Hedging Disaster
This past week, even jaded observers of Wall Street were startled to learn that last year's top hedge fund manager, James Simons of Renaissance Technologies, made $1.7 billion in 2006. Alpha Magazine reported that the top 25 hedge fund earners garnered an average of $570 million in 2006, up from $362 million in 2005.The burgeoning hedge fund and private equity industries are both a cause and a symptom of a dangerously lopsided America. Because they are private (not listed on stock exchanges or offering shares to the public), these funds do not have to disclose their inner workings to regulators or to the public. Yet these unregulated funds are increasingly buying and selling some of our largest corporations, stripping assets, piling on debt, leaving employees and subsequent buyers to dig out of a deep hole.
The difference between hedge funds (unregulated mutual fund s for very wealthy individuals) and private equity (privately held firms that buy and sell entire companies) is collapsing, creating an unregulated sector of wild-west financial engineering rife with conflicts of interest.
Defenders of private equity operators argue that by ruthlessly squeezing out costs, these traders add to the efficiency of the economy. Earlier in their history, some private equity companies like KKR did specialize in purchasing under performing companies, improving their management, eventually re selling them in public stock offerings, and reaped just rewards.
Those days are mostly gone. Increasingly, private equity has little in common with old-fashioned super-investors such as Warren Buffett, who makes large returns for himself and his shareholders by buying, holding, and improving the performance of companies. Today, the idea is to borrow huge sums, purchase a company largely with other people's money, pay yourself huge dividends, strip and sell profitable assets, cut labor and pension costs, and then unload the remains onto someone else.
But as private equity becomes an ever bigger player, its operators are running into the law of large numbers. Everybody can't beat the market. The Financial Times recently reported that in 2006, the average hedge fund, despite huge fees paid to its managers, actually under performed the S&P 500.
As hedge fund and private-equity operators try ever harder in the face of more competition to produce exorbitant returns, they do ever-riskier and more conflict-laden deals. This trend increases the damage to the economy, the extremes of inequality, and the risks to the system.
When Long Term Capital Management -- a hedge fund specializing in currency speculation -- went broke in the late 1990s, it had borrowed so much money from so many Wall Street banks that the Federal Reserve had to organize a rescue lest the fund take down several banks with it. It would be much harder for the Fed to mount a similar rescue today. And with thousands of hedge funds managing an estimated $1.7 trillion , many making highly speculative bets with borrowed money, a shift to higher interest rates could trigger an old fashioned financial panic.
Beyond the risk of a crash, hedge funds and private equity operators are driving the wrong brand of capitalism. Theirs is a capitalism of windfall returns for financial engineers, and less security and income for workaday Americans. Hedge fund capitalism also signals that real entrepreneurship -- patiently nurturing a new idea and building a company of managers and employees -- is for suckers.
Private equity and hedge fund operators should be subject to the same disclosure and conflict-of-interest requirements as corporations that list their stocks. Congress should repeal the tax-deductibility of the interest on leveraged buy outs, so that buyers need to invest their own money.
These reforms are not on the agenda in the United States. However, there is increasing push-back from Europe. As private equity takeovers have begun looting well-managed European companies, political leaders across the spectrum are warning that Europe's entire social model is suddenly at risk -- a model built on industrial partnership, good wages, and long-term investment in employees.
European central bankers, and center-right as well as leftist politicians have been calling for tighter regulation. In France, presidential front-runner Nicolas Sarkozy recently attacked funds that "buy up a company, sell it off in pieces, sack 25 percent of the staff in the meantime, collect 25 percent profit, and create zero wealth." And he's the conservative in the race.
Sadly, it will probably take another financial meltdown of at least the scale of the 2000-01 crash before reforms are taken seriously in the United States. Hedge funds also invest in politics, and too many Democrats as well as Republicans raise too much money from Wall Street.
Robert Kuttner is co-editor of The American Prospect and a senior fellow at Demos. His column appears regularly in the Globe.
© Copyright 2007 The Boston Globe
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
51 Comments so far
Show AllTake a nap!
Correction: what happened in America, is IMHO much worse
Ok, I'll slow down in the future, and proofread
There two thing:
1. the lies which are told
2. killing history as a subject in general
The first takes place everywhere, and it's important to search constantly, reevaluate etc. At the same time children are taught such concepts as causes and consequences, sources etc., i.e. are given tools.
What happened in America, is IMHO my worse - total ignorance, and absolutely "flat" understanding (or misunderstanding) of the world. Many American don't see a difference between slavery in the 1st century BCE, and in the 19th century, for example.
This is truly scary.
Yes, history has either been killed or distorted. I remember a conversation once about Sir Francis Drake destroying the Spanish Armada. My Spanish friends were shocked that I had been taught that he had single handedly destroyed a large part of their navy. When they told me that what really happened was a powerful storm had destroyed and damaged many of their vessels and Drake simply took advantage of this natural catastrophe to burn the remaining ships. This was an eye opener for me. I investigated what they had told me and found that it was true. What I was taught in school was a lie. I was about 24 at the time and still quite ignorant of so many things.
Many things were deliberately killed in this country (including knowledge of history, and an interest in politics), and people were silenced, by many things, including Carnegie's "Don't argue" and "Smile" and what I believe Nazi psychiatrists' "Angry, go to a psychiatrist." Of, the rich do what ever they want, but the rest is supposed to be always accepting and smiling idiotically.
This way all protests were killed.
eurobelle, I guess this is becoming a conversation between the two of us. And that's OK. I've read many of your posts and I get a sense of a woman(?) who has strong opinions. There's nothing wrong with that.
I feel the same way as you do about people who still believe or simply use the Old Testament view that if you are rich; it is because God favors you for being a good person. That is so wide of the mark in our present day as to be almost laughable. And it was never true to begin with.
In jail, I have met some people who really needed to be there. But by and large, the majority was just uneducated or not indoctrinated into our system of beliefs. I have posted this before and will write it again. I have met some of the most creative, funny, intelligent, quick witted persons in my life in jail or prison. They just never had the chance for a good education and this is what I see as the number one problem with our system in the USA. So, if they ever finish High School, the only things they have learned how to do is commit crimes. And now, the rich are given a break when they commit a crime, while the poor are defended by overwhelmed Public defenders.
Eouobelle. One other thing. I worked on a farm in Southern Spain for almost eight years. In Europe, they do have public discourse and an interest in politics. You will rarely hear a group of teens discussing politics in the USA. In Europe, it was common place. As for religion, in Spain, they didn't say much about it because 99% of the people are Catholic.
eurobelle, I guess this is becoming a conversation between the two of us. And that's OK. I've read many of your posts and I get a sense of a woman(?) who has strong opinions. There's nothing wrong with that.
I feel the same way as you do about people who still believe or simply use the Old Testament view that if you are rich; it is because God favors you for being a good person. That is so wide of the mark in our present day as to be almost laughable. And it was never true to begin with.
In jail, I have met some people who really needed to be there. But by and large, the majority was just uneducated or not indoctrinated into our system of beliefs. I have posted this before and will write it again. I have met some of the most creative, funny, intelligent, quick witted persons in my life in jail or prison. They just never had the chance for a good education and this is what I see as the number one problem with our system in the USA. So, if they ever finish High School, the only things they have learned how to do is commit crimes. And now, the rich are given a break when they commit a crime, while the poor are defended by overwhelmed Public defenders.
"And one final thing, health care is not free here but it is much more affordable."
Well, you forget to mention this small detail when you praised a simple life. Maybe they really have reasons to be happy.
Not all Western societies are alike. The USA is different in many, many ways. "The rich are rich because they deserve it"
Dale Carnegie's idiocy, and "we don't talk about politics" are American traditions; lack of health care, wage slavery, and corporations as cute little babies are American reality
are American reality.
eurobelle, taking care of the elderly is very much an issue in Western societies. In East Asia, it is the duty of the younger generation to care for the elderly. You never see any grandparents or other elders being sent off to retirement homes. In the Confucian system of beliefs, all families feel it their duty to respect and care for the elderly. Also, while health care can be inadequate, the families are always there by their elder's side during their last days. And death is much more visible here. In the States, we tend to try and hide it from people. Death is a part of life and if you have lived a good life, there is nothing to feel remorse or quilt about. Death is much more easily accepted. After a person dies, the people celebrate the deceased's life – very similar to the way it is done in places like New Orleans.
And one final thing, health care is not free here but it is much more affordable. Also, doctors must work in a hospital during the day. They can only have a private career after 5pm.
"the thought of how simple life could be if we weren't always trying to keep up with "the Jones's."
Yes, absolutely.
But, there is something else: it's just impossible to survive
without pushing and fighting. Take health care, for example, or housing. And not everyone can just go .., there are
responsibilities, such as taking care of parents.
Eurobelle, yes, I understand what you mean by "should." You are right. Should a, could a, would a….
And you do have a very valid point when talking about the USA and a Third World country. (We laugh an call it a Fourth World") It is comparing apples to oranges. Perhaps what was in the back of my mind was the thought of how simple life could be if we weren't always trying to keep up with "the Jones's."
hybri,
" I live in and the people who are happy and blissfully ignorant of their poverty. As long as they are fed and loved and sheltered from the cold, these people are so damned happy and smiling all the time that it gives one pause."
But here is a different reality, and to tell, for example,
Katrina's victims:"You know, people actually don't need much,"
while enjoying all the benefits the wealthy/or just comfortable have, is evil.
But would you admit that one can have a problem with
"all people should" (something like that). There many things
all people should, but you know they don't ...
Eurobelle, of course I haven't lost my contact with reality. Since you revealed a little of yourself let me tell you a little about me. Majors: Astrophysics and Philosophy at Case Western Reserve University, later drug addiction and then Jail and prison (Rahway). After prison, home less before entering a Salvation Army Center. After farm work and construction work (I even did the cement work on Sean Penn's driveway in wealthy Marin County), I landed a job in Biological research on mad cow disease when the Nobel prize winning Doctor Stan Prusiner at SFU saw my educational record and my other past records. Also, I have done a lot of volunteer work in homeless shelters and jails. Today, I teach in a poor village in South Vietnam.
I think I have seen quite a bit of this world and it people. I wasn't making a slogan. I was simply pointing out what should be obvious to any thinking person. I don't toss around my words without thinking beforehand. I'm more inclined to listen than to talk.
Thank you for reminding me how diverse this group is.
I'll promise I'll engage only in discussions, when all sides despise sloganeering.
Siouxrose, yes indeed, I haven't forgotten any of the multiple ways in which Mother Nature could shrug her shoulders and brush off some dust. I assure you, I spend the great part of my day enjoying the fine climate I live in and the people who are happy and blissfully ignorant of their poverty. As long as they are fed and loved and sheltered from the cold, these people are so damned happy and smiling all the time that it gives one pause. Progress. There are so many ways we could define that word, just like there are so many ways to define success.
I come here to not only stay informed but also to join in the arguments (Almost all polite!) and exercise my mind a little. Have a good one.
yes, armybrat,
why don't you condemn antisemitism
and deliberate "circle" diversion?
eurobelle your intolerance betrays your arguments.
I am happy about your mystical education, but I spend many years studying history etc. Can I suggest you don't kill every discussion about history and society with what is possibly absolute garbage.
Instead of expressing disgust for antisemitism, you give this
psychobabble and preach to me. What's wrong with you? Being paid?
I really have no tolerance for knowing nothing, feeling nothing opportunists who kill every conversion with Orwellian slogans. You know nothing, go and study, it's about time, don't destroy the world.
Circles are fine, but
we have to deal
- with corporate power
- 47 million of uninsured etc.
I have very low level of tolerance for Orwellian garbage:
all opinions are equally valuable. Not they are not. When the preachers of equality of opinions start to pay for their hypocracy, not others, then will resume the conversation.
I have also very low level of tolerance for racism (all forms). When preachers of equality of opinions in this matter start to pay for their hypocritical (evil?) posturing not the victims then we resume the conversation
Eurobelle: I see you are as drawn to this forum as I am, and it's becoming quite a weight loss plan (LOL) as I miss meals! My sensibility is shaped by reading Mother Jones, Harper's, Truth-out, this site and 30 years of vigorous research into mystical and esoteric subjects. The basis for their theses predate modern history and much of its conjecture. It may not be good advice to wait for Divine JUSTICE (wrath is not my concept), it MAY be all we've got. I am aware of WHAT HAPPENED in Kansas, as per blue collar workers voting against their own interests; but as other articles and some of my own commentary has stated, there are a lot of influences impacting people who are not being well-informed and in fact ARE being programmed. George Lakoff has written brilliantly on the power behind the manner by which concepts are FRAMED. I believe sports and the macho-identification with teams, winning, and force are so inbred into US culture that it makes a rather easy transition to using those buzzwords in making war on the enemy du jour. One thing I have been pleased about, with the exception of a few contributors who mostly name-call when they can't challenge an argument or perspective presented by someone else, is the diversity of views on this site. There are NO sides in the circle. It is Creation's own blueprint. All things circle, it's the proven architecture of planetary spheres and the female womb. King Arthur led his knights to the circle so he could learn by the various viewpoints. WE need that circle, and here in the commondreams forum, it's already clear who brings history to the table, who brings a knowledge of law, another economics, another better energy systems, etc. My voice is that of the esoteric, missing from dialog too long. I will utilize any intelligent forum I can find to replant the higher understanding as a basis for lifting perspectives. This is to contribute to the knowledge of others, neither to counter or attack it. There is room for all at the table, the great circle, heaven's OWN model for a democratic society. Beyond black-white linear assumptions, ours is a world of colors... many which we can't even see due to the limitations of our senses, these, too, being shaped from birth by strong forces that socialize individuals to walk lock-step with current norms. How has society treated its mystics and visionaries? Galileo is a good example. In any case, in the spirit of discovery, let us bring our mug of coffee or whatever, to the discussion and be glad for this forum, and what each takes away from it in the form of learning.
Frankly, I think that the lesson of Katrina was that the poor
always suffer; I didn't notice that Exxon was in pain.
I don't think that the advice to wait for some divine wrath is a good one.
Sioux
"while the corporations HAVE merged into the US fabric of government (a pesky thing called campaign finance tied to the costs involved in any would-be rep getting elected)
Well, it's much more complicated.
It's also brainwashed by corporations population
who votes against it own interest, and brainwashed by corporations population who works 70-80 hours a week and forces everyone to work 70 hours a week so CEOs have finances to influence elections, and much, much more
Hybridoma: thank you for the history lesson. I recall reading about the evolution of corporate power, but I thank you for laying it out so succinctly. Let us remember, while the corporations HAVE merged into the US fabric of government (a pesky thing called campaign finance tied to the costs involved in any would-be rep getting elected) there is also the force of nature. Fires burning in Georgia, wild weather events, a frost that cost a billion in crop loss in California earlier this year, the bees gone Awol, Katrina and likely another active hurricane season just around the corner. When enough of these events take place, perhaps the great Equalizer will show the big boys (mostly) in corporate power who is boss. Whether oil runs out, or the US defaults on its debt (should Asian nations pull the fiscal plug) are other potential perturbations in the present scenario of wealth aggregating upwards and becoming less and less accountable to citizens of a would-be democratic republic.
Ok, they are here. Sorry.
I want my posts back
hydi,
"eurobelle, I guess I am misunderstanding you."
Yes, I was trying to be witty, and there was a misunderstanding. I'll try to avoid being witty next time, or do it in a less confusing way.
"It is the whole of society's responsibility to bring about change."
Here, I'll loose my patience (non-existing)fast.
This sentence is nice as a slogan. But do you see any relation to reality? When was the last time you talked to real people? Did you checked people's intelligence and knowledge before you posted this lofty sentence.
Correction:
the greed and antisemitism are an illness. We must
identify the disease correctly.
I am offring the following text:
Fd is a Nazis, who has penetrated the progressive groups to divert attention from the central issues, such as universal health care, status of corporations as human beings etc.
The greed of FD, paid by corporations, is an illness. We must identify the disease correctly.
Ah,
For those who don't know, the fd's post is a example of classical antisemitism
Hydri,
Frankly, nothing will change if people like Fd32 (Larouchman?) divert attention from this and other important issues to .... well, predictably ... to Jews, and the other progressives tolerate this deliberate subsversion.
Below is a FD32's post in Conason's thread
#
fd32 April 27th, 2007 7:33 am
Srauss was a Jew who's poisonous Neocon philosophy was spread through that particular network from the university of Chicago to the blood soaked streets of Basra, Jenin, and undoubtedly the World Trade Center. This is the poison responsible for the current preparations for the attack on Iran which is guaranteed by AIPAC to occur regardless of what the rest of the world thinks or wants. You must identify the disease correctly before you can cure it.
eurobelle, I guess I am misunderstanding you. It is the whole of society's responsibility to bring about change. I agree with you that those of us who would like to see and live in a fairer world are mostly those with a progressive view. But I don't think this is going to happen at the national level, in the congress. It is going to have to happen state by state. Already some states are trying out forms of universal health coverage. In Massachusetts, they have realized that while they have begun to change the way health care is delivered in their state, there are still many things that need to be worked out. It's going to take time and a united effort. I'm sure you know that also.
And that is why nothing is changing in Washington D.C. The corporations are doing all they can to not let any changes affect their livelihood. I can imagine it happening city by city, and state by state, until those in our nation's capitol finally realize they have no choice. It is a systemic which will have to begin changing at the local level. It's a systemic problem whose main location is in our nation's capitol. However, I see hope when this problem is approached systematically from the town hall until it finally reaches those who can truly implement change on a national rather than a local level.
And what did oily Democrat Chuck "nostrils" Schumer do in response to this impending calamity? Why he lunched with hedge fund slimeballs and demanded higher contributions to his campaign from them. What a class guy! Funny, this little tidbit did not make the New York Times.
hybridoma has placed his/her finger squarely upon THE problem...corporatism. Noam Chomskey describes corporations as "unaccountable totalitarian institutions". They are ruthless and antidemocratic, and are rewarded for being so. Is it any wonder that they have become so destructive? Fascism is merely the blending of corporatism with state power, America is now a perfect example of that hybridization. To hear Wall Streeters decry government intervention,and to insist upon "laisez-faire treatment" is the height of dishonesty and hypocracy. The government and big business has become a completely integrated monster to the exclusive benefit of government whores and their corporate masters. The rest of us merely pay our taxes and go to work to keep the machinery operating. What is Iraq but a massive diversion of American tax dollars out of our pockets and into the coffers and pockets of war profiteering bankers and industrialists...the names are too well known to repeat. The refusal of Bush to end the war is the refusal of a businessman to shut down a profitable business. To declare that this catastrophe has anything to do with efforts to curb terrorism or to bring democracy to the people of Iraq, one million of whom we have murdered in the past five years, is a lie only a psychopathic murderer could tell.
The question is why the Democrats who were in power for so long didn't change it and/or why the progressives who were much stronger than they are now didn't push for a change.
This and universal health care are probably the most important issues, but everyone is … somewhere else.
Hydri
"But eurobelle, don't you agree that when corporations harm the environment, or become involved in politics by contributing money, and other examples of what corporations had to abide by, don't you agree that this is fair and reasonable?"
This is absurd,
I am a Social-Democrat, one of my degrees is history.
There's nothing to argue about, this must change.
In view of the fact that this absurdity (corporation as nice
cute vulnerable human beings) has been existed for over a century, all nice polite discussion about .... anything, particularly about some secondary, tertiary issues are idiotic. I view all progressives who spend their time nicely discussing with Rovians the Rovians's issues as collaborators.
There is a profound SYSTEMIC problem and it's our responsibility to change it.
hybri
We are not communicating.
The collapse of John Meriwether's Long Term Capital Management which, quite literally, almost destroyed the U.S. economy, requiring the intervention of the Fed and all the big banks, should have been enough to make hedge funds illegal. This, however, was not the case and the next big fund failure will likely take down the whole Ponzi scheme called the United States.
But eurobelle, don't you agree that when corporations harm the environment, or become involved in politics by contributing money, and other examples of what corporations had to abide by, don't you agree that this is fair and reasonable? In my opinion, these corporate charters were good ways to address an age old problem – huge businesses becoming more powerful than nations in a monetary sense. By no means are corporations of just the past century. The East India Trade company was very powerful and in 1776, they wanted to limit the abuse a corporation was capable of. I realize that the fight for better ights for workers is a more modern development, but it was the corporations who did all in their power to stop the creation of any workers rights.
As you know, we can and should learn from history. The only thing that hasn't changed over the past 10,000 years or so is basic human nature and if societies were going to function, then laws were needed to sanction certain behaviors. Corporations now have the same rights as an individual in almost all senses; hence, corporations ought to be made to follow the rules if society was going to function. And by function I'm basically saying, "leaning to live together and 'do no harm'."
Oh well, there are spaces in my original version
Correction (I am half asleep)
T H I S M U S T C H A N G E
Hydridoma:
I are missing one concept - progress.
From archaic
"Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job" we have progressed to the modern:
"Employees (i.e. slaves) are not humans, they are tools, they responsible for everything ..." Our gods "owners and managers" are well ... divine. Welcome the 21st century.
OK
I think spreading this information should be one of the priorities of the progressives. Thom Hartmann does a good job, but he needs help.
"This has to change."
"This has to change."
"This has to change."
THIS MUST TO CHANGE
When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country's founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.
Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end.
The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these:
* Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
* Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
* Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
* Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
* Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country's founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.
Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end.
The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these:
* Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
* Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
* Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
* Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
* Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country's founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.
Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end.
The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these:
* Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
* Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
* Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
* Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
* Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
* Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.
For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight control of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.
States also limited corporate charters to a set number of years. Unless a legislature renewed an expiring charter, the corporation was dissolved and its assets were divided among shareholders. Citizen authority clauses limited capitalization, debts, land holdings, and sometimes, even profits. They required a company's accounting books to be turned over to a legislature upon request. The power of large shareholders was limited by scaled voting, so that large and small investors had equal voting rights. Interlocking directorates were outlawed. Shareholders had the right to remove directors at will.
In Europe, charters protected directors and stockholders from liability for debts and harms caused by their corporations. American legislators explicitly rejected this corporate shield. The penalty for abuse or misuse of the charter was not a plea bargain and a fine, but dissolution of the corporation.
In 1819 the U.S. Supreme Court tried to strip states of this sovereign right by overruling a lower court's decision that allowed New Hampshire to revoke a charter granted to Dartmouth College by King George III. The Court claimed that since the charter contained no revocation clause, it could not be withdrawn. The Supreme Court's attack on state sovereignty outraged citizens. Laws were written or re-written and new state constitutional amendments passed to circumvent the Dartmouth ruling. Over several decades starting in 1844, nineteen states amended their constitutions to make corporate charters subject to alteration or revocation by their legislatures. As late as 1855 it seemed that the Supreme Court had gotten the people's message when in Dodge v. Woolsey it reaffirmed state's powers over "artificial bodies."
But the men running corporations pressed on. Contests over charter were battles to control labor, resources, community rights, and political sovereignty. More and more frequently, corporations were abusing their charters to become conglomerates and trusts. They converted the nation's resources and treasures into private fortunes, creating factory systems and company towns. Political power began flowing to absentee owners, rather than community-rooted enterprises.
The industrial age forced a nation of farmers to become wage earners, and they became fearful of unemployment–a new fear that corporations quickly learned to exploit. Company towns arose. and blacklists of labor organizers and workers who spoke up for their rights became common. When workers began to organize, industrialists and bankers hired private armies to keep them in line. They bought newspapers to paint businessmen as heroes and shape public opinion. Corporations bought state legislators, then announced legislators were corrupt and said that they used too much of the public's resources to scrutinize every charter application and corporate operation.
Government spending during the Civil War brought these corporations fantastic wealth. Corporate executives paid "borers" to infest Congress and state capitals, bribing elected and appointed officials alike. They pried loose an avalanche of government financial largesse. During this time, legislators were persuaded to give corporations limited liability, decreased citizen authority over them, and extended durations of charters. Attempts were made to keep strong charter laws in place, but with the courts applying legal doctrines that made protection of corporations and corporate property the center of constitutional law, citizen sovereignty was undermined. As corporations grew stronger, government and the courts became easier prey. They freely reinterpreted the U.S. Constitution and transformed common law doctrines.
One of the most severe blows to citizen authority arose out of the 1886 Supreme Court case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. Though the court did not make a ruling on the question of "corporate personhood," thanks to misleading notes of a clerk, the decision subsequently was used as precedent to hold that a corporation was a "natural person."
From that point on, the 14th Amendment, enacted to protect rights of freed slaves, was used routinely to grant corporations constitutional "personhood." Justices have since struck down hundreds of local, state and federal laws enacted to protect people from corporate harm based on this illegitimate premise. Armed with these "rights," corporations increased control over resources, jobs, commerce, politicians, even judges and the law.
A United States Congressional committee concluded in 1941, "The principal instrument of the concentration of economic power and wealth has been the corporate charter with unlimited power…."
Many U.S.-based corporations are now transnational, but the corrupted charter remains the legal basis for their existence.
I believe, as i've posted here before, tht it is past time for the states to revisit and chnage the laws surrounding corporate charters. As said above, in 1776, there was healthy fear of corporations. And steps were taken to ensure that these corporations followed the laws. As always, money finally won the day and some court decisions ultimately gave corporations the same rights as people. This has to change. Reading the original ideas about corporate respsonsibility make as much sense today as they did over 200 years ago.
Hollywood was invented by a very tiny group of men sitting in New York City. They had a vast amount of money and credit, from various sources, legitimate and otherwise, and with it they dispatched their minions to California to make movies and money, not knowing a damn thing about movies and caring less. The key ingredient to making money was then and is now and always will be having money in the first place. Hedge funds are bundles of money (capital) with which businesses are bought, in some cases broken down and sold as parts, the parts being worth more than the whole. The only winners are the small group who control the capital and structure the deals, building in as they do, huge fees for themselves. Michael Milken did this in the eighties and wound up in prison for using debt to pay for his acquisitions and then lobbing off the loans to unsuspecting suckers, namely, U.S. taxpayers by fraudulently selling the worthless paper to Savings and Loan institutions which were insured by American taxpayers dollars. The point is that capitalism is a force of nature, like atomic energy, money buys anything and everything, labor, loyalty, corruption, government officials, everything. It is unstoppable except by government regulation. America no longer has a government willing to control capitalists but which is, in fact, controlled by capitalists. This is a very hazardous environment. It is bad for people, bad for economies, bad for democracy, bad for environments, bad for foreign relations, good for only a small number of men. But, owning the government as they do, how can they be stopped? The answer...they can't.
Pessimist
"Eurobelle appears to believe something along these lines, but the last word in the eurobelle post notwithstanding, nothing is simple."
:)
Eurobelle was sarcastic.
This is one of those thing eurobelle can't understand
Some ot the others are:
American religion - my boss is my Lord.
Belief in trickle down economy
Why the Bushies are still in power
Acceptance of stolen elections
It is a fallacy to think we "own our riches." The money you have is what the "system" allows to have.
The Rich are rich because the system allows them to get rich. It is up to us to change the system however difficult it may be.
John D. Rockefeller used to say that God gave him his money. The social philosophy that descended from this, Sacred Social Darwinism, says that rich people's wealth is prove of their favor in God's eyes, and by that right, the poor deserve any suffering their poverty causes them. The extreme holders of this view say that doing anything to alleviate poverty is going against God's will.
Prosecuting the Enron gang, for example, is seen as an affront to God's will.
So, by this logic, any effort to help people, save the environment, or accomplish any other aim thought worthy by progressives is violating the God-given natural order of things. A surprising number of people, most of them fairly well off, believe this, think that their upscale lifestyle proves that they have God's grace.
Eurobelle appears to believe something along these lines, but the last word in the eurobelle post notwithstanding, nothing is simple.
bandido,
You just don't get it.
The rich are rich because they deserve to be rich.
Simple
The corrupt get richer as capitalism destroys the environment, destroys habitat, destroys people, causes wars, and even eats its own decent companies in a race to steal all resources through lies, theft, murder. There is no wrong brand of capitalism - hedge funds are just a higher level of theft and destruction of the commons. What did Marx say about capitalism - something about consuming itself, and in the process consuming nature.