Is Every Global Organization Corrupt?

Where “corrupt” doesn’t mean just “taking bribes” but includes things like working for the interests of special “connected” companies and not for the people at large.

For the life of me, I can’t think of ONE global organization where I feel like they are either essential or working for my benefit.

The WTO works to benefit global corporations, not me. What is it but a place for Globalist Corporations to use their own Judicial process and dodge national ones?

The UN is a pack of lying bastards trying to take over the world and destroy nation state democracy & liberty.

The UN Security Council is a circle of ex-Colonial Powers and the USA trying to maintain some control of the world via approved wars and sanctions on those who do not play along (like Russia and in the past China – though since China ignored the ruling on Tibet the Council has given up on intimidating China).

The World Bank benefits big banks and global companies, not me nor the 3rd World countries it claims to help.

The International Monetary Fund seems to exist to do the bidding of the EU with minor input from the USA, and not do much at all for any of the smaller countries of the world. It clearly hurts folks in places like Cyprus.

The simple fact seems to be that the further from local control any governmental body or non-governmental special body gets, the less it does anything to benefit the people and the more it does to benefit the few and well connected.

I’m open to suggestions of an exception.

BTW, this thought comes from having read this article:

Pointed to by David A (H/T) here:

I’d thought some of the thoughts in that article, and I’d had my annoyances at the Global Organizations involved (from UN to WTO to Corporations) at various times. But the article ties them up in a very tidy package.

FWIW, I advocate for the need for Rich People in a society for 2 reasons. First off, you need investment and the Marginal Propensity To Invest is high for the Rich, while it is negative for the very poor who eat their seed corn. You really MUST have someone rich enough to invest in an economy or you decay into poverty. Second, I think that those who worked to save their money deserve to use it as they desire, in general. Once you start to “soak the rich” you get less rich and then begin the decay into poverty.

Opposed to that is the Evil Bastard problem. Or GEB Greedy Evil Bastard as P.G. likes to abbreviate them. This is why we have anti-trust laws and break up monopolies.

Now between those two we have an interesting question: Is there some size of Rich that is just too-Rich to be controlled by laws? In particular, when the GEB is not a person, but is a corporation, and is bigger than most countries of the world, and spans the Globe and buys politicians in all countries where it operates: Is THAT a Rich Too Far? What about a collective of them buying governents and setting up their own WTO Courts? Buying treaties that strip national power to set law and move it to their preferred venue?

Looking at the world today, I would have to say yes.

Where does real political power and control lie? In the board rooms of a few dozen to low hundreds Global Companies and their created Global Organizations. Soros is but one example, and he works largely through NGOs he has created. Yet there are just as rich and powerful folks operating through more formal quasi-governmental organizations that they have had set up and control. I can’t help but look at folks like Monsanto and see that.

What is the great crime of Russia that has them now being vilified? Is it really taking back Crimea that is dominantly filled with Russians and was part of Russia until it was broken off by Khrushchev in an arguably illegal act? Or was it that Putin quashed their Oligarchs who where in training to become the Russian Wing of the Globalist Operation?

I suspect the latter, as Putin was vilified from about that point forward. It did not start recently.

To the extent that Treehouse article is correct, Trump is faced with far more powerful forces than one can enumerate.

Subscribe to feed

About E.M.Smith

A technical managerial sort interested in things from Stonehenge to computer science. My present "hot buttons' are the mythology of Climate Change and ancient metrology; but things change...
This entry was posted in Political Current Events, World Economics and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Is Every Global Organization Corrupt?

  1. Another Ian says:


    Neville Shute has some observations on how investment happens (or not) in “Slide Rule”. He got his exposure in setting up the aviation firm Airspeed

  2. Robert says:

    Power attracts the corruptible, Frank Herbert. (A better statement than obviously wrong “power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely”)

  3. gallopingcamel says:

    Short answer to your question = YES

  4. gallopingcamel says:

    Slightly longer answer to your question. Globalism is the dominance of elites who will rule for their own benefit while reducing the majority of people to the status of ‘Cheap Labor’, serfs or even slaves.

  5. jim2 says:

    The are SO MANY well heeled entities getting rich by shorting US Citizens. That’s why we need to get up to 6 guns per capita here.

  6. gallopingcamel says:

    Much longer answer. Globalism is what you get when national oligarchs scratch each others backs:

    The latest polls show that Donald Trump is viewed positively by over 90% of Republican voters. This is higher than any other GOP president since such polls began, except George Bush following the 9/11 bump. How can this be given that 90% of the “Media” coverage in the USA is negative towards our president? The explanation is quite simple…..72% of the US population does not believe the Media!1
    Donald Trump was created by the oligarchs that have steadily increased their control of the US government over the last 30 years. As Robert Michels pointed out in his “Iron Law of Oligarchy” (1911):
    “…….all forms of organization, regardless of how democratic they may be at the start, will eventually and inevitably develop oligarchic tendencies, thus making true democracy practically and theoretically impossible, especially in large groups and complex organizations.”

    Today the USA is ruled by an oligarchy consisting of unaccountable bureaucrats doing the bidding of the “Donor Class”, consisting of “Big Business”, both major political parties, the banks and academia. These bureaucrats are not like the relatively benign Sir Humphrey in “Yes, Prime Minister”. They ensure that the will of the people as measured by the outcome of elections has little effect on public policy. The Donor Class wants cheap labor so they have opened our borders. The down side is that the majority of the population have seen their wages stagnate or fall even though the economy continues to grow.
    This is not the first time. From 1865 to 1900 the “Robber Barons” gradually increased their control of the US economy and government. They were eventually defeated by a watchdog press led by William Randolph Hurst and muckrakers. They exposed the abuses of the oligarchs with the result that the public demanded reform in the shape of the “Sherman Anti-Trust Act” and related legislation.
    Today we have a different cast of oligarchs who are more able to resist reform because the Media is no longer free or unbiased. Instead the Donor Class uses the Media to mislead and distract the public. The Media are owned by the oligarchs.
    It should surprise nobody that more and more voters (The Forgotten Men and Women) demand reform. This led to Ross Perot making a run for the presidency under the banner of the “Reform Party”. Then there was the Tea Party starting in 2009 which still has influence today. As these attempts at reform were crushed by the oligarchs it was inevitable that the forces for reform would become stronger culminating in the astonishing 2016 election which placed Donald Trump in the White House.
    If Trump had lost the 2016 election you can be sure that an even stronger reform movement would have emerged to contest the 2020 election. The general public in the USA is sick of “Stupid Government” that works for the rich and powerful but causes the wages of the majority of Americans to stagnate. Thus the Donor Class and the Deep State created Perot, the Tea Party and now Donald Trump.
    The USA now has a leader elected to reform our government. He ran on a laundry list of promises but did he mean what he said or would he follow the GOP brand by betraying the voters? To the amazement of almost everyone (including me) he is keeping his promises so the central campaign message for the 2018 mid-terms is “Promises Made, Promises Kept”. Anyone who can make such a claim without provoking laughter is likely to make gains in 2018 and win a second term in 2020.
    The people who benefit economically from the Trump agenda are gaining power while the Donor Class and the Deep State are losing theirs. Naturally there will be push back as explained by Machiavelli in 1505:
    “And it ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them. Thus it happens that whenever those who are hostile have the opportunity to attack they do it like partisans, whilst the others defend lukewarmly, in such wise that the prince is endangered along with them.”

    Prince Trump is under siege from the supporters of the status quo. They are giving it their best shot but they cannot win as long as Trump remains popular with the voters. They thought he would have been driven from office by now but instead his popularity is growing owing to an amazing string of accomplishments. Even if he does nothing for the remaining six years of his presidency he could still go down as the best president since Abraham Lincoln. If he can maintain his present pace he will rank next to George Washington.
    While Trump’s achievements are impressive, what matters most is his resolve to control our borders. Douglas Murray chronicled the “Strange Death of Europe” that is probably inevitable given the “Open Border” policies in many European countries. The European Union is doomed because “Tyranny by Bureaucrat” is more obnoxious than all the other types of tyranny. Open borders accelerate the collapse by ramping up debt. As Maggie Thatcher pointed out:
    “The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money”

  7. Larry Ledwick says:

    Short answer – Yep

    Delusions of grander attract the highly ambitious which cater to the highly manipulative and sociopaths. (big fish in a small pond often applies)

    They may start out with the best of intentions, but as they mature they like pile poop attract the flies of those who would use their implied authority and patina of acceptability of the organization for their own purposes.

    Even so called good organizations like the Red Cross go bad. above the local level, the Red Cross is full of not very nice people who are highly manipulative, and very political. I think some sociopaths use such organizations to “polish their image” or provide camouflage to hide their true nature behind.

  8. A C Osborn says:

    E M, it hasn’t always been this, yes the old time rich were greedy and powerful.
    But there were large numbers of philanthropists, the built houses, schools & hospitals for their workers and the local community.
    The change seems to involve the Club of Rome, the Bilderbergers and all the NGOs that they have created.
    Globalism is pure evil, no saving graces at all.

  9. hubersn says:

    Crimea was not always part of Russia, so it is arguable if Russia now really “took back what always belonged to Russia”. It has a very complicated history. If Khrushchev’s act was illegal or not – it was accepted by all following USSR/Russian governments. Whether or not Khrushchev could have ever imagined the USSR breaking up or not is not really relevant here.

    In 1994, Russia signed the “Memorandum on Security Assurances in Connection with Ukraine’s Accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons”. Invading Crimea is at least a clear violation of that treaty. Which neatly sums up Putin’s line of policy: he only stands by those treaties that are to his advantage. Not exactly the best way to inspire trust.

    I don’t understand what Putin tries to gain with his actions in Crimea or the east of the Ukraine. The easiest explanation is that he tries to imperson the “strong leader” that so many Russians seem to prefer, so that all the inner problems Russia currently faces are no longer in focus.

  10. cdquarles says:

    For me, the problem here isn’t rich. That’s a symptom. The problem here is human nature. People have ‘free will’, that is, the ability to make judgments about behaviors and act contrary to those judgments. This is the ‘sin nature’ the Bible speaks of, I say. Mutable beings can be corrupted. It starts with lying to yourself. From that, you start mistreating others. N. B. that this is where the non-corporeal mutable being named Lucifer went wrong. This is also where the corporeal mutable being named Adam went wrong.

    I could argue that much of our current mess is a result of ‘scientific socialism’, derived from Darwin’s flawed Origins of the Species plus the general public’s misunderstanding of economics. Labor, as such, does not produce value. I have no right to a job nor an income, just because I live and breathe. I must earn those by selling myself, either as labor or as a producer selling products, and yes, services are products … of someone’s mind. Why should any buyer pay more for labor, or any other economic input, than what said buyer holds as its value? I could say that it was the Sherman Act that contributed to the current situation. Others will disagree. Fine. Just don’t hold a figurative or even a literal gun to my head thinking that you’ll change my mind about it.

  11. philjourdan says:

    @hubersn – You are correct, but the point is who is going to make Russia give it back? The answer is no one. This “who had it first” is ridiculous since no one had anything first and you can always find someone who had a longer claim to a piece of land. Heck, HomoSapiens should be banned from all of Europe since they stole it from the Neanderthals!

    The problem with Crimea is another impotent threat from Obama. He was all talk and no balls.

  12. E.M.Smith says:


    I did not say “always belonged to Russia”, only that it WAS part of Russia prior to being split off and given away in a process that IS subject to questionable validity. Is there a time limit on fraud? If you get away with something long enough, is it then legal? Who sets the time limit? If it is over 75 years, then Ukraine has no claim to Crimea. The event happened in my lifetime…

    From the wiki on Crimea:

    Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (1954–1991)
    Main article: 1954 transfer of Crimea

    On 19 February 1954, the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR issued a decree on the transfer of the Crimean region of the RSFSR to the Ukrainian SSR.[37] This Supreme Soviet Decree states that this transfer was motivated by “the commonality of the economy, the proximity, and close economic and cultural relations between the Crimean region and the Ukrainian SSR”.[38] At that time no vote or referendum took place, and Crimean population had no say in the transfer (also typical of other Soviet border changes). After the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, doubts have been expressed – from the Russian side by all means, but even by Western historians (Richard Sakwa, “Frontline Ukraine. Crisis In the Borderlands”, 2015) – about the very legitimacy of the 1954 transition of Crimea to Ukraine; in the critics’ view the transition contradicted even the Soviet law.

    When even the Wiki admits there’s an issue of legitimate transfer, it’s not a good idea to ignore it.

  13. David A says:

    E.M. I am glad you found the C.T.H. post as interesting as I hoped. ( BTW, who is Sundance?) I first read CTH for insight into the Deep state attacks on P. Trump. I have found his articles on Trump’s economy very interesting and informative as well, with only a minor objection to his portrayal of Trump’s economic team as wolverin’s and honeybadgers.

    My objection is based on the zero sum game and attitude of winners equal and necessitate losers, whereas there is no reason both parties cannot gain, and I do not object to the ideal of “globalism” ( a citizen of the world and all) yet I object to ” globalism” ( I – we rule, you obey in thought and action) As CDcharles commented – ” . Others will disagree. Fine. Just don’t hold a figurative or even a literal gun to my head thinking that you’ll change my mind about it.”

    The ladder has ever more manifested for sometime as the R.O.W. in many respects caught up to the US in wealth. Again, the credit for much of that catching up has to do with universal gains from technology ( everyone wins) and the relatively non- aggressive ( relative to the power the US had post WW2 compared to what other nations in such positions of power have done) nation building influence of the U.S.

    Yet the, ever tantalising – always ending poorly, lure of Socialism infected many of the European nations, and the technology and trade allowed in a relatively peaceful world ( supplied by the relatively non- aggressive USA and NATO) and its sponsorship of capitalism, allowed and helped an ever larger portion of people out of poverty, while also allowing inherently unstable social political ideals of socialism and communism to claim considerably more credit then they deserve. ( Switzerland for example was an incredibly fast growing economy before they adopted socialism)

    China’s move to markets was not a move to free markets, but as demonstrated, a move to “robber barons” writ large on an international scale. Too rich? Again technology plays a role in scale here. The world is very small now as ideas and money flow instantly all over the globe, and material resources behind that follow at hitherto unimagined speed.

    Yet, as many commenters have pointed out, human natures dark side is inevitably active in any system. Robert stated…”Power attracts the corruptible, Frank Herbert. (A better statement than obviously wrong “power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely”)”
    I would object to the correction, as all desire power, who wants to be assaulted and robbed, so desire for power us universal. Rather I amend the quote to
    ” power REVEALS corruption, absolute power reveals it more clearly” So power is evil only when it refers to power OVER others, also well stated as “Government is a necessary evil”

    Globalism is a reality in an ever smaller instant communication nuclear world, as one wise man said, “if not brothers in life, then brothers in violent death”

    Larger nations, larger corporations and richer gazillionaires along with more powerful weapons are inevitable.
    That globalism is a reality.

    Will the world learn from ” The light on a hill” The only way to tame the “evil bastard” dark side of human nature is individual inalienable rights, property rights, self protection rights, right of association, religion, occupation, and the right to fail.
    In that sense, and that sense only, we need a United States of the World.

    As a post note E.M. I hope you consider to comment now and again at CTH. It is a very very good site, except perhaps a bit to rah rah and in need of some constructive critique.

  14. andysaurus says:

    Another Ian said
    Neville Shute has some observations on how investment happens (or not) in “Slide Rule”. He got his exposure in setting up the aviation firm Airspeed

    Nice to see somebody who still remembers this great author. Of course the main story in Slide Rule was the competition between state and private enterprise to produce airships, the R101 and R100 respectively. Believe it or not, the privately produced one worked, the government designed and built one crashed and burned with great loss of life. The question is: why do people still think that governments can do things better than business?

  15. p.g.sharrow says:

    The only governance that works is when “WE the People” decide WE have a problem to solve that only WE can do. As soon as we becomes THEM it becomes oppressive if it can.
    The chains forged to control OTHERS will be used the enslave us, so be careful about what you wish for…pg

  16. p.g.sharrow says:

    David A says:
    27 July 2018 at 9:11 am ” we need a United States of the World. ”

    We already have one up and running. The United States of America, it is the creation of all the people of the world. Constitutionally LIMITED Republic where the Minority is Protected from the force of the Majority. Peoples Dictatorships, Benevolent Rulers, always fail, because GEBs can game the system and take control of the resources. Parliamentary governance results in mob rule and is the reason that experiments in democratic government have failed. There is no mechanism to prevent the GEBs from log rolling the majority off the cliff. Only in a Constitutionally limited government can a wiser minority stop a mob rush off the cliff…pg

  17. philjourdan says:

    “The chains forged to control OTHERS will be used the enslave us, so be careful about what you wish for…pg”

    I think that has been shown in a different manner to already be true. It was indeed the Democrat rule changes that they are now whining about in the Senate. And it was the Biden rule that sidetracked Merrick Garland. Democrats do not have a concept of the future, only the present.

  18. E.M.Smith says:

    @David A:

    I’ll consider it, but I generally only comment on a very few places. A comment, and then the follow ups, and of course the reading the articles in the first place and thinking about them; it all takes time. If it’s just 1/2 hour each, all told, then you have about 12 possible in a 6 hour “browsing day” and that’s a lot of time spent just browsing… which must come out of other stuff like R&D, building compute structures, fixing cars, etc. etc. So I ration my time on any activity…

  19. David A says:

    Thank you EM, and you sound busy as always. I am retired now for 9 years, and there is never adequate time.

    PG, all true, yet I was trying to connect our very small modern world, a real and forced globalism, and the deep need for the ROW to adopt some of these foundational U.S. ideals. If not they will invariably lead to and pull us into destructive wars, or as they are doing to themselves, destroy culture leading to civil conflict. ( See Europe today)

    I honestly do not think 60 plus precent of Americans and 90 percent of the ROW understand the founding ideals of the USA republic.

  20. gallopingcamel says:

    “I could say that it was the Sherman Act that contributed to the current situation. Others will disagree.”

    The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors. The answer was provided immediately. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

    A republic is ideally a jurisdiction where laws apply equally to everyone. We fought a civil war to make black people equal under the law. Later, women became equal under the law. These changes improved our republic by making it fairer.

    There are forces that work in the opposite direction. Wealth and power can bias the scales of justice as we are seeing today when our ruling elites enjoy “bubbles of impunity”. Steven Brill’s book “Tailspin” refers to these bubbles as “Moats”. If these bubbles are not burst and the moats are not drained we will have lost our republic.

    We came close to losing our republic once before when the “Robber Barons” became too powerful. They were defeated by a free press that exposed abuses, leading to legislation such as the Sherman and Clayton acts in the late 1800s and early 1900s.

    Today “The Media” are owned by the New Oligarchs who also own the “Deep State” bureaucrats. It does not matter which party controls the Senate, the House of Representatives or the Presidency. Your vote will change nothing that matters because the New Oligarchs also own our politicians. The gap between rich and poor continues to widen………this is the stuff that revolutions are made of. So how are we going to defeat the New Oligarchs in big business, academia, the banks and the media?

    Our best hope is Donald Trump who cares about us “Little People”. Suddenly the economy is booming which will eventually raise wages for the lowest quartile of our population and thereby narrow the gap between rich and poor. The poor need to show up in November and vote for whoever who supports the Trump agenda.

Comments are closed.