Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

key2thecup

These 6 corporations control 90% of media in America

49 posts in this topic

I didn't fail at interpreting the chart, I was making fun of your conspiracy and the incest connections also cited in said conspiracy. Obviously it's over your head, and since you're getting creeped out by the incest hyperbolism that encompasses your own conspiracy you parade around, perhaps it's time to move on, or check yourself into a psychiatric centre...

If the Rothschilds own "everything" then why are so few banks listed? If they own the Federal Reserve system, why doesn't your image show all 12 of their banks valued at several trillion dollars? Oh no, a Chase Manhattan Bank that eventually turned into JP Morgan Chase.. after numerous fails in creating a Rothschilds bank in the US, they put money into an already successful American Bank, which is only one of four, and somehow this is them owning all but a few countries in the world? Yeah okay buddy. Sip on more of that hyperbole kool-aid.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So...I'm trying to understand everyone's point.

Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

If good - why?

If bad - why?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forbes Rich List 2011: The Top 10

Rank Billionaire Net Worth (USD) Details 1 Carlos Slim (Mexico) $74 bn Telecom king Carlos Slim from Mexico easily retains his top position this year. In fact, his net worth increased by more than $20 bn this year, which has given him a huge lead in terms of wealth over all the others on the list. The 71 year old, with all his wealth, still lives a frugal lifestyle much to the surprise of many people. He is also involved in projects that work towards the betterment of poverty, literacy, healthcare and sports, in Latin America. 2 Bill Gates (USA) $56 bn Founder of the world's largest software company Microsoft, Bill Gates who is now completely into charity, saw his fortune increase by $3 bn over last year. A noteworthy point is that, this gentleman has already donated around $28 bn of his fortune to charity, and has pledged much more in the coming years. 3 Warren Buffett (USA) $50 bn Investor businessman Warren Buffet has also increased his wealth by $3 bn. He has set an extraordinary example to the world by pledging to give away 99% of his wealth to charity over time. Already, he has donated close to $8 bn. 4 Bernard Arnault (France) $41 bn French Bernard Arnault is up 3 places from last year. His wealth in this one year has risen by nearly $14 bn. Bernard, who is 62 years of age, has it in him to even push up further in this list, with the manner in which his business tactics and acquisitions depict. 5 Lawrence Ellison (USA) $39.5 bn US billionaire Larry Ellison has moved up 14 spot in this year's list. Over the year, his fortune has increased by $11.5 bn. He is the founder and CEO of Oracle, and we could see his wealth increasing dramatically over the current year too. 6 Lakshmi Mittal (India) $31.1 bn Steel magnate Mittal managed to increase his wealth over last year by $2.4 bn. This saw him drop a spot in the top 10. He heads ArcelorMittal, the world's largest steel manufacturer. His donates huge amounts in India to encourage sports. 7 Amancio Ortega (Spain) $31 bn Amancio Ortega's company Inditex, is the world's largest clothing retailer. Over the year, he has increased his net worth by $6 bn, which has pushed him up by 2 places in the current list. He is known to be an extremely private person and never gives any interviews whatsoever. 8 Eike Batista (Brazil) $30 bn Eike increased his wealth by $3 bn in the last one year, which helped him retain his number 8 position this year too. He is into mining and oil, and though he has not moved up any spot this year, he still vows to be the richest man in the world one day. And why not, at 54, he has age on his side. 9 Mukesh Ambani (India) $27 bn Mukesh, who is the boss of Reliance Industries, involved in oil, gas and petrochemicals, saw his worth diminish by $2 bn, which resulted in a drop of 5 places this year. But he is still in his 50s and with all that he is involved in, will surely be able to increase his wealth to a large extent in the coming years. 10 Christy Walton & Family (USA) $26.5 bn Last to make it on the top ten list is Christy Walton & Family from the United States. The only new entrant in this year's top 10, Christy is the widow of John Walton, who was the son of the founder of Wal-Mart, Sam Walton. Wal-Mart as we know is the largest retail chain in the whole world

These articles implied that they are all-inclusive lists. However, it becomes clear that they are not complete lists when they excludes such prominent wealthy persons such as: Her Royal Majesty Elizabeth - Queen of England, Her Royal Majesty Beatrix - Queen of the Netherlands (known as the wealthiest woman in the world), Her Royal Majesty Margaret the II - Queen of Denmark, Her Royal Majesty Sofia - Queen of Spain, Sir Muda Hassanal Bolkiah Muizzadin Waddaulah - The Sultan of Brunei, Darussalam, King Fahd - Monarch of Saudi Arabia, Emir Shaikh Jabir al-Ahmad al-Jabir as-Sabah - King of Kuwait, Sultan Qabus bin Said - King of Oman, Emir & Prime Minister Khalifah ibn Hamad ath-Thani - King of Qatar, President Zaid ibn Sultan an-Nahayan - Ruler of the United Arab Emirates, Haydar Abu Bakr-al Attas - Prime Minister of Yemen, Amir isa bin Sulman al-Khalifa - King of Bahrain, the House of Rothschild, the Wallenberg interests, the Warburg interests, the Schiff interests, or many others. The ultra-rich are very likely members of the Inner Circle of the Elite and do not want their massive wealth to be known by the public, therefore, they are not likely to be listed by Forbes magazine or any other news media.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So...I'm trying to understand everyone's point.

Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

If good - why?

If bad - why?

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Definitely bad, you can't get a balanced perspective on the news if everything is coming from the same source. Actually it's even worse than that, because the way things are you get the illusion of a balanced perspective, which is even more deceiving.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone actually cares about the news and what's going on in the world, they wouldn't get 100% of their news from American TV. You can easily change your 'informational diet' by going online and reading whatever sources you want. Unfortunately, this trend of consolidation is bad for the fat and lazy who do nothing but watch TV, which even more unfortunately seems to make up a large % of the population.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't fail at interpreting the chart, I was making fun of your conspiracy and the incest connections also cited in said conspiracy. Obviously it's over your head, and since you're getting creeped out by the incest hyperbolism that encompasses your own conspiracy you parade around, perhaps it's time to move on, or check yourself into a psychiatric centre...

If the Rothschilds own "everything" then why are so few banks listed? If they own the Federal Reserve system, why doesn't your image show all 12 of their banks valued at several trillion dollars? Oh no, a Chase Manhattan Bank that eventually turned into JP Morgan Chase.. after numerous fails in creating a Rothschilds bank in the US, they put money into an already successful American Bank, which is only one of four, and somehow this is them owning all but a few countries in the world? Yeah okay buddy. Sip on more of that hyperbole kool-aid.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This might have been disconcerning 10 years ago, but today the majority of us turn to the internet, be it Facebook, Twitter, independent blogs, etc. for our news. Really, these companies control 90 percent of cable television, not the media.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so instead of NewsCorp and Time Warneryou are turning to Google and Microsoft

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no worries, aliens will deal with evil rockefellers!!!!!!!!! Americans better vote for Ron Paul

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no worries, aliens will deal with evil rockefellers!!!!!!!!! Americans better vote for Ron Paul

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Unlike Obama, a Presidential campaign has not deviated Ron Paul from the way he both votes in the House and repeatedly promotes his views. As soon as the Obama 2008 campaigning started, so too did the about-facing. One could predict with ease that Obama would merely be a black version of George Bush before he ever celebrated his AT&T-hosted DNC victory.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Umm... no. The reason royalty is not on the list is that royalty doesn't own a lot of their "property", techinically the state does. For instance, the queen could not sell the royal palace. She does not get to decide who inherits it when she dies. Whoever becomes the next monarch gets to live there.

The reason why the Rothschilds are not on the list is that their fortune is split now between hundreds of descendants. So while the family as a whole is extremely rich, no idividual member of that family is in the top few INDIVUDUALS. Also, many of the individuals in the Rothschilds family are spoiled brats and bad businessmen. So while some members have kept their banking business going and added to their wealth, many others have lived a playboy lifestyle and squandered much of their wealth.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Labor rejects Greens push to curtail Rinehart

Bianca Hall, Judith Ireland

June 19, 2012 - 4:58PM

Swan attacks Rinehart over Fairfax

The mining magnate's attempt to exert editorial control over the media company is 'very concerning', says the Acting Prime Minister

Treasurer Wayne Swan says Gina Rinehart is the only media owner to blatantly declare an intention to ignore editorial independence

But the Treasurer and acting Prime Minister has stopped short of supporting a Greens push for legislation to protect journalists from proprietorial interference.

art-Rinehart2-420x0.jpg

Ms Rinehart is understood to have demanded three seats on the Fairfax board. Photo: AFP

And Communications Minister Stephen Conroy has ruled out supporting any such legislation, telling Parliament, ''we are not going to ... start legislation to interfere in any way with editorial independence’’.

Greens MP Adam Bandt asked Mr Swan in question time today if he was prepared to do more than just "publicly call" on Ms Rinehart to uphold editorial standards.

The Treasurer told Parliament that he was very concerned about Mrs Rinehart's attitude towards Fairfax.

"The government is very strongly of the view that a healthy robust media is essential to our democratic process," he said.

But Mr Swan stopped short of backing the Greens' move for legislation, referring to the government's convergence review and media inquiry as a sign of its action in the area.

Mr Swan said Mrs Rinehart had to explain to the Australian people what her intentions were towards Fairfax, "whether she will or won’t support a charter of independence".

Bandt-420x0.jpg

Greens MP Adam Bandt and Workplace Minister Bill Shorten talk during question time this afternoon. Photo: Adam Bandt

Earlier Mr Swan had warned that Mrs Rinehart's push for unfettered control over Fairfax Media was a threat to Australian democracy.

The Deputy Prime Minister told reporters in Canberra that the mining magnate's resistance to the media company's charter of editorial independence was deeply concerning.

He said no one had ever before "so blatantly and so publicly" declared that they intended to impose their commercial will on editorial independence.

1_1_19quotes_ipad-200x0.jpg

"I think that has very bad impacts for our democracy," Mr Swan said. "I think we should all be very concerned about this chain of events."

Mr Swan's remarks, which reignite tensions between the Gillard government and Australia's richest woman, coincide with her battle for control of the Fairfax boardroom.

It is believed that Mrs Rinehart, now Fairfax's largest investor, wants to be appointed deputy chairman of the company, and to have Hungry Jack's founder Jack Cowin and another of her representatives appointed to board positions.

Mr Swan said: "No one has so blatantly and so publicly said that they intend to impose their commercial imperatives on the essential role of journalists when they are trying to report in a fair and balanced way."

But the Treasurer said there were limits to what the government could do to prevent it.

"The fact is that this is a commercial organisation and Mrs Rinehart has a right to buy shares and take over the company but if, in the process of doing that, she is indicating that she intends to junk the charter of editorial independence then that does raise concerns ... but there isn't an instantaneous solution."

Under a plan put forward by the Greens today, Mrs Rinehart would be required to sign up to Fairfax's charter of editorial independence.

Greens communications spokesman Scott Ludlam said there was now an urgent case for legislation that would bind media company directors and board members to stay out of editorial decisions.

"I think there is a real urgency with this and yesterday's announcement really sharpens the urgency of bringing such an instrument forward," Senator Ludlam said.

Mrs Rinehart is understood to have made it clear she does not intend to abide by the board's long-standing convention that board members not influence editorial control, including the firing of editors.

The news that Mrs Rinehart had increased her stake in the company to almost 19 per cent came as the company announced it would shed 1900 jobs as part of a radical restructure.

Fairfax Media is the owner of The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald and the National Times.

Entrepreneur John Singleton, a friend of Mrs Rinehart's, told ABC Radio this morning that she should be free to exercise editorial control if it kept the company financially profitable.

But Communications Minister Stephen Conroy and opposition communications spokesman Malcolm Turnbull have both warned any attempt to influence editorial direction could compromise the company's brand.

Senator Ludlam will write to Senator Conroy and Mr Turnbull to seek their support for legislation to toughen editorial independence requirements.

"Whether it be by regulation, whether it be an amendment to the Broadcasting Services Act, which I think is the direction the Convergence Review was heading in, or whether it be by some other instrument, and in terms of penalties and so on, these are exactly the issues that you'd want to tease out," Senator Ludlam said.

"We're not looking to a knee-jerk solution here, we're looking to something that would have integrity and that would actually serve working journalists and the working public and those are the kind of questions that we want to put on the table."

Senator Conroy told ABC Radio today Mrs Rinehart should put speculation to rest and sign the charter of editorial independence.

"This is clearly not in keeping with the charter of editorial independence," he said.

"I'm not sure government can do a lot when it comes to maintaining the independence of journalists and editors from boards of companies."

He later told the National Times the government had no plans to bail out the company.

''I've seen the argument that because we helped the automotive industry we should do the same thing here,'' Senator Conroy said.

''Cars are still being made around the world. Print newspapers are on the decline around the world.

"Nobody is starting up a print newspaper. To say that the government should invest in an industry that is dying is like suggesting we should be investing in film cameras.''

Workplace relations minister Bill Shorten told Fairfax Radio he would meet with Fairfax executives and the journalists' union to discuss the situation, and called on the company to support workers through the transition.

The government is still considering the findings of the Convergence Review, an independent review of Australia's changing media landscape.

"Reforms like this we might have got to, in terms of – for example – a long-mooted public interest test, as a part of the Convergence Review package," Senator Ludlam said.

"That may or may not be legislated in the coming months [but] we don't believe there's time. So I'll be writing to both of those gentlemen this afternoon to test their views on whether or not they would support a legislative solution that would bind directors of such companies and people of the board of such companies, of the large media corporations, to effectively commit to not obstructing the journalists from doing their work."

But, he said, it would be "exceedingly unlikely" any legislation could be rushed through this week or next, before Parliament takes a six-week break over the winter recess.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard told reporters in Mexico that it was important for journalists to tell stories "their way" and for there to be editorial independence.

"I think its very important that there is freedom of expression in our media," she said

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what exactly would you expect to change if Ron Paul were to be put in the White House?

I seem to recall the masses saying the same thing about Obama...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Umm....yes

The Rothschild story: A golden era ends for a secretive dynasty

This week NM Rothschild & Sons pulled out of trading in gold, the commodity that made their name in banking

By Paul Vallely

16 April 2004

The news that the bankers Rothschild are to withdraw from the gold market, in which they have been a major player for two centuries, has been hailed as the end of an era.

In one sense, of course, it is. This was the company that smuggled gold coins across the English Channel to finance the Duke of Wellington's advance through France to his final triumph at Waterloo over Napoleon (who, it turned out, had also borrowed money from the Rothschilds).

But in another way it marks out the continuation of an even older tradition - the ability of the family which has founded one of the world's largest private banking dynasties to sustain their secretive fortune, WHICH INDUSTRY INSIDERS COUNT NOT IN BILLIONS BUT IN TRILLIONS AND KEEP WITHIN THE FAMILY .

Secrecy has been a hallmark of the Rothschilds from the outset. Mayer Amschel Rothschild, the son of an itinerant money lender and goldsmith who settled in the Jewish ghetto in Frankfurt-am-Main in 1744, specialised not just in clever accounting practices but also kept secret books and subterranean vaults which he ensured were never the privy of auditor, lawyer or taxman.

As the paterfamilias became more successful he despatched four of his five sons to different European capitals to take advantage of the rise of capitalism and the growth of international trade. Nathan he sent to London, James to Paris, Saloman to Vienna, and Carl to Naples, keeping the eldest, Amschel, at home with him in Prussia. Of these the two most important proved to be London and Paris, where the two main branches of the family developed a friendly rivalry, with the English branch developing the edge in business and the French in philanthropy, the arts and winemaking. But then in 1996 Amschel Rothschild, a 41-year-old man who had lived in the flamboyant style of many of his ancestors, hanged himself in a Paris hotel room. He was the Rothschild who had been groomed to take over as head of the English arm of the dynasty.

So when the bank's chairman Sir Evelyn de Rothschild retired earlier this year the succession passed to the French side of the family. Baron David de Rothschild, who had been running the family's Paris-based bank, inherited.

None of the Rothschild enterprises have been banks in the sense as understood by the man or woman in the street. What Mayer Rothschild founded in the 1760s was a business which grew from the humble beginning of selling rare coins to becoming the prime moneylender to greedy and spendthrift governments across Europe. One German contemporary quipped that Mayer was "the pride of Israel ... before whose money box kings and emperors humbly bow". And the novelist Thackeray said of Nathan that he was "not king of the Jews, but the Jew of the kings". The brothers financed both sides in the Napoleonic wars and in the Austro-Prussian war too.

It has long been supposed that Nathan increased the family fortune 20-fold by speculating on the outcome of the Battle of Waterloo in 1815. The Rothschilds had a network of agents throughout Europe who, using fast boats, coded letters and carrier pigeons, got information to the family ahead of official sources. Victor Rothschild, third baron and former chairman of the London bank, N M Rothschild, always maintained that Nathan had made a killing by encouraging rumours that Wellington had lost when he knew he had won, though the historian Niall Ferguson in his magisterial history of the family recently disputed that.

Certainly, for all the family motto of Concordia, Integritas, Industria (Unity, Integrity, Industry), Nathan's ability to depress stock prices by using the network of agents to spread rumours, true or false, and then buy the stock up after people panicked, was legendary.

More significant, however, was that in the process the Rothschilds created the world of banking as we know it today. Nathan operated principally as an underwriter and speculator in the early 19th-century bond market. He and his brothers invented, or at any rate popularised, the government bond, which allowed investors, big and small, to buy bits of the debts of sovereign states by purchasing fixed-interest bearer bonds.

Governments liked this because they could use them to raise colossal sums of money. Investors liked them because they could be traded - at prices that fluctuated in relation to the performance of the issuing government - and shrewd investors could make big sums. It brought investment in railways, the industrial revolution and ventures like the Suez Canal. The Rothschilds got a cut of everything.

It was a new kind of power. "I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets. The man who controls Britain's money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply," Nathan said. The family developed a lack of awe for the powerful and important. A pompous aristocrat one day called on Nathan who was head down at his desk. Without looking up, the banker said: "Take a chair." His caller, affronted, said: "You are speaking to the Prince of Thurn and Taxis." To which Rothschild replied: "Take two chairs." At one point he even rescued the Bank of England after a run on gold caused the collapse of 145 banks. In 1885 he was given the hereditary title of Baron Rothschild.

Many of the distinct characteristics of the family can be traced back to the will of the founder Mayer Rothschild. It stipulated that no public inventory should be made of his estate; that key positions in the House of Rothschild were to be held by family members; that the eldest son should inherit unless the rest agreed otherwise; that the family was to intermarry with first and second cousins to keep the fortune together; that anyone disputing these terms would be struck from the will. And that all this should apply in perpetuity.

In part this was about preserving not just their Jewish identity but a self-conscious position as role models for their poorer co-religionists. The Rothschilds expended much effort and money pressing for Jewish emancipation and equality across the continent.

Their Jewish solidarity was not heterogeneous. In 1938 Nathan's great-great-grandson, Victor, shocked an audience by saying that in spite of "the slow murder of 600,000 people" on the continent "we probably all agree that there is something unsatisfactory in refugees encroaching on the privacy of our country, even for relatively short periods of time." And the family split over the question of the dream of a Jewish homeland, with some members supporting the first Zionist settlement in Palestine and the Balfour declaration and others opposing it on the grounds that it would encourage anti-Semites to question the existing national identities of assimilated Jews around the rest of the world. None of which has allayed the wild fears of anti-Semites who throughout the 20th century branded the Rothschilds as part of a Jewish plot to take over the world.

The world has changed around the Rothschilds. At one point Nathan Rothschild was the richest man in Britain and probably in the world. In today's terms he was wealthier than Bill Gates. But they never gained the foothold in America they needed. The world became corporate. Private banking got left behind. (bull)

Still, the family has moved down only from fabulously rich to enormously wealthy. And they adjusted to the times. They made billions in the 1980s from Margaret Thatcher's privatisations of state-owned industries on which they advised. In France after their bank was nationalised by the Socialist president Francois Mitterrand they slowly built a new business which, under Baron David de Rothschild, has risen to the top ranks of the merger and acquisition league tables. They have pulled out of retail fund management - into which they went with much fanfare only three years back - and now they are pulling out of oil and gold in favour of the higher-margin areas of private banking and wealth management.

Do not spend too many tears. In 1997 the family's Swiss holding company increased its profits by 66 per cent. The firm is not called Rothschild Continuation for nothing.

Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1743-1812), Founder of the family business

Mayer, orphaned at the age of 12, was forced to make his own living with the help of the good name of his father in Frankfurt. He carved out a self-taught career as a dealer in coins and medals, branching out into state loans and trade in general commodities. He established the family name by placing a Roman eagle on a red shield (Rothschild in German) over the door of his counting house.

Mayer established one of the Rothschild firm's principles: to settle for less profit to ensure long-term business ties. A brisk market in English textiles prompted him to send one of five sons, Nathan, to England.

Jacob, 4th Baron Rothschild (b. 1936), Head of the English side of the family

Chairman of NM Rothschild before resigning in 1980 to run Rothschild Investment Trust. He chaired the National Heritage Memorial Fund, handing out £1.2bn of lottery grants. He restored Waddesdon Manor, right, the family pile, and chairs Yad Hanadiv, the family foundation in Israel, which donated the Knesset and Supreme Court to the state

David de Rothschild (b. 1942), Head of the French family

The head of the French family, David de Rothschild has escaped two catastrophes in France: he was born in New York after the Luftwaffe seized the family home in Paris and his mother fled from Nazi Europe; and, in 1981, President Mitterrand nationalised the French financial empire, Banque Rothschild. David and his cousins started afresh with PO Gestion, renamed PO Banque and thenRothschild & Cie Banque.

Seven Generations and two Centuries of Banking

1760s The orphaned Mayer Amschel Rothschild starts a coins and medals business in Frankfurt

1789 Mayer appointed an agent to William IX of Hanau

1798 Mayer's son Nathan leaves Frankfurt to become a textile and general merchant in Manchester

1812 Nathan's brother James establishes a banking house in Paris

1815 The English branch of the Rothschilds supply gold to the Duke of Wellington's campaign at Waterloo

1820 Nathan's brother settles in Vienna; his brother Carl starts a business in Naples

1836 Nathan dies

1840 NM Rothschild and Sons becomes one of the Bank of England's bullion brokers

1850s Great houses are built. Bordeaux vineyards of Mouton and Lafite are acquired

1875 Lionel de Rothschild raises finance for British stake in the Suez Canal

1887 Rothschilds funds the creation of the diamond dealers De Beers

1901 With no male heirs, the Frankfurt dynasty comes to an end

1919 NM Rothschild & Sons chair new daily fixing of the gold price

1926 The company finances the spread of the London Underground

1929 Beginning of difficult years for family. Wall Street crash; rise of Nazi Europe

1960s Rothschilds look to US; start of Rothschild Inc

1981 France nationalises the highly successful Paris House but the family refuses defeat and starts new business.

1985 Rothschilds advises on British Gas privatisation

2004 An international banking dynasty, Rothschild have 40 countries worldwide

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  For instance, Microsoft was worth over 100 billion dollars at the time of Bill Gates death.  Facebook was also valued at over 100 billion dollars.  However, their founders are now worth far less.>

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill Gates is dead??? Pretty sure he is still alive

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what exactly would you expect to change if Ron Paul were to be put in the White House?

I seem to recall the masses saying the same thing about Obama...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, he would have some big promises to live up to.

It'll be interesting to see how he'll go about carrying them out.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.