>>> Jordan Hayes <jmhayes at j-o-r-d-a-n.com> 01/06/00 02:29AM >>>
> How about analogizing this market to cancer rather than a bubble?
Cancer is what we call one of two things:
1) Cells that grow when they shoudn't 2) Cells that won't grow when they should
I have no idea what you mean by that attempted analogy.
/jordan
&&&&&&&&&&&
Like this:
&&&&&&&&&&
December 8, 1999
Does Humanity Have Cancer?
by John H. St. John
The recent retreat from Seattle of the WTO in the face of both labor and upper-class opposition indicates that Marxian class struggle has given way to human opposition to the corporations. The ubiquitous corporation has taken control over just about every aspect of our lives. It not only invades our bedrooms but is taking charge of the worlds food supply. Labor leaders and upper-class environmentalists linked arms in Seattle.
The continuous growth, by merger and association of the corporations have led to decisions being made by accountants that should be made by scientists. Instead of tying our brains up in waging war against human opponents; we should recognize that the enemy is not human at all. Just about every one has a price and will sell out if it is offered. The accountant driven corporation, controlling vast quantities of capital, has little trouble getting humans to do anti-human things.
The corporation cancer is rapidly becoming terminal. It is imperative that we understand exactly what the corporation is and why it must be eviscerated with radical surgery.
Probably the first corporation of magnitude was the East India Company. It started when The Merchants of London, (a guild) pooled their resources to confront the dangers of sea travel in trade with India. The Merchants of London, however, was not a corporation because each merchant involved had a proprietary or ownership position in the firm. The Merchants of London had owners.
The feudal aristocracy wanted to get in on the action but were restrained by their abhorrence of a gentleman engaging in trade. This was solved by the issuance of shares of stock and its sale to the nobility. Lord Highpants did not have to soil his delicate fingers with trade and although his stock was putatively an ôownership certificateö his ôownershipö was ownership in name only. He was not bothered by any of the many duties of ownership nor liable for bad management.
Under common-law there are many responsibilities connected with ownership of anything. If you own it and it breaks the law or causes any hardship. You, as owner, are liable. In actual fact; Lord Highpants was a ôlimited partnerö. In drawing up the papers for a limited partnership; the limited partner has limited liability, that is; he is only liable for the amount of his investment. An owner however is liable for his investment, his personal capital, and in some cases - his person. A limited partner enjoys all the benefits of ownership without liability. She can collect dividends and trade her limited partner certificates much as she trades her ownership stock now. She may not work for or be involved in management with the company without losing her status as a limited partner.
What was the result of the corporation absurdity? It created a robot without an owner. In spite of stockholders meetings, and one vote per share; the majority of stockholders could care less about the workings of the organization. Everyone within the organization was an employee. Usually those sitting on the boards of corporations were also employees -- accountants for Mutual Funds, Pension Funds, and only occasionally a wealthy fool.
The robot corporation, unlike the robots of Issac Azimov who were programmed with the prime directive: ôThou shalt not harm a human beingö, were programmed with the directive: ôThou shall honor the bottom lineö. This is what we were facing in Seattle: an organization composed of accountants that were bent on supplanting popular government with government by robot. That is why the WTO had to go. The original cancer started by the Merchants of London, and given a human face by the Santa Clara and San Bernardino Vs Southern Pacific of 1867 Supreme Court decision had now become terminal.
The stock market, composed of ôowners,ö who traded their ownership certificates every day on the stock market casino and inflated the value of the stocks 100 times, has contributed to a runaway economy that is on the verge of total collapse. Corporations are starting wars and supplying both sides with arms. They are fooling with the genetic basis of life. They are endangering our planet with the uncontrolled and totally irresponsible proliferation of nukes.
A lady complaining of my ideas said: ôWhat about my microwave? What about my Toyota? I tried to explaing that these inventions were invented by human beings. Corporations donÆt invent anything. Corporations own almost all of the patents - patents that were supposed to protect the intellectual property of the inventor. By its nature a patent should not become a commodity. Only the owner can own it and only the owner can licence its use to another entity.
What is the answer? We must go back to Lord Highpants in order to work this out: If his lordship were given limited-partner certificates instead of ownership certificates; the owners, (The Merchants of London) would have remained the owners of the East India Company. As human beings they would each be liable for the many horrors inflicted on the world by this gigantic corporation. It not only turned India, a wealthy food exporting country, into a wasteland of famine and poverty; but its inhuman greed caused the American Revolution.
If common stock were exchanged for limited partnership stock; it would not harm the investor in any way. He isnÆt interested in owning a company; he is interested in trading from a portfolio containing many stocks from many different companies.
If common stock were exchanged for limited partnership stock; he could still gamble on the Wall Street Casino. The only problem left is that the corporation, which is, in fact, not owned now, and is composed entirely of employees, would have to acquire an owner, or a lot of owners.
I suggest that it acquire a lot of owners, and that ownership be invested in the same people who are making it a success now. This wouldnÆt require any barricades or destruction of property. One vote per-share per employee. Gone would be the Chain Saw Al CEO. Gone would be his insane compensation. Instead of earning eighty times what a basic employee earns; he would earn eight times that of his duller brother. I suggest that the corporation be turned into a cooperative. Socialism you say! Socialism turned the tools of production over to the government.
If you think cooperatives are not capable of running a large operation you are mistaken. The Mondragon cooperatives in the Basque section of Spain have been selling machine tools on the world market for over twenty years. Cooperatives and Credit Unions have operated successfully in the United States and elsware for many years in spite of the restrictions put on them by corporation dominated governments.
Cooperatives have a record of social responsibility. The decentralization of the large corporations makes the switch-over to cooperatives quite simple.
What will it be folks? a maneagable, workable, economy; or are we going to allow the great cancer of corporatism end by killing its host . . . Us.