Re: What is the ICC per Shann Turnbull's Question

[Shann Turnbull <sturnbull@mba1963.hbs.edu>]

Dear Deb

Thank you for your explanation.

I agree that any form of Community Investment Code (CIC) which encouraged
"Stock Quid Pro Quo for Government Largesse" for the WTO should further
"uninhibited trade between states" while protecting the "rights of
sovereign governments to govern".  I believe that your approach provides
its own self-evident rational without the need to invoke alternative
economic thinking.

I raised the principles of your "Stock Quid Pro Quo for Government
Largesse" proposal with Democrat Senator Andrew Murray from Western
Australia during question time after a public luncheon speech yesterday on
Tax reform in Australia.  Senator Murray is the tax spokesperson for his
party which has the balance of power in the Senate between the
Liberal/National party coalition government and the opposition Australian
Labor Party which privatisation list member Tim Mitchell is an activist.

Senator Murray told us that fifty of the largest one hundred economies in
the world are Corporations!
Clearly corporations now transgress the  "rights of sovereign governments
to govern".

The Australian Government last week announced proposals for major tax
reform which could need the vote of the Democrats to pass.  Among many
other changes they are proposing is one to reduce accelerated depreciation
in exchange for a lower corporate tax.  I asked the Senator if companies
should be able to retain the option of keeping accelerated depreciation
with the lower tax rate on the basis that ownership of the assets being
depreciated were vested in a stakeholders trust at the same rate they were
written off for tax purposes.  In this way a joint venture would be
established between employees, and other stakeholders and the corporation
to democratise wealth.

However, he did not directly respond, instead he spoke about the defects of
a unitary board and proposals for democratising the control of
corporations.  On the initiative of Senator Murray, our Parliament is
currently taking evidence from the public on the desirability for all
publicly traded corporations in Australia to have a Corporate Governance
Board (like a Mondragon "Watchdog board") and electing directors by a form
of proportional voting described as cumulative voting in your country as
set out at http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/ADVERT/corp_com.htm
Refer to his minority report sections 4 & 5 on democratisation of companies
and measures to improve corporate governance at
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/corp_sec_ctte/companylaw/minreport.htm

I will share a copy of this note with Senator Murray to give him a written
record of my question and relate my question to the wider issues of a CIC
with the WTO and the concerns of my book "Democratising The Wealth of Nations".

Regards to all

Shann

At 05:59 PM 24/9/1999 -0400, Deborah Groban Olson wrote:
>Shann Trunbull asked me to define "ICC" as used in my previous policy
>piece. The "ICC" I refer to in my "Stock Quid Pro Quo for Government
>Largesse" piece is the Interstate Commerce Clause (ICC) of the United
>States Constitution. This is the context. I think the WTO trade agreements
>serve the same function for the world as the Interstate Commerce Clause
>does for the US. The purpose of the ICC was to require uninhibited trade
>between the states,  barring all tariffs or other state legislation that
>would inhibit such trade. It has been used over the centuries to create a
>much stronger federal government than the founders imangined, which has had
>primarily positive effects, but perhaps some negative ones as well. The
>important point about the comparison with the WTO, is that the ICC was
>part of a larger Constitution which explicitly protected rights of
>individuals and the  several States.  The WTO negotiated trade agreements
>do not deal with the political and social fallout to civil society which
>they may engender. Those usually are covered by a Constitution. If there
>are agreements between governments on trade that drastically curtail the
>rights of soverign governments to govern, then those international
>agreements need to address other issues of civil society.
>
>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
>www.EsopLaw.com
>www.Shared-Equity.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.
>
>

Shann Turnbull
P.O. Box 266 Woollahra, Sydney, Australia, 1350
Phone: 02 9328 7466 office; 02 9327 8487 home
Fax: 02 9327 1497 home & office.  Mobile 0418 222 378
Outside Australia, replace first "0" with "61" after international access code
Life long E-mail: sturnbull@mba1963.hbs.edu
http://www.mpx.com.au/~sturnbull/index.html