Listening to a podcast titled "Were the Robber Barons America's Greatest Philanthropists?" I was again impressed by my ignorance. Apparently guilt played a big role in the movement. Amazingly, Carnegie is quoted as "The man who dies rich dies in disgrace." and later explains the wealthy have a duty to give back to the society that let them achieve this status. So, I propose we skip over the guilt part and set corporations out to make as much as they can but in the bylaws it is fixed that all such (net revenue) will be used for the betterment of society (yes including providing health care). This is written into the bylaws and cannot be changed. So, I think the government should actually not just give tax breaks but actively help any corporation that declares to do this as it's mission in every possible way. Yes this is heading towards, I want to start one of these today would be nice. Well I published the mission statement back in July http://dreambridgefoundationforartistsurvival.wordpress.com/2009/07/03/the-for-profit-corporate-mission-statement-2/ Which I will repeat 1. Serve as a vehicle so that people can be paid to do what they enjoy and likely would do in any event. Thus, the business exists to pay people to do what they enjoy doing, throw in the other stuff as well: health care, retirement, etc. Implicit in this mission is intent to make a profit. How else can the mission be achieved? The motive behind the intent is not a question. Only intent. And just to equalize matters more: 2. A task deemed to menial to be of interest is a group responsibility to deal with (taking turns) until a way can be found to automate ot make it intersting to someone. Inherent in the notion:: if this task exists in the corporation then it likely is everywhere. By solving this, there is probably a market for it in the form of a product or service somewhere; and simply by handling this issue results in a probable market commodity. Let me follow that with the cover of the current issue of Michigan Engineer (I receive as an Alumni; BSE Engineering Physics) says "Alumni, Students, & Faculty in service to the world.": I rest my case. So, by having this as an inherent part of the corporate bylaws, we can bring the private sector into the picture without any question of ulterior motives.
No me. What was that bit on being represented somehow?
Ok, it's too screwed. Let's toss it and start over.
Remember a corporation is a legal entity. So create a bunch for people to hide their personal info behind "authorized corporate officer and signer" A corporation has it's own tax ID, and if private no info need be given out regarding the shareholders. So, you buy some shares, and you get to be an 'authorized corporate signer' and never give out personal info again.
Need a loan? Bring it up with the board of directors (who are elected and should be sympathetic) and prove your case and let the corporation handle it. Your phone, and other matters are now private as can be.
Why would this help marketers? Because there are obviously stuff you want and marketers want to target exact audiences. By publishing a nickname and a list of items you want to receive info on the marketers know they are not wasting time and money sending to the wrong people.
Does anyone lose? of course. Any of the get rich quick scams have no chance and get tossed to the evolutionary landfill. But that is a good thing.
This forces old fashioned customer service to return as automated systems cannot handle this level of ambiguity. And that's a good thing. It means companies will listen to customers once again.
Taxes: of course are a responsibility. However, having an associated 501c3 lets the citizens decide how their tax dollars are spent. Education, health care, charitable deeds - not lining some lawyer's pockets.
Oh yeah, as a corporation all shareholders will get health care benefits. Kinda nice. Also by being a corp, we have the power to reduce the amount of unethical behavior by boycotts and buying the other corp out and firing the people skimming off the top. Forcing the acquisition to adopt ethical standards.
Take the November 3rd ballot in San Francisco. Proposition A is about budget reform but has a rider that the required public notices published in official newspapers is up for grabs.
Here, exactly from my booklet
Notice shall mean publication (cross out in an official newspaper)
Publish shall have the meaning ascribed by the board of supervisors.
Doh! I don't like that wording at all. I gather it is meant to save money by publishing online; but that wording does not specify this, nor does it say how such publishing will be equally accessible to all citizens.
I think musicians should be paid to play in public and make these required public announcements which seems to be a more equal way of doing it.
just IMHO>
In 1927, the Weimar Republic - the democratically elected government of Germany passed mandatory unemployment benefits for the needy. That's rather progressive for the time. So, what happened in the following six years to turn it all around?
Well, there was a bit of a mistake in that first constitution, they corrected without doubt the second time. There was nothing that prevented laws to be passed that would allow the constitution to be ignored. So it was never officially dissolved, the (you know who) just wrote laws to make ignoring it allowed. The second time the wording states human rights can never be abolished by any future act of legislation.
In 1930, Jazz performance was banned and so was modern art. Three years after unemployment was introduced. Three years before the 'republic' was no longer the government.
Art, Music, and Culture are both an indicator of the level of sophistication of a society; and a warning sign that when such are censored, other rights are likely to follow.
Let's look at the US Constitution. The BIll of Rights was added as an afterthought, the Constitution was ratified by all parties and I'll quote
"The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added:" the Bill of Rights, Amendments I-X, an afterthought luckily we followed through and passed.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or or the press, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
That's powerful. The final check on government is the citizens watching for slips, expressing their observations, using the press to carry this information to everyone and organize and assemble to have the matter redressed. Toss the freedom of expression, speech, and the press - this becomes a lot more difficult to accomplish.
Art, Music, and Culture.
