Also, check out: "Two Faces of Globalism",
"The Upsizing of America," "Small Caps Sinking First", "Russia Is Still the Bogey"
In the 1990s, China Got 27 Times More Foreign Investments than Did Russia; Hungary, Israel Got 32, 27 Times More Money per Capita
Russia: Still the Bogey!If Money Talks, Top Multinationals Which Carry Out Government Policy, the "Princes of the 20th Century," Have Spoken Against Russia
Talk is cheap, they say. Money talks louder than words, they say.
If these two industrial world's truisms still apply, the wallets of the New World Order's money managers have spoken loudly: Russia is still the bogey! Democratic reforms don't attract foreign cash.
Forget the cheap talk by the American and Russian government officials about a "partnership for peace." Partnerships like that are made in hell. They tend to lead to war, not peace, as the Hitler-Stalin "peace treaty" proved in the 1930s. The descendants of the money managers who provoked WW II are now hard at work again.
During the 1990-1996 period, for example, communist China received $158 billion in foreign investments from the multinational companies - the "Princes of the 20th century" - in the words of a former Vatican scholar (see Annex Bulletin 96-09, 2/13/96). That's 27 times more than democratic Russia's meager $5.8 billion, two thirds of it coming in the last two years, according to the just-released annual report by UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development), a U.N. agency.
China's $158 billion also adds up to about $40 million per head of the pro-democracy demonstrators killed by the Chinese government at Tiananmen square in June 1989 - roughly the time when the NWO money managers started showering these communist murderers with billions of dollars of "reward money."
Such a lavish "reward" would surely rate a mention in the Guinness Book of Records as the world's most gruesome and despicable example of moral corruption?
Maybe not. Not yet, anyway.
For, this travesty goes on. In just a single year (1996), communist China received nearly as much in NWO capital investments as had all of the democratic Eastern European countries during the 1990s ($42 billion vs. $46 billion). As if that's not alarming enough, consider the fact that Hungary and Israel, for example, got 32 and 27 times respectively more money per capita from the foreign multinationals than did Russia.
Such a disproportion in capital distribution may be well and good for Hungary and Israel. And it certainly is terrific news for the Chinese communist leaders, the head honcho of whom is about to descend upon Washington and hit up Slick Willie and his sponsors for more money.
But it is bad for world peace. And it should be especially troublesome for those citizens of the world who still believe in the globalists' fantasy line - "world peace through world trade."
Concentration of Capital Increases
With every passing year, this is becoming more illusory. The concentration of capital is increasing, as those who talk world peace line their pockets thanks to free trade.
First, most of the "Princes" who are used as financial whips of government policy are U.S. and U.K. (including Hong Kong)-based multinationals. In 1996, the two countries provided almost half of the world's private foreign investments (47% of the $350 billion).
Also, the Japanese usually rant and rave but generally follow the U.S. policy (see a chart on foreign currency reserves which shows that Japan is the world's greatest supporter of the U.S. dollar). So if the "Princes" from the Land of the Rising Sun were added, the multinationals from just three countries (U.S., U.K., Japan) controlled more than half the world's investments (53%) in 1996.
During the 1985-1990 period, the three countries' share was 49%.
But this increase in capital concentration alone does not yet tell the full story. Since the second half of the 1980s, the foreign investments by multinationals have more than doubled (from $156 billion to $350 billion). And a growing percentage is going into developing countries, whose share has jumped from less than 7% to almost 15% of total investment during the corresponding period. This means more political leverage which the money can buy.
Second, at the end of 1995, for example, the top 100 multinational companies ranked by the size of their foreign assets, owned about one-fifth of the world (about $1.7 trillion). Among those, the top 25 U.S. multinationals were responsible for half of the country's capital investments - a share which remained almost constant during the past four decades, according to the latest UNCTAD report.
Nor is this merely a U.S. phenomenon. In six out of the nine countries for which such data was available, their top 25 multinational companies accounted for more than half of their respective countries' capital exports.
All this means that ever fewer individuals are controlling the economic destinies of an ever greater number of people around the world. The world, and not just the U.S., is becoming a plutocracy. And the pace is accelerating. The foreign assets and foreign sales of the world's top 100 multinationals both jumped in double-digits in 1995 (up 14% and 12% respectively to $1.70 trillion and $2.05 trillion respectively).
History Repeating Itself?
Fortunately, students of history will know that this is not the first time such a concentration of capital and commensurate political power has occurred. It also happened during the heydays of the industrial revolution in England. So if we follow the lessons of history, we may avoid making the same mistakes in the future.
Arnold Toynbee, a 19th century British historian, was perhaps the first person to clearly define the Industrial Revolution in a series of lectures delivered at Oxford University in 1880-1881. His thoughts were posthumously published in 1884, in a book entitled "Lectures on the Industrial Revolution in England."
Much of what had taken place in Britain in the 18th and 19th century is now happening worldwide under the NWO banner.
Over a century ago, the rich got richer; the poor got poorer, and the resulting social injustices gave birth to such ideologies as Marxism and Communism, among others. They also led to several revolutions and two World Wars. We are facing the same prospects today.
The reason? Take the concentration of wealth, for example. In 1881, 2,512 Englishmen owned half the land in the United Kingdom, Toynbee said.
During the 1980s, the top 2.5 million Americans earned as much as the bottom 100 million.
The total compensation of about 30 CEOs of major U.S. corporations surged from 44 times an average worker's wage in 1965, to 212 times in 1995, closely tracking the stock market's spectacular rise, according to a Wall Street Journal Apr/96 survey.
The share of the national wealth owned by the top one percent of Americans increased from 22% to 42% between 1979 and 1996, according to an April 1996 speech by Congressman David Obey (D-WI).
So while Wall Street is partying, Main Street is staggering under the weight of corporate downsizing.
Toynbee would have probably chuckled. For, "the more things change, the more they are the same," Alphonse Karr wrote in 1849.
Birth of Neo-colonialism
Another lesson we can learn from history is that a vast concentration of power tends to foster colonial behavior. How many times have you seen the media or the politicians remind us that the U.S. is now "the world's only remaining superpower?" And that, therefore, other countries must dance to our tunes.
In Russia, for example, the American elites'-imposed privatization resulted in a massive plundering of the Russian peoples' property by Russia's new quislings, led by Boris Yeltsin. Between $350 billion and $400 billion was transferred into the Western banks, according to Vladimir Zhirinovsky, the leader of the nationalist Liberal Democratic Party.
Contrast that with the meager $5.8 billion which the multinationals invested in Russia during the 1990s, according to UNCTAD.
In other words, what the NWO plutocrats, the "Princes of the 20th Century," are doing to Russia, is the most egregious case of colonial exploitation since the British rule of India ended in 1947.
Eastern Europe's Money Ebbs
After several years of boosting their investments in Eastern Europe, the multinational companies pulled back in 1996. The total investment dropped from $14 billion in 1995 to $12 last year. Poland was the only country to experience a substantial increase in investments (from $3.7 billion to $5.2 billion). The two former biggest recipients of foreign investments - Hungary and the Czech Republic - both recorded declines in 1996, partly reflecting a drop in privatization activities in those two countries.
It is interesting, and probably not coincidental, that these three countries, the first nations picked to join an expanded NATO, accounted for two-thirds of the total foreign investment in Eastern Europe during the 1990s. The fact that these investments were made ostensibly by private companies, yet that they match up so perfectly with U.S. government policy, only goes to reinforce the notions that "The Princes of the 20th Century" are in the service of the State Department, any rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding.
Latin America Tops the World
As for Western Europe, the investments into this developed region also declined in 1996 - from $116 billion the year before, to $105 billion. In part, that's due to a drop-off in Japanese investments in there. They fell from a $7 billion peak in 1990 to less than $2 billion in 1994.
But one man's loss is another man's gain, as they say. Some of the money the Japanese have pulled out of the European market seems to have found its way into Latin America, especially the Caribbean tax havens.
The U.S. companies, on the other hand, the biggest investors in the adjacent continent, seem to be racing against each other to spend money, specially in Brazil and Argentina. As a result, the Latin American in-take of the foreign capital in 1996 rose by 52% - the highest in the world - to $39 billion, a record high. Brazil has now surpassed Mexico as the largest recipient of foreign investments with nearly $10 billion in 1996 (vs. Mexico's $7.5 billion). The investments in Argentina, on the other hand, tripled in 1996 to $4.3 billion.
No wonder the current Latin American trip by the Billaries (Bill and Hillary Clinton) had these two countries as the first two stops on the presidential "trade tour."
No wonder the Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, said at an Aug. 13 news conference in Washington that the U.S. was planning to designate Argentina "as one of its closest allies outside of NATO."
Peru, Chile and Colombia were the three next biggest Latin American recipients of foreign investments - at more than $3 billion each in 1996, despite being "less than perfect" examples of democracy.
Meanwhile, the world's largest democracy - India - got only $2.6 billion in 1996, its best year ever. During the 1990-1996 period, India received five times less foreign money on a per capita basis than did even Russia, and 17 times less than China.
Contrast that with the record amounts of international funds pouring not only into communist China, but also into Singapore ($9.4 billion), Indonesia ($8 billion) or Malaysia ($5.3 billion) - all more or less autocratic regimes. Even investments in Cambodia have risen five-fold in the last two years despite the "international community's" alleged indignation vis-à-vis that country.
So what message are NWO money managers giving us?
If you want economic prosperity, forget democracy. Democracy is a way to appease the plebes. It is something that sounds good on the stump, not in a bank. To a money manager, a dictator who rules with an iron fist is always preferable to a leader who governs by rule of law, especially parliamentary law.
This, of course, is also the rule of the mob. Underneath the pin-striped suits, the financial elite's actions reveal their real faces.
Happy bargain hunting!
Can you afford not to know such things if you're a global competitor? If you agree, call us as (602) 824-8111.
Or check out also "Small Caps Sinking First" Annex Bulletin.
Editor: Bob Djurdjevic
5110 North 40th Street, Phoenix, Arizona
|Annex Research | Annex Bulletins | Quotes | Workshop |
Feedback | Clips | Activism | Columns |