Who are they?
Do they really control the world economy or banks and governments?
>>1158346
Nothing on the world is that simple, it's a generalization. The most common mistake.
>>1158346
jews
>>1158346
>Who are they?
These stocks: MO, UVV, LEG, CLX, PG, HCP, UBSI, ORI, CINF, CTBI, WGL, ED, NWN, MSEX, PNY, VVC, MCD, SYY, T, ABT
By the way, you are idiot.
>>1158346
>Who are they?
The rich, and shareholders. Most of which are the same.
>Do they really control the world economy
Yes. Look at the levels of income and particularly wealth inequality. Although the global financial crash mainly hit them (since it primarily hit the stock markets firstly), they passed the costs on to the public sector as most countries bailed the banks out so it was the public generally, and not those who artificially raised the prices of stocks that felt the brunt. Socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor.
>Do they really control the banks?
They ARE partly the banks. Not your local high street teller, they're just workers but the stockholders.
>Do they really control the governments?
Revolving door, corporate subsidies, lobbying, corruption, race to the bottom of taxes and legal incorruptibility (all countries, bar Iceland didn't prosecute anyone for the global financial crisis despite the evidence being there).
A politician has a choice in government:
1)Help corporations
2)Help the people
These two aren't obviously always contradictory, there's obviously people in corporations (and owners) for a start. There can be things that help both like enhancing genuine free-market policies like lowering tariffs or open borders to allow free-movement of labour.
If a politician helps those which he should regulate (if appropriate ofc) then he can be paid for speeches, get a job afterwards (revolving door) that pays much more than government jobs or get campaign contributions (Shillary's $500,000 from goldman).
If he chooses to help the people, it will be easier to argue your cases (although with harsh private media criticism), you can sleep at night but you'll almost never be elected since informational control in highly concentrated media enterprises is a means of thought control and you'll be hated by all media. Look at Sanders and Corbyn as prime examples.
>>1158389
>how to be vague: the post
Politicians have a third option where they are just humans doing their fucking job, which isn't as glamorous as you think. And I don't know how many rich people you know but aside from being good with money they are about as competent as anyone else. They "control" the world like you control the weather. Give me the ol I-was-pretending-to-be-retarded copy pasta so I can get on with my day.
>>1158389
Any government that declares itself for the people (or socialist, or communist, or populist) are considered pariahs in the global community.
Partly because any government operating under these names (although not Scandinavian which is a shining example to the world economically and politically) will be expected to be attacked by vested interests, the establishment and openly corporatist countries like Russia or the USA.
In the past 30 years, the US would simply have invaded but with communication being so widespread they can only do covert operations to depose democratically elected governments.
Partly because of these attacks from the Oligarchs and 'Aristocrats' (not very useful term), a country could be expected to lose loads of FDI (also because there's less return on investment if you priorities people>corporations with higher taxes on rich) which then in turn damages an economy.
Again, Scandinavia is an outlier because they're still capitalist in nature (social democratic) and so not directly hostile to the rich or corporations. They're also highly developed, stable countries with huge infrastructure (very good for both businesses and people) that corporations want, so FDI will not lower since there's still many reasons to invest and nobody (particularly the USA) can invade if they so wished.
>>1158392
>>how to be vague: the post
I've been as fucking specific as possible.
>And I don't know how many rich people you know but aside from being good with money they are about as competent as anyone else
Don't get me wrong, most the rich aren't evil people rubbing their hands with the blood of African children. The majority (like 99%) are regular people who own stocks, like many of you on this board. The minority are those who see the widely disparate income and wealth levels and intentionally make it worse for the world, and the poor.
Don't think of the Establishment as white men sitting in board rooms laughing at the misery they create. They, like Tory and Republican politicians don't realize what they're doing. They may realize at some point that they have a choice between appeasing powerful interests (Jeremy Hunt and Vince Cable deciding over Rupert Murdock's bid of BskyB) and all the benefits you get, or going against it, getting many negatives against you and none of the benefits.
> They "control" the world like you control the weather.
Whilst I agree that no one person has anywhere near full or even partial control of the entire system, people, shareholders and politicians often have a choice and most of them, being humans with general self-interest take the easy road. In the BskyB bid, Vince Cable tried to stop a monopoly (25% of total market share) (or at least oligopoly) forming, was attacked massively by the papers and forced to resign. Hunt took the job after him and took the easy road by allowing it and not having to take on the burden Cable did.
> Give me the ol I-was-pretending-to-be-retarded copy pasta so I can get on with my day.
I'm deadly serious. Not that this board would attack my argument on substance. This board is basically /pol/ with lots more money and much less authoritarianism and racism (although still evident from board crossover)
>>1158403
4channers control the world internet, just look at anonymous. There i can do it too.
>>1158412
I know you're just trying to get a rise. But I genuinely enjoy and find it beneficial for myself to try explain these things, so I can do it more fluently later on in life.
good day
>>1158403
Thanks for the info on this stuff.
>>1158519
No problem. Just my opinion and what I perceive. In truth I want responses showing why i'm wrong.
>>1158519
I love this stuff and one of the best books is : "The Establishment, and how they get away with it." by the Guardian columnist Owen Jones.
