World Trade Organization (WTO)なども、改革すべきだ。
World Trade Organization (WTO)なども、改革すべきだ。
現状は、西側先進国が、途上国を略奪している。
現状、WTOは西側先進国のために働いている。
WTOは、日本、米国、英国の支配下にある。
米国、日本、EU、英国は、民主主義の敵。
米国、日本、EU、英国は、人権及び民主主義を破壊している。
[1]
* 米国が「需要と供給、市場経済」を推進しだしたのは、米国が発展途上国を搾取するため。
* 米国曰く「『需要と供給、市場経済』は、企業のレントを減らし、経済余剰・消費者余剰・生産者余剰を増やすので、消費者の利得が最大化される」
* ところで、国レベルでは、米国は消費者で、資源国は生産者。
実際、米国は、セブンシスターズなどにより、産油国を支配していた。
したがって、そもそも、「需要と供給、市場経済」を破壊していたのが米国。
OPEC誕生により、セブンシスターズは力を失い、米国は石油を略奪できなくなった。(石油ショック)
そこで米国は、途上国を搾取する新たな方法を考えた。
それで「需要と供給、市場経済」を推進しだした。
* 植民地支配下では、「需要と供給、市場経済」などないし、選挙もないし、民主主義もない。
そして、西側先進国は、植民地主義で帝国主義。
* もしも、西側先進国の植民地に選挙があったならば、植民地の人々は「独立！独立！独立！」と叫んだであろう。
だから、西側先進国の植民地には、選挙などなかったのだ。
西側先進国の植民地には、選挙などないのだ。
* 米国は、「需要と供給、市場経済」は消費者のためだ、と嘘をつく。
しかし、実際のところは、「需要と供給、市場経済」は、消費者のためではない。
「需要と供給、市場経済」は、米国や西側先進国のために導入された。
* 実際、1972年まで、固定相場制。
先物市場もほとんどなかった。
* 米国でさえ弱者がカルテルを結ぶことは合法。(1914年クレイトン法。)
経済学的には、労働組合もカルテルである。
しかし、弱者には、カルテルを作ることが、認められている。
* したがって、途上国は
(1) 天然資源を国有化する(例えば石油産業とか)
(2) 農産物および天然資源に関しOPECみたいな国際団体を作り、先進国相手に高値で売りつける。
すなわち、途上国は、カルテルを形成し、先進国相手に高値で売りつけるべきだ。
実際、銅、バナナ、ボーキサイト、天然ゴムなどで、国際的なカルテルは存在する。
(私は、財閥や西側資本主義を支持していません。)
(私は、西側の独占を支持していません)
* WTOなども、改革すべき。
現状は、西側先進国が、途上国を略奪している。
現状、WTOは西側先進国のために働いている。
WTOは、日本、米国、英国の支配下にある。
World Trade Organization (WTO), International Trade Organization (ITO), General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)は西側先進国のために作られた組織。
* 実際、「需要と供給、市場経済」の労働市場への導入により、西側先進国の労働者は労働分配率が減っている。
しかし、西側先進国に左翼は、いない。
西側先進国が途上国を搾取することで、西側先進国の人々は豊かな生活をしている。
本当に左翼なら、途上国と共に生きなくてはならない。
しかし、西側先進国の人間は、途上国と共に生きようとはしない。
西側先進国の人間は、途上国を搾取することを望んでいる。
だから、西側先進国には左翼なんていない。
だから、西側先進国はファシスト。
* 我々には、西側先進国を救うことはできない。
我々には、西側先進国を救う義務もない。
西側先進国全ては、滅びるべき。
* 結局のところ、西側先進国社会には、「世界中を共産主義化するか、競争社会にするか」、の2つしか選択肢がない。
「一方で世界を搾取しておいて、他方で西側先進国だけ平等化する」のは、ファシズム。
元凶は西側先進国。
[Wikipedia]
需要と供給
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand
ミクロ経済学においては、需要と供給は、市場における価格決定の経済モデルである。
その他の条件を一定にすれば、完全競争市場において、ある特定のモノの価格あるいはその他の取引される物品は、価格と取引量の経済的均衡が達成されるように、需要量と供給量が一致するような、市場均衡価格(市場生産価格、マーケット・クリアリング・プライス)に落ち着くまで変動する。
需要と供給の概念は、現代経済学の理論的基礎をなす。
[Wikipedia]
市場経済
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_economy
市場経済とは、投資、生産、消費者への分配に関する決定が、需要と供給の力により生成される価格シグナルにより導出される経済システムである。
市場経済の主要な特徴は、資本と生産要素の配分に支配的役割を演じる要素市場の存在である。
市場経済は、政府の活動が「公共財と公共サービスの提供および私的所有の保全」に制限されている「規制が最小限の自由市場および自由放任(レッセフェール・システム)」から、「政府が市場の失敗を正し社会福祉を推進するのに積極的な役割を果たす」介入主義の形態まで、多岐にわたっている。
[Wikipedia]
市場原理主義
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_fundamentalism
市場原理主義は、自由市場原理主義としても知られ、規制のない自由放任経済あるいは自由市場資本主義政策が大半の経済的・社会的問題を解決できるという強い信念に対してつけられた名称である。
この言葉は、しばしば、その信念を批判する人たちによって軽蔑的に用いられる。
[Investopedia]
経済的レント：定義、タイプ、どういう働きをするか、例。
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/economicrent.asp
「経済的レントとは何か？What Is Economic Rent?」
経済的レントとは、経済的あるいは社会的必要を超えて稼いだ金額のこと。
こうしたことは、例えば、売り手が「受け入れられると考える価格」を聞く前に、独占的と考えられるモノやサービスを得ようと買い手が活動しているときに、
起こりえる;市場の不完全性が、経済的レントを発生させる：競争の圧力が価格を下落させるので、市場が完全だったら経済的レントは存在しない。
[1]
* Even in the U.S., it is legal for the weak to form a cartel. (Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914)
In economic terms, labor unions are also cartels.
But, it is legal for the weak to form cartel.
* On the other hand, the U.S. is violating laws.
* I have no intention to divide the U.S. and the E.U.
Because, we can destroy both the U.S. and the E.U.
I am only pointing out the facts.
Both the U.S. and the E.U. are rotten and corrupted.
We do not need the U.S. nor the E.U.
We must destroy both the U.S. and the E.U.
* If the U.S. says "the labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce" as in "Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914", then, the U.S. must abandon "Super PACs".
[Arstechnica]4/25/2021
Why lawmakers are so interested in Apple’s and Google’s “rents”
You can’t understand the app store debate without some grasp of antitrust jargon.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/04/why-lawmakers-are-so-interested-in-apples-and-googles-rents/
“I just want to focus on one major source of that income,” the Republican senator said to Apple’s lawyer. “It’s not innovation, it’s not research and development. It’s the monopoly rents that you collect out of your app store.”
I suspect you, unlike me, had better things to do last Wednesday than watch the Senate antitrust subcommittee hearing on Apple’s and Google’s mobile app stores. But if you did tune in, and you’re not an economist, you might have been baffled by that exchange. What is a monopoly rent—a term that was mentioned over and over at the hearing—and why is it bad? What does it have to do with app stores?
In economics, the concept of rent refers to money that a business makes in excess of what it would get in an efficient, competitive market. In other words, it’s money that isn’t earned by actually creating value. When corporations lobby government to give them a tax break or a special regulatory favor, they are often accused of “rent seeking.” It’s a pejorative term, and the precise limits of it are up for debate; it can be hard to draw the line between fair profits and unreasonable rents. But the basic premise is that businesses should try to get rich by improving their products and services, not by gaming the system.
Rents are a central concern of antitrust law. One of the most basic reasons why monopolies are bad is that when a company takes over a market, it can raise prices without worrying about being undercut by competitors. A “monopoly rent” is thus the money that a monopolist earns not because it offers the best product or service, but merely because it has the power to charge more.
But the commission looms especially large because it is perhaps the purest distillation of monopoly rents from all the Big Tech antitrust inquiries.
This helps explain why the subcommittee was uncommonly, almost eerily on-message—the usual grandstanding and weird off-topic partisan rants were basically absent.
The term “monopoly rent” might be jargon, but the concept it describes is intuitive.
Don’t underestimate the power of a simple argument. Google’s and Apple’s alleged rent-collecting days might be numbered.
This story originally appeared on wired.com.
[New York Times]Sept. 10, 2024
Google and Apple Face Billions in Penalties After Losing E.U. Appeals
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/10/technology/european-union-apple-google-antitrust.html
The cases had established the European Union as the world’s leading tech watchdog, but have since raised questions about its protracted appeals process.
[Wikipedia]
Political action committee
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee#Super_PACs
In the United States, a political action committee (PAC) is a tax-exempt 527 organization that pools campaign contributions from members and donates those funds to campaigns for or against candidates, ballot initiatives, or legislation.
The legal term PAC was created in pursuit of campaign finance reform in the United States.
Democracies of other countries use different terms for the units of campaign spending or spending on political competition (see political finance).
At the U.S. federal level, an organization becomes a PAC when it receives or spends more than $1,000 for the purpose of influencing a federal election, and registers with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), according to the Federal Election Campaign Act as amended by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (also known as the McCain–Feingold Act).
Contributions to PACs from corporate or labor union treasuries are illegal, though these entities may sponsor a PAC and provide financial support for its administration and fundraising. Union-affiliated PACs may solicit contributions only from union members.
Independent PACs may solicit contributions from the general public and must pay their own costs from those funds.
Super PACs
Super PACs, officially known as "independent expenditure-only political action committees," are unlike traditional PACs in that they may raise unlimited amounts from individuals, corporations, unions, and other groups to spend on, for example, ads overtly advocating for or against political candidates. However, they are not allowed to either coordinate with or contribute directly to candidate campaigns or political parties.
Super PACs are subject to the same organizational, reporting, and public disclosure requirements of traditional PACs.
Super PACs were made possible by two judicial decisions in 2010: the aforementioned Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and, two months later, Speechnow.org v. FEC.
In Speechnow.org, the federal Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that PACs that did not make contributions to candidates, parties, or other PACs could accept unlimited contributions from individuals, unions, and corporations (both for profit and not-for-profit) for the purpose of making independent expenditures.
[Wikipedia]
「社会的余剰Economic surplus」
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_surplus
In mainstream economics, economic surplus, also known as total welfare or total social welfare or Marshallian surplus (after Alfred Marshall), is either of two related quantities:
* Consumer surplus, or consumers' surplus, is the monetary gain obtained by consumers because they are able to purchase a product for a price that is less than the highest price that they would be willing to pay.
* Producer surplus, or producers' surplus, is the amount that producers benefit by selling at a market price that is higher than the least that they would be willing to sell for; this is roughly equal to profit (since producers are not normally willing to sell at a loss and are normally indifferent to selling at a break-even price).
The sum of consumer and producer surplus is sometimes known as social surplus or total surplus; a decrease in that total from inefficiencies is called deadweight loss.
[Wikipedia]
Big Oil
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Oil#As_the_Seven_Sisters
History
As the Seven Sisters
The expression "Seven Sisters" was coined by the head of the Italian state oil company (Eni), Enrico Mattei, who sought membership for his company, but was rejected.
The history of the supermajors traces back to the seven oil companies which formed the "Consortium for Iran" cartel and dominated the global petroleum industry from the mid-1940s to the 1970s.
The Seven Sisters were:
Anglo-Persian Oil Company (BP)
Gulf Oil (Chevron)
Shell
Standard Oil of California (Chevron)
Standard Oil of New Jersey (Exxon, later ExxonMobil)
Standard Oil of New York (Mobil, later ExxonMobil)
Texaco (Chevron)
By the 1930s, the Seven Sisters dominated oil production in the world.
The companies owned nearly all rights to the oil in Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and the Persian Gulf.
The companies established jointly owned companies (such as the Iraq Petroleum Company) to legally tie their hands together, facilitate cooperation, and prevent cheating on one another.
Host governments faced a number of hurdles in terms of nationalizing the oil production.
First, a number of oil-producing countries did not have independence and were controlled by empires.
Second, great powers had installed compliant heads of state in several oil-producing countries, making those leaders reliant on the support of the great powers and unwilling to upset them.
Third, a number of oil-producing countries lacked the capital and technical expertise to run the oil production, as well as needed access to North American and European markets.
Fourth, oil-producing countries feared that they would be punished by Western governments and firms if they nationalized oil production (as Mohammad Mossadegh was when he nationalized the Iranian oil industry).
1973 oil crisis
Preceding the 1973 oil crisis, the Seven Sisters controlled around 85 per cent of the world's petroleum reserves.
In the 1970s, many countries with large reserves nationalized holdings of all major oil companies.
Since then, industry dominance has shifted to the OPEC cartel and state-owned oil and gas companies in emerging-market economies, such as Saudi Aramco, Gazprom (Russia), China National Petroleum Corporation, National Iranian Oil Company, PDVSA (Venezuela), Petrobras (Brazil), and Petronas (Malaysia).
[Wikipedia]
1914年反トラスト・クレイトン法(Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clayton_Antitrust_Act_of_1914
The Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914 (Pub. L.Tooltip Public Law (United States) 63–212, 38 Stat. 730, enacted October 15, 1914), is a part of United States antitrust law with the goal of adding further substance to the U.S. antitrust law regime; the Clayton Act seeks to prevent anticompetitive practices in their incipiency.
That regime started with the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, the first Federal law outlawing practices that were harmful to consumers (monopolies, cartels, and trusts).
[Discover U.S. Government Information]
クレイトン法
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-3049/uslm/COMPS-3049.xml
Sec. 6. that the labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce.
Nothing contained in the antitrust laws shall be construed to forbid the existence and operation of labor, agricultural, or horticultural organizations, instituted for the purposes of mutual help, and not having capital stock or conducted for profit, or to forbid or restrain individual members of such organizations from lawfully carrying out the legitimate objects thereof; nor shall such organizations, or the members thereof, be held or construed to be illegal combinations or conspiracies in restraint of trade, under the antitrust laws.
[Wikipedia]
「1970年代エネルギー危機1970s energy crisis」
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1970s_energy_crisis
The 1970s energy crisis occurred when the Western world, particularly the United States, Canada, Western Europe, Australia, and New Zealand, faced substantial petroleum shortages as well as elevated prices.
The two worst crises of this period were the 1973 oil crisis and the 1979 energy crisis, when, respectively, the Yom Kippur War and the Iranian Revolution triggered interruptions in Middle Eastern oil exports.
[Wikipedia]
「国際貿易機関International Trade Organization」
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Trade_Organization
The International Trade Organization (ITO) was the proposed name for an international institution for the regulation of trade.
Led by the United States in collaboration with allies, the effort to form the organization from 1945 to 1948, with the successful passing of the Havana Charter, eventually failed due to lack of approval by the US Congress.
Until the creation of the World Trade Organization in 1995, international trade was managed through the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT).
[Wikipedia]
「関税及び貿易に関する一般協定General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade」
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Agreement_on_Tariffs_and_Trade
The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) is a legal agreement between many countries, whose overall purpose was to promote international trade by reducing or eliminating trade barriers such as tariffs or quotas.
According to its preamble, its purpose was the "substantial reduction of tariffs and other trade barriers and the elimination of preferences, on a reciprocal and mutually advantageous basis."
[Wikipedia]
「世界貿易機関World Trade Organization」
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Organization
The World Trade Organization (WTO) is an intergovernmental organization headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland that regulates and facilitates international trade.
Governments use the organization to establish, revise, and enforce the rules that govern international trade in cooperation with the United Nations System.
[Wikipedia]
「労働分配率Labor share」
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_share
In economics, the wage share or labor share is the part of national income, or the income of a particular economic sector, allocated to wages (labor).
It is related to the capital or profit share, the part of income going to capital, which is also known as the K–Y ratio.
The labor share is a key indicator for the distribution of income.
[Wikipedia]
「銅輸出国政府間協議会Intergovernmental Council of Copper Exporting Countries」
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Council_of_Copper_Exporting_Countries
