When you have a group of powerful people, in different categories of professional or vocational activity, working together in league, in a structured fashion, to implement common goals which benefit themselves, it is scarcely unreasonable to call them, collectively, a "cartel."
Except this has nothing to do with most uses of the term cartel
. Which would suggest a relative small group of entities providing relatively similar (usually the same) goods or services for sale who collude as to increase their own profits which would be diminished if such collusion didn't occur. See OPEC for an example.
Your very first sentence nullifies your use of this word. If Coke and Pizza Hut and Home Depot want to pool resources as to be more profitable that doesn't make them a cartel.
Inclusion of op-eds is neither here nor there. Whether the paper published the statements as op-ed, or whether a reporter reported on a public speech's or published book's content, documentation is made of the intentions and statements of the involved.
It is here and here as op-eds don't reflect journalism of record of any serious sort. You must have a rather low view of journalism if you think the mere passing on of the words of a guest writer passes for the investigative, analytical, and synthetic nature of real journalism.
So, orthonorm, you admit that there is a group of powerful people of the world, who in league and with the presence of a structured ordering of common activity or coordination, are planning to institute structures of global government, or if you prefer other but equivalent words, global governance?
Actually, I would suggest you look at the Fortune 100. Look at their CEOs and board members. The number of people that group is made up of it shockingly low. Really, look at it sometime. And the amount of wealth the Fortune 100 manage is incredible.
So do I think such groups exist? Yes. However they are not governmental in nature, although these groups do pose an inordinate amount of pressure on government at all levels.
So without getting too partisan here, you are wrong.
What we have is the concentration of capital which outstrips the means of governmental agencies to regulate its circulation (which is exactly the goal of a true blue capitalist, this is not a statement of moral judgement, it is a statement of simply the internal logic of capitalism).
Is this aggregation of capital into fewer hands satanic? That seems loaded but within the Odox parlance, one could say such a thing I suppose.
Is this aggregation of capital the result of a cartel? It can't be, unless one would push the sematic limits of cartel
to the point of meaninglessness.
Is there one force at work? No. As few players as you will find even within the Fortune 100, there is more than one group which is aligned. It's quite interesting to see who sits on whose board. Working for a Fortune 25, I can tell you who will NEVER be on the board in the next decade as forming something like a cartel is for now totally at odds with profit in the industry I work in. Not too mention that in the Fortune 100, you have groups of producers: Exxon. And consumers: Walmart. The adversarial role between producer and consumer at this level of commerce is hard to underestimate. I can assure you some one would probably get killed if they sat a board member of Walmart on the board of the company I work for.
So, nothing you said has much truth. If there is concentration of power anywhere in this world, it is not within the governments of it, for better or worse.