greyghost Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 ^right,,, correlation is hardly causation,,if we are analyzing scientifically,,, i just wrote this in a pm, but i thought id post it here in case someone is triggered w/ some moar thoughts, thinkin, etc.,, ------ yah, i see what u are saying. i guess i was referring more towards network/system behavior as such. i am certain there is no real 'center' accumulation of 'power'. i just wrote my thought too fast lol. if anything, capitalism (de)codes and (de)centralizes power at a frighteniing rate...if the 'center' is anything, then it is just connection & movement between, in which you are correct, any attempt to 'capture' it or analyze it @specific points, is to make a static assessment(of) dynamic change, etc. in fact, that assessment/observation itself transforms the system simultaneously Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 This is a wild statement to make. Can you demonstrate this point? There is nothing in the article, to my recollection, that says corporations conspire, simply that there are major nodes in a network analysis. In fact, even these nodes are in no sense proof of major power conglomerates as there connectivity proves nothing other than that they draw resources from a wide pool. Pension funds and other similar major financial organisations are likely to be recognised as such nodes as they invest widely with a large and diverse composition of shareholders. Shareholders of a pension fund can hardly be described as running the world. They probably have little understanding of what their money is even doing within this organisation. Like KMART pointed out before, these nodes are not necessarily any proof of a vast concentration of wealth and power. They are perhaps a starting point for further research but nothing more. I don't really think it needs much explaining. The top 50 companies in th world will hold a lot more power than the others, whether this is financially or through having the ability to force their agenda i.e lobbyists. It may not say it in the article but big companies do work together, I have worked for massive companies before and everyone pretty much knows everyone at the upper levels of the people running the companies, to think these people do not talk is naive in my opinion. Market trends etc some companies get done for price fixing how is that done without them discussing it? It isn't a conspiracy it is just life and how businesses work. Shareholders of companies or pension schemes have no power because they have very little say, they do not guide the direction of the company nor dictate it's policy. I wasn't commenting so much on the article because to be honest I just breezed through it because I'm tired, more that large corporations run this world, which is pretty much seen everywhere else like the top how ever many percent of America holding like 90% of the wealth etc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christo-f Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 I've been wanting to respond to a bunch of things in this thread but haven't had the time. On my phone atm and I really need to sleep. Things would be much easier if we were all sitting around a table at the pub. Absolutely, typing sucks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
???Authority??? Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 Cons & Piracies run the world, enough said. Make the best of this life, cause it wasn't put here for sill PP games. Points and Power are for the insane. Sadly I've got to live in my sanity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrankieFiver5000 Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 I don't really think it needs much explaining. The top 50 companies in th world will hold a lot more power than the others, whether this is financially or through having the ability to force their agenda i.e lobbyists. It may not say it in the article but big companies do work together, I have worked for massive companies before and everyone pretty much knows everyone at the upper levels of the people running the companies, to think these people do not talk is naive in my opinion. Market trends etc some companies get done for price fixing how is that done without them discussing it? It isn't a conspiracy it is just life and how businesses work. Shareholders of companies or pension schemes have no power because they have very little say, they do not guide the direction of the company nor dictate it's policy. I wasn't commenting so much on the article because to be honest I just breezed through it because I'm tired, more that large corporations run this world, which is pretty much seen everywhere else like the top how ever many percent of America holding like 90% of the wealth etc I have no doubt that there is collusion occurring between firms at any given time, but what you are suggesting is that collusion is stable which I vehemently disagree with. The best chance that big business has to collude is where government aids in the process by cartelising an industry though law and regulation, which restricts further entrants. In absence of this occurring, even where all the actors within a particular industry manage to collude and fix monopoly prices for a service, the profit margin they manage to achieve operates as an alarm signalling to other firms who might wish enter the market and undercut the cartels price. Thus capturing a share of the market and destabilising the cartel. To say that corps have the money to lobby governments is true, they can influence legislation this way far more than you or I. However, this assessment infers that poor government actors, who are simply trying to do the right thing, are helpless to the shady corporate advances. This is nonsense. Governments gain from the process, hence why they allow it to happen. In fact, while corporate lobbying is of a different magnitude it is hardly different from you or I, or some special interest group, asking for one type of government privilege or another. While there is an obvious power indifference between the lobbying parties, both of these examples rely on the complicity of the government actor. Hence it would be absurd to treat their part in the process as benign. Regardless, if you are saying that these various corporations run the world I suggest that it is your responsibility to demonstrate who, exactly, holds this power. If it is not shareholders, then is it CEO's? No doubt they remunerate themselves generously for their work, but they are ultimately beholden to the shareholders they represent. They are essentially custodians for the investment money of, perhaps themselves, yet for the most part others. So how is it that they run the world? Particularly given they are state chartered organisations, legal entities, that have no coercive power of their own. This is something that they rely entirely on governments to lend. Corporations are powerful entities, no doubt, but to say they run the world is way off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrankieFiver5000 Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 You know what? Lets keep this really simple; when was the last time McDonalds launched an air-strike on a state it didn't like? Or even, when was the last time Nike made a law stating that people could only buy their shoes or face coercive penalty? I'm really no corporate apologist, but the comparison is beyond ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 tbh I really dont care, companies are funding militias in Africa so they have access to the mines and the materials used in a lot of electronics. They may not run the world but they certainly have a big say in it, the CEOs etc are so closely linked to memebers of government or are also in government. Companies may not fire air strikes but they do a lot more ddamage from behind the scenes (like the mine scenarios in congo). I dont see governemnt being any better but best believe comapnies have a lot of blood on their hands also. But for the sake of the thread the world is run by wealthy and powerful individuals, whether they are in government or big business., shareholders have fuck all say in what goes on in running a business. to think they do is frankly laughable, just as much as the people tat vote in the politicians have fuck all say in what they do as well Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILOTSMYBRAIN Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 no I said I dont believe in conspiracies What is the conspiracy? I am not talking about any conspiracy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrankieFiver5000 Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 (1)[/color] They may not run the world but they certainly have a big say in it, the CEOs etc are so closely linked to memebers of government or are also in government. Companies may not fire air strikes but they do a lot more ddamage from behind the scenes (like the mine scenarios in congo). (2) I dont see governemnt being any better but best believe comapnies have a lot of blood on their hands also. But for the sake of the thread the world is run by wealthy and powerful individuals, whether they are in government or big business. (3), shareholders have fuck all say in what goes on in running a business. to think they do is frankly laughable, just as much as the people tat vote in the politicians have fuck all say in what they do as well (4) (1)Sure, a couple of companies are funding militias in Africa, this hardly equates to running the world. This shit is bread and butter for governments. (2)So CEO's do more damage than air-strikes? Is that what you are saying? I doubt you could find enough corporation related deaths combined to match the death toll of the Iraq war alone. You could even include corporate OH&S related deaths if you liked to bolster the numbers. (3)The power of wealthy individuals pales in comparison to the coercive power and reach of most governments. Bill Gates might be one powerful motherfucker, but even compared to New Zealand he aint shit. Bill Gates doesn't have an army, or the power to enact laws over people. He couldn't even operate his business in the way he wanted to because it was argued he was 'too dominant' and was forced to buy a share of apple or break up his company in the late 90s. Try telling the US gov they are too dominant and need to break up their federation to allow greater global competition. (4)Ever read the business section of any major newspaper? On any given day you will find a number of articles discussing the outcomes of various shareholder votes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cuntflaps Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 (1)[/color]Sure, a couple of companies are funding militias in Africa, this hardly equates to running the world. This shit is bread and butter for governments. (2)So CEO's do more damage than air-strikes? Is that what you are saying? I doubt you could find enough corporation related deaths combined to match the death toll of the Iraq war alone. You could even include corporate OH&S related deaths if you liked to bolster the numbers. Might want to look into your statements a little more. Most major governments are listed on the stock exchange as corporate entities. War has always had a corporate agenda, war itself is a device to make money. CEO's run the major companies and make decisions that influence the average worker that accounts for at least 2 billion of the world population as the rest are in poverty or sub poverty. If you look at the companies behind the Iraq war and other conflicts in general like Haliburton & Lockheed Martin you perhaps may start to fathom how their actions have contributed significantly to the death toll. Unfortunately there is no such way to measure this. Did you know that Prescott Bush (George W. Bush's grandfather) and other directors of the Union Banking Company (UBC) were Nazi collaborators. The UBC, under Prescott Bush's direction and with the long-term cooperation of Fritz Thyssen's German Steel Trust participated in the emergence, preparation and financing of the Nazi war machine through the manufacture of armored vehicles, fighter planes, guns and explosives. The Bush family's habit of dominating territories and wealth is nothing new. Their fascist genes were generated during the 1930s. Therefore defining the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq and the threats to other countries as a continuance of blitzkreig offensives as fascist is no blunder. It's not conspiracy, it's fact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrankieFiver5000 Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 Might want to look into your statements a little more. Most major governments are listed on the stock exchange as corporate entities. War has always had a corporate agenda, war itself is a device to make money. CEO's run the major companies and make decisions that influence the average worker that accounts for at least 2 billion of the world population as the rest are in poverty or sub poverty. If you look at the companies behind the Iraq war and other conflicts in general like Haliburton & Lockheed Martin you perhaps may start to fathom how their actions have contributed significantly to the death toll. Unfortunately there is no such way to measure this. Did you know that Prescott Bush (George W. Bush's grandfather) and other directors of the Union Banking Company (UBC) were Nazi collaborators. The UBC, under Prescott Bush's direction and with the long-term cooperation of Fritz Thyssen's German Steel Trust participated in the emergence, preparation and financing of the Nazi war machine through the manufacture of armored vehicles, fighter planes, guns and explosives. The Bush family's habit of dominating territories and wealth is nothing new. Their fascist genes were generated during the 1930s. Therefore defining the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq and the threats to other countries as a continuance of blitzkreig offensives as fascist is no blunder. It's not conspiracy, it's fact. War has not always had a corporate agenda, war has been engaged in by states, militias, cheifs, etc for a long time before corporations have been around. Since when has making money been synonymous with a corporation? A corporation is a very specific thing. It is a legal entity, comprised of shareholders and a structure of governance, all backed by the power of nation states. What the fuck is limited liability other than the state lending its legislative power to business? The corporations you speak of are basically quasi-state institutions. Their role in modern US warfare is hardly sufficient evidence to declare all big business is running the world. Yes P. Bush was a fascist, so what? FDR pretty much was too. That whole era was dominated by fascism, eugenics and the like. It's inconsequential, like rewinding 150 years and pointing out that some historical figure was racist. They basically all were, its a moot point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zig Posted October 3, 2011 Author Share Posted October 3, 2011 I agree with frankie, it's definitely not stable collusion. In fact, many of these power structures and elites are often fighting amongst each other, but I do believe that the overall progression throughout history has been towards more centralized power in the hands of fewer and fewer elitist lineages / corporations / organizations etc. This has been carried out through collusion, conspiracy... you name it. That much is obvious, at least to me. The rest... is up in the air and only god knows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mojito Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeSent Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 Fuck'n White People... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zig Posted October 5, 2011 Author Share Posted October 5, 2011 I don't think the modern age has radically decentralized power at all... I think there was an attempt at decentralizing power during the foundation of American history but that was short lived and even the founding father's themselves knew the stability of the power-checking government they created would have to be maintained or it would eventually fall back into a tyranny. Benjamin Franklin, when asked what kind of government America was... a republic or a monarchy, replied "A Republic, if you can keep it." You want specific examples of how power is progressively centralized? Just look at the occupywallstreet grievances and how both parties in this country are bought and paid for with the illusion that there is a democracy and freedom of choice here in America. Then look at how the modern age has increasingly become globalized by the same institutions, corporations and power holders that control both of our American parties. I'd say the idealogies of radical decentralization are still in place, but is it working realistically? No. Power is centralized into fewer people's hands than ever before, and this was a progression through American history that took place from administration to administration over decades. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 I think it is funny because generally we are saying similar things from opposite spectrums, you have people calling corporations that are quasi-state entities (the people generally in favour of less government controls) and then people like myself who look at it the opposite way that business is too involved in government (making the peoples views not get portrayed as the politicians are in the pockets of the companies). Don't know why I thought to mention it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fist 666 Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 what good is voice without power? we don't run anything, excellent examples btw to reinforce the point. the current occupy movement is a great example of how little we run, yes we can influence each other by some medium or another, but no one who is marching or raising their voice has the actual authority to change any of this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zig Posted October 7, 2011 Author Share Posted October 7, 2011 Frankie I agree with you, but fist emphasizes points I would of made myself. I'm not saying we are completely powerless and there are absolutely no checks & balances in place... but you said so yourself that I'm speaking more so about US political power. I'm not even necessarily referring to the just the US alone, I'd say it's more nation state political power that is also bought and paid for since the people have no control over foreign policy and globalist policies. You make good points though, I definitely see where you're coming from and I don't disagree with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Citizen X Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 I do. I run the world. You know that eye on the dollar bill? That's my eye... also, that's my pyramid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ipod90 Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2011/full_list/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ipod90 Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uzzi 9mm Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McLovin Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 the holy bible says that satan the devil runs the world at-> 1 John 5:19. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephBruce Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 The Cult of David Icke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.