Hypothetically, when a company like JP Morgan is threatened with breakup, like it was by Glass-Steagall in 1933, it could move its headquarters abroad and continue its lucrative activities.
This has puzzled me lately.
I have come up with a few reasons:
1. They need government support. This can be seen especially in the case of banks where government guarantees for loans are an attractive business feature.
2. They need access to markets. If too many governments oppose a corporation they will lose access to the customers that pay for their expansion.
3. They need access to resources. E.g. Standard Oil would have had a hard time internationalizing since all the oil at the time was in the United States.
4. Their networks are in country. Their sales networks and proprietary advantages are all in the country of origin. It would be hard to replicate elsewhere even if they could move all their employees.
5. They fear the military.
6. Its too uncomfortable. Employees and owners don’t want to live on the run. They want to be able to enjoy major metropolises and the fruits of modern civilization.
That said, there is precedent for companies to ignore governments. We see it in the south american drug cartels that gross billions of $ every year.
Forbes even tracks these illicit industries. http://www.forbes.com/…/biggest-illegal-businesses-business…
So, there are ways around all the restrictions above.
Why do you think there aren’t more companies that do it?
Specifically, why don’t more companies transition from legal to illegal, or at least international, status when threatened by regulation?
^Day 153/90 286 words