Slashdot Mirror
The 147 Corporations Controlling Most of the Global Economy
rubycodez writes "Researchers at the Swiss Federal Technology Institute in Zurich have identified a 'Capitalist Network' [PDF] of well-connected companies that control most of the global economy. They further identified the 147 'super-connected' companies that control forty percent or more of the global financial network. If one believes the mega-corporations have most governments of the west in their pockets, does this mean we have a global oligarchy?"
I bet you could easily whittle that down to less than 50 who effectively control just about everything in the first-world--when you factor in subsidiaries, companies they invest in or who invest in or depend on them, companies they partner with extensively, etc. Just look at the web of control that the major banking companies alone exert. When a handful of companies in a single industry are so powerful that if they fail, your ENTIRE ECONOMY (and that of many other countries) collapses, I would say they effectively own you. That's way more powerful than any mere group of individual citizens could ever hope to be.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
We have a global plutocracy, which the government of the richest, for the richest and by the richest.
See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
Does this mean we have a global oligarchy
I know it was meant to be rhetorical, but "YES." These statistics merely reinforce the intuition that we have all had for decades. In the modern day, oligarchy == democracy. Companies that are "too big to fail." This is why there are people flooding the streets with with signs saying "We are the 99%." Because it isn't the 99% that count.
With 147 corporations, you have a chance to watch them all.
With 14,700 corporations you'd have no chance.
Yes.
Next Question: How do we topple it?
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
And The Onion was sure they'd have all merged to just form one giant corporation by now:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/just-six-corporations-remain,551/
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
"It seems as soon as someone gets elected to Congress, they are immediately bought by the wealthy elite to represent their interests."
They can't get that far without being bought and paid for in the first place.
Paranoia is a Survival Trait!
Global olivearchy.
1% of Olive farmers control over 50% of the world's olives.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
...does this mean we have a global oligarchy?
Of course it does! That's why the middle class is shrinking over most of the globe - those who have power and money are doing their damnedest to concentrate both in their own hands, and the most efficient way to do that is to co-operate among themselves and work together to achieve world domination. And the fastest route to domination is via absolute economic control.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
A corporation alone cannot harm or control you. It can only do that with the help of government.
No. It does not mean there's a global oligarchy. For one thing, many of these are publicly traded companies. So individuals do have some input. They may have very little, but it does exist. Moreover, a 147 entities is actually quite a lot. And many of those companies are in direct competition with each other. So while it is true that many of these companies own stock in each other, they aren't close to controlling each other in any reasonable sense. If the various bailouts are any indication, one doesn't need a mysterious oligarchy to control governments. Old-fashioned lobbying works just fine.
But most of those companies have thousands of owners, not just one. They're probably in your 401(k) or pension plan.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
So a powerful 1% owns 40% of the global wealth...
And in America, a powerful 1% owns 35% of national wealth.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
But most of those companies have thousands of owners, not just one.
Someone who owns 0.000000000000000001% of a company because he has 100 shares is not an "owner", but an investor. The owners are the banks and the founders, that hold real percentages of the corporation. The little guys just exist as a convenient way to raise capital, and they are the first to take the fall, getting wiped out first if the company goes south. Once in a while the company will throw them a bone in the form of dividends. And once in a while, depending on the company and the share type, these "owners" will be given the illusion of a vote. In the most free case they can choose between pre-determined agenda #1 or pre-determined agenda #2. When they get too annoying their ownership share simply gets diluted. However they certainly do not get to choose what the CEO has for dinner tonight on the company credit card, or what luxury hotel suite he stays in.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
We don't have a global oligarchy, we have a terrible case of crony capitalism where the ones that control the world are Goldman Sachs, and the Primary Dealers (the banks that sell the Treasury's debt) have an unfair leg up. The corporatism auctioning our governments and soldiers lives to the companies that fund the pockets of politicians has to stop. It is the reason the Tea Party started and the reason that #occupy is so large at this point. However, it's important to understand exactly what the problem is and why. That's why Ron Paul is doing so well. He's the only guy that understands economics. Unfortunately, he's not a good looking shiny figure on stage that will appeal to the "Access Hollywood" obsessed populace. These 147 institutions have pushed the risk from the corporate balance sheet to the sovereign balance sheet under the guise of systemic risk. Unfortunately, unless meaningful change is brought, not partisan bullshit, it will likely bring the end of a country or two, and definitely a bunch of currency systems.
Who is to blame? Well about every president, senator and congressman over the last 30 years, with few exceptions.
Steve Wynn Epic Rant Part II - Full Audio And Transcript With Complete #OccupyWallStreet Thoughts
Watch this:Fear the Boom and Bust [econstories.tv]
then this: Fight of the Century [econstories.tv]
It's probably paranoid, but I keep thinking that in 50 years it will be leaked out that the "great downturn of 2007-201x" was actually the result of a global financial war fought by Anglo-American banking interests on one side and a Sino-Arab consortium on the other side.
The US government & Federal Reserve backed the banks not because they were too big to fail but because of the national security implications of losing control over world financial markets.
The housing and stock bubbles were failed attempts by the banking cartels to create wealth to keep up with the growth of the Chinese economy and the spiraling income of oil producers in the face of stagnant wage growth and industry within the US and the UK.
The war in Iraq wasn't about terrorism but about creating chaos in the center of Arabian Asia to disrupt OPEC.
I'm making all this up, but it seems to have a strange believability to it.
Those companies which are publicly traded have thousands of owners, but a very small number of people have majority control over those companies which are publicly traded. My 401(k) plan holds a few shares of Walmart, but if I disagree with what the Waltons want to do, the company will go with the Waltons. Even if I get thousands of small shareholders together, Walmart will still do what the Waltons want it to do.
I am officially gone from
If someone is getting filthy rich by corrupting the political system and through financial trickery to game the system in their favor, that doesn't strike me as the same thing as making your wealth via the sweat of your hands. The problem is that a good portion of those at the top of the food chain are not making their vast wealth via the poetic "sweat of the brow" that is such a big part of the American mythos, but are doing it by cheating and stealing, and buying off the political classes, or at the very least overawing them with notions of "too big to fail."
At some point big money and liberty will inevitably collide, and by basically just jumping over the issue by making believe that a fair number of the most extremely wealthy are in fact making that wealth through nefarious means, you're allowing ideology to lead you by the nose, straight into the abyss.
In the olden days, it was recognized that there was were aristocratic and noble classes, and from there could stem some degree of control. The West, by essentially eradicating those classes, has basically allowed them to be recreated, but now philosophically and ideologically seems incapable of applying the same rules that once applied. The idea of noblesse oblige, at least created an underlying idea that those of wealth and privilege owed the lower classes something for their labors, even if it was frequently ignored.
Now essentially we have an aristocracy built on pure greed, that speaks the language of economic egalitarianism, in fact feel themselves quite independent of society. They have encouraged economic and social libertarianism simply because it improves their bottom line. It is essentially a sociopathic aristocracy, and just how long do you think that can go on? At some, as the French Revolution showed, you'll break too many backs, and all these quaint notions of economic and social liberty, of getting rich the old-fashioned way, and offering empty platitudes like "in American you can be whatever you work to accomplish" will no longer sell. Do you think the West has become invulnerable to class warfare?
Right now, it's just crazy hippies and college students bitching about Wall Street. But if there isn't found a way to wrest some political control from the new aristocracy, it will get ugly, and then we'll end up with an awful system like Communism that nobody wants.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Pension plans are bigger than you think. Perhaps you missed a relevant slashdot article detailing the power that pension plans toy with.
More than a few pension plans are individually bigger than Apple in terms of net worth. Combined the pension plans probably rival the combined wealth of the fortune-500's... in other words they are not to be shrugged off like you are attempting to do.
"His name was James Damore."
Yes, that's a nice bit of leverage for Wall Street. "Do as we say or your retirement gets it!"
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I have tried in the past to suggest this and no one seemed to get it. Frankly I think we need to dump the Occupy and the Tea Party and bring back the Bull Moose party. Just read up and Teddy Roosevelt and his square deal. Take his basic concepts and goals and update them for the 21st century. He as far from perfect but he had some good ideas about limit the power of big business the betterment of the nation. Frankly if you think that what one of the greatest Republican presidents did 100 years ago is too liberal.... Well you have issues.
That's a tall order, considering the folks now in control of the Republican party think what a Republican president did 40 years ago is too liberal. (Nixon and the EPA and Clean Water Act)
Under the Federal Reserve system, money is only created when someone takes out a loan. If Federal Reserve Notes were truthfully labeled, they would all say This Bill Was BORROWED From Wall Street. This is why it was so important to bail out the banking system: no bankers, no money.
Nothing says "oligarchy" like having an entire economy by its balls.
Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
www.teslabox.com
Although zaibatsu existed from the 19th century, the term was not in common use until after World War I. By definition, the "zaibatsu" were large family-controlled vertical monopolies consisting of a holding company on top, with a wholly owned banking subsidiary providing finance, and several industrial subsidiaries dominating specific sectors of a market, either solely, or through a number of sub-subsidiary companies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaibatsu
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
Which means instead of lampooning organizations like the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street we need to take from them the best of their ideas and act on it.
It means for Americans doing your best to get candidates who do not have a D or R next to their name some traction.
It means for those in Europe figuring out how to get out from under Brussels - best of luck, I don't know your politics.
Whatever it is, you won't do it through tax laws so please no, they need to pay more, corporations merely hide the heavy taxation the population is under, see indirect taxes.
So, anytime you see a politician wanting to expand your benefits be wary, the money comes from somewhere and if its not paid its owed and those to whom we owe call the shots.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Note that most of these are banks, which means ultimately they are controlled by their depositors. I tried to look up how much each of them controls, but it isn't really clear what 'control' means, although it's really important. Remember that if you looked at it another way, the three largest countries in the world 'control' nearly half the worlds wealth (measured by GDP); but if you actually dig into that statistic, it's not as scary as it seems on the surface.
Anyway, here's the list:
1. Barclays plc
2. Capital Group Companies Inc
3. FMR Corporation
4. AXA
5. State Street Corporation
6. JP Morgan Chase & Co
7. Legal & General Group plc
8. Vanguard Group Inc
9. UBS AG
10. Merrill Lynch & Co Inc
11. Wellington Management Co LLP
12. Deutsche Bank AG
13. Franklin Resources Inc
14. Credit Suisse Group
15. Walton Enterprises LLC
16. Bank of New York Mellon Corp
17. Natixis
18. Goldman Sachs Group Inc
19. T Rowe Price Group Inc
20. Legg Mason Inc
21. Morgan Stanley
22. Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group Inc
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
And not the Keynesian cargo cult economics which is so prevalent.
To start with, go find out what money is.
Deleted
"The 147 Corporations Controlling Most of the Global Economy"
Then we find out that it's 147 banks that control 40% of the financial sector.
How is this controlling most of the global economy? The financial sector is about 30% of the global economy, and these banks control 40% of that.
It's more like the top 147 banks control 12% of the global economy.
Then don't buy stuff from Walmart, as many don't.
I am not sure if you have been to BFE US of A, but in most places, there is only a Walmart. That's it. There isn't a Target down the street. Or a local business, at least not anymore. Ordering online for groceries simply isn't an option for most people.
Those people need help. Those people need choices and they simple cannot do anything about their situation on their own.
Trotting out a list of financial companies and then doing a pseudo-technical analysis to establish that they 'control' the economy seems like nothing but an effort at demagogy. For example, stockbrokers ALWAYS exercise a measure of control because most of their clients choose to have the stockbrokers retain their shares and vote them on their behalf. Similarly, every bank always exercises 'control' of the funds that you have on deposit so what would be suspicious is if there was a large bank that was NOT on the list. Everyone wants to hate financial companies when they have less wealth than they feel like they are entitled to. There will always be a few large financial companies in 'control' of the economy unless we enact legislation that limits the maximum size of financial companies in which case we would have more financial companies exercising control of the economy but nothing else otherwise much different. The alternative to having financial companies in 'control' of the economy is to have everyone keep their money in the form of gold bullion in their mattress (been there, done that) which would result in a shrunken world economy driven by barter or to have a huge government apparatus in 'control' (been there, done that too.)
Taken out and shot.
Deleted
David Icke is a nut who believes in lizard people.
Deleted
they threatened to take our economy with them. I suppose the gov't could have let them die, then stepped in to keep the economy going. But you wouldn't have liked that either, would you?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
You know, when Galois laid to rest long standing questions in geometric construction, a geometer might view this as closing the book on a vexing mystery, whereas a different mathematician might choose to regard this as opening a whole new book.
In this regard, Adam Smith suffers terribly: his loud acolytes regard Smith as a good place to stop thinking, only the quieter acolytes regard Smith as a good place to start thinking. I regard myself as the later. I've never been moved to sell the Adam Smith sermon of capitalistic virtue, despite lodging him in a bunk bed above Evariste Galois in my personal pantheon of stellar insight.
Much of this boils down to boxes of economic autonomy. Under slavery or feudalism, wealth aggregation reaches staggering pinnacles, but total wealth hits a glass ceiling in total capacity of the system to navigate local complexity. The enlightenment brought us this giant new box of autonomy called liberty, the original root of Liberalism. The main dispute in the camps that spun off is whether you are more concerned with liberty from the church, or more concerned with liberty from the state.
Back in Adam Smith's day, the box of liberty--if you could get one--was a large and spacious box--like a pre-Carly office cubicle at Hewlett Packard.
In the modern world, we've since learned how to machine the box of liberty down to much smaller dimensions--in ways Adam Smith did not anticipate in its particulars--down to very small indeed: an electorate with nothing much to elect on the increasingly steep treadmill of middle-class comfort.
I'm not saying the autonomy that remains is of no great value, much to the contrary. But the pinch of circumstance certainly takes much of the glow out of the Adam Smith sermon for the vast majority of the population. Recently they've noticed; what terrible umbrage.
For the people who like to stop thinking at Adam Smith, it does function as an admirable defense against economic nerd sniping. What little we can do to bulk up our nest eggs is certainly not aided by sitting around on a backwards moving conveyor asking how Adam Smith might be brought to a mature fruition by Abel, Jacobi, Dirichlet, Hamilton, Weierstrauss, or Cayley.
Yet some of us persist in this endeavour of scant wallet-stuffing prospect.
So, what are we going to do about it?
The OWS movement is encouraging in that it shows that people are waking up to the fact of corporate oligarchy, but it lacks any clear agenda. Even if OWS or some other grassroots movement toppled the government tomorrow, we'd undoubtedly get something even worse to replace it. If OWS does develop a clear agenda, it might incite some serious reform, but we'll still be just cogs in the corporate machine even if we're happier with our working conditions. A slave on a plantation with a full belly and nice clothes and good healthcare is still a slave on a plantation.
We need a solution that doesn't require a huge amount of money, weaponry, or other resources. We need a solution that doesn't require violence or even any law-breaking. We need a solution that a small number of people can implement, anywhere in the nation (and in most parts of the world). We could try to abandon society and build our own, but that would be leaving an awful lot of people behind. . . we need a solution that allows us to stand our ground, band together, and deal with the oligarchy from a position of power.
I say: When life gives you corporate oligarchy. . . incorporate!
My solution is a sort of chewy Communist nougat center with a crunchy delicious Capitalist shell.
Imagine thirty or forty people getting together and pooling their resources to buy or lease some real estate (a high school campus in Detroit would be perfect, but it could be anywhere). They form an umbrella corporation that acts as their collective face to the outside world, and provides business administration services to members of the community. Those members of the community who have their own businesses or who want to start their own businesses are freed to do the work they really want to do, while the umbrella corporation handles the drudgery common to all businesses, like payroll and taxes and human resources and so on. Those who are not ready to start their own businesses provide a labor pool for those who are.
The gross income of everyone's entrepreneurial pursuits goes to the umbrella corporation, which pays all the expenses of the various businesses. The umbrella corporation also pays for things like rent/mortgage of communal living spaces, utilities, medical insurance for members of the collective, etc. What's left over is divvied up as profit sharing, with the umbrella corporation itself taking a share. The umbrella corporation uses its share of the income to expand into new businesses, and to improve living conditions for the collective. Shares for members of the collective are calculated by share-hours; for example, if the collective has 100 members who work a combined total of 500 hours in a particular week generating a net income of $100,000, then everyone gets paid $20 for each hour they worked that week ($100,000/500 work-hours = $20 per share-hour). . . so everyone gets the same, but those who go the extra mile and put the long hours in get rewarded for working harder. Since everyone's income is directly dependent on everyone else's productivity, any tendency toward laziness and shirking and gaming the system is corrected on a peer-to-peer basis.
Some members of the collective are paid to be janitorial staff, so there's never any controversy over whose turn it is to clean up, or over who left the mess in the common area. If someone in the collective wants to run a restaurant, the other members can eat there free, subsidized by the umbrella corporation. If we don't have a restaurant, the umbrella corporation pays someone to shop for groceries and cook. . . so there are never any "who ate my food?" arguments, because it's OUR food and it's someone's job to make sure we have plenty on hand.
If a member of the collective fails at their chosen business, the collective absorbs their labor into some other business until they can regroup and try again or try something different. That person still gets a paycheck, still gets fed, st
Bill Gates was a trust fund baby. His dad was a wealthy business lawyer, and Bill used those contacts to get in with IBM. Didn't you ever wonder how a fresh faced nerd boy made it with the big leagues? I'll give you Sam Walton though. Near as I can tell he was the first guy to realize Americans would prefer to buy cheap crap instead of well built merchandise.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/