So, what is the relationship between the American consortium and the American government?
0 1
In my personal opinion, before discussing this issue, we must first understand one thing, that is, the relationship between American consortia and the government is not static, and with the passage of time, the relationship between them is also changing quietly.
Generally speaking, the evolution of the relationship between American consortia and the government can be divided into three stages.
The first stage: mutual support for development.
Netizens who know something about American history must know that before the formal establishment of the United States, it was only a British colony in North America.
Britain's exploitation and oppression of the colonies has never been soft.
In this context, it is undoubtedly difficult for the first emerging bourgeoisie in North America to develop and grow. With the intensification of contradictions, the emerging bourgeoisie in the North American colonies naturally did not want to do nothing.
Take the famous "Boston Tea Party" as an example.
1773, in order to dump the tea accumulated by the East India Company, the British government dumped tea to North America through the Regulations of the Relief East India Company, and explicitly prohibited the sale of "private tea" in the colonies.
Because the price of tea imported by the East India Company is 50% cheaper than that of "private tea", many North American smugglers and local tea farmers can no longer survive.
For the hegemonic behavior of Britain, the grievances and anger of the colonial emerging bourgeoisie can be imagined.
You know, Britain can dump tea today and other commodities tomorrow. If this routine continues, the emerging bourgeoisie in North America wants to grow and develop, and that is daydreaming!
So we can see that when the "War of Independence" broke out, the emerging bourgeoisie in North America responded very enthusiastically.
It is no exaggeration to say that their contribution and support is one of the important reasons for the successful founding of the United States and the subsequent resistance of Britain.
With the establishment of the United States, the American local bourgeoisie soon ushered in a period of rapid development, and it was out of control.
The second stage: violent collision.
If at the beginning of the founding of the People's Republic of China, the emerging bourgeoisie in the United States can only be regarded as a "tiny place", then more than a hundred years later, they have become a real "monster", and the name of this "monster" is ... Trust! (transliteration of English trust, one of the advanced forms of monopoly organization)
The appearance of these trust consortia has done great harm to the economic prosperity and social stability of the United States.
There is a simple reason. The emergence of big consortia makes the emerging small and medium-sized enterprises in the United States unable to compete at all. They have only two endings: merger and bankruptcy.
190 1 year, American steel company was formally established through large-scale mergers and acquisitions. It is the first "billion-dollar company" in the United States, which not only controls more than 700 enterprises, but also monopolizes the national steel output, accounting for 65% of the national total output.
At the same time, Rockefeller Financial Group and Morgan Consortium were formally born through merger. At the beginning of the 20th century, the wealth controlled by Rockefeller Financial Group and Morgan reached about 1/3 of the total wealth of the American people.
There are many such trusts, such as National Railway Passenger Transport Company and Standard Oil Company.
You can imagine, in the face of these behemoths, how do those emerging small and medium-sized enterprises go ahead? A business environment without competitive atmosphere will have a negative impact on the economy.
In addition, these monopoly consortia are not "state-owned capital" but "private consortia". Therefore, raising prices through monopoly in pursuit of more profits is their primary goal.
Because they are not "state-owned capital", the government has no right to interfere with them, which undoubtedly further aggravates the dissatisfaction of ordinary people and the middle and small bourgeoisie, and then makes the social opposition more and more serious. Affected by this, progressive movements and ideological trends characterized by "anti-corruption", "anti-monopoly" and "calling for reform" began to rise.
In the face of this situation, the US government obviously cannot sit idly by.
Then, with the Sherman Antitrust Act promulgated by 1890, the contradiction between the American government and its own trust was officially made public.
Since then, from 1904 to 192 1, three American presidents, theodore roosevelt, william howard taft and Woodrow Wilson, have filed 44, 90 and 80 lawsuits against big consortia respectively during their respective terms of office. The pressure is unprecedented!
During this period, many American consortia were split up, such as Amtrak and Standard Oil.
In addition, there is another important reason why this period is called "fierce collision", that is, ... this is the first precedent for the assassination of the American president. (Before Lincoln, andrew jackson was assassinated, but he didn't die. )
There are many "conspiracy theories" about Lincoln's assassination in America.
Scan the QR code of the poster and listen to the most accurate analysis of the international situation first.
02
What the hell is going on here?
It turned out that after the American Civil War broke out, financial consortia with a certain scale began to persecute the northern government in order to obtain the greatest benefits.
In this regard, Lincoln once made such a confession: "They are driving me crazy-my situation is worse than Sao Paulo. He is sandwiched between two sides, and there are 20 people around me. They are bankers and financiers. "
Although Lincoln finally chose to give in, at the same time, he also made a bold attempt to establish a state-owned bank, and discovered a new currency (mainland currency, also known as Lincoln green currency) through the state-owned bank, thus avoiding large-scale lending by financial consortia.
Lincoln's assassination is considered as a conspiracy, because President Jackson, who was assassinated before, was also very disgusted with financial consortia.
At that time, Jackson warned the descendants of the United States: "If the American people are deceived by the existence of banks in one form or another, then it is a foreseeable fate for the American people to control the government unscrupulously and bring endless suffering." (After the American financial crisis broke out in 2008, this sentence was repeatedly mentioned. I have to say, it's really ironic )
However, the reason why the "conspiracy theory" came to the front desk and was accepted by more and more people is that it originated from the younger generation of Jackson and Lincoln.
I believe everyone has guessed who he is.
Yes, he is the former US President Kennedy!
Just before Kennedy was assassinated, a little-known presidential order1165438 was signed. If the bill is implemented, then the US government will take back the right to issue money from the Federal Reserve!
In other words, Kennedy and Lincoln are essentially doing the same thing.
How can this "coincidence" not be noticed and suspected when two influential presidents were assassinated for the same thing?
The third stage: integration (kidnapping)
In the face of government repression, the trust will naturally not be indifferent.
Assassinate the president? The risk is too great, and the trust will not do it unless it is absolutely necessary, so it is doomed to be an "unconventional means" that cannot be easily used.
Put pressure on the government? Obviously, it can't be done either. You know, without the government's shelter, even if they have more wealth, they are just "fat meat" in the eyes of others.
Push the politicians you support to the front desk through operation? Although this method is feasible, there are still risks. After all, when people's discontent is fermented to the extreme, the government will definitely take action. At that time, even the spokesmen they have always supported will not take advantage.
Therefore, for those big consortia, the best solution is to achieve deep integration (kidnapping) with the country, so that as long as the government dares to take a knife at them, it will destroy the United States! They can naturally sit down and relax.
The landmark event of this integration (kidnapping) is the establishment of the Federal Reserve.
1910165438+10 In October, jekyll Island, Georgia, USA welcomed a group of mysterious visitors.
They are unusually low-key, not only avoiding reporters all the time, but some even participate in secret talks under pseudonyms. It was not until the establishment of the Federal Reserve in 19 13 that the secret meeting on the establishment of the Federal Reserve was exposed, and its participants included many senior executives of Rockefeller Financial Group and Morgan Consortium and confidants of the two families.
Although the real shareholders behind the Fed are still inconclusive, it is not difficult to see that Rockefeller Financial Group and Morgan Consortium are the beneficiaries of the establishment of the Fed.
Since then, with the outbreak of World War I and World War II, American trust organizations have started from the fields of finance, military and energy, and then achieved a high degree of integration (kidnapping) with the country, and finally formed ten consortia, namely Rockefeller Financial Group, Morgan Consortium, First Citibank Consortium, Dupont Consortium, Boston Consortium, Mellon Consortium, Cleveland Consortium, Chicago Consortium, California Consortium and Texas Consortium.
Although these ten consortia changed a little later, for example, they were renamed because of the new merger, but there is no doubt that these ten consortia realized the real "mutual destruction with the country" through the integration (kidnapping) with the country.
So is it good or bad for the United States after the integration (kidnapping) of these big consortia with the state?
In my opinion, this problem should be treated in two.
First of all, we must admit that this kind of "integration" (kidnapping) is indeed beneficial to the United States.
As we all know, many American consortia have Jewish backgrounds, and Jewish capital has always been regarded as "the most unstable bomb".
The reason for this is not complicated. To put it bluntly, Jews have always lacked a sense of belonging and loyalty to the country they live in because of their special cultural background. Therefore, when the country is in crisis and needs the concerted efforts of Qi Xin, there are many examples of Jewish businessmen who "have nothing to do with themselves" and use the crisis to make great contributions to the country's financial difficulties.
More importantly, once the host country is in trouble, Jewish businessmen will leave without hesitation and then look for a new "master".
You can imagine, in the face of such a "baiwenhang capital", which country can stand their tossing?
In a sense, the integration (kidnapping) of American consortia and countries is based on interests, which binds this "baiwenhang capital" and makes it impossible for them to hurt the United States unscrupulously! On the contrary, in order to keep the United States in close contact with its own interests, these "baiwenhang capitals" will not only toss the United States hard, but also save their lives by tossing others and plucking their hair. In this way, the United States can naturally maintain prosperity for a long time.
In addition, although the United States restricted the expansion of trusts in China through legislation, in the process of expanding overseas markets, the United States government not only did not have such restrictions, but encouraged them to set up larger trusts as much as possible.
For example, the establishment of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries.
At that time, how did many non-European and American oil-producing countries establish a trust organization similar to the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries to achieve "fighting poison with poison"?
It can be seen that the integration (kidnapping) of big consortia and countries is still of positive significance to the United States. The United States rose after two world wars and maintained long-term prosperity. This combination is indispensable!
Secondly, this kind of integration (kidnapping) is beneficial, but it is more harmful!
This is not difficult to understand. I want to ask, if the existence of trust is really not very harmful, how can American political sages severely suppress it?
In fact, when the trust is integrated with the country (kidnapped), the harm it brings to the United States is gradually revealed, and it pushes the United States to the edge step by step.
I believe most netizens are well aware of the difficulties that deindustrialization has brought to the United States.
But many netizens may not know that the reason why the United States will go to industrialization is because this combination is harmful.
It can be seen from the fact that Germany has always maintained its manufacturing advantages that even developed countries cannot lose manufacturing. In other words, as long as the regulatory policies are appropriate, the United States can still retain the title of "world factory" even if labor costs surge.
The problem is that the United States at that time could not carry out policy regulation at all.
Speaking of which, there is nothing I can do about it. We must know that in order to maintain the manufacturing-led real economy, we must supervise and restrict industries that can be over-speculative, such as financial securities and real estate. Otherwise, even if the government introduces more support policies, it will not stop the industry from switching to stock trading.
The top ten consortia in the United States just cover these areas that should be regulated and restricted.
Obviously, the United States wanted to keep its manufacturing industry at that time, but it had to cut off some big consortia that had been integrated with the country (kidnapped).
The final result, as we all know, is a speculative feast of financial capital along with the wave of deindustrialization in the United States. Until 2008, this speculative game could no longer be played, and the US government had to stand up and clean up the mess.
03
Therefore, although Trump shouted "recasting manufacturing", it was almost impossible to succeed. Due to the integration (kidnapping) relationship between financial groups and the state, most small and medium-sized manufacturing enterprises in the United States are destined to become the prey of Wall Street. I don't kill it now, just because it's not fat enough!
In addition, the integration (kidnapping) of military consortia and countries also determines that the United States is destined to be a country that likes to stir up regional tensions and is keen on belligerence, because only in this way can the American arms business remain prosperous.
What the American people get is not only the infinite worry about terrorist attacks, but also countless families that should be happy, but they are torn apart by the trauma caused by the war.
Seeing this, some netizens think it is necessary to ask: "Since the integration (kidnapping) with the country is so harmful, why does the US government agree? Will those politicians be kicked in the head by donkeys? "
It is impossible for a donkey to kick, but it is possible to throw money!
As we all know, "broker culture" has always existed in American political life.
K Street, located in the north of the White House, is a famous lobbying center in Washington. Although it looks ordinary, it is also called the "fourth power" center of the United States because tens of thousands of lobbyists gather here. The British Observer once called it "one of the most corrupt places in the world".
In the 1990s, Dick Zimmer, a former congressman and "anti-lobbying hero", tried to push a "revolving door bill" to restrict lobbying, but was eventually rejected. Later, Zimmer simply left politics and became a lobbyist himself.
In fact, it is no secret that power and money are "revolving doors" and a systematic corruption in American politics. People in American politics are more accustomed to such capital manipulation and interest exchange, and don't even regard it as corruption.
After leaving office, many senior government officials either specialize in lobbying activities or serve as executives in a large enterprise, which is quite common in the United States.
Cohen, former defense secretary of President Clinton, founded the so-called "consulting company" two days after leaving office. Samuel Berger, former national security assistant, and Thomas mclarty, former White House chief of staff, followed closely.
You can imagine, in this context of the prevalence of power and money transactions, how can it be too difficult for big consortia to influence the formulation and direction of certain policies?
Take the establishment of the Federal Reserve as an example.
19 12, Nelson aldridge proposed to Congress the "aldridge Act" to establish the Federal Reserve, but it was not passed.
19 13 In June, Democratic Congressman Carter Glass and Senator robert owen submitted the Glass-Owen Bill again. Although it was rearranged, it was not changed, and it was finally passed before Christmas.
This shows that the same bill, as long as it works properly, the big consortium can find a breakthrough from the US government and then make its will come true!
From the previous analysis, we can easily see that there is nothing wrong with "money politics", but "the US government serves big consortia" is somewhat exaggerated. In fact, the relationship between the American consortium and the government today is more of an exchange of interests, and everyone's status is still equal. As long as politicians are determined not to buy it, such as Trump, big consortia can do nothing.
However, as I said at the beginning of the article, the relationship between American consortia and the government will continue to evolve over time.
In my opinion, if there is a "fourth stage" in the relationship between the two, then "the American government obeys and serves the big consortia" is likely to become a reality in the future.
Don't think it's impossible.
In the TPP agreement pushed by Obama, the "super-sovereign arbitration clause" has appeared. In short, as long as the agreement is signed, domestic laws and even the constitution are considered unreasonable by international capital and apply for arbitration. At that time, once the country loses the arbitration and is unwilling to withdraw from TPP, there is only one way to go!
It can be seen that it is the deep desire of some super consortia at this stage to be above the government's rights. And once this hole is opened, who can guarantee that the big American consortium will not be used on the US government?
The withdrawal of troops from Syria and the suspension of the US government have put the contradictions and games between Trump and other interest groups on the table. In the end, Trump, who was forced to act arbitrarily, had to compromise. It can be seen that American interest groups have a great influence on the president's administration behind the scenes. So, how cruel is the White House infighting, and to what extent can Trump control the United States? In particular, how do American factions view China, and what impact will hawks have on the ongoing Sino-US consultations?
Source: network link