Corporations are using up the world's resources at an ever-faster rate, and that provides humanity with immediate, visible profits. These *immediate* profits are what is valued by corporations on the basis of classical economics (what most economists are taught at university)

However, if we continue on this consuming spree, it will have dire effects for our planet and humanity further down the line, and it won't take as long as you might think, either.

Conserving our planet is not just a cause for tree-huggers, it is about securing the future for humanity.
But unless a paradigm shift takes place in economics, we are heading for disaster.

It is corporations and industry that are producing these ecological problems. In order to tackle the problems of world resources, as well as very important humanitarian issues, the law that governs corporations, and the corporate view of economics, must change.

The first thing that needs to change is the rule (specified by law) that all corporations have a duty to their stockholders over *anything* else.
That includes environmental issues, looking after their workers, and looking after the health of their customers/consumers.

For example, Montano can produce milk that will be bad for the people that drink it- and they can hide this from the consumers, and they can make a profit.

It is in all our intersts to change economics, because it is what corporations run on.

Economics needs to *take into account* these issues, regaining control of the corporate monster that is conditioned, by law, to think only in terms of fast, big profits. Economics needs to balance out the true, longer-term cost of corporate actions.

I want a world in which corporations who think about their stockholders, their workers, and the environment, are more profitable than those who work for their stockholders, and nothing else.

It's time for a revolution in the way politicians, corporations, and society think about big business.

The first step is simply to spread the word and sow the seeds of change.

This is a long post, but I've by no means painted the whole picture. For more info and campaigning ideas, go to:

http://adbusters.org/metas/eco/truecosteconomics/

quote:

Originally posted by penmagic:
Corporations are using up the world's resources at an ever-faster rate, and that provides humanity with immediate, visible profits. These *immediate* profits are what is valued by corporations on the basis of classical economics (what most economists are taught at university)

However, if we continue on this consuming spree, it will have dire effects for our planet and humanity further down the line, and it won't take as long as you might think, either.

Conserving our planet is not just a cause for tree-huggers, it is about securing the future for humanity.
But unless a paradigm shift takes place in economics, we are heading for disaster.

It is corporations and industry that are producing these ecological problems.

You don't take any blame? If you are so worried about thi I'd fully expect you to use products that support your views. Yet do you? If not you are also at fault.

quote:

The first thing that needs to change is the rule (specified by law) that all corporations have a duty to their stockholders over *anything* else.

Which law is this? Link/ Source please?

quote:

That includes environmental issues, looking after their workers, and looking after the health of their customers/consumers.

For example, Montano can produce milk that will be bad for the people that drink it- and they can hide this from the consumers, and they can make a profit.

It is in all our intersts to change economics, because it is what corporations run on.

Economics needs to *take into account* these issues, regaining control of the corporate monster that is conditioned, by law, to think only in terms of fast, big profits. Economics needs to balance out the true, longer-term cost of corporate actions.

I want a world in which corporations who think about their stockholders, their workers, and the environment, are more profitable than those who work for their stockholders, and nothing else.

That does happen. Those companies that take care of employees and consumers get more profits. It's more profitable longterm to focus on consumer happiness.

quote:

Shareholders comprise a *very* small minority of the planet. I'd bet none of them live in the third world.

I don't think I am a communist. I've been studying Stalin's Russia in history and judging from that, communism is unmanageable and generally distorts into some kind of nightmare.

But I thought that so many years after the Cold War, the idea that 'communism' is a dirty word might have changed a bit. It's a political stance and there's nothing shocking about it. I don't think it applies to me though.

Don't get all upset and dewfensive, I was simply asking whether or not you advocated the communist ideals of giving individual freedom and liberty and property?

Shareholders probably don't live in Honduras and work in the local fish market, but plenty of hard working lower and middle class Americans own stocks in some way or another, these people are shareholders. If the market is allowed to settle itself out, everyone will win, if not then everyone will lose.

You pinko.

Shareholders comprise a *very* small minority of the planet. I'd bet none of them live in the third world.

I don't think I am a communist. I've been studying Stalin's Russia in history and judging from that, communism is unmanageable and generally distorts into some kind of nightmare.

But I thought that so many years after the Cold War, the idea that 'communism' is a dirty word might have changed a bit. It's a political stance and there's nothing shocking about it. I don't think it applies to me though.

-Pen

On the taxes comment, I was just telling you that if anything needed to change in regard to government and business it is government getting their dirty hands out of it.

Businesses do not have a responsibility to the "majority". In communism they do, are you advocating for communism?

I am saying that if businesses serve their shareholders, then they will end up serving everyone else. Prices will fall, and compliance with regulations will rise. It all follows, the business and thus the share holders don't make money if the prices of the product are so high that no one shops there, or if the government is suing them all of the time for tax evasion and fraud, and environmental issues. Compliance with law should be incentive driven though, not punishment driven, but I digress.

Businesses that serve their stock holders serve the "greater good" if that is how you want to say it.

I understood perfectly that you were arguing against me and that you are for the shareholder system.

I disagree with you about it being right to serve stockholders first. I think that if you're only serving stockholders - a minority - at the expense of the huge majority then that is unfair. Stockholders should be a major consideration but they should not be the *only* consideration.

Your moral viewpoint seems to be rather different from mine.

At the moment, I do not understand how lowering taxes relates to the issue, but you could explain it further if you like.

Please re read my last post and address the points. I disagree with you on a most basic level and you continue to act like I accept that it is wrong to serve stockholders first. You post does not address my points at all, if you want to argue about Ivory Tower, academic points then go to your Professor, if you want to talk logic and reason please begin.

quote:

If they hurt the environment they will get sued, this hurts their stockholder.

Well no, not really.

quote:

Methanex is a Canadian corporation that makes methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) an oxygenate gasoline additive.

MTBE was banned by California because of its perceived threat to humans and the water supply.

Gov. Davis found "on balance, there is significant risk to the environment from using MTBE in gasoline in California."

Methanex claims that the science supporting the ban is inadequate, despite evidence that MTBE causes cancers in some lab animals.

Methanex sued the U.S. for $970 million, claiming that California’s environmental regulation:

The MTBE ban illegally prefers a U.S. product (Ethanol)

Constitutes an illegal expropriation of profit

This case constitutes "a clear threat to California state sovereignty and democratic governance.“

quote:

Metalclad Corp is a U.S. based waste disposal company.

Metalclad constructed and began operating a waste disposal facility in Guadalcazar in the state of San Luis Potosí.

Metalclad did not have full local approval for the plant, but claimed it had assurances from the Mexican federal government.

The plant leaked, was located on an alluvial stream, and contaminated local groundwater.

The governor of San Lois Potosi declared a 600,000 acre environmental protection zone and ordered the plant closed as an environmental hazard.

Metalclad sued for $90 million for lost costs, expropriated profits, and an order that it be allowed to reopen the plant.
Metalclad won 19.7 million in damages and rhe right to reopen the plant.

That's just a couple of examples from the pile.

Notice how corporations can sue on the basis of 'lost profits'? This is because as a corporation their primary duty is to make profits for their shareholders, and *they* can sue if other people get in the way of that.

Legislation has been introduced over time to try to make corporations more accountable to the environment, their workers and their consumers, but it is still what's called the 'doctrine of shareholder primacy' that wins out. That is still the most powerful corporate imperative and the most powerful bargaining tool in the courts.

This is because suing corporations for damage operates very much on an individual-case basis. There is no comprehensive list of rules governing how corporations can and cannot behave. Instead there is a list of laws outlining specific actions that are prohibited.

So corporations can act in a generally harmful way without breaking *specific* individual laws.

And again, I think that this is not a good enough system for economics and law. That corporations can commit these acts and then sue those that object, and for all this to be possible within law, is unacceptable to me. That is why I think there does need to be a change in the rules that govern corporations, making it very clear exactly what is acceptable and in a sense 'redesigning' corporations so that they have a fuller, legally outlined conscience.

-Pen

Yes, companies look out for their stockholders. If the companies prices are too high, they will not make money, this will hurt the stockholder. If they hurt the environment they will get sued, this hurts their stockholder. Only irresponsible and criminal businesses wouldn't see this and they wont last long.

Companies do not have a responsibiity to "society" they have a responsibility to themselves and thier share holders. It is morally wrong to think otherwise.

They don't "consume" anything, you do... I do... "society" does. If there wasn't demand for items, there would not be the manufacture of those items. I'll tell you a law that needs to be changed: the tax code. It punnishes rather than promotes and encourages business. TAXES SHOULD BE LOWER.

I didn't just find out about this on 'adbusters', I read about similar ideas in 'small is beautiful' and there's also more about it in The Corporation dvd.

I don't believe all corporations are inherently 'evil', but they are conditioned by law to consider their stockholders over anything else.

Surely it is logical to consider other things, especially the health of consumers and *preserving* resources so that there's still oil to go round in a hundred years time!

If we continue consuming at this fast rate, our resources and our planet will bleed dry. That is what ecologists and scientists have been telling us for years, and as they are the ones devoting time and money to researching these issues, I think they're pretty well-informed.

Corporations make decisions that will benefit their *stockholders* in the immediate future, not decisions that will benefit their consumers, their workers, or the future of humanity.

That's why I see it as logical and necessary to make corporations accountable to people other than their stockholders.

But for that to happen, the law would need to change, and the principles of economics would need to change.

Adbusters *is* a biased site, I don't think all their campaigns are worthy, and I do not agree with everything they say. But I agree with them on this one.

-Pen

adbusters.org. A very unbiased and reliable site to learn about business and the environment. Moron.