Categories
Business and Finance

Bitcoin, Ripples, and Reality

Many people don't value a currency operating outside the traditional financial system. Photo: Zach Copley/flickr
Back in July 2011 we blogged about Bitcoin, the world’s first digitalized, crypto-currency. At the time, many thought Bitcoin a flash in the pan, attracting attention simply because it was still relatively new and exciting – but imagined interest would soon wear off. After three years however, Bitcoin doesn’t show signs of slowing down. Our last post touched upon Bitcoin’s use for undertaking illicit activities and the lack of institutional involvement. I’m going to revisit these themes and also discuss Ripple – the next currency you’ve never heard of.

Due to the increased anonymity associated with transactions undertaken using Bitcoin, there has been a fear that illegal acts are being made a lot easier, and a lot safer to conduct. A recent article for PCPro claimed that Bitcoin “is now the currency of choice for the discerning cybercriminal.” This image problem has not been helped by articles associating bitcoins with Silk Road, an online ‘underground’ marketplace (accessible only via Tor) where all kinds of illicit goods may be purchased – weaponry, forgeries and drugs – and where the digital currency is the only accepted method of payment. This undoubtedly sullies Bitcoin’s reputation, and to a disproportionate degree: The Internet itself has facilitated commerce, and necessarily the crime which accompanies any marketplace. But security agencies can be just as resourceful as criminals, developing network analysis techniques based on statistical methodologies to detect suspicious transaction flows. Rather than a destructive force, the appearance of Bitcoin and its use for ‘bad’ as well as ‘good’ is simply another reiteration of the cat-and-mouse game played out every day between criminals and the law.

Categories
Business and Finance

Corporate Influence on the Global Economy

How influential are multinational corporations in today’s global economy? One way of answering the question would be to analyze the nature and extent of corporate influence in mainstream media, on governments and public policy, and on international institutions and agreements – such as at the World Economic Forum in Davos. Today, however, we  take a simpler, but nonetheless revealing, approach: comparing the economic size of corporations with the size of national economies.

The map below pairs South American countries (measured in terms of aggregate GDP) with equivalently sized corporations (measured in terms of annual revenue). Hover your mouse over a country to see how the figures compare (view large map).

If Paraguay, Guyana, Bolivia or Suriname were corporations, they wouldn’t make Fortune’s list of the Global 500.  Indeed, the GDP of those four countries combined is smaller than the annual revenue of Vinci – a construction company you’ve probably never heard of (unless you’re French).

Brazil is the only South American country whose economy clearly outsizes any of the world’s corporations. With a GDP of 2.1 trillion, its economy is roughly five times the size of Wal-Mart, the world’s largest corporation. Wal-Mart’s revenue in 2011 (~421 billion) falls between the GDPs of Saudi Arabia and Norway respectively – and exceeds the  GDPs of the next 170 countries. Maybe the G20 should consider inviting CEO Mike Duke to their next summit.

Categories
Business and Finance

Niall Ferguson: Can Europe Fail and Is America Next?

Niall Ferguson
Niall Ferguson. Image: The Aspen Institute//flickr

Probably no questions are more relevant today than those Niall Ferguson considered in his lecture on Monday (30 January 2012), hosted by the Swiss Institute of International Studies, at the University of Zurich.  Fresh from the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, the answers he gave were far from comforting:  Can Europe collapse? Of course it can.  Is America next?  Maybe.

But more importantly, Ferguson told us, we should have seen this coming. Ten years ago, in an article he co-authored in Foreign Affairs, he predicted that Europe’s newly minted Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) was doomed without a fiscal union to accompany it.  Indeed, Ferguson was one of the original ‘Cassandras’ of the project, warning as early as 2000 that “monetary unions can be undone by fiscal imbalances.”  This, he told us, was one of the lessons of history.  The closest precedent of the EMU, after all, was the obscure Latin Monetary Union, comprising France, Belgium, Switzerland, Italy, and Greece between 1865 and 1927.  Why is it so obscure?  Because it was destroyed by “asymmetric fiscal problems” – by the divergence between French fiscal probity, on the one hand, and Italian and Greek fiscal laxity on the other.

Categories
Business and Finance

Business, Conflict – and Peace?

Participants at the workshop. Photo: Jennifer Giroux

On November 14, 2011 a workshop on the role of business in conflict zones took place at the Europainstitut in Basel. Jointly organized by the ETH’s Center for Security Studies (CSS), swisspeace and Peace Research Institute Frankfurt (PRIF/HSFK), various invited speakers examined the business-peacebuilding nexus from differing angles: Some discussed service industries, others legal concerns, conflict resolution, or human rights. The conference showcased the diversity of research being undertaken in the field of ‘business in conflict zones’ – and also highlighted that this is a relatively new, exciting and understudied subject with practical relevance to development and growth.

Categories
Business and Finance

Now, Seriously: Financial Transaction Tax

A tax that won't hurt, except for gamblers. Image: artuemuestra/flickr

Liberal-minded economists are usually skeptical of taxation: taxes distort markets and lead to the inefficient allocation of resources. However, some taxes are better than others, and financial transaction taxes, such as the Tobin Tax, are certainly in that category.

Now, the European Commission is getting serious about introducing a financial transaction tax. Their proposal: levy a tax of 0.1% on every financial securities transaction performed by a financial institution based in the EU.