Buckminster Fuller On the Creation of Corporate Giants

“As a consequence of all the foregoing, a half-millennium after Roland a new and overwhelmingly greater form of invisible seagoing and land-strutting giants appeared on planet Earth. This was a legally contrived, abstract giant —”legal” because the physically uncontradictable “topsword” king decreed it was legal. Having the most favored privileges accorded real humans, the giant, abstract, corporate “man” is inventively created in 1390 in England. (The corporate “human” may have been invented in ancient Babylon to cover the potentates’ voyaging venture, but we have as yet no written record of such.) “His” abstract name is the “Merchant Venturers Society.” This composite man was formed by the king of England with a small group of his very powerful friends, who lorded over their king-deeded vastlands.

By royal prerogative, the venture-financing riskers could not be held liable for any losses of the venture. With limited liability, individuals might sue the company but not the human individuals who underwrote the venture If the enterprise failed and went bankrupt, its shareholders lost their ventured stake but were not to be held responsible in any way for its debts. The creditors of the company were the losers, and not the shareholders. Bankruptcy could reflect no credit stigma upon the companies’ shareholders. The shareholders were held absolutely blameless for any misfortunes of their ships’ crew or for damage caused by collision of their ship with another ship. If the ship and its cargo were lost, the shareholders lost their original shares, but no more. As long as the ship operated successfully, the shareholders shared its trading profits

Whether the ship was lost or not, the banker who loaned the gold for the merchant ship’s trading held the life-support-producing lands and their cattle as collateral. Since many voyages ended in disaster, the banker occupied a long-time, steadily profitable position in the overall merchant venturing—and as yet does.

Naturally, the shareholder’s limited-liability advantage, granted by sovereign decree, encouraged a swift expansion of such enterprises…….

….Employing her sovereign power, Elizabeth limited the losses of its chartered riskers to their initial monetary or equivalent capital stakes, while continuing their right to receive their proportional profit dividends for as long as the venturing company might exist—in perpetuity.

Known later in England as “Ltd.” (for “limited liability”), in France as “Societe en Commandite,” in Germany as “Kommanditgesellschaft,” and as “Corporation” under the U.S.A.’s “Inc.” (for incorporated) status, this newborn abstract legal giant was to be treated as a human personality, empowered to do anything humans can do but also accredited to operate as an abstract, legal entity able to enter or leave any nation without a passport. As such it was able to employ millions of people and any amount of money, tools, buildings, and equipment, and to perform its giant acts anywhere about the oceanic world exclusively for the profit in perpetuity only of its shareholders.

When the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S.A. Constitution was passed in the post-Civil War railroad-expansion days, the U.S. Supreme Court required that the individual states grant the corporation all the privileges and protection granted to human citizens. A hundred years later, in 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a corporation had the same rights of free speech as all U.S. citizens…..”

Grunch of Giants, Chapter III, Buckminster Fuller

John Wiley Buys Ritholz’ Book from S&P holder McGraw-Hill

Bloomberg:

A book critical of Standard & Poor’s credit-rating service will be published by John Wiley & Sons Inc. after the author took back his manuscript from S&P-owner McGraw- Hill Cos.

John Wiley said on its Web site the 320-page book, “Bailout Nation: How Easy Money Corrupted Wall Street and Shook the World Economy,” will be available in May. The author, Barry Ritholtz, said today he couldn’t discuss some specifics until he has received a final contract.

“We have a deal in place,” said Ritholtz, chief executive officer of equity-research firm FusionIQ. “I probably should have sought out a publisher in the first place that didn’t own divisions where there might have been a conflict of interest.”

Ritholtz said last month he withdrew the manuscript from McGraw-Hill after the New York-based publisher edited a section in which he wrote that its S&P unit, Fitch Ratings and Moody’s Investors Service inflated their opinions in exchange for fees. McGraw-Hill said at the time the book had facts that needed verification before it could be printed.

Comment:

Johns Wiley & Sons, of Hoboken, New Jersey, is – coincidentally – the publisher of  “Mobs, Messiahs and Markets” (2007, Bonner & Rajiva). This is a happy ending for Ritholz, but it would be great to have seen him go with self-publishing, like  marketing guru-of-gurus Seth Godin.  Feeding Godzilla is probably not the best way to fight Rodan. Here’s my previous post on the subject.

Krugman Blames Thrifty Asians For Global Crisis

“Today we know that subprime lending was only a small fraction of the problem. Even bad home loans in general were only part of what went wrong. We’re living in a world of troubled borrowers, ranging from shopping mall developers to European “miracle” economies. And new kinds of debt trouble just keep emerging.

How did this global debt crisis happen? Why is it so widespread? The answer, I’d suggest, can be found in a speech Ben Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, gave four years ago. At the time, Mr. Bernanke was trying to be reassuring. But what he said then nonetheless foreshadowed the bust to come.

The speech, titled “The Global Saving Glut and the U.S. Current Account Deficit,” offered a novel explanation for the rapid rise of the U.S. trade deficit in the early 21st century. The causes, argued Mr. Bernanke, lay not in America but in Asia.

In the mid-1990s, he pointed out, the emerging economies of Asia had been major importers of capital, borrowing abroad to finance their development. But after the Asian financial crisis of 1997-98 (which seemed like a big deal at the time but looks trivial compared with what’s happening now), these countries began protecting themselves by amassing huge war chests of foreign assets, in effect exporting capital to the rest of the world….”

Paul Krugman, “Revenge of the Glut”

Comment:

I don’t know where to begin with this. But I’ll try…

This is Krugman’s political bias coming into play.  Yes. even professors have them. Don’t think so? Notice whom Krugman will blame for the present economic crisis – Phil Gramm (R) and George Bush (R)….and (to a smaller extent) Alan Greenspan (libertarian R)….and Bernie Madoff (D – but obviously a crook).

But he’ll say nothing about Robert Rubin (D), or Franklin Raines (D), or Barney Frank (D), or Sandy Weill (D), or any of the Clintonistas under whom the first big bubble was inflated.

Democrats also tend to be more China- hawkish than Republicans, so that accounts for the anti-Asian (read, Chinese) slant here.

Medicine: A Leading Cause of Illness

“As few as 5% and no more than 20% of iatrogenic acts are ever reported.(16,24,25,33,34) This implies that if medical errors were completely and accurately reported, we would have an annual iatrogenic death toll much higher than 783,936. In 1994, Leape said his figure of 180,000 medical mistakes resulting in death annually was equivalent to three jumbo-jet crashes every two days.(16) Our considerably higher figure is equivalent to six jumbo jets are falling out of the sky each day. What we must deduce from this report is that medicine is in need of complete and total reform—from the curriculum in medical schools to protecting patients from excessive medical intervention. It is obvious that we cannot change anything if we are not honest about what needs to be changed. This report simply shows the degree to which change is required…..”

From Death by Medicine, Gary Null et. al.

Raimondo on Rothbard…

“Reagan started out by denouncing the power elite and specifically the CFR and the Trilateralists, but wound up with that epitome of the Establishment, Skull-&-Bonesman George Bush as his vice president and successor. Bush is a longtime CFR director, and Trilateralist; most of his major cabinet officers, including his chairman of the joint chiefs, Colin Powell, were CFR members. The Clinton administration is similarly afflicted, from the President (CFR/Trilateral) on down through Donna Shalala (CFRJ Trilateral) and George Stephanopoulos (CFR), with the CFR honeycombed (as usual) throughout the State Department. In addition to Secretary of State Warren Christopher, other CFR members in the Clinton cabinet include Laura Tyson, chairman of the Council of Economic advisors, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin; Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, HUD honcho Henry Cisneros; and Alice Rivlin, 0MB director…”.

 Justin Raimondo, author of An Enemy of the State: the Life of Murray N. Rothbard and other books, is editor of Antiwar.co

Thanks to Scott Horton for the link  Raimondo’s latest piece on the stirring up of anti-Russian feeling (preparatory to what? a skirmish with Russia?) should give anyone pause.

Comment:

The crucial reason why bankers have managed to hijack the government is that banking based on a fractional reserve system (i.e. a system where the banks lend out a multiple of the money they hold as deposits) is by its nature inclined to favor debt…and thus to favor statism (that is, favor larger government). Here’s Rothbard on the subject, from the article linked above:

“Businessmen or manufacturers can either be genuine free enterprisers or statists; they can either make their way on the free market or seek special government favors and privileges. They choose according to their individual preferences and values. But bankers are inherently inclined toward statism.

Commercial bankers, engaged as they are in unsound fractional reserve credit, are, in the free market, always teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. Hence they are always reaching for government aid and bailout.

Investment bankers do much of their business underwriting government bonds, in the United States and abroad. Therefore, they have a vested interest in promoting deficits and in forcing taxpayers to redeem government debt. Both sets of bankers, then, tend to be tied in with government policy, and try to influence and control government actions in domestic and foreign affairs.”

[Just to clarify, a government bond is the way the government raises money for its programs – by selling bonds, either through auction or through underwriting bank/banks].

Cutting through all the fancy terminology – bonds are debt. Debt is money borrowed from someone on which interest is paid. People carrying debt (borrowers) have an innate preference for inflationary policies, since this reduces the level of their debt. Those who assume the risks of those loans have the same innate preference.  In addition borrowers and those who buy their debt have a motivation to prefer government policies which will let the public underwrite or pay off the debt or assume the risk of the debt…or all of the above.

The Zwangswirtschaft of America……

The Zwangswirtschaft type of Socialism  

It is, of course, true that this type of socialism preserves some of the labels and the outward appearance of capitalism. It maintains, seemingly and nominally, private ownership of the means of production, prices, wages, interest rates and profits. In fact, however, nothing counts but the government’s unrestricted autocracy. The government tells the entrepreneurs and capitalists what to produce and in what quantity and quality, at what prices to buy and from whom, at what prices to sell and to whom. It decrees at what wages and where the workers must work. Market exchange is but a sham. All the prices, wages, and interest rates are determined by the authority. They are prices, wages, and interest rates in appearance only; in fact they are merely quantity relations in the government’s orders. The government, not the consumers, directs production. The government determines, directs production. The government determines each citizen’s income, it assigns to everybody the position in which he has to work. This is socialism in the outward guise of capitalism. It is the Zwangswirtschaft of Hitler’s German Reich and the planned economy of Great Britain….”

More at the Mises site.

Comment:

Zwang means compulsion and wirtschaft is economy, so  this translates as “command economy.”

Now, consider what Paul Krugman and Alan Greenspan (!) are demanding – nationalization.

Put it together: Nationalism + Socialism = National Socialism a.k.a. Nazism

Don’t be fooled by all the “nice” sounding stuff:

Health care for all…

Money for science research…..

Sounds good..but the price is saying OK to rule by Kleptocrats. and a managed/command economy run for the Kleptocrats.

This is a  bribe to make you go along with fundamentally dishonest policies.

And this, from the Mises site:

“An investigation of the root causes of the ascendancy of Nazism
must show not only how domestic German conditions begot
Nazism but also why all other nations failed to protect themselves
against the havoc. Seen from the viewpoint of the British, the
Poles, or the Austrians, the chief question is not: What is wrong
with the Nazis? but: What was wrong with our own policies with
regard to the Nazi menace? Faced with the problem of tuberculosis,
doctors do not ask: ‘What is wrong with the germs? but: What is
wrong with our methods of preventing the spread of the disease?’

Life consists in adjusting oneself to actual conditions and in
taking account of things as they really are, not as one would wish
them to be. It would be more pleasant if there were neither germs
nor dangerous barbarians. But he who wants to succeed has to fix
his glance upon reality, not to indulge in wishful dreams.

Joel Stein – Media Monopoly

“I have never been so upset by a poll in my life. Only 22% of Americans now believe “the movie and television industries are pretty much run by Jews,” down from nearly 50% in 1964. The Anti-Defamation League, which released the poll results last month, sees in these numbers a victory against stereotyping. Actually, it just shows how dumb America has gotten. Jews totally run Hollywood.

How deeply Jewish is Hollywood? When the studio chiefs took out a full-page ad in the Los Angeles Times a few weeks ago to demand that the Screen Actors Guild settle its contract, the open letter was signed by: News Corp. President Peter Chernin (Jewish), Paramount Pictures Chairman Brad Grey (Jewish), Walt Disney Co. Chief Executive Robert Iger (Jewish), Sony Pictures Chairman Michael Lynton (surprise, Dutch Jew), Warner Bros. Chairman Barry Meyer (Jewish), CBS Corp. Chief Executive Leslie Moonves (so Jewish his great uncle was the first prime minister of Israel), MGM Chairman Harry Sloan (Jewish) and NBC Universal Chief Executive Jeff Zucker (mega-Jewish). If either of the Weinstein brothers had signed, this group would have not only the power to shut down all film production but to form a minyan with enough Fiji water on hand to fill a mikvah.

The person they were yelling at in that ad was SAG President Alan Rosenberg (take a guess). The scathing rebuttal to the ad was written by entertainment super-agent Ari Emanuel (Jew with Israeli parents) on the Huffington Post, which is owned by Arianna Huffington (not Jewish and has never worked in Hollywood.)

The Jews are so dominant, I had to scour the trades to come up with six Gentiles in high positions at entertainment companies. When I called them to talk about their incredible advancement, five of them refused to talk to me, apparently out of fear of insulting Jews. The sixth, AMC President Charlie Collier, turned out to be Jewish.

As a proud Jew, I want America to know about our accomplishment. Yes, we control Hollywood. Without us, you’d be flipping between “The 700 Club” and “Davey and Goliath” on TV all day.

So I’ve taken it upon myself to re-convince America that Jews run Hollywood by launching a public relations campaign, because that’s what we do best. I’m weighing several slogans, including: “Hollywood: More Jewish than ever!”; “Hollywood: From the people who brought you the Bible”; and “Hollywood: If you enjoy TV and movies, then you probably like Jews after all.”

I called ADL Chairman Abe Foxman, who was in Santiago, Chile, where, he told me to my dismay, he was not hunting Nazis. He dismissed my whole proposition, saying that the number of people who think Jews run Hollywood is still too high. The ADL poll, he pointed out, showed that 59% of Americans think Hollywood execs “do not share the religious and moral values of most Americans,” and 43% think the entertainment industry is waging an organized campaign to “weaken the influence of religious values in this country.”

That’s a sinister canard, Foxman said. “It means they think Jews meet at Canter’s Deli on Friday mornings to decide what’s best for the Jews.” Foxman’s argument made me rethink: I have to eat at Canter’s more often.

“That’s a very dangerous phrase, ‘Jews control Hollywood.’ What is true is that there are a lot of Jews in Hollywood,” he said. Instead of “control,” Foxman would prefer people say that many executives in the industry “happen to be Jewish,” as in “all eight major film studios are run by men who happen to be Jewish.”

But Foxman said he is proud of the accomplishments of American Jews. “I think Jews are disproportionately represented in the creative industry. They’re disproportionate as lawyers and probably medicine here as well,” he said. He argues that this does not mean that Jews make pro-Jewish movies any more than they do pro-Jewish surgery. Though other countries, I’ve noticed, aren’t so big on circumcision.

I appreciate Foxman’s concerns. And maybe my life spent in a New Jersey-New York/Bay Area-L.A. pro-Semitic cocoon has left me naive. But I don’t care if Americans think we’re running the news media, Hollywood, Wall Street or the government. I just care that we get to keep running them.”

— Joel Stein in the Los Angeles Times

Comment:

Joel Stein manages to do more for race relations in this clever-and-wise, self-deprecatory put-down of the strident Abe Foxman (of the Anti-Defamation League), than any number of pronouncements from the President or Attorney General.

A  little humor, a little self-deprecation  goes much farther than righteous wrath in these things….

Meanwhile, showing how out of hand race/religion talk can get, here’s Juan Cole’s Informed Consent on a brouhaha over what some Palestinians and Israelis think is a secular/Jewish attack on  Christianity,apparently in retaliation (preemptive?) for holocaust denial.

Propaganda Nation: Revival Time Is Here Again

Revival time is here again.

I can smell it. The nation’s preachers are out in full force. First, there was President Obama telling us we needed to have a great race healing. Now, Attorney-General Eric Holder comes out to tell us we’re still segregated. We work together, but then we live and play by ourselves in segregated groups. We’re all cowards when it comes to race, says Holder.

Holder might have had a point and so might Obama had they spoken at any other time…and in any other way. But frankly the only segregation that really matters now is the segregation of the political class and its clients from the rest of us. It doesn’t matter which neighborhood you live in, black, white, brown or parti-colored – they all spell b-r-o-k-e the same way.

Barack Obama is a likeable guy. Not for one minute do I believe that he’s doing anything but the best he can. He’s sincere.

That may just be the trouble. It seems to be the delusion of societies to think they lack precisely what they have too much of. C. S. Lewis said as much. Cultures awash with hedonism believe themselves puritanically repressed; societies long lost to any orthodoxy fear religious dogma; and now with race at the center of talk shows and college seminars, of gym etiquette and prison protocol, we’re told that more race-talk is what we need.

Is it?

Do we really need to spend more time spewing what we think of each other like inbred cousins on a Jerry Springer show? Jerry used to be my vacuum time, so I actually know how those things ended – in a scrum of tattoos and ripped shirts, fake hair and flying cusses.

If that’s togetherness, a bit of segregation might be more civil.

And a bit of proportion might be more sensible.

We can call it segregation today, but I wonder what people segregated a century ago would think about that. Students clustered in groups of their own choosing are not terrified men and women fleeing dogs and police batons.

Actually, you don’t need to go back a century. You can find the same thing today in prisons, at non-violent demonstrations, wherever people are rounded up and snatched out of their houses. The victims are black, brown and white. And they’re not where they are because we don’t talk enough about race in this country. They’re there because we don’t talk enough about the state.

That’s from my latest piece at Lew Rockwell.

Paul Street On “Status Quo-Bama”

“CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN” FROM STATUS QuOBAMA?

 Fiscal Czarism and Status Quo Appointments

Will the “deeply conservative” Obama break from deepening authoritarian  capitalism in regard to the current economic crisis? The signals he has sent so far are less than encouraging. Late last summer, candidate Obama joined John McCain in supporting the original George W. Bush-Hank Paulson bailout plan, replete with its dictatorial demand (explicitly laid out in a hastily constructed three-page bill) that Congress supply the banks with hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars without any public oversight, hearings and investigation ever.  When public outrage forced Congress to reject rejected Bush and Paulson’s (and Obama and McCain’s) Czarist proposal, Obama gave his “progressive” imprimatur to a subsequently passed version that cloaked the authoritarian bailout deal in oversight measures loaded with loopholes leaving big banking capital free to do pretty much whatever it wished with its new taxpayer injections.

This move apparently came without remorse. As veteran liberal-progressive Washington- and Obama-watcher David Sirota recently noted, Obama’s “first exercise of presidential power was, right before he came into office, he threatened to veto any bill that Congress passed rejecting or limiting more bailout funds from going to Wall Street.”

Obama’s economic appointments do not bode well. His top economic advisor, former chief World Bank economist and Harvard University president Lawrence Summers and his Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner are both veteran implementers of the basic “neoliberal” tenet:  state protection and subsidy for the Few and market discipline for the Many. Working in the Clinton administration under Treasury Secretary (and Goldman Sachs CEO) Robert Rubin (Geithner’s mentor), Summers helped develop and advance the very financial -de-regulation that was a major contributor to the current crisis. Geithner shares with Summers a history of responding to economic crisis by bailing out large financial institutions with no serious questions asked, something that helps explain the popularity of his appointment on Wall

Obama’s Inaugural Address absurdly claimed that the economic crisis was partly the consequence of the “collective failure” of the American people “to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age.” This ignored the fact that, as Krugman notes, “this is first and foremost a crisis brought on by a runaway financial industry.  And if we failed to rein in that industry, it was wasn’t because Americans ‘collectively’ refused to make hard choices; the American public had no idea what was going on, and the people who did know what was going on mostly thought deregulation was a good idea.” 

Paul Street at Z Mag.

Wired And Watched In America

“When asked the scope of the information collected on Americans by the NSA, he said “the parameters that were set for how to filter it … were things like … if a terrorist would normally only make a phone call for 1 or 2 minutes, then you look for communications that are only 1 or 2 minutes long. Now that could also be someone ordering a pizza, and asking their significant other what sort of toppings they wanted on their pizza.”

When asked how the NSA would handle questions asked by congressional committees, Tice claimed: “the NSA would tailor some of their briefings to try to be deceptive, for whether it be a congressional committee or someone they really didn’t want to know exactly what was going on. There would be a lot of bells and whistles in a briefing and quite often the meat of the briefing was deceptive.”

When asked in a second interview by MSNBC if the information collected stopped at phone and email info, Tice responded: “as far as the wiretap information that made it to NSA, there was also data mining involved. At some point information from credit card records and financial records was married in with that information.”

As a result of the NSA program, uncounted thousands of Americans may have had their privacy compromised and are thus victims of an illegal spying regime. Says Tice: “the lucky U.S. citizens, tens of thousands of whom, that are now on digital databases at NSA that have no idea of this, also have that information included on those digital files that have been warehoused.”

More at Wired.

 Comment:

The US Government spied on everyone