Policy criteria

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

Dear Homestead group

I am not sure that I understand the last post by Alan or if we differ in
our policy preferences.
Alan indicates that he is inclined to favour policies that improve "the
financial status of citizens in economic distress".  

Does this mean that Alan is concerned about citizens who need to rely on
government handouts?  Not workers and former workers who have become
beneficiaries of investment income in Canadian Labor Sponsored Investment
Funds or from other entitlements to assets?

Alan does raise a fundamental political question about the misssion of COG.
 I always assumed it was about sharing and spreading economic and so social
freedom from DISCRETIONARY private property.  As Zhu Rongji told me at a
public meeting in Sydney on February 17th, 1992, "You cannot have a
political democracy unless you have an economic democracy"  On this
criteria neither the US, Australia or any other country in the world has
met the criteria for democracy suggested by a leader of the PRC!!!!!!

80% in value of all publicly traded companies in the UK are owned by
institutions.  Only around 60 UK institutions control 60% of value and so
the power to appoint most boards.  Even the 300 or more politicians in the
UK do not have this power!  In Australia, around 60 investment institutions
hold shares for 50% (9 million) of all Australian which represent 50% in
value of all publicly traded companies.  So 60 non accountable non
democratic institutions have the power to appoint most publicly traded
boards for nine million Australians!  My preference is to avoid pension
fund socialism and centralisation in control with the power to corrupt both
people and economic performance. Not to mentions alienation, and
colonisation of individuals, etc. etc.

I do not see how one can be concerned about spreading ownership without
also being concerned about spreading and democratising control of property.
 It is for this reason that my current research is I focussed on the
governance details of our economic institutions.  An issue neglected by
Kelso and his followers.

Regards

Shann

At 05:29 AM 28/1/2000 , IPGmail@aol.com wrote:
>Apologies to Shann for sending this twice; my "reply-to" function sent it to 
>him instead of the whole list as intended.  --AZ
>
>I perceive a difference in priorities in assessments of various policy 
>devices for spreading ownership.  Some have changing the character of 
>corporate decisions as of first importance, others are more interested in 
>improving the financial status of citizens in economic distress.  Of course 
>both are worthwhile, but which comes first will affect your judgment of 
>whether a particular policy is getting us "there" or not.
>
>I confess my first priority is improving people's financial status.  I am a 
>little skeptical that democratizing ownership and making corporate governance 
>accountable to more ordinary citizens will really change their decisions all 
>that much.  A little skeptical, but open to persuasion.  Once people are more 
>economically secure they may be more educable about corporate social 
>responsibility, but until then I would expect they would simply want more 
>income.
>
>Alan Zundel
>Institute for the Public Good
>http://www.publicgood.org

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
Alternate:sturnbull@optusnet.com.au
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~sturnbull/index.html