Stephen Schwarzman: The King of Capital and a Unique Diplomat

At 79, Stephen A. Schwarzman remains one of the most influential personalities in global finance. Widely known as the "King of Capital," he is the co-founder, chairman and chief executive of Blackstone, one of the world's largest alternative investment management firms. His journey from a modest family business in Pennsylvania to the commanding heights of international finance is a remarkable story of ambition, calculated risk-taking and persistence.

Born on February 14, 1947, in Philadelphia, Schwarzman grew up in a family that operated a dry-goods store. His early exposure to business came from working alongside his father. At just 14, he demonstrated an entrepreneurial instinct by starting a lawn-mowing business and employing his younger twin brothers.

He graduated from Yale University in 1969 and subsequently earned an MBA from Harvard Business School in 1972. His professional career began on Wall Street, where he joined Lehman Brothers and quickly established himself in mergers and acquisitions. By the age of 31, he had become a managing director.

In 1985, Schwarzman joined hands with Peter G. Peterson, a former chairman of Lehman Brothers, to establish Blackstone. What started as a two-person investment advisory business gradually evolved into a global financial powerhouse. Today, Blackstone employs approximately 5,000 people and manages more than US$1.3 trillion in assets. Its investments span private equity, real estate, infrastructure, credit, life sciences and other alternative asset classes. It has also emerged as a major investor in data centres, critical infrastructure supporting the global artificial intelligence revolution.

Interestingly, Schwarzman acknowledges that Japan played a crucial role in Blackstone's early survival and expansion. Japanese investors provided important capital when the firm was struggling to establish itself. He also developed enduring relationships with Japanese business leaders, including Yasuo Kanzaki of Nikko Securities. His admiration for former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe reflects his interest in economic reform and political leadership.

Beyond business, Schwarzman has cultivated relationships with successive US presidents and international political leaders. He describes himself as someone willing to serve his country by communicating American economic and trade priorities to foreign governments. He has particularly sought to facilitate understanding between Washington and Beijing, including during Donald Trump's presidency.

His engagement with China also extends to education. In 2013, he established the Schwarzman Scholars program at Tsinghua University in Beijing, modelled on the Rhodes Scholarship, to develop future global leaders with a deeper understanding of China. His philanthropic contributions have also supported Yale University, the New York Public Library and other educational and cultural institutions.

In 2019, Schwarzman published What It Takes: Lessons in the Pursuit of Excellence, sharing experiences from his business career, failures and personal development.

Two principles summarize his philosophy: "A better tomorrow" and "learn every day." His life illustrates how entrepreneurial ambition, strategic relationships and continuous learning can transform a modest beginning into an institution of global significance.

Ultimately, Schwarzman's influence extends well beyond Wall Street. Through Blackstone's investment decisions, philanthropic initiatives and relationships with political leaders, he occupies a distinctive position at the intersection of global finance, business and diplomacy.

Do Seven Sisters Fuel Conflicts Around the World?

The Seven Sisters, a group of seven major Western oil companies that dominated the international petroleum industry during much of the 20th century, symbolized the concentration of corporate power over energy resources. Today, a broader question deserves attention: do powerful commercial interests benefit so substantially from conflict that they have an incentive to sustain geopolitical tensions?

The military-industrial complex, Wall Street, media houses and shipping companies operate in different sectors, yet conflicts can create lucrative opportunities for all of them. Defence contractors may secure additional orders, financial markets experience heightened trading activity, media organizations attract larger audiences, and shipping companies charge higher rates to reflect security risks. Oil producers and traders may also benefit from rising prices, although others suffer substantial losses.

The US-Israel war on Iran, which began on February 28, 2026, provides a compelling case for examining this hypothesis. Disruptions to energy supplies and shipping through the Strait of Hormuz have intensified volatility in global oil markets. On October 26, West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude settled at US$101.76 per barrel, while Brent crude closed at US$115.81. The resulting differential of approximately US$14 illustrates how geopolitical disruptions can reshape commodity markets. However, price movements alone do not establish manipulation or prove that commercial interests caused the conflict.

The more consequential question is whether these beneficiaries merely exploit wars or also influence decisions that prolong them. Answering it requires examining corporate lobbying, political financing, defence contracts, media ownership and the relationships between business interests and policymakers. Profiting from a conflict is not, in itself, evidence of having engineered it.

The human and economic costs of war are enormous. Ordinary citizens face higher energy bills, inflation, disrupted trade and insecurity, while particular companies may enjoy exceptional profits. These unequal outcomes raise legitimate questions about accountability and the influence of vested interests over public policy.

The Seven Sisters no longer exercise the same dominance they once did, but the wider relationship between corporate power and geopolitical conflict merits scrutiny. The essential question is not simply who profits from war, but whether those profits influence decisions about when wars begin—and when they end.

Will Netanyahu Accept Defeat?

Benjamin Netanyahu’s possible defeat would be more than the political downfall of Israel’s longest-serving prime minister. It could expose personal vulnerabilities, unsettle hardline allies, affect defence-related interests and challenge a wider network of political influence that I describe as “the syndicate.”

The first issue is Netanyahu’s personal future. Facing corruption charges since his indictment in 2019, he has a legal battle that losing office would not automatically resolve in his favour. Although imprisonment is not an inevitable consequence of electoral defeat, the prospect of losing political influence could make his future considerably more uncertain. His political survival and legal predicament therefore form an important part of the debate.

The second issue concerns Israel’s hardliners. Netanyahu has been central to the coalition politics that enabled right-wing and religious parties to exercise considerable influence over government policy. His departure could leave some of these allies without their principal political broker, forcing them to reconsider their strategy and search for alternative leadership.

The third dimension involves the military-industrial complex. Prolonged regional conflicts have sustained demand for weapons and defence technology. A change of government would not necessarily weaken Israel’s defence industry, but it could alter procurement priorities, strategic calculations and the political justification for military operations.

The fourth and most consequential dimension is what I call “the syndicate” - a wider network of political, strategic and economic interests whose objectives may overlap with Netanyahu’s continued leadership. His close relationship with Donald Trump adds an international dimension to this argument. Whether Netanyahu’s departure would constitute a setback for this wider network, however, depends on how far its interests are tied to him personally rather than to institutions and policies that could survive his departure.

The central question is whether Netanyahu would accept not only an electoral verdict but also the consequences of losing power. Israel’s parliamentary system makes coalition negotiations crucial, while the judicial process would continue to follow its own course.

Ultimately, Netanyahu’s political future will depend on voters, coalition arithmetic and the legal process. But the implications of his departure could extend well beyond one individual. The real test would be whether Israel’s political system can manage a change of leadership while holding its leaders accountable—and whether the interests built around Netanyahu could retain their influence without him.

Why Is the President Outside the Stock-Trading Net?

A Bloomberg analysis has raised an intriguing question about the relationship between political power and financial markets in Washington. President Donald Trump and his financial managers reportedly executed nearly 28,700 securities transactions during the 17 months following his second inauguration through June 2026—more than the roughly 22,200 transactions reported collectively by members of Congress over the same period.

The scale is remarkable. Trump’s transactions reportedly involved accounts worth more than US$858 million and covered individual stocks, bonds and cryptocurrencies. This represents a notable shift from his first term, when his assets were primarily associated with real estate.

The volume of trading, does not by itself establish wrongdoing. Trump’s representatives and the Trump Organization have maintained that the accounts are managed by independent third parties and computer-driven models, and that neither Trump nor his family receives advance notice of or exercises control over individual transactions.

Yet the issue raises a broader question of public policy. The United States already has rules against government officials using non-public information obtained through their positions for financial gain. The 2012 Stock Act clarified that insider-trading prohibitions apply to Members of Congress and other government officials. Congressional records also show that lawmakers have repeatedly proposed going further by restricting or banning securities trading by elected officials.

Here the question becomes particularly relevant, if Members of Congress are considered sufficiently exposed to potential conflicts of interest to justify restrictions on their personal investments, why should comparable safeguards not apply to the President?

Not all proposed legislation treats the President differently. Indeed, the proposed Ethics Act would cover Members of Congress, the President and Vice President, while other measures have focused specifically on lawmakers.

That variation itself deserves scrutiny. The President exercises enormous influence over policies involving taxation, tariffs, regulation, energy, defence, trade and international relations—areas capable of affecting the value of financial assets. Even when investments are managed independently, the question of public confidence remains.

The debate, should not be reduced to whether any particular Trump transaction was lawful or unlawful. The more fundamental issue is whether America's conflict-of-interest framework should apply consistently to all elected officials.

If Congress believes that stock trading can create either an actual conflict or the appearance of one, the same principle merits consideration at the highest level of government.

After all, public trust should not depend on whether an elected official occupies a seat on Capitol Hill—or sits in the Oval Office.

Hostile Takeover of US Primaries by Billionaires

The integrity of democratic governance relies heavily on the transparency of its introductory gatekeepers - the political primaries. While international attention remains fixated on the theater of the general elections, a highly sophisticated, billionaire-backed financial apparatus is quietly engineering a structural overhaul of the electoral menu. 

Recent investigative disclosures have exposed a coordinated network of political action committees (PACs), shadow consultants, and dark-money conglomerates acting as a de facto "party within the party." This machine systematically distorts the democratic process long before the broader electorate ever reaches the ballot box.

From a structural standpoint, the strategy is calculated to maximize return on political investment. Primaries are historically low-turnout, low-visibility contests. In these economically vulnerable entry points, a heavily concentrated injection of capital yields outsized influence.

Billionaires and corporate interest groups are leveraging dark-money channels to finance saturated, highly targeted media campaigns. This capital asymmetry effectively suffocates grassroots contenders, forcing an artificial curation of candidates aligned with a centrist, corporate-friendly agenda. Because these transactions are deliberately obscured from public tracking, the fundamental relationship between representative and constituent is severely compromised.

This phenomenon extends far beyond campaign finance irregularities; it represents an existential threat to economic equity and fair representation. When elite donor classes capture the primary gateway, they effectively establish a "shadow veto" over macro policy.

Critical structural reforms—ranging from regulatory corporate accountability and tax normalization to robust economic justice initiatives—are preemptively sidelined. The result is a governance framework designed to insulate capital rather than serve the public interest.

If democratic systems are to retain institutional credibility, regulatory bodies must intervene, Congress must urgently implement stringent legislative reforms enforcing absolute disclosure of all political expenditure and multi-organizational coordination.

The power of the primary must be salvaged from private capital capture and restored to a merit-driven, community-oriented framework. Transparency is no longer a policy preference; it is the baseline requirement to prevent the absolute corporatization of the state.

Who Drives Washington’s War Decisions?

The decision by the United States Senate to reject resolutions aimed at halting arms sales to Israel has once again exposed the ever-present crisis in American policymaking - the gap between formal representation and the deeper forces that shape outcomes.

Elected officials in the United States are, without question, representatives of their citizens. Yet, modern governance operates within a dense web of lobbying, campaign financing, and strategic alliances that complicate this relationship.

To suggest that lawmakers are directly controlled by any foreign state would be an overreach. However, it is equally difficult to ignore the institutional weight of pro-Israel lobbying, long-standing security cooperation, and the domestic political incentives that reinforce this alignment.

Beyond this specific case lies a broader structural reality. Washington’s policy environment is influenced by a convergence of powerful sectors whose interests often align with sustained geopolitical tension.

The military-industrial complex—first cautioned against by Dwight D. Eisenhower—continues to benefit from robust defense spending and arms exports.

Energy companies operate in markets where instability can tighten supply dynamics and elevate prices.

Major media platforms, while diverse, play a critical role in framing conflicts and shaping public sentiment.

Meanwhile, financial institutions centered around Wall Street respond to—and often capitalize on—volatility and capital shifts triggered by global crises.

This is not a story of conspiracy, but of incentives. These sectors do not uniformly seek conflict; rather, they are positioned to benefit when instability arises. Policymakers, functioning within this ecosystem, may not act at the behest of these actors, but their decisions are rarely insulated from such pressures.

Crucially, US support for Israel is also anchored in strategic and ideological considerations—shared security objectives, regional calculations, and a deeply embedded bipartisan consensus. Ignoring this dimension oversimplifies a complex policy posture.

The Senate’s vote, therefore, reflects more than a single policy choice. It underscores how democratic representation coexists with layered influences—economic, strategic, and political.

The real question is not whether American lawmakers represent their people, but whether the system ensures that public interest remains the dominant force amid competing pressures.

Trump Impeachment: Outrage is abundant, votes are not

The growing chorus in Washington demanding the removal of Donald Trump reflects outrage—but not reality. Impeachment in the United States is not a moral exercise; it is a numbers game rooted in raw political power. That is precisely why a third attempt continues to stall.

Democratic lawmakers, including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Hakeem Jeffries, have framed Trump’s conduct—particularly his Iran policy—as unconstitutional and dangerously reckless. Their language is severe, invoking war crimes, constitutional violations, and a disregard for congressional authority. Yet, outrage alone cannot secure removal.

The structural barrier is clear: Congress remains divided, and the Republican Party continues to stand firmly behind Trump. Impeachment requires not just a majority in the House but a two-thirds conviction in the Senate—an insurmountable threshold without bipartisan support. Political loyalty, electoral calculations, and fear of alienating Trump’s base outweigh institutional accountability.

At the same time, the deeper question persists, ­­­­­­ who benefits? From oil giants to the military-industrial complex, from Wall Street to powerful media tycoons, the pattern is difficult to ignore—his decisions often align with entrenched power interests. This perceived alignment reinforces Democratic accusations but does little to shift Republican resolve.

Complicating matters further is the ambiguity surrounding “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Critics argue that unilateral military action violates the Constitution. Supporters counter that the president, as commander-in-chief, possesses broad authority in national security matters. This legal grey zone provides sufficient cover for allies to dismiss even serious allegations as partisan maneuvering.

The alternative route—the 25th Amendment—remains politically unrealistic, requiring an internal revolt within the administration. Instead, Democrats are turning to more viable tools like the War Powers Resolution to restrain policy rather than remove the president.

A third impeachment attempt, without the numbers, risks political self-harm—strengthening Trump’s narrative while weakening institutional credibility. In Washington, outrage is abundant. Votes are not.

Election or Selection in the United States?

The United States projects itself as the world’s leading democracy, promoting its political model while judging others against it. Yet a closer look at how power operates in Washington raises an uncomfortable question: does America still practice genuine elections, or has it quietly shifted toward managed selection?

Americans vote, campaigns are televised, and results are certified. But democracy is not merely about procedure—it is about meaningful choice. And that choice is shaped long before Election Day.

Today, candidates pass through an ecosystem dominated by money, lobbying, and media influence. Corporate donors, defence contractors, energy giants, and financial institutions determine who receives funding, visibility, and institutional backing. Those who challenge entrenched interests rarely survive primaries, while outsiders are systematically marginalized. By the time voters reach polling booths, the menu has already been curated.

This is where selection replaces election.

Campaigns now cost billions. Such sums cannot be raised without compromising political independence. Elected officials emerge indebted to donors rather than constituents. The revolving door between Congress, corporate boardrooms, and federal agencies further blurs the line between public service and private profit. Policy continuity across administrations—regardless of party—reveals where real power lies.

Foreign policy offers the clearest evidence. Presidents change, but wars persist. Military budgets expand almost automatically. Arms shipments grow. Sanctions multiply. Whether Democrat or Republican, Washington remains committed to confrontation-first strategies. This consistency reflects the priorities of powerful lobbies, particularly the defence industry, which profits directly from instability.

Domestic policy tells a similar story. Despite strong public support for healthcare reform, student debt relief, and financial regulation, progress remains limited. Meanwhile, defence spending and corporate advantages pass with remarkable ease. Popular will is routinely overridden by institutional inertia and corporate pressure.

Media consolidation deepens the problem. A handful of corporations shape national discourse, narrowing debate and manufacturing consent. Candidates who question militarism or corporate dominance receive limited coverage, while establishment figures dominate airtime.

To be clear, the United States is not a dictatorship. Elections occur, courts function, and civil liberties exist. But democracy has become conditional—operating within boundaries set by moneyed interests. Citizens vote, yet rarely determine strategic direction. That privilege belongs to donors, lobbyists, and unelected power centers.

The result is a managed democracy - ballots provide legitimacy, while selection ensures continuity. Until money is removed from politics and lobbying is meaningfully restrained, “government of the people” will remain more slogan than reality.

Billionaires vs. Mamdani: Democracy for Sale

The billionaire class is spending millions to block Zohran Mamdani’s rise — not because he threatens New York City’s stability, but because he threatens their supremacy. Mamdani’s agenda of taxing the ultra-rich to fund housing, public transit, and child care strikes at the heart of a system that lets the few profit while the many struggle. His opponents — hedge-fund moguls, property tycoons, and Wall Street donors — are pouring unprecedented sums into super PACs to drown out a movement built on ordinary citizens.

This isn’t about protecting the economy; it’s about protecting privilege. The same billionaires who hoard wealth offshore suddenly claim to care about fiscal discipline. Their fear is ideological — that Mamdani’s victory will prove that grassroots politics can defeat corporate cash. They see democracy not as a marketplace of ideas, but as an asset they can buy, trade, and hedge against.

By weaponizing money to silence dissenting voices, they expose the fragility of American democracy. A candidate advocating fairness is branded a threat, while those funding inequality are hailed as “defenders of growth.” The irony is suffocating.

Mamdani’s campaign is more than a local contest — it’s a referendum on whether voters or billionaires rule America. Every dollar spent against him is a vote against equality, against the idea that power should serve the people, not purchase them. If billionaires succeed in crushing his candidacy, it will not be a victory for democracy — it will be its price tag.

Trump and his plutocrats

In one of my not so recent posts, US Election: Selecting Lesser (Bigger) Evil dated July 27, 2024, I had written whoever wins the US Presidential Election will have to work according to the wishes of three most influential groups of the country: 1) military complexes, 2) oil & gas exploration companies and 3) Wall Street. Donald Trump is schedules to take oath on Monday, January 20, 2025.

Today, I refer to an article by Trope Folarin, Executive Director of Institute of Policy Studies (IPS). The details are worth reading and should be an eye opener for those who are under illusion that Trump era-2 will bring peace and prosperity in the United States and around the world.

Trump will be joined onstage by Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, and other billionaires. Despite Trump’s ostensibly populist campaign, the moment will symbolize his toxic linkage of extremist, far-right bigotry with the class interests of billionaires.

Their wealth is already skyrocketing. As Chuck Collins calculates from Forbes wealth data, at the end of 2024 there were 813 US billionaires with a combined total wealth of US$6.72 trillion. These billionaires and plutocrats are getting a front row seat in the next administration, Sam Pizzigati adds.

In another piece, Chuck highlights new data showing how fossil fuel barons are bankrolling Trump. It’s no wonder Trump is expected to immediately withdraw the United States from the Paris Climate Accords (again) — a step the Climate Policy Program has condemned.

It is another irony that the inauguration will be held on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. 

As a courageous advocate of racial and economic justice, King would be disgusted by this display. But through the multi-racial, multi-issue Poor People’s Campaign he co-founded toward the end of his life, King also showed how these racist plutocrats can be defeated ‑ by coming together.

IPS is the research arm of the modern Poor People’s Campaign, a movement of poor people for peace and racial, economic, and environmental justice. And despite the crisis in the US politics, Americans see several signs people can still pull together to transform the system.

As Trump takes office, Peter Certo lays out five popular checks on Trump's agenda, building on some major wins in 2024 — from unionization campaigns to an invigorated peace movement, climate wins, and progressive victories at the state and local levels.

"Our politics are a mess right now. But our country isn’t 'lost' — only our leaders are,” he writes. “When Americans organize around our common decency, it’s going to get a lot harder for bullies like Trump to walk over us.”

 

John Feffer has also warned how Trump’s policies could deepen the global climate crisis. Hanna Homestead and Aspen Coriz-Romero explain how the US subsidizes militarism while underfunding climate solutions. Sulma Arias connects Trump’s looming immigration crackdown to the greed of private prison companies.

Christine Ahn explains in the Chronicle of Philanthropy how philanthropists can embrace a progressive feminist policy vision and fight militarism through their giving.

 

Trope Folarin, Executive Director IPA offers a bit of inauguration counterprogramming with his new piece in Places Journal, “The City Was All I Had.” 

 

A wakeup call for the US citizens

Let's acknowledge the reality, the United States operates under a façade of democracy. At best, it can be described as a "hybrid democracy," where elected representatives do not truly govern. Instead, military-industrial complexes, oil corporations, and Wall Street exert control.

Both major political candidates receive substantial financial backing from these powerful non-state entities. Once elected, presidents often find themselves subservient to these interests rather than serving the people.

People worldwide should remember that Democrats and Republicans have often united to erode fundamental freedoms, establishing a secretive regime of mass surveillance, unconstitutional detention, and torture.

They have dragged the nation into illegal wars based on lies, resulting in millions of deaths and the squandering of trillions of dollars.

It is essential not to forget the millions who stood against the exploitation of national grief to further the neoconservative agenda of global military domination—citizens whose voices were ignored and demonized by the political elite.

We must also remember how Muslims and their neighbors have been unjustly targeted, surveilled, smeared, and falsely accused in the name of "protecting the United States."

Patriotism has been weaponized to undermine the First Amendment, stifling dissent, journalism, whistleblowing, and activism. To this day, there are ongoing efforts to criminalize protests against injustice, war, and genocide.

Never forget how both Democrats and Republicans have set the country on a path toward fascism, leading to an administration openly supporting the genocide of the Palestinian people.

True patriotism requires the courage to stand up for justice, not blindly following orders. By resisting both war-driven political parties, the American people can halt the descent into fascism and fight for a peaceful, just, and livable future for the generations to come.