Editorial: The world economy is

falling apart ever faster, under the growing burden of unsupportable, usurious debt � but we have yet to convince either the public or the Establishment of the main root cause, the source of virtually all the debts: the money-creation system.

Opponents argue that this is over-simplification, even if it is true, which many deny. Certainly there is a complex cocktail of causes; among them the protection of power and privilege, which includes the privilege of licence to create our money. However, the evidence is accumulating that correction of this one cause would cascade the solutions to all the other causes. Recent research shows that usury has been condemned as socially destructive, by philosophers, rulers and religious leaders for some 5000 years at least. Basing our money supply on interest-bearing debt is a recipe for disaster.

The banks have used their power to influence governments worldwide, and gain progressively increasing privilege, much of which is shared by other corporations � with a web of shared directorships between them.

It is becoming increasingly, glaringly obvious that much of the �greed� of these corporations is the result of their legal obligation to operate in the interests of their shareholders, as noted in the last issue. This, together with �limited liability�, gives the directors both virtual immunity from penalty for harm to the public interest, and an overriding duty to maximise profits � a disastrous combination!

The GEWG will be seeking to develop a policy for the Party on this issue, and ask for expert advice on law, etc.

See the piece below:

************************

A NEW CORPORATE LAW

The corporate laws at present say, in essence, that all companies' must prioritise profit for the shareholders above everything else. This means that if companies consider the environment at the expense of the shareholders then they can be sued by the shareholders because they have broken the law. So these laws make it very difficult for companies to incorporate welfare for workers, environmental matters, public safety, the good of the community in which it works etc.

In some instances corporations are trying to integrate the shareholders, the workers and the consumers into the firm - as 'stakeholders'. This is to try and plug the holes in the community bucket and prevent the loss of wealth from the community. This is very difficult with the present legal design.

We can change that design - we can make corporations more responsible to the public good by amending the law which at present says the pursuit of profit takes precedent over the public interest.

This could be done by

1) making directors more legally responsible for harm done. They are already held personally responsible for misleading or false statements, so they could be held responsible for their company acting against the public interest.

2) passing a law to safeguard the environment and the public interest.

Here is a possible law to achieve these two criteria:

The directors and officers of a corporation shall exercise their powers and discharge their duties with a view to the interests of the corporation and the shareholders but not at the expense of the environment, the welfare of its employees, human rights, public safety or the communities in which the corporation operates.

We must remember that corporations should be serving mankind. Mankind should not be serving corporations.

Has a new law to change this so as to include these considerations ever been seriously discussed, and what has been the result? Some of us in the Green Party are going to discuss the possibility of a law of this kind to go into our manifesto. Firstly we need to know-

1. Could this law (properly worded and legally drawn up) be of use to businesses trying to incorporate ethical considerations?

2. Have any 'ethical' businesses been taken to Court because they have not prioritised the financial return to their shareholders?

3. If you include workers and some consumers in your business, and together with shareholders call them 'stakeholders' can this get round the problem?

Comments, please, to the co-ordinator of the GEWG!

Helen Trask