I have given some thought as to how "monopolies" should be handled within "globanomics"--my new theory that no one has heard of.

--------

I am hanging strong with my 49.99% to 50.01% concept, btw.

And with that assumption, i would , say for example a U.S. global monopoly like maybe Microsoft.  What you do is you break it up.  You break it up so that 50.01% of the company power (stock) would be spread (through other nations of the world using the standard major controls that keep all the global markets flowing most purely..

I am wrote this down because i wanted for others to think about it.  I understand there would be "two kinds of "market transactions" going on at the same time as you restructure the monopoly, but i hardly think that would be a problem.

Here is another thought about such a transaction.  First of all, the only way "the non-US company wanted to purchase a part of, for example, Microsoft would to essentially "sell something they own that carries with it the value of the transaction."

This hurts no one, but instead, it might help everyone (a pareto optimum, so to speak) because such a transaction gives the U.S. a chance to rearrange its own 49.99% portfolio,   In the process it is getting rid of a portion of the monopoly stock, but in the process, it is beefing up other stock areas--thus the reallignment of the portfolio.

And it is hard, not to believe, that the end result would not be better than without.  Who wants to invest in a monopoly, when monopolies discourage competition?  On the other side of the equation, they are better off, too, because the 49.99% to 50.01% split there, they have spurred on "competition", a good thing in terms of "future developments" in the business area that the original monopoly.

ps.  As things stand right now in my mind, when i speak of the U.S. that I am implying (the U.S., Great Britain, rest of North America (Canada, Mexico, etc.), Australia, New Zealand, mabe Guinea or whatever) as constituting the 49.99% barrier.   Just starting out, it would require a lot of portfolio adjustments as you work towards more optimality, but it also shows a lot of goodwill on the part of the U.S.-Group because they are essentially giving up at fair market value a nice little piece of their market portfolio.

I am saying this now because when the fight over the 49.99% to 50.01% battle starts up, i want people to be ready.

Globanomics requires the 49.99% rule.  It's the only rule that makes mathematical sense and when you are striving towards optimality you just cannot forget that, or just throw it away.  It's part of the "exponential reality" thing within globanomics.

ps.  Sometimes people get confused about what this 49.99% thing really means.  It does not necessarily mean that the people in the United States will live better and more fulfilling lives than the people do in every other nation.  The EGSB numbers don't reflect how individuals live.  Instead, that part of the game is done with the National Hierarchy of Needs, the PERC methodology, and an "expert scoring system".  A system that strives towards the best while narrowing the gap between the lowest and highest performers.

Business/economic growth is handled in the market place.  Living starndards are evaluated elsewhere.