In these times where i find myself waiting for the introduction of globanomics, i keep asking myself if there is something else that i need to be doing or saying.  You must understand--from my perspective--globanomics is the optimal way to upgrade world activities on both a human and non-human scale--supported by mathematics, finance, and economics.

Thus making globanomics somewhat the way to go.  And irrefutable from a science, mathematical, and moral standpoint.

So, the question remains:  why hasn't globanomics been introduced?

Is there something in the structure of globanomics that hasn't been fully scoped out yet?  If that is the case, then well it means, that i might as well shut up shop right now.  

----------c

I guess what i am getting to is this:  the 49.99% rule is to the world's advantage (i.e., China, India, Europe, Africa, etc.) at the disadvantage of the United States alliance (i.e., U.S., U.K., Canada, Mexico, Central America including Honduras, Australia, New Zealand, and maybe some other Pacific islands).

I know the latest numbers (i.e., Forbes Global 2000 for 2023) are out, but i have yet to get my hands on the data.   Just the same, i know what i am expecting to see, and that is this.  The U.S. Alliance will probably account for nearly 60% of the world's investments by itself.

Meaning that in globanomics, the U.S. Alliance is going to have to shed control of a portion to get down to 49.99%, either that, or investments will have to be held there until new investments in the rest of the world catch up to get to 50.01%.  Look, i fully understand, the rule complicates things over the current "laissez faire" approach.

The problem with the "laissez faire" approach is this.  Mathematically, it is more likely that the 60% turns into 100% than the other way around.  But even worse, it is the fact that you could get to 100% either way is a negative.  A 100% operation means you would be a Benevolent Dictator, and globanomics does not believe in Benevolent Dictators, although it does suffer them. 

Anyway, my point is this.  The 49.99% rule is actually places like China and India should jump upon because everyone is going to want the 10% portion that the U.S. Alliance has to give up.p

BTW,  I hope the mathematicians also believe that the 49.99% portion of the world's investments should carry with it a higher price/earnings ratio in comparison to the 50.01% portion in comparable business categories.  Because that is the responsibility of those who are managing the U.S. Alliance portfolio.  That 49.99% portfolio should try to avoid having any weaknesses.  It does not necessarily mean that every business category is split 49.99% to 50.01%  (the split could be 40% to 60% in some categories, maybe even larger)--the point is the U.S. Alliance should work to be in the forefront of every business category--which is also a move towards optimization.

It's like a loop that keeps feeding itself.  Where everyone is trying to catch up to the leader who at the same time is always trying to improve himself or herself.

It's almost too simple to make sense!