text:
Democracy in danger: the rise of illegitimate authority
Transnational corporations have an unbalanced influence on global and domestic politics, and are dangerous to democracy. Ignore them at your own peril, writes Susan George.
What is legitimate government? Since the late 18th century, the Western consensus has required at a minimum popular sovereignty, free and fair elections and legally binding citizens' rights.
Differences of degree have always existed and the battle to extend democratic freedoms is never-ending and knows no frontiers. People now overthrow tyrants in unexpected places; millions of Egyptians have lately reminded us that the right to oust an elected leader who neither keeps his promises nor honours his obligations is also part of the democratic canon.
Legitimacy demands above all the consent of the governed. This in turn means that the governed must have the capacity to reject illegitimate authority. But what if they are unable to detect and identify illegitimate rule in the first place? What if the real governing bodies are shadowy entities, known mostly to specialists and which carefully refrain from publicising their activities? What is the citizens' recourse?
Knowledge is the first requirement and the media are of little help in this department. How many journalists let alone ordinary people have ever heard of the International Accounting Standards Board? How boring! Who wants to read about accounting? Invented as a simple advisory group by the European Union which needed to deal with many disparate accounting systems in its member states, the IASB brought together executives or retirees of the Big Four transnational accounting firms. It became official in 2005 and since then, dozens of countries including Australia have decided to follow its rules.
Why should we care? Simply because the world will never get rid of tax havens so long as the IASB is able to stonewall "country-by-country reporting" - the only system that could force transnational corporations (TNCs) to pay their taxes where their real economic activity takes place. Thanks to "transfer pricing" and various other legal dodges, the TNCs are causing governments to forfeit untold tax revenues that could improve the lot of their peoples. And so long as the top accounting firms make the rules by proxy, they will continue to do so.
Over 3,000 Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) are now in force and most include "investor-to-state dispute resolution" provisions. These allow investors - by definition TNCs - to sue governments if they believe that their present or even "expected" profits are harmed by any government measure. Australia wisely announced in 2011 that it would no longer include such clauses in future trade and investment treaties; too late, however, to avoid being sued by Philip Morris for its anti-smoking legislation.
Negotiations began last month on the most important free trade agreement ever drafted. The TTIP, or Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, will make the rules for fully half the world economy's GDP. US-European annual goods and services trade amounts to some trillion and a half dollars, but there is little to negotiate on direct barriers such as tariffs - these average a mere 3 per cent. The goals are instead to eliminate BBBs or "behind borders barriers", including regulations and public services, and to obtain total freedom for TNC investors, particularly the investor-to-state clause.
Extra-judicial arbitration panels are increasingly replacing national courts and they can strike down consumer, public health and environmental protection laws as well as obtain mega-million dollar awards for TNCs whose turnover is often larger than the total GDP of the country being sued.
But just as is the case for the thousands of BITs, it's governments that negotiate the TTIP, no? What's illegitimate about that? Simply put, TNCs headquartered on both sides of the Atlantic have since the mid-1990s been deciding all the nuts-and-bolts issues in elaborate detail, sector by sector. Their venue was the Transatlantic Business Dialogue, newly morphed as the Transatlantic Economic Council. It describes its job as "reducing regulations to empower the private sector" and calls itself a "political body". Their website says proudly that this is the first time "the private sector [has] held an official role in determining EU/US public policy".
In 2012, governments met in Rio de Janeiro for the United Nations "Rio + 20" environmental conference. The representative of the International Chamber of Commerce was applauded when she announced on "Business Day" that "we are part of the largest business delegation ever to attend a UN conference" and told her audience that "business needs to take the lead and we are taking the lead." The TNCs are now demanding a formal role in UN climate negotiations.
It isn't just their size, enormous wealth and assets that make the TNCs dangerous to democracy. As the late Professor Ted Wheelwright often pointed out, it's also their concentration, their capacity to influence, indeed infiltrate governments and their ability to defend their interests as a genuine international social class.
Interchangeable, international, individually wealthy, nomadic, with common attributes, speaking a common language and sharing a common ideology, I call the people who increasingly run not just business but government the Davos Class. Citizens who value democracy ignore them at their peril.
Susan George is an internationally renowned social scientist and Chair of the TransNational Institute based in Amsterdam. Her latest book is Whose Crisis? Whose Future? She is visiting Australia to present the 2013 Wheelwright Lecture at the University of Sydney on Thursday August 29. View her full profile here.
Topics: world-politics, business-economics-and-finance
First posted
Comments (125)
Comments for this story are closed.
the yank:
28 Aug 2013 10:59:23am
Hence the problem with Murdoch's 70% market control of Australia's media not to mention their international power.
To have free and fair elections one needs a free and fair media.
Not My Real Name:
29 Aug 2013 8:54:23am
The Yank
You're barking up the wrong tree here. Freedom and fairness are at opposite ends of the scale. If you want freedom, then you have to put up with a lot of unfairness. If you want fairness, then you have to restrict people's freedom to make that happen. Western democracies sit somewhere in between the two extremes of either total freedom or total fairness, and each one is slightly different in the way it resolves this issue.
Australian elections aren't totally free because we force people to participate, but we think that will make them fairer. American elections are freer because you don't have to participate, and many don't and the results are thus never as truly fair as they could be.
If you want a fair media in Australia, then you have to restrict its freedoms. If you want it to be free, then you have to put up with bias. Look at the ABC. In terms of the vote compass now being used, the ABC is forced by various rules to give equal coverage to both political parties, so it is fair but not free. In terms of the vertical dimension of Vote Compass, the ABC is clearly positioned in the upper half and doesn't give adequate coverage of conservative views. For instance, on the issue of gay marriage, the ABC's coverage makes it sound like little more than the mouthpiece of the gay lobby. It is free in this area, but unfair.
David C:
29 Aug 2013 9:41:17am
Murdoch does not control 70% of Australia's media. He owns about 33% of it but his papers have about a 65-70% market share. Market share does not equal control
29 Aug 2013 12:26:10pm
Market share does not equal control? Tell that to Coles and Woolworths. Or try telling that to Facebook (where is Myspace now?) The larger the market share the greater the control. Would Murdoch have the power he does if he had continued to own only the Adelaide Advertiser?
28 Aug 2013 11:09:32am
Democracy is in danger because unelected NGOs are being permitted multiple voices in forums like the Rio +20 quoted above.
Citizens who value democracy ignore them at their peril.
Who ever voted for the "Transnational Institute? Come back and lecture us about democracy when you get a vote somewhere, or invest in something, or produce something, or do anything other than try to drag down the real contributors.
Here in Australia we are being given the opportunity to reclaim democracy from a Government which promised no carbon tax a few days before an election and overturned the promise a few days after.
When the Green Party gets a mandate they will be entitled to have their policies implemented, not before.
(To spare the keyboards of those who persist in the post-election context/full quote lie - she said she was determined to price carbon, she promised a peoples assembly to get consensus before proceeding, she promised not to proceed before the election due in 2013, and she did specifically rule out a carbon tax. Anything else?)
28 Aug 2013 4:35:32pm
Is she really "lecturing us about democracy" or is she pointing out a very serious issue for people who like democracy and may not realise the extent to which it has been subverted by very rich, very powerful non-people?
It's interesting how you've chosen to receive this article, gnome. I don't understand your hostility towards what seem like a very important message that is absolutely in the interests of ordinary Australians to know.
28 Aug 2013 7:20:32pm
Everyone should know by now my main political obsession is the affront to democracy caused by the carbon tax.
I blame Green Groups for inducing this disregard of democracy in the ALP, and I suspect the Transnational Institute of turning a blind eye to them whilst pretending to care about principles they just don't hold.
29 Aug 2013 8:03:33am
The carbon tax was a policy that needed to be negotiated with democratically-elected representatives who held the balance of power in the parliament. If this isn't democracy at work, what is? Gnome, you seem to support democratic debate and negotation only if it results in policy that you agree with.
The real link between the carbon tax and this article is that corporations and other bodies with vested interests in maintaining dependence on fossil fuels completely derailed any sensible discussion about climate change.
There was no chance of real discussion about whether a carbon tax, ETS or incentive scheme was the better option once there was so much misinformation about the basic facts of whether climate change is occurring and whether people are the cause.
julius muller:
29 Aug 2013 8:51:14am
Abbott invented the 'carbon tax', he knew very well that Julia was talking about emissions trading.
28 Aug 2013 11:13:10am
Very scary situation we are heading for.
Reminds me of the TV show "continuum", where the future is run by corporations because they bought out the bankrupted governments of the day, turning society into a plutocratic dictatorship.
From all of the trade decisions already, this is already happening.
Great article Ms George.
28 Aug 2013 5:16:41pm
Rule by transnational corporations - a new feudalism is indeed what we're heading for.
28 Aug 2013 11:15:42am
"Let me explain to you how this works: you see, the corporations finance Team America, and then Team America goes out... and the corporations sit there in their... in their corporation buildings, and... and, and see, they're all corporation-y... and they make money."
sea mendez:
28 Aug 2013 11:20:36am
Bit of a theme developing with this and Assange's article. I've got to commend Assange. He's one of the few right of centre libertarians who can see how large corporations are acting in concert with government when it comes to subverting democracy. Most of them (righf of centre libertarians) have a massive blind spot in this regard.
28 Aug 2013 11:29:35am
If you are going to write about illegitimate authority then you would have to make a significant mention of the bilderberg group.
28 Aug 2013 11:32:55am
Add to that the TPP, Trans Pacific Partnership that held talks in secret in NZ with corporations sitting at the table and public interest groups excluded not only from attending but finding out what was said.
So far Labor has refused to sign up due to the provisions of letting trans-nationals to sue governments. Do you think that the Liberals whose brains are wired to IPA propaganda will even hesitate to sign?
So called 'free trade' agreements are actually legislating away the democratic rights of people. They benefit the rich and the powerful at the expense of the average person or small to medium business.
No more privatisation, no more outsourcing. No more governments that claim you can't trust government and go out of their way to prove it. I don't want to swap a government I can vote out for a corporate master I have no control over. Foreign 'investment' is just a euphemism for taking profits out of the economy and stashing them in tax free havens.
28 Aug 2013 5:21:36pm
"No more governments that claim you can't trust government and go out of their way to prove it."
This. One might suspect that this is intentional. That formenting disaffection with the political process expressly serves to weaken accountability and legitimacy. Power then shifts away from the democratically elected governments and towards corporations.
All bilateral and multilateral agreements need to be put to the people.
Ray Manta:
28 Aug 2013 11:40:12am
Susan, after reading your article I am an instant fan. Will you be our leader? I suspect you will say no, because it is hard to say yes without the risk of becoming a Davos recruit. Unless of course one is really, really diligent, which I am sure you would be.
Your article contains one of the best summations of democracy that I have read. And for a non-accounting person like me it is a revelation to learn about the IASB. What a crock. It explains why governments are so weak in the face of so much transnational corporate abuse.
If anyone is going to the leaders' third debate at Rooty Hill, can they ask the two guys about the IASB? I would love to see the bewilderment on their faces. Susan, since you are in presently Sydney, maybe you could do it, please.
Alison Cann:
28 Aug 2013 11:43:43am
Legitimate government is what anyone with a big enough army and weapons capability says it is.
28 Aug 2013 9:59:36pm
Not really Alison.
Check out Afghanistan. Ungovernable by even a super power.
28 Aug 2013 11:44:11am
Great article.
It seems logical that if we forget about aim of democracy (which is to accomplish the objectives that best serve the interests of the people, in terms of their human rights, living standards, and quality of life), and focus instead on the accumulation of wealth, then TNCs will become the rulers.
They are the ones that you vote for - not by ballot but by bank note.
According to Epicurus..
"Empty desires are those that have as their objects things designated by empty sounds, such as immortality, which cannot exist for human beings and do not correspond to any genuine need. The same holds for the desire for great wealth or for marks of fame, such as statues: they cannot provide the security that is the genuine object of the desire. Such desires, accordingly, can never be satisfied, any more than the corresponding fears ? e.g., the fear of death ? can ever be alleviated, since neither has a genuine referent, i.e. wealth and power as salves for anxiety."
I think this is why a moral platform is much more important than an economic one - in fact, i dont think you can have a truly sustainable economic platform without a moral one - because otherwise you will always be wanting to 'grow'.. there is no renuine referent.
Hudson Godfrey:
28 Aug 2013 11:49:42am
I think the article makes a good argument insofar as it speaks to an understandable resentment of illegitimate influence of politics. Whether it would be materially different from a set of conditions arising out of natural market forces in a less concerted fashion were the transnationals broken down into their component parts is far more difficult to gauge.
Nor am I nearly as concerned about the bait of getting rid of tax havens as I am with the process of getting governments off the teat of lobby groups. It seems to me that while elections pivot on our perceptions about which party can deliver economic bliss government policies are placing more responsibility on the private sector to deliver these outcomes than ever. I'm not sure that simply wishing that private enterprise will act in accordance with our best interests is going to be anything like enough.
I think we want to take fullest advantage of global communications and connectivity on a range of levels that more or less insist that he who fails to progress suffers the consequences of regress. I also think we'd be overly selfish not to regulate trade in ways that distinguish free trade from fair trade. Perhaps other forms of regulation might not exclude some kind of winding back of lobbying and political donations amounting to the notion that the corporate citizen has a voice several orders of magnitude louder than any other constituent.
28 Aug 2013 1:15:04pm
Hudson - you miss the point.
This worthwhile article is about global governance and who exercises authority in major decisions regarding global trade and economic regulation.
Clearly TNCs are and their bodies are a formidable and undemocratic class - that obviously dominate government decision making. The article is pointing to their continued expansion
TNCs respond to no-one but their small group of so-called shareholders (i.e big investors). Shareholders are not the public or citizens - but a very defined group of self interested economic agents. They have limited interest in broader social goods.
TNCs are not responsible to citizens or to governments - yet they wield phenomenal capacity to exercise power over very public decisions.
Great public regulation and access is needed indeed.
Hudson Godfrey:
28 Aug 2013 6:59:31pm
I guess we don't substantially differ except that I'm putting forward some ideas as to how we manoeuvre towards a position where we can effectively regulate. Things like fair trade rather than just free trade and breaking the lobbies' hold over our policy makers need to be put in place on a national level because that's where our democracies operate. I think its a matter of taking away the incentive for TNC's to profit by riding roughshod over whoever has the weakest regulation before we can expect change to begin to happen.
28 Aug 2013 11:51:09am
THIS is truly the largest and most dangerous threat to democracy and living standards in the world, but it's so bland that most people don't see it at all. These companies are leeches that take money out of economies by paying almost no taxes (meaning no hospitals, schools, etc) and then sueing governments for trying to protect their citizens (eg, tobacco manufacturers campaigning to have anti-smoking legislation banned as a restriction on trade, meaning more unnecessary deaths and greater need for hospitals). Sadly, I don't see how these monsters can be put back in Pandora's box.
28 Aug 2013 12:59:45pm
Markets exist in this country because we have a set of laws and a populace that is prepared to abide by them.
It is very reasonable to ask corporations to support the market that supports them. Additionally, it is only a regulated market that works with regulation needing government which needs tax revenue.
28 Aug 2013 2:27:35pm
"These companies are leeches that take money out of economies by paying almost no taxes"
What utter tosh. Businesses are the lifeblood of the economy. They generate almost all it's wealth. By bringing together workers, capital and customers in a way that pays for itself, they not only pay the wages of more than 60% of the workforce they also generate the surplus wealth that pays for the schools, hospitals, roads and everything else.
The wealth they create is distributed either as wages or as dividends to shareholders, both of which are taxed. Companies are therefore the source of the vast majority of taxation revenue. Even if a particular company doesn't pay company tax, and that is up to the law passed by the government, they still generate the wealth that pays most tax.
Businesses are the organising force behind modern economic activity. Without them we would have the incomes of 18th century peasants and, more than likely, you would not have had the education that enabled to write your post.
Rob Morgan:
29 Aug 2013 7:36:05am
Ok, let's start with some clarity on TNC's: Trans-National Corporations, often shifting their notional headquarters between multiple low-tax regimes, earning billions of dollars profit, and generally paying a disproportionately low rate of tax (or none) in all of their real revenue-earning geographies.
This is what the article refers to - not the typical Australian-owned and run business.
29 Aug 2013 9:35:36am
Yes, and those profits get paid out as dividends that get taxed. The TNC's pay wages that get taxed. They pay interest on loans that get taxed.
Profits that TNC's earn in Australia get taxed in Australia and it is up to Australian tax law and the taxation department to make sure they are paid.
28 Aug 2013 6:10:06pm
Brian, you must be a Green Supportor to believe that. I am with Chrism. Corporations despite some of the shady deals and tax avoidance are the life blood of a modern economy. Without them, we would be in caves.
29 Aug 2013 11:15:43am
actually, the middle class, which props up corporations, is the lifeblood of the economy.
corporations dont just get rich and powerful on their own - they need the middle class to buy their goods and services.
hence it remains with the middle class to reign them in.
29 Aug 2013 12:11:41am
Corporation law originally intended for the lifespan of a corporate entity to be 30 years. This was intended to prevent a concentration of power.
This was also the first thing corporate lawyers sought to remove.
Solution is to give corporations a finite life span, but by making shareholders dependent on the structure for personal wealth, this is nigh on impossible.
28 Aug 2013 11:55:38am
Yes indeed. But I suspect we are too late to change it now. Neoliberalism has proved humankind's curse.
sea mendez:
28 Aug 2013 2:29:58pm
Vested interests have been a problem in every ism.
Half Past Human:
28 Aug 2013 6:19:07pm
Greed for power & money is the problem, Sea Mendez.
28 Aug 2013 4:49:20pm
"But I suspect we are too late to change it now."
Why? and how?
It is not that long ago (in historical terms), that the most advanced socio-economic system on earth was feudalism. Under feudalism, there were different levels or degrees of humanity, with some levels exercising virtual ownership rights over others.
We moved on. Technology and the driving force of history (time) combined to produce change. We evolved what we believed was a wonderful system that would deliver real democracy and protect human beings from tyranny. It was called "liberal democracy" and, while it represented a huge historical threshold and sparked social, intellectual and economic changes that almost wiped out the tyrannical power of the feudal aristocracy, it also provided the ideal conditions for the growth and prosperity of a malignant entity known as the "Limited Libaility Company" or "corporation".
Unfortunately the "liberal-democratic" revolution of the 18th and 19th centuries did not completely end the power and influence of the corrupt feudal aristocracy and, particularly in Europe, it was the dregs of the aristocracy who took control of the newly emerging corporate sector and effectively transformed themselves from "aristocrats" to "plutocrats".
So, we didn't really finish the job. The "democratic revolution" still has a long way to go and, for much of the 20th century, we were going backwards.
But the existence of the Magna Carta and the US Declaration of Independence shows that we have stood up for ourselves and asserted our humanity in the past. And this means that we can do it again.
OK, our first attempt (liberal democracy) has failed. But we should not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Liberal democracy/capitalism is simply one alternative - one possible path to real democracy and prosperity. It has been killed by the growth of corporations. But, as they are showing in Latin America at the moment, there are other ways.
The Bolivaran Project in Latin America is demonstrating that all is not lost. We CAN still stand up to the multinational corporations. If the Cubans and Venezeulans can do it, why not Australians, Kiwis and Poms? Are we really that much dumber than the Brazilians or Blivians?
Don't give up. Democracy is still possible. Liberal democracy was a creditable "first try", but we can do better.
sea mendez:
28 Aug 2013 7:57:45pm
Lets not cut off our noses to spite our faces.
28 Aug 2013 11:58:50am
This is a very welcome exception to the rule that media content needs to target a mass audience with emotionally compelling hooks that ultimately distract us from engaging with big problems.
Politics will always be more about deception than fairness unless there are institutional mechanisms that militate against corruption of the contest for power.
The international scene can only be made better by nations making wiser choices. That cannot happen until sovereign political systems include mechanisms that allow all voters to make reasoned choices based on informed self-interest.
Until we protect the right of voters to informed self-interest with at least the degree of equity focus we give to justice, health and education, we are trapped in a system that subjugates reason.
28 Aug 2013 12:46:47pm
A very useful comment Colmery - it appears the "Information Age" irony that there has never been as much content "out there" whilst humanity has never been more ignorant of what is actually going on is a quite interesting one. It seems the price that was prophesised to be paid for the foregoing of eternal vigilance may actually be coming due a tad sooner than was suspected - and just as in the case of the Maginot Line, not from the direction the defences are pointing.
28 Aug 2013 2:33:57pm
This isn't about any side in politics in general any media tycoon who controls 70% of the media in any country can control the out come of nearly anything they want to, they just keep bashing away at it, used to be called brain washing, but if there is an educated society some will see through it.
28 Aug 2013 12:09:42pm
You should have argued against the United Nations, the ultimate illegitimate one world government.
"Legitimacy demands above all the consent of the governed. This in turn means that the governed must have the capacity to reject illegitimate authority. But what if they are unable to detect and identify illegitimate rule in the first place? "
This is the United Nations to a t.
Constantly subverting the legitimate role of nation state governments with its mandates and treaties.
How many Australian's would know or understand that once governments agree to something at UN level, it has a flow through effect to ordinary Australians....
KO the UN.
Politically Incorrect:
28 Aug 2013 1:14:52pm
Considering Australia is represented in the UN by their elected Governments (as is all democratic countries in the UN), your argument holds no water.
The Security Council is undemocratic because of the limited number of seats and the Veto powers of the likes of the US, China and Russia, the whole "some are more equal than others" mantra, however the General Assembly is actually very democratic. But at least we now have a seat on the Security Council and get to vote on it.
Plus, no nation is beholden to any treaty it doesn't want to sign up to.
Plus you also have the realisation that the UN has no real power: regardless of what you think of the Israel/Palestaine conflict, the UN has always forbidden the West Bank settlements and Israel has had no repercussions nor any enforced sanctions against it.
Who's in the right and who's in the wrong is completly irrelivent. I take the position both sides are wrong and acting like spoiled children in the name of their idiotic religions.
However the POINT is Israel has basically given the UN the finger and are getting away with it, which actually tells you more about the UN than Israel. It's a toothless tiger incapable of doing anything.
Otherwise you would have Guantanimo operators and even George W Bush jailed for war crimes. Regardless of the UN, the major powers will do what they want to do anyway.
The UN was basically setup to deal with the fallout of World War II anyway.
Steve Mount:
28 Aug 2013 2:48:50pm
J.T , quote : "Constantly subverting the legitimate role of nation state governments ..."
That would include, presumably, the unilateral, pre-emptive invasion of Iraq by the Coalition of The Wilful, over Iraq's supposed WMDs, despite the UN's pleas.
With now ten years of retrospect to allow review, the UN was 100% right, whilst the independent nation states were 100%wrong.
The carnage continues to this day, as proof, so I'll take the UN, imperfect as it is, above nothing at all, or self-interested nation states who have an axe to grind.
28 Aug 2013 3:11:01pm
Governments know what they are signing and the ramifications when they sign the various UN treaties. Get over this conspiracy theory, concentrate a bit longer on Roswell or the Moon landing.
28 Aug 2013 4:56:09pm
I disagree.
Our governments consent to our participation in the UN (such as it is) and we consent to their government of us, therefore the UN is legitimate.
There is no perfect democracy (although there could be and I welcome it) - the final result in terms of government is usually several steps removed from what was actually voted for. By that standard, the UN is quite legitimate.
28 Aug 2013 5:01:23pm
Like all the hysterical rantings of the right, this one would be good if it were true.
The nation-state is an abomination we'd all be better off without. One world government? Bring it on! At the very least we wouldn't have wars between nations.
29 Aug 2013 12:13:25am
Can you guarantee a one-world government wouldn't have to deal with the equivalent of a civil war?
28 Aug 2013 12:14:42pm
The author is assuming that our politicians leaders and their toothless media watchdogs are automatically better decision-makers than corporations - wiser, better informed, more generous, and less self-interested and short-term in their thinking.
Not sure that stacks up. A corporaton might offer me an unhealthy product (which I don't have to buy), but a government can compel me by force of the law to do many things, and treat me very differently from other citizens.
Corporations are no angels, but are governments (political leaders plus civil servants) necessarily and automatically more competent and more fair?
Mr Zeitgeist:
28 Aug 2013 12:35:41pm
" A corporaton might offer me an unhealthy product (which I don't have to buy)"
And how do you know, Steve, unless you have a government funded medical body identifying the dangers which the corporate marketing department has spent millions of dollars lying to you and your children?
A quick history lesson:
"Lead is safe in paint and petrol"
"CFCs do not affect the ozone layer"
"Tobacco does not cause cancer"
"Asbestos does not cause cancer"
"DDT does not contaminate downstream ecology"
Here's a question: Please name one nation in history which has been successfully run, for the benefit of all the population, by a corporate entity?
28 Aug 2013 4:41:16pm
Mr Zeitgeist: Here's a question: Please name one nation in history which has been successfully run, for the benefit of all the population, by a corporate entity?
That's simple: Venice - very successfully for over 500 years. And then there was the Hanseatic league that thrived from the 13th to the 17th centuries.
Now these entitities may not have been run for the benefit of all the population, but certainly for the majority. I am not aware of any government, no matter how democratic or free that manages to please everyone.
Mr Zeitgeist:
28 Aug 2013 10:58:59pm
And you can assure the readership that "the majority" had equal access to health and education?
They also had government as well, so please don't try to muddy the issue for the sake of some neo-liberal fantasy.
More detail is required.
28 Aug 2013 12:37:29pm
Where the government
- is a representative democracy and
- is responsible to the electorate on a regular basis and
- the civil service is under the control of a minister,
then :YES
There's a higher probability that it will work in the interests of the majority of citizens, not merely the board and shareholders.
28 Aug 2013 1:13:05pm
A corporation is a fictitious person. That fictitious person is, by law, required to be a psychopath.
Additionally, a corporation has something called externalization. Externalization is externalizing problems. Essentially that means the corporation makes the profits whilst someone else cleans up their mess.
Two examples of this are alcohol and gambling.
In regards to the corporation politician comparison, although I think very little of the average politician, I think they are a cut above the corporates.
If you take equal pay for example. From memory, it was corporates who were dragged kicking and screaming into the concept that a pair of breasts did not make for a lower form of life.
28 Aug 2013 1:14:43pm
but we can vote out governments that we dont like
best of luck in trying to get a corporation out of the country if it doesnt want to go.
28 Aug 2013 1:14:50pm
The difference is that democratically-elected governments are accountable to the people, whereas the corporations are not.
Dr Who:
28 Aug 2013 1:55:55pm
I think in a democracy it's harder for dangerous people to take and retain control. As an example of what the author is talking about, I suggest you look up the biography of Mohammad Mosaddegh, and what multinational interests did not only to him, but to the democratic process in Iran (and the flow-on consequences this has had). This, unfortunately, is not an isolated incident.
Steve Mount:
28 Aug 2013 2:10:47pm
Steve : yes, and no. Politicians and media watchdogs may be in it for themselves, or they may have genuine good intent for the masses at large. Yes, it is cloudy and grey. Yes, you can be compelled, against your will, not to drive a motor vehicle when drunk...
Corporations, by stark contrast, and by their own admission, offer no such variance : they are in it for profit. Nought else.
"...wiser, better informed, more generous, and less self-interested and short-term in their thinking.", means nil to them, and may be considered as unnecessary, irrelevant or a PR opportunity.
Any accidental benefits are exactly that.
Rule No. 1, and it's a pretty simple fundament : Where there are no net gains to be made, financially, and in short order, there are no corporations.
Both your suggestion of the author's assumption, and the assumption itself, are quite correct.
28 Aug 2013 4:25:28pm
Let's see how far you get influencing a corporation, unless you are a major shareholder of course. Hate government? Try having a corporation run your life. cheers
28 Aug 2013 5:02:01pm
Maybe not, but no government elected in Australia (under our current system) is going to enslave you. Corporations will cheerfully enslave you in the literal sense of that word if they saw it as in their commerical interests. Governments who answer to the people via democracy are what stop them, which is just one reason why allowing corporations to subvert democracy is a bad thing.
Corporations have absolutely no requirement to place a value on morality as people regard it - their values are based purely on their function as a commercial entity, so mostly it comes down to profit.
Tony S:
28 Aug 2013 12:18:18pm
Disterbing, how do we fight it. Corperations already control our polies, look at climate change, the majority of people want action, scientists are screeming out for action, but our political leaders are on a go slow, why? It can only be because the big oil and gas corperations are pulling their strings directly or through the media.
28 Aug 2013 12:44:37pm
Where on earth do you get your ideas from? None seem to accord with any kind of reality that I see around me.
Mr Zeitgeist:
28 Aug 2013 1:22:20pm
Ask yourself this question:
Who benefits in the short term from burning of fossil fuels? And what are the long term impacts on planetary and personal health.
Examine this contradiction:
Corporations require a healthy and educated populace to consume their goods and services yet oppose taxes that will provide high level healthcare and education which would ultimately be to their benefit.
Check your wallet:
Saul Easlake from Bank of America Merrill-Lynch estimates $32 trillion untaxed income is held in offshore tax shelters. How do you feel about paying the shortfall?
28 Aug 2013 7:28:23pm
We all benefit from the burning of fossil fuels, and wealth in the short term translates to long term wealth. The best wealth to have is inherited wealth. What is your point?
28 Aug 2013 1:44:05pm
Perhaps you should open your eyes?
Non-governmental interests have been trying (and succeeding) at disengaging the wheels of democracy and the people for a long time.
Look at the current election cycle where we are fed pap on pollie personality rather than an objective look at the real issues facing our country. The real deals are done with the interest groups on the inside while the sham to get party A or B to get a voter tick plays on the outside.
All a distraction from what's really going on. Our middle class is being pushed back into serfdom. An economic serfdom mediated by those with the money and the power (via a legitimizing "democratic" process).
Remember, the government is the people's voice at the tables of power. Demonizing our own voice by polarising the electorate on how bad the other guy is doing is a really clever way of stifling that voice. Is that perhaps the reason that dogmatic and judgmental voices are given such high prominence in our media circus? Just maybe? Hmmm?
We need to reclaim our voice. It needs to be loud, strong and prepared for internal compromise to allow it to be heard.
28 Aug 2013 2:10:02pm
The survey on 'Vote Compas' on ABC is instructive - a volunteer sample but weighted according to the demographic characteristics of the recent census, so should be reasonably accurate. A majority of respondents wanted more action on climate change, and proportions were higher among people intending to vote Green or Labor, women and people under 30 than among men, people over 30 and people intending to vote Coalition (no surprises there then). The great majority of climate scientists agree the need for action is urgent, as do other groups such as Doctors for the Environment. The big fossil fuel conglomerates and their media mates are arguing against it, and unfortunately the governments seem to pander to them.
On the other hand I am seeing some hopeful indicators of change, eg comments form top economists about super and other large money managers needing to get their investments out of fossil fuels before the bottom drops out of the market, Aus electricity use dropping, price of solar panels dropping, etc.
Tony S there are a lot of things we can do as individuals to help - grow our own where possible or buy local as possible, don't buy imported food if possible, increase veg consumption and decrease/elminate factory farmed meat and dairy, don't shop at the big chain stores, reuse and recycle where possinle, put your moneyu to local small business. The big companies are bleeding us dry because we are feeding them; lets stop feeding them.
28 Aug 2013 2:40:39pm
You could always cast a discerning eye over election compass results.
28 Aug 2013 4:46:03pm
John, you always post on the side of these corporate interests. You've been doing it for years.
If we want this problem fixed, there is a really simple way to do it. An analysis performed by an independent group starting with the most important goods and services should be done with respect to labour content. Then you could see if you were being ripped off. There's always an investment risk component to any pricing. It's time for consumers to be able to judge whether this is a reasonable amount. This would also invite more competition, something these corporations aren't interested in despite their rhetoric. Their behaviour described by the article is essentially protectionist. That's understandable, but as consumers, we have an interest in competition which is the polar opposite of protectionism.
28 Aug 2013 3:46:48pm
Perhaps a starting solution is to ensure that all people make themselves aware about exactly how their the Super Fund managers invest their super funds.
ie. Want more renewable energy? move your super to a fund that invests in companies that provide renewable energy to ensure there is capital available to grow this important industry.
ie. Want less dependence on fossil fuels? move your super out of funds that invest in BHP, RIO, BP etc and other fossil fuel producers and distributors.
Corporations are beholden to their shareholders, be an active shareholder/investor and you shape the world around you.
28 Aug 2013 6:33:39pm
I want my super fund to be able to fund a comfortable retirement for myself Joe. I do not want it to pour my money down a drain in the hope that it will end up somewhere useful. If you believe there is a case for one form or another of renewable energy by all means invest your own money in it. But keep your hands off mine thanks. The moment you hear politicians decide what would be a good investment for you run like hell or vote the buggers out. Rudd even thought investing in Indonesia was a good idea the other week. Proof he doesn't talk to business.
28 Aug 2013 12:37:52pm
Business has replaced religion as the energy source of morality, purpose, belief, dogma, with horrible results. Pro sport, with drugs, fixing, gambling, is puny compared with the inner workings of international business and finance. We were warned by writers such as Weber and Tawney, Veblen and Chomsky, of the inner drives to righteous individualism and greedy ambition of executives. Business runs government, gets organised contracts (especially in the USA) and profits, all the while justifying a refined social darwinism and personal self-assurance. The lower ranks can go jump, or die. The drive to profiteering is vital to the fanatical acquisitive soul seeking a meanig in life. Sin was always relative and detached. Hard scheming work is an end in itself. Syria, for current example, may fall bloodily to the money gougers and political perverts who know what they want, regardless of the general or common good.
28 Aug 2013 12:40:48pm
Timely and important.
Only thing I would have like to see more explanation of "country-by-country" reporting; more on the consequences of burden for taxation systems and for taxpayers not part of the "Davos Class", on the proliferation and funding of legislative action groups, whose sole purpose is to undermine and overturn legislation arrived at by deliberations of elected representatives, which in turn means more information on the funding and affiliations of lobby groups.
28 Aug 2013 12:44:02pm
The greater threat to democracy is the participation of unelected NGOs at forums like the Rio + 20 in a pretended deference to democracy.
Who ever voted for the "Transnational Institute"?
The Wikileaks example should have anyone with an interest in democracy wondering.
28 Aug 2013 1:48:10pm
'unelected NGOs'
You mean, like Greenpeace, FOE and WWF?
28 Aug 2013 7:31:32pm
They're only the tip of that particular iceberg. There are more of those leeches than there are representatives of democratically elected governments.
28 Aug 2013 2:09:04pm
Well said.
Urged on by Bob Carr, then Premier of NSW, Australia was an enthusiastic supporter of the first Rio environmental conference. Among the Leftist dream propositions to which Australia committed was Agenda 21, product of the Frankfurt School of scarcely repressed Marxists.
The genius of Agenda 21 is that it operates at the local government level, thus implementation of its collectivist measures are never ratified by the rate-payers - they just don't know what Agenda 21 entails.
In Australia we are fortunate because local government is not recognised in our constitution and therefore has limited standing...
O hang on! Aren't we about to change all that?
Google/wiki Agenda 21 and think again, people.
28 Aug 2013 5:29:31pm
Channelling the same nonsense talking points as Anders Behring Brievik I see. Bob Car is certainly no Marxist and regarding the Frankfurt School as the source of the threat is akin to claiming that cycling is the primary cause of global warming.
28 Aug 2013 12:52:53pm
We've allowed our currency to be privatised by stealth (Visa, Mastercard, Amex, PayPal).
We have to keep lowing business tax in order to "compete" with tax havens, whilst companies shop around for the no tax haven.
More of the tax burden will fall on the employee, until they also form their own personal business and stop paying tax.
The system can only crumble, along with roads, schools and hospitals.
Crime will increase as wealth inequality grows.
Short term excess for a few paid for by the long term stability of the many.
A tragedy of the commons.
28 Aug 2013 12:54:28pm
Susan George is not interested in promoting democracy, but rather promoting the power of the Interfering Class. These are the people who feel they should be invited to Davos but who haven't actually achieved anything of note that would get them there. They believe their views should prevail, claim they care about democracy but couldn't care less what the average person thinks.
Susan George paints the enemy as unaccountable Trans National Companies, but her true enemy is individual liberty. For example, International treaties, freely negotiated by sovereign governments, set forth rules that means governments must apply sound principles in many of their decisions rather than ad hoc expediency. In areas covered by treaty they cannot trample on individual rights.
The Interfering Class hate this with a passion. They love banning things and heavy handed regulation. They are frustrated when governments cannot be pressured by emotional campaigns into ad hoc mischief.
The true enemies of democracy are the burgeoning NGO's (like Susan George's TransNational Institute). Unaccountable to no one except themselves they seek to impose their own political objectives on governments.
Businesses, small and large, at least represent to some extent the interest of their customers, shareholders and workforce. They go out of business if they do not do this well.
If my government is planning legislation on cars, I far rather they talk to Toyota and GM than Greenpeace. The people would be far better served.
28 Aug 2013 5:26:01pm
Perhaps, but your particular bias against the "interfering class" shines through with intensity.
How exactly, do you arrive at the conclusion that TNCs are not part of that interfering class?
They interfere constantly, vigorously and without scruples, and at the end of the day what are they? They are not people, they are not physical, they don't need to breathe clean air, they are not even physically present in the world - merely the conceptual manifestation of resources organised to produce some commercial outcome.
They are a very useful way for people to organise their resources to positive effect but I want the laws that govern them changed (to make them less psychopathic) and I don't want them to have any power over my government.
28 Aug 2013 6:58:58pm
Sean: "They are a very useful way for people to organise their resources to positive effect"
Precisely. Businesses (big and small, local, national and transnational) bring together workers, capital and customers in a way that is mutually beneficial to all three groups. If they can't do this they go out of business. They generate the great bulk of wealth in our community. They are not the Interfering Class but the creative, productive class.
When businesses talk to governments they are talking, in some degree,on behalf of their customers, shareholders and workers. This is not 'interfering'. Generally it is the opposite of interfering, trying to get the government out of the lives of their stakeholders.
political NGO's on the other hand generally only represent themselves. They are staffed by people who want political power but cannot be bothered with getting elected by the people. They certainly don't want their objectives subject to voter endorsement. What would the great unwashed know. Power without accountability; that's the NGO way. It's not how businesses or governments work. Under the guise of advocating for more democracy Susan George is really advocating for less democracy and less liberty.
28 Aug 2013 5:26:55pm
That's the point. Governments shouldn't be legislating on cars in the first place.
28 Aug 2013 5:45:19pm
So bodies such as Susan's who call for greater openness, transparency and accountability and who argue that public access is imperative in such secret negotiations are the enemies of liberty in your view?
What a topsy-turvy view of reality you have there. My individual rights extend to knowing what is to be agreed upon in my name, how it will affect me and my fellow-citizens, and being represented in the negotiation process.
28 Aug 2013 7:01:37pm
And to add, the agreements that are being negotiated behind closed doors for the so-called Trans Pacific Partnership are the antithesis of liberalisation and free-trade. They are principally about minimising competition and protecting monopolies. Rather than relying on the magic of the marketplace, a corporate trade agreement relies on the influence of lobbyists. The heavy-handed regulation that you decry is the TPP.
Business may well go out of business if they act in a way that's antithetical to the public interest (environmental damage, sweatshop labour et al9 but the purpose of the TPP is to shroud the acts of these corporations from scrutiny and legal accountability.
28 Aug 2013 12:57:13pm
There is no such thing as legitimacy - Power gives you legitimacy...........
28 Aug 2013 8:29:23pm
Ardy; power gives you government, not legitimacy. Changing the order does not make it correct.
29 Aug 2013 12:06:16pm
Thanks, Mao
28 Aug 2013 1:11:05pm
"?the world will never get rid of tax havens so long as the IASB is able to stonewall "country-by-country reporting" - the only system that could force transnational corporations (TNCs) to pay their taxes where their real economic activity takes place. Thanks to "transfer pricing" and various other legal dodges, the TNCs are causing governments to forfeit untold tax revenues that could improve the lot of their peoples."
This is ridiculous.
International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) compliant financial reports are only required when there are lots of potential users of the information who are not capable of requiring information in accordance with their own specific requirements. Taxing authorities are not the intended audience of IFRS compliant financial reports because they are capable of compelling specific information. For example, the ATO tells you what to disclose in tax returns.
Taxing authorities can require full disclosure of all transactions with suspect countries, backed up with power. In Australia the ATO does not need search warrants, can revoke your 'right' to remain silent and can require all banks to give them all data. In poor countries, the tax office can be more capable: prohibiting expatriate staff from leaving until all queries are resolved, imposing massive penalties and being closely supported by soldiers with guns.
IFRS is less relevant to tax because income and expenses as defined for tax purposes are quite different from income and expenses as defined by IFRS. This is sensible because accounting values are riddled with judgements while tax values are only determined later. For example, accounting standards require long service leave to be expensed based on expectations of future long service leave payments owing as at particular dates, while tax law leaves far less room for potentially creative judgement in only allowing long service leave to be expensed when paid.
On the other hand, some countries - particularly ex-French colonies - ignore IFRS internally, require all companies to prepare annual reports on the same basis as tax values and use these reports to determine tax payable.
Hence, the author's complaints about IASB are unfounded.
The author, showing the extent of her expertise, then criticises transfer pricing. Transfer pricing requirements involve transactions being valued on arms? length terms. If transactions between related entities could be valued on much more creative terms, our governments would receive much less tax. Does the author actually oppose transfer pricing requirements?
Much more sensible solutions to transnationals choosing where to pay tax are already practiced in several African countries: Put withholding taxes on all foreign services or foreign sourced goods provided in connection with your country even when there are no cash flows in your country; impose capital gain
28 Aug 2013 1:32:43pm
What I'd like to know is why this country is so effing sclerotic that it can't fix real and tangible problems like those of Aboriginal exclusion and the sometimes pretty shocking treatment of aged care residents. It's really easy to solve when enough people get down to the required level and focus on it. [It'll sure put some academic windbags out of a job, but so what.] But, there's a sense in the public that these issues are not exciting nor rewarding enough. Governments are more interested in being in a symbiotic relationship with large powers-that-be like TNCs, that they ignore the everyday issues of their constituents. This is not good enough; there has to be greater focus on the issues that really matter. If that means embarassing the sh*t out of your local MP from time to time, then I say the public should do it. People, en masse, should start taking the spear out of the hand of collectives like the Government and TNCs and actually take control of their own lives. The idea that they can't has been a well-orchestrated and well-fertilised lie for too long.
28 Aug 2013 5:38:34pm
"It's really easy to solve when enough people get down to the required level and focus on it. [It'll sure put some academic windbags out of a job, but so what.] "
Everything I've read about the history of government and public policy tells me that on the rare occasions when we actually solve those problems you mention, it's because the academic windbags were listened to and their solutions implemented without being corrupted by political considerations.
I'd have loved to see what we could have achieved if we'd implmented the changes to our tax system proposed by the panel of academic windbags, chaired by Ken Henry. Instead we let politics render it mostly useless.
Lawrence of Bavaria :
28 Aug 2013 1:39:29pm
Resource companies and oil giants getting to big ? Let's pressure our politicians into weaning ourselves off fossil fuels and into (finally) fully embracing renewables.
Lamenting the oxymoron of a "Free" Trade Agreement ? Boycott imported food and support Australian made and owned. Even if it costs a few dollars more.
Despise the profiteering, warmongering weapon spruikers like Lockheed Martin and Co. ? Vote for parties who don't go to war just because the Yanks expect us to.
Don't agree with the sweatshop conditions that produce Nike shoes ? Wear something else.
We all can play our bit that multinational corporations don't become even bigger and more powerful. And if our politicians are found to be in bed with and influenced by them they should be exposed, named, shamed and hung out to dry.
Information is key. Better labelling laws (what comes from where), better ownership disclosure (what brands belong to what multinational) and more independent media scrutiny (who profits from what decision) would be a start.
But it all starts with us. Asking more questions and demanding more answers.
28 Aug 2013 1:43:49pm
Interesting topic, however I think you have examined it too broadly to engage readers. Much like the IASB, just thinking about it is too much for people. Moreover, given people's prejudices you acknowledge exist in citizens you are already on the back foot in showing this as an issue.
The piece would be better served by providing an example, in detail, of a TNC gaming ours or an allied Government in being interesting and convincing people it is an issue.
28 Aug 2013 1:48:49pm
And yet corporations don't vote.
Who does vote? Its largely the foreign workers who have been here for enough years of a 457 visa, students whos numbers drop when Australia makes it harder to get PR and citizenship and people claiming asylum who have arrive in such numbers the ALP felt forced to increase the numbers accepted.
Australian citizens have largely been removed from selecting how many new Australians we want. It has been selected mostly by individuals themselves. An individual university is more likely to accept more than an individual company and then we have a huge mass of individual companies.
I wonder how all the new people have effected Australia's political system? I am sure they have opinions and beliefs as individuals.
28 Aug 2013 2:23:43pm
Just when I was despairing of the ABC Drum Opinion... along comes this article.
The author is right; there's a global corporate takeover happening without our consent. The Trans Pacific Partnership has been discussed in secret for nearly 3 years and has been disguised as a trade deal when in reality it amounts to a fascist corporate coup where the megacorporations are gaining a tighter grip over individual governments all over the world.
The upcoming election will offer no reprieve, as the only party that promises to return us to a sovereign state - the recently registered Australian Sovereignty Party - has decided not to put up any candidates this time around.
Steve Mount:
28 Aug 2013 2:24:45pm
I'm with you on this one, Susan.
Example : GMH is now quite open about it, no pop management psychology involved here. : give us taxpayer-funded financial support, or we'll leave the country. The concern of mass job losses to the polies, and the workers themselves, is immense. Nothing less than commercial blackmail.
Just a decade ago, the cry was 'unions and their members holding the country to ransom'. Now it's their corporate masters doing same.
What an absolute irony.
28 Aug 2013 5:43:01pm
Please, GMH has less than 5,000 employees - both the federal and state governments are gleefully getting rid of many more jobs than that from their own operations...
I've never understood why people get so upset about spending public money on people to provide public services, but they're cool with spending public money on subsidising the jobs of people in failing private sector companies
28 Aug 2013 2:32:57pm
While corporates do not get to vote within democracies ,their tendency to blackmail our governments and communities while left unchecked their influence will prevail .
But !!! While ever there are, men,women and children,with insatiability of minds,to question any and everything, these FRAUDS will be eventually exposed.
Always have been , always will be.
28 Aug 2013 3:00:23pm
Democracy these days, as far as I can ascertain, has come to mean a system of government that is sanctioned by the USA and has very little to do with ensuring or enshrining the rights of the population of any state. Democracy as we all like to pretend exists, disappeared when the western world accepted the hegemonic behaviour of the USA.
28 Aug 2013 3:07:19pm
Good article. Thanks. Big multinationals are one of many threats to democracy. We live in a time when information is readily accessible to many, yet respect for "democracy" seems to be decreasing. Some might say it's because of that very access to information, yet knowledge can also be power. The problem is perhaps more that "information isn't knowledge and knowledge isn't wisdom". And resolve to take charge of one's life and responsibility for choices is necessary. On a personal level, there are things we can do which might give us more power, including smart cooperation with like-minded others. Just one example. I recently read about "terminator technology" in relation to big seed companies splicing genes into crop plants which sterilise the seeds, thus "forcing farmers who used to collect their seeds back to the company". (From "Diggers club" 2013-14 garden annual) But we can grow our own crops from saved hierloom seed. It is not that hard to do. I do it, and I am definitely not a possessor of a "green thumb"! I know life style choices are harder for some than for others, but if you only dwell on the risks and the difficulties, you could talk yourself out of a less affluent (by some definitions), but happier, freer life, as I nearly did. Luckily I decided to give it a go and have never regretted my choice.
Have a good one.
28 Aug 2013 3:11:23pm
Goes to show how the priority of people's knowledge is sckewed, as well as reporting in the mainstream media. The majority of the western world is aware of various incidents involving celebrities at the MTV music awards just yesterday, but remain ignorant of issues, such as this, that have the potential to change the fabric of our world order. It's a sad state of the world where people care more about what a celebrity wears than about any political or global issues.
28 Aug 2013 3:21:33pm
Once we see the danger then something can be done about it.
Well done, to who ever made the 'tax haven-to-accounting standards' connection.
28 Aug 2013 3:27:22pm
How ignorant most of us are about the major multi nationals and the power they exercise through various international bodies such as the TNCs etc.
I recall a sense of horror when the IASB came into being, yet there appeared almost no comment in the Australian media. Now Susan points out the increase in influence these commercial bodies have on governments. Where is the deep analysis in our media?
Today Woolworths announced their profit increase of 24% while our small Australian retailers are going broke. The profits going overseas are rising while we PAYE taxpayers struggle to keep our jobs.
One day we will wake up and ask what happened to our freedom? It will be overtaken by self interest.
28 Aug 2013 3:40:52pm
A timely article Susan but 5 years ago would have been better.With TNC`s natural market forces or Free Trade agreements or the upcoming TPP are all false and lies.The whole composite of corporatism pushes only for an agenda of corporate governance of peoples without Democratic choice.ALEC which started in 1979 is the main driver of corporatism=fascism in the Western Democracies with here in Australia the IPA representing this corporate governance.This same corporate governance aims to take away all publicly owned assets and services and replace them with corporate control.This is something the world cannot allow.Corporations running prisons,schools,hospitals,health care,any emergency response,Coast Guard,Coast watch,Customs,Immigration,Detention Centres,Electricity provision,Water supply control,roads,railways,airports and sea ports,child care,aged care,actually any social service is wrong and frankly Australians do not want this American model here.Anti monopoly laws have not worked because they have never been activated.They sit there like a slug pretending to be there when they are only a dried out husk and complicit politicians genuflect to the TNC`s with threats from International Central Bankers.Globally the criminal con job has been allowed to proceed because Countries too willingly gave over their fiscal sovereignty.This has to change and so has the American perpetual war machine masking it`s debts with conflict.It`s high time for a global debt jubilee.An ending to all religions tax free status along with the pursuit of using hydrogen as fuel for power generation and vehicles to turn around AGW,all IMHO.
Then again:
28 Aug 2013 4:00:20pm
Perhaps you could also write on the benefits that these transnational businesses have brought to humanity - this article reminds me of the Monty python line in "life of Brian" "what have the Romans ever done for us" .
At least provide a little balance please.
Given the choice between having these businesses and living in the 50% of countries that don't have democracy - I'll take the former if that's okay with you.
28 Aug 2013 4:09:00pm
"?the world will never get rid of tax havens so long as the IASB is able to stonewall "country-by-country reporting" - the only system that could force transnational corporations (TNCs) to pay their taxes where their real economic activity takes place. Thanks to "transfer pricing" and various other legal dodges, the TNCs are causing governments to forfeit untold tax revenues that could improve the lot of their peoples."
This is ridiculous.
International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) Compliant Financial reports are only required when there are lots of potential users of the information who are not capable of requiring information in accordance with their own specific requirements. Taxing authorities are not the intended audience of IFRS compliant financial reports because they are capable of compelling specific information. For example, the ATO tells you what to disclose in tax returns.
Taxing authorities can require full disclosure of all transactions with suspect countries, backed up with power. In Australia the ATO does not need search warrants, can revoke your 'right' to remain silent and can require any bank to give them all data. In poor countries, the tax office can be more capable: prohibiting expatriate staff from leaving until all queries are resolved and massive penalties are paid.
IFRS is less relevant to tax because income and expenses as defined for tax purposes are quite different from income and expenses as defined by IFRS. This is sensible because accounting values are riddled with judgements while tax values are only determined later. For example, accounting standards require long service leave to be expensed based on expectations of future long service leave payments owing as at particular dates, while tax law leaves far less room for potentially creative judgement in only allowing long service leave to be expensed when paid.
On the other hand, some countries - particularly ex-French colonies - ignore IFRS internally, require all companies to prepare annual reports on the same basis as tax values and use these reports to determine tax payable.
Hence, the author's complaints about IASB are unfounded.
The author, showing the extent of her expertise, then criticises transfer pricing. Transfer pricing requirements involve transactions being valued on arms? length terms. If transactions between related entities could be valued on much more creative terms, our governments would receive much less tax. Does the author actually oppose transfer pricing requirements?
Much more sensible solutions to transnationals choosing where to pay tax are already practiced in several African countries: Put withholding taxes on all foreign services or foreign sourced goods provided in connection with your country even when there are no cash flows in your country; impose capital gains tax if there is a change in control of local o
28 Aug 2013 4:20:13pm
"If voting actually changed anything it would be illegal," and "It doesn't matter who you vote for, a politician gets in."
The problem I see is that we have the illusion of democracy (regular elections and, in Australia, we are lucky enough to have ostensibly fair elections - large scale ballot box fraud is rare, people are not intimidated as they line up to vote) but we do not have the reality of democracy.
We have Freedom of Information legislation but privatisation increasingly means that the information is concealed under the heading of "commercial in confidence".
The use of bland names and soporific prose to hide important information is an oldie but a goodie.
Many issues that should be/have been debated in Australia, ranging from our participation in the Iraq war to fair trade versus free trade, to population size policy are not.
28 Aug 2013 4:30:28pm
Russia has just taken stock after 12 months in the WTO. On a reliable site they say that the promised benefits of lower prices have not arrived. Prices still go up as if there was no membership. The dairy industry is particularly hard hit. Imports have risen beyond the comfortable.
Their current fear, so the article, is that the WTO seems to reject the idea that GM content in food should be on the label. Russians don't want that, they want it on the label so they get the choice not to buy it. Communism dictated, and now? There was no suggestion as to what is planned. Russia has 20 % of the world's arable land, but less than 3 % of the world's population, so they reject the idea that they should be forced into buying GM without knowing it.
Once something is in the hands of these global organisations which are 'influenced' by the trans-nationals, we can no longer choose. We can vote at home, and make a huge song and dance about it like now, but I sometimes feel there's not much beyond the entertainment value. How did we get to this? I thought that the demise of communism would mean freedom to choose, not rule from Geneva.
28 Aug 2013 4:33:06pm
Democracy has long been slowly subverted by 'democratic' processes.
Lobby groups as has already been mentioned. So called think tanks, many of which really lobby groups beholden to large companies. Think US gun lobby, climate change and huge vested interests, the IPA.
The trend to presidential style party leadership and electioneering with its attendant trend to concentrate power in a single person, in a system designed to work differently. Both Rudd and Abbott ambushing their party the electorate by announcing their personal thought bubbles. Think elect you dictator.
Oligarchies and duopolies and default cartels where free and fair competition is the supposed basis. Think self interested media moguls, Coles, Woolies and the big 4.
Local retailers working at an unfair disadvantage with offshore set ups. Think online transactions free of GST and free trade agreements with a pretention of a level playing field.
Much is happening in the name of economic efficiency and much is actually advantageous to the whole community but in the process power is being more concentrated, undemocratically, into the hands of a few.
Think secrecy and the reliance on whistle blowers to reveal law breaking in security agencies; let alone whether the laws are appropriately tight.
Do not get me wrong it is not oppressive ... yet ... except that some a suffering unfair competition. However, the trend is clear.
We are becoming a plutocracy.
This is an enlightening addition to the list.
28 Aug 2013 4:36:07pm
An interesting and informative article. I was aware of some of the methods employed by international corporations to avoid tax, and to offload costs to governments but I was not aware that the so called free trade agreements involved giving up so much of our sovereignty to corporations. It helps explain how corporations are increasing their control of governments. thanks..
28 Aug 2013 5:12:31pm
An excellent piece on a critical issue that receives precious little public airing but which covers what is perhaps the most cirtical issue .
The agreements and entities that exist beyond the governance of sovereign states as described are expressly intended to hobble the capacity for democratically elected sovereign governments to represent the will of their people - the European Union is merely the most tangible example of this. They exist to promulgate and strengthen corporate rule behind a veneer of sham and hollowed out democratic accountability.
I strongly suspect that the growing disaffection with the political process that we witness developing in most western nations, including Australia, in no small part stems from a sense of a feeling that our politicians and parties no longer represent our interests and that the process has been hijacked by interests antithetical to our own. People may not comprehend that transnational corporations and the agreements signed without the consent of the governed are the source of this disaffection but they certainly feel its ramifications.
I hope this article begins a process of shedding light on this issue in Australia and that the media begins to ask the right questions of our politicians on the matter.
Jimmy Necktie:
28 Aug 2013 5:56:42pm
Yeah, I dunno. From a logical pov the article is full of holes. I'm getting rusty when it comes to fallacies, but there were quite a few.
Of course corporations should be allowed to sue governments since it is governments which make the laws. If the government has not broken a law then suing them will do no good, indeed as Big Tobacco found out over plain packaging. I expect the big fish boat people will sue over that fiasco and right they should, they followed all the rules and got royally screwed.
I wouldn't cite Egypt as a model of how democracy should work either. It started out ok but it's all gone to crap now. A quasi-military puppet democracy. The people had no say in it.
She does have a point about "legally enshrined rights" though I'd prefer constitutionally enshrined and I disagree they are limitless, or even expandable.
I think Chism had some good points above re NGO's (not sure about "hates with a passion" though, more likely a more pragmatic reason). But it's still the more likely scenario from an Occum's razor approach.
28 Aug 2013 7:22:14pm
"Of course corporations should be allowed to sue governments since it is governments which make the laws."
Reasonable in principle but the TPP for example will enshrine laws that have not been put to the people and if governments, in the act of representing their sovereign citizenry contravene these laws, they can be taken to an international court stacked with corporate affiliatiates and lobbyists - people with strong ties to the corporate. And there will be no appeal.
The fallacious arguments are your's.
Jimmy necktie:
29 Aug 2013 7:44:10am
" if governments, in the act of representing their sovereign citizenry contravene these laws, they can be taken to an international court " So? What's wrong with that? Should governments be able to sign deals and then break them? Why do you assume the poor government would lose?
My arguments were rational, I see no fallacies.
Breach of Peace:
28 Aug 2013 6:46:45pm
Thank you Susan for ringing the alarm bells again that any respected journalist or commentators alike ignore or are simply ignorant about this vital topic! I watch in horror the apathy and ignorance of the majority of Australians who do not pay attention nor are they vigilant in watching and learning what is taking place in their beloved country.
Corporate lobbyist's fund political parties for their benefit, (conflict of interest) not necessarily for the benefit of the country and its citizens. Corporatism or Fascist Corporatism has been influencing and running government for several decades now. We are 'ruled' not governed by 'inside' and 'outside' forces who are subverting the democratic process, due process and the rule of law in a premeditating and deliberate manner world-wide. We see often how corporations hardly get fined and punished for the environmental disasters that they create. The US has now passed laws for the sole benefit of Monsanto that they will not be charged or be responsible for any side effects of GM crops.
We need Australian states-persons who will act in the best interests of Australia, not in the best interests of their respective political party. Many of these politicians are simply traitors to this country and they need to be revealed and exposed for their treacherous deeds and financial gain. We need people like Julian Assange who is willing to reveal the truth about the US and their detrimental foreign policy and not to get entangled in America's false flag wars. Australia needs to become more independent in their governance of this country and less reliant on the US by not blindly following the US into these unholy treaties and false flag wars of resource. The two party political system is and has been far too cosy with the US and we need to undo some of that unhealthy relationship and speak and act candidly if they are true allies and friends. We need to re-examine thoroughly the undue influence of the US and the use of Australia as a forward military base for their future global hegemony and conquest of other nations.
1. The political party chooses the candidate instead of "We the people" choosing the candidate
2. The faceless non-elected can replace an elected MP
3. Proportional Representation has been hijacked and replaced with Preferential Voting
4. Corporate lobbyist's fund political parties for their benefit, (conflict of interest) not necessarily for the benefit of the country and its citizens. Future contributions should be unlawful and illegal because of the 'revolving door' with politicians that retire
5. They count our votes and then the political party does what it wants through their political ideology declaring mandates on issues with no accountability to the electorate of "We the people"
6. The electorate is sidelined by the various political party's ideology or by corporatism and vast amounts of money to the politi
28 Aug 2013 7:09:10pm
Oh for goodness sake.
"What if the real governing bodies are shadowy entities...?". What if there really is a monster in the wardrobe just waiting for me to go to sleep?
Why would the ATO care how the international standards required accounts to be drawn up? How could that possibly stop them enquiring into transactions in tax havens? Haven't we got extensive anti-evasion provisions in our tax act?
If you want the IASB to change its standards tell the US government that those standards are enabling evasion. God knows they need the money. They'll probably just look at you funny though.
You have a problem with transfer pricing? Change the provisions in our tax act or give the ATO money to enforce them more stringently. Or tell Google to cease their operations in Australia. How is this anything to do with government? Silly.
People don't like FTAs? That's just loopy. Why punish your consumers to support local business? That is a recipe for corruption. Look at the local car industry. Labor gives them money so that they can pay over the odds wages to heavily unionised workers. Unions grab some of the extra cash. Unions then fund the ALP. How is this not a corruption of the democracy you pretend to support?
Do you really imagine the TTIP will be doctrinaire and all-encompassing? Of course it won't. The Europeans are doggedly anti-free trade. They will do just enough to get the Americans off their back. The idea that business will suddenly be freed from red tape is at least amusing.
Arbitration is used to avoid long drawn out court proceedings isn't it? How does this strike down laws? You're being silly again aren't you?
It is astounding that the writer would deny business a voice. Over the last six years Australians have seen repeated raids on shareholders' funds by an avaricious government too stupid to negotiate before legislation, a triumph of greed over ignorance. I am amazed that the writer sees business as an entity in its own right and so eager to sacrifice the interests of the shareholders standing behind them. In the name of democracy. Pigs' bits! Susan George is speaking on behalf of socialist self-interest and relies on the naivety of her readers. She wants control without a price. If you imagine power seized will be power shared it is time you reread George Orwell.
People don't be taken in by this claptrap.
28 Aug 2013 7:30:52pm
I might suggest you reread Orwell (a man who held anarcho-syndicalist sympathies antithetical to everything you've written here) given you cite him as an authority.
People don't oppose FTA's per se but what on earth is wrong with testing the support for an FTA such as the TPP by putting it to the people? Why the secrecy if you're so certain that it's in the public interest and people are supportive.
And do you know what's really loopy? Your suggestion that the union movement poses a greater threat than an emerging global corporate governance. I'm sure it's those dastardly Fabians too in your worldview.
29 Aug 2013 10:30:26am
Whatever your views on Orwell's politics he was good on human nature.
What is the point in putting complicated international agreements to the voters? How many are going to spend the time to acquaint themselves with the issues or even the underlying benefits of free trade? Not too many I suggest. So that leaves a significant international agreement out there for attack by the Katters and Palmers of the world, trying to boost their profiles and gain a few seats. There will always be ammunition for them - there will be winners and losers under any such agreement. People tend to overreact to the downside and undervalue the gains. At some stage even I have to trust politicians to implement useful reforms.
I am surprised you cannot see the potential for corruption in the recycling of taxpayers' funds into the pockets of a party in government. I don't recall attacking the union movement as a whole.
sea mendez:
28 Aug 2013 8:28:23pm
The article did whiff of conspiracy theory. I didn't know enough about the specific allegations to comment.
Just cause she's paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get us, though. If you're worried about shareholder funds I'd suggest you should scrutinize processional managers, not taxing governments. GFC? Remember that? Take stupid risks, earn cents for your shareholders, take your bonus and run, then lose your shareholders dollars.
Look for example at the revolving door between regulator and business especially in the US. Forgot his name but one bloke set up government guarantees on bank deposits as a regulator. Then he went into business as a fund manager parceling deposits to exploit loopholes in his own regulations.
Or take our very own Peter Costello. 'Audits' QLD government services, outsource services one day, lobbies for outsourced service providers the next.
29 Aug 2013 11:01:59am
There have been some very bad managers. Happy to allocate most of the blame for the GFC to successive American governments and their shortsightedness though. Sadly the politicians are still largely with us. The greedier CEOs will find it hard to gain useful employment in the future, not that many of them will need it.
28 Aug 2013 10:33:49pm
i do wonder how GREED entities
that they have in-her-it /inherited/own/nwo the planet...as it is not so.
and that it is possible in human 3d form 2 have health and wealth
in a toxic soup ...of there own/nwo making?
2/3 of gaia u may use with respect
1/3 belong 2 gaia...........u/me/we/all are free 2 leave
28 Aug 2013 11:56:22pm
Companies are there to make money, and maximise their profits and enhance their power - that's capitalism, and I see nothing wrong with that. However, it's the Government's' role to is limit this self interest and greed by passing laws and regulations for the benefit of the population. What worries me now is that the coalition is in the pocket of big business. Companies and wealthy share holders do their best to limit their tax liabilities, and I read somewhere that there is 25 trillion dollars sitting in tax havens, that's 25 trillion taken out of the world economy. Look at what Apple did earlier this year when it borrowed money to pay it's share holders even though it was sitting on a pile of cash so that it would not have to pay so much corporation tax. The fact that companies are there to maximise profits and power is another reason why self regulation does not work. So if the coalition wants to get rid of the mining tax tehn replace it with something else.
29 Aug 2013 8:37:20am
Absolutely correct. And with the use of 'free trade agreements' they intend to make national governments impotent and unable to prevent them doing anything they want. Such as drilling for coal seam gas and destroying the environment in any other way they want. They are trying to pass a free trade agreement that makes it virtually illegal to hold them to account for anything. If you do anything that they feel impinges on their profits they can sue you because you will have violated the clause in the 'free trade agreement'.
R.Ambrose Raven:
29 Aug 2013 10:32:10am
We see here with the big LNG projects how Big Transnational Energy has a very strong Culture of Entitlement to project approvals, albeit with the usual approval fig-leaves.
We still await an explanation as to how most of us derive anything but extra cost from the recently-created Eastern States LNG export push that is driving up Eastern States domestic gas prices to international levels, from which the only obvious beneficiary are energy transnationals.
Given the indifference of Big Energy, politicians? absolute refusal to plan and regulate, and the lack of investment in base load power, the rising price of power due to the recent export approvals for LNG could destroy manufacturing and other tradeable and non-tradeable goods sectors far more effectively than the Great Recession and the high dollar.
We can be certain that ?the domestic [Eastern States gas] price? WILL (no ?might? about it) ?be higher by up to 300%] than it was before 2007, when the proposed export of gas from Queensland LNG projects was first mooted. Gas prices in Perth and Brisbane have almost tripled since 2008.
Yet America's benefits from fracking derive from the cheap gas it supplies, especially to its manufacturing sector. Shale gas is not the saviour for the U. S. that many claim, but its success depends on exactly the ?cheap local gas? policy that our own politicians reject (with the honourable exception of the WA Premier Colin Barnett).
We should have REFUSED the Qld LNG project applications, but the politicians who make the decisions are as always owned by Big Energy.
R.Ambrose Raven:
29 Aug 2013 10:32:53am
Neo-colonialism (the use of economic, social, and cultural forces to shape if not control a country?s political, economic and/or social development to benefit transnational capitalism and each nation's filthy rich in lieu of direct military or political control) is a BIG contributor to international inequality and violence. While not the only contributor, allied to a media anxious to foment division and most peoples? desire for an obvious enemy and an easy life it?s a big part of the problem.
People who choose to ignore the impact of neo-colonialism greatly obstruct any solution to the problem that they claim to want to solve. The international institutionalisation of criminality and violence by the U.S., NATO, and the West (and by India or China et al in those areas where they have similar power) greatly complicates any effort to create stable and egalitarian societies.
Those who highlights particular shortcomings will not achieve any lasting or widespread result while they simultaneously refuse to acknowledge let alone address the structural hostility of transnational neo-colonial capitalism to a better life for more than a very few very rich.
To quote Major General Smedley Butler, USMC, 'I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.'
Recall John Perkins, who in 'Confessions of an Economic Hit Man', described how as a highly paid professional, he helped the U.S. cheat poor countries around the globe out of trillions of dollars by lending them more money than they could possibly repay and then take over their economies. Thus those countries were forced to acquiesce to political pressure from the United States on a variety of issues. Perkins argues in his book that developing nations were thus forced to accept that American/corporate diktat, with greater inequality of wealth, and barred from policies that would encourage economic and agricultural independence for the mass of the people.
rufus t firefly:
29 Aug 2013 12:10:40pm
I suspect we've got the best democracy money can buy....
29 Aug 2013 12:20:02pm
This is a similar same rort to that where the big private banking groups got together to set up the US federal reserve and take control of monetary policy from the elected government. Similarly the world's financial system is a giant pyramid-scheme type rort, where short-selling, debt based derivatives, sub-prime lending, futures trading and currency speculation etc etc are all used by the parasites on the system to suck up the wealth created by workers and small businesses. This is what caused the Global Financial Crisis - the financial market players inflated the system, sucked it dry and left it to crash and the workers (through their governments) to pick up the pieces and prop up the capitalist system. This is how capitalism works - it regularly falls over and then socialism (in the form of government intervention) has to save it otherwise there would be anarchy, and the capitalists know government can't allow that to happen. When capitalism eventually fails totally and government are too broke to rescue it (and it won't be long from now) the world will see upheaval the like of which will make the first two world wars look like minor skirmishes.
29 Aug 2013 12:21:53pm
The Codex Alimentarius Commission is an inter-governmental body with over 170 member countries, established in 1963.
One of the Commission's aims is to promote the coordination of all food standards via the collaboration of international governmental and non-governmental organizations (INGOs).
Work is conducted through nearly 30 committees, each dealing with specific areas of food, and decisions are based on consensus voting by member countries. INGOs do not have voting rights but may influence proceedings. Most INGOs present at Codex meetings represent transnational corporation interests.
Jonathan Emord, in his book The Rise of Tyranny, estimates that as much as 75% of all laws in the USA (a CODEX member country) are now created by agencies, completely bypassing the democratic process.
If our government signs up to the Transpacific Partnership Agreement, we will be coerced into harmonising our laws with the Codex Alimentarius guidelines. Even the Australian Medical Association is concerned that the Agreement would allow US corporations and other member nations to obtain damages against Australian governments through international arbitral proceedings if their investments are impeded by Australian public health and environment protection legislation. So, there go what little health and environmental protection laws we currently have....
Some of the specific detrimental impacts of harmonisation with the Codex Alimentarius guidelines would include:
The influence of US GM interests (Monsanto) which argue world food requirements cannot be met without global implementation of GM and which do not want GM ingredients labelled
?Terminator? seeds could be approved
GM food animals are already in the pipeline
Setting very low maximum daily doses for supplements as foods using flawed risk assessment methods
Effectively establishing international borderline for nutrients between foods and drugs, forcing therapeutic nutrients into drug category
Approval as safe of around 300 different food additives (mainly synthetic) including aspartame, BHA, BHT, potassium bromate, tartrazine, etc.
No consideration given to potential risks associated with long-term exposure to mixtures of additives
Allows significant residues of over 3275 different pesticides, including those that are suspected carcinogens or endocrine disruptors, e.g. 2,4-D, atrazine, methyl bromide.
One of the trends we see, given the disproportionate influence of very large corporate concerns, is that GM foods, contaminants, additives, pesticide residues and other synthetic chemicals that many of us regard as intrinsically harmful, are pushed for all they?re worth, being deemed safe at those concentrations typically used in processed foods. On the other hand, those things we c
Comments for this story are closed.


text:
ERIC Number: ED175748
Record Type: RIE
Publication Date: 1976
Pages: 172
Abstractor: N/A
Curriculum Guide for Philosophy: Social Sciences 10-20-30.
Alberta Dept. of Education, Edmonton.
The document presents an introduction to the study of philosophy. It is intended as an aid to secondary school social studies classroom teachers as they develop and implement programs which help students understand the relevance of philosophy and appreciate philosophical thought. The document is presented in four sections--a general introduction and three modular units. The introduction describes philosophy's purpose and objectives and explains how philosophy can be added to the social studies curriculum. Unit I focuses on the origins of western philosophical thought. Topics discussed include transition from mythological understanding to philosophical reflection, search for order and harmony, identity and change, and the Aristotelian universe. Unit II discusses contemporary western philosophy, including historical roots, traditional philosophical problems, and the value of a philosophy as a basis for an individual's philosophy. The final unit investigates the relationship between people and ideas. Topics discussed include the nature of man, freedom versus predetermination, and political philosophy. For each module, information is presented in chart-outline form on specific objectives, concepts and/or issues, supplementary materials, and learning activities. (DB)
Descriptors: Beliefs, Concept Teaching, Critical Thinking, Educational Needs, Educational Objectives, Intellectual Disciplines, Intellectual History, Learning Activities, Mysticism, Philosophy, Platonism, Secondary Education, Social Sciences, Social Studies, Teaching Guides, Teaching Methods, Units of Study
Department of Education, Government of Alberta, Devonian Building, West Tower, 11160 Jasper Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T5K 0L2 ($1.50)
Publication Type: Guides - Classroom - Teacher
Education Level: N/A
Audience: N/A
Language: English
Sponsor: N/A
Authoring Institution: Alberta Dept. of Education, Edmonton.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
MT Bicycle Safety Tip: Helmets Every Time
HELENA, Mont. - Wear a helmet every time. No exceptions.
That's the message from the American Academy of Pediatrics this summer. The group confirms that riding without a bike helmet significantly increases the risk of head injuries if a bicyclist crashes, and crashes can be serious even when just riding around the neighborhood.
Emergency room doctor Mike Gittleman says wearing a helmet can reduce head-injury chances by 85 percent - injuries that can run the gamut.
"Sometimes you just see some abrasions, but they can also be more serious, where you can have skull fractures, you can have intracranial bleeding, and it can even cause death."
Just as you get your bicycle checked on a yearly basis, he says, it's important to make sure your helmet still fits correctly, which is particularly important with children as they grow. He notes there is also an economic rationale for bike-helmet use.
"The usage alone will not only save lives and injury, but it also saves health-care dollars. The expense on these injuries is great, and if we can prevent them on the forefront, it would be saving health-care dollars as well."
With the exception of vehicles, Gittleman says, bikes are linked to more childhood injuries than any other consumer product - including trampolines, ladders and swimming pools.
More than 600 people on bicycles were killed in collisions with motor vehicles across the nation in 2010, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, and at least 70 percent were not wearing helmets.
Twenty-one states have bicycle helmet laws. Montana isn't one of them.
Helmet laws by state are listed online at iihs.org/laws, cycling fatality statistics are at iihs.org/research/fatality.aspx and AAP recommendations are at healthychildren.org.


text:
Here you'll find answers to the most common questions about my books, and why Catch-It Publication was created.
Q: What's the best part of being an author?
A: Great conversations with readers who have taken the time to read my books. Late nights at the computer while thinking of the next paragraph to write, and knowing that it has to be a good one.
Q: What's your biggest desire for any of your book?
A: Knowing that there are people out there who have spent their money to read something I have created from a thoughtful point of an entertaining view as well a humorous one.
Q: Did it take you long in writing your books?
A: What do you mean by long? If you put a certain time limit on writing you become overburden with trying to meet that time table. No, I write until my characters tell me they are finished.
Q: Why did you create Catch-It Publication?
A: I, and Anthony Faison wanted to give back to those who aren't capable of reaching the masses with their writing ability. So, we created this company. It is small, but very big for those lacking an outreach. Anthony and I have read many fictional novels from great writers since creating this company.
Q: Where do you think Catch-It Publication will be in the next five years?
A: It's independence will give us the opportunity to reach out to a world-wide audience who are considered to be not talented enough for major publishing companies to read their manuscripts. In the next five years, Anthony and I hope to still be around giving those who possess a talent a chance to get their material out to the people so they can read their wonderful stories.
Q: You seem very confident about Catch-It Publication.
A: We at Catch-It Publication are confident that we will one day be recognized for creating a publishing revolution in which the layman can tell his great story without be frown on as being: "not good enough." Everyone has a story to tell. They simply lack the outlet to express that special gift. And, they shouldn't feel discouraged when they receive those rejection letters from major publishing companies.
Q: Do you think that being a writer and a publisher gives you an insight of what the audience is looking for?
A: Yes. First as a writer, you want to create that piece of work that makes the reader gasp in surprise with each turn of the paper. Now as a publisher, you want to make sure that the writer is producing their best work by encouraging them to dig deep when creating their characters and storyline. You want that writer to think like a reader would when reading their novel.