Confessions of an Economic Hit Man (Paperback)

Perkins coins a term, "corporatocracy" which basically revolves around the concept that the rich get richer...and the poor get poorer. He admits the system is based on corrupting public figures abroad and that it did not take kindly to public figures who refused to be corrupted. He cites the cases of Ecuador President Jaime Roldos (who was killed in a helicopter crash on May 24, 1981) and Panama President Omar Torrijos (who was killed in a plane crash on July 31, 1981) as two leaders who stood for the right of their countries to determine their own destinies...and infers they became casualties of the "jackals" who enforced the system.

Executives in the author's firm had a mentality that they, "milk the cow until the sun sets on our retirement." Perkins concludes that the system fostered a global empire of powerful American firms who where self-centered, self-serving, greedy and materialistic. Ultimately, Perkins hated his life as a chief economist and loathed who he was. Hence, he wrote this book to cleanse his soul. On a balanced note, it is hard to swallow all of Perkin's "confessions." However, there is enough highly credible evidence to support the strongest allegations in this book. Recommended.

Bert Ruiz

This book takes the form of a confessional autobiography, as the title suggests. Perkins is deeply ashamed of the life he led before quitting the corporate sector. He tries to contextualise this within a brief outline of his general life story, born into an impoverished family nonetheless part of some kind of social elite. So at a human level the account of his career moves and motives is interesting.

But you're not going to read this book as a human interest story. The main point obviously is the structure of corporate power. This is where his narrative starts to fill up with holes. The basic story is that he was employed by a private corporation specialising in providing infrastructure services to "developing" countries. He claims that this was essentially a front for imperialist policy imposed by the USA, through which money is used to draw countries into the America camp.

This can happen in either of two ways. For a poor country, vast loans are granted on the assumption (created by the like of Perkins) that they will trigger of very high rates of economic growth. When this growth does not occur countries pile up the debt, default and hence become beholden to their loan shark (i.e. the IMF, international banks, and the American led capitalist sytsem in general). [ps, for a more detailed account of this dynamic, see Chossudovsky, "The Globalisation of Poverty"] For richer countries (normamlly due to oil), there is the opposite problem: they have too much cash. Thus the economic hit man draws up programmes for the investment of this cash in schemes which benefit the USA. For example, Saudi Arabia invests in US treasury certificates (i.e. the American national debt), then uses the interest to pay American firms to develop Saudi Arabia. The Americans get lots of business and profits, whilst the Saudis get development, a steady return on capital and a protected investment. Perkins argues that long term needs for servicing and upgrading futther tie in the Saudis to this system.

Fair enough. But what is the difference between a private company touting for business and a broader government-led conspiracy. Unless Perkins can establish the latter he is ultimately going to look like some kind of Walter Mitty character.

He claims evidence for this link on the basis that he was referred to the private sector by the NSA, which was considering his recruitment (due to family connections in the intelligence services). He then says that after recruitment, a certain "Claudine", in a series of clandestine meetings at a safe house, inducted him into the EHM strategy. Basically she told him that his job was not to guarantee development of third world countries, but to break them with high debts. After this cloak and dagger beginning, Claudine then disappears from the scene. However, if the positive development of third world nations would eventually create indigenous industries, this would then avoid the need for further American consultants in those countries. Plus there would be more competition on the global market for other countries in need of developmental assistance. Therefore, Perkins strategy of saddling countries with debts also works in the interst of his own company. (Whilst his argument appears to be that a policy driven by such an insane economic logic could only be driven by broader governmental (of imperial) policy considerations.)

In the end therefore, Perkins' story is only of any interest if he can demonstrate this link with government. It appears that he does not do that. His references to various coups and assassinations do point to some darker forces at work, but it is all presented as innuendo.

And consider this: surely someone of his undoubted economic expertise would be able to set out in some greater detail the mechanics of the transactions he was involved in, and what made them special when compared to normal commercial transactions. The lack of particular detail on this point is a bit suspicious. The book may not be aimed at an academic audience, but the way he sets up his argument - plus the lack of real substantial evidence on the US government's involvement - calls for more detail which is simply not there.

The book is very light reading, I read it all in one day on a 6 hour train journey. Only really recommended for people who don't really have much background in international politics.

The Author claims that in 1971, after Peace Corps work in Ecuador, he was recruited by the NSA to work undercover as an economist in a private firm of international engineering consultants (Chas T. Main Inc.) His recruiter/trainer "told me that there were two primary objectives of my work. First, I was to justify huge international loans that would funnel money back ..to US companies .. through massive engineering and construction projects. Second, I would work to bankrupt the countries that received those loans so that they would be forever beholden to their creditors.."

He goes on to write about his involvement in the application of these deliberate policies to subjugate Indonesia, Panama, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Ecuador, etc. In Indonesia's case he details how he produced a plan to finance electrical infrastructure that would enable a 19% growth rate when he knew that realistically the requirement was for a maximum of 5%. The US printed the dollars, the US controlled, international financial agencies lent the money. The vast proportion of the money went to the Bechtels and Halliburtons. Some of the money greased the palms of the developing countries' ruling elites. The huge mass of the populations received no benefit. They remain mired in perpetual poverty (and corporate pollution) as their nations struggle to keep up with the interest payments. Where leaders could not be suborned, as in the case of Torrijos of Panama or Roldos in Ecuador, they were eliminated and replaced with leaders more amenable to American interests.

It could be, and is argued by anti-globalisation campaigners, that this impoverishment of the developing world is a lamentable side-effect of American corporate "vigour." It is however a quantum leap to make the argument that this massive, global, humanitarian disaster, (resulting in premature deaths over the decades on a far greater scale than those resultant from Stalin's policies) is the intentional outcome of a policy of economic empire being deliberately pursued by decision-maker factions within successive American administrations.

The key question is whether or not the author is writing a true report of events he participated in. Though supported by ten pages of references, the book is written in a fairly lightweight, populist style. This choice of style will not give much comfort to academic readers. It could, though support the author's claim that he is writing to gain maximum public traction for his arguments for a change in US policy towards developing countries and the environment. Descriptions of the author's going through the culture barrier and losing confidence in the vision of "his country right or wrong," ring true to a reader who once found himself in a mildly analogous situation. The facts quoted that lend themselves to relatively simple verification (such as the author meeting Graham Greene in Panama City - the dates check out) appear accurate.

Perkins claims that the US invaded Iraq because Saddam refused to succumb to the same inducements successfully offered to the Saudi royal family for US control over their economy in return for protection. An indication of the possible truth or otherwise of Perkin's claims can be found in a reading of the commercial legislation passed by the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq and which in effect handed over the Iraqi economy to the American corporates, (Orders #12, #17, #39, #40 being particularly relevant.) These early pieces of legislation would indicate that the USA, on taking control of its new conquest, though not prepared for fighting an insurgency, was fully prepared for a take over of the Iraqi economy.