After reading an article on the aftermath effects of the French elections yesterday I told myself I really have to sit and concentrate on getting part two of my opinion series of The Last Barrel Standing done. Most who follow worldly events have come to the conclusion that corporations are gaining a foothold on global governance of the world. What's not firmly into place is how it started and how they are doing it exactly. Most have the opinions, like I once did, that it's the likes of Black Rock, Fidelity and the Vanguards of the world taking control. They play a big piece in the overall picture but they are not the actual governance behind it all, though it is the financial power behind them that ends up requiring governments to engage as technocratic risk mangers that propagates the loss of democratic controls.
Let's take a look at the article on the French election as an example of how it plays out. Notice that these are CEO's and corporations talking:
While some companies seek to build bridges with opposition parties, others are counting on their public support eroding away as the voters who elected them come to the conclusion that their most radical promises cannot be implemented.
“I told the prime minister, we are in a outlandish situation … But the French will realize the futility of what they’re being told,” the chairman of another French industrial company told Reuters.
In other words it doesn't matter who the citizens elect you will just plain settle for what you are told to do, you'll settle for what's offered you, no more, no less. Exactly how is it that it ended up in a position facing technocratic rule over democratic? It's call the rise of financialization, the financing of political projects to achieve public policy purposes while keeping them off balance sheets. Who masterminded the endeavor? The European Union. Which has taken them from being supply side players among the European countries to being the major global player behind finance and energy driven policies. In essence they have become organized political actors not directly connected to states but are pursuing goals that effect vital state interest both internally and globally. Their loosely knitted treaties, agreements not signed by all countries in the union has led to a quasi like constitution that largely goes ignored. As a result of that erroneous behavior the EU has delegated itself a state actor within the global political policy agenda, they've succeed quite well at aligning non state actors into a multi level collaboration of public-private finance, investments that is largely hidden due to business confidentiality that has led to what has become know as the emergence of a hidden investment state within the EU. They've done this through increase private investment through public guarantees using development banks as guarantors of the private investment funds.
Back in the 1990's the EU was a regulatory commission regulating commerce through the EU countries. They, at the time, received one percent of revenues from each country to regulate commerce, the products of goods and services imported and exported. One thing high on that list was the importation of energy and the high cost associated with it via a lack of resources and competition. They put together a plan for a green energy transition but no one seemed interested, back then there wasn't an interest in the climate agenda, if there even was one. It wasn't until after the 2007-08 housing collapse and commerce slowed globally that they put forth their plan again for a global transition of energy supplies. This time it caught on, and the 4th industrial revolution energy style was on. The EU had spent considerable time investing in green technology and development. Being ahead of the game that enabled them to advance their products and services to other countries in what became know as global partnerships. Representatives from various different fields of energy technology were sent to other countries to make assessments and plans to implement green energy initiatives based on a countries particular resources and infrastructure. They partnered with different countries further developing green energy designs for buildings, housing and manufacturing. The various firms collaborated on three different geographic locations to rehab various building into models of what green new technology could achieve. Various firms patented their technologies, some shared in patent technology upon final completion and success proven.
The EU craved out a whole new industry for themselves peddling the services, goods and technology behind the green energy movement. But unlike the traditional capitalist financing systems they used the hedge of public funds against private investing. This, in essence, allowed them to become a Catalytic State behind the green energy movement. A guarantor of funds behind private, confidential investments. Since we are talking about funds that normally would go to countries in crisis this allowed them the position to "put the squeeze" on some countries to participate. Development grants and loans are aligned to the green energy movement.
Often times provisions of partnership agreements include clauses of equity and inclusion, redistributed energy resources that benefit humanity as a whole. If this was really about carbon reduction or green energy than why would a development bank or government funded agencies back thirty billion dollars to build oil refineries in Africa? It's not really about equity, inclusion or green energy it's about the least regulatory and cheapest way to realign energy resources across the world. The latter was funded by USAID so the US could be a larger player in redistribution of oil across the globe. It would be pretty hard to be a competitive player if your regulatory and labor cost are some of the highest in the world.
You have to admit it was pretty crafty how the EU went about restructuring their energy needs to acquire them from the lowest bidder. To craft a whole new line of products, goods and services you could sell on the market back by public funds. Use those same funds to coerce other countries to participate and entice investors with guaranteed public backing. If the lights go out no one is held accountable. The investment structure is hidden and investors are confidential. Development funds and aid have a long history of fiscal irresponsibility that often times are never held accountable. Now we are engaged in a scheme that can impose policies that could destabilize countries and the taxpayers who provided the funds will be held liable for the failures. The European Union needs to change it's name to European Catallaxy because that's what they've become, a catalysts behind forced political ideology, you engage or you get left behind.