Re: Olson response to Turnbull use of Quid Pro Quo idea in question to Australian Senator

[Deborah Groban Olson <dgo@esoplaw.com>]

Dear Shann:

        I am delighted that you found my thoughts useful in your questions to
Senator Murray. Earlier this summer I was corresponding with Tim Mitchell
about speaking at the AEOC and at the NSW Labour Council meetings in
Februray. Is that still a possibility? 

        Thank you for your original comments on my proposal. I am very 
interested
in addressing your concerns when I write the final draft. I did not
entirely understand some of your comments. Please explain what you meant by
"This can lead to secondary and Higher order Quip pro quo new stock issues
diluting  lower order quid pro quo stock dilutions."

        Also, are you familiar with the funciton of the Canadian labour venture
funds? I will try to get information on them to the Homestead group.  They
have devised a very hands-on oversight that may avoid the watching the
watchers problem. They are provincial funds and, in Quebec, they have
sub-provincial funds as well, so that there is a lot of local control.

        I also appreciate your open-minded approach to new ideas. My expertise 
is
greater in the organizing of coalitions than it is in development of policy
options. The key to COG's success as a coalition is its ability to engage
diverse people, get the benefit of their thoughts, and find common ground
for action.  On that note, do you think we should set up a separate
discussion group for more highly technical wrangling between certain
advocates?  We have already had some unsubscribing due to concerns about
excessive email traffic from evangalistic advocates. I do not want to limit
discussion, but I feel some obligation to channel discussion in a way that
encourages people to offer up new and old ideas for respectful hearing.

Thanks,
Deb Olson
1999 +1000, you wrote:
>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
>