Re: [CTRL] One world one company.
-Caveat Lector- Oh, Brilliant comment, Josh2 -- it's good to be able to agree with you for once. Jim Condit Jr. On Tuesday, December 15, 1998 11:27 PM, nurev [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: -Caveat Lector- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Caveat Lector- Maybe this is the direction we're heading. One company for energy, one for food, one for housing etc... seems very Communistic to me, but if the companies are privately owned, that's another case. Reminds me of an old movie called "Rollerball" where corporations have taken over the world and the one dissident plays a game called rollerball... they change the rules to kill him, but he is too tough for them... wish they would have made a sequel for once. Good Post. Regards, Bob Stokes If you want to see what they want it to look like, see a working model. The best working model is SURPRISE in the good old USA. No, not one company. No one would stand for it. It looks too much like monopoly or totalitarian communism. That's too many people to try to convert. They will use the American method of Oligopoly. That's where 2, 3, or 4 giants control 80% or 90% of any given market. Except for computer operating systems, the most profitable industries are divided up this way. Think about it. a) Breakfast cereals b) Autos c) Soft drinks d) Beer f) Tobacco g) Candy h) Gasoline etc... This is the closest you can get to being a monopoly without being a monopoly. It is also the best way to control prices without being a monopoly. All these companies' products cost about the same in each product market. That means that Coke and pepsi and 7up cost about the same and have been that way for as long as they have dominated the market. Same for Kellogg's and Post. Same for gasoline, candy, and cigarettes. To prove this, go to a supermarket, go to several supermarkets. The Aerospace industry is the first obvious global model. In the whole world there are only two primary airliner manufacturers AirBus and the American monstrosity. This is the future of Capitalism. But don't wory it is already failing. Joshua2 DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance-not soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] One world one company.
-Caveat Lector- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Caveat Lector- Maybe this is the direction we're heading. One company for energy, one for food, one for housing etc... seems very Communistic to me, but if the companies are privately owned, that's another case. Reminds me of an old movie called "Rollerball" where corporations have taken over the world and the one dissident plays a game called rollerball... they change the rules to kill him, but he is too tough for them... wish they would have made a sequel for once. Good Post. Regards, Bob Stokes If you want to see what they want it to look like, see a working model. The best working model is SURPRISE in the good old USA. No, not one company. No one would stand for it. It looks too much like monopoly or totalitarian communism. That's too many people to try to convert. They will use the American method of Oligopoly. That's where 2, 3, or 4 giants control 80% or 90% of any given market. Except for computer operating systems, the most profitable industries are divided up this way. Think about it. a) Breakfast cereals b) Autos c) Soft drinks d) Beer f) Tobacco g) Candy h) Gasoline etc... This is the closest you can get to being a monopoly without being a monopoly. It is also the best way to control prices without being a monopoly. All these companies' products cost about the same in each product market. That means that Coke and pepsi and 7up cost about the same and have been that way for as long as they have dominated the market. Same for Kellogg's and Post. Same for gasoline, candy, and cigarettes. To prove this, go to a supermarket, go to several supermarkets. The Aerospace industry is the first obvious global model. In the whole world there are only two primary airliner manufacturers AirBus and the American monstrosity. This is the future of Capitalism. But don't wory it is already failing. Joshua2 DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
[CTRL] One world one company.
-Caveat Lector- One World, One Company? Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 19:01:01 -0500 From: Robert Weissman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Multiple recipients of list CORP-FOCUS [EMAIL PROTECTED] How times have changed. Two decades ago, perhaps even a decade ago, Exxon and Mobil -- the number one and number two U.S. oil producers -- would not have dared to propose a merger. If they had so dared, the initial public reaction would have been uproarious laughter. If the companies had persisted in their marriage plans over the din of guffaws and snickers, the laughter would have quickly turned to outrage. Newspaper editorials would have denounced the merger. Members of Congress would have thundered about the threat to democracy and called for intensive and immediate hearings. Most importantly, the public would have risen in opposition. There is no chance that the antitrust authorities would have approved such a merger a mere two decades ago. Now, there is a disturbingly good possibility the union will be approved. The reason for the change has less to do with new economic analyses of the costs and benefits of mergers -- though a conservative, corporate-backed campaign has managed to overturn many common-sense insights on the costs of mergers in terms of price increases and the inefficiencies of giant, bloated corporations -- than with the altered conception of the political consequences of corporate conglomeration. When the Teddy Roosevelt-era trustbusters broke up the Standard Oil monopoly, they were motivated by political as much as economic concerns. They understood that concentrated economic power translates into concentrated political power, and that concentrated political power is incompatible with democracy. It is time for the U.S. antitrust authorities to recover that perspective -- and it is increasingly important that antitrust authorities in other nations do the same. A recent United Nations report highlights the importance of recognizing the political implications of mergers and acquisitions. Not only did mergers reach record levels in the United States in 1997, so did cross-border deals. In 1997, total cross-border mergers and acquisitions amounted to $342 billion, according to the United Nations Conference onTrade and Development's 1998 World Investment Report. With the Daimler-Benz takeover of Chrysler, BP buying up Amoco and Deutschebank acquiring Banker's Trust, the 1998 figures seem likely to exceed those from 1997. While it is the giant deals between megacorporations in the industrialized countries that get most of the attention, the hottest trend is multinationals buying up companies in developing countries. Since 1991, cross-border acquisitions of companies in developing nations have risen approximately nine times -- to more than $95 billion in 1997. (While companies are being bought up in the developing world, not many developing country companies are doing much buying. Companies based in the Third World acquired companies in other countries worth under $41 billion in 1997.) According to the UN report, two major factors now account for the rise in the firesale of developing country businesses: privatization, especially in Latin America and Eastern Europe, with national telephone, electricity and other enterprises coming under foreign corporate control; and the Asian economic crisis, which has given multinationals the opportunity to swoop in and buy Asian companies in financial trouble. While it may be the case in some instances that foreign corporate takeovers will lead to more efficient company performance -- for example, ATT or other multinational telephone companies may improve customer service in some countries -- in general foreign takeovers offer none of the purported benefits of foreign investment. The acquisitions do not create new jobs, they do not generate new economic activity, they do not represent new investment -- they only change the company's name. But these takeovers do present serious problems. Where the takeovers create private monopolies or oligopolies, developing countries will face the standard problems of price-gouging and suppression of innovation. They will also face political problems of immense proportions. The multinationals are often larger in economic terms than the developing countries in which they do business, meaning Third World governments are routinely going to have a very hard time regulating the corporate goliaths.That the company's headquarters are outside of the country, and that the corporation has no allegiance to the country in which it is operating, will make the regulatory challenge that much more difficult. Although rich countries are more able to control foreign-owned economic powers operating in their borders, they too are likely to find foreign ownership to be a growing problem. U.S. history makes crystal clear the imperative of paying attention to the political consequences of merger mania.
