NationStates Jolt Archive

John Perkins describes himself as a former economic hit man - a highly paid professional who cheated countries around the globe out of trillions of dollars.
20 years ago Perkins began writing a book with the working title, "Conscience of an Economic Hit Men."

Perkins writes, "The book was to be dedicated to the presidents of two countries, men who had been his clients whom I respected and thought of as kindred spirits - Jaime Roldós, president of Ecuador, and Omar Torrijos, president of Panama. Both had just died in fiery crashes. Their deaths were not accidental. They were assassinated because they opposed that fraternity of corporate, government, and banking heads whose goal is global empire. We Economic Hit Men failed to bring Roldós and Torrijos around, and the other type of hit men, the CIA-sanctioned jackals who were always right behind us, stepped in.

John Perkins goes on to write: "I was persuaded to stop writing that book. I started it four more times during the next twenty years. On each occasion, my decision to begin again was influenced by current world events: the U.S. invasion of Panama in 1980, the first Gulf War, Somalia, and the rise of Osama bin Laden. However, threats or bribes always convinced me to stop."

But now Perkins has finally published his story. The book is titled Confessions of an Economic Hit Man.

AMY GOODMAN: It’s good to have you with us. Okay, explain this term, “economic hit man,” e.h.m., as you call it.

JOHN PERKINS: Basically what we were trained to do and what our job is to do is to build up the American empire. To bring -- to create situations where as many resources as possible flow into this country, to our corporations, and our government, and in fact we’ve been very successful. We’ve built the largest empire in the history of the world. It's been done over the last 50 years since World War II with very little military might, actually. It's only in rare instances like Iraq where the military comes in as a last resort. This empire, unlike any other in the history of the world, has been built primarily through economic manipulation, through cheating, through fraud, through seducing people into our way of life, through the economic hit men. I was very much a part of that.

AMY GOODMAN: How did you become one? Who did you work for?

JOHN PERKINS: Well, I was initially recruited while I was in business school back in the late sixties by the National Security Agency, the nation's largest and least understood spy organization; but ultimately I worked for private corporations. The first real economic hit man was back in the early 1950's, Kermit Roosevelt, the grandson of Teddy, who overthrew of government of Iran, a democratically elected government, Mossadegh’s government who was Time's magazine person of the year; and he was so successful at doing this without any bloodshed -- well, there was a little bloodshed, but no military intervention, just spending millions of dollars and replaced Mossadegh with the Shah of Iran. At that point, we understood that this idea of economic hit man was an extremely good one. We didn't have to worry about the threat of war with Russia when we did it this way. The problem with that was that Roosevelt was a C.I.A. agent. He was a government employee. Had he been caught, we would have been in a lot of trouble. It would have been very embarrassing. So, at that point, the decision was made to use organizations like the C.I.A. and the N.S.A. to recruit potential economic hit men like me and then send us to work for private consulting companies, engineering firms, construction companies, so that if we were caught, there would be no connection with the government.

AMY GOODMAN: Okay. Explain the company you worked for.

JOHN PERKINS: Well, the company I worked for was a company named Chas. T. Main in Boston, Massachusetts. We were about 2,000 employees, and I became its chief economist. I ended up having fifty people working for me. But my real job was deal-making. It was giving loans to other countries, huge loans, much bigger than they could possibly repay. One of the conditions of the loan–let's say a $1 billion to a country like Indonesia or Ecuador–and this country would then have to give ninety percent of that loan back to a U.S. company, or U.S. companies, to build the infrastructure–a Halliburton or a Bechtel. These were big ones. Those companies would then go in and build an electrical system or ports or highways, and these would basically serve just a few of the very wealthiest families in those countries. The poor people in those countries would be stuck ultimately with this amazing debt that they couldn’t possibly repay. A country today like Ecuador owes over fifty percent of its national budget just to pay down its debt. And it really can’t do it. So, we literally have them over a barrel. So, when we want more oil, we go to Ecuador and say, “Look, you're not able to repay your debts, therefore give our oil companies your Amazon rain forest, which are filled with oil.” And today we're going in and destroying Amazonian rain forests, forcing Ecuador to give them to us because they’ve accumulated all this debt. So we make this big loan, most of it comes back to the United States, the country is left with the debt plus lots of interest, and they basically become our servants, our slaves. It's an empire. There's no two ways about it. It’s a huge empire. It's been extremely successful.

AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to John Perkins, author of Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. You say because of bribes and other reason you didn't write this book for a long time. What do you mean? Who tried to bribe you, or who -- what are the bribes you accepted?

JOHN PERKINS: Well, I accepted a half a million dollar bribe in the nineties not to write the book.

AMY GOODMAN: From?

JOHN PERKINS: From a major construction engineering company.

AMY GOODMAN: Which one?

JOHN PERKINS: Legally speaking, it wasn't -- Stoner-Webster. Legally speaking it wasn't a bribe, it was -- I was being paid as a consultant. This is all very legal. But I essentially did nothing. It was a very understood, as I explained in Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, that it was -- I was -- it was understood when I accepted this money as a consultant to them I wouldn't have to do much work, but I mustn't write any books about the subject, which they were aware that I was in the process of writing this book, which at the time I called “Conscience of an Economic Hit Man.” And I have to tell you, Amy, that, you know, it’s an extraordinary story from the standpoint of -- It's almost James Bondish, truly, and I mean--

AMY GOODMAN: Well that's certainly how the book reads.

JOHN PERKINS: Yeah, and it was, you know? And when the National Security Agency recruited me, they put me through a day of lie detector tests. They found out all my weaknesses and immediately seduced me. They used the strongest drugs in our culture, sex, power and money, to win me over. I come from a very old New England family, Calvinist, steeped in amazingly strong moral values. I think I, you know, I’m a good person overall, and I think my story really shows how this system and these powerful drugs of sex, money and power can seduce people, because I certainly was seduced. And if I hadn't lived this life as an economic hit man, I think I’d have a hard time believing that anybody does these things. And that's why I wrote the book, because our country really needs to understand, if people in this nation understood what our foreign policy is really about, what foreign aid is about, how our corporations work, where our tax money goes, I know we will demand change.

AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to John Perkins. In your book, you talk about how you helped to implement a secret scheme that funneled billions of dollars of Saudi Arabian petrol dollars back into the U.S. economy, and that further cemented the intimate relationship between the House of Saud and successive U.S. administrations. Explain.

JOHN PERKINS: Yes, it was a fascinating time. I remember well, you're probably too young to remember, but I remember well in the early seventies how OPEC exercised this power it had, and cut back on oil supplies. We had cars lined up at gas stations. The country was afraid that it was facing another 1929-type of crash–depression; and this was unacceptable. So, they -- the Treasury Department hired me and a few other economic hit men. We went to Saudi Arabia. We --

AMY GOODMAN: You're actually called economic hit men --e.h.m.’s?

JOHN PERKINS: Yeah, it was a tongue-in-cheek term that we called ourselves. Officially, I was a chief economist. We called ourselves e.h.m.'s. It was tongue-in-cheek. It was like, nobody will believe us if we say this, you know? And, so, we went to Saudi Arabia in the early seventies. We knew Saudi Arabia was the key to dropping our dependency, or to controlling the situation. And we worked out this deal whereby the Royal House of Saud agreed to send most of their petro-dollars back to the United States and invest them in U.S. government securities. The Treasury Department would use the interest from these securities to hire U.S. companies to build Saudi Arabia–new cities, new infrastructure–which we’ve done. And the House of Saud would agree to maintain the price of oil within acceptable limits to us, which they’ve done all of these years, and we would agree to keep the House of Saud in power as long as they did this, which we’ve done, which is one of the reasons we went to war with Iraq in the first place. And in Iraq we tried to implement the same policy that was so successful in Saudi Arabia, but Saddam Hussein didn't buy. When the economic hit men fail in this scenario, the next step is what we call the jackals. Jackals are C.I.A.-sanctioned people that come in and try to foment a coup or revolution. If that doesn't work, they perform assassinations. or try to. In the case of Iraq, they weren't able to get through to Saddam Hussein. He had -- His bodyguards were too good. He had doubles. They couldn’t get through to him. So the third line of defense, if the economic hit men and the jackals fail, the next line of defense is our young men and women, who are sent in to die and kill, which is what we’ve obviously done in Iraq.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you explain how Torrijos died?

JOHN PERKINS: Omar Torrijos, the President of Panama. Omar Torrijos had signed the Canal Treaty with Carter much -- and, you know, it passed our congress by only one vote. It was a highly contended issue. And Torrijos then also went ahead and negotiated with the Japanese to build a sea-level canal. The Japanese wanted to finance and construct a sea-level canal in Panama. Torrijos talked to them about this which very much upset Bechtel Corporation, whose president was George Schultz and senior council was Casper Weinberger. When Carter was thrown out (and that’s an interesting story–how that actually happened), when he lost the election, and Reagan came in and Schultz came in as Secretary of State from Bechtel, and Weinberger came from Bechtel to be Secretary of Defense, they were extremely angry at Torrijos -- tried to get him to renegotiate the Canal Treaty and not to talk to the Japanese. He adamantly refused. He was a very principled man. He had his problem, but he was a very principled man. He was an amazing man, Torrijos. And so, he died in a fiery airplane crash, which was connected to a tape recorder with explosives in it, which -- I was there. I had been working with him. I knew that we economic hit men had failed. I knew the jackals were closing in on him, and the next thing, his plane exploded with a tape recorder with a bomb in it. There's no question in my mind that it was C.I.A. sanctioned, and most -- many Latin American investigators have come to the same conclusion. Of course, we never heard about that in our country.

AMY GOODMAN: So, where -- when did your change your heart happen?

JOHN PERKINS: I felt guilty throughout the whole time, but I was seduced. The power of these drugs, sex, power, and money, was extremely strong for me. And, of course, I was doing things I was being patted on the back for. I was chief economist. I was doing things that Robert McNamara liked and so on.

AMY GOODMAN: How closely did you work with the World Bank?

JOHN PERKINS: Very, very closely with the World Bank. The World Bank provides most of the money that’s used by economic hit men, it and the I.M.F. But when 9/11 struck, I had a change of heart. I knew the story had to be told because what happened at 9/11 is a direct result of what the economic hit men are doing. And the only way that we're going to feel secure in this country again and that we're going to feel good about ourselves is if we use these systems we’ve put into place to create positive change around the world. I really believe we can do that. I believe the World Bank and other institutions can be turned around and do what they were originally intended to do, which is help reconstruct devastated parts of the world. Help -- genuinely help poor people. There are twenty-four thousand people starving to death every day. We can change that.

AMY GOODMAN: John Perkins, I want to thank you very much for being with us. John Perkins' book is called, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man.
www.democracynow.org

I felt guilty throughout the whole time, but I was seduced. The power of these drugs, sex, power, and money, was extremely strong for me.
Am I the only one who sees this line and thinks about a trashy 80s vampire movie?

The book was to be dedicated to the presidents of two countries, men who had been his clients whom I respected and thought of as kindred spirits - Jaime Roldós, president of Ecuador, and Omar Torrijos, president of Panama. Both had just died in fiery crashes. Their deaths were not accidental. They were assassinated because they opposed that fraternity of corporate, government, and banking heads whose goal is global empire. We Economic Hit Men failed to bring Roldós and Torrijos around, and the other type of hit men, the CIA-sanctioned jackals who were always right behind us, stepped in.
Wow, the CIA jackal control project finally came to fruition? Very nice, I was wondering how long it would take them to figure out the neural phase transferance.

Good to see you are still in form MKULTRA, I'd write more but I must needs go.

I would have to say this is one of the more interesting articles I've seen you post.

So, the CIA assassinates two high profile poltical figures, but a mook like this is allowed to publish his book?

Sure, makes sense to me.

And you do know you are supposed to credit the people who write this sort of thing right?

AMY GOODMAN: So if all this is true, and ninety percent of the world is only allowed to use US companies, what is with the trade deficits.

JOHN PERKINS: Erm.....yeah.....Well I guess I should learn economics before making this stuff up

good stuff

But my real job was deal-making. It was giving loans to other countries, huge loans, much bigger than they could possibly repay.


This makes no sense.

Holy crap, this guy's a nutjob

http://www.beyondtheordinary.net/johnperkins.shtml

This makes no sense.

I think the point was that no-one cared that loans could never be paid off because the money would flow back into the US anyway. Also these outstanding loans were held over the heads of these nations.

I think the point was that no-one cared that loans could never be paid off because the money would flow back into the US anyway. Also these outstanding loans were held over the heads of these nations.

An individual corporation would not give out loans that aren't going to be paid back. And no country would take the loan.

I love how not a single valid, backed, counter-point has come up yet, just a bunch of people whining on principle. Great maturity here.

Also, the loans weren't given by the companies, they were given by the world bank and the government.

I love how not a single valid, backed, counter-point has come up yet, just a bunch of people whining on principle. Great maturity here.

Also, the loans weren't given by the companies, they were given by the world bank and the government.

What about US trade deficits. That's a counter point. As is the link showing this guy is a fruitbat.

I love how not a single valid, backed, counter-point has come up yet, just a bunch of people whining on principle. Great maturity here.

Also, the loans weren't given by the companies, they were given by the world bank and the government.

That's right, the World Bank, with its 184 members, forces countries to take on loans so the US can dominate them.

What has this guy presented us with? His word it all happened?

Do US trade deficits include foreign investment into our country or just import/export statistics?

Just like a normal bank I'm sure the world bank would enjoy holding legal financial power over a country....

This is a problem in mentality; if someone only presents their word, and it goes against your common view of the world, you automatically assume them wrong because *gasp* no large and credible organization has come to back them. Nevermind its criticising large and credible organizations. I'd like to see books published as counter-points to these things, rather than using the public's inherent trust as a wall to block inquiry.

Congratulations MKULTRA, you've long earned your own image macro (http://members.rogers.com/dariuszalina/mkultra.jpg).

Am I the only one who sees this line and thinks about a trashy 80s vampire movie?


Wow, the CIA jackal control project finally came to fruition? Very nice, I was wondering how long it would take them to figure out the neural phase transferance.

Good to see you are still in form MKULTRA, I'd write more but I must needs go.
american foreighn policy is the father of all terrorism

I would have to say this is one of the more interesting articles I've seen you post.
this article sums up the roots of everything wrong in the world today

This makes no sense.
its a form of economic colonazation

An individual corporation would not give out loans that aren't going to be paid back. And no country would take the loan.
but it is being paid back with corporate welfare to Halliburton and Bectel. The countrys that take the loans have corrupt leaders who are only out for their own enrichment--the CIA installed them in power

Congratulations MKULTRA, you've long earned your own image macro (http://members.rogers.com/dariuszalina/mkultra.jpg).
LOL that looks nothing like me

Do US trade deficits include foreign investment into our country or just import/export statistics?

Just like a normal bank I'm sure the world bank would enjoy holding legal financial power over a country....



The big differance being that countries are sovereign, and the IMf/world bank cant do jack shit if the country defaults. For that matter, a country can change govts an anull all loans and not even take a hit in their creditworthyness(depending on their credit before such an action, eg a first world country would take a huge hit but a third world country would not).

JOHN PERKINS: Yeah, it was a tongue-in-cheek term that we called ourselves. Officially, I was a chief economist. We called ourselves e.h.m.'s. It was tongue-in-cheek. It was like, nobody will believe us if we say this, you know? And, so, we went to Saudi Arabia in the early seventies. We knew Saudi Arabia was the key to dropping our dependency, or to controlling the situation. And we worked out this deal whereby the Royal House of Saud agreed to send most of their petro-dollars back to the United States and invest them in U.S. government securities. The Treasury Department would use the interest from these securities to hire U.S. companies to build Saudi Arabia–new cities, new infrastructure–which we’ve done. And the House of Saud would agree to maintain the price of oil within acceptable limits to us, which they’ve done all of these years, and we would agree to keep the House of Saud in power as long as they did this, which we’ve done, which is one of the reasons we went to war with Iraq in the first place. And in Iraq we tried to implement the same policy that was so successful in Saudi Arabia, but Saddam Hussein didn't buy. When the economic hit men fail in this scenario, the next step is what we call the jackals. Jackals are C.I.A.-sanctioned people that come in and try to foment a coup or revolution. If that doesn't work, they perform assassinations. or try to. In the case of Iraq, they weren't able to get through to Saddam Hussein. He had -- His bodyguards were too good. He had doubles. They couldn’t get through to him. So the third line of defense, if the economic hit men and the jackals fail, the next line of defense is our young men and women, who are sent in to die and kill, which is what we’ve obviously done in Iraq.

The problem is, the country on Earth that has taken out the most loans is the United States. That means that, according to this fellow, the United States is secretly plotting to take over itself, in collusion with the companies that make money from American consumers.

Further, what interest would the US have in countries going bankrupt? Our current Administration has made quite a big deal out of adjusting to the international economy, and having countries dropping like flies does not help the world markets stay stable.

Besides, some of his arguements are nonsense. The stuff about Saudi Arabia agreeing to hold oil prices down? How does that possibly mesh with their leadership of OPEC, which has price gouged as much as it can get away with? Or their current shifting of inventory towards China, who they want to woo as a huge future customer? Doesn't the House of Saud fear that, if China gets the "light, sweet" oil on a preferential basis, we'll send in "the jackals" and screw up their country? The idea that the government considered him so important that it manipulated him with women and drugs to do its bidding? The fact that, perhaps we weren't buying oil from Saddam because we had outstanding sanctions against his country?

This argument has holes you could drive a truck through, and I'm barely scratching the surface. Of course I have been hired by the CIA to discredit his correct statements with seemingly true, but actually completely false words, and if you agree with MKULTRA too much, all I can say is, the jackal hunts at midnight.

Or maybe MKULTRA is actually a CIA plant who specifically introduces true government attrocities in the most ridiculous format possible to convince us that they cannot be true? You didn't hear it here!

As a matter of fact, many developing countries do have loans too large for them to pay off. They took out development loans hoping to build up infrastructure and get richer... and it didn't pay off, and the interest accumulated.

And the US has been known to step in militarily when US corporate interests are threatened by "socialist" things like governments nationalizing land or declaring their debts null and void. There's much pressure not to default, and the banks will try to hold the country accountable regardless of who runs it. In the end, they pay a great deal in interest.

Americans need to awaken to the fact that our govt is committing evil deeds in our name abroad

As a matter of fact, many developing countries do have loans too large for them to pay off. They took out development loans hoping to build up infrastructure and get richer... and it didn't pay off, and the interest accumulated.

And the US has been known to step in militarily when US corporate interests are threatened by "socialist" things like governments nationalizing land or declaring their debts null and void. There's much pressure not to default, and the banks will try to hold the country accountable regardless of who runs it. In the end, they pay a great deal in interest.

Hmm...well, you shouldn't take out loans you can't afford. Once again, the problem is that they have a safety net in the IMF.

The country of origin is irrelavant. Do you have any idea how many non-US companies do business overseas? If the corporation rightfully owns something, it is wrong for it to be taken away.

Hmm...well, you shouldn't take out loans you can't afford. Once again, the problem is that they have a safety net in the IMF.

The country of origin is irrelavant. Do you have any idea how many non-US companies do business overseas? If the corporation rightfully owns something, it is wrong for it to be taken away.
thats a sad excuse to try and justify economic terrorism

MKULTRA, Isarel and the United States are the sources of terroism. Rather the US's support for Isarel.

No more blood for Iseral!

LOL I love these conspiracy theories. Seriously though, MKULTRA this is actually a really interesting piece. I've been looking for a good book to read instead of the usual fantasy books. Somehow I'm reminded of the movie Conspiracy Theories with Mel Gibson (who I know you don't like), Julia Roberts and Patrick Stewert.

The whole concept of economic hitmen sounds so cool, heh. Moreso that they're on our side expanding our American "empire". If there are anymore books like this, let me know so I can alert my superiors that another prisoner...err, patient has escaped one of our facilities. I've been telling them we need to rehypnotize them every 3-5 years instead of waiting 8 years:headbang:. One always manages to slip away, hell some make it as far as Michael Moore has. Don't worry though, he's being taken care of this weekend. :sniper:

Hmm...well, you shouldn't take out loans you can't afford. Once again, the problem is that they have a safety net in the IMF.

The country of origin is irrelavant. Do you have any idea how many non-US companies do business overseas? If the corporation rightfully owns something, it is wrong for it to be taken away.
I agree that certain people were shortsighted. However, a corporation doesn't have a fundamental "right" to own stuff. In all cases, they own property within a country solely on the sufferance of that country. There is no fundamental "right" to own things and do absolutely whatever one pleases with it for individuals, let alone something as nebulous as a corporation.

If you don't want to run the risk of a revolution rolling around and the new government deciding to, say, institute land reforms, then keep to countries where you don't think that will happen. If a bank issues a loan, and a country decides to default on that loan... tough cookies. The bank should simply sit down, issue a bad credit rating, and figure out why they were foolish enough to loan money to someone liable to default on it. Assassination and warfare should not be used to try and enforce economic policy on the rest of the globe.

Choosing to support corporate interests over the spread of democracy - as has happened - is, quite plainly, very wrong.

american foreighn policy is the father of all terrorism

Ya, I'm sure the centuries of colonization and then abandment by European powers didn't sew a few seeds.

Ever hear of things called history books? Did you know there are other countries besides the United States and they are capable of doing wonderful and terrible things?

Just like its wrong to assume that the US won WW2 alone and has always lead the world to all the good things, its equally wrong to pin all the ills of the world on us.

I agree that certain people were shortsighted. However, a corporation doesn't have a fundamental "right" to own stuff. In all cases, they own property within a country solely on the sufferance of that country. There is no fundamental "right" to own things and do absolutely whatever one pleases with it for individuals, let alone something as nebulous as a corporation.

A corporation is nothing more than a group of people with an interest in a company. If they use their capital to buy something, it is theirs. Not yours, not the governments, theirs. If people have no right to "own" things, then I'll be taking your car to Mexico tomorrow.


If you don't want to run the risk of a revolution rolling around and the new government deciding to, say, institute land reforms, then keep to countries where you don't think that will happen. If a bank issues a loan, and a country decides to default on that loan... tough cookies. The bank should simply sit down, issue a bad credit rating, and figure out why they were foolish enough to loan money to someone liable to default on it. Assassination and warfare should not be used to try and enforce economic policy on the rest of the globe.

Choosing to support corporate interests over the spread of democracy - as has happened - is, quite plainly, very wrong.


Prove any of this happens. Corporations cannot instill their will on another country. Hey, try defaulting on a loan of yours, see if creditors don't come after you. Welcome to the real world.

A corporation is nothing more than a group of people with an interest in a company. If they use their capital to buy something, it is theirs. Not yours, not the governments, theirs. If people have no right to "own" things, then I'll be taking your car to Mexico tomorrow.
Good luck trying that. No, you can't have the keys. There's nothing magical about my "ownership" of a car - it's not a fundamental right. It's a priviledge that we, as a society, have decided to grant to ourselves, a collective agreement as to who should control the use and disposition of a hunk of metal, plastic, oil, foam, etc.
Prove any of this happens. Corporations cannot instill their will on another country. Hey, try defaulting on a loan of yours, see if creditors don't come after you. Welcome to the real world.
Are you not familiar with the past century's worth of US interventions in Latin America? Corporate interests have quite often dictated US intervention efforts within a country.