Create Account

Username
Password
Remember me
Email
 
2
thecrookedman
thecrookedman

147 Companies Control Everything

15 comments, 684 views, posted 8:50 pm 25/10/2011 in Business by thecrookedman
thecrookedman has 2624 posts, 203 threads, 84 points, location: Calla Bryn Sturgis

The 147 Companies That Control Everything
Forbes
10/22/2011 @ 9:37AM

Three systems theorists at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich have taken a database listing 37 million companies and investors worldwide and analyzed all 43,060 transnational corporations and share ownerships linking them. They built a model of who owns what and what their revenues are and mapped the whole edifice of economic power.

They discovered that global corporate control has a distinct bow-tie shape, with a dominant core of 147 firms radiating out from the middle. Each of these 147 own interlocking stakes of one another and together they control 40% of the wealth in the network. A total of 737 control 80% of it all. The top 20 are at the bottom of the post. This is, say the paper’s authors, the first map of the structure of global corporate control.

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
9. UBS AG
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 (holding company for Wal-Mart heirs)
16. Bank of New York Mellon Corp
17. Natixis
18. Goldman Sachs Group Inc
19. T Rowe Price Group Inc
20. Legg Mason Inc

More

Comments

0
8:54 pm 25/10/2011

Vormid

Banks...Amazing...

2
9:03 pm 25/10/2011

z0phi3l

Who else would have the capital to do this?

4
9:26 pm 25/10/2011

Flee

from the site:

Quote:
A few caveats with the data set: It excludes GSEs and privately-held companies and is dominated by banks, institutional investors and mutual funds that don’t always have much in the way of control over assets. Reader danogden left an especially good comment below: “…pension plans, corporate 401(k) plans and individual funds..manage trillions in assets ultimately belonging to individuals who are predominantly not in the “1%”. …There are a number of “custodian banks” in the list — companies who hold the assets of asset managers to ensure timely processing of things like foreign dividend and bond interest, name changes (due to mergers, etc.), foreign currency conversion and the like…Again, they do not own the assets, or even really control the assets — they merely house the assets.
5
11:52 pm 25/10/2011

Rosie

Which conspiracy theory does this confirm?  Rothchild's?  Jewish bankers? 

1
9:54 am 29/10/2011

Ram

Quote by Rosie:
Which conspiracy theory does this confirm?  Rothchild's?  Jewish bankers? 


all of the above

1
12:29 pm 29/10/2011

Viscera

yep, continue the whole idea that it's those bad corporations that are the puppet masters. Awesome comment above Flee

0
3:43 pm 29/10/2011

thecrookedman

Quote by Viscera:
yep, continue the whole idea that it's those bad corporations that are the puppet masters.


Who mentioned that?

1
5:05 pm 30/10/2011

Viscera

just the general sentiment, nothing common to this thread or you in particular. The zeit geist is to claim that corporations are evil, thieves, misuse their workers etc.

0
5:30 pm 30/10/2011

thecrookedman

Corporations are man-made, and given your sentiments with regard to humanity, how could corporations be anything but "evil".

Quote by Viscera:
Humanity doesn't deserve the faith so many people place in it


Source

1
7:30 pm 30/10/2011

Viscera

you make the mistake between assigning mankind as selfish and self serving, vs an entity that has no moral capability as evil. Storms, weather and natural events don't have any moral implications, the results of those events might be negative, but that doesn't make them evil. I would imagine that if you were an employee of a corporation and received benefits, income, and iretirement from them, then they aren't "evil", but if you were the mom & pop store put out of business by that same corp coming to town, then your perspective is different. Neither of those examples insinuates good or evil.

1
7:35 pm 30/10/2011

Viscera

Quote by thecrookedman:
Corporations are man-made, and given your sentiments with regard to humanity, how could corporations be anything but "evil".

Quote by Viscera:
Humanity doesn't deserve the faith so many people place in it

Source


so, you take a quote from Qaddafi being sodomized after death, and attribute it to corporations? Interesting use of selective copy/paste I guess.

0
12:25 am 31/10/2011

thecrookedman

I'm not sure I understand your objection. You've admitted you are very cynical about humanity's nature. I just cited that comment because it's recent and I happened too recall it.

Does it no longer reflect your basic attitude about people in general? And if it does, doesn't it follow that corporations, a profit-driven abstraction of human organization, would be just as bad?

2
1:31 am 31/10/2011

Viscera

I believe in the lack of humanities ability to rise above their imperfect state. I believe that if you look at the history of the world, we haven't gotten better, we just know more and that doesn't always translate into doing what is best for the race. Although the sentiment is accurate saying that I don't have a good opinion of humanity, the comment was about an atrocity that borders on obscenity, comparing that to a corp. behavior is not accurate. So in my mind, the two aren't related. I don't assign morality to a business. Certainly you can do business ethically, but the mere fact that a business is profit driven doesn't make it evil, that is the sweeping generalization that I object to both here, and in theory with OWS

1
3:49 am 31/10/2011

thecrookedman

I didn't mean to compare the atrocity to corporate behavior. Nevertheless, I took your comment about humanity's nature at face value, especially since it resonated with similar statements you've made (e.g. "Mankind doesn't have the capacity to do anything but serve itself." here). I wondered whether you thought corporations amplify of mute this nature, this behavior.

1
12:13 pm 31/10/2011

Viscera

I understand now, I would concur that any human organization is going to amplify the ethics of the person(s) involved. That doesn't mean the course can't be changed, but from my position on anthropology, there can only be so much "ggod" done because inevitably, people serve themselves by nature. Whether that means they agree with philosophies that align with their thoughts on subjects, or actively try to change things to the definition of the world as they see it.

Add Comment

Log in via teoti, or register to add a comment!


Teh NookMayrHayasdanJaranWebAngryShirtsGoneGeekEat Liver