Announcement

Collapse

Welcome to Moorcock's Miscellany

Dear reader,

Many people have given their valuable time to create a website for the pleasure of posing questions to Michael Moorcock, meeting people from around the world, and mining the site for information. Please follow one of the links above to learn more about the site.

Thank you,
Reinart der Fuchs
See more
See less

Revealed – the capitalist network that runs the world

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Revealed – the capitalist network that runs the world

    I thought this article was rather interesting, and relevant to the "Occupy" movement.

    Here is a highlight from the article:

    The work, to be published in PLoS One, revealed a core of 1318 companies with interlocking ownerships (see image). Each of the 1318 had ties to two or more other companies, and on average they were connected to 20. What's more, although they represented 20 per cent of global operating revenues, the 1318 appeared to collectively own through their shares the majority of the world's large blue chip and manufacturing firms - the "real" economy - representing a further 60 per cent of global revenues.

    When the team further untangled the web of ownership, it found much of it tracked back to a "super-entity" of 147 even more tightly knit companies - all of their ownership was held by other members of the super-entity - that controlled 40 per cent of the total wealth in the network. "In effect, less than 1 per cent of the companies were able to control 40 per cent of the entire network," says Glattfelder. Most were financial institutions. The top 20 included Barclays Bank, JPMorgan Chase & Co, and The Goldman Sachs Group.
    “The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.” - Albert Einstein

  • #2
    Perhaps we should call the entity - Bors a la the Gaia theory?

    Next, I take we will be merging this with the WTF - Antisemitism thread?
    Papa was a Rolling Stone......

    Comment


    • #3
      You know what frightened me about that article? I read it and pretty much went “mhhmm hmmm, yep, that’s what I had assumed”. This information should be shocking, and that it isn’t is a pretty sad indictment.

      And Pebble, (assuming I am reading you right) it is true that plenty of nut-cases blame "Jewish Bankers" of controlling the world and being all conspiritory, and the assertion is dodgey and repulsive. This does not mean that corporate conglomerates involved in banking can't in fact be forming an effective monopoly.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Pebble View Post
        Next, I take we will be merging this with the WTF - Antisemitism thread?
        I certainly won't be. I simply found the facts of the article interesting, and assume they are fairly accurate. I don't have a conspiracy theory to offer with it, unfortunately.

        Originally posted by Nathaniel View Post
        This does not mean that corporate conglomerates involved in banking can't in fact be forming an effective monopoly.
        Agreed.
        “The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.” - Albert Einstein

        Comment


        • #5
          I'm tempted to ask the question, "So what?". 1318 is actually quite a big number and it's not like it's some sort of James Bond scenario with an Elliot Carver trying to take over the world.

          You can come up with the same global conspiracy theory for a whole load of situations.

          There are four major world religions that influence the lives of 5.5bn people. Between then they have a very limited number of gods, some of which might actually be the same one with a different hat on.

          There are only 6 major global soccer brands (Liverpool, Man Utd, Barca, Real Madrid, AC Milan and Brazil) that dominate the world's favourite sport.

          There are only 10 test playing nations who play cricket, yet it is played and watched by over a billion people.

          So what?

          The article doesn't prove anything. It posits a conspiracy theory that smacks of petty paranoia. If the people behind the article really want to be effective they should play the long game by starting up a company that takes over and breaks up the supposed global network. Otherwise they will simply be ignored or treated as crackpot conspiracy theorists.

          Comment


          • #6
            The department of economics at London University is not exactly a hotbed of conspiricy theory nutjobs. http://www.econ.bbk.ac.uk/faculty/driffill

            Now, as to "so what?", the conclusion of the those performing the analysis was that the 148 members of the central "super entity" (148 is less than 1318) will probably NOT work together EXCEPT where they have a common interest. Being that these entities are almost all financial institutions, and the top 20 all were, then the areas they will work together are anything which regulates or limits the power and influence of big financial institutions.

            Remember when the various cricket clubs and football clubs irisponsible behaviour, allowed by the lack of oversight and regulation of their industry, caused an ecconomic meltdown that plunged multiple countries into recesion?
            No you don't, because that didn't happen.

            Comment


            • #7
              It's the money river, the closer you are to the source (the central banks) the more money you can scoop out, by the time it gets to the rest of the world it's a muddy trickle.

              A classic example is Kraft, who took on 7 billion dollars in debt in order to buy out rival Cadbury's. Everyone in on the deal gets rich, the people further down the money river, who are lucky if they keep their jobs.
              http://final-frame-final.blogspot.com/

              Comment


              • #8
                I was being flippant with the examples I used Nat, so here are some more relevant ones.

                There are 4 or 5 global pharmaceutical companies that manufacture and supply 90+% of the world’s drugs. So what? What would you have happen? That they were broken up into their constituent parts to lessen the concentration of powerful owners? If that was the case two things would happen. Firstly, no research into new drugs would take place because there wouldn’t be enough money in the industry to fund it; and secondly, eventually the smaller companies would get snapped up by the bigger ones and it would all come back together again, this time probably under Chinese, Russian or Indian ownership.

                Think of that locally, Nat. The pharmaceuticals factory in Boronia, in the eastern burbs of Melbourne, and its sister office in Collingwood, would probably close and the several hundred people currently employed there would be out of work. That would have an impact on both them and the local economy.

                The banking industry screwed up because of both corporate and individual greed combined with a major failure in global industry regulation and governance.

                Again, what would you have happen in the banking industry? Should it press some sort of reset button that breaks all the major banks up into their constituent parts? As with the example above, that would make them vulnerable to takeover by those banks that didn’t get broken up, and the world’s finances would then be concentrated in an even smaller and more powerful cabal. Probably under Chinese, Russian or Indian ownership.

                The world is in a recession but, as I’ve said on this forum before, it will get out of it eventually. The sooner governments and the media stop running around blaming one another and get on with fixing the causes the better.

                For the banking industry that means more powerful and effective regulation combined with open accounting within the industry. And this needs to happen before all the banks are under Chinese, Russian or Indian ownership as you can bet your bottom dollar that it won't happen after that.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Porcus
                  I most certainly do not advocate breaking these entities up into thier constituant parts. The ratehr incestuous "family tree" of the central players is concerning, but not my main concern. I think my real concern is that the core 148 companies arew so interlinked that they are capable of acting en masse when it suits them, and that the most likely time is when they are resisting exactly the sort of regulation you are putting (sensibly) forward as the solution. These are the organisations that governments borrow from, and to whom governments owe vast sums of money to. The chances of a government succesfully tightening regulations over one of these banks are about as good as an addict succesfully imposing regulations on their crack dealer. That is my big concern, all the power is in the hands of a very small number of organisations, and they are ones that are profoundly un democratic.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    And yet we keep regulating them:
                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcker_Rule

                    The overall effect of he Volcker rule should be to make the largest banks somewhat smaller:
                    http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/20...anks-down-size

                    The main problem illustrated in that study is that capital tends to centralize. It's just what happens to money and people noticed it a long time ago. So you need different kinds of rules in place to try and get the capital to flow more freely and tell people what they can and can't do with it. Some people and parties in legislatures support those rules and some oppose them.

                    Or, you could not be capitalist. But that begs the question of what any alternative might be at this point.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Yes, I was being flippant as there are a lot of people out there who would take conspiracy theories to heart and I apologise, if any one took offence.

                      I suspect that this sort of mapping can prove almost anything, like how is every one related to whom you see in the papers. Queen Victoria is alleged to have believed that by having the monarchies of Europe related war was less likely, but it did happen.

                      Unfortunately, I deleted the email about there was a OU chappie doing a thesis on Conspiracy Theories and how they take hold, why they continue to be believed.
                      Papa was a Rolling Stone......

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Pebble, the diference between relation and what is being talked about in this study is that although you and I might be related through person X, that does not give me any controll over you. Ownership of a large minority or a controlling interest of shares does provide controll however.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Pebble View Post
                          Yes, I was being flippant as there are a lot of people out there who would take conspiracy theories to heart and I apologise, if any one took offence.

                          I suspect that this sort of mapping can prove almost anything, like how is every one related to whom you see in the papers. Queen Victoria is alleged to have believed that by having the monarchies of Europe related war was less likely, but it did happen.

                          Unfortunately, I deleted the email about there was a OU chappie doing a thesis on Conspiracy Theories and how they take hold, why they continue to be believed.
                          Pebble put it far more articulately that me.

                          It is unlikely that the 148 companies totted up in the original article have ever met in some great secret conference to decide the fate of the world. I think the press might have spotted it. And until they do it is nothing more than a conspiracy theory.

                          Presumably you've heard of the East India Company, Nat. During the 17th century it was a private company given the rights by the British government to represent them in its global trade. It was a single company that effectively ruled the waves, backed by the British navy. It had power and influence over a great many people.

                          It contributed to the success of the greatest empire the world has ever seen, but even that came to an end after a few hundred years and the world order changed.

                          What goes around comes around.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I don't quite understand the fixation on "conspiracy". My concern is concentration of power, especially in groups that are not representitive governments accountable in a meaningfull way to its people. Yes, I am familiar with the east india company, but I don't quite understand its relevence, because your argument seems to be "no one keeps power for ever" by that logic, Stalin was "no big deal" because we know that he didn't retain power, and same goes for Pol Pot.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I view it as a conspiracy theory because there is absolutely no evidence that these 1381 companies, represented by 148 uber-companies, have ever met, operate as any sort of consortium or have deliberately exerted any sort of concerted influence over governments or economies.

                              It is a theory that has been put forward by economists and “complex systems analysts” (are they analysts of complex systems of systems analysts with difficult person lives?) who have imagined a network of companies that add up to an all powerful organisation bent on world domination. As Pebble rightly said, you can imagine anything you like if you look at something in a certain way. Hence the original "so what?" question.

                              The opening phrase of the article, “AS PROTESTS against financial power sweep the world this week” indicates that what follows is a load of hyperbole.

                              Show me the evidence that the "Global 148" have ever done any of the above and I might begin to give it some credence.

                              The comment about the East India Company is there to illustrate that there have been examples in the past when companies have indeed dominated global trade in the way that this cabal of 148 is supposed to do, and that history shows that their influence is finite and that the global world order changes eventually.


                              I made no reference to Stalin or Pol Pot and am not happy with the suggestion that I am in some way downplaying their crimes.


                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X