A giant problem The rise of the corporate colossus threatens both competition and the legitimacy of business … DISRUPTION may be the buzzword in boardrooms, but the most striking feature of business today is not the overturning of the established order. It is the entrenchment of a group of superstar companies at the heart of the global economy. -The Economist
The Economist provides pre-eminent support to the world’s growing fascist technocracy, but every now and then, apparently, it has to write an article opposed to it.
Probably more than any other publishing group, the people behind The Economist have shaped the modern world and its leadership.
This includes the multinationals the modern world is plagued with. And one can be sure that The Economist’s leadership is supportive of TPP and TTIP, the “trade agreements” intended to cement global corporate leadership and place it above mere nation-states.
The world The Economist has in mind is a technocratic one. The “best and brightest” will be selected at a young age to go to specially designed schools that provide a certain outlook on the world and what is important to know.
These individuals, cocooned and cosseted, will go on to provide leadership for an interconnected group of dominant corporations spanning the world.
Their lives shall be rarified; their vision implacably internationalist; their actions bent toward the aggrandizement of the system they serve without question.
But, nonetheless, there is a lot of anger over what’s going on. People can clearly make out the horizon and are aware that slavery awaits them on the other side.
In fact, The Economist has probably woken up to resistance to its horrible trade agreements and this article is a reflection of the sudden comprehension that people are aware of the fate in store for them and don’t wish for it to take place.
From the Georgia Guidestones: “Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.”
We should pay attention to articles like these. Often they signal wider movements at top levels of the world’s corporatocracy.
Those who own The Economist often use it as a megaphone to communicate globalist messages. For instance, one of its cover stories a few years ago announced the advent of social media. Nowadays social media appears to have taken over the world. Didn’t take long at all.
We regularly write about this kind of occurrence. It begins with an elite meme – a statement of intent – and then gradually takes on the shape of what we called “directed history” as the meme is increasingly realized.
In the current era both memes and directed history have become continually less convincing and more peremptory. It is as if those providing them hardly care anymore – given their constant “outing.” They are providing form but not substance.
Now we have The Economist criticizing international corporations, though unconvincingly to be sure. More:
As our special report this week makes clear, the superstars are admirable in many ways … But they have two big faults. They are squashing competition, and they are using the darker arts of management to stay ahead.
Neither is easy to solve. But failing to do so risks a backlash which will be bad for everyone … Anger at all this is understandable, but an inchoate desire to bash business leaves everyone worse off.
Disenchantment with pro-business policies, particularly liberal immigration rules, helped the “outs” to win the Brexit referendum in Britain and Donald Trump to seize the Republican nomination.
Protectionism and nativism will only lower living standards. Reining in the giants requires the scalpel, not the soapbox.
Actually reining in the giants simply requires several blows from a judicial sledgehammer.
As we have often pointed out, get rid of corporate personhood, intellectual property rights and central bank monopoly/fiat money and corporations will likely shrink in size to what the market will bear. Corporations will probably turn into flexible limited partnerships that will join together to build large projects and then separate when size is no longer necessary.
Around the world people live in slavery and hopelessness because of the increasingly formidable regime of multinationals. But don’t count on The Economist to offer a simple solution. Central banking, intellectual property rights and corporate personhood are like some sort of religion. To suggest their removal is tantamount to blasphemy in some circles.
The Economist is well aware that misleading arguments against multinational power must be put in place now before people begin to attack the fundamental perversity of their presence – the legal ballast that anchors them.
Conclusion: But sooner or later people will begin to confront the deeper ruin created by men and women in dark robes. As anger rises, the fundamentals of the problem will come to be examined. The judicial system itself will finally find itself under much-deserved scrutiny. And the US Constitution too, if necessary.