For the last three days i have been spending most of my time writing articles (or contributions) for TalkMarkets in an effort to broaden my audience of globanomacists. Yesterday, i ran into a snag with TalkMarkets because they mildly rejected one of my offerings and instead of publishing it they put it onto my blog--in effect, driving my readership down from about 800 to about 50 if that. I am hoping it is no big deal and TalkMarkets and i can work things out, but i do want to understand better what is considered an acceptable article and what is not. So, while i get things worked out there, i am stopping my article writing and reverting back primarily to my blog.
And today, i intend to write two blogs. One dealing with the governance of globanomics, and the other to do with Infrastructure. So what follows now is the governance of globanomics blog.
-----
I have come to the conclusion that the governance in globanomics should work somewhat like the governance of the United States, with three co-equal branches of government: (1) a President; (2) a Congress, with two bodies, one with 500 and another with 100; and (3) a Supreme Court.
The most controversial issue will be this. The United States gets 249 of the seats in the House and 49 seats in the Senate with the other half plus one dispersed among the rest of the world. At first, this may seem absurd to give that much power to one country, but I think if you give it more thought you will find that it makes more and more sense. Globanomic governance is nothing to fear even with a stacked U.S. Congress. The goals associated with globanomic governance are to make things better for the world as a whole while raising poor performers up.
What the stacked U.S. globanomic congress does is it essentially gives the U.S. its deserved leadership role. With decisions requiring a majority vote, the United States contingency--if they voted as a whole, which is not a given--would still need to convince one other and maybe two other worldly members. However, without that additional members, the United States essentially has no voice.
You can look at the Congressional parties in one of two ways. One could be from a U.S.-international standpoint, which is a 49-51 split. Or you could have two parties that are better defined by Freedom-Authoritarian, which would be more like a 80-20 split. Again, it would not matter, but at first the second approach might be a way to get eventually to the first approach.
If you think China would have a hard time buying into such a scheme, then you could simply say "screw China" for awhile. You can form the new United Nations for Freedom without China, setting up the Globanomic governance for freedom without them, using the same scheme as above, but just with the 80 percent of the world that is putting their trust in freedom. China could join later, like we have added states in the past.
Who should be the first President for this new Globanomic governance. Obama should be the President. He is still a rather young man and he has all the qualifications to fit the role.
Future globanomic Presidents should be elected periodically (say every four years) in some manner. I have been thinking by Congressional vote rather than popular vote, but i am open to suggestions there.
And yes, we will need a Supreme Court, too, with an agreed upon mixture of both U.S. and international judges.
As i have said before, establish an area in California as the Capital for Globanomic governance--a place like DC in the U.S. governance.
Again, you could do this now without waiting for China, Russia, and the likes. It may negate NATO in a way, but it incorporate a larger crowd. I think you will find that it is easier to sell the 49% U.S. vote to our freedom allies than our authoritarian competitors, but overtime, i think the authoritarian competitors will come around and understand the benefits of glovanomics to them and to the world.
