Global OWS Wikis Meeting Oct 29
with respect to unattached pages these are useful for project building. But if a page is abandoned. Agreed (Mea Culpa)--Brobof 09:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Table of contents
Why I am hiding the table of contents: The main page should be small enough for people to use without scrolling. Currently it small enough to fit on 2 screens, whereas having a TOC forces people to scroll before getting to the real content. Infinity0 21:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Having a 'table of contents' makes is easier for people to see what sections there are on a page, without needing to scroll. So again please quit removing the 'table of contents' thanks Occupy Soton 17:52, 25 November 2011
You still need to perform an action to get to the section that you want, whereas having everything on one screen means users can see the overview at a glance. Your proposal is not a good one - you're not making any attempt to address other people's issues, you're just trying to force your idea through. Please make more of an effort to consider other people's opinions.
I will try to add a horizontal TOC in the meantime.
Also, there is no use telling me to "quit removing" it since I don't agree with you and I'm not going to obey you. It just makes you seem aggressive, and makes other people (e.g. me) less inclined to care what you say. Infinity0
The map on the site is now way out of date. May be worth noting that, following discussion with London, Occupy Norwich and Occupy Glasgow have established a UK contact hub which is maintained on a daily basis. Perhaps it would be better to link this instead? Occupy UK and Ireland Info Hub
- If it's out of date, please update it. Infinity0 12:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Evidence showing who the 1% are and where they can be occupied
A reference concerning who the 1% are, and proof that banks currently control the global marketplace
S. Vitali, J.B. Glattfelder, and S. Battiston: The network of global corporate control
New Scientist published an article concerning this research project in early November, 2011. Although the researchers obviously did not have a political slant or intention, the implications of this research are important to note.
1. There is a minority of corporations that own the majority of transnational corporations 2. The highest on the food chain are banks. None of the top 50 appear to be Australian banks. 3. The way this situation has come about need not be through a 'conspiracy theory' (e.g. Illuminati). What this research shows (in my understanding of it, subject to debate) is that in complex systems (think systems theories as a mathematical rather than strictly sociological concept) the tendency towards a coalescence of factors (i.e. beyond the bifurcation point as chaotic variables begin to self organise) leads to concentration. In this case, because the share ownership structure is the factor of interest, the concentration of share ownerships appears to concentrate or coalesce, and with that, so does the wealth. The researchers discovered that the structural pattern of this concentration was a bow tie shape, with wealth funneling into the corporations at the centre of the bow tie, rather than funnelling back out again. It's a trickle-up, not a trickle-down, effect.
This is scientific proof about what people have been saying for years - wealth trickles up, not down; and secondly, the majority of wealth is in the hands of a minority. Whilst this minority are trans national corporations (banks) and not conclusively, strictly speaking, any one dynastic family or person, the principle of what we are saying is actually true.
This could be the logical, long term consequences of the self organising principles inherent in the complex system that is the global market-place, and/or the strategic interests and processes of the corporation model itself. Probably as likely, and more obviously, the fact that these are banks and banks are the central market forces for transferring and containing wealth would mean that this is no surprise. There is really nothing to see here other than the obvious because regardless of what political and social implications come out of this, we are seeing 'the status quo'.
The original research The .pdf link is still available online. Go here: 
The New Scientist Article  This is also the source of the Top 50 list below.
The source database the researchers used 
The Top 50 megacorps with links to websites for the 1%, so they may be contacted, occupied, or otherwise. Data as at 2007, check for current, Merril Lynch for example, merged with Bank of America
1.  Barclays plc
2.  Capital Group Companies Inc
3. FMR Corporation
5. State Street Corporation
6. " JP Morgan Chase & Co
7. Legal & General Group plc
8.  Vanguard Group Inc
9.  UBS AG
10. Merrill Lynch & Co Inc
11. Wellington Management Co LLP
12. Deutsche Bank AG
13. Franklin Resources Inc
14. Credit Suisse Group
15. Walton Enterprises LLC **
16. Bank of New York Mellon Corp
17.  Natixis
18.  Goldman Sachs Group Inc
19.  T Rowe Price Group Inc
20.  Legg Mason Inc
21.  Morgan Stanley
22.  Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group Inc
23.  Northern Trust Corporation
24.  Société Générale
25.  Bank of America Corporation
26.  Lloyds TSB Group plc
27.  Invesco plc
28. Allianz SE 29. TIAA ***
30.  Old Mutual Public Limited Company
31.  Aviva plc
32.  Schroders plc
33. Dodge & Cox
34. Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc*
35.  Sun Life Financial Inc
36.  Standard Life plc
37. CNCE ****
38.  Nomura Holdings Inc
39. The Depository Trust Company
40.  Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance
41. ING Groep NV
42.  Brandes Investment Partners LP
43.  Unicredito Italiano SPA
44.  Deposit Insurance Corporation of Japan
45.  Vereniging Aegon
46.  BNP Paribas
47.  Affiliated Managers Group Inc
48.  Resona Holdings Inc
49. Capital Group International Inc
50.  China Petrochemical Group Company *****
'*' Lehman still existed in the 2007 dataset used
Graphic: The 1318 transnational corporations that form the core of the economy
(Data: PLoS One)
Links were not included in the New Scientist article. '**' and beyond are notations not included on the New Scientist article.
Interestingly, the research paper in .pdf does not contain the PLoS One published data (it’s probably a lab report, introductory text). More information can be drawn from the ORBIS database, if you have access. Use your creativity there.
It’s important to note that there are millions of other corporations that might just take over once these entities fall.
Also, since 2007 (the year the ORBIS data was taken by the researchers) there have been several mergers and acquistions. Bank of America, for example, might have moved further up the food chain. There may be a new, different name, if one of the players was acquired by another corporation, Merril Lynch could be one of those. Some background checking would be useful. Use more recent ORBIS data to do the same analysis as the researchers if you will (sounds like that .pdf is going to be handy). Know your “enemy”, it is a hydra that changes names like underwear, and buys, sells, buys. Tracking this is best done using the tools of their trade, not the tools of ours. i.e. Forget about the media, they don’t know shit. Look at the merger notices on wall street itself for example.
'**' This appears to be the holding company that owned Walmart, but they might have on sold their shares in Walmart. Note what I said about mergers & acquisitions. It is befuddling, but important to know.
'***' Google search of this entity revealed that people have been posting on this research article for sometime, but not the web address for the entity. Do you know where the HQ of this entity are? Please update.
'****' Seems to refer to the Chinese National Cotton Exchange. Site is in Chinese.
'*****' AKA Sinopec Group.
Further discussion: share holder versus director/executive power
Some of the criticisms of this research seem to include the assumption that shares or ownership of a particular company equates to power. This criticism is fair in so far as the share holder has voting power in the company they own, and that share holder voting power equates to power over the day to day operations of the business. We may also find that director or board control, i.e. 'executive power' is just as, if not more powerful than, share holder power in some scenarios. It is worth noting that if this is the case, looking at this megacorps from a 'who is the boss' point of view, and not just a 'where are they and how can I stop them' point of view, is useful. Where these companies have websites, they may also list their current boards of directors.
In this case, it may also be worth noting that directorial power is limited by the quality of information provided by the primary management tier, that is, the CFOs, CIOs, etc, and not just the Chairperson. The information flows up, not down. Workers provide intelligence and run the business, bosses decide what kind of information they require in reporting, and what to do next. Workers employed at the HQ of these business may not even know just how much authority their employers, their company, exerts over the global marketplace. If they do, they may be proud of this fact, and believe for a time that they are in a position to effect positive change (when this is cared about). Sometimes this may even be true! Corporations every so often, dish out some crumbs to the masses. The people that work in these companies may be more important allies in the struggle of the 99% than political, police and military workers. The secretaries, accountants, cleaners, security guards in these buildings - all members of the 99%. If we could explain to them that their struggle is our struggle, and it's nothing personal, but mate, your workplace has more authority than your government in world affairs, the best way to exercise your power is to let's say - strike - then we could really make some headway.
Just a thought.
Apologies if this is on the wrong page....if it needs moving feel free to do so...figured it is better to share than not.