Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - California Union A Grocery Store Clerk Strike:

mvassek · 10-20-2003, 05:47 PM

http://www.solbaram.org/articles/whoexp.html

Democratically elected governments
Would have had to allow multinationals access to the country.

Would have been prevented from discriminating against foreign firms, would not be able to refuse any form of investment in any sector apart from defence.

Would have been prevented from reducing or controlling a multinationals profits, say by minimum-wage or anti-pollution legislation, or by legislation to ensure local employment.

Multinationals would have the right to

Sue national governments for any profits lost through laws which discriminated against the multinational, and which harmed a multinational's interests.

Sue national governments in an international court which would have been closed to public scrutiny.

We saw that multinationals can legally avoid paying corporation tax by transfer pricing {5} and that unitary taxation {3, 5} can overcome this tax avoidance by assessing the actual profits being generated by a multinational in a particular country. Multinationals could, under MAI, have refused to be taxed by a system of unitary taxation.

PROFIT MAXIMISING
In practice directors are generally required by owner-serving laws to act first and foremost in the interests of the owners, so that it is profit which is maximised. Short-term and long-term profits can be and are being maximised. {1}

When profit becomes an overriding or sole objective to owners, directors or managers, they concentrate on maximising profits regardless of cost to others. Profits are then maximised regardless of the cost and consequences to the community, limited only by the likelihood of unpleasant consequences such as restraining fines, punitive legal punishment or adverse publicity. {1, 2}

One of the requirements for the free-market economic system to work, is that profit margins and prices need to be controlled effectively so as to protect the community from exploitation. But they are not. {2}

To owners and employers the worth of a job is what has to be paid to get it done. They want work to be done at the lowest rate at which they can get it done as profits can be increased by reducing labour costs, by exploiting employees.

Owners and employers use inflation as an excuse for reducing real wages and salaries of the working population so as to increase profits. Employees are then not compensated for increased skill, experience and responsibility, do not receive their share of the increasing national income and wealth. UK pensions have now to be increased by 34 percent just to reach the level at which they should be now. And pensioners still have to be compensated for the moneys withheld from them without good reason by the government since 1980. This attack on the living standards of the working population is misleadingly called a 'fight (or battle) against inflation' to persuade the working population to tighten its belts, to reduce its standard of living, so as to increase profits. {1}

TOP-LEVEL LEADERSHIP TAKING OVER DECISION-TAKING FROM THE POPULATION

Participative Organisation: The Meaning of 'Democracy' <2>

Participative (democratic) organisation {4} rests on the population electing representatives, on the basis of each person having one vote. Representatives are responsible to, and accountable to, the population for putting into effect policies decided by the population.

What underlies participative organisation (democracy) is decision-taking by the people at the level of the people.

And representatives, governments or government officials do not have the authority or right to reduce or sign away the participative (democratic) rights of the electors, of the population.

What needs to be stressed is that in a participative (democratic) organisation policies are decided by a well-informed population at the level of the population and that policies then become binding on management or government. <3>

In an authoritarian organisation the policy decisions are taken at the top or near the top by the hierarchy (establishment) and are binding on the organisation's members. Decision-taking at the top is sometimes referred to as 'deciding centrally'. Authoritarian organisation is the opposite of democracy and underlies dictatorship.

And what we see is conflict between authoritarian minds wishing to dominate, control and exploit on the one hand and, on the other hand, citizens wishing to maintain and improve the standard of living and quality of life for the population as a whole by democratic (grassroots level) decision-taking.

So the real struggle is not between political left and right, but is a struggle for participation (the right to take decisions).

Decision-taking and Policy-setting within Political Party and by Government
We are looking at recent and ongoing events {4} and it is difficult to separate facts from opinions. However, an overall pattern emerges which appears to reinforce and strengthen what is said here about top-level leadership attempting to take over decision-taking from the grassroots population, about the consequent struggle in all organisations and at all levels.

The UKs Labour party's annual conference took binding decisions on policy proposals brought up by grassroots membership. They decided policy which the executive had to follow and put into effect.

Under a new party leadership some fundamental changes were introduced and by 1998 the party's annual conference had ceased to decide policies, had ceased to decide what had to be done. Instead of deciding mandatory policies based on direct policy proposals from local branches, the annual conference became a talking-shop, discussing and expressing views on subjects selected and approved by the leadership.

In September 1998 an opinion poll reported that the majority of people felt that the leader of the Labour government was closer to big business than to ordinary people.

So owners and employers will, when they can, pressurise the working population into accepting even lower rates of pay by increasing the working population's needs. Doing so by advocating greater unemployment, reducing social security, reducing national health service provisions, weakening the quality of education (knowledge, clear thinking, understanding, objective evaluation). {1}

And, as said already, moneys saved by government by spending less on social security for those in need and moneys gained by collecting more tax from the working population, are apparently being used by owner-serving governments to reduce the taxes collected from the rich and from companies. {3}

http://iresist.com/cbg/bankruptcy.html

"...The Federal Reserve Act stipulated that the interest on the debt was to be paid in gold. There was no stipulation in the Federal Reserve Act for ever paying the principle.

Prior to 1913, most Americans owned clear, allodial title to property, free and clear of any liens or mortgages until the Federal Reserve Act (1913)

"Hypothecated" all property within the federal United States to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, -in which the Trustees (stockholders) held legal title. The U.S. citizen (tenant, franchisee) was registered as a "beneficiary" of the trust via his/her birth certificate. In 1933, the federal United States hypothecated all of the present and future properties, assets and labor of their "subjects," the 14th Amendment U.S. citizen, to the Federal Reserve System.

In return, the Federal Reserve System agreed to extend the federal United States corporation all the credit "money substitute" it needed. Like any other debtor, the federal United States government had to assign collateral and security to their creditors as a condition of the loan. Since the federal United States didn?t have any assets, they assigned the private property of their "economic slaves", the U.S. citizens as collateral against the unpayable federal debt. They also pledged the unincorporated federal territories, national parks forests, birth certificates, and nonprofit organizations, as collateral against the federal debt. All has already been transferred as payment to the international bankers.

Unwittingly, America has returned to its pre-American Revolution, feudal roots whereby all land is held by a sovereign and the common people had no rights to hold allodial title to property. Once again, We the People are the tenants and sharecroppers renting our own property from a Sovereign in the guise of the Federal Reserve Bank. We the people have exchanged one master for another.

America has become completely bankrupt in world leadership, financial credit and its reputation for courage, vision and human rights. This is an undeclared economic war, bankruptcy, and economic slavery of the most corrupt order! Wake up America! Take back your Country."

10-20-2003, 05:47 PM	#19 (permalink)
mvassek Crazy Location: East Tennessee	Owners and employers use inflation... http://www.solbaram.org/articles/whoexp.html Democratically elected governments Would have had to allow multinationals access to the country. Would have been prevented from discriminating against foreign firms, would not be able to refuse any form of investment in any sector apart from defence. Would have been prevented from reducing or controlling a multinationals profits, say by minimum-wage or anti-pollution legislation, or by legislation to ensure local employment. Multinationals would have the right to Sue national governments for any profits lost through laws which discriminated against the multinational, and which harmed a multinational's interests. Sue national governments in an international court which would have been closed to public scrutiny. We saw that multinationals can legally avoid paying corporation tax by transfer pricing {5} and that unitary taxation {3, 5} can overcome this tax avoidance by assessing the actual profits being generated by a multinational in a particular country. Multinationals could, under MAI, have refused to be taxed by a system of unitary taxation. PROFIT MAXIMISING In practice directors are generally required by owner-serving laws to act first and foremost in the interests of the owners, so that it is profit which is maximised. Short-term and long-term profits can be and are being maximised. {1} When profit becomes an overriding or sole objective to owners, directors or managers, they concentrate on maximising profits regardless of cost to others. Profits are then maximised regardless of the cost and consequences to the community, limited only by the likelihood of unpleasant consequences such as restraining fines, punitive legal punishment or adverse publicity. {1, 2} One of the requirements for the free-market economic system to work, is that profit margins and prices need to be controlled effectively so as to protect the community from exploitation. But they are not. {2} To owners and employers the worth of a job is what has to be paid to get it done. They want work to be done at the lowest rate at which they can get it done as profits can be increased by reducing labour costs, by exploiting employees. Owners and employers use inflation as an excuse for reducing real wages and salaries of the working population so as to increase profits. Employees are then not compensated for increased skill, experience and responsibility, do not receive their share of the increasing national income and wealth. UK pensions have now to be increased by 34 percent just to reach the level at which they should be now. And pensioners still have to be compensated for the moneys withheld from them without good reason by the government since 1980. This attack on the living standards of the working population is misleadingly called a 'fight (or battle) against inflation' to persuade the working population to tighten its belts, to reduce its standard of living, so as to increase profits. {1} TOP-LEVEL LEADERSHIP TAKING OVER DECISION-TAKING FROM THE POPULATION Participative Organisation: The Meaning of 'Democracy' <2> Participative (democratic) organisation {4} rests on the population electing representatives, on the basis of each person having one vote. Representatives are responsible to, and accountable to, the population for putting into effect policies decided by the population. What underlies participative organisation (democracy) is decision-taking by the people at the level of the people. And representatives, governments or government officials do not have the authority or right to reduce or sign away the participative (democratic) rights of the electors, of the population. What needs to be stressed is that in a participative (democratic) organisation policies are decided by a well-informed population at the level of the population and that policies then become binding on management or government. <3> In an authoritarian organisation the policy decisions are taken at the top or near the top by the hierarchy (establishment) and are binding on the organisation's members. Decision-taking at the top is sometimes referred to as 'deciding centrally'. Authoritarian organisation is the opposite of democracy and underlies dictatorship. And what we see is conflict between authoritarian minds wishing to dominate, control and exploit on the one hand and, on the other hand, citizens wishing to maintain and improve the standard of living and quality of life for the population as a whole by democratic (grassroots level) decision-taking. So the real struggle is not between political left and right, but is a struggle for participation (the right to take decisions). Decision-taking and Policy-setting within Political Party and by Government We are looking at recent and ongoing events {4} and it is difficult to separate facts from opinions. However, an overall pattern emerges which appears to reinforce and strengthen what is said here about top-level leadership attempting to take over decision-taking from the grassroots population, about the consequent struggle in all organisations and at all levels. The UKs Labour party's annual conference took binding decisions on policy proposals brought up by grassroots membership. They decided policy which the executive had to follow and put into effect. Under a new party leadership some fundamental changes were introduced and by 1998 the party's annual conference had ceased to decide policies, had ceased to decide what had to be done. Instead of deciding mandatory policies based on direct policy proposals from local branches, the annual conference became a talking-shop, discussing and expressing views on subjects selected and approved by the leadership. In September 1998 an opinion poll reported that the majority of people felt that the leader of the Labour government was closer to big business than to ordinary people. So owners and employers will, when they can, pressurise the working population into accepting even lower rates of pay by increasing the working population's needs. Doing so by advocating greater unemployment, reducing social security, reducing national health service provisions, weakening the quality of education (knowledge, clear thinking, understanding, objective evaluation). {1} And, as said already, moneys saved by government by spending less on social security for those in need and moneys gained by collecting more tax from the working population, are apparently being used by owner-serving governments to reduce the taxes collected from the rich and from companies. {3} http://iresist.com/cbg/bankruptcy.html "...The Federal Reserve Act stipulated that the interest on the debt was to be paid in gold. There was no stipulation in the Federal Reserve Act for ever paying the principle. Prior to 1913, most Americans owned clear, allodial title to property, free and clear of any liens or mortgages until the Federal Reserve Act (1913) "Hypothecated" all property within the federal United States to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, -in which the Trustees (stockholders) held legal title. The U.S. citizen (tenant, franchisee) was registered as a "beneficiary" of the trust via his/her birth certificate. In 1933, the federal United States hypothecated all of the present and future properties, assets and labor of their "subjects," the 14th Amendment U.S. citizen, to the Federal Reserve System. In return, the Federal Reserve System agreed to extend the federal United States corporation all the credit "money substitute" it needed. Like any other debtor, the federal United States government had to assign collateral and security to their creditors as a condition of the loan. Since the federal United States didn?t have any assets, they assigned the private property of their "economic slaves", the U.S. citizens as collateral against the unpayable federal debt. They also pledged the unincorporated federal territories, national parks forests, birth certificates, and nonprofit organizations, as collateral against the federal debt. All has already been transferred as payment to the international bankers. Unwittingly, America has returned to its pre-American Revolution, feudal roots whereby all land is held by a sovereign and the common people had no rights to hold allodial title to property. Once again, We the People are the tenants and sharecroppers renting our own property from a Sovereign in the guise of the Federal Reserve Bank. We the people have exchanged one master for another. America has become completely bankrupt in world leadership, financial credit and its reputation for courage, vision and human rights. This is an undeclared economic war, bankruptcy, and economic slavery of the most corrupt order! Wake up America! Take back your Country."