Shareholders Can Also Vote

Soon I will devote one of these 'blogs' to the matter of capitalism and liberal distain for it. But today, I would like to reflect on how corporate shareholders, in common with election voters, are also ignored.

In earlier blogs, I have mentioned the fact that as a result of voter apathy, the voting % in democracies is in steep decline save for Australia where voting has been made mandatory and which I do not subscribe. I attribute much of this apathy to politicians ignoring the wishes of their electorates and I believe much the same can be said in the case of corporations.

In the latter case, you have officers (cabinet) that run the company, a board of directors (read Parliament) that appoint the officers and of course the shareholders (read voters) that elect the board. I guess you could even extend this analogy to say that the minions working for the corporation mirror the government's bureaucracy.

As in the case of democracies, the shareholder on paper is king. He or she has the power to replace the Board of Directors. In practice, the number of shareholders is huge and widespread in public corporations, and as a consequence, a few major shareholders can control everything despite the fact that % wise they do not hold a majority of the outstanding sahres. They do though decide the make-up of the Board and thereby decide who is hired to be the key Officers. The ordinary Shareholder, like the ordinary Voter is disregarded.

What's the result?

I am glad you asked.

Millions of dollars get syphoned off in outlandish salaries but even more in unearned bonuses. The figures are simply staggering, even in the case of companies which have failed to realize profits.

This is unadulerated greed then leads to other sinister ventures like the asset-backed paper fiasco. Money, money, money and to hell with who gets hurt.

Do you see the link?

In the case of democracies, too many politicians spend the taxpayers' money without regard. Corporations do the same thing with their shareholders' money. In both cases our way of life is adversely affected.

If Capitalism gets undermined so to does Democracy.

Solutions?

I am not sure what the total solution is but I do know that it does not involve government taking ownership positions in our companies.

Here though are some thoughts:

• First, make it mandatory that Officers and their families be precluded from holding shares in the companies they run;
• Bonuses should have a know cap and, in the oridinary course of events, only be paid when the company shows an annual profit;
• Bonuses must be submitted to the annual meeting of shareholders for their approval;
• Membership on a Board be time limited - e.g. no more than 5 years.

More on this later...

"Galagher"

Ottawa's Mayor Larry O'Brien - Ciminal or Victim

The subject for today's Blog is a no brainer given that tomorrow at 10 a.m. the verdict comes down on whether our Mayor is guilty of influence peddling and conspiring to adversely influence the outcome of an Election. Not exactly the wording from the Criminal Code but in essence this describes the two charges against Mayor O'Brien.



A little history.



Shortly after he was elected Mayor 3 years ago, the above charges were laid against O'Brien. The complaint came from one of the Mayor's competitor's for the Mayor's Chair - a light weight by the name of Kilrea. Kilrea and O'Brien represented the right wing of the spectrum so the two met where it was alleged that O'Brien offered the former a spot on the National Parole Board if he would drop out of the race and leave O'Brien to collect all the right of centre votes. Interestingly enough, when questioned about this in Court - Kilrea denied that such a deal was even offered to him by O'Brien.



Also of interest is the fact the Union representing the City Workers pressed for the charges to be laid as well as the fact that the first Prosecutor asked to prosecute the case turned it down saying there was no case to prosecute.



Enter Liberal Queen's Park to press for prosecution which then eventually leads to tomorrow's expected verdict.

I voted for O'Brien, but am not a fan of his so my comments are not at all biased in his favour. He campaigned on a "zero tax increases" and then promptly voted along with his left wing leaning Council to have them increased. Be that as it may, he did not deserve - but more importantly, his voters did not deserve having these charges laid.

I have been involved in politics since I was 11 or 12 years old. Even then I think I knew that if a politician was doing his job, he would enter into such arrangements, as are being alleged.. It comes under the heading of 'Just Doing His Job'. Indeed, countless policitians have done just that on many, many occasions, one of the more recent being Harper's offer to a Liberal MP from BC to become his Industry Minister.

In his particular case, O'Brien denies having made such a promise to Kilrea and, as mentioned, by Kilrea's own testimony he supports O'Brien's position.

Most with an IQ of over 100, with even minimal interest in Ottawa City politics, expect a not guilty verdict tomorrow. But regardless, the damage has been done and what might otherwise have occurred on the municipal scene - as voted for by Ottawa's citizens, has been lost forever.

The only winners here are the City Union and Queen's Park.

I heard someone call in to a radio talk show to say that 'yes, charges should have been laid: against all of those who insisted that O'Brien be charged."

Amen to that.


"Galagher"

Where Have All The Libertarians Gone...long time passing

As a self-professed Libertarian, I often wonder what it will take to have people reclaim responsibility for themselves. Too many blame others for their circumstance and look to government for solutions rather than starting with themselves.


North America was founded by Libertarians although that term did not exist at the time. They were self-reliant and if they did need help from others, they looked to their neighbours or to family.


That was then.


Today, the ties that bound family have broken or frayed and neighbours too often are distant or entirely anonymous.


The former self-reliant citizen now depends completely on the system for his or her welfare. The State has become omnipotent.

Europe has succumbed entirely, - as has Canada, where I suspect 2/3 rds of our population finds itself in the dependent category. Only the USA remains the battle-ground between the two approaches and it is currently split evenly - 50/50, with the dependents in ascendancy.

There are a host of reasons for this outcome including urbanization, universal social programs, breakdown of the family, decline in religion, and, most important, the never ending growth in government.

Why is this bad?

With dependency comes apathy. Is it any wonder that voting levels are in steep decline? More important though, it replaces the need to think. Indeed, why bother thinking when the government will and does do it for you?

The government tells you the ozone layer is disintegrating, that global cooling and / or warming is occurring, that climate change is upon us or whatever the flavour of the month is and you - the citizen must immediately do whatever is asked, without giving it thought. And most of us do.

We are regulated and legislated to death. Soon you will need a permit or licence to breathe. And the public response - zilch. All the while government continues to grow.

Being on the heavy side I used to joke that some day government would tell McDonald's how much fat they could put in their hamburgers. I thought that a bit off the wall but now it has happend.

Even more bizarre, in Europe they have imposed a tax on cow flatulence and I have read where the tax is likely to be levied here in North America soon. Who'd want to be the enforcer of that tax?

If America loses in its fight to retain a semblance of liberatianism, and it looks as though it will, we will have lost.

If that occurs, the future will not be worth experiencing.


"Galagher"

post script: in my blog about a new way to calculate civil servant salaries, one of my readers commented that my suggestion was "terrible". She of course was married to a civil servant. When I asked her if my analysis was correct- she quickly admitted it was. Kudos for her honesty. (I was thinking though - another possible approach to determining government salaries would be to establish a % of its private sector equivalent e.g. 60 - 70% - more on that later... G)