Freedom Force International -

CONFESSIONS OF AN ECONOMIC HIT MAN
One of the most valuable and dangerous books of our time
An analysis by G. Edward Griffin

This is the autobiography of a man whose job was to entice leaders of under-developed nations into accepting loans from the IMF and World Bank. The enticement was that the money would be used to expand their infrastructure of roads, railways, electrical power, and communications and, thereby, bring prosperity to these countries. He did this as a corporate economist who deliberately exaggerated the potential for economic return on these investments. Although his projects were always described as humanitarian, the real objectives were to generate lucrative contracts for multinational construction companies and to lure nations into loans they could never repay. He knew that a few politicians and well-connected families within those countries would become wealthy while the standard of living for most of the people would decline. When repayment of loans became impossible, the lending agencies and corporations then would move in to take control of the nation’s resources and government, and that, too, was part of the plan. In other words, in the modern world, conquest by the sword has given way to conquest by the loan, and Perkins was a key strategist in the high command of the conquering forces.

THE CORPORATOCRACY
Perkins is a man with a troubled conscience. He regrets selling his soul to the “corporatocracy,” his name for the network of corporate and government interests that he now condemns. He struggled with this guilt for many years before finally deciding to break away. It was a hard decision, because he wanted to believe that, somehow, in spite of all the dishonesty and plundering, some good might eventually trickle down to the common man. Also there was the fact that he was very well paid for his work. It is not surprising, therefore, that the break was not total. His first move was to quit his job, but that didn’t mean terminating employment. He continued to work as a consultant and expert witness, doing much the same as before, but receiving even more money in consulting fees than he previously received in salary. His ultimate penance was to write this book as an act of public confession, but that didn’t happen until after he had acquired a lot of money and became financially secure.

There is no reason to question the sincerity of his conscience, but we should not overlook the fact that it took many years for it to mature. We must realize that the author is a prime example of the greed factor he condemns in his book. But he readily admits that, himself, and one cannot help but sense the sincerity of his remorse.

This is one of the most valuable and also one of the most dangerous books of our time. It is dangerous because half of it is propaganda. It is valuable because the other half is true, and it is an important truth that needs to be better known. Let’s begin with the propaganda.

THE ESSENCE OF COLLECTIVISM
Perkins probably would not classify himself as a Marxist (that term currently is out of vogue), but we know from his writings that he is a collectivist, which is a more generic term for the same thing, so let us use that word to describe him. (For an analysis of collectivism, see The Chasm, which is Part One of The Future Is Calling, located in The Issues section of the Freedom Force web site, www.freedom-force.org.) How do we know he is a collectivist? Because he tells us so in his book.

One of the slogans of collectivism is: “From each according to his ability; to each according to his need.” Actually, there is nothing wrong with that sentiment. It is the foundation of compassion and charity. However, collectivists are not willing to leave the matter to charity or freedom of choice. Their creed is that, if something is worth doing, it is worth doing through force and coercion.

The easiest way to identify a collectivist is to observe how he proposes to help those in need. If he advocates true charity (the giving of one’s own money) and freedom-of-choice to give or not to give, he is an individualist. If he advocates pseudo charity (the giving of other people’s money) and the use of taxation to coerce everyone to participate whether they choose to or not, he is a collectivist. Perkins accepts the collectivist model. He writes: “Countries like my own should take decisive action to help the sick and the starving of the world.” (p.48) That means political leaders in countries like his own (the U.S.) should have the power to confiscate earnings from one class of citizens and give it to those in other classes or even to those who are citizens of another country. All that is required is to claim that this supposedly is for some humanitarian purpose, such as to help the sick and starving of the world. The use of coercion for redistribution of wealth is the foundation of socialism, communism, Nazism, fascism, and all other variants of collectivism.

Another tenet of collectivism is the belief that citizens should be treated differently, depending on who they are and what class they represent – again, always justified by the claim that some humanitarian purpose is being achieved. This is the logic behind laws that discriminate on the basis of such things as race, gender, age, geography, religion, occupation, level of income, and type of industry. In all cases, someone is benefited at the expense of others. In the treatment of citizens, collectivism institutionalizes inequality and presents it as a virtue.

Perkins sees nothing wrong with this model and is happy to be the beneficiary of it. In 1982 he founded Independent Power Systems, a company to develop commercial power that is environmentally friendly. The goal was praiseworthy, but the reality was that such systems were not yet economically viable. However, the development of new power sources was perceived as beneficial to society, so collectivists in Congress passed laws granting favorable tax treatment to companies in that industrial sector. It was, supposedly, a humanitarian thing to do. That means these companies were given an economic advantage over their competitors using traditional technology. IPS went further than that and lobbied for additional favors. Perkins boasted: “We even had backing from the U.S. Congress, which singled out IPS for exemption from a specific tax, and in the process gave us a distinct advantage over our competitors.” (p.164.)

There is no sign of remorse here, no feelings of guilt, no urge for public confession. To a collectivist, using political influence to gain advantage over one’s competitors is totally acceptable. As long as there is some claim about a humanitarian purpose, it is part of the collectivist creed. As George Orwell expressed it in his book, Animal Farm: “All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.”

MARXIST ROLE MODELS
Perkins reveals his affinity to collectivism in many ways. The two great role models in his life were Marxists: General Omar Torrijos, the President of Panama, and Jaime Roldós, the President of Ecuador. Both men advocated state control over industry, education, social welfare, employment, communications, transportation, and every other important sphere of national activity. Free-market competition was not an option. Both men were friendly with Fidel Castro and the Soviet Bloc. Perkins writes: “On New Year’s Day, 1980, … I resolved that during the next year I would make a major change in my life and that in the future I would try to model myself after modern heroes like Jaime Roldós and Omar Torrijos.” (p.145.)

Like all collectivists, especially those with an affinity to the Marxist flavor, Perkins hates capitalism. He describes the corporatocracy he once served as “the global empire, which is rooted in capitalism.” (p. 170.) This attitude can be traced to his Marxist college professors. He writes: “Promoting capitalism often results in a system that resembles medieval feudal societies. … (p.26.) I recalled an economics professor from my business school days, a man from northern India, who lectured about limited resources, about man’s need to grow continually, and about the principle of slave labor. According to this professor, all successful capitalist systems involve hierarchies with rigid chains of command, including a handful at the very top who control descending orders of subordinates, and a massive army of workers at the bottom, who in relative economic terms truly can be classified as slaves.” (p. 57.)

What Perkins’ professor failed to tell him, and what he failed to perceive on his own, was that the system he detests is not capitalism but collectivism. Just because those at the top are wealthy does not make them capitalists – or anything else. The wealthiest men in the world today are collectivists who pursue partnerships with politicians. They attain wealth, not by excellence in productive efficiency and masterful marketing, but by excellence in lobbying and political influence – doing exactly what Perkins did with IPS. They do not like free-market competition. They seek laws to eliminate competition through the creation of monopolies and cartels backed by the force of government. What Perkins does not understand is that he has been caught in a word trap. What he calls capitalism is really collectivism, the very thing to which he is still committed.

It seems that Perkins never met a Marxist he didn’t like. He describes many of them in his book and, without exception, they are wonderful people striving to improve the lot of mankind against opposition from heartless capitalists who care only about profits. When Mao Tse-tung brought Communism to China, collectivists in the United States, both in government and the media, assured the American people he was not a Communist but just an agrarian reformer trying to do what is best for the downtrodden people of China. When Castro brought revolution to Cuba, collectivists assured the American people he was not a Communist but just an agrarian reformer trying to do what was best for the downtrodden people of Cuba. Now we hear the same song sung from the pages of this book. Perkins uses the character of a Columbian woman named Paula to deliver the message:

“I’ll be Frank,” Paula said one day, while we were sitting in a coffee shop. “The Indians and all the farmers who live along the river you’re damming hate you. Even people in the cities, who aren’t directly affected, sympathize with the guerrillas who’ve been attacking your construction camp. Your government calls these people Communists, terrorists, and narcotics traffickers, but the truth is they’re just people with families who live on lands your company is destroying. … (p.124)

“I know that some of the guerrillas have trained in Russia and China. What else can they do? They need to learn about modern weapons and how to fight the soldiers who’ve gone through your schools. Sometimes they sell cocaine in order to raise money for supplies. How else can they buy guns?” (p. 126)

One does not have to be an expert on international affairs to spot propaganda this blatant. Marxist propaganda is easily identified if one knows the formula. The first stage is to focus attention on whatever injustices can be found within the present system. The second is to present the issues in such a way as to create sympathy for “victims” and hatred against “exploiters.” The third is to claim that the problem can never be solved until the present system is replaced by an entirely new one that offers justice and respect for the common man.

What system would that be? In earlier days, it was described as socialism or communism. In recent times, more beguiling words are used, such as democracy. The names are irrelevant. In all cases, the proposed reforms involve the expansion of government power in the name of the greater good for society. They are all siblings of Marxism, and their common DNA is collectivism.

The irony is that, for the last half century, almost all of the injustices that Marxists and Leninists have used to justify the expansion of government have, themselves, been caused by previous expansion of government. In other words, they advocate more of the thing that caused the problems in the first place.

In fairness to Perkins, his book does not include the “revolutionary” solution typically found in Marxist propaganda. He believes it is possible to bring about change within the existing system as a result of rising public awareness, a massive wave of indignation, and a resolve to change the ethics by which our existing institutions are governed. I agree with that assessment, although I disagree with what those ethics should be. But the fact that Perkins does not advocate a change of the system is convincing evidence that he is not following a hidden agenda. Clearly, he is a collectivist with an affinity for Marxists and Leninists; but, that aside, I believe he is exactly as he claims to be: a man with a guilty conscience.

THE MASTER PLAN
It is Perkins’ conscience that makes this book essential reading, because that is what has driven him to expose the inner workings of the corporatocracy he served. Only an insider could tell this story. If an independent researcher or journalist said these things, the public would never believe them. Yet, coming from a credible defector, they take on a stark reality that cannot be easily ignored:

There were two primary objectives of my work. First, I was to justify huge international loans that would funnel money back to MAIN [the firm for which Perkins worked] and other U.S. companies (such as Bechtel, Halliburton, Stone & Webster, and Brown & Root) through massive engineering and construction projects. Second, I would work to bankrupt the countries that received those loans (after they paid MAIN and the other U.S. contractors, of course) so that they would be forever beholden to their creditors, and so they would present easy targets when we needed favors, including military bases, UN votes, or access to oil and other natural resources. (p. 15.)

The unspoken aspect of every one of these projects was that they were intended to create large profits for the contractors and to make a handful of wealthy and influential families in the receiving countries very happy, while assuring the long-term financial dependence and therefore the political loyalty of governments around the world. The larger the loan, the better. The fact that the debt burden placed on a country would deprive its poorest citizens of health, education, and other social services for decades to come was not taken into consideration. (pp. 15, 16.)

The subtlety of this modern empire building puts the Roman centurions, the Spanish conquistadors, and the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century European colonial powers to shame. We EHMs [Economic Hit Men} are crafty; we learned from history. Today, we do not carry swords. We do not wear armor or clothes that set us apart. In countries like Ecuador, Nigeria, and Indonesia, we dress like local schoolteachers and shop owners. In Washington and Paris, we look like government bureaucrats and bankers. We appear humble, normal. We visit project sites and stroll through impoverished villages. We profess altruism, talk with local papers about the wonderful humanitarian things we are doing. We cover the conference tables of government committees with our spreadsheets and financial projections, and we lecture at the Harvard Business School about the miracles of macroeconomics. We are on the record, in the open. Or so we portray ourselves and so we are accepted. It is how the system works. We seldom resort to anything illegal because the system itself is built on subterfuge, and the system is by definition legitimate.

However – and this is a very large caveat – if we fail, an even more sinister breed steps in, ones we EHMs refer to as jackals, men who trace their heritage directly to those earlier empires. The jackals are always there, lurking in the shadows. When they emerge, heads of state are overthrown or die in violent “accidents.” And if by chance the jackals fail, as they failed in Afghanistan and Iraq, then the old models resurface. When the jackals fail, young Americans are sent in to kill and to die.” (pp. xx, xxi.)

Now you know why I urge everyone to read this book. In spite of the collectivist bias of the author, there is no doubt that he knows his subject well. He was there. He saw the action. He made it happen. He gives names and dates and intimate details that can only come from being on the inside. If this is new information for you, your view of world events will change forever.

The danger is that readers with no knowledge of collectivism will be unable to cope with the information. They will be whipsawed between the corporatocracy and the anti-corporatocracy guerillas that claim to be merely defending their native habitat against ravenous industrial development. Readers will have no way to know that these opposing forces are merely different manifestations of the same thing. They will be concerned with only one question: Which group do they hate the most? If they hate the corporate collectivists, they likely will be sympathetic to the Marxist collectivists. If they dislike Marxists, they will be driven to support the corporatocracy. Collectivism wins in either case.

Without this understanding, those who favor the environmental concerns of the indigenous people easily can be led to believe that this story is just about greed and decadent capitalism. They will be attracted to the siren call for more government control to curb those big, bad corporations and to empower international agencies to draft endless regulations administered by a global army of humanitarian bureaucrats who surely will set things right. And, by so doing, they will make matters even worse than they are today.

That is why I have taken the time at the beginning of this review to open the door to a deeper understanding of the ideological issues. If we can rise above the collectivist bias of the author, and if we also can recognize that the corporatocracy is based on collectivism, not capitalism, then his work can serve as a textbook on hidden financial agendas in our modern age.