What do you think?
Rate this book
What Every American Should Know About Who's Really Running the World: The People, Institutions, and Organizations That Control Our Future
Most of us know the big players politically in the United States. But ever wonder who’s pulling their strings? Who the movers and shakers are around the globe? In sharp, witty prose, What Every American Should Know About Who’s Really Running the World spells out exactly who to watch and what they’ve done (and are still doing). Get the lowdown • Pfizer
• Monsanto
• Oprah Winfrey
• WTO & IMF
• Wal-Mart
• Rupert Murdoch
• Al Qaeda
Filled with hard facts, global issues, and profiles of the heavy hitters, What Every American Should Know About Who’s Really Running the World is essential reading for all Americans who want a handle on the movers and shakers behind the headlines.
• Monsanto
• Oprah Winfrey
• WTO & IMF
• Wal-Mart
• Rupert Murdoch
• Al Qaeda
Filled with hard facts, global issues, and profiles of the heavy hitters, What Every American Should Know About Who’s Really Running the World is essential reading for all Americans who want a handle on the movers and shakers behind the headlines.
430 pages, Paperback
First published November 29, 2005
6 people are currently reading
135 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
July 10, 2015
An entertaining look at the powers behind the throne
11 May 2012
To be blunt, there is really nothing in this book that cannot be found out with a little research. However, in relation to the contents of this book, whenever I try to bring these issues up in conversation, a number of my friends accuse me of propagating conspiracy theories. To rebut those statements I will simply suggest that while they may be a conspiracy, they are not a theories. Even then, now that I think about it, they are not actually a conspiracies either. The Macquarie Dictionary defines conspiracy as '1. the act of conspiring (gee, great definition) 2. a combination of persons for an evil or unlawful purpose, a plot'. Now while the things that this book talks about involve combinations of persons, what they are doing are not necessarily evil or unlawful. Unfortunately I do not have my legal dictionary here, but what I can say is that in a legal context, a conspiracy is what is considered an attempt to commit a crime, or more precisely, a group of people who come together for the purposes of planning the commission of a crime. The difficult thing with regards to attempts (and conspiracies) is that because no crime has been committed it is actually harder to prove guilt, or intention.
Take the changes to the laws after September 11. The difficulty was that it was only after the act that a crime had been committed, and since acts of terrorism can be wide ranging and very destructive, simply waiting until after the act has been committed is not possible. However, the current law of attempts makes it hard to convict somebody of planning to commit an act of terrorism (hey, I really do have a lawful purpose for those fifty bags of fertiliser). It is easy to change the law, but the problem is, that by changing the law, you can catch people that were actually acting legitimately. However, I will not go too much further on that because the whole War on Terror is discussed elsewhere.
What this book is about is the failures of corporatism. Now, I mentioned previously that for there to be a conspiracy there has to be an intention by a group of people to commit a crime. One such crime is creating a monopoly and the misuse of market power (at least here in Australia under the Trade Practices Act). However, in some instances the monopoly comes about naturally. I would suggest Bill Gates, but that is a large grey area because while Microsoft is not strictly a monopoly, it does dominate the market. It is impossible to buy a laptop or a desktop PC that does not have Windows installed upon it. However, once again, that is not necessarily a crime, rather it is business acumen. Further, Microsoft does have challenges to its marketpower. Google has trumped its attempt to enter the smartphone market through their use of the Android system, and Linux and Apple are slowly eating away at its control of the computer market. These days most people that I know (with the exception of my brother) use the Firefox browser (okay, work uses Explorer, but that is work, and I generally don't expect much from corporations).
However, I haven't said all that much about this book, but one of the reasons is that I don't have it with me, and secondly, I really do not want to regurgitate everything that it says. For instance, there are two corporations that pretty much own 90% of the world's fresh water supply (and I can't remember their name off hand, however I do know they are both French). Two of the reasons for this is because they have been buying up smaller players and because of the high barriers to entry for new players. It is a debatable issue as to whether they are acting in a moral way or not, though I would suggest that corporations are, in all intents and purpose, amoral entities. Some have attempted to take a moral standpoint (such as The Bodyshop) however it generally does not last long, especially when one enters into the stock market to raise funds.
I do want to finish off with a discussion in this regards. Now, you will probably be surprised to know that the largest shareholders in pretty much every major company, are the superfunds and investment houses. I had a look through the annual reports of some of the companies that I own, and the story is generally always the same: 1% of the shareholders hold between 60 to 90% of the company. Is this wrong? Oonce again that is debateable. It is sort of a conundrum since people put their money in investment houses to protect their wealth as well as to increase it. However while the investment houses have the wealth to be able to put into the stockmarket in such amounts, their wealth also give them the power to be able to influence the directions of this company, and as such, if being ethical is not cost effective, they ditch ethics in favour of profits.
Governments do have the power to restrict corporate abuse, however there is another catch. In a modern democracy political parties require huge amounts of money to be able to get elected and in turn win government, and the only entities that are able to provide funding are the corporations. However, you may ask what does a corporation get from a political donation. Quite a lot actually. Take for instance a corporation, that has an annual turnover of $100 billion, and gives a political party $20 million for election expenses. The company pays, say, 30% of its earnings in tax, being $30 billion a year, however, the party, once elected, cuts the tax rate to 28%, which means that instead of paying $30 billion, they are only paying $28 billion. Therefore, by spending $20 million dollars, the company has just made, and will continue to make (as long as the turnover remains static) an extra $2 billion a year after tax.
Then there is the lobby industry. I remember going to Canberra once and somebody pointed out at the suburb of Fishwyck and said, 'this is Canberra's industrial zone' and I looked at them oddly and said, 'but I thought there was only one industry in Canberra, the lobby industry'. Now, I still have trouble distinguishing the difference between a lobbyist and a bribe, but basically a lobbyist is paid to approach politicians, take them out to dinner (as well as other entertainment), and then convince them to either pass, or block, a piece of legislation that the client does not like. Now, lobbyists are not supposed to pay money to the politician, however this does not seem to include wining and dinning (and, as in some cases, outright bribary).
The other aspect is what is called the revolving door. This happens throughout the Western World, but was most noticeable duing the Bush Administration. Australia is quite different in that when you sit in parliament, you are not actually supposed to have a second job (and you are unlikely to have the time for a second job) and most Australian politicians, once elected, stay on until either they resign or are sacked. However, this is not the case for the public service (or political staff). In the United States, the office of the President works differently as the executive is not formed out of congress (as it is in Britain and Australia). However, the idea is that the captains of industry will jump from public to private jobs, but retain their contacts and friends in the government. When they are in the private sphere, they have numerous colleges in their industry, so when they take up a position, say on a politician's staff, or in the public service, they still have these connections, and their friends can use them as a back door to the politician. However, while they are in the public sphere, they are making more friends, so when they return to the private sphere, they have multiple contacts that they can approach for favours.
Now, I will finish off here by simply mentioning that while the world seems to be governed by corrupt and greedy individuals, we must remember that we live in a sinful world, and while I will never say that we should not confront and challenge these individuals, we should also remember that a charismatic leader promising a return to the Garden of Eden is probably going to be a lot more dangerous. Two things: these people are in power, so they want to maintain the status quo, which means not annoying the constituents too much; and they need us to survive. By bankrupting and driving the middle class into poverty means that there is no money for them. Remember the causes of the French revolution. The monarchy had taxed the population to the brink of poverty, and where still spending more than they were earning and were on the brink of bankruptcy, so instead of cutting back on their luxuries, or paying taxes themselves, they decided to jack up the taxes on the population. However, the population was already taxed to the hilt, and as they say, you cannot get blood from a stone. We all know (I hope) what ended up happening.
11 May 2012
To be blunt, there is really nothing in this book that cannot be found out with a little research. However, in relation to the contents of this book, whenever I try to bring these issues up in conversation, a number of my friends accuse me of propagating conspiracy theories. To rebut those statements I will simply suggest that while they may be a conspiracy, they are not a theories. Even then, now that I think about it, they are not actually a conspiracies either. The Macquarie Dictionary defines conspiracy as '1. the act of conspiring (gee, great definition) 2. a combination of persons for an evil or unlawful purpose, a plot'. Now while the things that this book talks about involve combinations of persons, what they are doing are not necessarily evil or unlawful. Unfortunately I do not have my legal dictionary here, but what I can say is that in a legal context, a conspiracy is what is considered an attempt to commit a crime, or more precisely, a group of people who come together for the purposes of planning the commission of a crime. The difficult thing with regards to attempts (and conspiracies) is that because no crime has been committed it is actually harder to prove guilt, or intention.
Take the changes to the laws after September 11. The difficulty was that it was only after the act that a crime had been committed, and since acts of terrorism can be wide ranging and very destructive, simply waiting until after the act has been committed is not possible. However, the current law of attempts makes it hard to convict somebody of planning to commit an act of terrorism (hey, I really do have a lawful purpose for those fifty bags of fertiliser). It is easy to change the law, but the problem is, that by changing the law, you can catch people that were actually acting legitimately. However, I will not go too much further on that because the whole War on Terror is discussed elsewhere.
What this book is about is the failures of corporatism. Now, I mentioned previously that for there to be a conspiracy there has to be an intention by a group of people to commit a crime. One such crime is creating a monopoly and the misuse of market power (at least here in Australia under the Trade Practices Act). However, in some instances the monopoly comes about naturally. I would suggest Bill Gates, but that is a large grey area because while Microsoft is not strictly a monopoly, it does dominate the market. It is impossible to buy a laptop or a desktop PC that does not have Windows installed upon it. However, once again, that is not necessarily a crime, rather it is business acumen. Further, Microsoft does have challenges to its marketpower. Google has trumped its attempt to enter the smartphone market through their use of the Android system, and Linux and Apple are slowly eating away at its control of the computer market. These days most people that I know (with the exception of my brother) use the Firefox browser (okay, work uses Explorer, but that is work, and I generally don't expect much from corporations).
However, I haven't said all that much about this book, but one of the reasons is that I don't have it with me, and secondly, I really do not want to regurgitate everything that it says. For instance, there are two corporations that pretty much own 90% of the world's fresh water supply (and I can't remember their name off hand, however I do know they are both French). Two of the reasons for this is because they have been buying up smaller players and because of the high barriers to entry for new players. It is a debatable issue as to whether they are acting in a moral way or not, though I would suggest that corporations are, in all intents and purpose, amoral entities. Some have attempted to take a moral standpoint (such as The Bodyshop) however it generally does not last long, especially when one enters into the stock market to raise funds.
I do want to finish off with a discussion in this regards. Now, you will probably be surprised to know that the largest shareholders in pretty much every major company, are the superfunds and investment houses. I had a look through the annual reports of some of the companies that I own, and the story is generally always the same: 1% of the shareholders hold between 60 to 90% of the company. Is this wrong? Oonce again that is debateable. It is sort of a conundrum since people put their money in investment houses to protect their wealth as well as to increase it. However while the investment houses have the wealth to be able to put into the stockmarket in such amounts, their wealth also give them the power to be able to influence the directions of this company, and as such, if being ethical is not cost effective, they ditch ethics in favour of profits.
Governments do have the power to restrict corporate abuse, however there is another catch. In a modern democracy political parties require huge amounts of money to be able to get elected and in turn win government, and the only entities that are able to provide funding are the corporations. However, you may ask what does a corporation get from a political donation. Quite a lot actually. Take for instance a corporation, that has an annual turnover of $100 billion, and gives a political party $20 million for election expenses. The company pays, say, 30% of its earnings in tax, being $30 billion a year, however, the party, once elected, cuts the tax rate to 28%, which means that instead of paying $30 billion, they are only paying $28 billion. Therefore, by spending $20 million dollars, the company has just made, and will continue to make (as long as the turnover remains static) an extra $2 billion a year after tax.
Then there is the lobby industry. I remember going to Canberra once and somebody pointed out at the suburb of Fishwyck and said, 'this is Canberra's industrial zone' and I looked at them oddly and said, 'but I thought there was only one industry in Canberra, the lobby industry'. Now, I still have trouble distinguishing the difference between a lobbyist and a bribe, but basically a lobbyist is paid to approach politicians, take them out to dinner (as well as other entertainment), and then convince them to either pass, or block, a piece of legislation that the client does not like. Now, lobbyists are not supposed to pay money to the politician, however this does not seem to include wining and dinning (and, as in some cases, outright bribary).
The other aspect is what is called the revolving door. This happens throughout the Western World, but was most noticeable duing the Bush Administration. Australia is quite different in that when you sit in parliament, you are not actually supposed to have a second job (and you are unlikely to have the time for a second job) and most Australian politicians, once elected, stay on until either they resign or are sacked. However, this is not the case for the public service (or political staff). In the United States, the office of the President works differently as the executive is not formed out of congress (as it is in Britain and Australia). However, the idea is that the captains of industry will jump from public to private jobs, but retain their contacts and friends in the government. When they are in the private sphere, they have numerous colleges in their industry, so when they take up a position, say on a politician's staff, or in the public service, they still have these connections, and their friends can use them as a back door to the politician. However, while they are in the public sphere, they are making more friends, so when they return to the private sphere, they have multiple contacts that they can approach for favours.
Now, I will finish off here by simply mentioning that while the world seems to be governed by corrupt and greedy individuals, we must remember that we live in a sinful world, and while I will never say that we should not confront and challenge these individuals, we should also remember that a charismatic leader promising a return to the Garden of Eden is probably going to be a lot more dangerous. Two things: these people are in power, so they want to maintain the status quo, which means not annoying the constituents too much; and they need us to survive. By bankrupting and driving the middle class into poverty means that there is no money for them. Remember the causes of the French revolution. The monarchy had taxed the population to the brink of poverty, and where still spending more than they were earning and were on the brink of bankruptcy, so instead of cutting back on their luxuries, or paying taxes themselves, they decided to jack up the taxes on the population. However, the population was already taxed to the hilt, and as they say, you cannot get blood from a stone. We all know (I hope) what ended up happening.
November 29, 2018
Chockablock with information from the first page to the last. I wasn't crazy about the format with lots of different fonts and text boxes constantly jumping out at you, but eventually I got used to it.
A little dated now, this was a good refresher on the Bush-era crimes. A nice antidote for anyone who may be feeling nostalgic for W in the age of Trump. Some of the numbers may have changed in the decade plus since this came out, but the contours, relationships, and in many cases personalities are the same.
I like to think I'm pretty hip to current events so there wasn't a ton of virgin territory here. Though I will say the chapter on the Carlyle Group was eye-opening. Same for the section on French water companies Veolia and Suez and the chapter on organized crime. The sections on Monsanto and the Neoconservatives were also essential. Even if you know most of this stuff it never hurts to have a concise recap now and then. For example, I was unfamiliar with how Bush II reneged on the 1994 Agreed Framework that had been negotiated with North Korea. Knowing that makes me understand a lot more about North Korea's attitude over the last 15 years or so.
A decent book with a great title.
A little dated now, this was a good refresher on the Bush-era crimes. A nice antidote for anyone who may be feeling nostalgic for W in the age of Trump. Some of the numbers may have changed in the decade plus since this came out, but the contours, relationships, and in many cases personalities are the same.
I like to think I'm pretty hip to current events so there wasn't a ton of virgin territory here. Though I will say the chapter on the Carlyle Group was eye-opening. Same for the section on French water companies Veolia and Suez and the chapter on organized crime. The sections on Monsanto and the Neoconservatives were also essential. Even if you know most of this stuff it never hurts to have a concise recap now and then. For example, I was unfamiliar with how Bush II reneged on the 1994 Agreed Framework that had been negotiated with North Korea. Knowing that makes me understand a lot more about North Korea's attitude over the last 15 years or so.
A decent book with a great title.
Currently reading
February 1, 2009So far, her perspective is slanted in my view because she spews out a lot of unsubstantiated claims against the Right. I feel like there is SO MUCH from 2005 and prior (when book was written) to criticize the Right for so WHY does she need to do anything but state the facts? Why discredit yourself by mixing heresay in with the facts?
April 14, 2010
Melissa Rossi's books are worth reading, if nothing else, just to get more answers right on Jeopardy. But seriously, she has an entertaining way of really getting to the heart of what is going on culturally in various parts of the world. She analyzes the actual power forces in a given region, says the descriptive things about cultures that other books don't have the stones to say, and through providing a real historical CONTEXT increases one's understanding of the forces shaping our world today. She deals with the real power bases - the pharm companies, the defense contractors, etc. not just the people and groups holding public office.
Want to read
May 20, 2014Found on my brother's bookcase at our mum's and am curious why he hadn't told me about it way back or when he got it or if he read it. Strange most of these names are all still the it words 8 years later. Or not strange, you know what I mean. Yes, totally outdated but might be some little juicy thing that reminds me of another thing, etc.
March 1, 2007
I heart liberal propoganda.
I definitely recommend this book. The only trouble is, it may leave you feeling like a helpless schmuck towing the corporate line. Information is out there, so inform yourself.
I definitely recommend this book. The only trouble is, it may leave you feeling like a helpless schmuck towing the corporate line. Information is out there, so inform yourself.
July 29, 2014
I'm trying to avoid a perfect rating, but I can't give this a 4.5.
It does an excellent job of covering the problems we face, but could give as much detail as I'd like or it would be 10 times the length!
Definitely worth a read, especially if you can get an updated copy...
It does an excellent job of covering the problems we face, but could give as much detail as I'd like or it would be 10 times the length!
Definitely worth a read, especially if you can get an updated copy...
November 19, 2007
Read this book!
July 29, 2008
The author is pretty biased in her writing and displays a bitter hard on for Bush and his cronies.
August 15, 2008
Interesting blend of information and the occasional conspiracy theory. Good starting point to delve deeper. Scary stuff. Let me say it again, scary stuff.
January 4, 2015
ih.
Some good material, but the strident tone and whatnot put me off.
Some good material, but the strident tone and whatnot put me off.
March 26, 2013
Mostly obvious, this book became more obsolete with every passing day. Not very much insight here.
December 19, 2007
Good book.
September 1, 2008
Food for Thought
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews