The New World Order Variety Hour

[Andrew]

So where is this power of the corporations that will outstrip the powers of the governments of the countries of the world.

Corporations are currently holding world governments hostage with needed bailouts. Corporations created a lot of imaginary wealth, and then that wealth disappeared (or distributed to its execs first) and now they want bailouts Oddly enough, the banks want bailouts from their own central banks, they are basically paying themselves. They created wealth, took lots out, the bubble burst and they write off losses and then get bailout to stay in business at the expense of citizens in the form of inflation.

I agree that corporate powers are nothing like they were back in 1500-1940.

What about the oil companies that benefited from invading Iraq and being able to set up shop there? Is it possible they influenced a president who was an oil industry exec to invade Iraq?

What about when J.P. Morgan controlled the federal reserve bank? A private corporation controlled the money supply and had a monopoly on currency (nothing has changed, it is still privately controlled).

Reading Rothbards "The Case Against the Fed" page 127-128 book:

The content of Benjamin Strong's monetary policies was what one might expect from someone from the highest strata of Morgan power. As soon as war broke out in Europe, Henry P. Davison sailed to England, and was quickly able to use long-standing close Morgan ties with England to get the House of Morgan named as sole purchasing agent in the United States, for the duration of the war, for war material for Britain and France. Furthermore, the Morgans also be-came the sole underwriter for all the British and French bonds to be floated in the U.S. to pay for the immense imports of arms and other goods from the United States. J. P. Morgan and Company now had an enormous stake in the victory of Britain and France, and the Morgans played a major and perhaps decisive role in maneuvering the supposedly "neutral" United States into the war on the Brit-ish side.39

So a Corporation was successful in persuading the US government to go to war because it was profitable for them. They loaned lots of money to Europe and wanted to make sure they were able to pay it back. Or what about when the Federal reserve outlawed gold and even took private collections of gold from individuals?

I guess the central bank is arms length from the government (somewhat government controlled), or you could say the government creates and allows monopolies that control the entire market, and thus can make major decisions for a country.

[Tatar Khan]

Corporations are currently holding world governments hostage with needed bailouts. Corporations created a lot of imaginary wealth, and then that wealth disappeared (or distributed to its execs first) and now they want bailouts Oddly enough, the banks want bailouts from their own central banks, they are basically paying themselves. They created wealth, took lots out, the bubble burst and they write off losses and then get bailout to stay in business at the expense of citizens in the form of inflation.

There is no hostage situation as such. The government can let the companies fail and accept the job losses and chaos that can fallout a partial collapse of the financial system. The government are not doing because of the corporations but rather of the individual citizens who will be suffering if the bailouts are not made. In addition, the corporation are getting tighter controls, more regulations as the result. That is hardly what they asked for.

What about the oil companies that benefited from invading Iraq and being able to set up shop there? Is it possible they influenced a president who was an oil industry exec to invade Iraq?

I don't think so. That move would have been in accordance with Realpolitik rather than the Wilsonianism/Liberalism theory that the US has been following since its birth. The only Realpolitik follower among the presidents was Ted Roosevelt. Nixon approached the Realpolitik but was never completely adherent to the theory. All other presidents were Wilsonianists and for Bush Jr. to follow Realpolitik given that his father was a devout Wilsonianist would be an amassing thing to happen, right after hell freezes over.

In addition, the American oil companies were smuggling oil out of Iraq before the war, and at that time they did not have to worry about the guerrilla groups in Iraq and disruption of the supplies since Saddam protected those.

What about when J.P. Morgan controlled the federal reserve bank? A private corporation controlled the money supply and had a monopoly on currency (nothing has changed, it is still privately controlled).

Reading Rothbards "The Case Against the Fed" page 127-128 book:So a Corporation was successful in persuading the US government to go to war because it was profitable for them. They loaned lots of money to Europe and wanted to make sure they were able to pay it back. Or what about when the Federal reserve outlawed gold and even took private collections of gold from individuals?

I guess the central bank is arms length from the government (somewhat government controlled), or you could say the government creates and allows monopolies that control the entire market, and thus can make major decisions for a country.

Central banks are government owned corporations. The same goes for the Federal Reserve. In most countries the Central banks governors answer to the finance ministers or treasury ministers. In others they answer to the head of state.

While the book could claim the fact that J P Morgan was persuading the US to go to war where are the prove of that. It seems like speculation. The proper proof would be the meetings of the executives of Morgan with the US officials and discussions of the need to go to war. Letters from the high placed executives to US high placed officials.

What is known that Franklin Roosevelt moved US to war since it started basing his moves into Wilsonian ideals to which he was devoted as strongly as president Wilson was since he was on of the ministers during Wilson's administration. The communication between London and Washington shows that Franklin Roosevelt saw the need for US to support Britain and its allies in the war.

[Wolf]

@ Edric:

Actually, I picked industrial output precisely because it can be used to measure the relative economic strengths of Edwardian-era nations the same way we use GDP to measure relative economic strengths in the modern-era. It's roughly analagous, and just think about it, before the rise of tech-, service- and pharm.-based economic activity, "first world" economies really only subsisted on industrial output and industries related to them. Now, because there's so much more than traditional "heavy industry," we use a more inclusive term like "GDP."

@ Everyone else:

Really? People share my sentiments regarding China? I'm actually really surprised, I was certain the prevailing sentiment was "OMG CHINA IZ GONNA BE DA WORLD POWA!"

[Andrew]

@ Everyone else:

Really? People share my sentiments regarding China? I'm actually really surprised, I was certain the prevailing sentiment was "OMG CHINA IZ GONNA BE DA WORLD POWA!"

Would China be a bigger super power with it's current government structure, or with a more democratic western government?

I would think with China+India having 20% of world population, they could have self sustaining economies. Lots of people need goods, so the population can make lots of goods. Only restraint would be raw materials.

[Andrew]

Central banks are government owned corporations. The same goes for the Federal Reserve. In most countries the Central banks governors answer to the finance ministers or treasury ministers. In others they answer to the head of state.

Pressure may mount to know who got AIG bailout blns

The U.S. Federal Reserve has refused to publicize a list of AIG's derivative counterparties and what they have been paid since the bailout, riling the U.S. Senate Banking Committee.

Federal Reserve Vice Chairman Donald Kohn testified before that committee on Thursday that revealing names risked jeopardizing AIG's continuing business. Kohn said there were millions of counterparties around the globe, including pension funds and U.S. households.

Right, yet another we can't tell the public anything because it would be bad for those we are bailing out. How about before anyone accepts bailout money, they have to disclose where it is going? Don't want anyone to know, then you don't get bailout.

The Federal Reserve won't tell congress who is getting bailouts, and how much. Doesn't sound very government controlled. Sounds more like a government sanctioned monopoly who can do whatever they want.

Once the dust settles people will be asking where the money went, and no one will know. It will be no different than the billions that disappear in Iraq (I'm talking about the USD that literally disappears and no paper trail).

[Tatar Khan]

The Federal Reserve won't tell congress who is getting bailouts, and how much. Doesn't sound very government controlled. Sounds more like a government sanctioned monopoly who can do whatever they want.

Yeah Fed doesn't answer to Congress because it is part of executive branch. It will only answer to Treasury minister and President.

Anyone wants to try to do a better job with bailout go ahead and try. This game gives plenty of laughs.

http://www.thebailoutgame.us/

[Wolf]

@ Andrew:

I love your righteous anger at the bailouts, and it is true, that anger is indeed righteous. I wish I could've said I voted for the guy who would have been against bailouts, but even McCain supported TARP. ("Johnny Boy, the Feds, the Feds are co-oming!" Bonus points to those of you who can find out where that's from.) Though, in fairness, he's against bailouts now. Gee, why is it that--at least as far as I'm concerned--we always pick the wrong president for the wrong times? Don't get wrong, Obama's cool, but I actually prefer the Republican solution now when, for the last 8 years, the Democrats offered some decent stuff. It's also consistent with my voting record, I vote Dem before, and now, the first time I vote Republican, he loses too? Is it me? Do they just wait for my ballot to come in and then they're like, "Oh, shit, he wen't blue--call it in, Fred!" There's your NWO for you.

[Andrew]

Yeah Fed doesn't answer to Congress because it is part of executive branch. It will only answer to Treasury minister and President.

Anyone wants to try to do a better job with bailout go ahead and try. This game gives plenty of laughs.

http://www.thebailoutgame.us/

Great game.

Said no to almost everything (but one).

It stopped around 4 spots to the end (my internet probably screwed it up).

score: 2775

total spent: 10 B

bailout remaining 690 B

On second try I bailed everyone out except AIG and auto industry

score: 9242  Not bad ;)

Not as good as the 2004 antibush game that involved enron etc. That was a good propaganda sidescroller.

[Tatar Khan]

Great game.

Said no to almost everything (but one).

It stopped around 4 spots to the end (my internet probably screwed it up).

score: 2775

total spent: 10 B

bailout remaining 690 B

On second try I bailed everyone out except AIG and auto industry

score: 9242  Not bad ;)

I played one time saying no to all and got the final score to 132

I also played bailing out auto industry and AIG, and any bank that wanted money for the purchase of the other banks ad those that were not too troubled. The result was score in 15000s. Overall I believe the score supposed to reflect the DOW Index

Following Greenspan advice I got 17597 score

[Edric O]

@ Edric:

Actually, I picked industrial output precisely because it can be used to measure the relative economic strengths of Edwardian-era nations the same way we use GDP to measure relative economic strengths in the modern-era. It's roughly analagous, and just think about it, before the rise of tech-, service- and pharm.-based economic activity, "first world" economies really only subsisted on industrial output and industries related to them. Now, because there's so much more than traditional "heavy industry," we use a more inclusive term like "GDP."

Right, but my point was that China probably has more industrial output than the US at the moment, in the sense that they probably produce a greater amount of physical goods. The GDP of the United States is so much higher than China's only because of services. So it would be a mistake to say that the United States produces more than China; the fact is only that much more money exchanges hands in the United States than in China (that's what the higher GDP means).

[Andrew]

Right, but my point was that China probably has more industrial output than the US at the moment, in the sense that they probably produce a greater amount of physical goods. The GDP of the United States is so much higher than China's only because of services. So it would be a mistake to say that the United States produces more than China; the fact is only that much more money exchanges hands in the United States than in China (that's what the higher GDP means).

Yes I remember seeing last year that China had larger output than USA.

[Dunenewt]

I got a score of 12041, I let AIG collapse, and the auto firms.

[Wolf]

Oh, no doubt, but the reason we only really looked at industrial output back then was because it was more or less comparable to a country's GDP anyway, now we factor in GDP, becasue although it's nice that China has the factories to produce things, wars are, were, and always will be run and decided by the amount of money a country has. Sure, China has more output now, but as we saw in... every war the U.S. has ever fought, the Americans like to enter their conflicts well below their enemy in manufacturing capability, throw in obscene amounts of capital, and then emerge victorious with an as-yet-unimagined level of industrial production. It's the money that matters, though China's industrial production is a nice head-start, look at where most of that output goes--to the West. The recent financial crisis caused a net loss of over 20 million jobs in China in February in the manufacturing sector. I mean, wow.

[chatfsh]

According to this article, it appears that the Russian Air Force is considering permanently setting up shop in Central and South America.  Russia is currently having discussions with Cuba and Venezuela concerning establishing a Russian military base there.  Though during the cold war, Russia had temporarily utilized Cuba as a base of operation, an actual Russian base was never set up the way the U.S. has military bases throughout the world.

The idea is only being discussed at this point, but with Cuba and Venezuela being such staunch enemies of the U.S. I don

[Tatar Khan]

According to this article, it appears that the Russian Air Force is considering permanently setting up shop in Central and South America.  Russia is currently having discussions with Cuba and Venezuela concerning establishing a Russian military base there.  Though during the cold war, Russia had temporarily utilized Cuba as a base of operation, an actual Russian base was never set up the way the U.S. has military bases throughout the world.

The idea is only being discussed at this point, but with Cuba and Venezuela being such staunch enemies of the U.S. I don