Thread Rating:
  • 2 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
World's Stocks Controlled by Select Few - In Depth SFIT Statistical Analysis Paper
07-07-2010, 01:18 AM,
Information  World's Stocks Controlled by Select Few - In Depth SFIT Statistical Analysis Paper
Available on the tracker:

Quote:Backbone of complex networks of corporations: The flow of control
Authors: J.B. Glattfelder, S. Battiston
(Submitted on 5 Feb 2009 (v1), last revised 21 Aug 2009 (this version, v2))

Abstract: We present a methodology to extract the backbone of complex networks based on the weight and direction of links, as well as on nontopological properties of nodes. We show how the methodology can be applied in general to networks in which mass or energy is flowing along the links. In particular, the procedure enables us to address important questions in economics, namely, how control and wealth are structured and concentrated across national markets. We report on the first cross-country investigation of ownership networks, focusing on the stock markets of 48 countries around the world. On the one hand, our analysis confirms results expected on the basis of the literature on corporate control, namely, that in Anglo-Saxon countries control tends to be dispersed among numerous shareholders. On the other hand, it also reveals that in the same countries, control is found to be highly concentrated at the global level, namely, lying in the hands of very few important shareholders. Interestingly, the exact opposite is observed for European countries. These results have previously not been reported as they are not observable without the kind of network analysis developed here.

Comments: 24 pages, 12 figures, 2nd version (text made more concise and readable, results unchanged)
Subjects: General Finance (q-fin.GN); Physics and Society (physics.soc-ph)
Journal reference: Phys. Rev. E 80, 036104 (2009)
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.80.036104
Cite as: arXiv:0902.0878v2 [q-fin.GN]
Submission history
From: James Glattfelder B [view email]
[v1] Thu, 5 Feb 2009 10:53:52 GMT (995kb)
[v2] Fri, 21 Aug 2009 12:35:41 GMT (688kb)

Document Source URL

Research and Analysis Data Source

Bureau van Dijk’s ORBIS database
Orbis covers approaching 65 million companies around the world

Quote:World's Stocks Controlled by Select Few
By Lauren Schenkman, Inside Science News Service
posted: 26 August 2009 11:13 am ET

WASHINGTON -- A recent analysis of the 2007 financial markets of 48 countries has revealed that the world's finances are in the hands of just a few mutual funds, banks, and corporations. This is the first clear picture of the global concentration of financial power, and point out the worldwide financial system's vulnerability as it stood on the brink of the current economic crisis.

A pair of physicists at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich did a physics-based analysis of the world economy as it looked in early 2007. Stefano Battiston and James Glattfelder extracted the information from the tangled yarn that links 24,877 stocks and 106,141 shareholding entities in 48 countries, revealing what they called the "backbone" of each country's financial market. These backbones represented the owners of 80 percent of a country's market capital, yet consisted of remarkably few shareholders.

"You start off with these huge national networks that are really big, quite dense," Glattfelder said. “From that you're able to ... unveil the important structure in this original big network. You then realize most of the network isn't at all important."

The most pared-down backbones exist in Anglo-Saxon countries, including the U.S., Australia, and the U.K. Paradoxically; these same countries are considered by economists to have the most widely-held stocks in the world, with ownership of companies tending to be spread out among many investors. But while each American company may link to many owners, Glattfelder and Battiston's analysis found that the owners varied little from stock to stock, meaning that comparatively few hands are holding the reins of the entire market.

“If you would look at this locally, it's always distributed,” Glattfelder said. “If you then look at who is at the end of these links, you find that it's the same guys, [which] is not something you'd expect from the local view.”

Matthew Jackson, an economist from Stanford University in Calif. who studies social and economic networks, said that Glattfelder and Battiston's approach could be used to answer more pointed questions about corporate control and how companies interact.

"It's clear, looking at financial contagion and recent crises, that understanding interrelations between companies and holdings is very important in the future,” he said. "Certainly people have some understanding of how large some of these financial institutions in the world are, there's some feeling of how intertwined they are, but there's a big difference between having an impression and actually having ... more explicit numbers to put behind it."

Based on their analysis, Glattfelder and Battiston identified the ten investment entities who are “big fish” in the most countries. The biggest fish was the Capital Group Companies, with major stakes in 36 of the 48 countries studied. In identifying these major players, the physicists accounted for secondary ownership -- owning stock in companies who then owned stock in another company -- in an attempt to quantify the potential control a given agent might have in a market.

The results raise questions of where and when a company could choose to exert this influence, but Glattfelder and Battiston are reluctant to speculate.

"In this kind of science, complex systems, you're not aiming at making predictions [like] ... where the tennis ball will be at given place in given time," Battiston said. “What you're trying to estimate is ... the potential influence that [an investor] has."

Glattfelder added that the internationalism of these powerful companies makes it difficult to gauge their economic influence. "[With] new company structures which are so big and spanning the globe, it's hard to see what they're up to and what they're doing,” he said. Large, sparse networks dominated by a few major companies could also be more vulnerable, he said. "In network speak, if those nodes fail, that has a big effect on the network."

The results will be published in an upcoming issue of the journal Physical Review E.

Inside Science News Service is supported by the American Institute of Physics.

Another interesting paper that provides more analysis than the Live Science synopsis.

August 2009 Hahn Investment Newsletter
What’s Behind Door #4 & Spadefoot Frog Behaviour
There are no others, there is only us.
07-07-2010, 01:42 AM,
RE: World's Stocks Controlled by Select Few - In Depth SFIT Statistical Analysis Paper
interesting stuff - might take some time to digest. Thanx for the info.
[Image: conspiracy_theory.jpg]
07-07-2010, 03:14 AM, (This post was last modified: 07-07-2010, 03:16 AM by solar.)
Exclamation  RE: World's Stocks Controlled by Select Few - In Depth SFIT Statistical Analysis Paper
Thank you for posting this on the tracker, FastTadpole !! Smile

Another description of this very seminal paper can be found at Washington's Blog at this link.

Thanks, again, FastTadpole !!
07-07-2010, 03:30 AM,
RE: World's Stocks Controlled by Select Few - In Depth SFIT Statistical Analysis Paper
Quote:might take some time to digest.

I'm still wrapping my head around it. Pretty heavy statistical math but I love the depth of this research and how it looks beyond the direct links and analyzes proxy investments.

Thanks for the link solar, and you are all very welcome, but the true thanks are due to the authors Battiston and Glattfelder and to SFIT for commissioning the study.
There are no others, there is only us.
07-07-2010, 06:57 AM,
RE: World's Stocks Controlled by Select Few - In Depth SFIT Statistical Analysis Paper
You can either do your own research:

Research and Analysis Data Source

Bureau van Dijk’s ORBIS database
Orbis covers approaching 65 million companies around the world

read the link solar posted.

which cites the first draft available at

On Page 28 of the there is an interesting summary of the top 10 controllers that was omitted in the revision.

Quote:The top 10 list of most powerful financial institutions (from most to least powerful) is as follows:
1. The Capital Group of Companies
2. Fidelity Management & Research
3. Barclays PLC
4. Franklin Resources
5. AXA
6. JP Morgan Chase
7. Dimensional Fund Advisors
8. Merrill Lynch
9. Wellington Management Company
10. UBS

Other tidbits:
* Non-American players Deutsche Bank, Brandes Investment Partners, Societe Generale, Credit Suisse, Schroders PLC and Allianz are also in the top 21 positions.
* The government of Singapore is number 25.
* The world's largest banking group - HSBC Holdings PLC - only chimes in at number 26.

The data analyzed in the study is from 2007, and the playing field may have changed substantially since then.
There are no others, there is only us.
05-05-2011, 05:01 PM,
Information  RE: World's Stocks Controlled by Select Few - In Depth SFIT Statistical Analysis Paper
Seems the world's goods pricing and services are leveraged by the few as well but that could change IF the folks at MIT stop being all secretive about their revolutionary (and cheap) real-time, dynamic-purchasing inventory control systems that only the banksters and oligarchs seem to be utilizing.

Quote:Why MIT Is Not Willing To Unleash Real-Time, Dynamic-Purchasing Inventory Control Systems; Or The "Real" Reason For The Culling Of MIT's Billion Prices Project
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 04/24/2011 14:05 -0400
From Kevin Price

Is MIT willing to unleash real-time, dynamic-purchasing inventory control systems?

A graduate student playing around with a billion dollar price project has unwittingly stumbled upon the financial equivalent of the internet, and it was Zero Hedge where the implications of this financial search engine were reported first. The implications are enormous. This could be what Alan Greenspan called "a once in a generation acceleration in productivity," but only if MIT allows widespread use. Instead it appears that MIT is going to keep it secret to benefit the oligarchs and the connected at the expense of the many.

Imagine real time continuously updated pricing data on all available products, raw inputs, and professional services. This new financial search engine has the ability to track anything. How about product pricing at Wal Mart? Drill bits, rolled steel, truckloads of wheat at the grain elevator level? You see you can monitor in real time the input costs and output prices of any industry or specific corporation. You could monitor your competitor and as soon as he has a sale your financial search engine will alert you and automatically match his prices.

The implications don't stop with the above. If Wall Street financial oligarchs ( regulated utilities, like your nice local water company in Bernanke-speak), have this capability and no one else has it, then they can monitor in real time prices of all sorts of products, services, and non-exchange-traded commodity goods. They can watch the trends of input costs and output prices in real time and front run everyone. The pricing efficiencies that always go to the consumer in a free market are now exploited to the detriment of the consumer and the benefit of the small number of people who have access to MIT's financial search engine.

As a business you can monitor all of your input costs in real time. You can monitor by region, industry, specific supplier. The search engine will also have advanced statistical features to give you directional probabilities of pricing in the short term. Instead of a rigid, just-in-time inventory approach to your inputs, your program will alert you when the likelihood of waiting one more week to buy, or buying one week early, will give you a better price.

Now imagine if MIT and the financial oligarchs don't allow widespread adoption of this information technology. Instead they sell subscriptions to various businesses. These businesses will now be able to buy their inputs at a lower than average price, compared to a competitor without this technology. This brings supply chain management to a whole new level. If your competitor is unaware you have this technology, then you can always beat his price, match his sales instantly, and then put him out of business. The end result of uneven distribution of this information technology will be to ultimately limit competition. The pricing efficiencies that would accrue to the consumer if this technology were widely adopted would go to the financiers and the specific company, as they capture pricing efficiencies in the short term that drive others out of business.

An integrated oil company may need to monitor in real time the pricing of various drill bits. The oil company will buy a little early when statistical analysis gives a greater than 50 percent probability that price increases will continue for the next few weeks, and will defer purchasing when price monitoring suggests a continued drop in drill bit prices over the next few weeks.

Welcome to real-time, dynamic- purchasing inventory control systems!

In the long run if this technology is distributed fairly to the public it will result in greater pricing efficiencies as volatility of input costs diminish. In a competitive market these productivity improvements always go to the benefit of the consumer, because any excess profits over the marginal return will quickly signal competitors and supplies to adjust. This is why Luddites are always wrong about improved productivity.

We now have real time, lightning fast, pricing information. This will be the greatest thing since the invention of the world wide web. If MIT does the right thing and announces their discovery to the world, they can still make a lot of money and also be responsible for one of the greatest improvements in productivity in history. Imagine what a single graduate student can do. This is why I am always optimistic about mankind's future.

However, if MIT continues to lie about why they are no longer making the data available, then this will be used to decrease competition and allow frontrunning by financiers as they alone are able to watch in real time pricing trends for specific industry, or even a specific business located in a small town near you.

The pricing efficiencies which should ultimately accrue to the benefit of all mankind will be captured by the oligarchs and select businesses willing to sign confidentiality agreements. We cannot allow this to happen. Long live the internet and the blogosphere because secrets cannot be kept long. Information should be free, or at least priced competitively!

I call upon all of you who realize the implications of MIT keeping this amazing discovery secret to inform Google, BAIDU, Yahoo, Microsoft, and every damn business school in the world. The reason why MIT must keep it secret is because the barriers to entry are low. Anybody can do this. With a small server farm you can compete with MIT and drive down the price so that it is available to everyone, even Joe the plumber who wishes to monitor his input costs and competitor's pricing. He will pay 200 bucks per year for this data, especially if it has some value added statistical analysis that will give him the probability of near term price changes so he can manage his inventory better.

Don't let the oligarchs use this to cement financial control. Don't let MIT go over to the dark side. Tell the BRIC countries. Tell everyone. The wonders of a financial search engine should not be used to gouge society, but to benefit society.
Full Report with an MIT team member in Dave Narby given a chance to defend the inaction (fail):!/FastTadpole/status/66134474039103488

University kids, given a few mundane resources and access to some nice datasets because of the intertwined business relationship between schools and mega-business, never cease to amaze me but this one takes a big ol slice of the cake and they've done some other things such as hacking the chipped debit card readers, exposed rigged US voting machines in a proof of concept and revealed micro-trading schemes happening in real time. Seems the 'elite' have had a card namely The Joker of the deck (at least economically) fall out from up their sleeves while they were too busy spending bailout funds on blow and night riders. Wonder if they can manage to keep it in the box. Let's hope the jig is up so at least that part of illusory reality is a little more level playing field. I mean how much advantage do they really need.

So if it does get out to the wild would that be the signal for the worlds' stocks to crash? Has the gauntlet already been dropped and this is to obfuscate the cause maybe to pin it more on the US for concentrated hatred and unification against a common enemy to unite the world against the United States of America and bring in the Leaders of the New School of Tyranny?

The China, India, Russia and Now Brazil and Peru block is stacking their deck and in response the US is shoring their defences. This would be rather interesting if it weren't so bloody awful and unjust. Unfortunately life (and death) is not a spectator sport no matter how the media tries to spin it.

Sorry violet bubble mediation new agers but the peace vibes won't accomplish frak all. Make a plan on the community level, get some distribution networks in place for the necessities and stand pat cuz the storm's a comin.

This could actually kill centralized currency systems if you could combine this with a 21st century variation of Adam Smith's Real Bills Doctrine and create clearing houses - in house to valuate the price of real goods instead of fiat and use that to back buying power based on production and value instead of debt and speculation.

Maybe put an end to this too ..
[Image: attachment.php?aid=3618] making it more of valuation of real goods services and contributions rather than a gamed commodity in of itself.

The only drawback being that the new system could be gamed but only by more direct methods unless the inventory data was consolidated and regulated by the medium itself in the pipes that serve it through the data validation and content relay gateway systems that are being tested now aside the FCC led net neutrality initiative and a more concentrated corporate internet with players like ComCast.
There are no others, there is only us.
05-13-2011, 07:46 PM,
RE: World's Stocks Controlled by Select Few - In Depth SFIT Statistical Analysis Paper
You would put big subscription based businesses out of business.

A subscription can cost $25,000 a year.
Would you want this free alternative going public?
12-02-2011, 03:51 PM,
RE: World's Stocks Controlled by Select Few - In Depth SFIT Statistical Analysis Paper
An update to the report with a bit of globalist spin and certainly anti-capitalist but the facts are all there to see.

Quote:Revealed – the capitalist network that runs the world
Updated 13:15 24 October 2011 by Andy Coghlan and Debora MacKenzie
Magazine issue 2835.

AS PROTESTS against financial power sweep the world this week, science may have confirmed the protesters' worst fears. 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.

The study's assumptions have attracted some criticism, but complex systems analysts contacted by New Scientist say it is a unique effort to untangle control in the global economy. Pushing the analysis further, they say, could help to identify ways of making global capitalism more stable.

The idea that a few bankers control a large chunk of the global economy might not seem like news to New York's Occupy Wall Street movement and protesters elsewhere. But the study, by a trio of complex systems theorists at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, is the first to go beyond ideology to empirically identify such a network of power. It combines the mathematics long used to model natural systems with comprehensive corporate data to map ownership among the world's transnational corporations (TNCs).

"Reality is so complex, we must move away from dogma, whether it's conspiracy theories or free-market," says James Glattfelder. "Our analysis is reality-based."

Previous studies have found that a few TNCs own large chunks of the world's economy, but they included only a limited number of companies and omitted indirect ownerships, so could not say how this affected the global economy - whether it made it more or less stable, for instance.

The Zurich team can. From Orbis 2007, a database listing 37 million companies and investors worldwide, they pulled out all 43,060 TNCs and the share ownerships linking them. Then they constructed a model of which companies controlled others through shareholding networks, coupled with each company's operating revenues, to map the structure of economic power.

The work, to be published in PLoS One, revealed a core of 1318 companies with interlocking ownership. Each of the 1318 had ties to two or more other companies, and on average they were connected to 20. What's more, although they represented 20 per cent of global operating revenues, the 1318 appeared to collectively own through their shares the majority of the world's large blue chip and manufacturing firms - the "real" economy - representing a further 60 per cent of global revenues.

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.

John Driffill of the University of London, a macroeconomics expert, says the value of the analysis is not just to see if a small number of people controls the global economy, but rather its insights into economic stability.

Concentration of power is not good or bad in itself, says the Zurich team, but the core's tight interconnections could be. As the world learned in 2008, such networks are unstable. "If one [company] suffers distress," says Glattfelder, "this propagates."

"It's disconcerting to see how connected things really are," agrees George Sugihara of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California, a complex systems expert who has advised Deutsche Bank.

Yaneer Bar-Yam, head of the New England Complex Systems Institute (NECSI), warns that the analysis assumes ownership equates to control, which is not always true. Most company shares are held by fund managers who may or may not control what the companies they part-own actually do. The impact of this on the system's behaviour, he says, requires more analysis.

Crucially, by identifying the architecture of global economic power, the analysis could help make it more stable. By finding the vulnerable aspects of the system, economists can suggest measures to prevent future collapses spreading through the entire economy. Glattfelder says we may need global anti-trust rules, which now exist only at national level, to limit over-connection among TNCs. Sugihara says the analysis suggests one possible solution: firms should be taxed for excess interconnectivity to discourage this risk.

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," says Sugihara.

Newcomers to any network connect preferentially to highly connected members. TNCs buy shares in each other for business reasons, not for world domination. If connectedness clusters, so does wealth, says Dan Braha of NECSI: in similar models, money flows towards the most highly connected members. The Zurich study, says Sugihara, "is strong evidence that simple rules governing TNCs give rise spontaneously to highly connected groups". Or as Braha puts it: "The Occupy Wall Street claim that 1 per cent of people have most of the wealth reflects a logical phase of the self-organising economy."

So, the super-entity may not result from conspiracy. The real question, says the Zurich team, is whether it can exert concerted political power. Driffill feels 147 is too many to sustain collusion. Braha suspects they will compete in the market but act together on common interests. Resisting changes to the network structure may be one such common interest.

When this article was first posted, the comment in the final sentence of the paragraph beginning "Crucially, by identifying the architecture of global economic power…" was misattributed.

The top 50 of the 147 superconnected companies

1. Barclays plc
2. Capital Group Companies Inc
3. FMR Corporation
4. AXA
5. State Street Corporation
6. JP Morgan Chase & Co
7. Legal & General Group plc
8. Vanguard Group Inc
10. Merrill Lynch & Co Inc
11. Wellington Management Co LLP
12. Deutsche Bank AG
13. Franklin Resources Inc
14. Credit Suisse Group
15. Walton Enterprises LLC
16. Bank of New York Mellon Corp
17. Natixis
18. Goldman Sachs Group Inc
19. T Rowe Price Group Inc
20. Legg Mason Inc
21. Morgan Stanley
22. Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group Inc
23. Northern Trust Corporation
24. Société Générale
25. Bank of America Corporation
26. Lloyds TSB Group plc
27. Invesco plc
28. Allianz SE 29. TIAA
30. Old Mutual Public Limited Company
31. Aviva plc
32. Schroders plc
33. Dodge & Cox
34. Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc*
35. Sun Life Financial Inc
36. Standard Life plc
37. CNCE
38. Nomura Holdings Inc
39. The Depository Trust Company
40. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance
41. ING Groep NV
42. Brandes Investment Partners LP
43. Unicredito Italiano SPA
44. Deposit Insurance Corporation of Japan
45. Vereniging Aegon
46. BNP Paribas
47. Affiliated Managers Group Inc
48. Resona Holdings Inc
49. Capital Group International Inc
50. China Petrochemical Group Company

* Lehman still existed in the 2007 dataset used

(Data: PLoS One)

Here are the goods to compare with the previous SFIT report. This new one is getting better coverage than the last Report.

Quote:The network of global corporate control
Published September 19th 2011

Stefania Vitali, James B. Glattfelder, and Stefano Battiston Chair of Systems Design, ETH Zurich, Kreuzplatz 5, 8032 Zurich, Switzerland, corresponding author, email:


The structure of the control network of transnational corporations affects global market competition and financial stability. So far, only small national samples were studied and there was no appropriate methodology to assess control globally. We present the first investigation of the architecture of the international ownership network, along with the computation of the control held by each global player. We find that transnational corporations form a giant bow-tie structure and that a large portion of control flows to a small tightly-knit core of financial institutions.

This core can be seen as an economic “super-entity” that raises new important issues both for researchers and policy makers.
Download Full PDF: (36 Pages)
There are no others, there is only us.
11-29-2012, 07:12 PM,
Video  RE: World's Stocks Controlled by Select Few, In Depth SFIT Statistical Analysis Paper
Money Trail-The International Banking Cartel
Published on 24 Nov 2012 by Danea Mobley-Krist
There are no others, there is only us.
11-30-2012, 12:00 AM,
RE: World's Stocks Controlled by Select Few, In Depth SFIT Statistical Analysis Paper
James B. Glattfelder co-authored the study "The Network of Global Corporate Control" which was widely covered in the international media and sparked controversial discussions.

12-03-2012, 07:10 AM, (This post was last modified: 12-03-2012, 07:19 AM by macfadden.)
RE: World's Stocks Controlled by Select Few - In Depth SFIT Statistical Analysis Pape

Interlocking directorates -- defined as the linkages among corporations created by individuals who sit on two or more corporate boards -- have been a source of research attention since the Progressive Era at the turn of the 20th century, when they were used by famous muckraking journalists, and future Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, to claim that a few large commercial and investment banks controlled most major corporations.

Interlocks act as communication channels, enabling information to be shared between boards via multiple directors who have access to inside information for multiple companies. The system of interlocks forms what Michael Useem calls a "transcorporate network, overarching all sectors of business". Interlocks have benefits over trusts, cartels, and other monopolistic/oligopolistic forms of organization, due to their greater fluidity, and lower visibility (making them less open to public scrutiny). They also benefit the involved companies, due to reduced competition, increased information availability for directors, and increased prestige.

multiple directors tend to be more frequently appointed to government positions, and sit on more non-profit/foundation boards than other directors. Thus, these individuals (known as the "inner circle" of the corporate class) tend to contribute disproportionately to the policy-planning and government groups that represent the interests of the corporate class, and are the ones that are most likely to deal with general policy issues and handle political problems for the business class as a whole. These individuals and the people around them are often considered to be the "ruling class" in modern politics.

Interlocks not only occur between corporations, but also between corporations and non-profit institutions such as foundations, think tanks, policy-planning groups, and universities. They can also be seen as a subset of connections in a larger upper class social network which includes all of the aforementioned types of institutions as well as elite social clubs, schools, resorts, and gatherings. Multiple directors are "roughly twice as likely as single directors to be in the Social Register, to have attended a prestigious private school, or to belong to an elite social club."

Analyses of corporate interlocks have found a high degree of interconnectedness amongst large corporations. It has also been shown that in-bound interlocks (i.e. a network link from external firms into a focal firm) are far more impactful that out-bound interlocks, a finding that laid the foundation for further research on inter-organizational networks based on overlapping memberships and other linkages such as joint ventures and patent backward and forward citations. Virtually all large U.S. corporations are linked together in a network of interlocks. Most corporations are within 3 or 4 "steps" from each other within this network. Approximately 15-20% of all directors sit on two or more boards. The largest corporations tend to have the most interlocks, and also tend to have interlocks with each other, placing them at the center of the network. Major banks, in particular, tend to be at the center of the network and have large numbers of interlocks. With the globalization of financial capital following World War II, multinational interlocks have become progressively more common. As the Cold War escalated, well-connected members of the CIA harnessed these interconnections to launder money through front foundations, as well as more substantial institutions such as the Ford Foundation. A relatively small number of individuals—a few dozen—bind this multinational network together by participating in transnational interlocks and sitting on the boards of multiple global policy groups (such as the Council on Foreign Relations).

Quote:According to some observers (John Asimakopoulos), interlocks allow for cohesion, coordinated action, and unified political-economic power of corporate executives. They allow corporations to increase their influence by exerting power as a group, and to work together towards common goals. They help corporate executives maintain an advantage, and gain more power over workers and consumers, by reducing intra-class competition and increasing cooperation. In the words of Scott R. Bowman, interlocks "facilitate a community of interest among the elite of the corporate world that supplants the competitive and socially divisive ethos of an earlier stage of capitalism with an ethic of cooperation and a sense of shared values and goals."

“Competition is a sin.” John D. Rockefeller quote (American Industrialist and Philanthropist, founder of the Standard Oil Company, 1839-1937).

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  'Dollar valueless, about to crash' - World Bank whistleblower SiLVa 11 980 04-07-2014, 10:52 PM
Last Post: CharliePrime
  World Bank Accused Of Destroying Small Farms for Land Grabs mexika 0 154 04-03-2014, 06:26 PM
Last Post: mexika
Bug TruthJihad Interviews World Bank Whistleblowing Lawyer CharliePrime 0 369 11-25-2013, 08:50 PM
Last Post: CharliePrime
  Currency/Warfare:¨A new world order will emerge from the ashes.¨ h3rm35 32 7,544 10-04-2012, 09:24 PM
Last Post: h3rm35
  The end of the world is near dioskouri 1 657 05-21-2012, 01:55 AM
Last Post: h3rm35
  The Flaw Movie - A flaw in the model that defines how the world works. pvdwyngaer 6 2,121 02-15-2012, 08:12 PM
Last Post: pvdwyngaer
  How eliminating paper money could end recessions. drummer 3 632 12-20-2011, 08:43 PM
Last Post: h3rm35
  World facing worst financial crisis in history, Bank of England Governor says TriWooOx 1 529 10-07-2011, 07:16 AM
Last Post: Armilus
  Meltdown - The Men Who Crashed the World Solve et Coagula 0 303 10-04-2011, 10:18 PM
Last Post: Solve et Coagula
Information Bill Gates: World Bank Tax on Financial Transactions, Tobacco, Shipping and Aviation FastTadpole 1 940 09-28-2011, 09:58 PM
Last Post: Dunamis

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)