Full Version: Do we have any AAAs?
There is a list for the US and a world list. That looks like the US list.
QUOTE (kzt @ Jun 16 2008, 05:56 PM) 
In terms of really being able to influence stuff enough to be above the law:
Pemex
Aramco
Some of the Russian oil and resource firms
Possibly Norinco
Possibly TotalFinaElf
No US company.
Pemex
Aramco
Some of the Russian oil and resource firms
Possibly Norinco
Possibly TotalFinaElf
No US company.
In the current world, extraterretoriality is limited to local law. I suggest DeBeers and Shell (regarding Africa) for your list.
QUOTE (Chrysalis @ Jun 17 2008, 08:57 PM)
Top 10 companies of 2007, as according to Fortune:
SNIP
To see it better:
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/for...list/index.html
-Chrysalis
SNIP
To see it better:
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/for...list/index.html
-Chrysalis
Thats the Fortune 500 list which is solely for US listed companies. Its hardly representing the global picture.
Also, a whole lot of people here are mistaking yearly profits for assets, power, lack of accountability, and bought governments.
I mean, it's great that Wal-Mart has as much money as it does, but do you seriously expect me to believe that because it has a higher yearly profit margin, it also wields more global power than, say, Samsung or GE?
I mean, it's great that Wal-Mart has as much money as it does, but do you seriously expect me to believe that because it has a higher yearly profit margin, it also wields more global power than, say, Samsung or GE?
Uups my mistake:
Global 500 companies as according to Fortune:
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/glo...list/index.html
If we want to talk about political pull then we have to go no farther than Lloyd's of London who insure international shipping.
Citigroup, GE, and GIAT are also very impressive in their fields.
Global 500 companies as according to Fortune:
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/glo...list/index.html
If we want to talk about political pull then we have to go no farther than Lloyd's of London who insure international shipping.
Citigroup, GE, and GIAT are also very impressive in their fields.
QUOTE (Chrysalis @ Jun 17 2008, 04:32 PM)
Citigroup, GE, and GIAT are also very impressive in their fields.
But again, they don't have nearly the invulnerability of Pemex.
I think in the absence of extraterritoriality and sovereign holdings we might need a better working definition of what constitutes a AAA megacorporation. As Adarael suggested its not all about profit margins or even size.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but a lot of these companies, while being quite large and dominant in their particular industry/market, would not qualify as a megacorp because almost by definition a AAA needs to be a major player in multiple industries and markets.
So De Beers for example- not a AAA. In fact we know that in the SR cannon it gets gobbled up by Universal Omnitech and they still don't make a AAA rating together. Oil companies same deal. Banking and investment firms are a little tricky because its hard to say what all they are invested in, and insurance firms (Lloyd's of London) are in the same boat. Stand alone financial institutions don't really produce anything so its hard for them to dominate diverse markets, right? Walmart... well they aren't making cars yet.
Anyway I still think GE and some of the asian conglomerates (like Mitsubishi) are the closest thing we have.
[edit]Looking at Fortunes listing for Japan, Mitsubishi owns 7 out of the 67 Fortune 500 companies.[/edit]
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but a lot of these companies, while being quite large and dominant in their particular industry/market, would not qualify as a megacorp because almost by definition a AAA needs to be a major player in multiple industries and markets.
So De Beers for example- not a AAA. In fact we know that in the SR cannon it gets gobbled up by Universal Omnitech and they still don't make a AAA rating together. Oil companies same deal. Banking and investment firms are a little tricky because its hard to say what all they are invested in, and insurance firms (Lloyd's of London) are in the same boat. Stand alone financial institutions don't really produce anything so its hard for them to dominate diverse markets, right? Walmart... well they aren't making cars yet.
Anyway I still think GE and some of the asian conglomerates (like Mitsubishi) are the closest thing we have.
[edit]Looking at Fortunes listing for Japan, Mitsubishi owns 7 out of the 67 Fortune 500 companies.[/edit]
A AAA, in Shadowrun, is defined by holding a seat on the Corporate Court. Size doesn't actually matter, though the enormous cost of acquiring one of the ten seats and the reluctance of seat holders to part with them means that only the wealthiest and most devious corporations can actually attain the status.
QUOTE
QUOTE
The 163,000,000,000$ of GE are impressive, but still too low.
The GDP of Belgium (an industrialisted nation, if not the biggest one) is $453.600.000.000 billion - only four times of GE's turnover. Austria would be $317.8 billion, Switzerland $300.2 billion. Please note that Belgium's GDP is four times the size of the GDP of the entire middle east put together.
So yes, GE dies have a "gdp" rivaling a small industrialised nation, and surpassing most countries in the world (which aren't industrialised).
As for GE's power rivalling that of a nation ...
Not directly. Since it's an entity primarily acting in First world countries, where there's a strictly enforced state monopoly on executive power, GE would have a hard time in anything like a military conflict - it could hire some mercenary companies, but those are so dependent on militaries and not very well rounded as forces to stand on their own that that wouldn't really help them a lot either.
In terms of soft power, however, such a company has enormous clout, by lobbying with several governments, putting economic pressure on governments ("we might rconsider out decision to close down out operations in your poverty-ridden area, if you ..."), by being very well organised almost worldwide and coordinating such efforts ... what GE could accomplish that way is pretty impressive. Most of the world's nations can only dream of having such an influence.
Now, GE certainly isn't a Mega in SR's sense. But it is an entity rivaling, even surpassing many states in power nonetheless.
The 163,000,000,000$ of GE are impressive, but still too low.
The GDP of Belgium (an industrialisted nation, if not the biggest one) is $453.600.000.000 billion - only four times of GE's turnover. Austria would be $317.8 billion, Switzerland $300.2 billion. Please note that Belgium's GDP is four times the size of the GDP of the entire middle east put together.
So yes, GE dies have a "gdp" rivaling a small industrialised nation, and surpassing most countries in the world (which aren't industrialised).
As for GE's power rivalling that of a nation ...
Not directly. Since it's an entity primarily acting in First world countries, where there's a strictly enforced state monopoly on executive power, GE would have a hard time in anything like a military conflict - it could hire some mercenary companies, but those are so dependent on militaries and not very well rounded as forces to stand on their own that that wouldn't really help them a lot either.
In terms of soft power, however, such a company has enormous clout, by lobbying with several governments, putting economic pressure on governments ("we might rconsider out decision to close down out operations in your poverty-ridden area, if you ..."), by being very well organised almost worldwide and coordinating such efforts ... what GE could accomplish that way is pretty impressive. Most of the world's nations can only dream of having such an influence.
Now, GE certainly isn't a Mega in SR's sense. But it is an entity rivaling, even surpassing many states in power nonetheless.
GDP is just a bad way of looking at this problem. Obviously, first world countries are going to include domestic commerce as part of their respective GDPs (including, of course, domestic subsidiaries). Perhaps a better way to go about it would be to compare Belgium's $180.5 billion national budget to GE's (I'm pretty sure you misplaced a decimal in your GE figure) $163 billion annual earnings estimate. While its not quite at "minor league developed nation" status, it is pretty close.
All the more reason why we need a better working definition, since the Corporate Court doesn't exist. 
comparing national budgets is not a good idea, imho. You're saying that the USA as an entity would get more powerful if because a 'welfare state' like sweden, because it would vastly increase the taxation base.
However, I doubt that the US would have actually got 'more powerful' if you just transfer spending power from the public to the government.
GDP is a better estimate of national global scope.
However, I doubt that the US would have actually got 'more powerful' if you just transfer spending power from the public to the government.
GDP is a better estimate of national global scope.
Actually, using earning statements and national budgets puts us on great ground for comparing the abilities of corporations and governments to act on a fiscal level. In real terms and all things being equal (Population, GDP, et cetera) SocialistPardiseLand with its 80% tax rate is going to have a much greater ability to act on a national level than LibertarianParadiseLand with its tax rate of 1%. A high GDP has almost nothing to do with a nation's ability to raise a military or distribute services. The only real difference that I can see between benchwarmer developed nations and large multinationals like GE, fiscally, is the way that they choose to spend their money.
That said, intangible influences like soft diplomatic power, still obviously fall to governments. There really isn't any reason to believe that this trend will continue, though, as large corporations take an increasingly proactive role in securing their markets by usurping control from developing nations (ironically, they have in many ways assumed the 'Great Imperial Game' mentality that Western countries shed after WWII) and brokering peace deals between moderately influential countries like India and Pakistan.
That said, intangible influences like soft diplomatic power, still obviously fall to governments. There really isn't any reason to believe that this trend will continue, though, as large corporations take an increasingly proactive role in securing their markets by usurping control from developing nations (ironically, they have in many ways assumed the 'Great Imperial Game' mentality that Western countries shed after WWII) and brokering peace deals between moderately influential countries like India and Pakistan.
Not at all. Compare denmark to Sweden. Does the fact that denmark pays for healthcare with local levies (not in the federal budget) and sweden pays for it federally (which does) have anything to do with the nations power?
Absolutely. If future-cyberpunk-despotic Denmark decides that it wants to use that revenue to beef up its military, it needs to pry it out of the hands of the municipalities. Sweden just reshuffles its federal spending allocations. Advantage Sweden. Money that's in district/state/provincial coffers is completely useless in terms of international power projection. And really, when was the last time that Wallonia fielded an army?
EDIT: Minor grammatical error corrected.
EDIT: Minor grammatical error corrected.
QUOTE (Method @ Jun 18 2008, 02:33 AM)
All the more reason why we need a better working definition, since the Corporate Court doesn't exist.
Then we should make it, dammit. It is a little late for a Shiawase decision but now is a good time to try for it and I'm sure we can convince some Native American seperatists to take over a nuclear missile silo next year if we try.
I'm in if you are.
Food riots can't be far behind gas riots right?
Nothing like the fictional AA's and AAA's of Shadowrun exist in real life. Not that real life corporations aren't frightening in their own way but it would take a very profound shift in global culture or an apocalyptic event for a real life Mitsuhama to be created.
Or a return to the early part of the 20th century. Mitsui and Mitsubishi during the era of the Pacific War could - and did - do whatever they damn well wanted.
Except piss off the IJA or IJN. Hence they were not free agents either.
No, but that's where you enter that murky territory of "If the BoD is also in the government, how much is nation vs. corporate enforcer?"
The Honourable East India Company and the British South Africa Company. Both had their own fully-functional armies. waged open wars against governments, and ruled over entire countries. The Honourable East India Company also had shadowrunners (of sorts) smuggle opium into China after China outlawed the Opium trade.
QUOTE (hyzmarca @ Jun 19 2008, 01:13 AM)
The Honourable East India Company and the British South Africa Company. Both had their own fully-functional armies. waged open wars against governments, and ruled over entire countries. The Honourable East India Company also had shadowrunners (of sorts) smuggle opium into China after China outlawed the Opium trade.
Was it the Company itself that sold opium to the Chinese? I was always under the impression that they simply grew it and then sold it to the Trading Houses (the large multinational corporations of the day) who were the ones that then sold it on in China, and ignored both Chinese and British laws to stop the trade? Although I could very well be wrong.
Anyway, aside from the from the Honourable East India Company and British South Africa Company already mentioned you can also add the Imperial British East Africa Company and Royal Niger Company to the list as well. Special mention must of course also be given to James Brooke, the White Rajah and ruler of the Kingdom of Sarawak even though it wasn't a corporate effort since he just decided to start his own country which is frakking cool.
QUOTE (Method @ Jun 18 2008, 01:05 AM)
Walmart... well they aren't making cars yet.
"Yet" being the key word there. I wouldn't be surprised if they started selling small, cheap, fuel-efficient cars soon. Once they have an accurate, fool-proof assessment of the best car-lot to customer-parking-lot size/space ratio to make maximum profits.
QUOTE (FlakJacket @ Jun 19 2008, 01:08 PM)
Was it the Company itself that sold opium to the Chinese? I was always under the impression that they simply grew it and then sold it to the Trading Houses (the large multinational corporations of the day) who were the ones that then sold it on in China, and ignored both Chinese and British laws to stop the trade? Although I could very well be wrong.
When the East India Company sold its opium in Bengal it did so under the express condition that it be smuggled into China. The British government was in favor of trading opium in China, because of the profits that could be made, so much so that it literally went to war with China over the issue. Twice. This is, in fact, how Britain got Hong Kong.
It was really more about free trade than opium itself, since we wanted what they had but they were only willing to accept silver rather than trade goods, but I do know the general history. I didn't know about the opium being sold expressly for the Chinese market though.
QUOTE (JeffSz @ Jun 19 2008, 11:30 AM)
"Yet" being the key word there.
Thats probably why I used it.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.