The Jew Masons run the Megacorporations. What’s so complicated?
And the Jew Masons are controlled by the saucer people, under the supervision of the reverse vampires.
I really thought everyone knew that already.
Oh, come on.
Saying that big corporations are influential in society isn’t remotely the same as saying that the world is controlled by Jews, flying saucer people, or similar tinfoil-hattery.
Of course media companies are important in shaping public debate, and of course there is such a thing as lobbying or simply being “too important to fail” and thus (with some justification) favored by politicians.
There’s a real debate to be had here.
But the OP is going far beyond just saying that ‘Mega Corporations’ are influential to society (which is pretty much a fact, regardless of how you parse it) to CT type stuff. I think that’s why no one is really taking this ‘debate’ seriously, and I doubt you would be able to save it at this point…the well has been poisoned, and it’s due completely to the tone and assertions in the OP itself.
-XT
If you are alone in noticing this, then who made the documentaries that you watched?
JewMasonMegaCorporations, of course.
That’s just what the Lizard People want you to think!
Do you understand snark?
Your post was pointless unless it was meant as an attack on a strawman.
Do I understand snark? This is coming from the person who replied to my joke post with an elementary school logic lesson?
But for the record, professor, if we must be so dreadfully pedantic, my post was not an attack on a strawman, it was an ad hominem tu quoque fallacy. Seriously, if you come in here with “corporations are ruling America, I saw it on a documentary and I’m the only one who realizes it,” then sorry, you’re going to get snark.
The strawman that you appeared to be attacking, perfesser, was the idea that the OP didn’t believe that anything useful could come from a corporation.
It was an indirect attack on said strawman, I’ll grant you.
If the post that I accused of strawmanism (new word!) was intended as snark, then I withdraw my criticism, perfesser.
Tell Rupert that he is a liberal!
The truth is that corporations are actually much less influential than they once were. The CIA once helped overthrow democratically elected governments in a dozen states on behalf of corporations (cf. United Fruit and Guatemala), but it doesn’t do that anymore.
At least, I hope not.
I would argue that they are much more influential. In yesteryear, they relied upon means of hard power. These days they use the IMF, the WTO and the various free trade agreements to ‘restructure’ governments not to their liking.
And it is not just America, but most of the globe.
The problem is not the industrial or media corporations and their shareholders, but the financial corporations, hedge funds, etc., that control them. When a firm is leveraged 10 to 1, the shareholders and board of directors aren’t calling the shots.
That said, I think they blew their wad with this crisis. They created an unsustainable system that is now falling apart at the seams, allowing other interests and independent actors to gain greater control over the instruments of power. Yet Wall Street (shorthand for the entire international finance community) still holds a disproportionate share of power and they will try to come out of this crisis with as little damage (i.e. regulation) as possible, but I do not think they will succeed.
Their greatest means of control has been to try and co-opt countervailing powers such as an independent media, trade unions, political parties and so forth, and have been moderately successful at doing so. But enough forces remained outside of their sphere - especially the Internet and IT in general. NGOs, academia, the open source community and other actors are trying to create a viable alternative that I think will succeed in establishing a sustainable, inclusive system, but it will take a few years for all the pieces to come together. But the financial crisis has shifted the balance of power.
This next decade will be very interesting times for all.
My biggest annoyance is that Facebook, Twitter and ‘tweets’ will go down in history as some of the greatest tools for social development - I hate the names, though I like the concepts.
The problem IMHO is debt. Debt, as you know, is an obligation to pay off a sum of money over a period of time (plus interest) in exchange for some immediate gratification. It essentially obligates a portion of the fruits of your labor to another party over the term of the loan.
In our society, in order to have a traditional middle class lifestyle usually requires taking out large amounts of debt - your mortgage, school loans (for you and the kids), car loans, your credit card bill, any home equity loans you may need for repairs, maybe even a business loan. The net result of this is that most people spend their entire lives not working for themselves but for the bank. So banks indirectly wield a tremendous amount of power in the form of confiscating your home, business or posessions if you stop working for them.
And the same thing applies to business large and small and even entire nations.
Although in the case of the USA, our national debt is less of an issue because our currency is the defacto reserve currency for the world. Sort of like being able to legally print out more money on your computer whenever you need to pay your bills.
I agree with this completely. Debt is the major tool the investment community use to maintain their power - the power to mainly convert profit-generating entities into interest-paying entities - interest paid to their companies, with a wee little bit trickling down to the small ‘investor’, but most of it going to golden parachute accounts for their executives.
Massive lay-offs are more often the result of the firm not meeting bank covenants on debt, than the firm wanting to maximize profits for their shareholders. The same with bankruptcies - the firm generates cash, just not enough for its interest payments and its operations.
Historically, citizens of the US had more control over their debt through smaller community based institutions - locally-owned banks, mutual savings and loan banks, etc. The ‘reforms’ of the '80s dismantled the safeguards and business practices that allowed those institutions to succeed, ending in first the S&L crisis, and then the M&A trend since with the largest banks swallowing up the smaller community-based ones. The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act was just the last in a string of reforms to consolidate the holdings of the large banks.
Credit unions have been tolerated since they are not allowed to enter the commercial market along with other restrictions which do not allow them to be real competition to stock-owned banks.
If Mega Corporations rule America then trade unions rule Europe. I mean look at Greece for example-just because the government dared to cut some pay and raise some taxes to get out debt people go out smashing things and throwing Molotov cocktails and mass strikes in France for raising the retirement age by two years!
That would only be true if there were many more countries to overthrow.
Considering we have over 761 military bases across the planet, and a recently permanent one in Iraq and now talk of one in Afghanistan:
Karzai Green Light to US Permanent Bases in Afghanistan
http://www.tolonews.com/en/afghanistan/1809-karzai-green-light-to-us-permanent-bases-in-afghanistan
Whom benefits the most from these bases?
Big Business, Mega Corporations and Investment Banks and Central Banks as well.
It provides them with financial and economic stability at the expense of the American Tax Payer.
Please don’t say that they are for our national security either. Otherwise, I say we beef up our national borders with the national guard and shut down all the bases across the world.
If China had 761 military bases across the world, with 2 wars going on, and rhetoric talking about more wars on the horizon, I would say they are spear heading their influence across the world, not protecting their borders.
Drop all military bases and let the corporations and big business pay for it themselves with their sons and daughters lives and their money. NOT MINE.
Their all for globalism and the amount of profits they can rake in at the expense of the well being and health of this country. They are only nationalist when it suits their needs in influencing who is running for president and what policies are being implemented, but socialist when it comes to having other people pay for their safety in the pursuit of profits or for bailing them out.
Not a big deal to a kid. If you spent a lifetime working with a contract and an understanding about your retirement, then get close and find out your pension was not funded while executives were raking in millions, you might have a different perspective.
Sorry we had a deal for 40 years but today we are going to change it. You have to work longer and get less. Thanks a lot.
Excellent Post
Fortunately, things are changing and people are paying off debt or not borrowing, or the banks aren’t lending as much. One or the other.
But unfortunately, the US Gov has become part of the bubble since they continue to print money to prop up the banks and wall street.
I know a lot of people are complaining about the rise in food prices as well, which is not counted in inflation stats.
Naah, not since the Military moved in on their action, wholesale.