The most environmentally friendly practice we can endorse is to stop or at least curtail consumption at most of not all levels. This is the most antithetical principle to Capitalism you could possibly articulate. It's something shareholders will simply never be able to enact as shareholders, which is to say people with an interest in keeping their company or companies afloat.

The Capitalism logic is fundamentally unsustainable. Fortunately, the sustainable alternative to Capitalism is not the end of god-damn everything.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I mostly agree with the sentiments, if not the details, of Pdxstudent's comments. I do think it is possible for capitalism to contribute to necessary economic transformations, rather than growth for the sake of growth, but current laws and expectations will not support that.

A bigger problem is that corporate capitalism concerns itself with grabbing all it can for shareholders (and, truth be told, for management itself, first and foremost) rather than being the good neighbor and provider of community wealth and wages that romantic tales of free market miracles would have us believe. To achieve that vision, we need to move toward a model in which the degree of influence over business decision making is commensurate with the degree of impact those decisions will have on one's life. That is the way to work from a democratic community footing. Shifting the balance of power among shareholders, as suggested by this article, misses that more important point.

For instance, if you are a poor person living in the the future shadow of a factory smokestack, you and your family have much more interest in the local air pollution that may be in the offing than most or all shareholders, but under the current paradigm, your influence will be minimal at best. Respecting that employees, neighbors, local business owners and managers, etc., all have a major stake in the business activities in their areas, and thus should have a substantial say in how shared resources and community trends will be impacted without having to get into a bidding war to pay for the common good in which they have already invested their lives would be a step toward economic justice. Unfortunately, "solutions" such as those presented above don't even come close to recognizing such a way forward, let alone recommending movement in that direction.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The keys to creating wealth and maintaining a free society lie primarily in the same direction. Both require that broad based systems of accountability be built into the governance structures of corporations themselves.

By Ending the Wall Street Walk, and accepting the responsibilities that come with ownership, pension funds and other institutional investors have the potential to act as important mediating structures between the individual and the dominant institutions of our time, the modern corporation.

Individuals can help by joining the Investor Suffrage Movement. You can also get good proxy voting advice at Proxy Democracy and read about trends at CorpGov.net.

Analytical argument and empirical research demonstrate the value of shifting from oligarchic corporate structures, where CEOs set the agenda and are paid outrageous sums, towards those which establish systems of accountability and encourage long-term participation by concerned shareholders.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

By selfishly pursuing our owninterests and trampling on anyone who gets in the way, we succeed in making our society a wealthier and more pleasant place to live - really. However, there can only be so many sharks in the minnow tank - or so many pipelines leading out of the Middle East. Nations should behave the same way - whoever is best at raiding their neighbors should be viewed as the world's greatest force for good, bar none.

Your other option is to be the poor but good citizen who loyally follows the guidance of the corporate and governmental leaders, who have indeed been vetted by a long and selective process, not just educational, but also evolutionary - as they are typically the scions of the leading families of any nation, and are typically endowed with superior genetic material, which is then molded to perfection by an elite system of private schools, Ivy League undergraduate stints, and some level of graduate training (usually an MBA or the like).

What we really need now is better information control, however - take National Propaganda Radio as the model. They were so good at it that the U.S. Army sent its interns in the 4th (Psychological Operations Group) to be trained by the NPR experts:

Guardian
US, April 12, 2000

"Two leading US news channels have admitted that they allowed psychological operations officers from the military to work as placement interns at their headquarters during the Kosovo war. Cable Network News (CNN) and National Public Radio, (NPR) denied that the "psy-ops" officers influenced news coverage and said the internships had been stopped as soon as senior managers found out.

Of course, they were not "manipulating the media" - hah - they were being trained - by some of the best propaganda experts in the business. NPR has patented the recipe for Pollyana's Soothing Syrup - though there are quite a few pretenders to the throne of left wing liberal hypocrisy, no doubt about that.

Did you see the actual result of the Enron shareholder democracy? That's kind of like the Supreme Court "democracy" that handed us GE Bush on a 5-4 vote, isn't it? Was that "democracy"? When fundamental decisions are made by a small group of... oh, never mind. It's not democracy, whatever it is, unless you call the meetings of the five Dons of New York "democratic gatherings" as well.

Take a look at this, for example: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7377812.stm

"Exxon profit up 17% on oil surge"

Exxon needs more renewable energy focus, the Rockefeller family say. Oil giant Exxon Mobil made $10.9bn (£6bn) profit in the first three months of 2008 - up 17% but less than some had expected, analysts said. A struggle to pass higher production costs and surging oil prices on to customers at the petrol pump had restricted earnings, they added. The results followed members of the Rockefeller family going public about an on-going feud they have with Exxon.

17%? NOT GOOD ENOUGH, dammit! Renewable energy? Bush wants renewable energy too. Back in 2001, he was promoting hydrogen cars (while secretly slashing the budget for renewable energy research). Ho hum. Searching for the appropriate quote:

"Yes, they lie, and we have to be merciful to those who lie - those nabobs. I hate them. I do hate them." - Colonel William Kurtz

Well... shareholder democracy, huh? Should we also apply this to Lockheed Martin? "Do the right thing, Lockheed shareholders: stop selling weapons to other countries! Yes, your profits will collapse - in fact, you will lose a ton of money - but we're asking you to DO THE RIGHT THING! Now, lets all join hands and sing, "We Are the World" - just keep that Prozac lollipop in your mouth at all times, and everything will be just fine.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

... they have dollars, so if you want to make these non-people listen t
hen ensure to hit them where they'll hear it...in the wallet!

also,
how is it that the uber rich/elites always seem to be given leadership positions which then pay them 100 million plus a year salaries?... isn't such extortionate pay theft from shareholders?

and more importantly
why is their no laws protecting shareholders from this form of theft?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]