role in creating the value that leads to this consolidation. If you want to eliminate this competitive advantage, then you either eliminate the value or you share private information.

There is another way.

What if users owned their own archival data? Amazon could still track my click streams, and do whatever they wanted with them. But I would also be tracking my own use, and have control over my own preferences and historically available data. Amazon would quickly learn that the personalization algorithms produce much more valuable customization using the users’ data than the Amazon archives. Market entry for this standard benefits from this implication. Now what happens if you go to a small competitor – one with little history, but better value than the others? They would be able to provide you with services that took advantage of your archival data, just as the monopolist would have. Competition is restored, and the advantages for humanity are regained as well.

Somebody should create a standard – probably using an XML document editable from within your browser. I’d love to help. Somebody has to do it eventually, and the sooner the better for all of us (except the monopolist, of course!)

Intellectual property protection is important

Imagine there are two worlds: One with freely flowing information, and the other with intellectual property rights retained. What would these worlds look like?

What are the implications of free distribution? Whatever they are, that world is still available to the people in the world with information rights. The individuals with rights would just be foregoing their rights, an option that is often exercised today. It’s obvious; some information is worth more than others. Being able to price and transact for money is a basic financial tool that has been developed to make trade and specialization possible. Would we really want to eliminate this important dynamic in the next cycle of business evolution? What would be the implications of that loss? There would be no direct incentive to create valuable information; originators could benefit from the marketing effects of popularly reproduced content, but this is not the same. Clearly, an important part of the economy in the coming century will be based on software companies, media companies, research companies, and other producers of intellectual properties. Eliminating the financial viability of their products would eliminate the incentives for these companies to exist.

Allowing trade is always good. If it weren’t the preference of both parties, then the trade wouldn’t take place. Licensing intellectual property is similar: If you were willing to pay for it, it was because it was worth at least that much to you. Anticipating the value you would assign to their work, the producers invest their time and resources into a better product. What quality of intellectual property would you rather live with?

In which world would you rather live?

The probability of the extinction of humanity is increasing

As communities overlap more and more, the unanticipated toxins that destroy cultures have a greater likelihood of spreading to other cultures.

When the Roman Empire poisoned itself with lead, for example, it destroyed a large culture, but not everyone. When the plague killed 1/3 of the world’s population, it even impacted the economic prosperity of Africa as the limited trade routes fell apart. If today’s aspartame (or any other component of our environment) were to cause damage to our evolutionary viability, it would vastly destroy the population of the world. Coke, for example, sells to just about every corner of the globe. As this occurs with more foods, drugs, medical procedures, manufacturing byproducts, and societal norms, we increase the likelihood of breaking the chain of humanity.

It may make sense to restrict the propagation of new products at some point in order to protect populations from negative ramifications. It also seems wise to maintain different food and drug administrations in different countries as long as there is unpredictability in long-term implications. The responsibility of the food and drug administration will become more and more important as similar ingredients become a part of the diet of larger and larger part of the population.

Chemical, biological, nuclear, nano-, and genetic weaponry is increasing in effectiveness. It will be possible in the next decades to produce agents that will kill all life with genetic code that matches any set of very specific genetic or other criteria.

This is really scary to me. I don’t know how to stop it. Similar to the way that software viruses and anti-virus software battle for dominance, new weapons and the protections against them will battle for dominance… in this case, with lives on the line. Over time the technology for constructing microscopic, cheap, and effective weapons will become more accessible. Columbine has the potential to be much worse. Assassination could be as easy as sending a nanoterrorist or finding a hair and releasing an airborne virus with a single target. It makes me think something that rarely crosses my mind: that the government should enforce involvement.