Study shows powerful corporations really do control the world's finances (external - login to view)
Comments: Main Text (10 pages, 3 figures and 1 table) and Supporting Information (26 pages, 7 figures and 4 tables) Subjects: General Finance (q-fin.GN); Social and Information Networks (cs.SI); Physics and Society (physics.soc-ph) Cite as: arXiv:1107.5728v1 (external - login to view) [q-fin.GN]
You mean freeloaders like GM, Chrysler, AIG and many other companies that so recently resorted to government welfare and now lobby so strongly against tax increases on the top two percent of US income earners?
I was thinking more along the lines of anyone that has an NDP membership card. You know, the ones that do nothing for society but want workers to pay for every thing they want.
Check out what percentage of income the top earners pay it taxes of all kinds and then compare it to the lowest income. Who isn't paying their fair share?
When I started working the head honcho of an organization earned 7 times what the lowest paid employee earned, now I'd venture to say it is more like 50 or 100 times more.
But there was no study. Just a lot of claims, with no names or actual evidence.
Again claims, but no substance, other than this delightful comment "So far, only small national samples were studied and there was no appropriate methodology to assess control globally."
From a small paragraph of literally nothing.
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.So, the researchers are saying that up to the point that they decided to investigate their hypothesis, there were only small national samples of financial control. So, they designed a study to test the control on a global scale. They basically performed network analysis (external - login to view), which showed that a significant portion of the global economy flows through a small number of organizations. As the quote from PhysOrg in the OP mentioned, that's not an unsurprising result.
So while there i went looking for a link that might show the date or some evidence, and found,
Every industry is different...Some unions negotiate percentage rates, others straight dollar raise...
When I first started in a paper mill, I started at $2 an hour and the top man on the machine was making $6 an hour or three times as much....big money in those days.
When I retired in that top position, I was making $31/hour and the bottom man $16/hour..
If we had had percentage raises I should have been making 48/hr to his 16.
The place I gained was in the number of weeks holidays in a year.
Yep, when I retired I was getting an obscene 7 weeks of holidays a year. When I started I was getting two.
They get to vote on them!
The study is on the arXiv database, and the abstract of the study is listed as well, to which you partially quoted.
If you go to the link at arXiv, you can click the link on the left hand side to get the pdf of the full study.
Link to the study:
arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...107.5728v1.pdf (external - login to view)
So far, only small national samples were studied and there was no appropriate methodology to assess control globally.
That's referring to studies to date, not the study they performed. It's all in the .pdf. That's why reading the abstract isn't sufficient when a scientist/researcher is reviewing the literature to place their own results within the broader academic context. It's clumsy wording, though you have to understand that these are Swiss researchers, so sometimes the translation to English isn't quite what an English speaker would expect.
Are you not overlooking the fact that the bottom 50% of income earners make so little (only 2.5% of the total wealth of the USA) that it is almost impossible for them to make enough to pay taxes? While the top one percent in the US now takes home 24% of the total wealth. You don't seem to understand that people who live from paycheque to paycheque and often have to resort to food banks in order to survive might not have any spare cash for paying taxes. Pay the average wage earner a decent wage and then they will actually rise enough above the poverty level to be able to pay taxes. Or do you favour a society dominated by the ultra-rich in which the vast majority of the population scrabbles for what is left over?Quote has been trimmed, See full post:
As for your NDP comment I fail to see that it has the least bit of validity. As a matter of fact it makes no sense whatsoever, given the NDP's traditional policies. But then I expect you know very little about parties that actually want to help the average wage earner.
Quite true. But to be completely fair; these corporations have a long history of talking competition, free enterprise, and a lack of government regulation. If they truly believe in such policies then they should be willing to accept the ultimate outcome of the capitalist system, which is that some businesses succeed and others fail. Also, if I remember correctly was it not our right wing friends who immediately pounced on the workers you mention and...