Cormac Hollingsworth details how shareholders of big business can be the left's greatest ally when it comes to promoting responsible capitalism
The shareholder revolt against Bob Diamond’s £20 million bonus is so important for those who really believe a change is needed in our system. If we’re serious about a new responsible we need to start supporting and showing solidarity to the people who own the companies we’d like to change.
Those who’d rather sit in an igloo and watch the market collapse, as if that would cathartic (£) might scoff, but that option is irresponsible, impoverishing millions around the world including here in the UK.
The global market system is worth saving. It’s taken the most people out of poverty ever in history in the last ten years: one hundred million people. And the power of the state is unquestioned: its coordinated intervention globally in 2009 stopped a free-fall in global employment, output and stock prices.
The problem is, politicians lack the legitimacy to intervene in a sliding global economy because they’ve been unable to change the behavior of the bankers. But executive pay is an issue for shareholder.
Many shareholders, as owners who benefit from the success of the private sector have learnt the lesson that the collapse of the private sector since 2007 was partly their responsibility, and they’re not prepared to sit back and let poor management continue.
In the vote against Murdoch’s directorship, Standard Life stood forward in the belief that it’s duty to its pensioners was for BSkyB to be better run without Murdoch.
Aviva has been a leading light in the UN’s organisation of $30 trillion of investor power, the UN’s Principles of Responsible Investment. Paul Abberley CEO of Aviva Investors has been crystal clear about the new responsibility of shareholders to make sure our economy provides jobs, inclusive growth, and stability.
With $30 trillion behind them, the left has many allies for a responsible investment. And yet they are silent.
But to support is obvious. Those wanting global taxation must see that one of the biggest supporters of the lobby against it, the Institute of International Finance, is Barclays. That funding is signed off by the CEO.
The Tories would rather have a fight about nine hundred thousand pounds than see themselves exposed as craven supporters of the IIF-lobbied bankers’ status quo. They’d like you not to know that the City is actually split, and if we don’t support the shareholders who are looking for a new owner-driven market economy, we might as well all start building igloos, because the liquidation will be horrible.
It’s time for progressives to stand with Barclays shareholders.
See also:
• The government has the power to stop Hester’s bonus, they just don’t want to – Ben Fox, January 27th 2012
• How bankers’ bonuses are contributing to the new credit crunch – Cormac Hollingsworth, December 6th 2011
• Expecting Tories to regulate bonuses is like Turkeys voting for Christmas – Rachel Reeves MP, January 12th 2011
• Top Lib Dem: Bankers’ bonuses are “moment of truth for coalition” – Will Straw, January 12th 2011
• Bankers’ bonuses under fire as Barclays chief faces Parliament – Claire French, January 11th 2011
24 Responses to “We must stand with shareholders that want a better economy”
Blarg1987
And with regards to the utilites / transport network and energy markets?
They are all industries which now require heavy state subsidies as BT does now for super fast broadband which the goverment is doing which I thought the idea was that they would fund it themselves not through tax payers.
A good reason against deregulation, also is that not technically corruption where an MP is on a board that he approved the sell off of while tax payers money was spent brining it up to standard so it could be sold.
Anonymous
BT only ‘require’ a subsidy, because the government will cough up.
If I ask you for 100K, and you pay it, who is the idiot? Me for asking, or you for handing over the money?
With deregulation, with the removal of subsidy, and the removal of forcing future generations to pay, it becomes a lot more transparent.
For example, I doubt you know what you pay for the NHS. What does the average tax payer pay for their health insurance (None taxpayer’s get it for free, subsidized by others). You can exclude the massive pension costs. That’s the pay later bit.
The same applies to the rail. Why should non users subsidize the privileged? e.g Huge ticket subsides for years, for people to get too, or more likely away from Birmingham as fast as possible.
Mr. Sensible
The problem with just relying on shareholders is that anyone who wants to express concerns would probably find themselves outvoted by the majority shareholders, I.E the directors.
Blarg1987
Part of the reason the goverment will cough up is that if they don’t it will show the system has failed i.e. little or no profit can be generated from it and so it has become one of those things that can not fail as to do so would be ideological suicide.
I agree the removal of subsidies would make it more transparent and probably show it was better off run not for profit but as I said aboe to do so would be ideological suicide just like the health reform bill is now, it will probabaly end up costing more long term but to admit that would be ideoloogical defeat.
Anonymous
Global Debt Crisis
The greatest private fraud of human history.
Who are the great fraudsters who are becoming the murderers of the human kind? How does the economy “illness” threaten Democracy and the freedom of people?
http://eamb-ydrohoos.blogspot.com/2012/01/global-debt-crisis.html
———————————
By knowing what happened in indebted Greece, where loan sharks created “bubbles” and the current inhuman debt, one can understand the inhuman plan in total …understand where this plan started just to bring all states at the same end …understand how this type of plans are established…
Authored by PANAGIOTIS TRAIANOU