Who Runs the World?

Zig · September 8, 2011

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 · September 8, 2011

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 · September 9, 2011

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 · September 9, 2011

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 · September 9, 2011

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.

WORDISM45 · September 9, 2011

Q. Who controls the world?

A. A handful of national governments, with the overwhelming ammount of power lying with the government of the United States. The democratic governments in this group are heavily influenced by lobbying groups, the most powerful of which are the wealthiest (financial and trade lobbies that are a broad conglomeration of big business interests). These wealthy elites also influence national governments through ownership of the media (While mainstream media is not a unified political entity it broadly supports liberal free market ideology). The non-democratic national governments are basically state-capitalist entities and cut out the middle man, with economic interests and state interests being one and the same.

shai · September 9, 2011

It's funny that everyone here has stated their opinion of WHAT runs the world, but not WHO. So I'll do the same...

I don't think it comes down to people so much as a collective process that favors continuity and privilege. That's why we have things like corporations, dynasties and royalty.

Zig · September 9, 2011

Yea, nah I agree with a lot of what you guys are saying though.

WORDISM45 · September 10, 2011

It's funny that everyone here has stated their opinion of WHAT runs the world, but not WHO. So I'll do the same...

I don't think it comes down to people so much as a collective process that favors continuity and privilege. That's why we have things like corporations, dynasties and royalty.

royalty do not run shit except for as far as their money takes them. (and a handful of backwater countries that don't matter a great deal)

shai · September 10, 2011

They run more than we do in our respective roles, plus I was using that more in a historical context.

Gucci Mane LaFlare · September 11, 2011

Me.

Zig · September 11, 2011

They run more than we do in our respective roles, plus I was using that more in a historical context.

that's interesting you guys brought this up. do you guys really think royalty has lost it's power? today we have elites who could be considered royalty, most of them aren't from the actual european lineages but there are prestigious bloodlines with lot's of power influence and money especially. also, english royalty has shares in big oil companies and other forbe 500's as well as substantial influence through round table organizations like bilderberg. etc. are they really powerless figureheads?

Syte · September 11, 2011

We do. Without us there is no world.

Lick'n'run · September 11, 2011

Moving Zeitgeist forward

shai · September 14, 2011

that's interesting you guys brought this up. do you guys really think royalty has lost it's power? today we have elites who could be considered royalty, most of them aren't from the actual european lineages but there are prestigious bloodlines with lot's of power influence and money especially. also, english royalty has shares in big oil companies and other forbe 500's as well as substantial influence through round table organizations like bilderberg. etc. are they really powerless figureheads?

With regard to the British royal family- on paper, yes. In fact, who knows.

I'm talking about Saudi Arabia mainly since they have something like $1 trillion invested in the US at any given moment.

FrankieFiver5000 · September 19, 2011

Q. Who controls the world?

A. A handful of national governments, with the overwhelming ammount of power lying with the government of the United States. The democratic governments in this group are heavily influenced by lobbying groups, the most powerful of which are the wealthiest (financial and trade lobbies that are a broad conglomeration of big business interests). These wealthy elites also influence national governments through ownership of the media (While mainstream media is not a unified political entity it broadly supports liberal free market ideology). The non-democratic national governments are basically state-capitalist entities and cut out the middle man, with economic interests and state interests being one and the same.

I agree with this statement completely in so far as a group, or groups, of people 'running' the world. Yet, outside of this direct form of control exists a dynamic network of self interested actors all using their power resources in order to further their subjective agendas. Often it can appear that there is a broad reaching method to this chaos- this is what I feel conspiracy theorists are clutching at- however, it is far more likely that in this state of flux certain interests intersect and are mutually beneficial, forming short lived 'spontaneous order(s)'. Moreover, hegemonic forces enable less powerful actors to facilitate existing power hierarchies and thus, the world keeps turning.

Zig; I know from your previous posts that you find more explicit narratives on power operates appealing. I think there is ample evidence to suggest that these kinds of unified efforts are more fragile than you might think and are likely to be the exception rather than the rule. If you are interested in knowing where I am coming from I would recommend that you look into; Thomas DiLorezo's writings on the fragility of monopolies, L Heyak's writings on spontaneous order, M Foucault on power, A Gramsci on hegemony, and anyone who writes about Game Theory and rational choice.

FrankieFiver5000 · September 19, 2011

Damn, I just read back over my last post and its unclear and riddled with typos haha

Too late to edit. Sorry lads.

Zig · September 19, 2011

I'll check that out Frankie, and the other suggestions you gave me, when I have some time.

Lupe Fiasco on Building 7, 911 truth and New World Order