Showing posts with label New World Order. Show all posts
Showing posts with label New World Order. Show all posts

Sunday, August 24, 2014

The Power Elite

One thing one have to acknowledge is that what we have is systemic corruption, rather than individual incidental corruption. Sure Obama is a corrupt egocentric cynic. But he is no closet communist, or a foreigner, or a worshiper of the malignant. He does no evil for evil sake. What he does is the bidding of power groups because that´s how he got to be President, and because it is the path of least resistance. Obama is no different in essence form, say, Bush. The Power elite gets its way because they are organized, concentrate Power and Money, and control the Media. The common man can resist by being informed, understand the issues, and look at policies on their own merits. Most of the public agenda is a charade of false topics to entertain the public and brand the two wings of the Business Party. It is hard to do but one must start from objective understanding: Who´s behind? Why? What are the implications?

Sunday, October 13, 2013

war in Afghanistan


KABUL | Sun Oct 13, 2013 6:38am EDT

(Reuters) - An Afghan man wearing an Afghan army uniform shot at U.S. soldiers in eastern Afghanistan, killing at least one serviceman on Sunday, local officials and the NATO-led coalition said.

Tuesday, December 11, 2012

the world’s richest human

Kerry A. Dolan, Forbes Staff

Back in the late 1990s when I was running the Forbes World Billionaires’ list, Mexicans would ask me why the list didn’t include former Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari or any of the country’s drug dealers. Salinas was rumored to have benefitted from privatizations of large state companies like phone company Telmex –but this was never proven. (Telmex was taken private in 1990 by Southwestern Bell and Carlos Slim Helu, now the world’s richest man, and is today owned by Slim’s America Movil ). As for the drug dealers, no one man rose to prominence back then.  A few years ago Forbes was able to confidently put Joaquin ‘El Chapo’ Guzman Loera, the head of the Sinaloa cartel, on our list, with a net worth of $1 billion.

Sunday, July 1, 2012

Oligopolic cartels

A monopoly (from Greek monos / μονος (alone or single) + polein / πωλειν (to sell)) exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity. (This contrasts with a monopsony which relates to a single entity's control of a market to purchase a good or service, and with oligopoly which consists of a few entities dominating an industry)[1][clarification needed] Monopolies are thus characterized by a lack of economic competition to produce the good or service and a lack of viable substitute goods.[2] The verb "monopolise" refers to the process by which a company gains much greater market share than what is expected with perfect competition.

A monopoly is distinguished from a monopsony, in which there is only one buyer of a product or service ; a monopoly may also have monopsony control of a sector of a market. Likewise, a monopoly should be distinguished from a cartel (a form of oligopoly), in which several providers act together to coordinate services, prices or sale of goods. Monopolies, monopsonies and oligopolies are all situations such that one or a few of the entities have market power and therefore interact with their customers (monopoly), suppliers (monopsony) and the other companies (oligopoly) in a game theoretic manner – meaning that expectations about their behavior affects other players' choice of strategy and vice versa. This is to be contrasted with the model of perfect competition in which companies are "price takers" and do not have market power.
When not coerced legally to do otherwise, monopolies typically maximize their profit by producing fewer goods and selling them at higher prices than would be the case for perfect competition. (See also Bertrand, Cournot or Stackelberg equilibria, market power, market share, market concentration, Monopoly profit, industrial economics). Sometimes governments decide legally that a given company is a monopoly that doesn't serve the best interests of the market and/or consumers. Governments may force such companies to divide into smaller independent corporations as was the case of United States v. AT&T, or alter its behavior as was the case of United States v. Microsoft, to protect consumers.

Monopolies can be established by a government, form naturally, or form by mergers. A monopoly is said to be coercive when the monopoly actively prohibits competitors by using practices (such as underselling) which derive from its market or political influence (see Chainstore paradox). There is often debate of whether market restrictions are in the best long-term interest of present and future consumers.

In many jurisdictions, competition laws restrict monopolies. Holding a dominant position or a monopoly of a market is not illegal in itself, however certain categories of behavior can, when a business is dominant, be considered abusive and therefore incur legal sanctions. A government-granted monopoly or legal monopoly, by contrast, is sanctioned by the state, often to provide an incentive to invest in a risky venture or enrich a domestic interest group. Patents, copyright, and trademarks are all examples of government granted and enforced monopolies. The government may also reserve the venture for itself, thus forming a government monopoly.

An oligopoly is a market form in which a market or industry is dominated by a small number of sellers (oligopolists). The word is derived, by analogy with "monopoly", from the Greek ὀλίγοι (oligoi) "few" + πόλειν (pólein) "to sell". Because there are few sellers, each oligopolist is likely to be aware of the actions of the others. The decisions of one firm influence, and are influenced by, the decisions of other firms. Strategic planning by oligopolists needs to take into account the likely responses of the other market participants.

Oligopoly is a common market form. As a quantitative description of oligopoly, the four-firm concentration ratio is often utilized. This measure expresses the market share of the four largest firms in an industry as a percentage. For example, as of fourth quarter 2008, Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, Nextel, and T-Mobile together control 89% of the US cellular phone market.
Oligopolistic competition can give rise to a wide range of different outcomes. In some situations, the firms may employ restrictive trade practices (collusion, market sharing etc.) to raise prices and restrict production in much the same way as a monopoly. Where there is a formal agreement for such collusion, this is known as a cartel. A primary example of such a cartel is OPEC which has a profound influence on the international price of oil.

Firms often collude in an attempt to stabilize unstable markets, so as to reduce the risks inherent in these markets for investment and product development.[citation needed] There are legal restrictions on such collusion in most countries. There does not have to be a formal agreement for collusion to take place (although for the act to be illegal there must be actual communication between companies)–for example, in some industries there may be an acknowledged market leader which informally sets prices to which other producers respond, known as price leadership.

In other situations, competition between sellers in an oligopoly can be fierce, with relatively low prices and high production. This could lead to an efficient outcome approaching perfect competition. The competition in an oligopoly can be greater than when there are more firms in an industry if, for example, the firms were only regionally based and did not compete directly with each other.
Thus the welfare analysis of oligopolies is sensitive to the parameter values used to define the market's structure. In particular, the level of dead weight loss is hard to measure. The study of product differentiation indicates that oligopolies might also create excessive levels of differentiation in order to stifle competition.
Oligopoly theory makes heavy use of game theory to model the behavior of oligopolies:

In game theory, Nash equilibrium (named after John Forbes Nash, who proposed it) is a solution concept of a game involving two or more players, in which each player is assumed to know the equilibrium strategies of the other players, and no player has anything to gain by changing only his own strategy unilaterally[1]:14. If each player has chosen a strategy and no player can benefit by changing his or her strategy while the other players keep theirs unchanged, then the current set of strategy choices and the corresponding payoffs constitute a Nash equilibrium.

Stated simply, Amy and Phil are in Nash equilibrium if Amy is making the best decision she can, taking into account Phil's decision, and Phil is making the best decision he can, taking into account Amy's decision. Likewise, a group of players is in Nash equilibrium if each one is making the best decision that he or she can, taking into account the decisions of the others. However, Nash equilibrium does not necessarily mean the best payoff for all the players involved; in many cases, all the players might improve their payoffs if they could somehow agree on strategies different from the Nash equilibrium: e.g., competing businesses forming a cartel in order to increase their profits.

Institutional Sociopathy

A complex, sobering documentary, THE CORPORATION takes its audience on a graphic and engaging quest to reveal the corporation's inner workings, curious history, controversial impacts and possible futures.

The high cost of cheap






A very good and true Documentary about Wal Mart! Wal-Mart: The High Cost Of Low Price is a feature length documentary that uncovers a retail giant's assault on families and American values. The film dives into the deeply personal stories and everyday lives of families and communities struggling to fight a Goliath. A working mother is forced to turn to public assistance to provide health care for her two small children. A Missouri family loses its business after Wal-Mart is given over $2 million to open its doors down the road. A mayor struggles to equip his first responders after Wal-Mart pulls out and relocates just outside the city limits. A community in California unites, takes on the giant, and wins! Producer/Director Robert Greenwald and Brave New Films take you on an extraordinary journey that will change the way you think, feel -- and shop.

Producer/Director Robert Greenwald and Brave New Films take you on an extraordinary journey that will change the way you think, feel -- and shop.

Check out their website: http://www.walmartmovie.com

The media material presented in this production is protected by the FAIR USE CLAUSE of the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976, which allows for the rebroadcast of copyrighted materials for the purposes of commentary, criticism, and education.



(2007) China Blue



They live crowded together in cement factory dormitories where water has to be carried upstairs in buckets. Their meals and rent are deducted from their wages, which amount to less than a dollar a day. Most of the jeans they make in the factory are purchased by retailers in the U.S. and other countries. CHINA BLUE takes viewers inside a blue jeans factory in southern China, where teenage workers struggle to survive harsh working conditions.

cephalosporins in food animal production

Dear Friend,
The FDA is poised to stop the overuse of an important class of antibiotics by factory farms — but Big Ag is pushing back hard, and has stopped the FDA before. We have until Tuesday to go on the record in support of new limits to stop factory farms from abusing antibiotics.
Cephalosporins are a critically important class of antibiotics that are key to treating bacterial meningitis, salmonella, children, and the seriously ill in hospitals.
But factory farms and Big Ag companies are putting the effectiveness of cephalosporins at risk through overuse in livestock.
Today, factory farms give cephalosporins to almost all broiler chickens before they hatch, whether they have infections or not. Factory farms also use the drugs large-scale to fight infections in cows and pigs.
In the absence of FDA regulation, this off-label overuse has led to an increase in the development of cephalosporin-resistant bacteria in animal populations.
The links between antibiotic use in factory farming and the increase in antibiotic-resistant bacteria are clear. So it's simple: the more these drugs are used in animals, the less effective they will be in humans.
And because these drugs are especially important for treating children — they carry no warnings against pediatric use — the risk to our kids of cephalosporin-resistant bacteria is significant.
If we want antibiotics to work for us when we need them, we have to to stop their misuse and overuse in farming.
The FDA plan would limit the use of cephalosporins in food animal production. It's not the first time they've tried to put such a rule in place. An attempt in 2008 failed when the FDA was flooded with comments from veterinarians, farmers and drug companies opposing the ban. We need to make sure that doesn't happen again. The FDA clearly wants to act, but they need to be able to show that thousands of us are behind their actions.
The FDA's new rule against off-label uses of cephalosporin bans routine injections of cephalosporins into chicken eggs and large and lengthy dosing in cattle and swine, but allows smaller dosing under veterinary supervision and usage in animals like ducks and rabbits.
It is a small step but an important one, both in protecting this class of antibiotics and putting the brakes on the overuse of antibiotics in factory farming.
If the FDA can successfully regulate cephalosporins, it's a foothold to go after bigger wins, including finalizing a guideline proposed in 2010 focused on putting a stop to the use of antibiotics solely to promote growth or to compensate for animals' unsanitary living conditions.
Click below to submit a public comment before the Tuesday deadline supporting the FDA's recent decision to limit cephalosporin use in factory farming:
http://act.credoaction.com/r/?r=5538059&id=36085-5154581-wAZP4Rx&t=8
Thank you for taking action by Tuesday to fight dangerous antibiotic abuse by factory farms.
Heidi Hess, Campaign Manager
CREDO Action from Working Assets

Saturday, June 30, 2012

Rule One: Deception


Many neoconservatives like Paul Wolfowitz are disciples of a philosopher who believed that the elite should use deception, religious fervor and perpetual war to control the ignorant masses.
May 19, 2003 |


Friday, June 22, 2012

Brave New World

Aldous Huxley interview




1958 interview from the author of "Brave New World"

The interview itself is very scary THE WAY is conducted by Wallace, parodying the topic and drilling Huxley on his loyalty to the system, and the evils of communism.

Thursday, June 14, 2012

The Power of Nightmares

The Power of Nightmares, subtitled The Rise of the Politics of Fear, is a BBC documentary film series, written and produced by Adam Curtis. Its three one-hour parts consist mostly of a montage of archive footage with Curtis's narration. The series was first broadcast in the United Kingdom in late 2004 and has subsequently been broadcast in multiple countries and shown in several film festivals, including the 2005 Cannes Film Festival.

The films compare the rise of the Neo-Conservative movement in the United States and the radical Islamist movement, making comparisons on their origins and claiming similarities between the two. More controversially, it argues that the threat of radical Islamism as a massive, sinister organised force of destruction, specifically in the form of al-Qaeda, is a myth perpetrated by politicians in many countries—and particularly American Neo-Conservatives—in an attempt to unite and inspire their people following the failure of earlier, more utopian ideologies.

The Power of Nightmares has been praised by film critics in both Britain and the United States. Its message and content have also been the subject of various critiques and criticisms from conservatives and progressives.



player
This film explores the origins in the 1940s and 50s of Islamic Fundamentalism in the Middle East, and Neoconservatism in America, parallels between these movements, and their effect on the world today. From the introduction to Part 1:

"Both [the Islamists and Neoconservatives] were idealists who were born out of the failure of the liberal dream to build a better world. And both had a very similar explanation for what caused that failure. These two groups have changed the world, but not in the way that either intended. Together, they created today's nightmare vision of a secret, organized evil that threatens the world. A fantasy that politicians then found restored their power and authority in a disillusioned age. And those with the darkest fears became the most powerful. " The Power of Nightmares, Baby It's Cold Outside.

Part 1 - Baby it's Cold Outside | 64kbps | 256 kbps | mpeg2
Part 2 - The Phantom Victory | 64kbps | 256 kbps | mpeg2
Part 3 - The Shadows in the Cave | 64kbps | 256 kbps | mpeg2

An NTSC DVD ISO is available to make burning this to DVD easier.


This movie is part of the collection: Feature Films

Producer: Adam Curtis
Production Company: BBC
Audio/Visual: sound, color
Keywords: Adam Curtis