Labor Unions Rethinking Their Role In Politics

The labor union movement should transform to an ownership union movement and embrace and fight for this new democratic capitalism. Unfortunately, at the present time the movement is built on one-factor economics––the labor worker. The insufficiency of labor worker earnings to purchase increasingly capital-produced products and services gave rise to labor laws and labor unions designed to coerce higher and higher prices for the same or reduced labor input.

Yet unions are the only group of people who can demand a real Louis Kelso-designed ESOP, who can demand the right to participate in the expansion of their employer by asserting their constitutional preferential rights to become capital owners, be productive, and succeed. The ESOP can give employees access to credit so that they can purchase the employer’s stock, pay for it in pre-tax dollars out of the assets that underlie that stock, and after the stock is paid for earn and collect the capital worker income from it, and accumulate it in a tax haven until they retire, whereby they continue to be capital workers receiving income from their capital ownership stakes.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-labor-endorse-20120311,0,374934.story

College Debt A Looming "Time Bomb"

As long as working people are limited by earning income solely through their labor worker wages, they will be left behind by the continued gravitation of economic bounty toward the top 1 percent of the people that the system is rigged to benefit. Working people and the middle class will continue to stagnate, resulting in a stagnated consumer economy. More troubling is that this continued stagnation will further dim the economic hopes of America’s youth, no matter what their education level. The result will have profound long-term consequences for the nation’s economic health and further limit equal earning opportunity and spread income inequality. As the need for labor decreases and the power and leverage of productive capital increases, the gap between labor workers and capital owners will increase, which will result in revolution.

Without a policy shift to broaden productive capital ownership simultaneously with economic growth, further development of technology and globalization will undermine the American middle class and make it impossible for more than a minority of citizens to achieve middle-class status.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-student-loan-delinquencies-20120306,0,6387032.story

House Passes Small-Business Bill

Serious investment in new productive capital formation on a large scale is necessary to rev up the economy. The Federal Reserve Bank should provide insured loans to qualified corporations as investment capital. Federal Reserve Bank supported investments should be concentrated in areas of long-term productivity growth with the benefit of promoting the diffusion of advanced technology into civilian industries. The loans would be used to modernize technically backward industries and build new superautomated and computerized robotic factories. Where necessary the monies would be used for supplemental retraining of labor workers to qualify them for the new jobs created. Most important, the profits from the investments would be fully paid out to new capitalists owners––the corporate employees and other citizens. This would be a condition to receive the capital investment loans. The goal would be to create new capitalist owners simultaneously with the growth of the economy financed with Federal Reserve Bank support. The desired result would be to decrease, rather than increase, the existing concentration of productive capital ownership and thus economic power in the hands of the 1 percent. The credit mechanisms supported by the Federal Reserve Bank would not involve the expenditure of any tax money.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-small-business-jobs-20120309,0,3979412.story

Sluggish Job Growth

While “the status quo isn’t nearly good enough, and we still have a long way to go,” the poor performance related to the economy’s growth is no surprise. “The fact remains that we’re slowly crawling out of a ditch, and taking money out of the economy and ignoring high unemployment may very well push us backwards.” The real focus should be on creating private individual ownership opportunities in productive capital intensive growth companies among employees and non-employees. What is needed is leadership to reform the tax system and the Federal Reserve Bank system to create policies and programs to broaden ownership of productive capital simultaneously with the growth of the economy. We should be striving for 10 to 15 percent annual growth rates at a minimum. To achieve this will require serious investment in new productive capital formation. The goal would be to broaden the ownership of private corporations so as to make the interests of private industry more synonymous with the public interest and vice versa––while broadening private enterprise capitalism to include everyone in the society. Such policies and programs aimed at broadening productive capital ownership would foster extensive utilization of the most modern and efficient technological innovations and result in the revitalization of American free-enterprise capitalism mirrored in a strong growth-projected economy.

http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-economy-jobs-20120309,0,4509373.story

Lost In The 70s – OWNERSHIP

http://www.americaspartynews.com/talk/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=23480&posts=2 ::
   Private Property, Real Economics, Government -> Committee to Defend Private Property Rights
This is an excellent compilation of thought on broadening ownership of productive capital, which I have advocated since the 1960s. See “Democratic Capitalism And Binary Economics: Solutions For A Troubled Nation And Economy” athttp://foreconomicjustice.com/11/economic-justice/
What’s Troubling America and the World today!“The society had fallen, much as our society has today, into a tangle wherein the bulk of men were disappointed and angry and seeking for a solution to the whole group of social strains. There was indebtedness everywhere; the power of money and consequent usury. There was slavery everywhere. Society reposed upon it, as ours reposes upon wage slavery today. There was weariness and discontent with theological debate, which, for all its intensity, had grown out of touch with the masses. There lay upon the freemen, already tortured with debt, a heavy burden of imperial taxation; and there was the irritant of existing central government interfering with men’s lives; there was the tyranny of the lawyers and their charges.” — Hilaire Belloc, The Great Heresies, 1938

* * * *

“The root cause of present injustices is not to be attributed to division of goods, nor the inequalities of the division, but rather to the fact that the mass of people are practically bereft of ownership. Some means must be devised to admit the proletariats within the proprietory system. Widely distributed property makes for social stability. Any alternative offered lacks the moral discipline of responsibility and ownership. Perhaps the best summary argument for private property is the impossibility of finding any better general system to take its place.”

McDonald, The Social Value of Property According to Saint Thomas Aquinas (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1939) pp. 185 paragraph 8.

* * * *

“In the past, the ownership of business enterprise, the only form of property with which we are here concerned, has always at least in theory, involved two attributed, first the risking of previously collected wealth in profit-seeking enterprise (past savings). But in the modern corporation, these two attributes of ownership no longer attach to the same individual or group. The stockholder has surrendered control over his wealth. He has become a supplier of capital, a risk-taker pure and simple, while ultimate responsibility and authority are exercised by directors and ‘control.’ One traditional attribute of ownership is attached to stock ownership; the other attribute is attached to corporate control. Must we not, therefore, recognize that we are no longer dealing with property in the old sense?”

— Berle and Means, The Modern Corporation and Private Property, 1937, p287

* * * *

“When Congress and the people got it Right.”

Lost in the 70’s,…

Joint Economic Committee

Congress of the United States

on the

January 1976 Economic Report of The President

BROADEN THE OWNERSHIP OF NEW CAPITAL

Wealth in the United States is concentrated in the hands of a relatively small fraction of the population. Unfortunately, the date on wealth are sparse. The last comprehensive attempt by the Federal Government to measure its characteristics and distribution was made by the Federal Reserve Board in 1962. It was estimated that more than three-quarters of the country’s total wealth was owned by less than one-fifth of the people, while more than one-quarter was owned by just the top 0.5 percent. The Federal Government should remedy the lack of up-to-date information on personal wealth through periodic surveys and comprehensive reports on this subject.

The distribution of wealth reflects in large part the pattern of ownership of non-residential capital with corporate shares being one of its principle forms. This category of wealth is much more concentrated than total wealth, with the top percentile of the personal income distribution owning 51 percent of the market value of individually owned corporate stock and receiving 47 percent of the dividends. Meanwhile, the new capital assets generated by businesses, which in recent years have averaged well over $100 billion annually, rebounded largely to the benefit of these persons who already have great wealth.

The number of shareholders, moreover, declined by some 18 percent from 1970 to 1975, and data suggest that young people today are not purchasing stocks in significant volume. Balancing this declining role of the individual investor has been the rise of financial institutions, which since 1950 have more than tripled their share of the market value of stock holdings.

To begin to diffuse the ownership of capital and to provide an opportunity for citizens of moderate income to become owners of capital rather than relying solely on their labor as a source of income and security, the Committee recommends the adoption of a national policy to foster the goal of broadened ownership. The spirit of this goal and what it purports to accomplish was endorsed by many of the witnesses at our regional hearings.

Without getting into specifics, the types of programs which could be established to help meet this goal will be outlined. Such alternative methods of broadening capital ownership are under study by the Committee.

In the individual firm, employee ownership can be encouraged directly through tax incentives to the employees to purchase stock or to firms to place newly issued stock into the hands of their employees. The latter approach, known as Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs), was examined in recent hearings by the Committee.

An alternative plan involves multiform funds which would receive tax-favored contributions from affiliated firms and issue nonnegotiable fund certificates to the employees. This type of fund, which has been in operation in France and West Germany, may diversify its portfolio, although it may be limited to particular industries and regions.

Providing ownership opportunities not just to employees but to citizens at large could be accomplished through various devices. One example would be the establishment of funds which would accumulate personal savings on a tax-preferred basis and use them to acquire a diversified portfolio of equity shares in corporations. For instance, individuals with earned income not exceeding $20,000 could be allowed to save up to $3,000 a year in one or more funds and to deduct this amount from their taxable incomes.

Whatever the means used, a basic objective should be to distribute newly created capital broadly among the population. Such a policy would redress a major imbalance in our society and has the potential for strengthening future business growth.

To provide a realistic opportunity for more U.S. citizens to become owners of capital, and to provide an expanded source of equity financing for corporations, it should be made national policy to pursue the goal of broadened capital ownership. Congress also should request from the Administration a quadrennial report on the ownership of wealth in this country which would assist in evaluating how successfully the base of wealth was being broadened over time.

♦   ♦   ♦

[The following appeared as a “Letter to the Editor” on July 20, 1976, from Chairman of The Joint Economic Committee, 1976; Hubert H. Humphrey]

“Broaden Capital Ownership”

In his column on July 4, Hobart Rowen maintained that “Debate Still Needed on Employee Stock Ownership Plans.” I agree wholeheartedly with this. However, I wish to point out that the debate should not be limited to ESOPs alone, for there are many alternatives methods for achieving the ultimate goal, which is to broaden the ownership of capital.

I view this as such an important goal that in addition to introducing with Senator Javits the Employee Stock Ownership Fund Act of 1976, which was discussed in Mr. Rowne’s column, I directed the Joint Economic Committee to seriously examine this goal (“Broaden Capital Ownership”) and the best means to achieve it. The committee began its investigation by holding two very informative days of hearings on ESOPs last December at which Louis O. Kelso and other ESOP experts testified. I am pleased to say that the committee fully endorsed this goal by making it a recommendation in its 1976 Annual Report to the President: “to provide a realistic opportunity for more U.S. Citizens to become owners of capital, and to provide and expanded source of equity financing for corporations, it should be made national policy to pursue the goal of broadened capital ownership.”

The most recent contribution by the committee to the debate on whether such a goal is needed and is justified and, if so, how it should be met, was a staff study released last month entitled “Broadening the Ownership of New Capital: ESOPs and Other Alternatives.” This study is a valuable input into the debate Mr. Rowen says is needed as it presents the overall context for the debate and analyzes many methods other than ESOPs that would broaden capital ownership in the U.S. The latter point is a critical one, for I feel that the more comprehensive types of plans should be subjected to debate, which they haven’t been up to this point, by Congress and the appropriate Executive Departments.

The main advantages of such plans according to the study were: (1) they stimulated both the issuance of stock and its distribution to new stockholders and (2) the new stockholders would, if so desired, consist entirely of lower and middle income Americans who currently own a very small share of this country’s outstanding stock. It is my intention that the Joint Economic Committee continue its efforts in this area by examining these types of plans over the next year.

The broad framework of my thoughts in this area may be stated quite briefly. Throughout my career as a public servant, I have viewed full employment as a top priority goal for this country. And I continue to do so. But I also recognize that capital, and the question of who owns it and therefore reaps the benefit of its productiveness, is an extremely important issue that is complementary to the issue of full employment. I see these as the twin pillars of our economy: Full employment of our labor resources and widespread ownership of our capital resources. Such twin pillars would go a long way in providing a firm underlying support for future economic growth that would be equitably shared.

HUBERT H. HUMPHREY,
U.S. Senator (D-Minn.)
Washington D.C.

[Note; To date in 2011 there existed over 22,000 ESOPs in America with over 11,000,000 employees participating. The next step in Broaden Capital Ownership, is for 308,000,000 million Americans Participating in what is know as ‘Capital Homestead Accounts’ or as Ronald Reagan and others called it; An ‘Industrial Homestead Act’. ]

Posted 2012-03-11 1:41 PM (#60630) By: gcsteven

Expanding Ownership

by Ronald Reagan
October 1980
Op-Ed

It is no secret that the American economy is in trouble. Federal deficits spending has fueled the fires of inflation. More and more Americans are suffering the anguish of unemployment – Americans who, in a strong and vibrant economy would be producing wealth for the benefit of the people of this nation. Government is claiming an ever-increasing portion of citizen income to pay for programs too often riddled with waste, fraud, and irresponsibility.

These baneful trends can be reversed. The method is clear. Americans deserve a major across the board tax cut. Runaway spending must be restrained; fraud and waste identified and eliminated. Excessive regulation of business must be cut back. Honest value must be restored to the dollar. Americans must be given new incentives to save, invest and produce.

But yet more must be done to restore and maintain this nation’s economic well-being. For we must make sure that the ownership of America’s great productive wealth remains broadly distributed among the American people.

Our Founding Fathers well understood that concentrated power is the enemy of Liberty and the rights of man. They knew that the American experiment in individual liberty, free enterprise, and republican self-government could succeed only if power were widely distributed. And since in any society social and political power flow from economic power, they saw that wealth and property would have to be widely distributed among the people of this country.

The truth of this insight is immediately apparent.

Could there be anything resembling a free enterprise economy, if wealth and property were concentrated in the hands of a few, while the great majority owned little more than the shirts on their backs?

Could there be anything but widespread misery, where a privileged few controlled a nation’s wealth, while millions labored for a pittance, and millions more were desperate for want of employment?

Could there be anything resembling a free government, where citizens without property dared not to resist the commands of the few who controlled their livelihoods?

Could any country be a land of free men and women, where the pride and independence of property ownership was reserved to the few, while the majority existed in dependency and servility?

It should be clear to everyone that the nation’s steadfast policy should afford every American of working age a realistic opportunity to acquire the ownership and control of some meaningful form of property in a growing national economy?

This is not to say that the government should confiscate from the “haves” and bestow upon the “have-nots”, beyond the requirements of a compassionate welfare programs to provide for those who cannot provide for themselves. Far from it. But it is to say that our duty is to foster a strong, vibrant, wealth-producing economy which operates in such a way presently have little or no ownership stake in their countries future.

This is not a new policy. Jefferson and Adams, Webster and Lincoln, Cleveland and Wilson – all understood its importance. But it is a policy that needs strong new emphasis in an age where its basic truth has sometimes been forgotten and removed from public discourse.

No one in public life today has done more to foster a reawakened understanding of this policy then Louisiana’s Senator Russell Long, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. He has been responsible for several of the recent tax law provisions to encourage our nation’s industries to create various kinds of Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs), through which workers can acquire an ownership stake in their companies. He has been a strong and effective voice in the nation’s council for a policy of expanded ownership for all.

The nation’s next president should call upon Congressional leaders like Senator Long to work with him to ensure that all Americans have a fair chance to become owners of property in their country. For if such a policy is not adopted, the bright ideals of this nation may fall prey to the fate which the Founding Fathers feared – the domination of concentrated power which stifles liberty, free enterprise, self-government, and the sacred rights of man.

* * *

Could there be a better answer to the stupidity of Karl Marx (socialism) than millions of workers individually sharing in the ownership of the means of production.

Radio commentary, “Tax Plan No. 1,” /Viewpoint with Ronald Reagan/, February 1975.

* * *

“I will tell you whatever you do don’t risk having to face your children or your children’s children some day when they ask “Where were you and what where you doing on that day Freedom was lost.”

-Gov. Ronald Reagan 1974-

“EVERY CITIZEN AN OWNER”

♦   ♦   ♦

“Nowhere is this more clearly demonstrated than in the experiments in expanded capital ownership taking place in some parts of Latin America.“Through profit-sharing in the form of stock distribution, employees in industrial and agricultural enterprises gain a stake in the success of their economic system, which in turn leads to increased productivity. Through expanded capital ownership schemes, economic leaders break rigid patterns of economic activity which restrict ownership to a small group or class of the people. But they do so in a way that respects and strengthens the principle of ownership, of private property and individual responsibility. Instead of narrowing the economy’s base of support to an unstable few or concentrating its power unproductively in the state bureaucracy, this approach broadens the economic foundations and diffuses economic power throughout the system.

We do not mean to suggest that the expanded capital ownership approach is a universally applicable one. However, it illustrates the principles and concepts through which democracy can build a firm social foundation for economic cooperation and growth. Ownership need not be a reality confined to the wealthy few or an all-powerful state. Through the operation of democratic principles, it can become an experience universally shared and understood.”

Dr. Alan Keyes April 23, 1986

* * * 
Pass Capital Homesteading Now!
Posted at America's Party News by Guy C. Stevenson.

America: Freedom To Fascism-Full Length Documentary

America: Freedom to Fascism is a 2006 film by Aaron Russo, which covers many subjects, including: the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the income tax, Federal Reserve System, national ID cards (REAL ID Act), human-implanted RFID tags (Spychips), Diebold electronic voting machines, globalization, Big Brother, taser weapons abuse, and the alleged use of terrorism by government as a means to diminish the citizens’ rights.

With the creation of the Federal Reserve Banking System the financial credit system was rigged to benefit those who owned productive capital assets and essentially shut out the 99 percent from acquiring ownership of productive capital growth without “savings” to secure loans, instead of using the Federal Reserve Bank to insure loans to the 99 percent which would be paid back out of the future earnings of the capital investments (the process used by the 1 percent to continually concentrate capital ownership). We must reform the Federal Reserve to use its powers to broaden private individual ownership of productive capital among the 99 percent wage slaves simultaneously with the growth of the economy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUpZhhbKUBo&feature=share

Jobs Picture Continues To Improve?

Rachel, you should seriously consider doing a show on Who Owns America? There you would investigate the extent of concentrated ownership of productive capital assets and ways the “system” shuts out the 99 percent, who are limited to finding a viable good paying job (if they can) in a deteriorating job market challenged with a continual shift from labor worker input to capital worker (owners) input, from acquiring over time a viable capital estate using insured credit loans paid back out of the future earnings of the new capital formation investments. Once this is understood and a new goal a full production, rather than full employment, is embraced, then the American economy will really rev up, creating new capitalists, and result in significantly expanded employment opportunities.

http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/09/10621597-jobs-picture-continues-to-improve-economy-adds-227k

Does A Rising Unemployment Rate Mean A Real Recovery?

While “the status quo isn’t nearly good enough, and we still have a long way to go,” the poor performance related to the economy’s growth is no surprise. “The fact remains that we’re slowly crawling out of a ditch, and taking money out of the economy and ignoring high unemployment may very well push us backwards.” The real focus should be on creating private individual ownership opportunities in productive capital intensive growth companies among employees and non-employees. What is needed is leadership to reform the tax system and the Federal Reserve Bank system to create policies and programs to broaden ownership of productive capital simultaneously with the growth of the economy. We should be striving for 10 to 15 percent annual growth rates at a minimum. To achieve this will require serious investment in new productive capital formation. The Federal Reserve Bank should provide insured loans or loans directly to qualified corporations as investment capital. Federal Reserve Bank supported investments should be concentrated in areas of long-term productivity growth with the benefit of promoting the diffusion of advanced technology into civilian industries. The loans would be used to modernize technically backward industries and build new superautomated and computerized robotic factories. Where necessary the monies would be used for supplemental retraining of labor workers to qualify them for the new jobs created. Most important, the profits from the investments would be fully paid out to new capitalists owners––the corporate employees and other citizens. This would be a condition to receive the capital investment loans. The goal would be to create new capitalist owners simultaneously with the growth of the economy financed with Federal Reserve Bank support. The profits would represent wealth created by public capital invested in private corporations. The desired result would be to decrease, rather than increase, the existing concentration of productive capital ownership and thus economic power in the hands of the 1 percent. The credit mechanisms supported by the Federal Reserve Bank would not involve the expenditure of any tax money and would support profit-making businesses operated for the primary purpose of earning dividends for its stockholders, including the newly created capitalist owners. Businesses supported by such credit mechanisms would have a profit motive and operate with the requirement for efficiency imposed by a market economy. The goal would be to broaden the ownership of private corporations so as to make the interests of private industry more synonymous with the public interest and vice versa––while broadening private enterprise capitalism to include everyone in the society. Such policies and programs aimed at broadening productive capital ownership would foster extensive utilization of the most modern and efficient technological innovations and result in the revitalization of American free-enterprise capitalism mirrored in a strong growth-projected economy.

What we really need in this 2012 presidential election year is a national discussion on the topic of the importance of capital ownership and how we can expand the base of private capital ownership simultaneously with the creation of new capital formation, with the aim of building long-term financial security for all Americans through accumulating a viable capital estate.We need a recognition in America that we should deliberately begin to broaden the capital ownership base in a way that is consistent with the laws of property and the Constitutional safeguards of the rights of men and women to own property and be productive.

What needs to be adjusted is the opportunity to produce, not the redistribution of income after it is produced.We need to arrive at a new market economy structure in which on one level the employees of a corporation could walk into management and demand, in collective bargaining, the use of an Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP)—not just to trade a single block of stock for wage concessions, but to redesign the future of the company and its employees. We need, as a society, the assurance that as a corporate employer grows, it builds ownership into its employees. All of them! When people are in a position to earn the wages of their capital as well as the wages of their labor, their company is in a position to be more competitive through lower labor costs and increased technological innovation, while achieving higher employee incomes through the employee’ capital.Once this goal becomes the national political focus we will see an unbelievable discussion of workable plans to realize the goal. Remember that planning begins with a vision and a goal. This is not rocket science but it does require national leadership. Implementation requires amending a few laws that basically authorize the transactions that will broaden capital ownership paid for with the future earnings of capital investment. Allowing such transactions will provide incentives for profitable opportunities to employ unused capacity and promote stable economic growth.

Still, after a half-century, we have no leaders with a growth strategy that could restore the economic productiveness of the American economy. The growth strategy I have presented is not new, but it has not yet registered in the minds of leaderless politicians and their advisers from the left to the right of the political spectrum and a population of people who have been mis-educated and mis-led by conventional economists from all the conventional schools of economics.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/wonkbook-why-a-rising-unemployment-rate-could-mean-a-real-recovery/2012/03/09/gIQANXP00R_blog.html

RNC Stumbles On Meaning Of "Improving"

While “the status quo isn’t nearly good enough, and we still have a long way to go,” the poor performance related to the economy’s growth is no surprise. “The fact remains that we’re slowly crawling out of a ditch, and taking money out of the economy and ignoring high unemployment may very well push us backwards.” The real focus should be on creating private individual ownership opportunities in productive capital intensive growth companies among employees and non-employees. What is needed is leadership to reform the tax system and the Federal Reserve Bank system to create policies and programs to broaden ownership of productive capital simultaneously with the growth of the economy. We should be striving for 10 to 15 percent annual growth rates at a minimum. To achieve this will require serious investment in new productive capital formation. The Federal Reserve Bank should provide insured loans or loans directly to qualified corporations as investment capital. Federal Reserve Bank supported investments should be concentrated in areas of long-term productivity growth with the benefit of promoting the diffusion of advanced technology into civilian industries. The loans would be used to modernize technically backward industries and build new superautomated and computerized robotic factories. Where necessary the monies would be used for supplemental retraining of labor workers to qualify them for the new jobs created. Most important, the profits from the investments would be fully paid out to new capitalists owners––the corporate employees and other citizens. This would be a condition to receive the capital investment loans. The goal would be to create new capitalist owners simultaneously with the growth of the economy financed with Federal Reserve Bank support. The profits would represent wealth created by public capital invested in private corporations. The desired result would be to decrease, rather than increase, the existing concentration of productive capital ownership and thus economic power in the hands of the 1 percent. The credit mechanisms supported by the Federal Reserve Bank would not involve the expenditure of any tax money and would support profit-making businesses operated for the primary purpose of earning dividends for its stockholders, including the newly created capitalist owners. Businesses supported by such credit mechanisms would have a profit motive and operate with the requirement for efficiency imposed by a market economy. The goal would be to broaden the ownership of private corporations so as to make the interests of private industry more synonymous with the public interest and vice versa––while broadening private enterprise capitalism to include everyone in the society. Such policies and programs aimed at broadening productive capital ownership would foster extensive utilization of the most modern and efficient technological innovations and result in the revitalization of American free-enterprise capitalism mirrored in a strong growth-projected economy.

What we really need in this 2012 presidential election year is a national discussion on the topic of the importance of capital ownership and how we can expand the base of private capital ownership simultaneously with the creation of new capital formation, with the aim of building long-term financial security for all Americans through accumulating a viable capital estate.We need a recognition in America that we should deliberately begin to broaden the capital ownership base in a way that is consistent with the laws of property and the Constitutional safeguards of the rights of men and women to own property and be productive.

What needs to be adjusted is the opportunity to produce, not the redistribution of income after it is produced.We need to arrive at a new market economy structure in which on one level the employees of a corporation could walk into management and demand, in collective bargaining, the use of an Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP)—not just to trade a single block of stock for wage concessions, but to redesign the future of the company and its employees. We need, as a society, the assurance that as a corporate employer grows, it builds ownership into its employees. All of them! When people are in a position to earn the wages of their capital as well as the wages of their labor, their company is in a position to be more competitive through lower labor costs and increased technological innovation, while achieving higher employee incomes through the employee’ capital.Once this goal becomes the national political focus we will see an unbelievable discussion of workable plans to realize the goal. Remember that planning begins with a vision and a goal. This is not rocket science but it does require national leadership. Implementation requires amending a few laws that basically authorize the transactions that will broaden capital ownership paid for with the future earnings of capital investment. Allowing such transactions will provide incentives for profitable opportunities to employ unused capacity and promote stable economic growth.

Still, after a half-century, we have no leaders with a growth strategy that could restore the economic productiveness of the American economy. The growth strategy I have presented is not new, but it has not yet registered in the minds of leaderless politicians and their advisers from the left to the right of the political spectrum and a population of people who have been mis-educated and mis-led by conventional economists from all the conventional schools of economics.

http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/09/10621995-rnc-stumbles-on-meaning-of-improving

Six Things Rich People Need To Stop Saying

“… I guess our entire philosophy about money kind of revolves around this premise — that there is no poor or working class, but only people who have chosen to not buckle down to the task of getting rich (and thus deserve whatever salary, insecurity or poor work conditions they get). So there should be no talk about improving the lives of the non-rich, since any of them can simply choose to elevate themselves out of that group, right? So “anyone can get rich” isn’t just untrue, it’s insultingly untrue. You can’t have a society where everyone is an investment banker. And you can’t have a society where you pay six figures to every good policeman, nurse, firefighter, schoolteacher, carpenter, electrician and all of the other ten thousand professions that civilization needs to survive (and that rich people need in order to stay rich).”

Anyone who seeks to own productive power that they cannot or won’t use for consumption are beggaring their neighbor––the equivalency of mass murder––the impact of concentrated capital ownership.

6 Things Rich People Need to Stop Saying | Cracked.com http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-things-rich-people-need-to-stop-saying/#ixzz1oXSCtODF

http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-things-rich-people-need-to-stop-saying/