Banking Globalization: Russia, Greece, Chile, and the Narcissism of the Harvard Debt Lords

27 posts / 0 new
Last post
strabes's picture
strabes
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 7 2009
Posts: 1032
Banking Globalization: Russia, Greece, Chile, and the Narcissism of the Harvard Debt Lords

thought you might find this article interesting.  solutions at the bottom.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/20908

 

The Need to Fix Debt-Based Currencies and Stop Banking Globalization

Russia, Greece, Chile, and the Narcissism of Harvard Debt Lords

 

imageToday marks the beginning of a new administration in Chile as Harvard economist and billionaire Sebastián Piñera eked out a narrow victory in January.  Interestingly this is related to the rest of the world as we also see today Greek police, dressed in the Darth Vader costumes used in every country, cracking down hard on their poor countrymen.  They have been robbed by the elite financier/politician tag-teams that roam the world attacking whichever country and currency they choose. 

Since almost every currency is just a debt-based instrument, the tag-teams are quite successful.  Despite the claims of neoclassical economics and the theories of Harvard Business School, having a debt-based currency means that governments are not in charge of their countries.  We are living in a world governed by the bond market, billionaires, and elite financial institutions, not governments.  The future is grim if this isn’t changed.

People who dismiss this will learn the painful lesson in due course.  Most countries, especially the United States, are now stuck under incomprehensible levels of debt just waiting for financiers to attack.  National foreclosure is coming.  Those who paid attention when it happened to southeast Asian countries, Russia, Argentina, Mexico, and others know what is coming.  People who are paying attention now to Greece can see what is coming—the end of cash transactions, the loss of sovereign land, the privatization of resources, massive taxation, the end of support for the lower classes, and an active police state. 

Plutocracy: Government by the Wealthy Few

The Greek protesters are chanting “no sacrifice for plutocracy” while being tear gassed and beaten.  It certainly isn’t the catchiest phrase I’ve ever heard, but it is precisely accurate.  The private sector rich rotate through the public sector so their nexus of power cannot be threatened.  The citizens of Iceland understood this and luckily took their power back by refusing to payoff the fraudulent loans of the foreign financiers.  Why has no other country done this?  Why have no US states, bankrupt for the same reason, done this?  In every situation other than Iceland, the politicians submit to the financiers, put their citizens in austerity, and sick the storm troopers on the poor like a pack of pit bulls. 
The reason they submit is primarily because mega banking institutions control money (see previous article on Wall Street http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/20368). 

But politicians also submit because they are willing accomplices.  They increase deficits and participate in the game that builds up the leverage in the first place, which makes a few people very rich. Then when debt deflation or a currency attack occurs, they continue playing the game.  We have seen this in the United States over the last several years as presidents let the near-billionaire Harvard boys Robert Rubin and Hank Paulson setup the game, not to mention the not as rich Ivy Leaguers like Larry Summers and Tim Geithner.  So far trillions have been stripped from the American people.  But we are only at half time.  You will know when the 2nd half has started when you look outside your front window and see the picture from Greece above.

The few politicians and financiers I am talking about have been playing this game together for a long time.  They are bred in a world separate from you and me.  They live in the same elite enclaves, attend the same private prep schools, go to the same Ivy League colleges, business schools, and law schools, and then spread out between New York and Washington DC to continue their self-serving partnership.  Again, I’m talking about a small group, not 95% of the graduates of these institutions. 

A useful indicator for whether someone is part of the select few or not is narcissism.  Are they ruthless overachievers for a paycheck?  Is class status important to them?  Do they have contempt for the average person?  Do they strive to become part of the oligarchic elite in clubs like the Council on Foreign Relations? The answer is yes to all of those questions for some very key names we have seen over the last several years:

Robert Rubin – CFR, Harvard, Goldman, Treasury, Citi
Hank Paulson – CFR, Harvard, Goldman, Treasury
Larry Summers – CFR, Harvard, Treasury, World Bank
Tim Geithner – CFR, Dartmouth, Treasury, Fed, IMF
Jamie Dimon – CFR, Harvard, Chase, Fed

The list could go on for a while.  It includes both the private sector folks getting fabulously rich from our monetary, fiscal, and regulatory policy over the last 30 years, and the government officials who are making the policy.  In fact the officials making the policy ARE the rich private sector few who benefit from it—the definition of plutocracy and oligarchy.

You will not see people on this list who would be true public servants: 

Brooksley Born – tried to stop the Harvard boys under Clinton
William Black – defended the country in the S&L scandal
Janet Tavakoli – explains the public-private fraud better than almost anyone
Eliot Spitzer – could be the modern Teddy Roosevelt going after the plutocrats

People like this are capable of compassion and concern for fellow human beings.  They can see through Ivy League schmarm and are not controlled by a desire to be part of the inside clique.  They do not suffer from narcissism, which is easy to detect as you see them talk on TV (actually Spitzer is narcissistic, but he is the type that wants to fight the establishment narcissists, so he is a real public servant).  If these people ran Treasury, SEC, FDIC, Justice, and other regulatory agencies, we might have a country with a future for the average person.  Instead we only see the connected few in these positions. 

Harvard Economists, Debt Lords, and Billionaires in Government

In the US, the Harvard economists and billionaires who want to run things have to hide behind lawyers and corporate institutions or be appointed to unelected positions like Treasury Secretary because our citizens would never vote for them.  But something has changed in Chile where for decades they voted for public servants who have worked to eliminate poverty but have now put a Harvard economist and billionaire in office. 

How did Sebastián Piñera become a billionaire?  The same way the most powerful people in the world make money—by using debt to suck wealth from the population creating all the value.  He founded credit card company Bancard and helped put the Chilean people in debt to the Anglo banking model.  Will someone like this serve the public interest?

Well, here’s a scary thought experiment:  would Jamie Dimon, CEO of the biggest debt machine in the US and insider on the NY Federal Reserve Board, be a president who cares about you?  Any narcissist who can lecture lower class Americans to pay their debts, the source of his wealth, while his firm is in the process of tripling credit card rates and kicking them out of their homes has no business coming anywhere close to the public sector.  This is the type of guy who now runs Chile.  Of course with Rubin, Paulson, and their protégé Geithner in Treasury, this is also the type of guy who has run the US for several years.

As a fellow Harvard Business School alum, guys like Jamie Dimon and Hank Paulson embarrass and disgust me by furthering the financial empire system beyond reasonable means to keep lining their wallets while impoverishing the American Republic and conquering other nations.  There are more just like them in the select club.  But even worse than these MBAs chasing paychecks is the Harvard economist Larry Summers who creates the economic structure within which the MBAs operate.  He tore down Glass-Steagall and led the free market jihad against any and all regulation in derivatives, which setup the Wall Street structure that brought us to the crash of 2008.  He and his colleague Andrei Shleifer tried to privatize Russia in 1998 and hand it over to the wealthy oligarchs, while Shleifer was personally profiting from insider trades on Russian companies.  Then while he was president of the institution, he had Harvard pay the legal settlement for Shleifer, infuriating other Harvard professors.  Summers also helped put Mexico in debt and reinforce the plutocratic regime there in the peso crisis of 1994. 

These people need to be stopped.  It should be clear by now that Harvard MBAs voraciously pursuing paychecks running mega financial institutions, after Harvard economists have rigged the regulatory system, can do a lot of damage.  The citizens of Iceland have realized this and set the example.  If other countries fail to follow, their populations face a future clash with their police just as Greece is experiencing today.  Why the police agree to make war against their own people in order to protect rich guys is a topic for another article, but it could all be avoided if countries would just reassert their sovereignty. 

  • Start phasing out debt-based currencies by creating sovereign ones that are an asset to the people.  Pass usury laws at the same time to prevent banks from jacking up rates to suck up this extra money and creating a financial catastrophe.
  • Put people like Born, Black, Tavakoli, and Spitzer in charge.
  • Breakup the Wall Street banks.  Also end their cartel by nationalizing the Federal Reserve, thereby passing power back to the states and state-chartered banks.
  • Push your state governments to spend asset money into the system (see the Minnesota Transportation Act).  California and Illinois are about to be pushed into Greece’s foreclosure situation.  It does not need to happen if only the governments would do their constitutional duty.
goes211's picture
goes211
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 18 2008
Posts: 1114
Re: Banking Globalization: Russia, Greece, Chile, and the ...

Another great article.  Is this going to be a regular gig?

DrKrbyLuv's picture
DrKrbyLuv
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 1995
Re: Banking Globalization: Russia, Greece, Chile, and the ...

Kudos on another great article strabes!  Again, your article was instantly scooped by "InfoWars" and placed as a "featured story." 

I can't help but think that Larry Summers must be very unpopular at Harvard as he stole a lot of their money - "Summers Ignored Warnings About Harvard Investments, $1.8 Billion Disappeared."  You correctly mentioned in your article that Summers is CFR.  He is also a Trilateral and a Bilderberger.  

Will you be seen as a traitor to your old chums at Harvard or a needed reformer?

Larry

(not Larry Summers Surprised)

Dogs_In_A_Pile's picture
Dogs_In_A_Pile
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 4 2009
Posts: 2606
Re: Banking Globalization: Russia, Greece, Chile, and the ...

Larry (The "Steelers" Guy, not Summers) -

It would seem as if more and more dominoes are beginning to get wobbly.  How much longer before the sheer weight of the "system" causes its collapse?

Slowly but surely the word is getting out.  As more people "get it" they will be lining up with sledgehammers to take swings at the remaining keystones.

 

strabes's picture
strabes
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 7 2009
Posts: 1032
Re: Banking Globalization: Russia, Greece, Chile, and the ...

goes, my regular gig for now will be on CFP, Economic Edge, and SwarmUSA.  I'll repost here if people want me to.  So far I haven't decided if I want to do my own site, pursue a more established position in the media, or whatever.

Larry, with this type of article I'm pretty much a traitor to the harvard types, but one of Jamie Dimon's classmates told me he completely agrees with it and hopes I write more (he verified his personality type for me).  If I were writing a purely technical, mathematical piece on the need to revisit debt-based money, some would be open to considering it as necessary reform.  But most elite MBAs have never thought about the money system and aren't interested (why would they bother? they benefit from it) as I never did until stumbling on sites like this one after the crash.

A classmate told me this article is nothing but "discredited foamy venting."  Wow.  The defensiveness is to be expected, but I'm shocked that people can't see what has happened to Greece, Iceland, Russia, and is going to happen to us if we do nothing.  I admit I don't pull any punches in this article, but that's on purpose.  I'm sick of seeing people "foamy venting" at politicians.  My goal is to shift some of that energy toward the people who have the real power in this situation.  I think we waste all our energy yelling about left vs. right when they're almost irrelevant.

Dogs, I think you're right!  Spitzer is talking with Black.  Elizabeth Warren is speaking out.  Tavakoli is out there.  There seems to be a new level of awareness among people in general.  I just hope people don't stir up something that shuts down the Fed and the banks before we have a solution.  That's why I'm a fan of Nate's Freedom's Vision at swarmusa.org.  The plan is pretty simple, but it gives us a solution instead of just tearing things down. 

land2341's picture
land2341
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 20 2009
Posts: 402
Re: Banking Globalization: Russia, Greece, Chile, and the ...

Just don't forget to focus on the fact that the "Harvard school" MBAs get most of their economic theory from the Chicago school (MIlton Friedman) school of capitalism.  The best term I ever heard used for this was "ruthless capitalism".    None of Harvard's worst transgressions would have occurred without Friedman, and Nash's game theory.

goes211's picture
goes211
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 18 2008
Posts: 1114
Re: Banking Globalization: Russia, Greece, Chile, and the ...
land2341 wrote:

Just don't forget to focus on the fact that the "Harvard school" MBAs get most of their economic theory from the Chicago school (MIlton Friedman) school of capitalism.  The best term I ever heard used for this was "ruthless capitalism".    None of Harvard's worst transgressions would have occurred without Friedman, and Nash's game theory.

I am sorry but "ruthless capitalism" is not offensive to me because companies would still have to compete for my business and if I did not like a companies actions, I could always buy products from a competitor.  What is completely offensive to me is the crony capitalism of system insiders and government bailouts which  we live under today.

strabes's picture
strabes
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 7 2009
Posts: 1032
Re: Banking Globalization: Russia, Greece, Chile, and the ...
Quote:

I am sorry but "ruthless capitalism" is not offensive to me because companies would still have to compete for my business and if I did not like a companies actions, I could always buy products from a competitor

So let's take this beyond theory and make it real:  because 2 different oil companies, or 2 different Wall St banks, or whatever compete for your money and you get to choose which one to use, they can destroy South American countries and indigenous people to take their land and resources, corrupt/assassinate their leaders, etc? 

Seems to me people can only make the types of statements above because they are based in the abstract world of economic ideology, which has become a faith-based religious justification for actions that violate the core of a loving life.  I used to believe in this religion...I was one of the most vocal advocates.  I used to justify immorality because it "adds value."  I couldn't see the fraud, the lie.  But once I was exposed to the top echelons of the corporate world, I had to accept reality.  There are a lot of sick, disturbed people there and a lot of mindless, ruthless minions working for them...the types who can't be bothered by something like the 3 E's because they're too busy reaping the profits.  Interesting that they are the types of humans rewarded by the system.  It's an indicator of the character of the system itself...one can't ignore that.  None of the great leaders/philosophers that get admired over time could ever get those jobs precisely because they aren't ruthless, narcissistic types who only see money instead of seeing people.  In the short term, Donald Trump can be admired because he has a gold penthouse because he ruthlessly exploits the exponential debt system for his personal gain.  But in the long term, people see through it and know he's just an insecure kid still trying to please daddy, and names like Jesus, Buddha, Gandhi, MLK, etc are the ones people know are worth following.

 

 

Dogs_In_A_Pile's picture
Dogs_In_A_Pile
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 4 2009
Posts: 2606
Re: Banking Globalization: Russia, Greece, Chile, and the ...

Damon -

Well said and some great points. 

Are there no companies/corporations that "add value" and are moral?  I ask because none readily come to mind.

V's picture
V
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 14 2009
Posts: 849
Re: Banking Globalization: Russia, Greece, Chile, and the ...

Strabes

Sounds like the military industrial complex and our ? government ....................mindless ruthless minions

V

goes211's picture
goes211
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 18 2008
Posts: 1114
Re: Banking Globalization: Russia, Greece, Chile, and the ...
strabes wrote:
Quote:

I am sorry but "ruthless capitalism" is not offensive to me because companies would still have to compete for my business and if I did not like a companies actions, I could always buy products from a competitor

So let's take this beyond theory and make it real:  because 2 different oil companies, or 2 different Wall St banks, or whatever compete for your money and you get to choose which one to use, they can destroy South American countries and indigenous people to take their land and resources, corrupt/assassinate their leaders, etc? 

Seems to me people can only make the types of statements above because they are based in the abstract world of economic ideology, which has become a faith-based religious justification for actions that violate the core of a loving life.  I used to believe in this religion...I was one of the most vocal advocates.  I used to justify immorality because it "adds value."  I couldn't see the fraud, the lie.  But once I was exposed to the top echelons of the corporate world, I had to accept reality.  There are a lot of sick, disturbed people there and a lot of mindless, ruthless minions working for them...the types who can't be bothered by something like the 3 E's because they're too busy reaping the profits.  Interesting that they are the types of humans rewarded by the system.  It's an indicator of the character of the system itself...one can't ignore that.  None of the great leaders/philosophers that get admired over time could ever get those jobs precisely because they aren't ruthless, narcissistic types who only see money instead of seeing people.  In the short term, Donald Trump can be admired because he has a gold penthouse because he ruthlessly exploits the exponential debt system for his personal gain.  But in the long term, people see through it and know he's just an insecure kid still trying to please daddy, and names like Jesus, Buddha, Gandhi, MLK, etc are the ones people know are worth following.

Hold your horses. Maybe I made a mistake jumping to a conclusion about what land2341 mean't by "ruthless capitalism" but I think you may be making a similar mistake about my beliefs.

I certainly don't admire Donald Trump or his ilk that get rich by gaming the current system.

I also don't think a system "can destroy South American countries and indigenous people to take their land and resources, corrupt/assassinate their leaders" without being crony capitalism which I detest.  In the proper capitalist system which I would advocate, individuals would have rights (even indigenous people) and clearly any bribery or murder would be illegal and punished.  Corporations would need to pay for all the externalities (like pollution) that they push out on the system and should compensate the local population for resources that they extract. 

Once criteria like these are met, I believe competition (possibly even ruthless depending upon your definition) is good and in the long run we will all be better for this competition.  The trick is finding a way to keep corporations from pushing externalities out onto the general population which if allowed, I agree that they most certainly will do.  They certainly will try and capture government which is the essence of crony capitalism.  However, I also think that corporation may sometimes choose not to be so ruthless because they care about their image.  Being precieved as a good "corporate citizen" ( hate that term ) can be good for their PR and bottom line.

Maybe you disagree or at least believe this to be unrealistic?

PS.  I admit that I am still very much part of the system that you have left and therefore may still have ideological blinders on.  I am still trying to reconcile some of my core beliefs but it is very difficult to do while still inside the system with no easy way out.  Fully swallowing the red pill is not easy when you are married with children in the suburbs.

strabes's picture
strabes
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 7 2009
Posts: 1032
Re: Banking Globalization: Russia, Greece, Chile, and the ...

Dogs, I no longer think so.  I think our corporate model is fundamentally flawed.  I don't know how to call a corporation moral given what we know about the 3 E's.  They are extensions of the monetary system, so every corporation fuels it regardless of whether the people in them are moral.  I guess I need to step back a bit from what I said above because even though there are a lot of sick, ruthless people, there are tons of companies who claim to be moral stewards.  I was in the ruthless industries (Wall St, Silicon Valley).  A lower growth company in the midwest like Deere likes to claim it's different.  But because it's based on the exponential model, is run by Wall St, has no real local connection, fuels the destruction of local farming, etc I think it's just as bad as the companies filled with ruthless people.  Plus, if Wall St would ever become unhappy with its performance, the board would replace the "moral" CEO with a ruthless turnaround artist who would hire McKinsey/Accenture/etc to come in and fire everybody with a conscience to jack up EPS.  So I gotta say, as "commie" as it sounds, I no longer support the corporate model at all and consider the entire system immoral. This is different from a privately owned local company or a Main St business.  Many of them were corrupt too, but at least they weren't on the exponential machine that required them to be...they had a chance to be "good." 

Goes, sorry, I was using your post as an opportunity to attack the religion and the priests from Chicago/Harvard.  Wasn't meaning to attack you and I didn't mean to suggest you personally admire Trump or agree with what companies like Chase have done in places like Argentina.  You're right that stuff requires crony capitalism and a true rule of law and property rights for everyone would eliminate it.  But as long as the system is built on exponential growth, it is guaranteed to bump up against those rule of law growth limits and then work endlessly to eliminate them, i.e. takeover the govt so they can grow as much as they want. 

I don't think I agree anymore that ruthlessness can be good.  That personality type is harmful.  I don't think a system that rewards the most ruthless can be a good system.  Ruthlessness dehumanizes people, violates nature, community, whatever, which in my mind is the definition of immorality.  [my guess is a lot of people disagree with this paragraph]  Laughing

Based on what I said above about the Deere example, I don't think a good corporate citizen is possible when it really comes down to the nitty gritty...in the long run all companies must eventually become ruthless because Wall St will force them to.

I hear ya on being stuck in the system.  I don't really know how to engage this topic in a way that honors the people involved and shows compassion for the fact that we're all hostage to the system, while at the same time attacking the system.  One of my best friends says this everytime I talk to him..."I agree with you but what can I do Damon? I got 4 kids and we're adopting another...what option do I have?"  I feel this same predicament when I critique our foreign/military policy...on the one hand I feel intense compassion for the soldiers, but an equally intense need to oppose the strategic policy and overall system and those can't totally be separated. 

I sometimes wish I was in your position...still participating in the system to a degree.  It's tough being a total exile if others don't exile themselves and join you, or can't join you. 

 

goes211's picture
goes211
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 18 2008
Posts: 1114
Re: Banking Globalization: Russia, Greece, Chile, and the ...
strabes wrote:

I don't think I agree anymore that ruthlessness can be good.  That personality type is harmful.  I don't think a system that rewards the most ruthless can be a good system.  Ruthlessness dehumanizes people, violates nature, community, whatever, which in my mind is the definition of immorality.  [my guess is a lot of people disagree with this paragraph]  Laughing

Based on what I said above about the Deere example, I don't think a good corporate citizen is possible when it really comes down to the nitty gritty...in the long run all companies must eventually become ruthless because Wall St will force them to.

If the system is structured properly I think even ruthless corporations may have benefits.  If pharmaceutical corporations are all trying to create a drug to cure cancer, it might seem ruthless from the outside but the end result might be an improved society.  The same could be said of corporations working on alternative energy generation, energy storage, transportation, technology,...  Corporations could end up being very much like firearms in that they can have both positive and negative effects on society.  However I do agree that until we find a way to force corporations to capture and pay for their externalities, their societial benefits will be limited.  Whether or not this is all caused by Wall St's exponential debt machine, I can not say.

strabes wrote:

I sometimes wish I was in your position...still participating in the system to a degree.  It's tough being a total exile if others don't exile themselves and join you, or can't join you. 

It will all depend upon how the final collapse happens.  If it is a long slow decline, staying within the system and extracting as much value as you can will be a good strategy.  If the collapse is sudden and causes serious disruptions with utilities (especially water but also electricity and sewer), being stuck in the suburbs may be a fatal mistake.

strabes's picture
strabes
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 7 2009
Posts: 1032
Re: Banking Globalization: Russia, Greece, Chile, and the ...
Quote:

If pharmaceutical corporations are all trying to create a drug to cure cancer, it might seem ruthless from the outside but the end result might be an improved society

but that's not really what they "try" to do.  they exist not to cure cancer but to meet Wall St exponential growth targets.  that's their only purpose...that's what they try to do.  that's what motivates the individuals inside as well...quarterly/annual paychecks and bonuses for meeting Wall St targets.  how they reach those targets is a secondary effect.  if they can do it by curing cancer, cool.  if they can't, they find other ways, like putting bacteria feces called aspartame in food and drinks.  either way, they're happy, they met Wall St EPS targets.  or if that doesn't work, they get the govt to legislate mandatory vaccinations.  or whatever.  the point is that they inherently amoral (as opposed to immoral) and non-relational structures pursuing monetary goals regardless of the costs on humanity, community, the constitutional republic, etc.

 

MarkM's picture
MarkM
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 22 2008
Posts: 855
Re: Banking Globalization: Russia, Greece, Chile, and the ...

strabes,

I don't mean to hijack your banking globalization thread.  However, this seems to fit in with the turn the conversation has taken.

"Obama Gives Key Agriculture Post to Monsanto Man"

"Today, President Obama announced that he will recess appoint Islam A. Siddiqui to the position of Chief Agricultural Negotiator, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.

Siddiqui is a pesticide lobbyist and Vice President for Science and Regulatory Affairs at CropLife America, an agribusiness lobbying group that represents Monsanto."

 

One more lobbyist  in a "no lobbyist Whitehouse".

 

 

 

DrKrbyLuv's picture
DrKrbyLuv
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 1995
Re: Banking Globalization: Russia, Greece, Chile, and the ...

In many respects, capitalism is the most fair system as it rewards producers and encourages innovation.  The problem is monopoly capitalism and cartels which are more accurately called fascism.  Monopoly capitalism seeks to eliminate competition by rigging the deck. 

The international banking cartel is the quintessential monopoly and at the root of most cartels.  The banks hold a monopoly to create money for free.  They use it to build cartels in every sector.  Politicians are bribed to create laws and regulations to benefit the cartels.

Capitalism needs competition and a level playing field - which is exactly what monopoly capitalists don't want.  Our system is fascist and soon it will go one step further towards feudalism.

Larry

 

plato1965's picture
plato1965
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 18 2009
Posts: 615
Re: Banking Globalization: Russia, Greece, Chile, and the ...

 

 If pharmaceutical corporations are all trying to create a drug to cure cancer, it might seem ruthless from the outside but the end result might be an improved society.

 They have created endless drugs to "treat" cancer... the incentives are to maximise cashflow remember.. not give away the store.  A strictly rational and ruthless industry would consolidate into an oligopoly and supress anything which would threaten that model..  -  see: "A world without Cancer" by Ed Griffin..  (of Jekyll Island fame..)

   A few years ago, the most profitable drug on the planet was Glaxo's Zantac.. ulcer _treatment_ ...  It took an independent outsider to actually find the cause and a cure.. shortly before the patent expired.

 So I think I'm with strabes.. psychopath (pure profit, no personal liability) corporations are almost always evil in the broader sense..

 

 

goes211's picture
goes211
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 18 2008
Posts: 1114
Re: Banking Globalization: Russia, Greece, Chile, and the ...

I certainly don't want to be considered a defender of the status quo but I guess I'll play a little devils advocate.  How would the world be different if there were no corporations?  What sort of transportation and industry would there be?  Do you think we would have had a space program or high tech industry?  What would the average lifespan be and what would the total population be?  I submit that the world would be a significantly different place but I don't know if that place would be better or worse.

Another thought that some may have is that maybe corporations did serve a purpose in the past but we are now more enlightend and we can do without them.  I am not sure that I buy that argument but it is at least worth considering.  It is hard to reconcile where our finite world will actually meet exponential growth, especially when there are some really smart people like Ray Kurzweil that believe our technological growth can also remain exponential.

I think it is really easy to criticize corporations for their actions in the post WW2 era and banks since the creation of the FED, because since that time they have effectively captured our government and completely distorted what little control the average person had over the system.

Unfortunately it is going to be very hard to regain that control and I don't see it happening short of a systematic collapse.  Even then there are no guarantees that the new system would be 1/2 as good as our original constitutional system.  I guess we better hope for the best and plan for the worst.

Carl Veritas's picture
Carl Veritas
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 23 2008
Posts: 294
Re: Banking Globalization: Russia, Greece, Chile, and the ...

 I don't care what the politicians parade in public,  As long as bank shareholders  can pocket  profits and  does not suffer "business failure",   there will be no reform anywhere.

Stoaty's picture
Stoaty
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 26 2010
Posts: 5
Re: Banking Globalization: Russia, Greece, Chile, and the ...

Conspiracy theories about suppressing effective cancer treatments don't give Griffin any credibility.

strabes's picture
strabes
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 7 2009
Posts: 1032
Re: Banking Globalization: Russia, Greece, Chile, and the ...

Goes, those are thought provoking questions...just to play devil's advocate with your devil's advocacy...

Quote:

How would the world be different if there were no corporations?

Perhaps more human.  Perhaps less "advancement."  Perhaps less material abundance.  Don't know.  No doubt we would've had another model to promote development. 

Quote:

What sort of transportation and industry would there be?

Again not sure, but is there embedded in this question an assumption that these are tied to the purpose of life or essential to making it better?

Quote:

Do you think we would have had a space program or high tech industry?

Besides a grid of military satellites for war and global control, what lasting benefits has the space program produced?  High tech is a mixed bag.  We get efficiencies, but that's just furthering exponential growth, allowing offshoring/outsourcing to destroy our mfg base, eliminating need for humans in many lines of work so they are now "surplus" and since econ growth is now stopping, that surplus will have nothing else to do.  It's also produced a bunch of teenagers and 20 somethings with 2 second attention spans addicted to gadgets and disconnected from family/community. 

Quote:

What would the average lifespan be and what would the total population be?

Not sure but I don't really view these as useful indicators of a meaningful life.  We've extended life by storing the elderly in nursing homes so they don't get in the way of our working and shopping, but I don't think that's good. 

Quote:

there are some really smart people like Ray Kurzweil that believe our technological growth can also remain exponential.

He's the expert and I'm sure he's right tech growth can remain exponential, but I don't think that means 3E type growth can (or should) remain exponential.  He's also the guy pushing robotic transhumanism and suggesting we may approach the ability to technologically create immortality.  Is this the type of stuff exponential tech growth will produce?  Glad I won't be here to see it 50 years from now.  He's brilliant.  But brilliance unchecked by morality/spirituality/philosophy is freakish.

 

plato1965's picture
plato1965
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 18 2009
Posts: 615
Re: Banking Globalization: Russia, Greece, Chile, and the ...

 Conspiracy theories about suppressing effective cancer treatments don't give Griffin any credibility.

 True. Maybe Griffin has that Martin Luther thing... "Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me." , maybe he's swallowed a bad red pill.. let's put that aside for a second..

 Anyway, let's dig a little deeper into the words: Conspire (breathe together) and Corporation (body ?).

 Does an entity like GSK have an aim ? Sure.. maximising shareholder value, the best revenue stream possible, by fair means or otherwise.

 Would a disease free population be helpful to that aim ? No. Would simple cheap cures maximise revenue ? No.

 Would addictive treatments, iatrogenic side effects help ? Possibly, if they increase demand for more product..

 

 

 Wil this aim conflict with the greater good of society ? I think so.. if focussed purely on income rather than on say "providing maximum benefit/health/utility to the public", remember the "No man can serve two masters" line..

 So you have a group, chartered to work in it's own interest, with limited personal liability for it's members...  not forgetting the secrecy element.. commercial secrecy, marketing/strategic secrecy etc..

  IMHO a Corporation is a "Conspiracy" almost by definition,  so let's just call it  "Corporation theory" ... and try to seperate the good theories from the bad..

 

 The subtle way to get people to do evil is to narrow focus, to concentrate on some subsidiary or local good and avoid looking at the larger picture. (cf: Bastiat's broken window - the seen good, and the unseen harm...)

 Narrow targets and focus are always dangerous, in medicine, education, and in life... aiming purely for profit doesn't explicity appear harmful, but implicity does since it intentionally ignores everything else.

 

goes211's picture
goes211
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 18 2008
Posts: 1114
Re: Banking Globalization: Russia, Greece, Chile, and the ...
strabes wrote:

Goes, those are thought provoking questions...just to play devil's advocate with your devil's advocacy...

stabes,

Very cool answer.  That was not at all the response I was expecting to get.  Most people are incapable of thinking about the real ramifications of this sort of change because they believe that you can remove the negatives and keep many of the positives. For example, I think there are a lot of G8 anti-corporate types that think they would still be driving around in a Prius and taking the dog to a Vet with an MRI machine.  Seems silly to me.

You have truly taken the red pill and are willing advocate a position that might have removed some of our technological progress, and instead promoted more important spiritual and community aspects of life.  I find that very admirable.

It's funny, my mom grew up on a farm in Iowa at the end of the great depression.  When I was growing up we would go visit her familya and I aways kind of looked down on small town america.  Now that I am lost in the suburbs with a family, having spent most of my life living in suburban areas of Chicago and NYC, and spending a fair bit of time in London and Frankfurt, I can now see the appeal of that lifestyle.

strabes wrote:

Glad I won't be here to see it 50 years from now.  He's brilliant.  But brilliance unchecked by morality/spirituality/philosophy is freakish.

I absolutely agree.  Here is a brilliant man, that has invented many things and made the world a different place, and yet he is so worried about death that he is truly trying to live forever.  I find that to be both sad and creepy.  It is far more important to live a short meaningful life than a long meaningless one.  Now how to find that meaningful life is the real question...

Stoaty's picture
Stoaty
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 26 2010
Posts: 5
Re: Banking Globalization: Russia, Greece, Chile, and the ...

> Would a disease free population be helpful to that aim ? No. Would simple cheap cures maximise revenue ? No.

While you may very well be correct in your analysis regarding corporations with a profit motive, I don't think the same is true for individual physicians at major universities who do research, or the National Institutes of Health.  One would have to posit a worldwide conspiracy to suppress information, which is something that Griffin and his ilk may find plausibile--but I don't.

land2341's picture
land2341
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 20 2009
Posts: 402
Re: Banking Globalization: Russia, Greece, Chile, and the ...

In this lively discussion still remains what seems to be the hole in understanding from whence came the ruthlessness that changed what corporations became.  Non-cooperative game theory as predicated by a paranoid schizophrenic who never intended that it become economic let alone social policy  became an overlying ethos.  Non-cooperative game theory - other wise called by its inventor "F-you buddy."

Adam Smith, Horatio Alger, John Nash, and Milton Friedman  the architects of our long term instability.

whitX's picture
whitX
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: May 1 2010
Posts: 1
Re: Banking Globalization: Russia, Greece, Chile, and the ...

Well Greece is now in trouble for it's finances are not doing good this time affecting the whole Europe. The unemployment rate is advancing daily that leads to the Greek Government to lose more money each day. The Greece debt  is the reason why they won't be able to repay an 8.5 billion-euro debt that doubles in less than a month. They have to deal with dept repair but that could drag down the entire value of the euro. The Greek Finance Minister insists the debt will surely be repaid, but we will see.

sjmvideo's picture
sjmvideo
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 2 2010
Posts: 34
Re: Banking Globalization: Russia, Greece, Chile, and the ...
land2341 wrote:

In this lively discussion still remains what seems to be the hole in understanding from whence came the ruthlessness that changed what corporations became.  

Some recent (last year) presentations by Bernard Lietaer point out current theories about sustainability applied to monetary policy that I believe give a good explanation for the behavior of corporations. Sustainability of any system, ecosystem, money system, power system depends upon a balance of 1) efficiency and 2) resiliency.

I put together my simple explanation of corporate behavior based on 2 assertions.

  1. The structure of a system determines it's behavior and that of others interacting with it. (e.g. People walk through the doorways of a building, not through the walls)
  2. Our money system (central bank controlled) is designed for efficiency.

Any entity operating inside of a money system that compels efficiency will be pushed to place efficiency above all else. No matter what an individual's moral standards as an individual, participation in this system will undermine those morals. They will either give into the system or do their best to cope with the moral dissonance.

A person is a system, inside a corporate system, inside a monetary system designed for efficiency. Sustainable (rational, compassionate, and even sensible) decisions are difficult inside of this structure. It's not psychological. It is structural, the way it was designed intentional or not. Trying to understand the issue from a psychological perspective makes as much sense as arguing with a door for opening in the wrong direction because the hinges are on a particular edge.

-Steven

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments