[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 152 KB, 600x598, mg21228354.500-3_600.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3933114 No.3933114 [Reply] [Original]

140 companies run the network of more than 40000 multinational companies, and it's mostly banksters

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354.500-revealed--the-capitalist-network-that-runs-the-wo
rld.html

>> No.3933121

So, somebody finally empirically proved that Jews run the economy? When will we finally prove that Hitler was right?

>> No.3933146

>>3933121
What was he right about?

>> No.3933148

the funniest thing is that in that top50 list only china's petrol company is based on "real" economy, every other is just some shady investment/mutual/hedge/whatever banks

>> No.3933162

It appears that the block of 140 doesn't have a controlling stake on average. Why is it surprising that large, profitable, profit-seeking companies invest in other large, profitable, profit-seeking companies?

>> No.3933165

>>3933162

Its NOT surprising.

>> No.3933168

>>3933165
Why is it undesirable?

>> No.3933170

>>3933162

it's not about controlling stake but when all those powerful companies are intertwined they have huge political influence, and as the article says, if one falls, they all fall

>> No.3933171

>>3933168
Because it creates a lack of competition, meaning less diverse and lower quality products at higher prices.

>> No.3933179

>>3933171
How does it create a lack of competition? Nothing in the article says this has reduced the number of corporations doing business, it just discusses which companies have an ownership stake in those corporations.

>> No.3933185

>>3933179
Because why would the controlling companies try and compete with other companies they own? Everyone makes more money if they just try and screw the consumer over rather than other corporations that they own anyway.

>> No.3933190

>>3933179
because they are creating cartels instead of healthy competition, you see that they all are from the same branch

>> No.3933194

>>3933185
Because they aren't the only shareholders and do not have a controlling interest. The majority shareholders of each company are going to hire a board that ensures that company maximizing its own profits. The incentive to collude may exist, but that isn't a result of this network of ownership.

>> No.3933197

fuark, i cant believe goldman sachs is so low on the list, i thought they are in top3.

also, barkley's no1?

>> No.3933202

>>3933190
You aren't going to have a really effective cartel when you don't have a controlling stake in each company. Also lol at the idea each of these financial institutions has the resources to evaluate its ownership stake in 40,000 corporations, create a coherent strategy with its 139 peers, and interfere with the management of each company (usually taking the form of an expensive stockholder law suit). Just lol.

>> No.3933206

>>3933197
Investment banking groups don't typically make their profits by holding onto long term investments of other companies. Finance is made up of many different industries and business models.

>> No.3933207

Hahaha why am not surprised that Barclays is no1

check this out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Agius

"... currently the Chairman of Barclays"
"...He is married to Katherine (born 1949), daughter of Edmund de Rothschild of the Rothschild banking family of England, with two children, and has a close involvement with the Rothschild family estate, Exbury Gardens in Hampshire."

>> No.3933223

>>3933202
and what if out of those 140 companies, there are only 10 that run everyhting? i wouldnt be too surprised if those companies are run by few families behind curtain

>> No.3933228

>>3933223
Lol at the idea that even 10 of these financial institutions has the resources to evaluate its ownership stake in 40,000 corporations, create a coherent strategy for their consenting 130 peers, and interfere with the management of each company (usually taking the form of an expensive stockholder law suit). Just lol.

The last part is the most critical. Why micromanage the strategy for each of your 40,000 investments when you can appoint qualified managers whose only job is to maximize profits for their one company?

>> No.3933235

>>3933228
dude, you are taking everything said literally, thus making you a true faggot

>> No.3933237

The node branch system works for a lot of things, and it turns out business is one of them.

Shocking.

>> No.3933241

>>3933235
>Why micromanage the strategy for each of your 40,000 investments when you can appoint qualified managers whose only job is to maximize profits for their one company?

There may be problems with concentrated ownership. Monopoly does not seem to be one of them.

>> No.3933250

>>3933207

didnt know this, intredasting

anybody knows where can one find family tree of the rothschilds?

>> No.3933260

Bah, I wish I could remember what it was called, but there was this site that links all the worlds major companies and the people who run them.

You could pick 2 random companies out of thousands and it turns out they're all the same people. Was really interesting. Gonna hunt for it now.

>> No.3933265

>>3933260
http://www.theyrule.net/

>> No.3933279

I suppose political consciousness is increasing but something tells me this will only result in the government stepping in and more centralization which will be perceived as the 1% paying their dues but in actuality will be the 0.001% gaining power from the top 1%.

>> No.3933281

>>3933265
That's the one, thanks... hmm, less companies than I remember.

>> No.3933285

>>3933260
http://www.ja_rule.net/

>> No.3933397

BUMP

>> No.3933687
File: 25 KB, 1164x588, global_control.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3933687

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1107/1107.5728v2.pdf

get it
read it