Confessions of an Economic Hit man Essay

Set#1, Q2) The individual actions that Perkins takes are often influenced by larger social forces and institutions. What are the major social forces and institutions that shape his life? How did these forces and institutions shape the choices that Perkins faced? Do you see specific points in his life when Perkins could have made different choices? Perkins say’s that he was an economic hit man. What we do is not, in essence, illegal, but it should be. We find third world countries with some resource that can be developed and then give a huge loan to that country. The money, however, never goes to that country, but to our own companies within that country–companies that benefit only a few very rich people (Perkins, 2005). In many of these countries, you build a power plant or something that devastates the land, and the lines go only into the big cities, not to the farmers, peasants, etc. These people also don’t benefit from the ports and highways we build because they don’t have boats and they don’t have cars, and yet the whole country is left with a huge debt, and the money to pay the interest alone is being taken from education, healthcare, and other social services. In the end, the country can’t pay its debt, so we â€Å"hit men† go back to the country and take our â€Å"pound of flesh,† (Perkins, 2005) forcing them to sell their oil or some other resource to us for very cheap. It’s interesting that people think that other countries that have sent troops to Iraq in support of us have done so out of principle, but they were essentially blackmailed into it because they owed us so much money. The average person in these countries is actually worse off because of these projects, not better (Perkins, 2005). These projects do contribute to an increased Gross National Product (GNP) and total economic statistic of the country, but the well-being of the majority of people in these countries is not reflected in the GNP, because the GNP reflects the output achieved by the upper classes that own the business, industry, and commercial establishment. That process of making loans should be illegal. If Perkins say’s that he were a banker it would be illegal if Perkins say’s that he enticed you into taking a loan that Perkins say’s that he knew you couldn’t afford. But done on an international basis, it is not illegal. So economic hit men do not do illegal things. We are distinct from the â€Å"jackals† who do in fact do illegal things, like governments, and other activities that are extremely disruptive, yet incidentally, extremely effective. When Jaime Hurtado of Ecuador was assassinated because of economic hit men including me, and when Omar Torrijos of Panama was assassinated for the same reason in 1981, suddenly the peoples’ spirits in these two countries plummeted, especially since their spirits were soaring with the election of these leaders. The jackals are very effective not only in that they topple these governments, but they break the spirits of these people. (Perkins, 2005) Historians have long known that U. S. policy was to overthrow governments that challenged our political power or restricted or interfered with the ability of our international corporations from making big profits. They point to our role in Guatemala, Chile, Iran, etc. Its pretty well established that we were involved in trying to overthrow Hugo Chavez in Venezuela in 2002; in fact, the administration has admitted that. We certainly know what we’re doing in Iraq, Lebanon, Israel, and Afghanistan, so it’s well established that the U. S. government gets pretty in tries. â€Å"When the jackals fail, young Americans are sent in to kill and to die. † (Perkins, 2005) Perkins personal involvement or the involvement of other individuals in the book are well documented, so the only real question one could have is: â€Å"Did John Perkins really do this, or was it someone else who did these things? (Engler, 2005) But if someone actually took the time to look over all of the documents–Perkins passport for example–they would walk away without the shadow of a doubt that Perkins say’s that he was involved in doing these things. Let me add that it doesn’t serve anyone’s interest to be in denial. What we need to do is understand our mistakes and set them right. This will allow us the opportunity to move forward, start fresh, and create a better world. So, rather than denying the things we have done, we should focus on what we can do to set things right, and create a model that reflects the ideals of what Perkins say’s that he was brought up to believe America is all about. When Perkins say’s that he was an economic hit man these things weighed on Perkins conscience. Perkins say’s that he struggled with them. In Perkins heart, Perkins say’s that he came to understand that what Perkins say’s that he was doing was really bad. After being a hit man for over ten years, Perkins say’s that he was in the Caribbean on St.John’s Island and while on a boat, Perkins say’s that he saw a sugarcane plantation that was grown over with bougainvilleas. As Perkins say’s that he sat there, Perkins say’s that he realized that the plantation was built on the bones of thousands of slaves, and that our entire hemisphere was built on the bones of millions of slaves, and then it struck me that Perkins say’s that he too was a slaver, that Perkins job as an economic hit man was promoting a different form of slavery, and Perkins say’s that he just had an epiphany, and realized that Perkins say’s that he could no longer do this. (Engler, 2005) Set#2, Q4) Was Perkins himself responsible for the banking disasters he claims he caused? Why or why not? Perkins writes that he is aware that people like Tom Friedman are telling us that America’s role in the world has been extremely positive and that we’re not doing a favor to anyone by telling them that economic development isn’t doing good, because economic development is the only path towards human realization and building a hope that might counter the despair that leads to a 9/11-type atrocity (Perkins, 2005). Perkins say’s that he would agree that economic development is very important, provided that it reaches the poor people. Otherwise the Friedman argument is a little bit like saying that slavery in the United States pre-Civil War was good because the slaves from Africa came to a civilized Christian country and they had food and housing on the plantations. But they were slaves! You could make the point, as people did in those days, that their conditions were better than those in Africa, but Perkins say’s that he think that’s a very irrational argument. That’s the same argument you could make about people in third world countries today, that they are better off now working in the sweatshops living off of two dollars a day. The point is that economic development since the 1970s has been very detrimental to the poor. They’ve been pushed out of the villages in which an ethos of collective responsibility guaranteed that people would do all they could to care for each other, even while being â€Å"dirt poor. † (Perkins, 2005) The quality of their mutual support never showed up in the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), but it meant that far fewer people had to sell their children into prostitution or slavery to have â€Å"enough†(Perkins, 2005) to eat or a place that felt reasonable to live. In monetary terms, of course, the gap between rich and poor since the 1970s has more than doubled. (Perkins, 2005) That is not to say that economic development is wrong–we need more economic development, but it needs to be done in a way that helps the people on the bottom rung. It is not true that raising the economies of these places affects all the people there positively. What is true is that mostly the rich profit, while everyone else gets poorer. So we need a new view on what economic development really is. The extremes of poverty and inequality are connected to widespread support for terrorism and rebellion around the world. Perkins say’s that he have never met a terrorist who wanted to be a terrorist. They are terrorists because their land has been destroyed by oil plants or hydro-electric plants. â€Å"We can trade in that old nightmare of polluting industries, clogged highways, and overcrowded cities for a new dream based on Earth-honoring and socially responsible principles of sustainability and equality. † (Perkins, 2005) They become terrorists because they don’t know what else to do. Or they witnessed this happening to others whom they cared about, even if they themselves were not economically suffering. Of course, there are fanatical leaders that exploit this desperation in people. There will always be killers and sociopaths, but people like that don’t have any power unless there is a large grassroots following that relates to what they are saying. For example, Osama Bin Laden is Muslim, and South America is primarily Catholic (Perkins, 2005). Yet, you travel to South America and you see pictures of Osama Bin Laden, because people relate to him as a David standing up to a Goliath. These people are desperate, and unhappy with the situation today. So this gap between the rich and poor has created a tremendous amount of anger and hatred. There is a tremendous amount that we can do. Perkins say’s that he is very optimistic that we can turn this all around, that we can create a sustainable, stable, and peaceful world. We must realize that the only way our grandchildren can inherit this is if every child born in every corner of the planet has the same opportunity to make this happen. We are a very small planet at this point. Corporations today basically run the geopolitics, so we must change the corporations. They control the whole world in a very significant way, and yet they are incredibly vulnerable to us in that they rely on us to buy their goods and services and provided them with employees, and we have been extremely successful in changing corporations whenever we put our minds to it. Just recently major food chains did away with Tran’s fat because we demanded it. We are really successful at turning corporations around when we try, but now we must take this up a notch. Instead of just cleaning up rivers and protecting the ozone layer, we have to demand that they no longer orient their profits to benefit a few rich people, and that they make it their goal to contribute to a better world for us and our children. (Engler, 2005) Perkins say’s that he know this will happen because Perkins say’s that he know a lot of CEOs, and none of them want to see rainforests destroyed, or terrorism, or Florida covered in ocean, but they are all operating under the idea that their mandate is to make greater and greater profits for their shareholders. But that is not their mandate. They can still make their profits, but their mandate is to make a better world for all of us. In the final analysis, each of us must follow our passions and talents to create a more sustainable world. We take different paths, but we can all work towards the same end (Perkins, 2005). Why should corporations just continue to be able to go out a plunder? They should be responsible to bigger bodies than just their stockholders. Perkins writes that he is struck by the statistics that during WWII, big corporations contributed about 50 percent to our income tax, and in 2001 it was something over 20 percent. In recent years it’s been under 10 percent. Some of the most profitable and powerful corporations don’t pay taxes at all, and some get a tax credit despite how profitable they are. Ultimately, the corporations have to be willing to pay their dues.