What people envisioned as America’s democratic beacon never materialized. Instead, it morphed into a corporate machine, giving rise to the Transnational Private Sector (TPS). For instance, this coalition of corporate giants, led by the Financial-Industrial Complex (FIC)—including JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, Blackstone and BlackRock—alongside the Military-Industrial Complex (MIC), Consumer-Industrial Complex (CIC), and Techno-Industrial Complex (TIC), operates beyond borders. Moreover, it transcends nationality and prioritizes profit over public welfare.
In October 2024, Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan’s CEO, warned that wars in Ukraine and the Middle East could destabilize the global economy. However, his statement wasn’t just a forecast. Rather, it underscored the TPS’s growing dominance over global policy.
Understanding TPS Power Through Game Theory
To grasp this influence, consider the game theory framework I’ve developed. Specifically, it avoids notions of good, evil, right, or wrong. Instead, geopolitical dynamics are analyzed through incentives, power, and measurable outcomes. For example, the focus centers on strategic interplay, free of moral judgments.
Finite vs. Infinite Games
Game theory clarifies geopolitical strategies by examining incentives driving decisions. In particular, two game types—finite and infinite—shape global interactions. Finite games are zero-sum, with clear endpoints and winners. For instance, they resemble corporate quarters where profit is the sole goal. Consequently, one player wins; the other loses.
In contrast, infinite games lack conclusions, prioritizing sustained participation through long-term stability. States operate in this realm, as they don’t expire. Therefore, their permanence demands enduring stability over short-term gains. For example, China’s $1 trillion Belt and Road Initiative secures trade networks for decades. Similarly, BRICS nations, through $10 billion in yuan-based trade, foster mutual resilience.
Morality in Infinite Games
This cooperative approach creates a morality rooted in reciprocity: mutual support ensures survival. Additionally, states must maintain legitimacy and resources for their populations. However, the TPS, as a corporate entity, has no such obligations. Its imperative is profit within finite time horizons, driven by shareholders. As a result, it engages in finite games, prioritizing immediate returns.
For instance, the TPS’s 2025 tariffs on global nations secured economic leverage, favoring short-term gains over stability. Moreover, such actions reflect an amoral calculus: profit outweighs societal impact. Finite games, by their nature, foster amorality. Meanwhile, the TPS’s focus on short-term victories—through military coercion, currency wars, tariffs, and resource extraction—ignores long-term consequences, as it’s unaccountable for societal fallout.
On the other hand, infinite games cultivate morality through cooperation, as states invest in trust for longevity. Yet, the TPS plays finite-game rules in an infinite-game arena, creating a mixed, unbalanced game. Consequently, this provokes backlash. Imagine a rule-breaking player—that’s the TPS. Thus, states unite against it, with BRICS and de-dollarization initiatives countering TPS dominance. In essence, it’s the game correcting itself.
Payoff Matrix of the Mixed Game
This mixed-game dynamic pits the TPS’s amoral, profit-driven maneuvers against states’ cooperative strategies. Specifically, a payoff matrix illustrates this clearly:
- The TPS secures immediate profits but risks isolation as states unite.
- States achieve gradual stability but sacrifice short-term gains.
Furthermore, the TPS’s corporate nature locks it into finite games, while states’ societal obligations drive infinite-game cooperation. Therefore, this tension, rooted in divergent incentives, fuels the global struggle between profiteering and resilience.
Anatomy of the TPS: A Corporate Skyscraper
Picture the TPS as a colossal skyscraper, its glass facade reflecting trillions in valuation. At its pinnacle, the FIC—JPMorgan, Goldman, BlackRock, Vanguard—occupies the C-suite, where profit reigns. Below, the MIC (Lockheed, Raytheon) fortifies security, the CIC (Exxon, Coca-Cola, Pfizer, Walmart) drives sales, and the TIC (Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, Nvidia) powers innovation. Moreover, each department operates precisely, yet all answer to the FIC’s shareholder-driven goal: maximizing returns, unbound by borders or public welfare.
The U.S. as a Subjugated Platform
The skyscraper’s foundation is the United States—not as a sovereign nation but as a platform engineered for TPS reach. For example, decades of deregulation, like the 1999 Glass-Steagall repeal, granted the FIC unchecked power to amass trillions. Additionally, tax breaks and defense budgets fuel the machine, while the U.S. government, an extension of the TPS, prioritizes corporate efficiency. Meanwhile, American citizens face mounting debt and eroding wages as the TPS pursues global wealth.
Furthermore, the Federal Reserve calibrates monetary policy to stabilize markets, ready to pivot when BRICS’s multipolar trade order emerges. Unlike states, the TPS owes nothing to society. Thus, its finite-game strategy, divorced from accountability, drives profit above all. In short, this skyscraper doesn’t serve nations; it commands them.
Historical Evolution of TPS Dominance
Post-World War II, the MIC led the TPS, with Lockheed Martin and Raytheon wielding ultimate power. Specifically, defense budgets fueled a war machine defining America’s reach. For instance, when nations resisted TPS’s orbit, the MIC responded with force. In 2000, Iraq’s Saddam Hussein sold oil in euros; by 2003, a NATO-led invasion, backed by $100 billion in MIC contracts, secured $500 billion in oil reserves. Similarly, Libya’s Gaddafi pushed anti-dollar policies in 2011; NATO’s $160 billion oil deals reduced his regime to rubble. As a result, war was profitable, ensuring TPS dominance.
Rise of the FIC
In the 1980s, financial deregulation reshaped the skyscraper’s power structure. Specifically, the 1999 Glass-Steagall repeal unleashed the FIC to amass wealth out-sizing economies. Unlike the MIC, reliant on wars, or the CIC, vulnerable to disruptions, the FIC thrived in any climate. For example, it pocketed billions in equities during stability and derivatives amid chaos. Moreover, by 2015–2020, the FIC orchestrated a coup, redirecting the TPS toward diplomacy through Gulf energy deals, boosting TIC innovation and CIC margins.
The FIC’s Pragmatic Hedging
The FIC’s role transcends coordination—it hedges against its own departments. For instance, if the CIC’s retail collapses or the MIC’s wars misfire, the FIC shorts their stocks, securing derivatives profits. Additionally, this pragmatism drives its push for Middle East stability, as war disrupts Gulf partnerships. Furthermore, the FIC accelerates BRICS’s $10 billion yuan-based trade order, positioning itself for a multipolar future. Consequently, within the TPS, an inner game theory unfolds—cooperative yet competitive.
When cooperative, the TPS is devastating. In Iraq, Libya, and Ukraine, the MIC’s destruction enabled CIC’s imports and FIC’s oil bets, reaping billions. Moreover, it threatens Iran with MIC-led war to sweeten Gulf deals, boosting TIC’s contracts. Competitively, the FIC defects for better returns, imposing tariffs that harm the CIC to vassalize states. Thus, this pragmatism shifts the TPS from the MIC’s warlord era toward stable profits in any climate.
The TPS’s Strategic Trifecta
Today, the FIC commands the C-suite, orchestrating a trifecta reshaping the global order: consolidation, vassalization, and BRICS alignment. Specifically, each move, executed with finite-game pragmatism, positions the TPS for unrivaled dominance in a multipolar world.
Consolidation: Absorbing SMEs
The TPS consolidates power within the U.S., its subjugated platform, by acquiring small and medium enterprises (SMEs) battered by 2025 tariffs. For example, these taxes on imports spiked costs, squeezing SMEs. Consequently, the FIC sweeps in, buying firms at bargain prices, strengthening the CIC and TIC. Moreover, this ruthless play bolsters the TPS’s domestic empire, disregarding local communities.
Vassalization: Controlling Nations
The TPS vassalizes vulnerable nations, tightening its global grip. Specifically, tariffs targeting over 20 export-dependent countries crashed their markets. The FIC offers predatory aid—loans and bond investments, like BlackRock’s stake in German bonds—to stabilize budgets. However, these lifelines bind nations to TPS agendas, stripping autonomy. As a result, governments cede resources and policies, their sovereignty reduced to a footnote.
BRICS Alignment: Profiting in a Multipolar World
The TPS accelerates a BRICS-led trade order, not as a rival but as a profit arena. By fracturing the dollar’s dominance through tariffs, the FIC paves the way for BRICS’s $10 billion yuan-based system. For instance, investments in BRICS bonds and Gulf partnerships ensure influence across systems. Additionally, the Federal Reserve, poised to recalibrate policy, keeps the TPS’s arsenal sharp. Thus, in vassalized nations, the TPS entrenches itself, ready to dictate terms.
The Mixed-Game Dynamic Unfolds
The TPS’s trifecta operates with chilling efficiency. For example, SMEs, crushed by tariffs, vanish into the TPS’s portfolio. Export-dependent nations kneel under FIC debt, reduced to exploitation hubs. Meanwhile, the BRICS trade order, fueled by TPS tariffs, rises with FIC influence. In essence, this finite-game trifecta pursues immediate profits, prioritizing dominance over stability.
However, each zero-sum move provokes states to embrace infinite-game cooperation. Specifically, BRICS iterates strategies to counter TPS hegemony, seeking equilibrium through trust. The FIC, anticipating this, hedges with Gulf partnerships and BRICS bonds, profiting in any outcome. Furthermore, it envisions a restructured skyscraper, commanding a BRICS-aligned order with vassalized states as cogs. Ultimately, this isn’t adaptation—it’s the TPS leveraging finite-game aggression and infinite-game foresight to rewrite global rules, ensuring dominance in a multipolar world.
