Economic Hit Men
May 11th, 2005 | by Tom Harper |John Perkins is an economist and was a high-ranking member of the international banking community. He now has a book, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. The book describes how he was a highly paid professional who helped the U.S. cheat third world countries out of trillions of dollars.
Perkins began the book over 20 years ago. He says:
“The book was to be dedicated to the presidents of two countries…Jaime Roldós, president of Ecuador, and Omar Torrijos, president of Panama. Both had just died in fiery crashes. Their deaths were not accidental. They were assassinated because they opposed that fraternity of corporate, government, and banking heads whose goal is global empire. We Economic Hit Men failed to bring Roldós and Torrijos around, and the other type of hit men, the CIA-sanctioned jackals who were always right behind us, stepped in.”
The job of an economic hit man is to build up the American Empire. That means creating situations where as many resources as possible flow into our country; our corporations. This has created the largest empire in history. He says:
“It’s been done over the last 50 years since World War II with very little military might, actually. It’s only in rare instances like Iraq where the military comes in as a last resort. This empire, unlike any other in the history of the world, has been built primarily through economic manipulation, through cheating, through fraud, through seducing people into our way of life, through the economic hit men. I was very much a part of that.”
The first notch in America’s bedpost was Iran in the early 1950s. Their elected leader was overthrown and replaced with the infamous Shah of Iran. (And yes this does have a lot to do with the Iranian hostage situation 25 years later.) In this case the government was overthrown by the CIA.
The American government realized the advantages of this type of overthrow: no open warfare, no conflict with Russia or any other country who might object. The only drawback was that if some of the CIA agents were captured and exposed as U.S. government agents, things could get a little, uh, “awkward.” So after the Iranian overthrow, this type of work was done by private American companies, whose employees could not be traced to any government operation.
The most common method of this economic warfare is to grant a loan to a poor country. A huge loan, a loan way too big for that country to possibly repay. A large contractor — Bechtel, Halliburton, etc., you know the players — would get its foot in the door by building roads, power plants, whatever the country needed. The government of this country is then instructed to pay back the loan to this contractor. When the government is unable to repay the entire loan and goes into debt, the contractor has them over a barrel.
At this point we can practically blackmail the country into handing over its resources (oil, minerals, whatever) to American corporations.
And that’s the pattern.
During the energy crisis of the 1970s, our government realized Saudi Arabia was the key player. The American and Saudi governments worked out a deal: the House of Saud would send most of their petro-dollars to the United States and invest them in U.S. securities. The Treasury Dept. would use the interest from these securities to hire American companies to build Saudi Arabia — new cities, new infrastructure. In return, Saudi Arabia has kept the price of oil low. Well, “low” enough to keep Americans happily buying millions of gas guzzlers.
Now, remember those Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq? Hahahahahaha. Here’s what really happened: We tried to use the same manipulative tactics with Iraq that had worked so well with Saudi Arabia and other third world countries. And Saddam Hussein wouldn’t play. When the economic hit men aren’t able to “convince” a third world country to play ball, further steps must be taken.
The CIA can induce a coup by stirring up rebellion among the populace. This didn’t work in Iraq — Hussein’s grip was too powerful. Next step — assassinations. This didn’t work either. Hussein had too many bodyguards and a vast network of “doubles.”
When these backup plans all fail, what’s next? Military invasion. As John Perkins says:
“So the third line of defense, if the economic hit men and the jackals fail, the next line of defense is our young men and women, who are sent in to die and kill, which is what we’ve obviously done in Iraq.”
Why did Perkins spend twenty years “working on” this book? The money, power and prestige were just too seductive. It was 9/11 that finally changed his mind. He says:
“But when 9/11 struck, I had a change of heart. I knew the story had to be told because what happened at 9/11 is a direct result of what the economic hit men are doing. And the only way that we’re going to feel secure in this country again and that we’re going to feel good about ourselves is if we use these systems we’ve put into place to create positive change around the world. I really believe we can do that. I believe the World Bank and other institutions can be turned around and do what they were originally intended to do, which is help reconstruct devastated parts of the world. Help — genuinely help poor people.”
OK, now before you come screaming into the Comment section, remember the above paragraph is a quote. I personally am not playing blame-the-victim and saying 9/11 was America’s fault. But that quote is the perspective of a high ranking American economist who was closely affiliated with the World Bank, International Monetary Fund and international contractors.
Whether or not the United States should be helping poorer countries is open to debate (and not the focus of this article). But using the rest of the world as just so much chattel and raw material for America’s corporate empire is just plain wrong.
Cross-posted at Who Hijacked Our Country
16 Responses to “Economic Hit Men”
By Jet on May 11, 2005 | Reply
Great post, Tom. Most decisions come bask to the basic root — it’s all about the money. This is why China is hanging back and watching us.
By sally on May 11, 2005 | Reply
Ah…Iran. What memories it raises! Great post Tom!
By James on May 11, 2005 | Reply
Yep, the United States of American Corporations. A truly economic, exploitative Empire. I have been wanting to read this book so thanks for giving us the brief.
By Tom Harper on May 11, 2005 | Reply
Jet: Yeah, that’s what it comes down to. Money talks.
Sally: I sure remember when the Iran hostage crisis was at the top of the news, day after day.
James: That could be our new abbreviation. The good ol’ USAC.
By Craig R. Harmon on May 11, 2005 | Reply
To what extent is it evil for the USAC to, for example, intervene in Saudi Arabia to assure that our economy isn’t crushed by OPEC? Yes, there are alternatives: smaller, more fuel efficent cars; lowering home and corporate thermostats in Winter and raising them in Summer; reduced speeds on highways; reduce travel, which is basically accomplished through higher fuel prices; finding alternative power sources to fossil fuels like solar, air, water, atomic, hydrogen, etc. In fact all of these were instituted but the effects upon our own economy, had the crisis continued, would have been devastating. There was no way that alternatives could be exploited quickly enough even if we could have developed those alternatives under the crushing weight of a devastated economy.
Okay…it is hypocritical to be overturning a despotic government in Iraq while propping up the house of Saud but it did, and continues to, avert an oil crisis. And at this point, the crisis long ago having been averted, it is foolish that one of the best selling vehicle types is the one that get’s the worst fuel economy, but what is the alternative? Does the Government tell people that they can’t drive the vehicle of their choice if they can afford them? Does the Government tell auto-makers that they can’t produce the most popular style of vehicle? Does the Government regulate auto-makers into producing only vehicles that get at least 25 mpg, leaving it up to the Companies to determine how it keep within the regulation? Does the Government tell the Companies how to meet such regulations? Perhaps Government grants to encourage entrepreneurial efforts to develope alternative fueled and hybrid type SUV’s and other type vehicles, which, I guess, is being done, could be done more aggressively. Having averted the crisis, we probably did not make R&D of alternatives the highest priority.
And why has it been so long since we built a refinery in this country? I mean, increasing the amount of oil available to the US has little effect upon the supply of US produced gasoline. The problem is not enough refineries to produce gasoline in the first place.
I get the argument. I haven’t read the book so I’m not criticizing it or defending the practices the author talks about in the book. I’m just asking questions.
By Tom Harper on May 11, 2005 | Reply
Craig: I don’t think we really disagree on this; maybe just different emphasis. We need to more aggressively pursue fuel efficiency and renewable energy. No, the government can’t tell automakers what to manufacture or tell consumers what to buy, but they can use tax “incentives” more aggressively. You can get a terrific tax deduction if you buy a Hummer or any of the largest pickups or SUVs — this is insane.
And, to be politically incorrect, I don’t think our empire-building is totally wrong; just the extent of it. Like John Perkins said, America has been the kindest and gentlest of all the world emperors (not his words). We did what we needed to do to in Saudi Arabia to avert a crisis.
We just need to do more renewable energy development and have less emphasis on domestic drilling. And our foreign policy shouldn’t be centered around what’s best for Halliburton, Bechtel and the oil companies.
By The Bastard on May 11, 2005 | Reply
You know the government uses taxes to try and get people to quit smoking. Why aren’t they doing it to force fuel effeciency? I own an SUV and it would hurt my pocket book but maybe I would think differently if prices were higher. Before you call me a hypocrite, I actually use my SUV for what it was built for. I haul a ton of shit every weekend and need an SUV to do this. I mean, everyone points to the oil prices in Europe being so high and that is because they tax the living shit out of it. The result is cars like the “mini”.
Bush is looking forty years down the road on SSI but not doing the same on fuel efficiency. Why? And don’t say the Alaska thing is the answer. The truth is we could have had fuel efficiency years ago but that would have meant Bush and the House of Crooks wouldn’t have gotten as rich. No I’m not blaming just Bush, I’m blaming all the politicians before him and including him.
By pia on May 11, 2005 | Reply
Do you all recall the gas crisis of ‘79? It was almost as bad as can be.
Then what happened? The Iranian hostage situation. Certainly defused the situation.
I hate being this cynical, but I always feel that Bush invented the Social Security crisis to divert attention from both oil and Iraq.
Great post, Tom, thanks
By Dr. Forbush on May 11, 2005 | Reply
Pia,
Even before the 2004 election people have said this. If you study the history of Bush you can guess what he is going to do. He is going to divert attention from whatever the problem is. Social Security is just another of a long string of efforts to divert attention away from something they don’t want the voters to know. There was an excellent World Affairs Council talk about just this in the Fall of 2003. I’ll have to look for it.
By Tom Harper on May 11, 2005 | Reply
The Bastard: You’re right, we could have developed greater fuel efficiency and renewable energy a long time ago if that was a high enough priority. But the oil industry (and their congressional puppets) said No.
Pia: I don’t know what Bush’s purpose is with this Social Security “crisis,” but he’s got something up his sleeve. Probably like you said, to distract us from oil prices and the Iraqi quagmire.
By Elijah on May 11, 2005 | Reply
There is a another book called Behold a Pale Horse by William Cooper, Milton William Cooper
Behold the pale Horse is similar to the book you mention in this post. The book is out of print last known print was in the 1980’s.
By Tom Harper on May 11, 2005 | Reply
Dr. Forbush: Yup, Bush is definitely the most skillful sleight-of-hand president we’ve ever had. People may call him dumb, but he’s as slick and wily as they get.
Elijah: I’m glad to know about this other book. Even if it’s out of print, at least it’s good to know that other people have written about this.
By windspike on May 12, 2005 | Reply
I am going to have to put this book on the must read pile. I can also recommend Democracy Matters by Cornel West - bloggers of all stripe might enjoy it.
When it gets right down to it, it is all about the cash, baby! Follow the money, and it will lead you right to the pigs, feeding heavily at the trough of the downtrodden.
There is no doubt in my mind that the US Government has murdered/assasinated people on our behalf, but the only beneficiaries are those already benefiting.
This is another way to say, the rich get richer, and the poor stay that way.
By Craig R. Harmon on May 12, 2005 | Reply
Just wondering…with all these questions about what Bush has up his sleeve with the SS crisis…probably the same thing Clinton had up his sleeve when he called SS a ‘crisis’…like a decade ago.
How quickly they forget.
By Tom Harper on May 12, 2005 | Reply
Windspike: Yup, follow the money. That’s it in a nutshell. And like you say, it’s more and more where the public is subsidizing the wealthiest and most influential members of society. It’s almost like they’re trying to reverse that famous H.L. Menken quote and change it to “comfort the comfortable and afflict the afflicted.”
Craig: Oh, Clinton was sleight-of-hand too. After all his nickname was Slick Willie. People accused him of using the Kosovo war to distract us from “that woman Miss Lewinski.”
By Craig R. Harmon on May 12, 2005 | Reply
By the way, any idea why this and other recent posts don’t show up on the main page? Something ain’t right. One of you administrators ought to check it out. This and the next like four more recent posts just ain’t there.