Who Runs the World?

[Zig]

Who Runs the World ? – Network Analysis Reveals ‘Super Entity’ of Global Corporate Control

Source: Planetsave (http://s.tt/138oe)

 

In the first such analysis ever conducted, Swiss economic researchers have conducted a global network analysis of the most powerful transnational corporations (TNCs). Their results have revealed a core of 787 firms with control of 80% of this network, and a “super entity” comprised of 147 corporations that have a controlling interest in 40% of the network’s TNCs.

 

When we hear conspiracy theorist talk about this or that powerful group (or alliance of said groups) “pulling strings” behind the scenes, we tend to dismiss or minimize such claims, even though, deep down, we may suspect that there’s some degree of truth to it, however distorted by the theorists’ slightly paranoid perception of the world. But perhaps our tendency to dismiss such claims as exaggerations (at best) comes from our inability to get even a slight grip on the complexity of global corporate ownership; it’s all too vast and complicated to get any clear sense of the reality.

[Fist 666]

no sir i don't like it

[Zig]

well how about explaining yourself than. this is crossfire, not twitter.

[Fist 666]

k.

though i'm hesitant to acknowledge a new world order or what-have-you, but it seems difficult to deny the existence of a group that controls the world's economy (and everything that comes with it).

 

i wasn't knocking the article, i don't like the future of many in the hands of the few.

[KM4RT]

Do you realise what "147 corporations" even means? In terms of scale?

 

Here's some perspective on 147 corporations

- there are hundreds of thousands of related companies, subsidiaries, and various legal entities

- they would employ millions of people

- these millions of people make trillions of tiny decisions on their own every day, which combine to affect and influence the operation of these corporations on a level that would be impossible to quantify

- this theory also basically discounts the effects of external influences - that is every other corporation, government, etc., and not to mention micro and macro economic influences

- plus a bunch of other things

 

Whilst no doubt these corporation exert a lot of influence on the world, it is irrational to think they somehow form an entity that conspires to and actually does control the world.

[Fist 666]

i should have clarified: by "group that controls" i don't mean publicly or privately acknowledged entity, but just a collection of like minded super rich few.

 

and i meant "tries to control." not trying to back pedal i just didn't prepare myself for an actual conversation.

 

i understand what a corporation is, and the numbers they employ are not the concern, its the ceos, cfos, presidents, etc of those corporations that still remain a very small number. even if each is represented by 100 or 1000 pieces of management, the number of decision making individuals within each corp remains miniscule to the number of people they employ, serve, and influence.

 

even if its the larger group of 787 controlling 80% of the wealth and production it bothers me. the power remains in the hands of the relative few. and by the nature of capitalism those corporations must continue to grow, the 787 will be smaller in months and years to come.

[!@#$%]

money runs the world. whoever has the most of it gets to manipulate and influence culture, government and knowledge

the end.

[LUGR]

C.R.E.A.M

[Zig]

k.

though i'm hesitant to acknowledge a new world order or what-have-you, but it seems difficult to deny the existence of a group that controls the world's economy (and everything that comes with it).

 

i wasn't knocking the article, i don't like the future of many in the hands of the few.

 

sorry fist i misunderstood, lot of hostility on this forum so i jumped the gun. my bad. thanks for responding and clearing that up.

[Zig]

Do you realise what "147 corporations" even means? In terms of scale?

 

Here's some perspective on 147 corporations

- there are hundreds of thousands of related companies, subsidiaries, and various legal entities

- they would employ millions of people

- these millions of people make trillions of tiny decisions on their own every day, which combine to affect and influence the operation of these corporations on a level that would be impossible to quantify

- this theory also basically discounts the effects of external influences - that is every other corporation, government, etc., and not to mention micro and macro economic influences

- plus a bunch of other things

 

Whilst no doubt these corporation exert a lot of influence on the world, it is irrational to think they somehow form an entity that conspires to and actually does control the world.

 

yea i realize that, i didn't title the article and i your last statement isn't even what i believe so what are you getting at?

[Zig]

money runs the world. whoever has the most of it gets to manipulate and influence culture, government and knowledge

the end.

 

was that a bed time story?

listen, just stating "money runs the world" is naive. people are behind money, institutions, governments, corporations, etc. money is a material, not a thinking logical entity.

[El Mamerro]

Neither is blood, but it certainly does the job of running the human body.

[Zig]

clearly some of you haven't even read the article.

 

“As a result, about 3/4 of the ownership of firms in the core remains in the hands of firms of the core itself. In other words, this is a tightly-knit group of corporations that cumulatively hold the majority share of each other.”

Source: Planetsave (http://s.tt/138oe)

 

seems all you moderators can do is make one liners on here, and pre-emptively end conversations yourself after you've chimed in with your opinion LOL. someone should moderate the trash you guys post ha

 

“despite its small size, the core holds collectively a large fraction of the total network control. In detail, nearly 4/10 of the control over the economic value of TNCs in the world is held, via a complicated web of ownership relations, by a group of 147 TNCs in the core, which has almost full control over itself. The top holders within the core can thus be thought of as an economic “super-entity” in the global network of corporations.” [emphasis added]

Source: Planetsave (http://s.tt/138oe)

 

your analogy fails to address the issues in the article.

[Decyferon]

If you dont think a small group of highly wealthly people dont get together and run their business with a you scratch my back I'll scratch your policy is just nuts.

 

Symbols is right, money is power, therefore money talks and bullshit walks

[Zig]

Sure symbols is right but money isn't the only thing that runs the world, power and influence supersedes material... that much is apparent reading the article and the findings of the analysis.

 

oh but lets blame money, i'm sure it's all the "rich peoples fault". heard it all before.

[Zig]

who controls money than?

 

the same people probably.

[Decyferon]

yep money and policy is more controlled via business than government, this is why I would never agree to a free market

[Zig]

i'll let someone else play with that one.

[Decyferon]

well governemnt and business are so linked nowadays there isnt tha much difference

[Zig]

yea... true.

[El Mamerro]

your analogy fails to address the issues in the article.

 

I'm not addressing the article, I'm addressing your dismissal about money running the world.

 

You failed to address KMARTs breakdown of the huge amount of complexity, hierarchies, and individual players involved in running even that "tiny" number of 147 TNCs, because you'd rather believe this is a very very small group of individual personalities or human minds running the world (you'll say that's not what you believe but it's certainly the impression one gets reading your posts). The concept of a "corporation as a person" only goes so far before network theory takes over and evolves it into something much more disseminated. The fact is, when dealing with organizations at this level of complexity, individual decisions even at high levels of command get diluted amongst the entire system, and it becomes less about a small group of key players controlling very conscious and deliberate decisions, than a networked organism automatically, not consciously, going about its biological processes to survive and prosper. Most organisms do this with blood, regulated by a heart or equivalent circulatory system, humanity does this with currency, regulated by a financial economic apparatus comprised of transnational corporations and institutions.

 

The article and study seem pretty solid, but what's truly naive is thinking the emergent properties of of money flow don't control and regulate the system far more than any individual key players do.

[Zig]

I'm not addressing the article, I'm addressing your dismissal about money running the world.

 

You failed to address KMARTs breakdown of the huge amount of complexity, hierarchies, and individual players involved in running even that "tiny" number of 147 TNCs, because you'd rather believe this is a very very small group of individual personalities or human minds running the world (you'll say that's not what you believe but it's certainly the impression one gets reading your posts). The concept of a "corporation as a person" only goes so far before network theory takes over and evolves it into something much more disseminated. The fact is, when dealing with organizations at this level of complexity, individual decisions even at high levels of command get diluted amongst the entire system, and it becomes less about a small group of key players controlling very conscious and deliberate decisions, than a networked organism automatically, not consciously, going about its biological processes to survive and prosper. Organic life does this with blood, regulated by a heart or equivalent circulatory system, humanity does this with currency, regulated by a financial economic apparatus comprised of transnational corporations and institutions.

 

The article and study seem pretty solid, but what's truly naive is thinking the emergent properties of of money flow don't control and regulate the system far more than any individual key players do.

 

There's nothing in your post I disagree with actually, I think you've pretty accurately described our system. What's interesting is that you said "because you'd rather believe this is a very very small group of individual personalities or human minds running the world (you'll say that's not what you believe but it's certainly the impression one gets reading your posts)." Really? My posts insinuate that I believe a small group of people run the world? Now, I'm not going to LIE to you and say that I don't believe secret societies with massive influence over our system DON'T EXIST. I think they do, I think there is proof to that theory also, but I'm going to have to shrug off your accusation that I believe they actually have full control of the world. I just believe they, along with many other networks of secret societies, fraternities, institutions... whatever you want to call them, use this very unbalanced corporate system to their advantage in order to exert a certain amount of control over circumstances that would otherwise be uncontrollable. So, sorry bud you haven't "figured me out" like you thought you did with your post. If I disagree with someone I usually respond to them. I didn't disagree with what KM4RT said, so there is really no point in addressing it. These corporations in fact DON'T exert the amount of influence necessary to "control the world". Again, these concepts are taken at face value and not even rationally applied to critical thought. Simply dismissed out of arrogance.

 

But, I remember posts here that clearly dismissed and refused to acknowledge that the corporate structure of the world was even so much as networked together by the same actors, same owners, same influences (globalization). Funny how, now that this study pretty much proves the inter-connection the debate takes a turn towards "it's not FULL control".

[Zig]

The fact is, when dealing with organizations at this level of complexity, individual decisions even at high levels of command get diluted amongst the entire system, and it becomes less about a small group of key players controlling very conscious and deliberate decisions, than a networked organism automatically, not consciously, going about its biological processes to survive and prosper.

 

You're not really acknowledging the statements made in the article either, see my quotes above. it doesn't concern you that the top 147 TNC's in the entire world are basically influenced and controlled by the same people? How exactly do those quotes not contradict what you are saying about these TNC's?

 

The interest of this ranking is not that it exposes unsuspected powerful players. Instead, it shows that many of the top actors belong to the core. This means that they do not carry out their business in isolation but, on the contrary, they are tied together in an extremely entangled web of control. This finding is extremely important since there was no prior economic theory or empirical evidence regarding whether and how top players are connected.

Source: Planetsave (http://s.tt/138oe)

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

I think you guy's are just seeing corporations as names, not looking at the individuals involved.

 

For example, check the other thread about the owners of the Federal Reserve, see who they work for, check back on this list, see where those TNC's stand among those of the world, and now you can see where people come from with their Illuminati conspiracy theory believes.

 

There truly is a group of people that have monopolized power in financial institutions all over the world. These people have also changed economic policy to increase the amount of power they can wield politically.

 

Corner the market on power.

 

Nobody cares.

[El Mamerro]

Fair enough, I was being general about the whole running the world thing and not implying you think they have ALL THE CONTROL. But you do imply that the extent of their control is really quite substantial (if this isn't true then I don't understand why you insist on discussing the matter with such concern), and it very well might be, but IMO not to the extent you want to attribute to them.

 

My issue with the article and study, at probably no fault of the authors for lack of proper concise terminology, is the reduction of these incredibly massive networks being reduced to the term "global players", giving them a disturbing air of personhood. It enhances the perception of a handful of shadowy minds conspiring behind the scenes to benefit only themselves, when I believe the more accurate description is vast networks subject to processes for prosperity largely beyond any individual control.

 

Your quote from the article is a perfect example of that:

 

The interest of this ranking is not that it exposes unsuspected powerful players. Instead, it shows that many of the top actors belong to the core. This means that they do not carry out their business in isolation but, on the contrary, they are tied together in an extremely entangled web of control. This finding is extremely important since there was no prior economic theory or empirical evidence regarding whether and how top players are connected.

Source: Planetsave (http://s.tt/138oe)

 

Corporations reduced to individual actors... of course it sounds creepy. But these are not individuals.

[Zig]

Fair enough, I was being general about the whole running the world thing and not implying you think they have ALL THE CONTROL. But you do imply that the extent of their control is really quite substantial (if this isn't true then I don't understand why you insist on discussing the matter with such concern), and it very well might be, but IMO not to the extent you want to attribute to them.

 

Again, not going to lie to you. I do believe they have a significantly substantial amount of control and power, especially with reports like this coming out showing how a majority of the most powerful corporations in the entire world are inter-connected and part of the same power sphere of influence. Pretty damning evidence in MY opinion, you however can take it for what it's worth to you.

 

My issue with the article and study, at probably no fault of the authors for lack of proper concise terminology, is the reduction of these incredibly massive networks being reduced to the term "global players", giving them a disturbing air of personhood. It enhances the perception of a handful of shadowy minds conspiring behind the scenes to benefit only themselves, when I believe the more accurate description is vast networks subject to processes for prosperity largely beyond any individual control.

 

Well, they are global players. These aren't corporations that are exclusive to a specific nation. These are mostly globalist corporations that operate on a global playing field. They exist in multiple nations and do business all around the planet, influencing and setting policies in many different countries. I think that's the definition of "global player". I mean, when you add all of the lucrative spooky terms to the discussion... "shadowy minds" for example... sure, it sounds ridiculous. But, let's not get away from the point here... there IS conspiring occurring. There is consolidated control occurring.

 

Your quote from the article is a perfect example of that:

 

Corporations reduced to individual actors... of course it sounds creepy. But these are not individuals.

 

 

///

[Zig]

I think you guy's are just seeing corporations as names, not looking at the individuals involved.

 

For example, check the other thread about the owners of the Federal Reserve, see who they work for, check back on this list, see where those TNC's stand among those of the world, and now you can see where people come from with their Illuminati conspiracy theory believes.

 

There truly is a group of people that have monopolized power in financial institutions all over the world. These people have also changed economic policy to increase the amount of power they can wield politically.

 

Corner the market on power.

 

Nobody cares.

 

It's not important and dismissed easily because of arrogance in my opinion. We don't want to believe that there are individuals out there smarter than us who've taken advantage of us through conspiracy, consolidation, and fraud. We'd rather believe the most serious threat to society is a global Islamic caliphate, when we already live underneath a global corporate fascist caliphate. LOL.

[El Mamerro]

Again, not going to lie to you. I do believe they have a significantly substantial amount of control and power, especially with reports like this coming out showing how a majority of the most powerful corporations in the entire world are inter-connected and part of the same power sphere of influence. Pretty damning evidence in MY opinion, you however can take it for what it's worth to you.

 

Well, they are global players. These aren't corporations that are exclusive to a specific nation. These are mostly globalist corporations that operate on a global playing field. They exist in multiple nations and do business all around the planet, influencing and setting policies in many different countries. I think that's the definition of "global player". I mean, when you add all of the lucrative spooky terms to the discussion... "shadowy minds" for example... sure, it sounds ridiculous. But, let's not get away from the point here... there IS conspiring occurring. There is consolidated control occurring.

 

First of all, I don't really think this report surprises anyone. I think the interconnectedness of global corporations is pretty much obvious and I didn't need to see a study on it to feel certain about it. However all this study does is visualize said connections, in no way does it present evidence for manipulation or abuse, only implications.

 

The researchers implications, and their conclusions, are quite clear:

 

Concerning the implications of this super entity, the researchers asked two fundamental questions: First, what are the implications for market competition, and, second, what are the implications for economic stability?

 

Regarding the first question, the authors assert that no matter the origin of the SCC, due to its high degree of TNC network control, “it weakens market competition”.

 

In regards to the second question, the researchers note that “the existence of such a core in the global market was never documented before and thus, so far, no scientific study demonstrates or excludes that this international ‘super-entity’ has ever acted as a bloc.“

 

While the researchers acknowledge that verifying whether the implications of their findings “hold true for the global economy” is beyond the scope of their current research, they assert that their unprecedented attempt to uncover the structure of corporate control is “a necessary precondition for future investigations.”

Source: Planetsave (http://s.tt/138oe)

 

 

And I think you're not getting me on the whole global player thing. Corporations cannot be reduced to having an individual personality or consciousness, and therefore be "single" players. They're massive, complex networks of people. It's misleading to think of them as individuals, and this is further compounded when the visualized connections graphs included basically reduce corporations to a single dot. The whole article is written in a way that constantly equates corporations to single individuals and presents, in my opinion, a very skewed perspective of how they truly work and behave.

[Zig]

What are you saying, that there ISN'T any evidence concerning manipulation or abuse? The article doesn't mention it, but does it really NEED to? The evidence should be fairly obvious with everything occurring in current events.

 

Sure, I get what you're saying about corporations... they are too big to be controlled or influenced by individuals. I don't think the article is making the point that individuals are controlling these corporations, but rather that a majority of the largest corporations in the world are inter-connected and influenced by the same corporate power structure who share the same interests. It doesn't need to be individuals to still be consolidated power and influence in the hands of a few organizations /institutions / fraternities / players / people whatever you want to call it. It's severely unbalanced consolidated power, that's the point.

 

This is the same argument I hear about government. First, the conspiracy of new world order or whatever is taken at face value. Than when you prove the consolidation of power in government it's stated that government is too big to be controlled by individual people or by small groups. Is it not true in history that this hasn't been the case when consolidated power has gotten into the hands of a few people with bad intentions? What exactly is the point you're trying to make Mammero? That conspiracy isn't possible even if the power is consolidated because it's impossible for these structures to be controlled since they are too large?

[El Mamerro]

Not that it isn't possible, but that it's not as easy, clear cut, and well-directed as you might think. However much control and power they can have, they're subject to far too many variables, both external and internal, to really achieve narrowly-defined goals.