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?"

Comments

I'm actually suprised it's that many

[elrous0]

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.

Re:I'm actually suprised it's that many

[arcite]

Not unlike say, the Hudson Bay Company or East India Company. How long until the corporations get their own private armies of mercenaries and start waging wars of attrition over market share? Oh wait....

Re:I'm actually suprised it's that many

[Anonymous Coward]

http://theelitist.net/nypd-receives-jp-morgan-donation-mass-arrest-of-protesters-at-occupywallstreet

Re:I'm actually suprised it's that many

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Nice in theory. But once you shrink the government small enough to be drowned in a bath tub, the first thug who could will drown it. Then who is going to defend you, individual? Time to take your head off the clouds and talk some real sense.

Already corporations have been ruled people, except they don't need visa and they can't be executed or imprisoned, and they can be created out of thin air to be saddled with the liabilities while the CEO and his gang walk away with all the assets in their personal portfolio.

Re:I'm actually suprised it's that many

[Hatta]

Corporations, as a collection of individuals, seek to create wealth, not destroy it.

Corporations seek to control wealth, by any means necessary.

A corporation has no power to dictate your life unless it coerces a government that is willing to do so.

We've all got to eat. Those who control the means of production control who eats. Those who control the finance system control who works and who doesn't, and who has a home to go to at night. That is every bit as coercive as any governmental power.

That is why government can never be allowed an excess of power and why government's sole purpose should be defend the rights of individuals

Defend individuals, mainly from corporations. Unfortunately, our government is wholly owned by those very corporations we need to be protected from.

Re:I'm actually suprised it's that many

[MightyMartian]

If you create minimalistic governments, then power is simply there to be taken. There is a balance of interests that must be maintained. Simply cutting down the government to nothing would not solve the problem.

Re:I'm actually suprised it's that many

[rgbatduke]

they can be created out of thin air to be saddled with the liabilities while the CEO and his gang walk away with all the assets in their personal portfolio

Sort of like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_life_of_George_W._Bush

Found a company (anybody can do that, costs almost nothing). Sell shares to some investors, attract a few big names. Run it into the ground so that it fails, but...

Sell out to a second company who wants your goodwill (those big names) plus whatever assets you managed not to squander, become CEO of second company which also fails, and...

Sell out to a third company who still wants that goodwill, those names, the top political cover (your daddy is president, after all), get a seat on the board of directors, and y'know, damned if that company doesn't start to suck wind and fail due to mismanagement as well. Alas, now there is no sugar daddy outside corporation willing to buy, the company is out of money but the stock is still sitting up there at optimistic prices because the ordinary shareholders do not yet know that the company is down to its few days worth of operating capital.

Borrow money from a bank. Buy into a cushy deal that manages to both suck off money from the taxpayer and screw the actual owner of the land seized for the project. Ask counsel of that failing company that bought the failed company that bought the failed company you originally founded if selling off stock right before the company is about to run out of money is "insider trading". Counsel says yes, damn skippy it is, don't do it.

Do it anyway, pay off loan and manage to pocket a quarter of a million actual profit right before the company loses 2/3 of its book value when the running-out-of-money-with-no-income-to-replace-it shit hits the fan. Wait a few years, cushy deal pays you $15 million dollars in profits -- not bad for return on three failed companies you personally ran or helped to run (you weren't on the board of the cushy deal -- by then everybody but the voters in Texas and the United States knew you were a complete klutz who lost money on every deal you actually ran or helped run). Even on this final deal there was nothing like an actual, honest profit in the payout. The taxpayers of Texas are still paying for the actual sports dome for the Rangers; the profit Bush realized was more or less paid directly from taxpayer pockets into his own, and who knows what the landowner ever got out of the deal (probably nothing)...

The moral of this sad tale is that it isn't just a network of companies -- it is a network of people, all born into wealthy families, owning or controlling the large corporations, looking out for each other and protecting all of the "insiders" while shooting, burning, and clubbing the dead bodies until they stop twitching of all of the outsiders that seek to break in to this tiny enclave of wealth and power. These are the people that control the Fed. They control (or are) many of the governors, senators, presidents of our country. They own huge blocks of stock in the largest and most powerful companies or they sit on the board of directors and draw huge salaries because of their political influence. Insider trading is a way of life -- a wink is as good as a nod -- and make a profit (like Bush) from every failure where the ordinary shareholders lost wads of money.

They exist, impervious in our society, simply because we lack the will to oppose them.

rgb

Re:I'm actually suprised it's that many

[gknoy]

I'm not sure I like the idea of telling the average citizen "you can protect yourself by being/hiring a bigger thug". We already saw how well that worked in the middle ages, and the ability to fly in Highly Paid and Well Armed mercenaries to squish locals makes the potential even worse now.

Correction.

[Noryungi]

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

Do we have a global oligarchy?

[MobyDisk]

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.

Global Oligarchy?

[hellfire]

Yes.

Next Question: How do we topple it?

No.

[imric]

"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.

Global Olivearchy

[Oswald McWeany]

Global olivearchy.

1% of Olive farmers control over 50% of the world's olives.

Re:If that doesn't put it in perspective

[FooAtWFU]

But most of those companies have thousands of owners, not just one. They're probably in your 401(k) or pension plan.

Re:Corporations alone can't hurt or control you

[mrquagmire]

Yes, I'm sure that corporations left to their own devices would never cause us any harm.

Re:If that doesn't put it in perspective

[Dunbal]

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.