Kansas City Control Fraud Explained

Reader suggested link and a worthwhile economic analysis that deserves to be highlighted . . .

"Not only is UMKC's William Black cited, but the concept of "control fraud" can be easily extrapolated to our local level.

"E.g., wealthy developers and business interests invest their resources in cooperative politicians, who then grant them extremely favorable tax breaks and incentives."

Read more:

The Hidden-In-Plain-Sight Mechanism Of The Super-Wealthy: Money-Laundering 2.0

Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog, Financial and political power are two sides of one coin. We all know the rich are getting richer, and the super-rich are getting super-richer.


  1. crony capitalism has completed a friendly takeover of big government.

  2. America is undergoing its biggest wealth transfer from the middle class to the super elite wealthy in tha nation's history; while the citizens are busying themselves bu looking down the fronts of their pants and trying to decide what gender they are.

  3. Minimum wage should be $20 a hour.

    Eat the rich.

  4. 11:23 - the poor will have to eat the rich to survive, because at $20 per hour they will not have jobs and won't be able to buy food.

  5. I rest easy knowing that the unchecked free market will solve America's wealth gap problem.

    What it has done for the US medical system is a beacon for the rest of the world to follow.

  6. This article is genius, but they need some better phrases to describe the phenomenon.
    Control fraud is a meaningless term with no mental imagery to support it.
    I will work on that in 2018.
    It perfectly describes how development attorneys get breaks from locally elected officials, in both KCMO and Joco.
    Most Americans recognize the problem in WDC. It's here at home, where we KNOW all the players where we are kinda NoseBlind to it.

    This is the year when Sly James, Jolie Justus, Burns & Mac, John Petersen and Polsinelli, Axiom Strategies/Jeff Roe, the best "gamers" in town, get called out and voters start to say NO.

  7. Woiuldn't laws against stealing be examples of control fraud? So there should be no law against theft because that inhibits passing wealth from those who have some to those who don't? I think they need to work on that definition, or better yet just deep six the idea.

  8. Excellent point, 2:59!!! You're opening up my mind to how to rebrand this phenomenon.

    Would you say that it's more unethical than illegal. A violation of the social order?

  9. Why is this being treated as a new concept?

    Mark Hannah and Harry Sinclair took complete control of the (formerly Populist) Republican Party in 1888, immediately converting it into a governing tool of the Wealthiest!

    Takeover of the Democratic Party began in 1932, with the election of FDR, and was surely completed by the 1960 election of JFK.

    All we are seeing is a decrease in subtlety on the part of the Wealthy, they no longer care whether we can see their manipulations, since they have succeeded in demonizing any opposition to their absolute control as being "anti-Capitalist"!

  10. 5:05, I have trouble when people say it's legal but unethical. The term has no fixed meaning. If an act legal it is OK. If it violates commonly hed ethical standards, make it illegal.

    Violation of the social order? Careful. That's what Iran's mullahs are saying right now.


Post a Comment


Be percipient, be nice. Don't be a spammer. BE WELL!!!

- The Management