In 1970, of the 51 largest "money powers" in the world, only 38 were sovereign nation states, while 13 were multinational business corporations. 2 As part of the monopoly subcommittee's hearings on giant corporations, a list of countries and companies interspersed, ranked by size of gross national products and corporate net sales, was printed in the RECORD. The 1970 list has been prepared by the Library of Congress. That latest report reveals that General Motors, despite an uncommonly bad year in 1970, was still 23 on the list of world money powers, larger than 123 of the world's 146 nations, American Telephone & Telegraph, No. 25, was a bigger power in money terms than South Africa. Standard Oil of New Jersey and Ford Motor Co., Nos. 27 and 28, were each bigger than either Denmark or Austria, Royal Dutch/Shell, No. 32, was ahead of Norway. Sears Roebuck, No. 37, was larger than Greece, General Electric, No. 39, outranked the Phillipines and Turkey. International Business Machines, Mobil Oil, Chrysler and Unilever, occupying slots from 44 through 46, came ahead of Thailand and Colombia. ITT, No. 49, and Texaco, Co., No. 51, straddled Chile in the 50th position. Comparing private corporate giants with public governments is not an argument that bigness is in itself bad, but an argument that governments-public and private derive their powers from the consent of the governed and are responsible to those they govern. The central question the next phase of the giant corporations hearings will explore is not so much whether the powers now plainly exercised by the multinational business concerns are just or unjust, or even whether those powers are exercised with or without the consent of the governed-although those questions will be open to discussion. The central question will be whether it is possible for the public to make real, meaningful decisions when it has insufficient information about essential matters on which it should have the opportunity to choose. How, for example, can any one of the 200 million Americans importantly affected by the matter make any decision on the pricing policies of the automobile manufacturers when the costs of building a car are nowhere made known? How can the people of this county evaluate the social, economic, and political implications of the increasing dominance of giant corporations in agriculture when adequate data is not available anywhere? How can anyone consent or dissent to what is happening, profitwise, in the food and kindred products industry, as reported in an official statistical service of the Federal Government, when the operating results of important defense, electronics and aerospace firms are averaged into the industry "food and kindred products? The Governments statistical practices appear to be based more on habit and corporate power than by logic. (See "Working Paper A" appended to this statement.) In "Working Paper A" appended to this statement, it is demonstrated that a small manufacturer making a large profit or loss-must declare that profit or loss to the world at large, including his competitors; while a large manufacturer, with identical sales and an identical or larger profit, made on the same product, is allowed to keep the figures entirely secret. To help stimulate thinking about the important subject of these hearings, two documents have been prepared. The first is a list of 16 major questions with which the subcommittee will be concerned in the hearings on corporate secrecy. The second is a working paper that presents some preliminary thinking about the first 3 of the 16 major questions, and notes some of the additional questions that are suggested by this preliminary consideration of the major questions. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be inserted in the RECORD at this point the following documents: First, list prepared by the Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, entitled, "Gross National Products of Countries and Net Sales of Companies Interspersed: Top 51, by Rank-1970." Second, list prepared for use at hearings on "Corporate Secrecy," captioned "Sixteen Major Questions To Be Considered by the Subcommittee." Third, a working paper, prepared by myself and Raymond D. Watts of the staff on the Senate Small Business Committee, entitled, "The Nature and Dimensions of Corporate Secrecy." There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: 2 See also appendix I of this hearing record: part 2, page 1195, for a later tabulation by the Library of Congress containing interspersed corporate net sales and country GNP's for the 100 largest "money powers" of each of the years 1960, 1965 and 1970.-Committee editor. "THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE "GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCTS OF COUNTRIES AND NET SALES OF COMPANIES INTERSPERSED, TOP 51, BY RANK-1970 "This table is a combined listing of the leading international corporations and the top producing nations of the world. Corporations are listed with their annual net sales, which were taken from the May and August 1971 issues of Fortune magazine. The non-Communist GNP figures are from Gross National Product, Growth Rates and Trend Data by Region and Country; May 15, 1971, compiled by the Office of Statistics and Reports, Bureau for Program and Policy Coordination, Agency for International Development. Communist countries' GNP figures were estimated by the U.S. Dpartment of State. All figures are for 1970, with the non-Communist countries' GNP data in constant 1969 prices, and the Communist countries' GNP data estimated in 1970 dollars. All figures are in billions of dollars." 1 Purchasing power equivalent in 1970 dollars, as estimated by U.S Department of State. Steve Wolf, researcher economics division, August 6, 1971. NOTE.-The "Sixteen Major Questions to Be Considered by the Subcommittee" and "Working Paper A," referred to in Senator Nelson's letter to Chairman Casey and in the "Notice of Hearings," above, are omitted here. The text of the "Sixteen Questions" will be found in part 2 of this record at page 1045. The working paper is also printed in part 2, at page 1203.-Committee editor. C. LETTER DATED NOV. 10, 1971, FROM WILLIAM J. CASEY, CHAIRMAN, SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, TO SENATOR NELSON, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON MONOPOLY SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549 NOV 10 1971 Honorable Gaylord Nelson Washington, D. C. 20510 Re: Questionnaire on Sixteen Major Questions on Corporate Dear Senator Nelson: This will acknowledge receipt of your request of November 3, 1971, for the Commission's replies to the above-captioned questionnaire on corporate secrecy. You also indicate that you plan to invite the members of the Commission to appear before your Subcommittee sometime around March 1972 for,, an oral discussion of your questions and our written answers to them. We are studying the questionnaire and other material enclosed with your letter and will do our best to submit our replies by your December 6th deadline. Barring any unforseen circumstances, my fellow Commissioners and I will be glad to testify before your Subcommittee on this subject matter. Sincerely yours William J. Casey Chairman D. LETTER DATED DEC. 10, 1971, FROM HUGH F. OWENS, COMMISSIONER, SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, TO SENATOR NELSON, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON MONOPOLY, WITH ENCLOSURES Re: RECEIVED DEC 1 3 157% OFFICE OF SENATOR GAYLORD HELSON Questionnaire on Sixteen Major Questions on Corporate In the temporary absence of Chairman Casey, I am responding to your It will perhaps be helpful at the outset to outline in broad terms |