.. talk about ugly Americans? (Spit! Spit!)
“... A former employee of an international consulting firm denounces the American global empire and its ‘corporatocracy.’”
What’s this all about? The book was published last fall [Aus-lish: Autumn; meant is circa Sep'04], but only now shows up as a best-seller? It only recently was brought to my attention by a website fan who knows I’ve long argued that the International Monetary Fund and its sister organization, the World Bank, constitute an “Evil Empire.” The two “international financial institutions” (IFI’s) were founded in 1945 during the genesis of the United Nations as “do-good” enterprises ...
Over the years, the process has been corrupted, with both the IMF and World Bank becoming controlled by the multinational corporations and their banks. When President Nixon went off the gold standard in 1971, the IMF’s reason for existence evaporated, ...
['Confessions of an Economic Hit Man' reviewed by Jude Wanniski]
AMY GOODMAN: It’s good to have you with us. Okay, explain this term, “economic hit man,” e.h.m., as you call it.
JOHN PERKINS: Basically what we were trained to do and what our job is to do is to build up the American empire. To bring -- to create situations where as many resources as possible flow into this country, to our corporations, and our government, and in fact we’ve been very successful. We’ve built the largest empire in the history of the world. It's been done over the last 50 years since World War II with very little military might, actually. It's only in rare instances like Iraq where the military comes in as a last resort. This empire, unlike any other in the history of the world, has been built primarily through economic manipulation, through cheating, through fraud, through seducing people into our way of life, through the economic hit men. I was very much a part of that.
[Confessions of an Economic Hit Man: How the U.S. Uses Globalization to Cheat Poor Countries Out of Trillions] [quoted by Wanniski]
(Need any more? Read the linked item; or better yet: buy the book.)
-=*=-
It's a matter of equity[1], aka fairness.
Q: Who owns any mineral resources?
A: In Aus, the Federal government 'looks after' them, "For all of us!" This means that they manage mineral resources; issuing prospecting 'licences,' development 'permits,' setting any 'royalties' and (one would hope) seeing to it that a fair share of any profit to be had flowed back to the 'real owners,' i.e. we the sheople®.
Q: How is it working?
A: Problematic; that is to say, that information is scarce, i.e. very hard to come by. (I wonder what that?)
The first time I got any inkling that there may be a problem in this area was when Bass Straight oil was first being developed; we heard of the concept possibly now referred-to as WPP, world parity pricing. If I understand this correctly, it means that if oil could be produced below world prices, the companies could jack-up what they sold it for to the higher level. As well as this nice little 'fiddle,' they were 'cut' a deal allowing the companies to claw-back all their up-front costs before they had to declare any profit, and an 'internal' interest rate of, say, two or three times the 'market rate' was allowed in working out those up-front costs (including all 'overheads;' now you might begin to understand why people commute to oil-rigs by helicopter.) In a word, the oil-drillers turned harvesters were given 'a very easy ride.' Too easy; someone objected and so applied a 'resource-rent' tax. More on that later perhaps; but note the priority given to recovery of up-front costs - just like a PSA!
The next inkling was hearing about some new coal-mine (QLD I think; onya Joe!), where the only income (apart from wages) we the sheople via the government would get would come from the profit (if any!) from the government-owned railway ferrying the coal to a port - possibly the same 'deal' i.e. 'profit if any' on the port facilities. (Cue Costello: "Haw, haw, haw! - Let us prey." - then riddle me this: Why complain about port facilities? If it's a government operation, why is there a bottle neck? Who is holding what up; who is holding the purse-strings, eh?) Getting back on track;
Q: What's about royalties?
A: On that particular coal-mine, looks like zero.
Finally (for here) it's not 'just' that coal-mine; the last thing I heard was that the McArthur River mine pays we, the sheople zero royalties. That mine was started in the time of Keating; there was a Lib/CP 'state' mob in. Same 'deal' there; recovery of up-front costs, getting boring. But for us, we the sheople, a bit expensive? Looks like we'll end up owning empty holes with not much more - if any more - than the wages paid to the mine workers in recompense.
There is one other way for us to get some money out'a the miners' vice-like clutches; namely tax. Note, however, that again, any tax is payable after all expenses etc, and is nominally 30%. Funny about that 'nominally,' I heard somewhere that the actual rate was closer to 5%? Also, whadda 'bout off-shore companies (like BHP-Billiton), or now Murdoch, for that matter? I mean, they wouldn't go off-shore unless there was some benefit - to them...
In case of any lingering doubt (as to the morality of 'big-oil,' say), see a 'snip' below from the 'Bolivia' thread[2]. And the damage the US does is not restricted to the 3rd world[3].
-=*=-
To cut a long story short here, it looks like mining, be it coal, ore or oil, is quite a dirty business - in more ways than one. Although McArthur River is Xstrata (nominally Swiss), the principles are the same. We see "Hit Man" describes the US way of business, I call it "The Harvard Business School of Sharks." Anyone wishing to swim with these sharks (Xstrata, say) has to look and do just like all the other sharks.
Whether the sharp practices I've here described (I've done PSAs elsewhere; same principles), the question comes back to equity, aka fairness; do you think we the sheople are getting a good deal? And that's with our so-called 'friends,' how about the hapless Iraqis, with the US Jack-boot brutally on their necks, hmmm?
-=*end*=-
PS I date the descent of the US from the awful A-bombing of the hapless Japanese civilians (this marks the onset of the US nukular blackmail), but Blum takes the date back into the 19thC. (And even before that, of course, the original land rip-off.) I see that the US has spiralled downwards into immorality, as it has soared into riches. Looks like they've done it all on purpose:
In the face of this situation we would be better off to dispense now with a number of the concepts which have underlined our thinking with regard to the Far East. We should dispense with the aspiration to "be liked" or to be regarded as the repository of a high-minded international altruism. We should stop putting ourselves in the position of being our brothers' keeper and refrain from offering moral and ideological advice. We should cease to talk about vague and—for the Far East—unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts[my emphasis]. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.
[George Kennan, Head of the US State Department Policy Planning Staff]
My comment: Daaarlings; is this really what they meant, when they trumpeted "Truth, justice and the American way!?"
Ref(s):
[1] equity n. (pl. -ies) 1 fairness. 2 principles of justice used to correct or supplement the law. 3 a value of the shares issued by a company. b (in pl.) stocks and shares not bearing fixed interest. [Latin aequitas: related to *equal]
My comment on the definition: Haw!
[2] Who Owns Bolivia's Oil and Gas?
...widely supported by Bolivians, who see the so-called privatizations (or 'capitalizations') under former President Gonzalo 'Goni' Sanchez de Lozada as a rip-off: Bolivia received only 18% of the proceeds! Bolivians wonder why investments of some $3 billion should entitle foreign investors to 82% of the country’s vast gas reserves, now estimated to be worth $250 billion.
[Joseph E Stiglitz]
[3] World Bank, IMF & the US$
The petrodollar era had worked to the American financial elite's advantage, but at a horrendous cost to the people of the Third World and to those of the former Soviet Union as well. Living standards declined in all of these countries as IMF 'structural adjustment' policies opened markets to the predatory process of globalization led by US-based multinationals seeking cheap labor and raw materials. The people of the US suffered also, as America's manufacturing base was 'hollowed out' through outsourcing. While a quarter-century previously 60% of the world's export goods had carried a 'Made in USA' label, now American companies were interested primarily in 'branding' products made in China or Central America. Jobs for US workers were consequently down-sized.
[The Endangered US Dollar]
No comments:
Post a Comment