It is well acknowledged today that what characterises the global corporation most and sets it apart from its multinational and national predecessors is the absence of a permanent national anchorage point that the Corporation sees as its 'true home'. In the era of the dominance of colonial or international capitalist enterprise, partly because industries were in their great majority physically hard to re-locate, capitalism had a specific and stable national base. This was so even when its operations spread anywhere in the world it was capable of exploiting resources and labour. With the rise of the big multinational companies we begin to see a shift.
The multinational firm, as its name implied, was no longer associated with a single nation-state. It had core bases in many parts of the world, though wherever it was, it operated within a nation-state framework. The most important political aspect of global capitalism is the end of this relience on a nation-state framework of operation.
On one hand, global capitalism is symply the intensification of the tendencies of multinational capitalism towards capital accumulation outside the traditional industrial sector. Now there is a clear dominance of the finance sector and a massive expansion of an economy of services. These are also accompanied with the rise of a relatively new field of capital accumulation: the information sector.
Partly because of the above, the global firm is characterised by an almost complete loss of a specific national anchoring. It is not that, like the multinational corporation, it has many, but rather that it hasn't got any. Wherever it locates itself, it is considered at home on a conjunctural non-permanent basis. Capitalism goes transcedental so to speak. It simply hovers over the earth looking for a suitable place to land and invest...until it is time to fly again.
It is here that emerges a significant phenomenon. The global corporation needs the state but does not need the nation. National and sub-National (like State) Governments all over the world are transformed from being primarily the managers of a national society to being the managers of the aesthetics of investment space. For among the many questions that guide government policy one becomes increasily paramount: how are we to make ourselves attractive enough to entice this transcendental capital hovering above us to land in our nation ?
This involves a socio-economic aesthetic: How do we create a good work environment such as well-disposed labour force or a suitable infrastructure ?
But it also involves an architectural and touristic aesthetics: how do we create a pleasing living environment for the culturally diverse, mobile managers and workers associated to these global firms to make them desire to come and live among us for a while ?

ONLY THE ETHICALLY BANKRUPT CAN REJOICE AT THIS SIGHT !