Planetary Discoveries

One tends to think about planetary governance systems in conjunction with these new discoveries. The democratic and capitalist society tends to work, but it has vulnerabilities such as wealth distribution inequalities and certain discriminatory behaviors impacting quality of life for certain groups. What really comes to mind is whether the system is duplicable and transferable for interplanetary governance?

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-telescope-reveals-largest-batch-of-earth-size-habitable-zone-planets-around

Democracy for Sale

The implication of the conflicts of interest from the elected - Executive branch maintaining private sector business interests while politically leading the country is the United States becoming more alike the non-democratic countries that the U.S. is trying to influence with Democratic principles of governance. International politics have shown the regional differences in governance systems whereby “family” royalty governance models accumulate resource wealth of a country while their populations struggle in poverty for basic standards of living. In such cases capital wealth accumulates within a small percentage of the population that then attempts to protect such wealth through distribution management. The impact limits the expanse of economic development among the population necessary for a vibrant social development and tax base to support public services.

The attempts to lead the country through the executive branch of government while maintaining private sector business interests create opportunities for non-democratic business norms of “pay to play” accusations where payoffs for favorable policy and regulatory practices to enhance certain industry dynamics of benefit to “family” oligopolies. In such environments, Capitalism is reduced to the exchange of financial capital using industry for wealth accumulation as opposed to constructing social developments. The effect also destroys the network of sanctions designed to support the building of Democratic norms where countries' economic resources are used to further “family” royalty wealth in lieu of building democratic institutions managing society for the betterment of mankind. At risk is the moral authority used by the United States to protect mankind for political influence within international affairs otherwise the Executive Branch of government is viewed as just another oligopolistic business family directing international politics.

The United States economy is also at risk in the current environment of international supply chains supporting American business within a multitude of foreign countries from the arrangement of international trade agreements. Because many of these countries lack all of the democratic institutions of governance, American corporate leaders are negotiating deals with foreign government entities for development of their countries in exchange for resources included in the manufacturing supply chain. Disruptions within any part of the supply chain impacts the availability of goods which impacts corporate earnings which in turn impacts stock prices which impacts corporate leadership compensation and tenure.  Actions creating the Executive Branch conundrum by acting as a CEO instead of leader of a Democracy dependent upon the international recognition of Moral persuasion in international affairs as well as domestic leadership of government.

Capital Effects

Tech and Television

Much of the current Silicon Valley M&A activity is the related to the digitization of Industrial America with social interactivity. The developments are creating new segments within industry including distribution channels. This digital segmentation is also creating pricing opportunities in response to financial earnings pressures and future value. Television is where the M&A caused disorder is most evitable. Technology has enhanced media content and digital has created multiple avenues to distribute content against existing broadcast systems. From traditional broadcast TV to cable TV to satellite TV to wifi video streaming, digital segmentation is making video content available for all customer viewing experiences of technology usage: the desktop PC, laptops, tablets, phones, television, and other mobility devices.

Telecoms traditionally are primed to focus on digital platform system traffic categorized as talk, text and data. M&A activity such as Verizon + Yahoo and AT&T + Direct TV + Time Warner are varied examples of data strategies of content focus. Verizon targeting social media communications of video with news, blogging, opinion talk and text. AT&T targeting video content data usage from satellite TV premium programming of pay TV for internet technology. Thus, creating channel specific content development based upon segment pricing for the various blocks of programming such as sports, politics, news, and the various genres of movie making providing other revenue sources in addition to the traditional advertising business model.

In essence, a cable TV and satellite TV distribution strategy using the multitude of content with pricing strategies to group content and digital channels of distribution to usage experiences. AT&T’s strategy appears that of a vertically integrated telecom with TV network capabilities applied to the digital segmentation created by expanding technology for influence over content creation. An increasing international demand for American big budget movie productions (primarily China) will impact segmented distribution strategies by the sheer volume of a combined American and Chinese audience and distribution channel economics.

Economic Development and Wealth Distribution

Came across a Bloomberg news article that used the Gini index to measure US metropolis for wealth distribution. The article ranked the top 10 Most Unequal US Big Cities based upon the wealth distribution index which reminded me of the ECMAnalyst's conducted Census evaluation creating the Development Metric index using Percent US Economy and Percent US Population for the 100 largest US metropolitans. A different measure of US cities; nonetheless, both are intriguing evaluations of development. For example, Miami, FL was ranked as the most unequal city in the US but on the development index it is ranked 55th by development contribution to the US economy. Concentrations of wealth are likely attributable to basis of development in leisure, tourism, Latin America gateway, and entertainment. Neither measurement considers demography of distribution but it is largely inferred in Gini coefficient indexing. The constructs of the primary industries for a metropolitan are indicators of predictability for wealth distribution.

The only metropolitans in the top 10 Unequal US Big Cities that are also top 10 metropolis of the Development Metric are Washington, DC, New York City, and Boston, MA. It is both alarming and informative with Washington, DC being the center of U.S. and international politics with economic bases in legal and government activities setting policy for the country. And New York City, the largest metro population, adding confirmation to communities feeling economically "locked out" from the city's and the nation's progress primarily from decision making within the region's largest industry being finance (Wall Street) and Boston, MA mutual funds financial services plus educational services economy components. California has two metrpolitan areas in the top five of the Development Metric largely due to the computer and digital technology industry but neither are reflected in the top Gini coefficient index of wealth distribution of Most Unequal US Big Cities.