Subscribe to our mailing list

* indicates required

Sunday, July 05, 2015

An Economic Hit Man Speaks Out

Over at, there's a tremendous interview with John Perkins, whose well-known book, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, reveals how international organizations such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank actually operate. In the 1970s, Perkins worked for Boston strategic-consulting firm Chas. T. Main, where he (allegedly) identified, and went after, "international opportunities" for lenders (specifically, the IMF). His story is disputed by various establishment spokespeople (of course); on the other hand, it aligns quite well with specific case studies explored exhaustively by Naomi Klein in The Shock Doctrine, which tells a very similar tale of how IMF and the World Bank work hand-in-hand with a predatory "corporatocracy" (as Perkins calls it) to subjugate debtor nations.

John Perkins
The Perkins interview provides interesting background for understanding what's happening now in Greece (and other debt-ridden countries). An excerpt is presented below. Be sure to see the full interview at and the video at the end of this post.

Michael Nevradakis: In your book, you write about how you were, for many years, a so-called "economic hit man." Who are these economic hit men, and what do they do?

John Perkins: Essentially, my job was to identify countries that had resources that our corporations want, and that could be things like oil—or it could be markets—it could be transportation systems. There're so many different things. Once we identified these countries, we arranged huge loans to them, but the money would never actually go to the countries; instead it would go to our own corporations to build infrastructure projects in those countries, things like power plants and highways that benefitted a few wealthy people as well as our own corporations, but not the majority of people who couldn't afford to buy into these things, and yet they were left holding a huge debt, very much like what Greece has today, a phenomenal debt.

And once [they were] bound by that debt, we would go back, usually in the form of the IMF—and in the case of Greece today, it's the IMF and the EU [European Union]—and make tremendous demands on the country: increase taxes, cut back on spending, sell public sector utilities to private companies, things like power companies and water systems, transportation systems, privatize those, and basically become a slave to us, to the corporations, to the IMF, in your case to the EU, and basically, organizations like the World Bank, the IMF, the EU, are tools of the big corporations, what I call the "corporatocracy."

And before turning specifically to the case of Greece, let's talk a little bit more about the manner in which these economic hit men and these organizations like the IMF operate. You mentioned, of course, how they go in and they work to get these countries into massive debt, that money goes in and then goes straight back out. You also mentioned in your book these overly optimistic growth forecasts that are sold to the politicians of these countries but which really have no resemblance to reality.

Exactly, we'd show that if these investments were made in things like electric energy systems that the economy would grow at phenomenally high rates. The fact of the matter is, when you invest in these big infrastructure projects, you do see economic growth, however, most of that growth reflects the wealthy getting wealthier and wealthier; it doesn't reflect the majority of the people, and we're seeing that in the United States today.

For example, where we can show economic growth, growth in the GDP, but at the same time unemployment may be going up or staying level, and foreclosures on houses may be going up or staying stable. These numbers tend to reflect the very wealthy, since they have a huge percentage of the economy, statistically speaking. Nevertheless, we would show that when you invest in these infrastructure projects, your economy does grow, and yet, we would even show it growing much faster than it ever conceivably would, and that was only used to justify these horrendous, incredibly debilitating loans.

Is there a common theme with respect to the countries typically targeted? Are they, for instance, rich in resources or do they typically possess some other strategic importance to the powers that be?

Yes, all of those. Resources can take many different forms: One is the material resources like minerals or oil; another resource is strategic location; another resource is a big marketplace or cheap labor. So, different countries make different requirements. I think what we're seeing in Europe today isn't any different, and that includes Greece.

What happens once these countries that are targeted are indebted? How do these major powers, these economic hit men, these international organizations come back and get their "pound of flesh," if you will, from the countries that are heavily in debt?

By insisting that the countries adopt policies that will sell their publicly owned utility companies, water and sewage systems, maybe schools, transportation systems, even jails, to the big corporations. Privatize, privatize. Allow us to build military bases on their soil. Many things can be done, but basically, they become servants to what I call the corporatocracy. You have to remember that today we have a global empire, and it's not an American empire. It's not a national empire. It doesn't help the American people very much. It's a corporate empire, and the big corporations rule. They control the politics of the United States, and to a large degree they control a great deal of the policies of countries like China, around the world.

John, looking specifically now at the case of Greece, of course you mentioned your belief that the country has become the victim of economic hit men and these international organizations . . . what was your reaction when you first heard about the crisis in Greece and the measures that were to be implemented in the country?

I've been following Greece for a long time. I was on Greek television. A Greek film company did a documentary called "Apology of an Economic Hit Man," and I also spent a lot of time in Iceland and in Ireland. I was invited to Iceland to help encourage the people there to vote on a referendum not to repay their debts, and I did that and encouraged them not to, and they did vote no, and as a result, Iceland is doing quite well now economically compared to the rest of Europe. Ireland, on the other hand: I tried to do the same thing there, but the Irish people apparently voted against the referendum, though there's been many reports that there was a lot of corruption.

In the case of Greece, my reaction was that "Greece is being hit." There's no question about it. Sure, Greece made mistakes, your leaders made some mistakes, but the people didn't really make the mistakes, and now the people are being asked to pay for the mistakes made by their leaders, often in cahoots with the big banks. So, people make tremendous amounts of money off of these so-called "mistakes," and now, the people who didn't make the mistakes are being asked to pay the price. That's consistent around the world: We've seen it in Latin America. We've seen it in Asia. We've seen it in so many places around the world.

This leads directly to the next question I had: From my observation, at least in Greece, the crisis has been accompanied by an increase in self-blame or self-loathing; there's this sentiment in Greece that many people have that the country failed, that the people failed . . . there's hardly even protest in Greece anymore, and of course there's a huge "brain drain"—there's a lot of people that are leaving the country. Does this all seem familiar to you when comparing to other countries in which you've had personal experience?

Sure, that's part of the game: convince people that they're wrong, that they're inferior. The corporatocracy is incredibly good at that, whether it is back during the Vietnam War, convincing the world that the North Vietnamese were evil; today it's the Muslims. It's a policy of them versus us: We are good. We are right. We do everything right. You're wrong. And in this case, all of this energy has been directed at the Greek people to say "you're lazy; you didn't do the right thing; you didn't follow the right policies," when in actuality, an awful lot of the blame needs to be laid on the financial community that encouraged Greece to go down this route. And I would say that we have something very similar going on in the United States, where people here are being led to believe that because their house is being foreclosed that they were stupid, that they bought the wrong houses; they overspent themselves.

The fact of the matter is their bankers told them to do this, and around the world, we've come to trust bankers—or we used to. In the United States, we never believed that a banker would tell us to buy a $500,000 house if in fact we could really only afford a $300,000 house. We thought it was in the bank's interest not to foreclose. But that changed a few years ago, and bankers told people who they knew could only afford a $300,000 house to buy a $500,000 house.

"Tighten your belt, in a few years that house will be worth a million dollars; you'll make a lot of money" . . . in fact, the value of the house went down; the market dropped out; the banks foreclosed on these houses, repackaged them, and sold them again. Double whammy. The people were told, "you were stupid; you were greedy; why did you buy such an expensive house?" But in actuality, the bankers told them to do this, and we've grown up to believe that we can trust our bankers. Something very similar on a larger scale happened in so many countries around the world, including Greece.

Read the complete interview here. Also, see John Perkins being interviewed here:

Have you checked out my free book Mental Health Myths Debunked? Tons of info, tons of live links, lots of straight talk about depression, meds, therapy, psychiatry, mental health trends, statistics, and more (documented, with links to sources). And you know me, I call bullshit on bogus ideas (then give URLs to the actual data). The idea that antidepressants take weeks to do anything? Myth. Most people benefit from antidepressants? Myth. Antidepressants separate from placebo in clinical trials? Largely myth. (Half the trials show separation. Half don't.) Electroshock therapy is safe and effective? Bigtime myth. But don't take my word for it: Read the science for yourself! It's all laid out plain as day (with references) in the book. Download ePub or PDF now at NoiseTrade. Tell a friend.


I want to thank the following individuals for retweeting me yesterday:

Have you added your name to our mailing list?

Also please visit when you have a chance, and share that link with someone you know who might be suffering from anxiety or depression.


  1. Love this article -- but can your expert discuss not just numbers and which segment gets the profit on, say, new electric grid. I'd like to know, clearly and simply, if lives generally improve. Yes I can see the wealthy arranging things they would get the financial rewards I'd probably do same thing, and justify it in my head. Hell, if you can justify slavery in your head, it's simple to justify getting a return on your investment for infrustructure. I want to know if these endeavors make -- generally, if you can tell -- lives of people in these places, better. Thank you

  2. If I can add a comment on Vietnam. YOur guy seems to posit that horror as some kind of planned thing He said "The corporatocracy is incredibly good at that, whether it is back during the Vietnam War, convincing the world that the North Vietnamese were evil;"

    That's not true. At all. I happen to know a bit about how that all unfolded, and it was not corporations portraying Vietnam as evil. Not at all, or at least, I have seen no such information.

    What I do know not as sexy, but Charles DeGaulle wanted to take posession of Vietnam after WW2 -- for status. Only status, he was big on status. Archemedes Patti, the US guy in Vietnam, was all but screaming, hey, do NOT give this country to France. But Truman, apparently out of stupidity and lack of focus, or the clowns at State Department, thought, Oh well, France had Vietnam before, and what the hell. Patti's pleas and warnings were later found unopened in State Dept files.

    IKE took over and even helped France financially -- Truman gave them permission, IKE gave them money. When Vietnam kicked France out militarily -- IKE did not want "communist" to win. But Vietnam was NOT communist and actually China is a 1000 year enemy of Vietnam, a fact IKE probably did not know, or if he did, did not deem important. Yes, Vietnam, being killed by French with American help, did see help from China and Russia. I would too! That's the skinny on Vietnam.

    WHat corporate diabolical effort are you refering to, that we were told Vietnam were evil? None that I know of, when tumor started, when we gave Vietnam away. That was the time to get it right -- don't give Vietnam away to France.

    BTW, DeGaulle, a socioplath, flipped again, and berated the US for our involvement in Vietnam. Like many sociopaths, Jeff Davis, Stephen A Douglas come to mind, he caused a lot of problems, then stood back while thousands died, and claimed to love peace. Happens over and over


Add a comment. Registration required because trolls.