The Future!

Was just having a look at the 'Stock Crash' thread there and not for the first time I was hit, in a nasty fish across the face fashion, by the realisation that a reconfiguration of our capital markets is imperative in order to assuage worries over the long-term sustainability of man-kind. And as a logical corollary to that, it is needed to ensure the economic success of all the nations and companies who form a part of that wider system. If your body is in meltdown then it doesn't really matter that your eyes still work, you're still fcuked.

I alluded to what I'm talking about in my signature a month or so back when I championed a concept formulated by a sound old bloke called Frank Dixon; Total Corporate Responsibility. Now rather than blathering on all day about the manifold considerations (the cows are coming home soon anyway) I'll just give a quick run down and a link to a video in which Dixon outlines his perspective so that we have an initial elucidation of the problem.

Basically there is a systems failure. (something socialists no doubt are aware of, but the staunch capitalists may frown at. Sorry lads, the current system is fcuking up the world, let's deal with it!) The markets are too money-centric and represent a huge barrier to any sort of sustainability plans.

The success of corporations and their managers is adjudged in purely financial terms, ie by their bottom-line profitability. So as much as you may like to be socially and environmentally responsible to the full, because of the overwhelming emphasis on financial aspects you can only go as far as is profitable. Yes market forces play a role, but as long as Cnut Company steadfastly chase profit then they gain an advantage over Conscientious Company as a result of being more attractive to the investor who just wants more money (the vast majority) rather than he who just wants the intangible feeling of well-being from his investment (not really the purpose of the markets is it).

So in this regard Dixon espouses a plethora of different criterion by which corporations can be judged against their competitors so that the best (in terms of doing good for society) company is facilitated by the system to fully prosper and be compensated for the good it does, and thus greatly assist sustainability and of course general happiness all around the world; indicators would range from the obvious such as pollution to the welcome such as misleading advertising and lobbying for more corporate responsibility, and obviously funding institutes and 'scientists' to deny climate change is happening would be frowned upon - take a bow Exxon.

Now I'm sure everyone is concerned about climate change, etc. Personally, the invisible tears and inaudible cries of future generations bemoaning our ineptitude causes me serious disquiet in my hours of silent thought. (honest! :)) Drastic times call for drastic measures. Something much more than reduced CO2 is necessary. I'm not suggesting this TCR thing is any great panacea (haven't really looked into it enough as yet) but it seems that it would be a great tonic for the flailing confidence of the capital markets and give corporations reason to return to their proper, original raison d'etre; creating overall wealth for society.

Feel free to discuss any aspect of this 'future' lark in these turbulent times. But apologies to BohsPartisan I don't think a socialist world is likely and so maybe we should look to corporations to lead the way and begin to redress current wrongs in the old quantity v quality chestnut. Right we'll leave it there for now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingdom hoop

Feel free to discuss any aspect of this 'future' lark in these turbulent times. But apologies to BohsPartisan I don't think a socialist world is likely and so maybe we should look to corporations to lead the way and begin to redress current wrongs in the old quantity v quality chestnut. Right we'll leave it there for now.

---

If you think corporations will lead the way you'll be waiting longer than I will!

One of the more interesting threads in a little while. Will the world's governments institute means of ensuring that they behave? Can we hope for the corporations to find their way to a happy place and release the rest of us?

Corporations were created as a separate kind of entity in order to avoid certain legislative issues in the US towards the end of the 19th century (there are other examples predating this, but this was where it became global). Their significant feature is that, unlike other businesses, their legal identity ois essentially the same as that of the common, or garden, human being. The can't cast a vote or get a driving license, but other than that, they have pretty much all the legal rights of the average person, and in doing so, they shield the shareholders from the legal, financial, and, inevitably, the ethical responsibilities for their behaviour.

I got over-enthusiastic and wrote a hell of a lot on this, so I blogged the rest. If you are not already asleep by now, you can check the rest of what I wrote on my blog, and that should send you off.

Love it or hate it Capitalism is here to stay. You can debate the different forms of but Socialism in Marxist form will likely never succeed. Wages in sport in particular football are a good example.

It is nice to suggest success not based on money but you get into far too many unquantifiable issues then. You suggest compare companies against their competitors but who are they & how you you rank?

Capitalism does not only exist at large Corporate level. It starts with employees. We trade you time for payment. Payment is determined by market rates which is determined by demand & supply. In the boom dot com days IT wages increased but when dot com burst wages dropped & people lost wages.

If you look at the current Global Warming buzz most "Green" products & solutions are being pushed by the private sector. It is unlikely the state can do must because states compete against each other & will take advantage.

I love American and world business - they go apoplectic whenever there is any "interference" from government into business but any time the market goes down everybody bleats for "stimulus" packages or a rate reduction or they blame the regulators, or the FSA, or the lack of regulation.

Morally and intellectually bankrupt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BohsPartisan

If you think corporations will lead the way you'll be waiting longer than I will!

---

:) Fair point, and it's the kernel of the matter. The system in place simply doesn't facilitate corporations to lead the way. But we know change is essential, so it's a matter of how we elicit it. **

The problem isn't a case of CEOs etc being downright malevolent and wanting to ruin the world for their grandkids, but that they are forced into it by overly financial-centric parameters in the markets. So that's why I'm supporting an emphasis-shift in the system to induce requisite changes in behaviour and priorities. Only instead of supporting a change in the political systems (well I would, but not so much) I'd shout, firstly, for a change in the way the success of a corporation is adjudged.

Think of it this way; get companies actively working in common with state interests and the populace will become far more perceptive for enlightenment. Maybe a stepping stone to a socialist world? ;) :)



** Briefly, what options are there?

- Companies; Well you can hope companies take the lead and realise that profits can be made from becoming sustainable, like this pioneering legend has.

- Law/government led; There's the strict legal approach, but that won't work as; the subject matter is inappropriately 'soft'; you'd just see bad behaviour avoided; too hard to enforce; footloose companies will just go where laws are lenient, and; best behaviour wouldn't be adequately compensated.

- Markets; Then there's the market option that would offer huge rewards (incentives) for companies who are the nicest/have the most sustainable model.

Just on cursory thinking it seems clear (to me anyway, others may think differently?) that a market-led approach is the best route to sustainability....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pete

Love it or hate it Capitalism is here to stay.

---

In its current money, money, money guise hurtling us towards dystopia I think I'll choose to hate it thank you. Can't understand why any objective person could love it as it is to be honest.

Quote:

---

You suggest compare companies against their competitors but who are they & how you rank?

---

Innovest are the leading non-financial analysts. Here's a brief outline of what they focus on.

Quote:

---

Capitalism does not only exist at large Corporate level. It starts with employees. We trade you time for payment. Payment is determined by market rates which is determined by demand & supply.

---

Don't get your point there. It's well established through survey and common sense that employees will happily work for less pay if its for a more socially responsible company. Clearly money isn't the only important thing for people.

Since the early days when bartering was the only way to trade and later the introduction of coins, capitalism was always going to win over all. Profit was always key to people trading and human nature is always leading people to better their lot.

Without trading, humans would not have society as we know it. Socialism/Marxist ideas are just that ideas, we cannot change our human nature of betterment and as a result practise will win or idealism

Our animal instinct controls our human nature.

I've always hoped the world would turn out much like the world of Final Fantasy 7. One huge city that the devout capitalists and their minions live in, and dotted towns all over the world that cater for the needs of us, more community minded people.

Don't worry I've already punched myself for being so nerdy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dricky

Without trading, humans would not have society as we know it. Socialism/Marxist ideas are just that ideas, we cannot change our human nature of betterment and as a result practise will win or idealism.

---

Exactly. we can talk how marxism/socialism would be great but human nature will not allow it.

I would suggest that it is only people in the relatively well off West talk about marxism/socialism as people in most parts of the world are happy to get an opportunity to survive or maybe improve their lot.

People may invest in social aware companies but probably only when they already have a large sum stored away for their pension. Capitalism already allows for this as reacts to demand. If this was to come from the state were do they get their mandate?

I agree employment conditions can override financial concerns but possibly again only when get to comfortable level of income. If employees do not like conditions they will leave forcing employers to change.

Pete, are you back on this, there was a multiple page thread that you seemed to have given up on. Are you ready to dust off the mud huts "argument" again?
:rolleyes:

As for only people in the west talking about Socialism, Pete, The CWI which the Socialist party is affiliated to has sections in 40 countries including Nigeria, Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Chile, Brazil, Bolivia, Venezuela, Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Israel/Palestine, South Africa...
I could go on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dricky

Since the early days when bartering was the only way to trade and later the introduction of coins, capitalism was always going to win over all. Profit was always key to people trading and human nature is always leading people to better their lot.

Without trading, humans would not have society as we know it. Socialism/Marxist ideas are just that ideas, we cannot change our human nature of betterment and as a result practise will win or idealism

Our animal instinct controls our human nature.

---

The future does not need to be the same as the past. The Statue of Liberty isn't considered art for its giant solid base.

As for profit always being the driving force in humanity, anyone with the slightest knowledge of anthropology would know that is not the case. People did not make a profit through barter. And human nature is always changing - evolution anyone? We haven't just changed biologically since we unbent our backs and got those thumbs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BohsPartisan

As for profit always being the driving force in humanity, anyone with the slightest knowledge of anthropology would know that is not the case. People did not make a profit through barter. And human nature is always changing - evolution anyone? We haven't just changed biologically since we unbent our backs and got those thumbs.

---

Never said profit it was the driving force....

I said Profit was always key to people trading 'and' human nature is always leading people to better their lot.

Bartering - To trade goods or services without the exchange of money.

As no two items are the same in bartering then someone will always end up with a better deal even if only a fraction.

When bartering was replaced with currency, trade changed, profit became a tangible fact.

Directly evolution has nothing to do with people wanting to better their lot, human instinct does as apposed to animal instinct. (yes evolution brought the human about but did learning come trough evolution or through experience? Therefore it has an indirect role in Human nature)

Society accepted coins and currency as the standard to which goods could be charged and exchanged. It did not set out minimum profits etc it left that up to the trader and capitalism was born...........

So until Socialism can deconstruct human behaviour dating back to 800-700 BC then it will never succeed as capitalism became part of society back then and it has become part of human nature (could this be evolution????)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dricky

So until Socialism can deconstruct human behaviour dating back to 800-700 BC then it will never succeed as capitalism became part of society back then and it has become part of human nature (could this be evolution????)

---

He's right. Just like we'll never stop people throwing their waste and urinating from windows / doors / cave mouths onto public throughfares as has dated back to 1 Million BC. People have alwasy done it and always will. Even Raquel Welsh does.

One second, I'm getting something from my researcher.

What is it you tell me?

Sorry, it seems that some less than delightful thing that was always the way, seemingly human nature has been altered. Well I never! What could possibly be next to go? Indisciminate murder over women? Feudal rule? Duels of Honour? Picking your nose and eating it?

Capitalism can only exist on the basis of finding potential new markets and converting them. Perhaps the Alexander that is the "Global Economy" has sat down to cry that there are no more worlds to conquer, before humbling this one and conquering it again.

We are all part of capitalism. We all trade our time as employees for profit i.e. money. It is fine to theorise that everyone in society will work for the benefit of the collective but the only society I have seen that work out for was the Borg. It is human nature to better yourself. If you got hand outs for everything a certain percentage would take advantage & thereby discourage the majority from trying.

Socialism probably unrealistic so maybe better to find best place to live on the planet & replicate? Possibly the most successful economies in the world are Scandinavian however Norway is built on oil money so can't be used as a model. Maybe Sweden is the best example but might be hard to judge unless lived there. Then again maybe not everything is perfect? Only article but they did have an exodus I think in the 90s when taxes on single people increased too much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pete

We are all part of capitalism. We all trade our time as employees for profit

---

This shows you don't understand the first thing about profit. We do not trade our labour for profit. Yes we sell our labour, but in return for wages which are less than the value of our labour - this is how the capitalist makes a profit. The capitalist sells the product of the worker's labour for a greater amount than he/she bought it for. Thats profit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dricky

Bartering - To trade goods or services without the exchange of money.

As no two items are the same in bartering then someone will always end up with a better deal even if only a fraction.

---

Again wrong, the basis of barter was that like was exchanged for like.
Human beings are social animals. Thats human nature folks. This is proven time and time again as people organise themselves into groups. Nations, communities, parishes, football clubs, unions etc, etc.
Capitalism promotes unbridled individualism and is thus unnatural. Evolution of the human was made possible through our group organisation. That is one of the things that gives us our natural advantage over other species. Compared to a lion or a cheetah or a bear or most of the species on the planet, our ancestors were pretty puny and if you were betting on a species to survive until the present day you wouldn't have picked them. It is our social aspect, our ability to work together that did it for us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BohsPartisan

Human beings are social animals. Thats human nature folks. This is proven time and time again as people organise themselves into groups. Nations, communities, parishes, football clubs, unions etc, etc. Capitalism promotes unbridled individualism and is thus unnatural. Evolution of the human was made possible through our group organisation. That is one of the things that gives us our natural advantage over other species. Compared to a lion or a cheetah or a bear or most of the species on the planet, our ancestors were pretty puny and if you were betting on a species to survive until the present day you wouldn't have picked them. It is our social aspect, our ability to work together that did it for us.

---

I'm not in 100% agreement with your argument. The formation of groups depends on the initative of an individual/ individuals. This individual "drive" to form groups does not reach contentment on formation of a group. Rather individuals will seek to improve the group's dynamics or, if unsuccesful in doing so, seek to form a new group or other formats to improve.

It all comes back to Maslow's hierachy of needs. :D The esteem and self-actualisation levels of Maslow's hierachy are most individual in their nature. And if we base our understanding on Maslow's hierachy of needs, there is a natural, inherent and progressive need for the individual in us to come forward.

Whether or not you agree with Maslow's hierarchy and it's workings, the fulfillment of fundamental human needs is based on individual perception not group perception. How the individual perceives her/his current standing/status/position in life will determine current and future actions. That's human nature.

Good point Angus.The head honchos of Industry talk about Goverments not "interfering" with the markets until it all goes belly up and then they want rescue packages to "stimulate" the economy.Even more blatant in the case of Northern Rock where tax payers money is used to bail them out.
Did'nt the US recently release cash reserves in reaction to the stock market crash.Does cash not lose value when this happens and encourage inflation?
What about Gold reserves?Has it not proved to be more reliable source for underpinning an economy(in say the last 100 years) than cash which can fluctuate wildly in value.Economics is not my thing so I make these points because I am interested in replies from those who are informed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BohsPartisan

Again wrong, the basis of barter was that like was exchanged for like.
Human beings are social animals. Thats human nature folks. This is proven time and time again as people organise themselves into groups. Nations, communities, parishes, football clubs, unions etc, etc.
Capitalism promotes unbridled individualism and is thus unnatural. Evolution of the human was made possible through our group organisation. That is one of the things that gives us our natural advantage over other species. Compared to a lion or a cheetah or a bear or most of the species on the planet, our ancestors were pretty puny and if you were betting on a species to survive until the present day you wouldn't have picked them. It is our social aspect, our ability to work together that did it for us.

---

You are saying I am wrong on bartering but you have not looked at the process of bartering.

There was no universal price list, and no set bartering rules your view on bartering is simplified and as a result it is not accurate.

Unless you exchange like for like then it is not the same, if they are the same you are just swapping.

The more animal pelts that were available the more pelts you would get in exchange for another required good. Therefore there were fluctuations in quantities of exchange this can be further backed up with seasonal products fresh meat was worth more than salted meat.

The more of something that was available the less you needed to exchange, the better the quality of your product the more you got in return

This was even before the coin was introduced!!

"Capitalism promotes unbridled individualism"

Yes that is true but it is not just individuals, it also promotes companies, it allows groups and individuals set prices and set margins.

I know co-ops aren't capitalist ventures but a lot now abide by the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market which is primarily a capitalist ideal.

You say
"Human beings are social animals. That’s human nature folks. This is proven time and time again as people organise themselves into groups. Nations, communities, parishes, football clubs, unions etc, etc"

Capitalist also organise themselves into like minded or complementary groups. The assumption that all capitalist are individuals is wrong.

That is where the flaw in your argument is you think capitalist are purely individuals, that is not the case 100% of the time.

theres a film on youtube called Zeirgiest Federal Reserve,it comes in 5 parts but just watch the first part to get the idea of it.it relates to this thread very nicely.the guy makes very valid points and has some great quotes to back up his theories.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=_dmPchuXIXQ