So? Will there be a groundswell of resentment to WOP (Without Papers) capital? Ah, the old days of good blue-blooded WASP funding! Filthy lucre needs no passport.

Posted by: biklett | Dec 26 2007 17:41 utc | 3

This is what globalization is about: capital flows wherever it finds the highest rate of return, regardless how it affects the domestic population.
It was fine in those days when the US economy and currency were dominant, but we have whittled away that position.
Are markets here to serve the people or people here to serve the markets?

Posted by: ralphieboy | Dec 26 2007 20:35 utc | 5

Biklett makes an important point. Does it really make a difference what country/culture the capitalists that own everything in your world belong to? It is difficult to argue that it does, in fact for every xenophobic statement about uncaring attitudes of rich Arabs or Asians it would be a simple task to rebut with examples of amerikan capitalist greed and inhumanity.
Buffet is no ordinary amerikan and while he has always cloaked himself in the persona of a ‘simple man’ the corporations he has shareholdings in, have been as capable of greed and inhumanity as any other. Perhaps Warren Buffet is concerned that if the controlling shareholding goes overseas, the new shareholders will behave in a less predictable manner. Buffet made his billions by being able to ‘see’ what was coming next in amerikan capitalism.
Berkshire Holdings always lived off the folly of others and Arabs and Asians probably won’t make the same mistakes as the capitalists whose errors Buffet exploited so ably.
These foundation stones of amerikan corporate capitalism, Merril Lynch, Citibank, Morgan Stanley et al, got grabbed by globalist players because their leadership made too many errors. The big corporations either encouraged or dreamed up the idea of amerika’s imperial expansion into the ME. It was their campaign contributions which got BushCo over the line twice, and since it is that huge miscalculation which pushed the global economy out of kilter when the cost of oil rose 400% in 5 years, they deserve to pay the price. Sub-prime stupidity was more of a symptom than a cause of the amerikan liquidity meltdown.
Corporate capitalism has always claimed that it is about ‘survival of the fittest’ and this is just another example of that. Of course now that some of the survivors have become dog tucker they are complaining the rules should be changed. They want amerikan shit kickers to pay for the privilege of restoring them back to the power bases, so they can return to kicking the shit outta those who saved their asses. Does that sound like a good idea? Is that the amerikan way?
Besides how many times have the self same bastions of amerikan capitalism fought to stop welfare or free health coverage on the grounds that “rewarding losers only encourages them to keep losing.” If the state were to intervene all that would happen would be amerikans would have to pay for the balance of payments deficit these pricks have run up themselves, while putting obvious incompetents back in place .
Next time those incompetents would be even less cautious since they would know nothing could harm them, that the state will save them.
On the other hand if the control of amerika’s banking system is spread out wider into the societies it has been manipulating for so long, would much change for the average amerikan shit kicker? Probably not, these new owners are into making money just like their incompetent predecessors.
Oh, there may be a slightly different ethos around the edges, and initially amerikans are likely to get a few free lunches while the new owners seek to show they are the ‘good guys’, then they will settle down to exploit those who are vulnerable to their power in exactly the same way as the previous owners did.
And that is the point of this, really most of the changes are going to be to the ‘old boys club’. Of course some pols will see a once overflowing trough pulled from under their snout so they will squeal loudly, but for most in amerika there will be no immediate change.
The world may benefit from having voices from more places making decisions but that is no certainty, what is certain is that the stockholders won’t want to kill the goose. I have lived most of my life in nations whose financial independence is compromised by overseas ownership and have never been able to detect a difference between local and foreign owners when they make their selfish decisions.
Object to huge mega corporations because they are huge mega corporations not because of the race or nationality of the shareholders. We may not like it, but we live in a global economy and the tyrants must be fought globally. That means fighting against capital on racial or national lines will divide us against each other, just like those in control prefer.
amerikans who oppose this inevitable stage of evolution in the flawed model of corporate capital are aiding the very assholes who have had their foot on the throats of ordinary amerikans for most of their life.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Dec 26 2007 21:22 utc | 7

@uncle $cam I’m not sure I did mean to imply that the change in the large financial institutions shareholdings means life is any more unfair than it was when amerikan capitalists had total control of them.
As far as building a better, more egalitarian society where fairness and justice prevail, one of the by-products of the change in ownership of corporate capitalism’s foundation institutions, will be that amerikans are less likely to equate the success of corporate capitalism with national pride.
Once the new owners get their feet right under the table at Citibank, Morgan Stanley and Merrill Lynch they will persuade the pols who depend upon their support to pay for their campaigns to loosen up many of the rules about foreign ownership of ‘strategic assets’, particularly energy corporations. An unintended consequence of that could be a fairer world.
That is if, say, Exxon becomes a largely foreign owned corporation, it wouldn’t seem such a patriotic duty for the average amerikan, to ensure Exxon kept or even expanded it’s hegemony over ME energy sources.
Over the last 50 years or so, few amerikan taxpayers have effectively questioned the role of the amerikan taxpayer as financial underwriter of corporate imperialism. This is probably because it has been sold to them as national imperialism, that since the corporations were amerikan owned, this invasion or that stage-managed coup, was something for the benefit of all amerikans.
So any changes to the perception of the Fortune 500 being mainly amerikan institutions, is likely to be a good thing for fairness and justice on this planet. Of course all sorts of strategies will be employed by the capitalist elite of whatever nationality to keep the real cost of capitalist expansion off their balance sheets, but that is where we ‘agitators’ and educators come into play. It is essential that we do make sure peeps understand exactly who owns what where, but as we do so we must also ensure that we don’t fall victim to the sort of jingoism and plain racism that the elites use to divide the rest of us.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Dec 27 2007 1:06 utc | 9

I think this is a play by foreign interests whose main priority is their return on their dollar-based assets. They want a seat at the table to make sure interest rates go up. This will cause a recession but they don’t care about that, and it is probably unavoidable and necessary anyway.

Posted by: dacorilater | Dec 27 2007 2:49 utc | 11

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission said Wednesday that employers could reduce or eliminate health benefits for retirees when they turn 65 and become eligible for Medicare without violating the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
The policy, set forth in a new regulation, allows employers to establish two classes of retirees, with more comprehensive benefits for those under 65 and more limited benefits for those who are older.
Many retirees may lose their benefits entirely.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Dec 27 2007 9:47 utc | 13