Confessions of an Economic Hitman 6

As the book comes to a close, John Perkins begins to realize how corrupt many aspects of the government are. He gives us a little insight on this when he says "The jackals had failed. So young men and women were sent to kill and die among the desert sands," (249). The "jackals" are assassins that the CIA sent to kill Saddam Hussein, and since they failed, full blown war has erupted. Many people will die for a cause that isn't even just. Perkins makes it clear to us that he believes the whole war is about oil. He insinuates this when he says, "Could it be that from the point of view of this administration--this oil family--establishing oil supplies as well as a justification for construction contracts, were more important than fighting terrorists?"(250). He is finally beginning to realize that money and resources are the main thing that motivate people, and even government officials can be corrupt. It is this which finally pushes him to write the book.

As the story is finally being oncovered, Perkins talks of the weight that was lifted off of his chest. According to him, he had felt bad about his job the whole time he was doing it. He tells us this when he says, "I always knew that had the doubts, the pain, and the guilt not constantly nagged me, I never would have gotten out," (255). His code of ethics allowed him to break free of the corrupt system and finally do the right thing. Many others in his business would not be so lucky. He finally realizes the truth of his job when he says, "The real story is that we are living a lie,"(257). He was able to break down the wall between him and the outside world, so now he can truly relate to them and realize the atrocities which have been comitted. After seeing this, he has no choice but to right the book.

Confessions of An Economic Hitman #5

In this part of the book, John Perkins has to make the ethical choice on whether or not to betray the people he works for and possibly hurt his career, or stand up for what he believes in. He wrote an article for the Boston globe citing reasons why he believed that the Panama Canal should be returned to Panamanian control. This was ethically the right thing to do, but was destined to cause him grief at his company, MAIN, which frequently exploits developing countries. Perkins tells us that, "It was a bold move on my part, especially since I had recently been made a partner at MAIN,"(120). He obviously new he was doing something risky but he still chose the ethical path rather than the greedy one. MAIN could have fired him, or even killed him, just like they had done to others in the past. His fears were confirmed shortly after, as he received an angry letter from a co worker questioning, "Is this commie really a partner in our firm?"(121). Although the letter was sent by who didn't have enough status to do anything bad to him, the potential for others to do so was still there, and it certainly built on the fact that he did the right thing despite potential harm to himself.

In the next reading, the scene changes back to the middle east, Iran this time. Perkins is again faced with an ethical dilemma. He is approached given a message by a man named Yamin who wants to see if he's "interested in exploring a side of Iran that most people 'in my position' never saw,"(128). He knows that this man is a well known radical who helps the poor and dislikes the current shah in Iran, but his befriending of this man could have consequences for his business. With Perkins resources, Yamin could help alot of people and expose alot of bad things happening in Iran, but Perkins could lose is job. Perkins chooses to see this man, even if its only to find out how deep the rabbit-hole goes. As it turns out, the meeting was just to further convince Perkins to meet someone else, someone who Yamin says is "a man who can tell you a great deal about our King of Kings,"(131). Yamin is trying to expose the shah to the American media and Perkins will have to make the ethical choice on whether or not to risk his job for the greater good.

Confessions of an Economic Hitman #4

In this section of the book, it seems as though John Perkins has finally made up his mind about his actions, and chooses to take the path of greed. His greed only develops more when his job takes him to the oil capital of the world, Saudi Arabia. When the opportunity to exploit the Saudis for great amounts of money arises, he has no problem doing so. What is interesting is the fact that his lust for money is just a reflection of the corruption of more powerful people. The U.S. Department of Treasury actually asks for MAIN's (Perkins' company) help in getting what they want out Saudi Arabia, and like John tells us when he says, "MAIN was rewarded with one of the first major--and extremely profitable--contracts in Saudi Arabia, and I received a large bonus that year," (96) the U.S. government was more than happy to repay the favor. Even governments can be corrupted if enough money is there to persuade them. It wasn't only the United States government that was being corrupted, as there were individuals in Saudi Arabia who were assissting MAIN exploit the country from inside. An influencial man called Prince W. is willing to help Perkins in his endeavor as long as he keeps him happy. He is quite easily corrupted as Perkins tells us that all he expected was, "to be entertained by a woman of his liking, and that he expected her to perform more functions than those of a simple escort,"(107). Even high ranking officials in the goverment lack ethics, and this makes you wonder whether or not corruption like that exists in the government today.

However, that seems to be the opposite in Panama with President Torrijos. He truly seems to want to help his country and will go to great lengths to do so. John Perkins tells us that Torrijos, when referring to the Panama Canal, says, "It's a good time to launch an all-out political battle to win it back,"(119). The canal is an extremely important tool for American businesses and allows them to keep control of Latin America. Torrijos' dedication to get it back in Panamanian hands will make him many enemies and place him in great danger. Perkins, knowing much about what can happen to those who defy the wishes of big corporations says, "I could not help but wonder if the jackals had begun to circle Torrijos,"(121). When he says jackals he is referring to assassins, people who will kill Torrijos if he does not back down. Not only is the president of Panama not corrupted by money, but he also will not back down if his life is on the line

Confession of an Economic Hitman #3

John Perkin's bipolar conscience comes into play again in this section of the book. Although he was previously sympathetic to the plight of developing nations, he once again changes his mind a decides to ditch his conscience in exchange for money and power. This is expressed fully in the quote, "As the taxi started to move through the night, a paroxysm of guilt flashed through me, but I suppressed it. What did I care...I could become rich, famous, and powerful in one blow," (71). This "selling of his soul" shows him ditching his ethics and ideals for trivial and transitory things like wealth. Other than that little bit of guilt he has very few problems continuing on his path of greed. It seems as though he is trying to make up for his unhappy childhood by surpass all who had ever looked down upon him. This is pointed out when he says, "My friends sometimes flaunted their credentials--connections on Beacon Hill or in Washington, professorships and PhDs--and I would answer this in my role as chief economist of a major consulting firm who traveled around the world first class," (89). He gets rid of his ethics for the because greed and childish contempt back from school have clouded his ideals and turns himself into the kind of person he used to hate.

John Perkins' code of ethics changes almost everyday. While his core ideals might not change, they can get weakened to the extent that it doesn't even matter that they are there. At this phase of the book he is trying to get the president of Panama to agree to allow his company to start large public building projects in the hopes of enslaving Panama through huge debts. Despite the new president being being an advocate for human rights and a catalyst for improvement throughout the country, John Perkins is willing to take ruin Panama if it means securing a contract. This is shown when he says, "Surely he knew foreign aid was a sham--he had to know. It existed to make him rich and shackle his country with debt. It was there so Panama would be forever obligated to the U.S. and the corporatocracy," (86). John's ethics which he had shown in Indonesia had all but dissapeared now, but it is unclear for how long. In fact, his ethics appear only a few pages later when discussing OPEC. He expresses enjoyment at OPEC putting the power in the hands of oil rich underdogs when he says, "My bread was buttered by the corporatocracy, yet some secret side of me enjoyed watching my masters get put in their places," (88). Despite his actions, his ethics are still there. He believes that what he is doing is wrong, so although he is a hypocrite, at least he is an ethical one.

Traitor vs Whistleblower

In the movie On the Waterfront most characters see no difference between traitors and whistle blowers. Even to their own family members, characters show little sympathy for those who "rat" on the mob operation of the docks. For example, after Joeys death his father has a very "I told you so" air about him and instead of mourning he says "If he had listened to me he would have lived longer". He is to contemptuous and cowardly to even stand up for his own son, due in part to his anger at his son for stooling, and his own fear of being called a traitor. A similar thing happens with Tommy, the golden warrior who always follows Terry around. After Terry testifies against Johnny Friendly, Tommy responds to what he thinks is betrayal by killing all of Terry's pigeons. It may be that the characters respond that way because it is the only way of doing things that they have ever known. For Tommy, it takes the death of his brother for him to truly realize the difference between stooling and whistleblowing but most characters never have an eye opening experience like that.

I believe that the difference between stooling and whistleblowing really just comes down to motive. A person who stools will usually do it only to benefit themselves. It could be money, power, protection, or whatever, but the point remains that they are being completely selfish. When a person is whistleblowing, it is to help society as a whole, or really just any group of people larger than themself. If a person brings to light a problem which affects many people takes it to the public eye, they are not tattling but rather doing a service to society which all citizens should be obligated to do. However, if no one is getting hurt by what a person is telling on i.e. victimless crimes such as smoking pot or pirating software, then that is tattling and that person should be shunned.

Confessions of an Economic Hitman

Part two of the book focuses on the author's first trip as an EHM to Indonesia. He is going there with a group of 10 other people and as the time period is during the Vietnam War, they are there to supposedly stop communism from reaching India. This is when the author really starts to sell out. He sees the terrible poverty and the awful living conditions in Jakarta, but he is still willing to exploit the country and make it worse. It shows him talking to one of his group members who has found the flaw in their reasoning and is realizing the terrible things they are doing and instead of listening to the older and wiser man, he convinces himself that what they are doing is good. This is shown perfectly in the quote, "His words gave me a sinking feeling, but a desire to convince him that Charlie was right; after all, my career depended on pleasing my MAIN bosses." (36). He knows the right thing to do, but refuses to acknowledge it because it might compromise his job and his income. By convincing himself that what he is doing is right he condemns a country but sets himself up for financial gain. However, when confronted about his behavior, John Perkins is forced to introspect about what he has done. It is brought to attention when the narrator says, "You're in it for the money. I heard Howard's words over and over. He had struck a nerve." (37). This reminds John of his contempt for the wealthy as a child and forces him to see what he has become. By following his greed he has become what he hated most.

This period of introspection continues and the character begins to realize how out of place he is in his job and culture. Unlike the rest of his team, John Perkins shows interest in the culture of the Indonesian people. He makes friends with a local and tries to learn the local language but despite this, he is alienated by local politicians. He expresses his treatment when he says, "During my meetings with political and business leaders, I became aware of subtleties in the way they treated me. I had not perceived it before, but now I saw that many of them resented my presence." (46). His understanding of how the local culture sees Americans is broadened by his interactions, and he is slightly disturbed by their views. By being out of place in that country, he gains some realization that he is also out of place at his job. These thoughts are deepened when he sees an anti-american play at a local theatre. The local people see America as a nation that is willing to ruin countries just to gain oil and power. He gets a bit of culture shock when a local asks, "Aren't they really all the same? Isn't it like the play showed? Doesn't your government look at Indonesia and other countries as though we are just a bunch of grapes?" (51). This revelation shows to him how corrupt the corporations which he helps are. His job is what is wrong with America and he finds himself representing things which he detests, further deepening the alienation which he feels.

Confessions of an Economic Hitman-Blog 1

This book is a memoir of a man who calls himself an "Economic Hitman". An EHM, as he calls them, is someone who cheats developing countries out of resources or money in order to help expand US corportation. However, the beginning of the book has less to do with EHMs and more to do with the authors childhood. He struggles with his self identity at an early age when he is raised at a boarding school by two parents with a huge superiority complex. When he gets a scholarship to boarding school he struggles with being himself and his parents force him to reject his old middleclass friends. The narrator tells us that, "With my parents' prodding, I rejected everything to do with the town and never saw my old friends again," (4). He struggles with his keeping his own identity while his parents force a different one upon him. It is perhaps because of the multiple personalities he took on that he adapted so well to being an EHM which requires changing ones personality to make them more persuasive depending on where they are. His struggle with identity also made him resentful of the wealthy kids at his school and his drive to surpass them motivated him. The author tells us that "...rather than rebelling, I repressed my rage and expressed my frustration by excelling," (5). The authors childhood issues are what made him succeed like he did and it was his anger which allowed him to gain such power. Had the author been content in his childhood and unmotivated, he would never have become an EHM and held such influence.
A bit later in the book the author starts to deal with ethical choices when he first becomes an EHM. He joins the Peace Corps as a cover to explore and exploit oil rich areas of the Amazon and quickly gets signed to a large company called MAIN. He finds himself selling out so he can surpass his classmates. The author describes his reason for his employment with MAIN when he says, "I knew that some of my class mates who got rejected by the draft and went on to earn MBAs and other graduate degrees would be overcome with jealousy,"(12). Because of his greedy lust for power he will make choices that will affect countries which he has no right to be involved in. His being hired as an "economist" meant that he will receive extreme amounts of money, which is really "blood money" for all the destruction he will cause in developing countries.


Perkins, John. Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. New York: Plume, 2006.