3 Goals – Anonymous

21 Nov

I’ve been asked a lot about what I think we need to do to change things. I’ve come up with what I believe are 3 Reasonable and Realistic goals.

1) Get Corporations out of Government. Our “Elected Officials” are bought and paid for by Companies. Its hard for a politician to be fair and just, when he got his job through Corporate Donations. Create laws to balance the board for all potential candidates, and let this win their jobs on merit, not TV ads and soundbites, paid for by GlobalCorp. This will help make Government responsible to people again. Make no mistake, this is going to HURT politicians, who will have to work harder to get their jobs, and will have to work hard to keep them. Its time to change this system.

2) End Fractional banking, and Reserve Banking. Tell the Banks that we no longer owe them the money they invented for themselves. Remove fractional banking, so if a Bank wants to lend money, they HAVE TO HAVE IT TO LEND. Worldwide Government debt was invented by Reserve Banks. It has no basis in fact, and needs to be treated like every other imaginary thing. Make no mistake, this is going to HURT Banks, who have made billions inventing debt. Its time to change this system.

3) Create Corporate liability. A Corporation is not a person, and cannot be treated as such. If a person does something wrong, he takes responsibility, and is punished. If a Corporation does something wrong, they have to pay a fine, and layoff the people at the bottom of the pile. Make the people at the top of the pile PERSONALLY responsible for the actions of their Company. If GlobalCorp dumps pollution into a lake, and is fined 100 Million dollars, then the Shareholders can eat 1/3 of that, the CEO and Directors can eat 1/3 of that, THEN the Corporation can eat the other 1/3. If we have PEOPLE responsible and accountable when bad things happen, then those people have a vested interest in making sure those things don’t happen. Make no mistake, this is going to HURT Companies, who haven’t been held accountable for a long time. Its time to change this system.

I don’t see how any of these are not feasible. They are difficult, and its going to take a momentous push to even start the wheel turning, but maybe…. just maybe, we can turn the world into something worth handing to our children.

About these ads

11 Responses to “3 Goals – Anonymous”

  1. Chad Hazzard November 23, 2011 at 10:36 am #

    The legalities of these proposed goals, based on being in Canada, are absolutely correct. The fact is, when researching the issues surrounding these issues, the American perspective is so much more predominant.

    I don’t think that means the points can be ignored however. If we are going to look at this as a Global problem, we have to stop ending the discussion at Canadian Law. Its no secret that the US has dug itself a very deep hole, but I also think we can agree that if our largest trading partner falls, we ARE going with it.

  2. mikeH November 22, 2011 at 2:30 pm #

    Unfortunately, I think point #1 is already pretty much covered in most Canadian elections. Corporations are not permitted to make donations to politicians or parties, and even individuals are significantly limited (typically to a maximum of $1,100 per individual per election). If we are worried about our politicians being “owned” for a matter of a few thousand dollars, I think we are probably fighting a lost cause. I prefer this broad base of interested individuals to the alternatives (particularly, government transfers or concentrated donations from the wealthy/corporations).

    Now, the municipal campaign finance rules are different. Limits are $5,000 per year and corporations can be included. Nenshi spoke at length about how they deserve to be changed, but these rules are under the control of the Provincial government (one level above the City) and people have been lobbying for change for years. One day they will tighten the rules and bring it back to individuals with maximums the encourage “grass roots” campaiging.

    Lastly, I would agree the situation in the USA is much different. Their politicians, at all levels, are bought and paid for. The country is riddled with conflicts of interest so brazen it makes me sick. The things they do are clearly illegal under Canadian laws, and I thank whatever luck put our rules in place early enough to shield us from most of their current fiscal problems.

    • mikeH November 22, 2011 at 2:32 pm #

      Sorry, I guess I should have re-read my first sentence. I mean “unfortunately for your argument”, my overall point being the current Canadian campaign finance regulations are generally “fortunate” for our system of government.

      My apologies for the lack of clarity.

    • Chad Hazzard November 22, 2011 at 5:13 pm #

      I think one of the problems Occupy faces in Canada, is the fact that we aren’t as bad off as the USA is. Unfortunately, it IS a global economy, and when things go bad with our biggest trading partner, we aren’t going to come out unscathed. I don’t believe the Occupy movement is really going to take off until Canada starts to feel the pain. Calgary won’t start paying attention until the price of Oil drops back down to 15 dollars a barrel, or what it was like during the days of the National Energy Program.

      • mikeH November 23, 2011 at 8:14 am #

        It seems unlikely that we will return to prolonged periods of low oil prices, and during the NEP days there were other problems that halted economic growth (e.g. 20% interest rates). In an economic sense, things in the States ARE exceptionally bad, and we are still hovering between $90-$100 /bbl.

        If what you’re saying is the biggest challenge for the Occupy movement in Canada is that our problems aren’t very imposing and therefore the movement doesn’t have enough support to protest, then this is a good thing. I don’t see any way that a few tents in a park in Calgary are going to make an impact on the US government. At least not an impact worthy of the sacrifice that those dozen or so people are making.

  3. A.M. Woods. November 22, 2011 at 8:36 am #

    I don’t think you can compare a Corporation to a Union. A Corporation has one goal: Profit. A Corporation has no moral compass, empathy, or concern for anything other than the dollars it brings in. A Union is not out to make money. Its goal is to protect its own people.

    • Anonymous November 22, 2011 at 9:04 am #

      But who’s going to decide it’s okay to influence peddle if your a union but not if your a corporation. You need the rules to apply across the board or this doesn’t work. Sure, maybe the Union’s goal is to protect it’s own people, but you seem to think that that’s without cost to others. It cost people who morally and freely choose not to join the union. I want to be a teacher in this province but I don’t want to join the union. Good luck finding a job. I don’t want this to fall into a union bad/union good argument but you can’t apply the rules as you see fit and to causes you deem to be worthy/or not. How about a lobby group for tobacco? That’s not a for profit organization.

      Number 3 would be hard pressed to work either. Let’s use the example above. Let’s say CNRL or Suncor get fined 100 million. Okay, that 33 million divided up between over a billion share’s outstanding for each company. That means for each share you own you would have to pay about a whole $0.02 in fines. Considering the shares trade but over $30 today, your looking a less then a rounding error for the shareholder in terms of value. Not much of a deterrent. Add that to the fact it’s a global economy and good luck trying to collect from a shareholder who lives in a different jurisdiction. As for the directors and officers, they’re covered under Directors and Officers insurance. All a fine to them will do is increase your insurance premiums as it’s all underwrited by the same Company that underwrites your car and house insurance. Finally, the Company gets fined but that’s what happens now. And, by the way, that’s also underwrited Environmental and Umbrella Insurance.

      • Chad Hazzard November 22, 2011 at 5:05 pm #

        As the system stands now, a Corporation is considered a Person, in terms of liability. We should have PEOPLE responsible for issues and problems, not a faceless wall. If PEOPLE are accountable for the behavior of their company, they will think before doing actions that will get them in trouble.

        This letter doesn’t have all the answers, but presents some goals. I can pick holes in the details all day, but standing around saying “It cant be done” isn’t getting it done either.

      • mikeH November 23, 2011 at 7:57 am #

        The author’s point 3 (that the directors of a corporation are immune in the case of environmental damage caused by the company) is also incorrect. In Canada, in cases of fraud, misrepresentation, and environmental damage, the courts are able to “pierce the corporate veil” and attach liability to the directors as individuals (for 100% of the award, not 1/3 as in the example). Most large companies insure their directors against this potential situation, but the threat does exist under the current regime.

      • Anonymous November 23, 2011 at 9:18 am #

        MikeH, no where did I say directors could not be personally liable. What I said was that those directors are heavily insured by the Company therefore it’s not as if the money comes out of there own pockets. Also, the 1/3 I was referring to was only using the example from the original posting on the blog. The threat has always existed for Directors and Officers to be sued personally, hence, why they insist on the company paying for the large insurance premiums for D&O. Please read my post again and tell me where I say that directors are immune from environmental damage caused by the Company. I simply state that they are covered under insurance.

        On that note, Chad, I agree, the letter doesn’t have all the answers and my point wasn’t to stand around and pick at it. However, I think you get a hint of the frustration with Occupy Calgary as while this was a good post offering at least a start to some problems, there’s also been alot of “picking holes” from the OC side without any solutions. And when I mean solutions, I mean viable solutions. I don’t think “let’s bring down the whole system” or “capitalism is inherently bad” are statements which offer alot behind it unless you have a viable alternative. This blog is a start and gives you points where you can begin dialogue but some of the other bold, bland statements coming from individuals frustrates me as does the negativity of “this doesn’t work/that doesn’t work”. My thoughts on the movement are if you want change, start with something small with concise goals on how that can be accomplished and work from there. But trying to change “everything now”, that’s just wasting time and resources.

  4. Anonymous November 21, 2011 at 10:09 pm #

    Could you assume point #1 applies to unions as well? Replace the word companies with unions and corporate donations with union donations and Globalcorp with CUPE. I thinks that’s fair.

Discuss!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 29 other followers

%d bloggers like this: