Category: Wirtschaft

Eine neue Wirtschaft

By , 08/02/2014 16:27
Die Wirtschaft funktioniert doch nur, weil Leute, du und ich, jeden Tag zur Arbeit fahren, dort sich einsetzen, helfen etwas entstehen lassen. Geld fliesst nur darum – und weil viele Leute wie du und ich etwas kaufen. Das ist der wirkliche Wert des Geldes. Was wir produzieren, und was wir kaufen. häufig wird das in der liberalen Wirtschaftspraxis schnell vergessen. vor allem, wenn es darum geht, wer die Entscheidungsgewalt innehat.
die Frage die mir schon lange im Kopf herumschwirrt: warum soll nur der Geldgeber zu entscheiden haben, wie eine Firma aussieht, wie die Geschäfte gemacht werden und so? Ohne die vielen Leute, die sich täglich dafür einsetzen, gäbe es diese Firma genausowenig! Trotzdem beanspruchen Aktionäre heute exklusive die Entscheidungsgewalt!
Ich komme aber immer mehr zum Schluss, dass dies ein unrechtes und ungesundes System ist. Wo das Geld Alleinherrscher ist, gibt es keine Ethik und keine Moral. Das Wohl von Mitarbeitenden, einer Region, der Natur oder der Konsumierenden wird schnell geopfert, wenn Geld der einzige Entscheidungsfaktor ist.

demokratische Wirtschaft

comments Comments Off on demokratische Wirtschaft
By , 23/12/2013 13:46

CHI MANOVRA “STANDARD&POOR’ S”, “MOODY’ S” E “FITCH” ? COME HENRY WALLACE REINVENTO’ IL COLLETTIVISMO

By , 24/01/2012 13:22

CHI MANOVRA “STANDARD&POOR’ S”, “MOODY’ S” E “FITCH” ?

Articolo pubblicato 30/lug/2011 14:37 da Orazio Fergnani su https://sites.google.com/site/albamediterranea1/

Gentile napoLibera,
non mi so dare pace che le famose agenzie di rating anglo-americane, asseverate per il Vangelo di Nostro Signore sui nostri media, che di volta in volta sprofondano all’ inferno questo o quel bilancio pubblico europeo aggravando i costi degli interessi sul debito, siano le stesse che quattro anni fa mantenevano la tripla A alle banche d’ affari USA-UK alla vigilia del fallimento. Ed il cui salvataggio, dai costi incalcolabili (decine di migliaia di miliardi, in doll-euro) ora schiaccia le economie del continente, Germania niente affatto esclusa, come presto si vedrà. Però, sui giornali, si dà la colpa di questo drammatico ‘sprofondamento di civiltà’, alla…esosità dei pensionati, all’ ingordigia degli impiegati pubblici, al fanientismo dei giovani laureati, alla avidità degli operai…eccetera. Così, mentre ‘retrocedono’ la Spagna, il Portogallo, l’ Italia eccetera, anche alla vigilia di un drammatico ‘default’ dgli USA, causato dalla opposizione dei Tea Parties all’ andazzo di stampare altri dollari in debito (come fanno USA e Inghilterra addossandocene i costi), gli ‘handicapper’ di Londra e di Wall Street PROMUOVONO ANCORA CON AAA I BOT DEGLI USA !!!
Ci spiega l’ arcano ?
(SAVERIO MARTINI–BARI)

NL— Partiamo da un esempio lontano 10 anni esattamente: estate 2001. Ed apparentemente lontano anche dall’ argomento in questione. A giugno del 2001, uscì, in tutte le sale da cinema del mondo, con grande strombazzamento mediatico, un polpettone di Hollywood particolarmente noioso, pesante ed indigesto. Con una sceneggiatura pedestre, dialoghi insignificanti, attori inidentificabili, e girato da cani, come del resto è costume hollyoodiano da più decenni ormai, salvo eccezioni sempre più rarissime.
Ma con un titolo molto ‘interessante’: PEARL HARBOUR. Molti esperti pensarono: e come mai ? La risposta giunse tre mesi dopo, l’ 11 settembre di quell’ anno stesso, con il golpe terroristico della setta ‘neo-con’ che ha imposto il Nuovo Ordine Mondiale della ‘razza pura’ su tutto l’ Occidente atlantizzato, ossia lobotomizzato e sottomesso dall’ Unico Impero…..E cerca di estenderlo, tra vittorie ed insuccessi (più i secondi invero) su tutte le Terre conosciute, da EuRoma Nostra ai confini del Chipango.
Tutto ciò e passato grazie al pretesto del bombardamento di Manhattan, eseguito da un gruppo di pastori afghani non più ‘erranti per l’ Asia’, ma per i cieli USA. Senza che alcuno opponesse ‘distinguo’…..Proprio come a Pearl Harbour o al Tonchino.

Strano, no ? Altro che il Dottor Stranamore, se basta un pecoraro come Muhammad Atta a mandare l’ “Impero’ all’ altro mondo….

Bene. Ora è sugli schermi globalissimi di SKY-TV, un titolo egualmente inquietante: 2012, LA FINE DEL MONDO.

Infatti sarà un anno elettorale mondiale, da Mosca a Washington, da Madrid a Parigi, da Berlino a Londra, e ci aspettiamo i relativi fuochi d’ artificio…

Sì ma che c’ entra ? C’entra tutto. Perché gli USA, che si pretendono, insieme all’ Inghilterra, Vestali del liberismo economico predicato Urbi et Orbi, — beninteso:purchè in casa altrui , fatte ‘libero pollaio per libere volpi’- SONO IN REALTA’ L’ ENTELECHIA, come direbbe Aristotele da Stagira, DEL COLLETTIVISMO ECONOMICO PIU’ TOTALITARIO DI TUTTI I TEMPI, E DELLO STATALISMO PIU’ INVADENTE IN OGNI SETTORE DELLA VITA SOCIALE, CIVILE E CULTURALE.

Così, se HOLLYOOWD, mitico Tempio della produzione ‘privata’, IN REALTA’ NON E’ MAI STATA ALTRO CHE ‘LA SEZIONE PROPAGANDA’ DELLA PIOVRA DI WASHINGTON, comunicata in forma ‘sub-liminale’, molto più abilmente che le vecchia strumentazione degli agit-prop sovietici, DA WASHINGTON MEDESIMA FINANZIATA A PIE’ DI LISTA PER I SUOI PROPRI SCOPI (come il Caso PEARL-HARBOR&11/9 dimostra ad abundantiam), per mezzo dei servizi segreti….

Allo stesso identico modo, lo stesso compito viene svolto dalle agenzie di rating. Le quali, INTERFACCIATE CON LE STRUTTURE ‘A VALLE’ DELLA PROPAGANDA MEDESIMA (TV, giornali, case editrici , social network eccetera), messe in mano a fidati corrispondenti (meglio se comunisti-figli, di padri compromessi da qualche atto grave, onde averli sempre ‘docili e ricattabili’), svolgono la missione di veicolare, sui mercati, i capitali degli investitori, pubblici o privati, verso ‘ i titolo giusti’….QUELLI USA-UK, INVARIABILMENTE !!!!!

ALLO STESSO MODO FUNZIONA, PER ESEMPIO, L’ INDUSTRIA DELLA COSIDDETTA ‘ARTE CONTEMPORANEA’: DOVE ‘OPERE’ TUTTE DI AUTORI DELLA STESSA ‘RAZZA PURA’ CHE I LORO MERCANTI, RICEVONO, DAI SERVIZI, LA ‘SPINTA’ A CONQUISTARE I ‘MERCATI’ DEL SETTORE, DIVENTANDO COME ‘MONETA CONTANTE’ SOLO PERCHE’ COME TALI ASSEVERATE DAL GALLERISTE&CRITICO CHE LA AVALLA.
COME LA FIRMA DEL ‘GOVERNATORE’ SUI BIGLIETTI DI BANCA…..
Il famoso ‘miliardo di sterline’ per lo squalo surgelato di DAMIEN HIRST, detto FINDUS….

Tutto un sistema che cominciò dalla famosa BIENNALE POP del 1964 a Venezia. Con rotoli di dollaroni sonanti a conquistare i critici ‘cocos’, come li chiamavano in Francia: napoLibera c’ era, e ricorda gli stranissimi ‘peana’, alla macchina per scrivere di Robert Rauschemberg, sortite dalle superciliose penne de L’ Unità, già allora in odore di ameri.com/unismo, c’ era ancora Kruscev….

Così, naturalmente, PER L’ INDUSTRIA DELLA DROGA: IL CUI MASSIMO PRODUTTORE E DISTRIBUTORE E’ IL GOVERNO DEGLI STATES.
Con scopi plurimi: PRIMO, FARE SOLDI. Secondo, ‘smidollare’ le popolazioni giovanili, impedendo il ricambio generazionale di classe dirigente, o anche solo operaia, in qualunque paese. E tenerle alla mercè.

IN USA TUTTO E’ STATALIZZATO, MA IN MANIERA OCCULTA. COLLETTIVIZZANDO NON LA ‘PRODUZIONE’ MA L’ ACQUISTO.
NON L’ ‘OFFERTA’, MA LA ‘DOMANDA’……

Il grande inventore di questo sistema fu HENRY WALLACE, il Segretario all’ Agricoltura del I° Governo Roosevelt, che inventò la TENNESSE VALLEY AUTHORITY nel 1933: per salvare le popolazioni agricole ridotte alla fame ed al vagabondaggio dalla Grande Depressione, WALLACE, che era proprio Comunista dell’ analogo Partito da poco fondato in USA con largo contributo dei servizi segreti medesimi, ESCOGITO’ UNA GENIALE ‘COLLETTIVIZZAZIONE DELLE TERRE’, ma dalla ‘parte della domanda’.

LO STATO ACQUISTAVA TUTTA LA PRODUZIONE AGRICOLA, per sostenerne i prezzi, E POI PROVVEDEVA ALLA DISTRUZIONE DELLE DERRATE STESSE. In questo modo l’ agricoltura fu salvata…..E COSI’ TUTTORA SOPRAVVIVE ARTIFICIALMENTE.

Poi si passò all’ industria, attraverso la Guerra Mondiale: ed il conseguente ‘boom’ produttivo che ne seguì, sanando la disoccupazione che durante TUTTO IL NEW DEAL era in realtà sempre rimasta agli stessi livelli che il 1932, dopo il crollo di Wall Street: 30 % !

La spiegazione più profonda e dettagliata del ‘fainomenon’ dobbiamo alla penna insignissima di un intellettuale ebreo attivo negli Anni Sessanta, Paul M.Sweezy, fondatore della Monthly Review insieme ai due colleghi Paul Baran e Leo Hubermann.
‘TROTZKISTI’, ma forti oppositori della guerra nel Vietnam: quindi di una ‘parrocchia’ ESATTAMENTE OPPOSTA a quella dei futuri ‘neo.con’… Già allora invece, ‘loro’, la razza ‘pura’, nettamente anti-Vietcong, perchè contro la Russia…..’Stalinista’ !

Trascuriamo i dettagli, che DE MINIMIS NON CURAT PRAETOR.

Quel meccanismo, dopo la guerra, fu inoculato, attraverso agenti dell’ OSS come Jean Moulin e Jean Monnet, Altiero Spinelli ecc….nelle vene dell’ Europa occupata dagli anglo-americani. Da esso nacque la futura UE: basata prima, attraverso la CECA, (Comunità Europea Carbone Acciaio), quindi con il sostegno alla agricoltura (franco-tedesca sopratutto), poi venne ‘tutto il resto’.

Così è nato, in silenzio, il SuperStato Atlantico, ORAMAI UNIFICATO NEI COMANDI USA-UK, con il piedestallo della UE-BCE a fare dal Gauleiter militare CONTRO gli Stati e le Nazioni del Continente, GERMANIA E FRANCIA INCLUSE (a parte le SarkoLévy e le Merkely) che se ne accorgeranno solo un pò più tardi…di avercelo nel culo, rispetto ai paesi Cattolico-Ortodossi, i primi da spolpare…

Ed il suo compito si è consistenemente esteso, dopo la crisi finanziaria del 2007-2008: quando fallirono TUTTE INSIEME, TUTTE LE BANCHE ANGLOSASSONI. E, per salvarle, è cominciato il GIGANTESCO SALASSO DI RICCHEZZA delle popolazioni jugulate alla disciplina della ‘moneta-unica/camicia di forza’. Onde, noi non possiamo, come USA-UK, stampare la nostra moneta per ‘acquistare il nostro debito’, come fanno loro; aumentare l’ inflazione, per svalutare la moneta stessa, e il debito con essa. E incrementare la competitività delle nostre merci, la difesa delle nostre imprese da scalate straniere sui ‘mercati’ borsistici…..

ABBIAMO LE MANI LEGATE dalla UE-BCE: la quale altro non è CHE L’ INTERFACCIA POLITICO-FINANZIARIA DELLA BELVA N.A.T.O. !

La quale, scatenando QUANTE PIU’ GUERRE, STRAGI E GENOCIDI….Non importa neppure più se a fini di saccheggio !

Vige infatti nuovamente l’ antica ‘logica-Rotschild’. Scatenare guerra tra i Sovrani di Francia ed Inghilterra, PERCHE’ QUESTI SI INDEBITASSERO VERSO DI LORO, ‘ramo inglese’ e ‘ramo francese’, ONDE LUCRARE GLI INTERESSI RELATIVI !!!!!

Semplice e geniale…Così le Nazioni Atlantizzate vengono DISSANGUATE DALLA RAZZA PURA-WALL STREET.

La quale, pur diabolica per adorare indefinitamente LO STERCO DI SATANA e accumularlo in infinità quantità, ha ricevuto, con le arti infernali che la portano AL COMANDO DELLA GUERRA INFINITA CONTRO LE NAZIONI, I POPOLI, LE RELIGIONI E LE CULTURE CHE TUTTE VOGLIONO DISTRUGGERE E CANCELLARE INSIEME CON GLI STATI CHE LE ORGANIZZANO, come in Libia e Siria dopo Vietnam, Iraq, Afghania ed altre infinite….. anche il suo punto debole. LA SMODATA AVIDITA’, che alla fine, sempre la perde.

Onde, perfino in USA, dove il denaro, al contrario che in Europa-schiava, LETTERALMENTE LA BANCA CENTRALE ED IL TESORO TE LO TIRANO ADDOSSO DAGLI ELICOTTERI, la Rivoluzione Omericana dei Tea Parties, Pagana e Cristianissima in tempo stesso, l’ ha messa nuovamente spalle al muro.

SICCOME PROPRIO A STALINGRADO E NORIMBERGA.

AVE, EUROMA NOSTRA, NUOVAMENTE SOVRANA NELLE NAZIONI !

napoLibera

Demokratie aktiv in die Welt bringen

By , 09/01/2012 13:24

Wo liegen heute weltweit die grössten Problemzonen? Hier eine lange Liste, das Inhaltsverzeichnis eines Buches von http://killinghope.org/

Killing Hope: US Military and CIA
Interventions Since World War II.

by William Blum

Table of Contents

Introduction
1. China – 1945 to 1960s: Was Mao Tse-tung just paranoid?
 2. Italy – 1947-1948: Free elections, Hollywood style
3. Greece – 1947 to early 1950s: From cradle of democracy to client state
4. The Philippines – 1940s and 1950s: America’s oldest colony
5. Korea – 1945-1953: Was it all that it appeared to be?
6. Albania – 1949-1953: The proper English spy
7. Eastern Europe – 1948-1956: Operation Splinter Factor
8. Germany – 1950s: Everything from juvenile delinquency to terrorism
9. Iran – 1953: Making it safe for the King of Kings
10. Guatemala – 1953-1954: While the world watched
11. Costa Rica – Mid-1950s: Trying to topple an ally – Part 1
12. Syria – 1956-1957: Purchasing a new government
13. Middle East – 1957-1958: The Eisenhower Doctrine claims another backyard for America
14. Indonesia – 1957-1958: War and pornography
15. Western Europe – 1950s and 1960s: Fronts within fronts within fronts
16. British Guiana – 1953-1964: The CIA’s international labor mafia
17. Soviet Union – Late 1940s to 1960s: From spy planes to book publishing
18. Italy – 1950s to 1970s: Supporting the Cardinal’s orphans and techno-fascism
19. Vietnam – 1950-1973: The Hearts and Minds Circus
20. Cambodia – 1955-1973: Prince Sihanouk walks the high-wire of neutralism
21. Laos – 1957-1973: L’Armée Clandestine
22. Haiti – 1959-1963: The Marines land, again
23. Guatemala – 1960: One good coup deserves another
24. France/Algeria – 1960s: L’état, c’est la CIA
25. Ecuador – 1960-1963: A text book of dirty tricks
26. The Congo – 1960-1964: The assassination of Patrice Lumumba
27. Brazil – 1961-1964: Introducing the marvelous new world of death squads
28. Peru – 1960-1965: Fort Bragg moves to the jungle
29. Dominican Republic – 1960-1966: Saving democracy from communism by getting rid of democracy
30. Cuba – 1959 to 1980s: The unforgivable revolution
31. Indonesia – 1965: Liquidating President Sukarno … and 500,000 others
East Timor – 1975: And 200,000 more
32. Ghana – 1966: Kwame Nkrumah steps out of line
33. Uruguay – 1964-1970: Torture — as American as apple pie
34. Chile – 1964-1973: A hammer and sickle stamped on your child’s forehead
35. Greece – 1964-1974: “Fuck your Parliament and your Constitution,” said
the President of the United States
36. Bolivia – 1964-1975: Tracking down Che Guevara in the land of coup d’etat
37. Guatemala – 1962 to 1980s: A less publicized “final solution”
38. Costa Rica – 1970-1971: Trying to topple an ally — Part 2
39. Iraq – 1972-1975: Covert action should not be confused with missionary work
40. Australia – 1973-1975: Another free election bites the dust
41. Angola – 1975 to 1980s: The Great Powers Poker Game
42. Zaire – 1975-1978: Mobutu and the CIA, a marriage made in heaven
43. Jamaica – 1976-1980: Kissinger’s ultimatum
44. Seychelles – 1979-1981: Yet another area of great strategic importance
45. Grenada – 1979-1984: Lying — one of the few growth industries in Washington
46. Morocco – 1983: A video nasty
47. Suriname – 1982-1984: Once again, the Cuban bogeyman
48. Libya – 1981-1989: Ronald Reagan meets his match
49. Nicaragua – 1981-1990: Destabilization in slow motion
50. Panama – 1969-1991: Double-crossing our drug supplier
51. Bulgaria 1990/Albania 1991: Teaching communists what democracy is all about
52. Iraq – 1990-1991: Desert holocaust
53. Afghanistan – 1979-1992: America’s Jihad
54. El Salvador – 1980-1994: Human rights, Washington style
55. Haiti – 1986-1994: Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?
56. The American Empire – 1992 to present

 

Da geht einem doch ein Licht auf, oder?

Und hier noch ein kleines, aber nicht weniger wichtiges Zitat aus dem Artikel

The Anti-Empire Report

January 3rd, 2012
by William Blum
www.killinghope.org

Zitat: ” There are two major patterns in foreign policy: the rule of force or the rule of law. On February 8, 1819 the US decided, after a very long debate in the House, to reject the rule of law in foreign policy. The vote was 100 to 70 against requiring the Congress to approve illegal invasions of other countries or peoples. This pertained to the “Seminole War”, actually the invasion of Florida. Since then every president has had the right to “defend America”, code words for the use of force against whomever he chooses. — Kelly Gelgering”

Hatte fast die Vermutung das so etwas dahinter steckt.  Leider ist das Ziel nicht die Demokratie, sondern Geld und Macht einiger weniger.

Why Corporates Are Not Interested In Socially And Ecologically Resonsible Behaviour (And How To Change This)

By , 22/10/2011 23:20

The following article found on nancho.net I consider fundamental for understanding and consequently changing the laws which drive corporates to act in ways that are not only against public interst but purely destructive.

What intrigued me is the ‘holistic’ approach of changing the reason for a problem instead of fighting the problem itself. This would help avoid all the negative emotions evoked by the fight which, by definition, are contraproductive.

Here’s the article, decide for yourself…

How Corporate Law Inhibits Social Responsibility
A Corporate Attorney Proposes a ‘Code for Corporate Citizenship’ in State Law by Robert C Hinkley

After 23 years as a corporate securities attorney-advising large corporations on securities offerings and mergers and acquisitions-I left my position as partner at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom because I was disturbed by the game. I realized that the many social ills created by corporations stem directly from corporate law. It dawned on me that the law, in its current form, actually inhibits executives and corporations from being socially responsible. So in June 2000 I quit my job and decided to devote the next phase of my life to making people aware of this problem. My goal is to build consensus to change the law so it encourages good corporate citizenship, rather than inhibiting it.

The provision in the law I am talking about is the one that says the purpose of the corporation is simply to make money for shareholders. Every jurisdiction where corporations operate has its own law of corporate governance. But remarkably, the corporate design contained in hundreds of corporate laws throughout the world is nearly identical. That design creates a governing body to manage the corporation-usually a board of directors-and dictates the duties of those directors. In short, the law creates corporate purpose. That purpose is to operate in the interests of shareholders. In Maine, where I live, this duty of directors is in Section 716 of the business corporation act, which reads: …the directors and officers of a corporation shall exercise their powers and discharge their duties with a view to the interests of the corporation and of the shareholders….

Although the wording of this provision differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, its legal effect does not. This provision is the motive behind all corporate actions everywhere in the world. Distilled to its essence, it says that the people who run corporations have a legal duty to shareholders, and that duty is to make money. Failing this duty can leave directors and officers open to being sued by shareholders.

Section 716 dedicates the corporation to the pursuit of its own self- interest (and equates corporate self-interest with shareholder self- interest). No mention is made of responsibility to the public interest. Section 716 and its counterparts explain two things. First, they explain why corporations find social issues like human rights irrelevant–because they fall outside the corporation’s legal mandate. Second, these provisions explain why executives behave differently than they might as individual citizens, because the law says their only obligation in business is to make money.

This design has the unfortunate side effect of largely eliminating personal responsibility. Because corporate law generally regulates corporations but not executives, it leads executives to become inattentive to justice. They demand their subordinates “make the numbers,” and pay little attention to how they do so. Directors and officers know their jobs, salaries, bonuses, and stock options depend on delivering profits for shareholders. Companies believe their duty to the public interest consists of complying with the law. Obeying the law is simply a cost. Since it interferes with making money, it must be minimized-using devices like lobbying, legal hairsplitting, and jurisdiction shopping. Directors and officers give little thought to the fact that these activities may damage the public interest. Lower-level employees know their livelihoods depend upon satisfying superiors’ demands to make money. They have no incentive to offer ideas that would advance the public interest unless they increase profits. Projects that would serve the public interest–but at a financial cost to the corporation–are considered naive.

Corporate law thus casts ethical and social concerns as irrelevant, or as stumbling blocks to the corporation’s fundamental mandate. That’s the effect the law has inside the corporation. Outside the corporation the effect is more devastating. It is the law that leads corporations to actively disregard harm to all interests other than those of shareholders. When toxic chemicals are spilled, forests destroyed, employees left in poverty, or communities devastated through plant shutdowns, corporations view these as unimportant side effects outside their area of concern. But when the company’s stock price dips, that’s a disaster. The reason is that, in our legal framework, a low stock price leaves a company vulnerable to takeover or means the CEO’s job could be at risk.

In the end, the natural result is that corporate bottom line goes up, and the state of the public good goes down. This is called privatizing the gain and externalizing the cost.

This system design helps explain why the war against corporate abuse is being lost, despite decades of effort by thousands of organizations. Until now, tactics used to confront corporations have focused on where and how much companies should be allowed to damage the public interest, rather than eliminating the reason they do it. When public interest groups protest a new power plant, mercury poisoning, or a new big box store, the groups don’t examine the corporations’ motives. They only seek to limit where damage is created (not in our back yard) and how much damage is created (a little less, please).

But the where-and-how-much approach is reactive, not proactive. Even when corporations are defeated in particular battles, they go on the next day, in other ways and other places, to pursue their own private interests at the expense of the public.

I believe the battle against corporate abuse should be conducted in a more holistic way. We must inquire why corporations behave as they do, and look for a way to change these underlying motives. Once we have arrived at a viable systemic solution, we should then dictate the terms of engagement to corporations, not let them dictate terms to us.

We must remember that corporations were invented to serve mankind. Mankind was not invented to serve corporations. Corporations in many ways have the rights of citizens, and those rights should be balanced by obligations to the public.

Many activists cast the fundamental issue as one of “corporate greed,” but that’s off the mark. Corporations are incapable of a human emotion like greed. They are artificial beings created by law. The real question is why corporations behave as if they are greedy. The answer is the design of corporate law.

We can change that design. We can make corporations more responsible to the public good by amending the law that says the pursuit of profit takes precedence over the public interest. I believe this can best be achieved by changing corporate law to make directors personally responsible for harms done.

Let me give you a sense of how director responsibility works in the current system. Under federal securities laws, directors are held personally liable for false and misleading statements made in prospectuses used to sell securities. If a corporate prospectus contains a material falsehood and investors suffer damage as a result, investors can sue each director personally to recover the damage. Believe me, this provision grabs the attention of company directors. They spend hours reviewing drafts of a prospectus to ensure it complies with the law. Similarly, everyone who works on the prospectus knows that directors’ personal wealth is at stake, so they too take great care with accuracy.

That’s an example of how corporate behavior changes when directors are held personally responsible. Everyone in the corporation improves their game to meet the challenge. The law has what we call an in terrorem effect. Since the potential penalties are so severe, directors err on the side of caution. While this has not eliminated securities fraud, it has over the years reduced it to an infinitesimal percentage of the total capital raised. I propose that corporate law be changed in a similar manner–to make individuals responsible for seeing that the pursuit of profit does not damage the public interest.

To pave the way for such a change, we must challenge the myth that making profits and protecting the public interest are mutually exclusive goals. The same was once said about profits and product quality, before Japanese manufacturers taught us otherwise. If we force companies to respect the public interest while they make money, business people will figure out how to do both.

The specific change I suggest is simple: add 26 words to corporate law and thus create what I call the “Code for Corporate Citizenship.” In Maine, this would mean amending section 716 to add the following clause. Directors and officers would still have a duty to make money for shareholders, …

 

“but not at the expense of the environment, human rights, public safety, the communities in which the corporation operates or the dignity of its employees.”

This simple amendment would effect a dramatic change in the underlying mechanism that drives corporate malfeasance. It would make individuals responsible for the damage companies cause to the public interest, and would be enforced much the same way as securities laws are now. Negligent failure to abide by the code would result in the corporation, its directors, and its officers being liable for the full amount of the damage they cause. In addition to civil liability, the attorney general would have the right to criminally prosecute intentional acts. Injunctive relief-which stops specific behaviors while the legal process proceeds-would also be available.

Compliance would be in the self-interest of both individuals and the company. No one wants to see personal assets subject to a lawsuit. Such a prospect would surely temper corporate managers’ willingness to make money at the expense of the public interest. Similarly, investors tend to shy away from companies with contingent liabilities, so companies that severely or repeatedly violate the Code for Corporate Citizenship might see their stock price fall or their access to capital dry up.

Many would say such a code could never be enacted. But they’re mistaken. I take heart from a 2000 Business Week/Harris Poll that asked Americans which of the following two propositions they support more strongly:

Corporations should have only one purpose–to make the most profit for their shareholders–and pursuit of that goal will be best for America in the long run. –or– Corporations should have more than one purpose. They also owe something to their workers and the communities in which they operate, and they should sometimes sacrifice some profit for the sake of making things better for their workers and communities.

An overwhelming 95 percent of Americans chose the second proposition. Clearly, this finding tells us that our fate is not sealed. When 95 percent of the public supports a proposition, enacting that proposition into law should not be impossible.

If business people resist the notion of legal change, we can remind them that corporations exist only because laws allow them to exist. Without these laws, owners would be fully responsible for debts incurred and damages caused by their businesses. Because the public creates the law, corporations owe their existence as much to the public as they do to shareholders. They should have obligations to both. It simply makes no sense that society’s most powerful citizens have no concern for the public good.

It also makes no sense to endlessly chase after individual instances of corporate wrongdoing, when that wrongdoing is a natural result of the system design. Corporations abuse the public interest because the law tells them their only legal duty is to maximize profits for shareholders. Until we change the law of corporate governance, the problem of corporate abuse can never fully be solved.

Robert Hinkley lives in Brooklin, Maine.

Email the author: rchinkley@media2.hypernet.com

Zersiedlung

By , 14/09/2011 18:11

Man spricht viel von Zersiedelung der Schweiz und als Gegenmittel der Siedlungsverdichtung. Solche Prozesse werden durch Zonen und Bauvorschriften gesteuert. Nicht immer mit Erfolg . Einerseits sehe ich fast täglich Orte mitten im besten Kulturland die überbaut werden, andererseits werden in verdichteten Wohnzonen Freiräume knapp. Viele Lücken in der Gesetzgebung ermöglichen es offenbar den Bauherren die wichtige Ziele zu missachten und Aktivitäten mehr auf ihren eigenem Nutzen abzustimmen. Was sollte erreicht werden? Was erhalten wir hingegen? Warum können wir nicht an den Hügeln bauen? Ich habe gesehen, das vielerorts unwirtliche bewaldete Hänge frei bleiben und das gute Land davor wird überbaut! Jetzt sind wir gefragt! Schaffen wir es, Umzudenken ? Lösen wir uns von den alten Schemas wo und wo nicht gebaut werden darf! Erhalten wir unser Kulturland und wohnen dafür vermehrt in Hügel-Siedlungen
Cheers
S

rückwirkende Einführung des Kapitaleinlageprinzips

By , 12/04/2011 20:26

Hä?

Ja meine lieben Freunde, Bekannte und Unbekannte Leser, die rückwirkende Einführung des Kapitaleinlageprinzips ist ein teil der Unternehmenssteuerreform II

Hier der Text von http://sp-ps.ch/ger/Medien/Communiques/2011/Unternehmenssteuerreform-II-SP-fordert-Massnahmen-gegen-Milliardenloecher-in-der-Bundeskasse

 

Die SP-Bundeshausfraktion fordert dringend Massnahmen im Zusammenhang mit der Unternehmenssteuerreform II. Obwohl der damalige Finanzminister Hans-Rudolf Merz im Abstimmungskampf vor dem 24. Februar 2008 versprochen hat, dass die Mindereinnahmen für den Bundeshaushalt rund 50 Millionen betragen, wurde jetzt klar, dass die Unternehmenssteuerreform zu einem Verlustgeschäft in Milliardenhöhe wird. Darum braucht es nun sofort Massnahmen, damit das drohende Milliardendebakel noch abgewendet werden kann. Die SP-Fraktion ruft Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf auf, eine dringliche Gesetzesänderung zu veranlassen. Gleichzeitig verlangt die SP eine ausserordentliche Session. Es muss alles daran gesetzt werden, dass noch rechtzeitig vor den ersten Steuerausfällen dieses nie offengelegte Milliardenschlupfloch gestopft werden kann.

Bisher hat Bundesrätin Widmer Schlumpf erst zugegeben, dass durch die rückwirkende Einführung des Kapitaleinlageprinzips durch die Unternehmenssteuerreform II allein dieses Jahr zusätzlich über 1.2 Milliarden Franken Einnahmenausfälle zu verzeichnen sind. Dieser Fehlbetrag ist eigentlich schon skandalös genug, nachdem unter dieser Rubrik weder in der Botschaft des Bundesrat noch im Abstimmungsbüchlein ein Rappen Mindereinnahmen aufgeführt worden sind. Aufgrund der beim Bund angemeldeten 200 Milliarden Franken Reserven, droht nun aber über die kommenden Jahre ein Steuerausfall in zweistelliger Milliardenhöhe.

Die SP fordert Eveline-Widmer-Schlumpf auf, selber aktiv zu werden und ein dringliches Bundesgesetz vorzulegen, damit nur wirklich substanzzehrende Ausschüttungen steuerfrei möglich sind. Ferner ist die Rückwirkung von sage und schreibe 14 Jahren zur Anrechnung der steuerfreien Reserven sofort aufzuheben. Diese Massnahmen will die SP im Rahmen einer ausserordentlichen Session beschliessen. Diese muss im Rahmen der bevorstehenden Sondersession des Nationalrats stattfinden.

Alles klar?

Nun, meine Frage ist eigentlich: Wenn wir weniger Steuern einehmen, wer erhält dann eigentlich das viele Geld?

die schlimmsten

By , 10/01/2011 11:38

Hallo Zusammen

Jetzt ist eure Stimme gefragt : http://www.publiceye.ch/en/vote

Hier können wir zeigen, das wir mit den skrupellosen Machenschaften unserer Wirtschaft nicht einverstanden sind!

Diese Aktion wird von GREENPEACE www.greenpeace.ch und von  der “Erklärung von Bern (EvB)” www.evb.ch

organisiert.

Folgende Firmen wurden für den Public Eye Awards 2011 nominiert:

1. AngloGold Ashanti vergiftet beim Goldabbau in Ghana Land und Leute

2. Axpo bezieht Uran aus dem verstrahltesten Ort der Welt und hat dies jahrelang verschleiert

3. BPs Öldesaster im Golf von Mexiko hat elf Menschen das Leben gekostet und riesige Meeresgebiete auf Jahre abgetötet.

4. Foxconns miserable Arbeitsbedingungen haben 2010 mindestens 18 junge Chinesen in den Selbstmord getrieben.

5. Neste Oil verkauft unter dem irreführenden Namen „Green Diesel“ im grossen Stil Biosprit aus Regenwaldabholzung.

6. Philip Morris klagt gegen Uruguays Raucherschutzgesetze und unterminiert damit staatlichen Gesundheitsschutz.

Die verbrecherischen Geschäftspraxen vieler internationaler Firmen sind uns schon lange bekannt. Von ihren Früchten profitieren wir aber alle mit! Es ist somit auch unsere Verantwortung, dagegen anzugehen, und sei es nur mit einer Unterstützung für eine der Organisationen, die aktiv gegen solche Verbrechen kämpfen.


Grüsse aus dem Wilden Westen

Milch macht krank – Gedanken zur Milchunverträglichkeit

By , 31/05/2010 14:36

Verschiedene Untersuchungen, verschiedene Resultate, aber der Tenor ist klar: ein grosser Teil der Weltbevölkerung verträgt keine Milch im Erwachsenenalter!

in Europa wird von Zahlen zwischen 5 und 25% ausgegangen, gehörst du auch dazu? Stichwörter sind Laktoseintoleranz und Milcheiweißunverträglichkeit.  Diese “Probleme” entstehen aus verschiedenen physiologischen Gründen, aber zusammengefasst kann man sagen, das der Körper diese Stoffe nicht richtig verdaut und darauf eine mehr oder weniger komplexe Abfolge von unerwünschten Reaktionen entsteht. Das Zusammenwirken ist vielfälltig und die Medizin scheint nicht sehr Lösungsorientiert zu sein…

Leidest du unter Beschwerden wie Durchfall, Blähungen, Völlegefühl, Magendrücken, Luftaufstoßen, Meteorismus, Koliken, Bauchschmerzen, Darmkrämpfen, Übelkeit bis zum Erbrechen, Migräneattacken, Kreislaufproblemen, Schwächeanfällen?Häufen sich die Beschwerden nach dem Capuccino oder sonstigem Milchkonsum?

Ja dann  🙁

Ich gehöre leider dazu und habe es zum Glück rausgefunden!!! Denn:

Viele Jahre litt ich unter obgenannten Symptomen und zusätzlich unter starkem Ekzem an allen möglichen und unmöglichen Körperstellen, starkem Jukreiz, trockene Haut, bis hin zu darausfolgenden Schlafstörungen.

Als ich alle Möglichkeiten der Therapie ausgeschöpft hatte und alle Diagnosen ohne Resultate blieben, habe ich mich hingesetzt und ein bisschen genauer beobachtet. Irgendwann hats dann gedämmert: Iss keine Milchprodukte – Ekzem verschwindet. Gegentest: iss Milch – Ekzem erscheint wieder. Beliebig wiederholbar.

Mein Schluss: viel Milch ist für mich giftig! So einfach ist das.

Liebe Grüsse an die Milchindustrie

Stefan

checkitout

PS: Ich habe auch einen Artikel über Galaktoseintoleranz gelesen, das ist nochmals ein eigenes Kapitel.

Wirtschaft

By , 03/05/2010 11:06

“Die Ratingagentur Standard & Poor’s hatte letzte Woche die Kreditwürdigkeit Griechenlands auf Ramsch-Niveau herabgestuft.” NZZ 03.05.2010

Wurde die Schuldenprobleme Griechenlandes von den Ratingangencies beschleunigt oder sogar verstärkt? Können die Ratingagencies über das Schicksal einer Nation  bestimmen? Das drohende Damoklesschwert der Zahlungsunfähigkeit schwebt über einem ganzen Land. Ich kann mir den Eindruck nicht erwehren, das diese Agenturen hier eine wichtige Rolle spielen. Zu wichtig. Offenbar haben das auch die Finanzminister der EU erkannt. Die finanzierung eines Landes kann nicht ducht undefinierbare Agenturen bestimmt werden. Wer steckt überhaupt dahinter?

Eine wichtige Frage wäre zudem: Wer hat eigentlich das interesse an einem Zusammenbruch einer Nation? DH, wer verdient daran?

Würde mich nicht wundern, wenn die Ratingagenturen hier die Hand drin haben …

S

Panorama Theme by Themocracy