Capitalist network runs the world

P

pp0470

Guest
#1
New Scientist Magazine: Revealed

They believed that just 1318 'core' companies own 80% of global wealth.

Of the top 50 companies listed only 1 actually creates something - China Petrochemical Group Company. The other 49 are financial services groups.

When the team further untangled the web of ownership, it found much of it tracked back to a "super-entity" of 147 even more tightly knit companies - all of their ownership was held by other members of the super-entity - that controlled 40 per cent of the total wealth in the network. "In effect, less than 1 per cent of the companies were able to control 40 per cent of the entire network," says Glattfelder. Most were financial institutions. The top 20 included Barclays Bank, JPMorgan Chase & Co, and The Goldman Sachs Group
Is this what the Occupy movement is trying to highlight?

Don't really think there's a lot we can do about it, but europe could - let the PIGS countries go bankrupt and see how that upsets the apple cart. I think there would be much wailing and gnashing of teeth (in Wall St and the like).

Interesting times.

p.s.

One thing won't chime with some of the protesters' claims: the super-entity is unlikely to be the intentional result of a conspiracy to rule the world. "Such structures are common in nature,"
(but i still tink it's a conspiracy... ;))
 
#3
New Scientist Magazine: Revealed

They believed that just 1318 'core' companies own 80% of global wealth.

Of the top 50 companies listed only 1 actually creates something - China Petrochemical Group Company. The other 49 are financial services groups.



Is this what the Occupy movement is trying to highlight?

Don't really think there's a lot we can do about it, but europe could - let the PIGS countries go bankrupt and see how that upsets the apple cart. I think there would be much wailing and gnashing of teeth (in Wall St and the like).

Interesting times.

p.s.


(but i still tink it's a conspiracy... ;))
Have you considered suicide?
 
#4
New Scientist used to interesting but I gave up on it when it took the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming shilling/something must be done line and started printing leftie bollocks like this.

My Private Eye subscription went the same way.
 
#5
In other breaking news;

BEARS SHIT IN THE WOODS!
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
#6
Here's the Forbes 500 top 10 for mid-2011 - almost all retail or energy (here's a clue, you don't stuff raw crude into your petrol tank). Is there any more ignorant shit you'd care to share with us you monomaniacal waster?

1 Wal-Mart Stores United States Retail
2 Royal Dutch Shell Netherlands† Petroleum
3 Exxon Mobil United States Petroleum
4 BP United Kingdom Petroleum
5 Sinopec China Petroleum
6 China National Petroleum China Petroleum
7 State Grid China Power
8 Toyota Motor Japan Automobiles
9 Japan Post Holdings Japan Diversified
10 Chevron United States Petroleum
 
P

pp0470

Guest
#7
New Scientist used to interesting but I gave up on it when it took the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming shilling/something must be done line and started printing leftie bollocks like this.

My Private Eye subscription went the same way.
Got to admit i've nevr bought a New Scientist (but i can't resist picking up an occasional Private Eye - its got cartoons)

Can't vouch for the validity of the article, but it does support the 'to big to fail' theory.

If the PIGS countries don't go bankrupt, the money to repay the bankers is going to have to come from somewhere - prepare for more pension cuts boys!

(And that on top of battling 5.2% inflation, i.e. your effective wealth is dropping by 5.2% annually before you even open the post)
 
P

pp0470

Guest
#9
Here's the Forbes 500 top 10 for mid-2011 - almost all retail or energy (here's a clue, you don't stuff raw crude into your petrol tank). Is there any more ignorant shit you'd care to share with us you monomaniacal waster?

1 Wal-Mart Stores United States Retail
2 Royal Dutch Shell Netherlands† Petroleum
3 Exxon Mobil United States Petroleum
4 BP United Kingdom Petroleum
5 Sinopec China Petroleum
6 China National Petroleum China Petroleum
7 State Grid China Power
8 Toyota Motor Japan Automobiles
9 Japan Post Holdings Japan Diversified
10 Chevron United States Petroleum
Thanks, i'd never of found that by myself....

Back to discussing the article, the point the article (not me) was making is that

An analysis of the relationships between 43,000 transnational corporations has identified a relatively small group of companies, mainly banks, with disproportionate power over the global economy.
I'm not an economist - so posted in the 'Intelligence' forum for a discussion, but instead found pig ignorance.

I guess a British Army forum is not the best place to find reasoned debate - my mistake!
 
#11
Actually you've really surprised me with that. 1,318 companies control the world's wealth? I wouldn't have thought it was that many TBH. Last bit I read about this it was only 147 companies so I suppose it depends on what you mean by "control" and who's writing the article.
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
#13
Thanks, i'd never of found that by myself....

Back to discussing the article, the point the article (not me) was making is that



I'm not an economist - so posted in the 'Intelligence' forum for a discussion, but instead found pig ignorance.

I guess a British Army forum is not the best place to find reasoned debate - my mistake!
You stated in an earlier post that, of the top 50 companies in the world, only one created something - demonstrable crap. You then invited us to wet the bed to no good purpose. I pointed out your folly and no, you are not an economist. Either make a rational point or tune in to Radio Venus on your bridgework and leave the rest of us in peace.
 
P

pp0470

Guest
#14
Actually you've really surprised me with that. 1,318 companies control the world's wealth? I wouldn't have thought it was that many TBH. Last bit I read about this it was only 147 companies so I suppose it depends on what you mean by "control" and who's writing the article.
Again, they're not my figures & i'm not an economist, just found it a curious article and wanted some informative opinions of people who may know more than me.

The article says 1318 companies control 80% of global wealth (in their model anyway) and that the top 147 companies, mostly financials, control 40% of the global wealth.
 
#15
I suspect it won't be difficult to find people who know more than you, after all you only regurgitate what you read without any kind of analysis. In fact you are incapable of analysing the information, you rely on others. You select articles according to your viewpoint rather than their accuracy. This is normal internet expertise.

Produce your own work or **** off.
 
P

pp0470

Guest
#16
You stated in an earlier post that, of the top 50 companies in the world, only one created something - demonstrable crap. You then invited us to wet the bed to no good purpose. I pointed out your folly and no, you are not an economist. Either make a rational point or tune in to Radio Venus on your bridgework and leave the rest of us in peace.
No I didn't. I said 'Of the top 50 companies listed'. Read the instructions FF, FFS.

And 'leave the rest of us in peace'? I feel it's you stalking me lover... **** me, why follow me into a thread where you can't even understand the writing (as shown above) and start crayoning?
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
#17
Again, they're not my figures & i'm not an economist, just found it a curious article and wanted some informative opinions of people who may know more than me.

The article says 1318 companies control 80% of global wealth (in their model anyway) and that the top 147 companies, mostly financials, control 40% of the global wealth.
No you didn't. You just decided to post provocative and poorly researched shoite and then disassociated yourself from that research when the ludicrous fallacies were made painfully apparent. Why don't you set yourself on fire?
 
P

pp0470

Guest
#18
I suspect it won't be difficult to find people who know more than you, after all you only regurgitate what you read without any kind of analysis. In fact you are incapable of analysing the information, you rely on others. You select articles according to your viewpoint rather than their accuracy. This is normal internet expertise.

Produce your own work or **** off.
Classic attempted bully boy tactics - shows an inherent weakness C. Or maybe inherited... did your Dad come back from the pub and beat your mother infront of you maybe... ?

That kind of thing can scar a child for life apparently....
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
#19
No I didn't. I said 'Of the top 50 companies listed'. Read the instructions FF, FFS.

And 'leave the rest of us in peace'? I feel it's you stalking me lover... **** me, why follow me into a thread where you can't even understand the writing (as shown above) and start crayoning?
I'm not interested in 'instructions' or the artificial cranking of data. No top 100 list worthy of the name will exclude the energy Majors and Supermajors and they all manufacture stuff, therefore your point is bonk. End of.
 
P

pp0470

Guest
#20
No you didn't. You just decided to post provocative and poorly researched shoite and then disassociated yourself from that research when the ludicrous fallacies were made painfully apparent. Why don't you set yourself on fire?
Yes I did FF. Dead easy to find - it's all in the first post Petal.

New Scientist Magazine: Revealed

They believed that just 1318 'core' companies own 80% of global wealth.

Of the top 50 companies listed only 1 actually creates something - China Petrochemical Group Company. The other 49 are financial services groups.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top