He hates competition. He is increasingly drawn to the easier large investment instead of many small ones.
He is invariably drawn to become the backer of politicians and have government working for him instead of bothering his monopoly."
You made a point here that is in essence the argument that I'm making.
The banksters see themselves as sovereign individuals and have every intention of retaining their individual property rights (their money, their power). Capitalism maintains rules of law that allow individuals their personal sovereignty and property rights. Communism does not recognize personal sovereignty or personal property rights. The rule of law is what they state it is. And that rule of law only supports collectivism. The banksters would necessarily have to merge their interests with the collective interests of the communists, or be eliminated, once the true communist ideologues take over. That would entail the bankster either loosing his wealth/grip on power, or loosing his life.
Same goes for the Islamic ideologues. Once the unfettered muslim supremacists took over, the banksters would necessarily have to merge their interests with the Islamists, or be eliminated. It's either bow down to the pedophile prophet, or be subjugated or put to death. Neither instance includes the bankster retaining individual wealth or power outside the interests of the Islamist ideologues. Everything is for the glory of the false moon god "allah" at that point.
Banksters are fools if they think they would actually retain their personal sovereignty or grip on power with a communist or islamist dominated globe. Capitalism, with it's accompanying rules of law, truly is a banksters best friend. Power mad banksters could only exist under the thumb of a communist regime at the regimes behest. And if they became part of the regime itself, then they would no longer be monopolists. Which, like you said, is what a bankster loves the most. Banksters try to influence and manipualte governments for their own personal agrandisement.
I thought exactly what you said until recently - I could not get my mind around capitalists, the mega rich, being against free markets and for totalitarianism. It makes utterly no sense from my point of view as a business-oriented person. Rockefeller and Stalin ? Makes no sense. Why would big business not starve out totalitarianism until it collapses and replace it with a free market framework ?
From the multi-billionaires point of view, it gets difficult to find things to invest in when you get that big a pile of money, and still get a return on investment. Buffett talked about that problem constantly over the past decade regarding BH. They need big businesses that fit well with them to buy. They have way too much capital to invest (in their mind) to be able to invest in hundreds or thousands of small businesses.
Government regulation is a pain. Invariably they wind up backing politicians to have politicians working for them instead of against them. I highly recommend Titan by Ron Chernow. As his business was growing, JDR Sr. became annoyed at guys who would not sell out to him and were not operating as efficiently as Standard Oil was. By the turn of the century, SO made Microsoft look a mom and pop. So Chase was handling enormous amounts of depositor cash (a liability). Chase was, in effect, “SO’s bank”. J P Morgan had put together mergers as an investment banker and controlled boards all over in addition to having his enormous amount of capital needing to be invested. They’re operating all over the world at that point.
Eventually, mega banks get to the point of wanting a monopoly on lending to the government (this was early 1900’s, with the Fed, Inc Tax, Wilson, etc.). It serves both purposes: it’s only one deal, but it’s a massive one, so it is highly profitable, and the debt they are marketing is “top quality”, backed by future tax revenues collected with the authority of the government. The other side of the coin is it gives them enormous political influence because they are ones the government then needs in order to continue deficit spending. Thats why Paulson could simply demand a check for hundreds of billions of dollars and a President said ok - if the mega banks go broke - the community banks can’t market anywhere near 1T in Treasuries every year. The deficit spending would hit a hard stop.
Collectivism, in practicality, results in a corrupt oligarchy, not a government where the leaders of the “poor people” or “the masses” take over.
No one at the top confiscates money from the mega rich because the people at the top are the mega rich.
It’s not the “State” taking over in a “revolution”. It’s the toppling of a government with its replacement by the billionaires “man”, as is happening the arab spring.
China - run by a ruling elite set of mega rich.
Russia - run by a ruling elite set of mega rich.
Nazi Germany - run by a ruling elite set of mega rich.
Islammies - run by a ruling elite set of mega rich.
They all would borrow using tax-backed bonds and use the funds by buy infrastructure and equipment sold by establishment interests. Or better yet just let the establishment interests come in and build plants. The head of state just wants to stay in power, the establishment is providing jobs, the aura of success and money as necessary. The establishment also has U.S. foreign aid providing the funding so it comes from U.S. tax-backed bonds (U.S. foreign aid engineered by the “policy geniuses” at CFR goes back a Long way).
Our establishment funded the Bolsheviks and Hitler rising to power. Hitler was nationalist, so was contrary to one world government in that respect. But he was conquering other nations, which was combining nations, which is the strategy of one world government. Tons of business was done between the establishment and German corporations all during the 20’s right through the war. I recommend Antony Sutton’s detailed research on this.
The islammies, though they are being propagandized now that they are going for some future glory of dominating other nations and having control of the whole world, like German citizens in the Third Reich will find that they are simply under the thumb of a brutal regime themselves. If one world government were to come to pass, nations will find that the glory has all gone to those at the top of the one world government, which would only include their local wicked masters.
Whenever the mega rich want to replace a political leader it’s simply a matter of funding a “revolution”. It may take time, but mega rich have time. Iran deals with the mega rich via the establishment’s people in Russia, Qatar, etc. The establishment will gladly deal with any extremists to get the job done of taking over governments on it’s century long journey towards one world government. The establishment, being able to shape U.S.foreign policy and public opinion, via their men at State Dept and newspaper Boards of Directors, respectively, can always gin up a war against a bad-boy dictator who gets too big for his britches with them. The establishment is concerned about overpopulation and therefore has no problem if their tyrant puppets exterminate swaths of the citizens under their rule.
Ultimately, as we see in China and especially Russia, the mega rich rulers have their own private armies to protect themselves once you get well along into a totalitarian regime and morality becomes a dream of the past. But knowing they can have a private army, I guess the one-world government banksters feel that they would have a happy existence, though to most it would seem just as much a nightmare as being their lowest subject. One just has to look at these States, like North Korea, devoid of anything uplifting or edifying to see that it’s not a very smart goal. But to a monopolist, they then have the ultimate monopoly and that’s what makes sense to them as the easist way to a continued return on investment. Also, from their point of view, the see how well they run a company like General Electric and think that it would be easy for them to just run everything; it’s simply pure arrogance. They obviously don’t get that companies in America which prosper are staffed people with some remnant of the values and perspective of early America. All those sophisticated planning and designing jobs that enable our high standard of living are done by people whose productivity would drop through the floor under a totalitarian government.