« Orchestrated news | Main | AMD - second but superior »
April 19, 2005
Economic Hit Men down under
Bleeding Edge has just read a book called Confessions of an Economic Hit Man: How the U.S. Uses Globalization to Cheat Poor Countries Out of Trillions by a man called John Perkins, who served one of those American companies in the mould of Halliburton.
It's a shocking story. According to Perkins, the role of these companies is to extend the American empire at the expense of other countries. We therefore felt quite a chill reading this piece by SMH Webdiarist Richard Tonkin.
Perkins book described how, as his company's "chief economist", his job was to fudge the statistics to show that American construction projects would benefit the countries that paid for them, when in fact they were designed to incur debts that would deliver these countriesinto a form of economic slavery to the US.
So Tonkin's link to a paper in which the company once led by Vice-President Cheney sets out the benefits to South Australia from outsourcing to it, control of Adelaide's water supply, gave us an awful sensation of deja vu.
Perkins claims that in pursuit of its economic interests, the US arranged the assassination of two presidents of other countries, and suggests that the invasion of Iraq was arranged only when Saddam Hussein refused to accept a similar deal to one the US worked out with Saudi Arabia, which transferred a major share of its economic wealth to the US, in return for keeping the Saudi royal family in power.
The theory that Tonkin presents, in comments on that post, is essentially that Halliburton is taking over South Australia by stealth.
Why isn't it being reported in the Adelaide News? Well, in another post to the Webdiary, Tonkin expands on the theme with the following information:
At the risk of being called a "one trick pony" I'm still trying to get over the fact that, while he was running Halliburton, Dick Cheney's people [were] setting up printing plants for Rupert [Murdoch's] people in three capital cities. I've left the media release in the comments to my Halliburton piece.
You won't find it on the Halliburton site, you won't find it in a Murdoch publication (actually you'll find very little about Hal in a Murdoch [publication]). The fact that it's never been reported makes you wonder why? If the corporate bodies of the U.S. V.P and an international media baron are helping each other, this would be called "news", wouldn't it?
Maybe the possible ramifications of a concealed corporate symbiosis need to be considered, not to mention how many others may be so simply unrecorded in history.
This could be a much bigger story than Watergate. Why aren't we reading about it in the mainstream press?
Posted by cw at April 19, 2005 09:08 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://bleedingedge.com.au/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/835
Comments
How many corporate news outlets are interested in informing/exposing? Are the populace more interested in being entertained than informed? Is there a significant element of incestuousness in the corporate world? Have we become inured to corporate ( and political) dishonesty?
Posted by: Anonymous at April 20, 2005 12:01 PM
That's frightening. Makes one wonder about the proliferation of free trade deals happening lately, and who the big winners/losers will be. Or need we even ask? And where are the fearless independent news organisations when we need them most? I don't think many people really care about what's happening outside their own little comfort zone if it doesn't directly affect them. And the politicians and corporations exploit that.
Posted by: sjn at April 20, 2005 07:27 PM