International corporate conglomerates (corporations that contain smaller corporations, companies and assets) are yet another incarnation of modern imperialism, only with a capitalist twist. Large companies, particularly conglomerates, sell their stock in many distant foreign stock exchanges and don't want to confine their company to one geographical location. Through hostile take-overs and other mergers, giant corporations have clustered to such an extent that distant nations are needed as markets and labor for the various resulting products and services. These mammoth economic constructs have sunk their tendrils in to fertile soil on every continent (with the obvious exception of Antarctica).

In their haste to fill their pocketbooks, comparatively small companies, like shoe manufacturers (ie Nike, Reebok, Adidas), have also taken to this foreign expansion technique. By moving all their production overseas, their profit margins have increased exponentially and they don't have to worry so much about the pesky strikes and unions of America. The minimum wage in the Philippines and Malaysia, two hot zones for sweat shop labor, are less than a tenth of the average minimum wage of highly industrialized nations, unions are often illegal and benefits are practically non-existent. Corporations claim they are actually doing the countries a favor by putting them on the right step toward the future. It is true that the population is quite eager for the meager wages of a factory worker, but nonetheless, the dark side of capitalism appears with the realization that the corporations could easily afford to triple the wages to create some kind of standard of living.

The shoe companies have recently undergone a massive public relations campaign to reverse their image as oppressors. They've raised age limits, slightly increased wages, and made some improvements to working conditions, but all this was done only after it was seen that public distrust would affect the shoe makers' market share. Another example of capitalism at its most disgusting is Bill Gates and other parts of the software industry. Besides the fact that Microsoft and other companies package most of their products outside their home nations for cheap labor, Bill Gates is a monpolistic billionaire who hoards his profits at any cost. This can be seen clearly in the Anti-trust lawsuit the US government has used against Microsoft. Rather than admit that Microsoft was hindering competition by making Internet Explorer the browser on all new windows machines, Bill fought the charges.

The story of the shoe companies is emblematic of the ruthlessness of corporate profit-seekers. As a result of all the merging between mega-corporations, monopolies (markets where there is only one firm providing the product) and oligopolies (markets with a few firms sharing leadership) are formed. Monopolies and oligopolies can be likened to their governmental counterparts, monarchies/dicatorships (rule by one person) and oligarchies (rule by the few). Monarchies and monopolies are similar because their rule can be benevolent (generous) or tyrannical (cruel). Benevolent dictators and corporations are pretty hard to come by though. For instance, some might say that Microsoft has been tyrannical with its near monopoly in the operating systems market (this ties in with technological world domination) because it made replacement of their own Internet Explorer with any other internet browser too difficult. With less competition, the one ruling company or the ruling few, can raise their prices or decrease the quality of their product as much as they want. To parallel, a monarch or dictator can raise taxes and decrease funding of social programs. The only weapons against such cases are government intervention for monopolies and other shady business practices, and a people's uprising against a harsh dictator.

The similarities between companies and countries goes deeper than this. When companies have competition in their market, they battle it out with advertising and price wars or else merge and form an alliance. When nations have a dispute over a territory, they either draw up a pact with a peaceful solution benefitting both sides or launch military strikes.

There are some contrasts, though, between corporations and authoritarian empires. The corporate leadership infrastructure is actually closer akin to the position of a leader in a democratic government rather than that of an autocratic regime. CEOs (Chief Executive Officers) and leaders in democracies may have the most power in their organization, but they are not all-powerful; their policies must be approved by other top cabinet officials or members of the board. However the way these members of the board are selected is vastly elitist (favorable to the rich upper class). Everyone who owns stock in the company has as many votes as they do shares of stock, and since everyone has the option of voting for oneself, those with the most money invested are almost always elected.

These two seemingly distant relationships converge in several areas. One of the most obvious of these is the political clout that these consolidated multi-nationals wield. In America, the size and wealth of the industry determines the number of lobbyists sent to the capital to bat for their corporate agenda, not to mention any illegal payments that may be taking place. Republicans (The American conservative party) support subsidies for corporations and lower corporate taxes in the hopes that the corporation will expand and hire more employees, thus boosting the economy. What they forget is that the companies that benefit most from these tax laws, the conglomerates, have operations worldwide and are much more likely to expand the company in Mexico for the cheaper labor, than to invigorate America's economy. In any case, corporations appreciate the support and make up the vast majority of the campaign contributions that the Republican party receives. If the party wants to continue to see big corporate dollars, they have to stay in favor of big business.