Oil Companies rule world

FiveParadox

Governor General
Dec 20, 2005
5,875
43
48
Vancouver, BC
Requisite Evidence

Nicely put, Toro. One should always, as a rule, include the source of their information when citing it in their arguments in these debates. I'm not pointing out Jersay in particular, by any means, but rather making a very broad and general statement.
 

jimmoyer

jimmoyer
Apr 3, 2005
5,101
22
38
69
Winchester Virginia
www.contactcorp.net
Jersay, you might consider the reasoning of Toro.

I'll tell you one thing, remember that we echo
the mindthink of our group, you echo yours and I
echo mine, and many times we are too suspicious
to accept the logic of the other.

There are many pieces to the puzzle.

Toro is excellent at cutting through the fuzzy
and comes at you straight up, and to my perspective
his posts are much more analytical than ideological.
 

ElPolaco

Electoral Member
Nov 5, 2004
271
0
16
Fruita, CO, Aztlan
www.spec-tra.com
I still think the whole issue is far too complex to make statements like "oil" or "7 big ones". It's so interwoven between great powers, corporations, third world dictatorships, the military constantly promoting new and taking advantage of existing situations and ideologies. I prefer Eisenhower's term "military-industrial complex".
 

Toro

Senate Member
May 24, 2005
5,468
109
63
Florida, Hurricane Central
The "military-industrial complex" is a myth, or at least it is in today's world.

These graphs are a little old, and military spending has gone up about 8% per year since Bush was elected (they're now looking at trimming the military's budget), but these percentages haven't changed much.





Notice how much spending goes towards social spending? Health, welfare and social security accounted for 52%, on average, of US budget expenditure during the 1990s. compared to 18% for the military! Today, the military is about 21%. So much for the uncaring American society. I bet many Canadians would be surprised at this.

http://www.argmax.com/mt_blog/archive/000284.php
 

Curiosity

Senate Member
Jul 30, 2005
7,326
138
63
California
Jersay said:
Funny thing is, I just took a class on this, and basically the whole freaking world is ruled by 7 multi-national corporations. Because these corporations are into everything, they rule everything. The example today was Disney.

Now, I like Disney movies as a laugh but this movie we watched about it was just so F*ing scary that it is not funny.

First, Fantasia and Bambi, and those were my favorite movies promote sexism with the animals (bunny in Bambi), the Centurs in Fantasia, female sexism. Big boobs, and small waste. Subliminal message.

Second, Pocahontas, with the Indians dancing around. Ensures that history is being rewritten because it doesn't get to the fact of the genocide committed in America and around the world.

Tarzan, where all the native people and all the black people of Africa are gone. Or they don't know the jungle like a white man does.

Tarzan, Oliver and Company, The Lion King, the animals are represented as minorities. The little chow dog, as a latin guy in Oliver in Company, and black people as gorillas and hyenas. Or if they have a part in a movie they are always painted bad.

And finally most scariest of all, the Disney corporation runs ABC, and 50% of the media outlet. We are screwed!

A guy in this movie a Dr, in history said that as he was dissenting against Disney, some talk show hosts said, aren't you scare. Are we living in some police state?

-----------

Also good example of sweat shops and unlawful activities. All done by these big corporations who do not care about the little people.

When a corporation is finally taken down, no one person can be blamed. It is a collective idenitity, so it is extremely hard for prosecution. Valdez oil spill!

Coke, in Columbia, a union leader came to my University to preach that 8 other union men had been killed by squads funded by Coke. Just last month he was shot in killed.

So 7 large corporations run the world. Just great@!

Hi Jersay

You come up with the most interesting subjects.

About your post here - I am butting in because I know nothing about the topic of corporate rule in our world.... but I wanted to write two things here:

(1) The information as presented in the class you are taking is indeed scary as to its inaccuracy and bias; and,

(2) What is even more scary would be to have only one corporation running the world.

Thanks for the objective and simplified responses as always Toro!

Talk about mind-rape of the young!
 

Toro

Senate Member
May 24, 2005
5,468
109
63
Florida, Hurricane Central
RE: Oil Companies rule wo

"The Corporation" is an interesting film done by people with an ideological axe to grind.

All the Canadian politicians have shares in oil companies. If you are a Canadian above the age of 18 you own shares in oil companies because CPP invests in oil companies.
 

Curiosity

Senate Member
Jul 30, 2005
7,326
138
63
California
Jersay

Where are you studying the kind of information contained in the links you provided?

If you don't wish to say, that is quite ok with me, it is a personal question and rude of me to ask.

If you could just state the level of study and location of your school(general) that would be enough.

Is this the only material you are working with, or are there alternative views?
 

Jersay

House Member
Dec 1, 2005
4,837
2
38
Independent Palestine
University

I just skimmed over the stuff. I listed the movies, the links just were for backup.

Well there are other students that go for Disney and corporations but we are basically working on an against corporation-Disney angle.
 

Curiosity

Senate Member
Jul 30, 2005
7,326
138
63
California
Jersay

That was rude of me to ask - and thank you for your answer. So there are two inclusive sides to the debate then, and not just one ideological side being pursued?

At least I thought that was how education still worked but was confused that you were receiving a mandate for one opinion only.

Thanks again!
 

ElPolaco

Electoral Member
Nov 5, 2004
271
0
16
Fruita, CO, Aztlan
www.spec-tra.com
Toro said:
The "military-industrial complex" is a myth, or at least it is in today's world.

These graphs are a little old, and military spending has gone up about 8% per year since Bush was elected (they're now looking at trimming the military's budget), but these percentages haven't changed much.



Notice how much spending goes towards social spending? Health, welfare and social security accounted for 52%, on average, of US budget expenditure during the 1990s. compared to 18% for the military! Today, the military is about 21%. So much for the uncaring American society. I bet many Canadians would be surprised at this.

http://www.argmax.com/mt_blog/archive/000284.php

The military-industrial complex is alive and well, i.e. Iraq.

Social spending in the US is up?--to switch to anecdotal "evidence",
I'll believe that more when I stop going broke from making HMO copayments.
 

Karlin

Council Member
Jun 27, 2004
1,275
2
38
Money and budgest can be so decieving, accounting is an art form, as they say.

We allways hear about welfare taking your taxdollars, but then I hear that governments in the USA and Canada spend TWICe that much on "corporate welfare".

It might yet all be true. Take out the health care spending - and I am surprised to se how much the USA govt. spend on health [and welfare -can you break them down?] - and the corporate gifts, tax and royalty breaks, tax-free loans, loan forgiveness, contracts like with Haliburton that are never filled, etc etc., - money that benefits corporations, is a lot more than they spend on welfare for poor people.

THEN, and this is good!!, take the money spent on health care and put it in the corporate column because it is government money going to PharmaGiants and their medical minions parading as doctors who simply peddle their products. If they cured diseases or identifyed causes we could call it something that benefits people and not corporations.


And yes, we see the military industrial complex is alive and dominating in every way.
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
Wealthy and powerful people rule the world. They always have. But the current trend is toward concentration of wealth and power into the hands of fewer and fewer people. Inevitably this trend will lead toward global instability just as it has in the past.

For example

United States

and

The Evolution of High Incomes in Northern America:
Lessons from Canadian Evidence


Be careful when analyzing data regarding income and wealth distribution. Its a political football often twisted for various purposes. Sure people's incomes have risen, but so has the cost of everything. Studies which don't deal in real dollars or take into account cost of living are misleading.

If your income remains flat, your standard of living goes down because of rising cost of living.


One way to tell if the poor are getting poorer is to look at the amount of homeless people.

link

Basically the trend since the mid 70's have been more and more income as a percent of total income has been going to the top 10%. The higher the income, the greater the increase.

Yes more wealth is being created but the wealthier you are, the more wealth you get. The bottom 40% get what they have always gotten....little to nothing.

http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/Courses/so11/stratification/income&wealth.htm
(sorry but I can't make this link work properly, you'll have to cut and paste?)
The Distribution of Wealth in America

My intepretation of the data? Longterm trends tend to be cyclical with economic depressions followed by war restoring balance. Currently we at a point in the cycle which is typically associated with the beginning of war.

Getting back to the original subject, is the world controlled by big oil? Not exactly. Big oil is controlled by fewer and fewer wealthier and wealthier people. So is big media, big manufacturing, etc.

One alarming new development is the American government's new freedom to spy on its own citizens. In effect the people who control big government can not only use their influence to start wars for profit, but they can now use their influence to collect strategic information on their political and economic adversaries to gain political and economic advantages further accelerating the trend toward wealth and power concentration at the top. Of course I'm assuming that Bush's claims that the US government collects information for anti-terrorism/peace purposes is as much a lie as his claims that he starts wars for anti-terrorism/peace purposes.
 

jimmoyer

jimmoyer
Apr 3, 2005
5,101
22
38
69
Winchester Virginia
www.contactcorp.net
You know the late 60s movie, ODD COUPLE, had this funny
little back and forth repartee between Felix Unger
(initals F.U.) and Oscar, and how the prissy intellectual Felix would do a lot of preamble before getting to the point and this
would really piss off Oscar.

I laughed in favor of Oscar who had the pure
straight-up-get-to-the-point kind of charm.

But unfortunately, I kind of identify with Felix's method of preamble, because he intuitively knew that what he was about to say would not be acceptable to the listener.

Hence my preamble here.

The post by "earth_as_one" accurately noted the
growing disparity between the rich and poor and even
allowed that although that disparity is growing, more and
more people are making more money and this
total aggregate wealth is increasing, but advised us this is
a red herring designed to detour us us from focusing on
the growing disparity between rich and poor.

The subtlety here is that neither truth trumps the other
truth. The spin (not a nice word) of earth_as_one's post
is to make sure we keep our eye on the ball of that disparity.

But the real subtlety of that emphasis on disparity is that of perspective.

Let's say the rich just vanished.

And those who were middle class or who are poor no longer
have that reference point to compare.

Suddenly the complaint of falling behind vanishes as well.

Suddenly the disparity does not color their world.

Then they will focus on the half full glass.

And then they will further realize that the glass itself
is bigger than it was in the past.

On the average we are all living in a bigger way,
bigger houses, bigger cars, bigger needs, gotta have cable,
and 100 dollar phone bills because we need DSL and
cellular communication and we
gotta have necessities that in the past were luxuries,
and we
gotta have 3 TV sets (when in the past your folks only
had one), and we gotta keep up with .... what ?

But you gotta have this or that to stay competitive?

When you look at the burgeoning middle class of India,
you would say their Middle Class neighborhoods have the look of
an American 1940s or 1950s middle class, but they're happy,
and they're struggling on a smaller budget than you
and they have more hope and dreams than you.

But they see themselves differently.

Oh you believe they complain? Of course they do.
But they're working on a plan. Do we have that same
sensibility anymore ?

We put little value on this matter of perspective.

Because although the world looks at America living in its
own bubble, so this is true of most of the western democratic
societies echoing in the media echo chamber
the same points over and over again like a hypnotic
mantra as you see in "earth_as_one's" post.

So yes, we are falling behind.
And so no, we are not.

Even the myth of war as some kind of balancing
act for the economy is often believed.

The Iraq war by America is proving that myth a myth.

The sentence of earth_as_one's post states: "Longterm trends tend to be cyclical with economic depressions followed by war restoring balance."

You did not see this as true in the Vietnam War because
high inflation followed it, only to be corrected by the Milton
Friedman school of believers like Paul Voelker and Alan
Greenspan who knew the only way to control surplus
money supply (which by definition is inflation) is by tightening the prime rate banks lend for interest.

And you're seeing that also not help the American economy
of deficit budget spending on the Iraq war.

Often the corrections to an economy during or after a war
are in spite of that war, not owing its benefits to that war.
 

Curiosity

Senate Member
Jul 30, 2005
7,326
138
63
California
LOL Jim Moyer

I loved your "preamble"!!!

The measuring sticks for economic wealth among populations is skewed when using the old definitions of have and have-nots.

The have nots are doing very well. My peer group have all the comforts we can use, money in our bank accounts, reserves for catastrophe, homes, good education expectation, freedom of choice in all our personal decisions.... wealth is relative.....and we are the majority of the population - with very little "want" and plenty of "unnecessary toys" and lifestyle choices.

Comparatively speaking in our western society, there is really very little poverty. Most poverty is the result of unplanned catastrophe, poor choice, terrible future planning, and lack of sustainable family units, These are all "fixable", "avoidable" or preventable", with the exception of catastrophe which then becomes the domain of our good planning for such events and the reminder we are all our "brother's keeper".

By catastrophe, I include personal and individual such as illness or accident, and community/world such as we have witnessed this past year thanks to Mother Nature's tantrums.

There are two choices which contribute to much loss and poverty of lifestyle and economic growth in our society and these are:

(a) addictions (which lead to much of our crime and poverty); and

(b) single parenting (which is part of our culture now) but leads to a fragile beginning for many children. Argue this freedom and I will return the blanket commentary, nobody has come up with a substitute for a mother and father in child rearing.

I have no answers for either of the foregoing but feel along with our marvelous creature comforts, we also have the down side of being unable to actualize consequences of poor choice.

We still have much learning to do.
 

Toro

Senate Member
May 24, 2005
5,468
109
63
Florida, Hurricane Central
earth

I agree with you that the wealthiest incomes have risen faster than the poorest. You can see the data here

In constant dollars, income by household. (1998 was the latest data available)

The poorest decile
1967 - $7,324
1998 - $9,700
Increase 32%

The richest 5%
1967 - $85,317
1998 - $132,199
Increase 55%

http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/incineq/...4/p6098tb3.html

Share of aggregate income

The poorest quintile
1967 - 4.0%
1998 - 3.6%

The richest 5%
1967 - 17.5%
1998 - 21.4%

http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/incineq/...4/p6098tb2.html

This is why, IMHO, the tax cuts in America under Bush should not have been skewed to the wealthy but to the lower and middle classes more so.

However, note that these are real incomes, meaning after inflation, so incomes have risen for all income stratas over time even after costs have gone up.

(I see that the links are to pages that no longer exist. That means the Census Bureau has updated the information. I'll track that down and post the updated data later.)

But there is mobility between income stratas, well described in this article

The poverty hype

Jan 4, 2006
by Walter E. Williams

Despite claims that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, poverty is nowhere near the problem it was yesteryear -- at least for those who want to work. Talk about the poor getting poorer tugs at the hearts of decent people and squares nicely with the agenda of big government advocates, but it doesn't square with the facts.

Dr. Michael Cox, economic adviser to the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, and Richard Alm, a business reporter for the Dallas Morning News, co-authored a 1999 book, "Myths of Rich and Poor: Why We're Better Off Than We Think," that demonstrates the pure nonsense about the claim that the poor get poorer.

The authors analyzed University of Michigan Panel Study of Income Dynamics data that tracked more than 50,000 individual families since 1968. Cox and Alms found: Only five percent of families in the bottom income quintile (lowest 20 percent) in 1975 were still there in 1991. Three-quarters of these families had moved into the three highest income quintiles. During the same period, 70 percent of those in the second lowest income quintile moved to a higher quintile, with 25 percent of them moving to the top income quintile. When the Bureau of Census reports, for example, that the poverty rate in 1980 was 15 percent and a decade later still 15 percent, for the most part they are referring to different people.

Cox and Alm's findings were supported by a U.S. Treasury Department study that used an entirely different data base, income tax returns. The U.S. Treasury found that 85.8 percent of tax filers in the bottom income quintile in 1979 had moved on to a higher quintile by 1988 -- 66 percent to second and third quintiles and 15 percent to the top quintile. Income mobility goes in the other direction as well. Of the people who were in the top one percent of income earners in 1979, over half, or 52.7 percent, were gone by 1988. Throughout history and probably in most places today, there are whole classes of people who remain permanently poor or permanently rich, but not in the United States. The percentages of Americans who are permanently poor or rich don't exceed single digits.

It doesn't take rocket science to figure out why people who are poor in one decade are not poor one or two decades later. First, they get older. Would anyone be surprised that 30, 40 or 50-year-olds earn a higher income than 20-year-olds? The 1995 Annual Report of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas found that "Average income tends to rise quickly in life as workers gain work experience and knowledge. Households headed by someone under age 25 average $15,197 a year in income. Average income more than doubles to $33,124 for 25- to 34-year-olds. For those 35 to 44, the figure jumps to $43,923. It takes time for learning, hard work and saving to bear fruit."

The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas report listed a few no-brainer behaviors consistent with upward income mobility. Households in the top income bracket have 2.1 workers; those in the bottom have 0.6 workers. In the lowest income bracket, 84 percent worked part time; in the highest income bracket, 80 percent worked full time. That translates into: Get a full-time job. Only seven percent of top income earners live in a "nonfamily" household compared to 37 percent of the bottom income category. Translation: Get married. At the time of the study, the unemployment rate in McAllen, Texas, was 17.5 percent, while in Austin, Texas, it was 3.5 percent. Translation: If you can't find a job in one locality, move to where there are jobs.

The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas report concludes, "Little on this list should come as a surprise. Taken as a whole, it's what most Americans have been told since they were kids -- by society, by their parents, by their teachers."

Dr. Williams has served on the faculty of George Mason University in Fairfax, VA, as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics, since 1980.

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/walterwilliams/2006/01/04/180969.html
 

jimmoyer

jimmoyer
Apr 3, 2005
5,101
22
38
69
Winchester Virginia
www.contactcorp.net
That glass might be half full or half empty
but the glass itself got bigger.

And there is a matter of perception.

You often hear the older ones say they had no
idea they were poor as children during the
Great Depression because everybody was in the same boat.

And we really can't even begin to look at our
world of constant disparity.

We can't look at it.

Unless we really really sincerely embrace
this paradox of perception we hold as truth.

Children of the Depression didn't feel poor.
Everyone was going through the same struggle.

But in a time of disparity, all we see appears out
of sync. And it is.

And it isn't.

What do we do about it?

Well we must listen to those who find this disparity
wrong. But those valid complaints become shallow
without understanding the way we perceive,
and how it affects our will, our hopes.

We will never quite all be in the same boat,
because none of us are the same, psychologically
and materially.

And so the problems of disparity and the changing
guage of poverty and real poverty itself is not only a
a matter of a political system's dysfunction but also
a matter of a loss of psychological hope.

When Wednesday's Child brings up the matter of
a 2-parent upbringing, she is bringing up the matter
of perception of this reality.

There is a way to grow up in this world of disparity
and none of the political arguments on
statistics hold a candle to philosophy, psychology,
the will of our mind.

We try to fix things with laws, plans, rules,
regulations, money.

But the overriding answer is the culture of thinking.
The real answer is to encourage a culture to see
the world in a deeper way.

And no laws, rules, plans, political systems, money
can do this without such a psychology.

Toro's clear, simple approach to looking at the data
says this half full glass, this half empty glass
shows how the glass itself got bigger than it was.

Now look to yourselves.

The culture must depend on the individual.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make
him drink.

Unless, as a farmer told me, who came in to get
a generator fixed, you can send a little electrical
charge that stimulates their drinking appetite.