|
COG
|
Homestead Discussion |
|||||||||
| |
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Policy Proposal - Stock Quid Pro Quo for WTO and Gov't. Largesse
Dear Homesteaders: I am currently working on an article for the American Prospect web site on the ICC aspects of the >> >> >> WTO and its world government constitutional ramifications. The >> >> >> essential point is that throughout US histsory, the ICC has been the >> >> >> engine of increased federal power and decreased state power,and that >> >> >> civil society must retain ultimate authorithy over the interests of >> >> >> commerce. In some cases, like the New Deal legislation, the broad ICC >> >> >> reach has been a good thing. But the New Deal was created in response >> >> >> to enormous agitation in the streets for social and economic justice. >> >> >> >> >> >> In response to your request for specific proposals, that might >> >> >> be discussed at your Globalization Teach-in, following is an excerpt >> >> >> from a proposal I am only now sending out to the COG Homestead >> >> >> discussion group. It has not yet been reviewed or discussed by the >> >> >> others. It is a concept that could be used in international trade >> >> >> agreements or charters or in national or regional constitutions or as >> >> >> legislation. >> >> >> >> >> >> It is not a COG position. At present it is solely my >> >> >> responsibility. I began working on it based on conversations I had >> >> >> with Bill Greider on solutions to the problems he outlined in his >> >> >> book, One World Ready or Not, the Manic Logic of Global Capitalism. I >> >> >> highly recommend his book for both problem exposition and an outline >> >> >> of some solutions. >> >> >> >> >> >> My proposal is still in development. I hope to have in a more >> >> >> useable and publishable form as of the November 30 events. Please do >> >> >> not publish it without my consent, as I would like to further refine >> >> >> it. However, a rough draft is: >> >> >> >> >> >> " One of several proposed solutions to the problem of capital >> >> >> concentration is: broad individual ownership of productive capital by >> >> >> the general population, derived from future retained earnings, NOT >> >> >> expropriation of existing wealth. This particular proposal is one of a >> >> >> number being discussed on-line at the Capital Ownership Group/ virtual >> >> >> conference center at http://cog.kent.edu in the “Industrial Homestead >> >> >> Policy",open to the public. >> >> >> >> >> >> (This group is discussing several proposals related to the >> >> >> WTO. In various ways they all deal with requiring corporations to >> >> >> distribute ownership to employees, local communities and/or the >> >> >> general public in exchange for benefits they get from either trade >> >> >> agreements or governments. COG invites participation from others who >> >> >> are interested in serious discussion about creating proposals, >> >> >> implementation strategies and vehicles. COG’s primary concern is to >> >> >> develop an ongoing coalition to create a viable alternative to the WTO >> >> >> model that meets the needs of people in the developing and the >> >> >> developed world. We want to create policy proposals around which >> >> >> people's organizations can coalesce and organize. COG is building an >> >> >> on-line library and welcomes articles and links to other websites.) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Stock Quid Pro Quo Proposal >> >> >> >> >> >> 1) Intent: Stock to workers, citizens and labor-venture funds as quid >> >> >> pro quo for government largesse >> >> >> >> >> >> The intent of this proposal is to reverse concentration of capital, >> >> >> provide a stream of income for all citizens, and give citizens a voice >> >> >> in governance of major corporations. >> >> >> >> >> >> a) Use existing government largesse to businesses to >> >> >> require distribution of capital to citizenry at large. >> >> >> b) Create a diverse electorate within corporations as >> >> >> political hegemony transfers from nation-states to global >> >> >> corporations. >> >> >> c) Create new private, stock fund entities, modeled on >> >> >> the Canadian Labor Venture Funds, to manage these assets in >> >> >> the collective self-interest of the citizen-shareholders. >> >> >> d) Use the citizen-shareholder funds both to educate >> >> >> the citizen-shareholders and to help them wield their market >> >> >> power in the interests of local communities. >> >> >> >> >> >> 2) Proposed Language >> >> >> >> >> >> This is rough draft model language for amendment of national >> >> >> constitutions, model state or local legislation, might serve as a >> >> >> “green light subsidy proposal” in international trade proposals such >> >> >> as the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI), the North American >> >> >> Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas >> >> >> (FTAA) and other similar international agreements on investment and >> >> >> trade, or as an addition to the UN Charter or in other international >> >> >> agreements such as a policy direction for the United Nations >> >> >> Commission on Trade and Economic Development (UNCTED). >> >> >> >> >> >> “In exchange for government largesse (from every level of government) >> >> >> to businesses require governments to provide a quid pro quo at fair >> >> >> market value to the common weal.” >> >> >> >> >> >> 3) Definitions of these terms (perhap in enabling legislation): >> >> >> >> >> >> “Commonweal” means private or public entities, including >> >> >> non-governmental trusts, employee trusts, community trusts, stock >> >> >> funds, investment funds, co-operatives, for-profit and non-profit >> >> >> corporations, and other entities provided they met specific tests of >> >> >> bona fide interest in protecting the long term economic, social, >> >> >> ecological and/or cultural interests of the local citizens. When >> >> >> developed in greater detail this definition shall provide mechanisms >> >> >> for responsible parties, such as labor-venture funds (such as those in >> >> >> Quebec and Manitoba fashioned under the Canadian labor-venture fund >> >> >> law), community development financial institutions, credit unions, and >> >> >> other certifiably locally controlled financial institutions to hold >> >> >> the quid pro quo stock responsibly in a manner that would encourage >> >> >> public markets to continue to invest in these companies and >> >> >> communities. >> >> >> >> >> >> “ Government largesse” means any tax deduction, abatement, grant, >> >> >> government subsidized or guaranteed loan, license, lease, concession, >> >> >> or contract, etc. >> >> >> >> >> >> “Fair market value” has its current definition under the US Internal >> >> >> Revenue Service and the US Tax Court ( or similar institutions in >> >> >> other countries or within international trade law, if such a concept >> >> >> exists therein and is as well developed as the US tax law concept. >> >> >> >> >> >> “Quid pro quo” means corporate common stock with the greatest voting >> >> >> and dividend rights or preferred stock convertible into such common >> >> >> stock or its equivalent in cash. >> >> >> >> >> >> 4) Intended Effects? >> >> >> >> >> >> a) Deter government units from competing with each other for >> >> >> corporate location by means that undermine local economies. >> >> >> b) Build a diverse stock portfolio for every citizen over a >> >> >> generation. >> >> >> c) Create a source of non-wage income and a vote in >> >> >> corporate decision from a diverse citizenry. >> >> >> d) Create means for the new corporate citizenry to >> >> >> intelligently and collectively exercise their concerns by >> >> >> electing some members of the boards of directors of the funds >> >> >> that hold their stock. The majority of the board members would >> >> >> need to meet fiduciary competence criteria and the funds would >> >> >> have to carry fiduciary insurance. The boards of these funds >> >> >> would hire professional managers. Some of these funds could be >> >> >> pension type and others could be more like mutual funds or IRAs. >> >> >> Individuals would have the ability to move their funds every five >> >> >> years to a similar type of fund (i.e. pension money might have to >> >> >> move only to other pension type funds). Thus the funds could be >> >> >> assured of patient capital, while individuals would have some >> >> >> ability to vote with their feet, and some ability to use their >> >> >> own capital to create new businesses, buy homes, educate >> >> >> children, etc. >> >> >> >> >> >> 5) What Next? >> >> >> Use these proposals as a program (or part of a larger program) around >> >> >> which to organize diverse constituencies concerned with capital >> >> >> concentration and loss of local control by labor and local >> >> >> governments, and as part of the civil society agenda for trade >> >> >> negotiations promoted by citizen groups." I look forward to your comments. Deb Olson > Attorney Deborah Groban Olson
Principal
Shared Equity Strategies, Inc.
3163 Penobscot Bldg.
645 Griswold St.
Detroit, MI 48226
(ph) 313/ 331-7821 or 964-2460
(f) 313/ 331-2567 or 964-4065
dgo@EsopLaw.com
ESOP and stock plan professionals, providing legal, financial and administrative guidance to create and maintain employee stock ownership plans and other forms of equity compensation.
|