Where there are "Nurse Logs"...

In loss there can be new life.

The old forests, the dwindling numbers that remain, teach us a valuable lesson. They teach us among many other things, that in the death and decay of a fallen tree, the renewing of the forest ecosystem is made possible. Scientists have conducted many studies on this phenomenon in recent years in an attempt to revitalize woodlands depleted by the logging industry. They found that wood decay, such as down wood, tree stumps, diseased fallen branches, and dead trees, are a necessary component of a healthy forest ecosystem. Wood decay provides to the forest many benefits including moisture, nutrients, an important fungus called mycorrhizae, microbes, what are called “nurse logs” (where next generation of trees enjoy growth), as well as habitats for wildlife and insects. And of course a derivative effect of a healthy forest is the enjoyment it brings to our city-centered lives. One of my pleasures in life is the few opportunities a year that I can get away from the hustle and bustle of concrete existence and immerse myself into one of the great deep green worlds where life springs forth in rich abundance, where air is freshly produced, where my legs receive a good burn on soft ground, and where my mind finds renewed interest around every bend in the trail. Without the decay from dead wood -- and the passing on from old to new -- humanity could not enjoy these grand old forests.

In loss there can be new life.

What we know to be true about the forest ecosystem is not too dissimilar from what we experience in our individual lives, in local communities, and in global systems. Take for example, the capitalist “ego”-system. There is no doubt that in the past couple of decades our local communities have experienced tremendous loss from the mass exodus of the manufacturing base to overseas markets. What has been the loss to our communities is the gain to emerging middle classes in China, India, and Brazil. That is good for them; it is of little use to fault other countries for looking out for their national interests. But the loss of so many good jobs here is finally catching up with us. American households are finding it increasingly difficult to find work that can support a family. As a result, more families than ever are necessarily relying on some form of government support to get them through the hard times. But get them through to what? To what end? In late 2008 and into 2009 when our economy rapidly tanked into a recession, there were some who said that we would quickly see a "v-shaped" recovery. These pundits were either purposely lying to the public, or are complete fools. (By the way, the only v-shaped recovery we have seen is on Wall Street -- and of course there is a reason for that, and it goes to the tune of trillions of dollars in bank bailouts, plus the fact that for years now, corporations have relied on growth in developing markets -- the destination of former American jobs -- to make up for stagnate growth here.) For as many who were calling for a "v-shaped" recovery, many more saw ample evidence to support a view of a prolonged period of economic pain. At the heart of this analysis is the simple reality that when good jobs are lost, they cannot be simply regained on a whim and wish.

In loss there can be new life.

One of the challenges that we will face in this country over the next decade is how we will learn to find new economic life through great job loss. Central to this effort must be a focus on completely revamping our education system from the bottom up. Yeah, we've heard pols talk about this for years, but this has been much more talk than action -- it is now at the point of a national emergency. For as much money we have poured into our industrial military complex since the 1980s, we must now set this nation on a new course and begin investing as much time, effort, and resources into our education system. This investment has the potential to become the "nurse log" of new engines of economic growth in the decades ahead. Biotech, nanotech, alternative energy, "green" production -- these industries and others centered on the math and sciences must be the focus of our national attention.

These efforts will be to no avail, however, if the fruit of such focus is once again sent off to cheap labor markets overseas. Coupled with a new level of investment in education, there must be a serious discussion on the appropriate corporate legal structure for this century and beyond. To this end, increasing shareholder rights, particularly minority-holding shareholder rights will be necessary. Further, increasing stakeholder rights will be necessary (here I am referring to the communities and states that provide tax breaks to corporations, as well as the employees who work for the companies and the consumers who rely on their products). Additionally, how business leaders think and conduct business while leading multi-national corporations, must change. I've mentioned this development before, but finally, some of the leading business schools in the country are beginning to introduce business ethics courses into their curriculum. This effort must expand. It should be a requirement for any business major to learn the history of business and particularly the history of the corporate form, including the development of corporate laws. And it should be a requirement to learn ethical analysis and how to properly navigate corporate laws as it interacts with everyday business. This analysis should be some sort of combination, though not exclusively, of Kant's focus on the protection of the individual with Bentham's emphasis on an efficiency calculus.

Every generation is faced with new decisions and challenges. Our generation must come to grips with the destruction wrought from the greed of our parents. The era of "greed is good" is no more. We must find a sustainable path to business practices, one that seeks to meet the aims of profit and purpose; I have called this purpose-driven profitability. We will need to turn to those communities that are hurting most from the flight of American manufacturing to overseas markets. In the many dying towns that dot the rust belt of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and others, we must find innovative uses of old factories and warehouses now left to decay and rot -- nurse logs can be found here. We must turn to the heart of our American cities, dismantled by white suburban flight and American manufacturing flight, and find a new path of opportunity for our urban poor -- nurse logs can be found here too.

The "two Americas" path our parents have led us on -- one in which the luxury of the executive class continues to come at the cost of a basic humane standard of life for the working class -- is not sustainable. Where are the nurse logs of old capitalism -- those dying remnants of a bygone "ego" system and an outdated way of thinking? Where there are nurse logs, let us use our creative energies and love of our fellow neighbors, to find new growth and new hope and new opportunity -- let us find a new sustainable capitalist system, one that is more equitable and more just and more respectful of the dignity of the human being God created.

Peace, and to a New Hope for the New Year. Cheers!

Jeremy MacNealy

Integrity and its Role in Constructive Combat of Corporate Power by United Citizens

Today I was sworn in as a member of the South Carolina Bar. Tomorrow I will be making an argument before a judge at one of the courts here in the Fifth Judicial Circuit. I am very thankful for the many opportunities I will have to speak on behalf of those, who, like me, were not born into this world with a silver spoon and who, unlike me, face far more difficult conditions, daily, than most of us could understand or appreciate. An overwhelming majority of my clients will be low-income (or no income) African-American men and women. This fact says something about the state of America. For one, it says that the idyllic notion of an “American dream” is much more a fiction and fantasy than anything else. It also says that the notion of “American exceptionalism” will find little support in the annals of history. I can quote you passages from historians writing of the Roman Empire 2000 ago, and you would think those words were written about an American Empire 2000 years later, they are so on point; in the days ahead I will share with you these writings and more -- they say something compelling about the rise and fall of empires, as well as the state of humanity. Finally, the fact that an overwhelming majority of my clients are poor black men and women, says something about the state of American business and of American politics that caters to it. American policy, shaped by business leaders, has supported a maximum profit orientation whereby the procurement of the cheapest labor is the name of the game. As a consequence, factories and manufacturing facilities, once good jobs for the average American household, were sent overseas and leaving behind a huge opportunity vacuum for urban workers here. I have been around inner city neighborhoods much in my adult life, and I can tell you from firsthand observation that such destructive American policies have created communities around this nation that are absolutely explosive. State and federal government can continue seeking funds to expand the prison system in a never-ending attempt to quell the volatile condition of these communities, but this policy is not sustainable. Either we change the way business is done in this nation, or this nation will one day feel the wrath from a people facing no hope, forgotten and left behind by global stock market capitalism.

This leads me to today’s discussion. In the previous entry, the analogy of a sailboat was used to invoke three principles that are necessary to compel a craft, as well as a movement, forward: rational and responsible direction, harnessed and applied power, and structural integrity. Remove any one of these three, and it is impossible to move a craft, or a movement, from point A to point B. (Any number of other entities also require direction, power, and integrity -- a nation, an organization, an institution, a company, a community, for example.) So far, more has been said on what is NOT a responsible and rational course of action, than what is. But in eliminating those options that are fundamentally flawed, a more productive option stands out. A right and responsible course of action in the context of public affairs is one that seeks to lead to a more just, more equitable, more peaceful, more sustainable result. This broad paint stroke requires further defining and sharpening. When the discussion of the short history of the American business corporation is picked back up and brought up to the present, at that time certain specifics will emerge.

As for the role of power, it was pointed out previously that no amount of rational discourse or moral persuasion is capable of wresting power from the grip of an entity enjoying superior power positioning. Groups with superior power only relinquish degrees of power when compelled by some form of force; not necessarily violence, but force nonetheless. This fact does not devalue the importance of rational discourse or ethical debate. Modern history has offered ample examples of how power is amplified and sustained by virtue of it being linked to superior rational and ethical positions; it finds validation when accompanied by rationality and justice. Power lacking justice, morality, and responsibility, is most frequently ferocious, ruthless, and ultimately, deficient and destructive. Power linked with justice on the other hand, has staying power; its acceptance by the people provides power sustainability.

I wish to share a few more thoughts on the subject of integrity in this entry. Of the three, integrity is the most difficult for us to wrap our minds around -- yet it is the most important of the three. Sticking with the analogy of a sailboat, if you’ve ever gone sailing or if you have ever seen one in action or if you can imagine, where are your eyes most frequently drawn? The sails, and what lies ahead on the horizon, right? The human eye is generally drawn to power source, and to direction. Our attention is rarely drawn to the hull of the craft; only if water starts gushing in from below, then most definitely, but otherwise, once we are in the boat and moving, little mind is ever given to the hull. One reason for this of course, is because the hull doesn’t stand out naturally in our view when we have a beautiful sail and gorgeous horizon directly in sight. Who stares at a simple wooden hull when there are so many other more interesting things to look at? Another reason ought to be the fact that we have checked the hull thoroughly before putting the craft into the water. This prior inspection gives us a sense of sureness so that once we step into the boat we feel pretty good that it isn’t going to take on water and sink. While it may be the most overlooked part of the craft while in operation, the hull is the most important part of the boat. Direction can be changed, a power source can be interchanged, but without a structurally sound hull, there is neither harnessed power or progressed direction. I conclude, that a nation, a community, a company, an organization, an institution, or a movement, without structural integrity ceases to be a nation working toward direction, a community moving toward a way, a company progressing toward a goal, an organization striving toward an end, an institution reaching toward an objective, or a movement acting toward a dream. Structural integrity is fundamental and foundational to a sustainable entity; direction may be changed, power sources interchanged, but without integrity neither the latter has effect nor the former attained.

The hull represents the structural integrity of the craft -- without structural integrity, no amount of right direction or applied power matters. But the hull does more than simply hold the rudder and the sail together as part of an integrated operating unit. The shape, size and strength of the hull actually expands the capability of the craft’s direction (i.e. expanding what waters it is capable of traversing) as well as determine how much force it can handle. Can a super-sized mainsail attached to a super-tall mast function on a tiny two-person boat? Even if the large mainsail could be unfurled on such an odd looking craft, the slightest breeze would topple the boat end over end into the water. How much power the craft can handle is directly linked to the size, shape, and strength of the hull. Moreover, the size, shape, and strength of the hull directly dictate how far the craft can be taken, and how efficiently it can get there. Would you take a tiny two-person sail to circumnavigate the globe? The mightiest open seas would swiftly swallow up such a puny craft. Even stout ships have difficulty traversing the open seas, but a weak craft has no chance. I submit, that integrity in life and in movements and in organizations is no different. Not only is integrity necessary to hold things together and link power and direction as part of an operational unit, the extent of structural integrity directly determines how much force it can withstand and how much it can apply, and what direction and how far and how efficiently it can get there. Integrity is foundational and fundamental to life.

But what exactly does integrity mean in the context of a public square dominated by enormous global corporations that possess the controls of government, and where the voice of the citizen is rapidly being drowned out? What exactly does integrity mean in the context where global stock market capitalism has had as one of its key traits the practice of ever expanding the pay differential between the executive class and the working class? What exactly does integrity mean in the context where algorithms and super computers manipulate trading activity, taking advantage of the limitations of average everyday investors such that the market begins resembling more a casino than a trustworthy investment mechanism? What exactly does integrity mean in the context where a marginally successful private owner takes a company public and at the benefit of enormous sums of public equity, becomes an instant billionaire? What exactly does integrity mean in the context of large banking institutions after having made a series of failed bets and facing ultimate collapse, were able to manipulate governments in such a way that trillions of public dollars were used to pay off bad bank debts? What exactly does integrity mean when the same bankers then turnaround and pay themselves the largest bonuses in Wall Street history? What exactly does integrity mean when the same bankers, after having just received massive bailouts to compensate for their massive bonuses, then advise the public that it is time for the general public to accept austerity measures and reduce public services for lower income families? What exactly does integrity mean in the context of corporations being awarded by Wall Street for “gaining efficiencies” because for them it means increased profit margins, when what it frequently means to the rest of us on Main Street is that in the process of gaining efficiencies and expanding profit margins, manufacturing was sent to cheap labor camps in third world countries at the expense of paying workers a fair rate? What exactly does integrity mean in the context of a system fundamentally bent toward maximizing consumption for short-term business growth when in the process valuable resources and ecosystems are brought to the brink of total exhaustion? What exactly does integrity mean in the context of a system that says greed is good when every giant of the intellectual, moral, and religious universe has argued the exact opposite? What exactly does integrity mean in the context of a legal system that equates the corporation with a living, breathing human being? What exactly does integrity mean in the context of corporations flush with tons of cash on the balance sheets, while working families are financially strapped and unemployment is on the rise? What exactly does integrity mean in the context of interest rates being manipulated for the sole purpose of enticing citizens to spend more money instead of saving? What exactly does integrity mean when the net result of artificially low interest rates is increased net wealth for corporations and decreased net wealth for citizens? What exactly does integrity mean in the context of political dialogue owned by corporations, having as its aim to present the most extreme voices and radical candidates on television, resulting in heated but empty rhetoric and ultimate political stalemate such that nothing of actual substance and of real change ever gets accomplished? What exactly does integrity mean in the context of cities filled with urban poor, a people born into an environment of hopelessness, born out of a history of enslavement and disenfranchisement, with little hope of a good education, with little hope of a decent job, with little hope of ownership in affordable housing, with little hope of adequate health and medical care, with little hope of sufficient nourishment? What exactly does integrity mean in the context where war is a profit boon for the corporate dominated military complex? What exactly does integrity mean in the context when an increasing number of the largest global corporations have more financial and political clout than a majority of the world’s nations not to mention its citizens? What exactly does integrity mean when what matters most for global business operating in emerging markets such as China and Vietnam is increasing consumer demand and not citizen rights? What exactly does integrity mean in the context of corporations being afforded critical constitutional protections and yet are incapable of comprehending the price paid for such rights and protections? What exactly does integrity mean in the context of a system where cheap labor has been a steady hallmark -- from the use of slaves, to cheap immigrant labor, to cheap illegal immigrant labor, to cheap third world labor? What exactly does integrity mean in the context of a political system where the floodgates of corporate dollars have now been broken wide open for the purpose of driving up the cost of running for political office such that only those who have a chance at winning are those willing to do the bidding of the corporations, or, those who can afford to spend their on fortunes because they have done the bidding of corporations their entire adult life?

I can go on forever.

Integrity in the context of citizens organizing to counter the power of corporations, means to be made strong by time-tested intellectual, moral, and religious giants of human history and by the testing of the spirit and of character that comes from serving the ends of the poor and powerless. This building-up process that is focused on the rational mind, responsible character, and spiritual force, when used to increase durability and expandability of organized citizens, can harness tremendous power and apply awesome force toward a common good -- to fight for a more equitable pay scale, fight for increased ownership, fight for increased minority-holding shareholder rights, fight for increased consumer protections, fight for the right of workers to organize without reprimand, fight for increasing the voice of living-breathing citizens in the political process and softening the volume of so-called corporate citizens, fight for an adequate safety net for impoverished citizens left out and left behind by capitalism, fight for affordable and adequate health and medical care, fight for proper nourishment, fight for protections of finite resources and eco-systems, fight for equitable pay. Absent this deliberate building-up process, our fight is feeble. Currently, we have no fight. We have no fight because we have no integrity. We have allowed ourselves to be led by mental and moral weaklings and spiritual darlings. We are completely subdued by a TV culture that numbs our senses and dumbs our intellect; we are indeed, brain dead with a TV bullet in the head. We are barely recognizable as human, a notch above the dogs, maybe -- but even a dog knows when an intruder nears the house, and barks like hell.

The moral, intellectual, and spiritual giants of ages past concluded that the good life is that which seeks the right life. To be in the fight, to fight for what is right, for what is just, for what is equitable, for what is sustainable, such a life is the good life. If we are not living for these, if we are not fighting for that which promotes a better life for the weak and powerless, we are not actually living. We gain life only so far as we have lost our life for the sake of those who have not in life. Such is the life guided by what is right, is empowered by what is just, and has the strength to withstand adversity by virtue of integrity.

Intellectual integrity, the art of testing an intellectual position against other positions to determine the superiority of positions, is necessary for strength and sustainability. Through a TV culture, sadly we have lost the art of intellectual discourse and dialogue that is necessary to sharpen and define constructive positions. Somehow, this must be regained if we ever hope as a people to move society toward better policies and practices. Without intellectual discourse, ignorance runs hog wild among political leadership and the voting public making it all too easy for corporations to manipulate voting behavior with self-interested, shallow rhetoric and slogans. The people are angry at what is happening on Wall Street and in Washington… Yeah? So the fuck what. Wall Street and Washington can continue to do what it has been doing -- screwing you -- because they know you will not only take it, oddly and comically, you will fight among each other to protect the status quo of the bend-you-over-screwing. They know this because they know the American people are ignorant. Thus, a way to combat the cycle of the ignorant being led by the ignorant and to stop the screwing, is to increase rationality and intellectual discourse.

If the art of intellectual discourse cannot be regained in this TV culture -- and I do have serious doubts about this possibility -- then it may be necessary for those who have gone through the arduous process of intellectual testing and who seek to engage in constructive policymaking, to resort to the positive use of rhetoric and slogan-making for the purpose of exciting emotions of an impassioned but ignorant public. Can the use of simple rhetoric and catchy slogans be done sufficiently enough to maintain the integrity of the message? Given the complexity of the issues involved and the nuanced responses that are needed to address these, I have my doubts about whether over-simplification for the purpose of slogans is productive. Where ignorance is a wild fire, more is required than catchy slogans and cause-oriented rhetoric -- the spirit of a people must be moved. A moving of the spirit can reshape an attitude and redirect an action like no amount of rational discourse or rhetorical dispatches can.

A proper and productive moving of the spirit involves intellectual discipline and moral and ethical understanding -- but it involves more, including a constructive theological framework and a spiritual compass. Unfortunately, much of the American church, to use it as an example, has become intellectually, morally, and theologically ignorant, all for the sake of a “spiritual” experience; meanwhile, the remainder of the American church, while it may possess the faculties of reason and rationality and understand completely the theological underpinnings of justice, its spiritual impotence make it incapable of actually getting a people on fire for justice. With spiritual impotence dominating on one side and intellectual, moral, and theological ignorance dominating on the other, the American church has simply become a destructive source for those hoping to engage in constructive changemaking. For the church to regain an active and constructive role in bringing positive change, how religious leaders are trained must undergo a complete retooling. In ages past, the great universities provided an education that was not so compartmentalized as it is today. A young student could enter the great universities and expect a well-rounded education that included training in theology, law, and the humanities. Nowadays, some students go into a “bible college” and come out with a kumbaya spiritual tune, all the while lacking any capacity to think critically and rationally on matters of theology and the law. Other students go on to seminary to be trained to think critically and rationally in theology, dusting off the old classics by Luther, Calvin, and Barth, yet lack any practical sense of how things are actually accomplished through the art of politics and the practice of law. A good many other students go into the law and are well versed in statutes and case law and the art of argument and negotiation, but are without the ethical and theological backdrop giving such laws and argument moral and spiritual force. Finally, there are the many students who have no interest in the theologies and philosophies of ages past, nor have any interest in legal processes, and instead seek undergraduate and graduate degrees in business. And these eager students quickly learn that business leaders rise to the highest point of stature in society simply by doing one thing -- making more profit than the next guy. Moreover, they learn that the person who is king in business has the means to both pay off lawmakers and purchase airwaves for the aim of reshaping a mindset of a people through propaganda, redefining what is right and wrong, reinventing what is the good life.

In a society where corporations are kingmakers, it is easy to conclude that theologians or spiritual leaders are now of little effect. When I look across the religious spectrum of America, it is hard to argue with this conclusion. Using just the American church as an example (since I come from the Judeo-Christian tradition and it is one I am most familiar with), I see little difference if any between the ways of the church and the ways of Wall Street or Washington. The prominent preachers parading on TV are nothing more than pimps, pushers, and profiteers. These clowns are totally incapable of providing any spiritual or moral force to the problems of the present age. And what of the theologians? Here, there is a deadly entrenchment in old thought and outdated traditions, creating a stranglehold on America’s greatest divinity schools -- the very training grounds for America’s next generation of religious leaders and thinkers. In the halls of the libraries of these great divinity schools, you can find volumes upon volumes upon volumes of dusty works of old by religious leaders of old, debating the most insignificant details. In these same halls you will struggle to find a single useful volume on a practical, nuts and bolts approach to implementing a new strategic business paradigm that is capable of serving the ends of profit and purpose. Some might spend a couple hours a week in church… at most, while those people and many others spend the vast majority of the rest of their waking hours in the workplace -- it seems then, that if the church is to say anything worthwhile at all it ought to have more than a few words on that other 99% of human life that doesn’t entail singing “Jesus love me” tunes in a crusty old cathedral. Call me crazy.

Each day I walked down the halls of one of the great theological libraries, at Princeton Seminary, these words were always with me: “Hebel hebalim, all these things are hebel.” Hebel being a transliterated Hebrew word, that translated literally means vapor, that we have come to define as vanity… so, vapor of vapors, all these things are the most vaporous, or, vanity of vanities, all these things are most vane. These words from the book of Ecclesiastes were with me as I walked among those dusty volumes because I saw not a living word capable of speaking to the real, nuts and bolts, brick and mortar powers of this age -- the corporate power that dominates the public square. It is indeed hard to argue with the conclusion that the religious community has little value to offer to the problem solving process that we must engage in during this age of crisis.

But then… I am reminded of a Moses who led a politically impotent but spiritually powerful group out from the iron grip of Pharaoh’s mighty army, and I am reminded of a Jesus who declared to the Temple powers that the old ways of doing things are finished, and I am reminded of a Martin Luther who defied a Catholic empire, and I am reminded of a Gandhi who defied an English Empire, and I am reminded of a Malcolm X and a Martin Luther King who defied an American Empire. I know these stories well, and I conclude that those who brush off the spiritual leader or the theologian as no longer having effect, are ignorant of history, and more, ignorant of the way of humanity.

It is clearer than ever that business devoid of an ethical compass cannot be sustained. Responsible citizens united, girded by intellectual and moral integrity and spiritual force, must therefore compel big business with persuasive power to seek a new direction toward the twin aims of public purpose and private profit. Citizens of all stripes will be needed in this process of constructive change-making -- including responsible lawmakers, responsible business women and men, responsible ethical thinkers, and yes, responsible spiritual and theological leaders.

Peace.

Jeremy MacNealy

Citizens United to Create Conflict with Corporate Power for the Purpose of Constructive Change

One purpose for the previous blog entry is to provide a small discussion on a framework (also referred to as a lens, a perspective, a worldview, a thought process) to constructively direct imagination, skills, energies, and passions toward complex, multi-faceted issues facing the public today, particularly, a public square ruled by the global stock market-capitalism. Below, I will argue further that a responsible and rational framework providing a proper sense of direction is one of three central parts required to engage in constructive change-making. Much more will need to be said on this topic of a rational framework providing direction than the blog entry in September; I plan to spend more on this important topic in the near future. Until then, I will just add a few more comments on the framework subject before turning to the second integral part -- the role of power, which will be discussed below. Every age, though different, confronts similar fundamental, foundational issues, generally centered on power dynamics, that if not addressed by the people, remain as a barrier to progress. In our age of a public square dominated by corporate power, the central question is, in what ways can the relationship, the power dynamic, between the global corporation, government, and the people be improved so that a productive, cooperative partnership between the three is forged to tackle critical problems, such as extreme poverty, nuclear proliferation, health and medical care, global financial instability, housing, education, environment, etc?

Given the dominance of the corporation in the public square it has become all too easy to dismiss this task as a fool’s errand. This reality is a major reason why roughly 60% of the electorate has disengaged altogether from the public square. There exists today a deep feeling of marginalization of the individual and of the community in the face of a faceless global capitalist machine. At the early stages of stock market-capitalism in America, the workers could put a face to their nemesis. These were the industrialists or capitalist overlords; they were the Vanderbilts, the Fords, the Rockefellers, the Morgans –- there was at one time a human face to powerful industry. Yes, today there are the Gates, the Buffetts, and the Waltons, but these, as wealthy and as powerful as they may be are now dwarfed by the immense size and complexity of modern day global corporations and the global, and often shadowy, capital markets that provide corporations funding. Today the consumer confronts not so much the industrialist as it does an immense industrial and financial complex. Today it is not so much the face of a Vanderbilt or Ford as it is the power and persuasion of corporate trademarks of a GE or Intel, or Google. Today it is not so much the ego of the capitalist overlord as it is a collection of egos caught up in a complex financial organism that is supported by an equally complex legal mechanism. With the rapid growth of corporations, first across municipalities and then across state lines and finally across nearly every national border, the faces of the early industrialists have been supplanted by corporate symbols. Mirroring the rapid growth of the global corporation, central governments have also dramatically increased in size, partly as a shallow attempt to counter the ever-burgeoning power of big business. In the process of an ever-expanding global capitalist machine and ever-increasing size of government, the voice of the people is drowned out of the public square. In response, an overwhelming majority have adopted unhealthy and unproductive frameworks –- a few were noted in the previous blog… the nostalgic, the amnesiac, the fatalist/defeatist, the utopist, etc. However popular these may currently be on babble radio and bobblehead tv, they are fundamentally incapable of bringing about the kind of constructive change we desperately need.

A very broad stroke was painted of the kind of framework that is needed: an everyday, deliberate, focused working out of complex problems to daily take steps toward a more just, more equitable, more peaceful, more responsible and more sustainable society. Broad strokes -- in the days ahead, I will narrow this framework down to more specifics. For now, I will just note that this framework providing rational and responsible direction is only one of three key parts of what is required to bring positive difference in the affairs of the public. Additionally, while I don’t want to give up the good stuff too early, to keep the reader engaged in this thought process, I will give two examples of why this great task we face together is NOT a fool’s errand –- to the contrary, there is very recent evidence from the affairs of global capitalism that suggests this process of constructive engagement is a realizable goal within the grasp of the community of citizens. First, while it is fundamentally true of organizational dynamics (in this case I am referring to the organization taking shape in the legal entity called the “corporate form”) that self interest is the predominant motivation, if not the sole motivation, there is evidence to suggest that the long-term interests of the corporation can be made to be in alignment with the long-term interests of the communities of citizens; otherwise, if they are not, the corporation’s days are terminally numbered to the days remaining of a livable Earth and viable communities of people that inhabit her -- remember, there can be no future in business if there is no future in Earth. As it is in the DNA of corporations to find ways to grow revenue and profit from one month to the next, from one quarter to the next, from one year to the next, from one 10-year business cycle to the next, so too it is in the long-term interests of global corporations to promote sustainable development to ensure long-term business growth. Put simply, with some prodding from the community of citizens and from government, as well as internal guidance from business leaders, the self-interests of the global corporation can actually be turned to work for the interests of the common good. It is possible for the corporation to make money while making a difference. It is possible to do good while doing good business. It is possible to gain profit share while sharing in a common just purpose. In the days ahead I will offer a myriad of examples of businesses doing this very thing today, albeit in limited scale. The aim is to dramatically expand the scale of these sustainability efforts so that they become the very backbone and fiber of the global business enterprise.

Second, while the common citizen has indeed been marginalized over the past 100 years through the tremendous accumulation of power by the global corporation coupled with the increasing size of governments and bureaucracy, the community of people are far from powerless. Pull up the veil, unplug your ear -- the community of citizens have at their disposal great power. Consider for a moment what a highly organized and concentrated protest with consumer dollars can do to the largest, most dominant corporations in the world –- in a matter of days it can shut down the biggest, baddest businesses on the planet. In every crisis there are lessons to be learned. One of the lessons learned from the credit crisis of 2008 is that this entire global capitalist system can be shut down completely over night if the tap of capital runs dry. At the height of the crisis in 2008, both big banks and big businesses were nearing shut down mode and would have come to an immediate halt if it were not for the federal government unilaterally deciding to commit $1 trillion from the public coffers to keep the capital tap flowing. That was not a one-time crisis; read about the Panic of 1907 -- the similarities are eerie. You see, the system we have constructed is one fundamentally built on trust. Dollars are a symbolic representation of that trust. Good news for citizens hoping to regain some power, “trust” dollars are also the lifeblood of corporations. Without capital, corporations die. When credit dries up (which is basically an extension of present capital for future cash flows), when trust dissipates, big business and big banks can be shut down completely. Imagine the implications then if a segment of the voting consumer decided to vote with their “trust” dollars and pull their “trust” capital out of the largest banks, and imagine if the consumer simultaneously used their “trust” dollars in a targeted, strategic boycott of some of the largest corporations -- the capitalist organism would grind to a halt in a very short period of time. I’m talking within months if not weeks or days. This isn’t fiction, folks, it is a fact of the “trust”-based system we have created. Read the remarks of Warren Buffett at the height of the credit crisis in early October 2008 –- he knew better than anyone that this system was on the verge of being shut down entirely if “trust” was not immediately reinforced; in his words, if the government did not step in immediately, it was back to the “stone age.” When faced with this kind of organized citizen-consumer power, big banks and big business can be forced to the public negotiation table. That is power. Now, this is a nuclear option that the consumer possesses in its arsenal, and I am not here advocating for a DEF CON 5 type of response to big business. I am advocating for measured improvements of the system for the betterment of society as a whole. But at the same time it is important for the citizen-consumer to realize that we do have awesome power in our arsenal -- we can turn the lights out on this machine at any time if we so choose. We give the corporation legal and economic life, and we can take away the corporation’s legal and economic life today if we so choose. That is power. And that power provides positioning at the bargaining table.

This second example leads to me the topic of this blog entry –- the organization and concentration of citizen power to create conflict with corporate power…

Before continuing on with the topic of the short history of the American business corporation, it is useful to have at least a short discussion on other integral parts that are needed in this problem solving process. After completing the previous blog, an analogy came to mind that best captures what it takes to compel a productive public movement capable of shifting the public square from its current deteriorating state into an improved, more responsible position: What makes the sailboat capable of going from one point to another point? Is the craft capable? The voyage will end before it begins if the sailboat isn’t seaworthy.

Like most analogies, they are of limited use, so here I will focus on just three essential elements of a seaworthy sailboat each representing three important qualities of good leadership and of a constructive movement: the rudder, the sail, and the hull. The rudder is part of what provides direction to the craft; the previous blog entry is essentially about framing direction -- directing movement responsibly is critical. All the organization fervor and energy in the world is without proper effect if it is not directed in a responsible, constructive manner.

Next, the sail is part of the power source, that which harnesses power (wind) to compel the craft toward an intended direction; setting a course toward a rational and responsible direction does little good if the boat is incapable of being moved in that direction -- at some point in the process, harnessed power and applied force are necessary. Entities possessing a superior power position will not relinquish an ounce of power by intellectual or moral persuasion alone. Power has to be challenged with power; force with force.

Finally, the hull represents the integrity of the vessel; insuring that it doesn’t sink before it starts, that it doesn’t sink when it starts, and that it doesn’t sink before it has arrived. No amount of right direction and harnessed power can ever deliver the boat to the intended destination if it suffers critical structural failure at any point in the voyage. Integrity is a broader concept than how it is frequently thought of, that is personal integrity. Intellectual integrity, for example, the testing of an intellectual position against other intellectual positions, is important to having a strong, sustained movement. Moral integrity, the testing of an ethical framework against other ethical frameworks, is also important to organizational strength. Personal integrity is also important -- how many leaders in the past 12 years alone have fallen out of favor with the public because of a lack of personal integrity? Spiritual integrity also plays a role -- the story of human history is compelled forward by a deep, spiritual longing for a better day and a better way; one of the mistakes of the communists was the attempt to negate this fact by replacing eschatological stories of religion with an alternative eschatological story of the state. A spiritual, or theological, integrity seeks to be tested against other religious-oriented understandings to insure that it can withstand public scrutiny and critical thought. I will speak much more on the kind of integrity I am speaking of in another blog. I will just add here, that integrity requires continual work much like the hull of a wood sailboat requires continual attendance. The wood hull, particularly for a boat that travels salty seas, must receive constant care. A wood hull that does not receive constant care will rapidly deteriorate to the point of being non-functioning and unsalvageable. The aim with a wood hull is not insuring that it cannot be penetrated by water at all; a wood hull is in fact designed to soak up and allow in a little water. The aim is that it not be inundated by water to the point that the craft is no longer seaworthy. To maintain the integrity of the craft, constant work is required; integrity in life is no different.

It is college football season, my favorite time of the year, so I will provide a comparable analogy from football. A smart playbook, a solid scheme, and a good play caller are necessary to direct actions successfully against an opponent. But a playbook is completely worthless without execution through force, without the organized application of power, from one unit of 11 players against another unit of 11 players. Power in the context of football is the ability to force a team’s will on the opposing team; for victory, one must force will on the other. Connected to power is integrity. Strength to apply power must come from hours and hours of practice and physical training. But integrity in the context of football is more than physical training, it is also about organizational strength, about players playing as a team and having a strong bond. A team can have a superior playbook and superior players but if the integrity of the team is not there, it will not properly execute plays, it will not force will, and it will not win.

There are certain qualities favored over others in the formation of a framework that provides direction: intellectual honesty over mind manipulation, rational discourse over empty rhetoric, truth seeking over propaganda making, due diligence over haphazard expedience, historical integrity over agenda-based revisionism, common good over self interest, sustainability over over-consumption, a responsible working out over do-nothing defeatism, constructive engagement over wishful thinking, selfless sharing over selfish greed, love over hate. But even if a group possesses these and has the moral and intellectual high ground, so what? Can a group with limited power simply rely on rationalizing with another group of superior power with the aim to bring a more balance to power? Will a group with superior power relinquish power to the group with less power because it is morally or intellectually persuaded to do so? History says the answer is clearly no. Injustice, the fruit of imbalances in power, ultimately has to be challenged with power and force. Otherwise, there can be no justice. And without justice, there can be no real peace. I cannot reiterate how fundamental this fact is. Just as a sailboat, regardless of a right direction, cannot reach its destination without the harnessing of power, and just as a football team cannot execute plays without the application of force, so too the organized citizen-consumer and organized citizen-voter cannot redirect the ways of global business without applied, focused power. Ultimately, power must be confronted with power; force must be confronted with force.

The board of directors and executive officers of a corporation may in a limited sense come to the rational conclusion that implementing certain sustainable practices is good for business. There are numerous examples of this in fact -- McDonald’s and sustainable fisheries, Cemex and affordable housing, Shell and alternative energy research and development, Cisco and energy efficiency software. Moreover, whole industries may come to certain rational and responsible conclusions that show both a benefit to the bottom line and a net benefit to society, and act accordingly. But these responses have only been limited so far -- traditionally, these have been mere tokens of goodwill for the purpose of gaining greater goodwill from the consumer. A corporation in competition with other corporations will not make the sacrifice of greater profit share merely because a particular course of action may be the right ethical response; a corporation that does so will ultimately be beaten out by the corporation that does not relinquish profit share by moral persuasion alone. For this reason, it is necessary to engage the practices of global business as a whole, rather than piecemeal. But to do this, foundational, structural, legal issues have to be addressed. Statutory and regulatory effects can only be accomplished by properly motivating the politicians. Self-preservation is the primary interest of politicians. To preserve their positions (as well as line up future token positions) requires money, lots of it -- that’s where corporations come in. Since politicians on both sides of the aisle do the bidding of corporations, finally, the organized citizen must engage global business in its entirety in order to effectuate real change. And to do this, organized, concentrated, sustained power must be used, and likely must be used on a global scale. Big business can only relinquish power when persuaded with overwhelming power; moral and intellectual persuasion simply will not do. Force of some sort must be used to create conflict and to effectuate change. History teaches us this fact over and over again. Without force applied to those who hold superior power, a more balance of power can never be attained. Conflict must be created. This harsh reality does not sit comfortably with some who believe that the most powerful entities can be compelled to right direction with mere moral and intellectual persuasion, who believe that conflict should be avoided at all costs, who believe that the use of power can only culminate in destruction. Those who hold to these positions have a misconceived notion of “peaceful” measures to bring change. Accordingly, their notion of “conflict resolution” is desired over conflict creation, their notion of peace is desired over the use of force, their notion of moral and intellectual high ground is desired over an improved actual, physical high ground. What good is a bad peace when there is such strife and discontentment in impoverished communities? A bad peace is no peace at all. What good is a misconceived moral or intellectual high ground when the disenfranchised are living down in the gutter? A misconceived moral high ground is no moral high ground at all. Bad peace and misconceived moral high grounds are nothing more than pitiful illusions to make those living comfortably in society feel more comfortable about their prestige, place and position.

Conflict creation, the application of force to force, is needed to bring a desired just peace and a better place and position for those who have been left behind by global stock-market capitalism. Here I am not meaning violent conflict. Conflict comes in numerous forms. It comes through a majority vote that outnumbers a minority vote by the slimmest of margins. It comes through organized non-violent sit-in protests. It comes through the concentration and organization of labor. And it comes through the organization of consumer capital in the form of targeted boycotts to manipulate corporate and hence, government, action. In earlier discussions on the history of the business corporation, we saw how the first recorded boycott was used effectively in the 1700s to convince merchant traders to no longer sell sugar produced from slave labor. Fast-forward to the 1990s, Nike came under a similar onslaught by the public for its labor practices in third world countries. The intense public pressure resulted in Nike changing some of its corporate behavior and implementing some sustainability practices. Powerful corporations will only change their ways for the better when faced with powerful, organized citizens.

Many issues were raised in this blog that will need to be fleshed out in much greater detail in the near future. But these words are enough to chew on and think over until then. I want to conclude with a short discussion on time and timing. It is true that there is no better time than now, there is no better place than here, to bring positive change for those people who are left out and left behind by global business. There is no better time than now for justice. This is true. It is also true, as history has shown us time and time again, that it takes a certain level and scale of frustration to compel people to organize for the purposes of effectuating positive change. In the late 1800s with the early beginnings of the concentration of capital, we saw the early concentration of labor as workers were discontented with poor factory conditions, unreasonably long work weeks, and cheap, undercutting pay rates to Chinese rail workers. Before the American worker could be compelled to organize, it took a certain level of frustration on the factory floor. Similarly, the citizen as consumer and as voter and as worker and as shareholder, will only be compelled to become organized for the sake of constructive change when the conditions of the economy have deteriorated to such a level that the only course of action remaining is that leading to conflict with corporate power. As citizens, we have not arrived at that point, yet. Our day and time is still too consumed with television, too consumed with the internet, too consumed with clothing, too consumed with big houses, too consumed with vacation homes, too consumed with working to pay off the other things that consume us to care too much about the deteriorating state of politics and of the public square. At some point that will change -- history reiterates that fact -- but that time is not now. The task thus becomes one of preparation for that day.

Peace

Jeremy MacNealy

A Constructive Engagement of the Corporate-Dominated Public Square

Before picking back up where we left off in March on the topic of the short history of the American business corporation, I want to reiterate why this topic is of utmost importance to anyone hoping to engage the public square for the purpose of contributing to positive, sustainable change. To bring change in the political sphere, powers have to be engaged. Before powers can be engaged, it is necessary to first identify the powers. Who (and we can include, What) is the power behind the throne, so to speak? (As opposed to those who speak as if they have power, but in reality are pretenders and amounting to little more than a parade of talking, smiling, hand-shaking puppets.) The most influential force in the affairs of the world today is the global capital market that I will define broadly to include the many equity and commodity exchanges both domestic and abroad [by the way, it also includes the “dark pools,” those markets that are not accessible to the everyday retail investor like you and I, but nonetheless have tremendous weight with over $600 trillion in derivatives traded the last time I checked… in case you are counting, that is a multiple of the size of the total existing public market], as well the myriad of exchange-listed multi-national corporations, from financial and banking institutions, all the way to industrial and consumer goods companies. The corporation’s ascent to the pinnacle of power is a shocking development when you consider that the stock exchange and the limited-liability, enterprise structure (parent-subsidiary model), exchange-traded business corporations, as we know them today, did not surface until the late 1800s [even the simple form, privately held, generally chartered, full liability business corporation did not emerge until the 1830s and 1840s, and even then, only in a handful of states]. In the span of a little more than a century, the corporation went from relative obscurity and a small-time player in public affairs to becoming the most dominant force in the world.

There are many ways that big business exerts influence in the affairs of the world, all of which is only made possible with one thing -- money. At the heart of the corporation’s rise to power is access to enormous levels of capital; as many things change, many things remain the same -- the hand that controls the purse has always ruled the seat of public power. At times prior the crown and the monarchy controlled the money machines (the merchant trading empires, for example, were chartered by the kings and queens of their day, and the money earned from the traders flowed directly back to the crown), at other times religious institutions controlled the money source (recall the story of Christ speaking against the moneychangers in the temple –- Christ’s protest against the powers behind the priesthood had significant implications to the social-, political-, and without question, the economic-order of his day). Christ’s time and context was dealt the Temple; other times, perhaps it was the Monarch; and in other times, the State; in our time it is the Corporation. Because cash is king not only in business but in the halls of power as well, the past 100 years has witnessed the extraordinary development of big business being crowned king of the public square. No, we didn’t vote for them at the ballot box, but we did vote with our dollar bills, lots and lots of dollar bills. To unseat the old and crown the new all that was required was vast sums of capital.

We take the existing world pecking order for grant it given that the only political experience we have all come to know is a public square dominated by corporate symbols. It is as natural to our present existence as the seas are to the fish or the blue sky is to birds. We were in fact born and bred in this new corporate-centric world order. From the cradle we were baptized at infancy into corporate culture while watching Disney (Ticker Symbol: DIS) cartoons. In childhood we learned to walk in the steps of the corporate way as we laced up Nike (Ticker Symbol: NKE) sneakers. Into adulthood we attach helmets of Apple (Ticker Symbol: AAPL) headphones, breastplates of Guess? (Ticker Symbol: GES) attire, and wield swords of Google (Ticker Symbol: GOOG) apps. Every moment of modern human life is touched in one way or another by the almighty hand of the corporation. We are indeed born again corporate hard.

This new life in the corporate world, which again, emerged only since the latter half of the 1800s, brought an unprecedented amount of change. Not long ago the public square was dominated by religious (but politically charged) symbols of the cross and the crescent. At other times it was dominated by ancestral and monarchial symbols. Then with a wave of revolutionary fervor, crosses, crescents, and crowns were toppled, and in their stead nationalistic symbols were hoisted. Finally, with a series of legal developments in the 1800s (from roughly 1819 to 1896), newly-minted nation-states quickly paved way for a third wave of state dominance -- capital markets and the global corporation. Upon the legal foundation laid in 1800s, over the course of the 1900s was built a machine of incomprehensible proportions and influence that radically transformed the nation-state model into what a prominent legal scholar coined, the “market-state model.” In little over one hundred years, we witnessed one of the great developments in history.

These dramatic changes in the public square reflect the ever ebb and flow of societal development over time. It serves as yet another reminder that life, including the organization of human life in community, is not static, but is highly dynamic and constantly changing. Recognition of this reality should result in several conclusions. First, it should put an end to any misguided nostalgia that aims to turn the clock back. I am sure you have heard this argument in one form or another, “If only we would go back to the way it used to be, everything would be so much better.” Recognize that one? Well, it’s total nonsense. It is about as logical as the grand tree in full bloom expressing to another grand tree that if only they could be tiny seedlings again they could avoid being chopped down by the lumberman’s ax. There is no turning back the clock to some rosy-eyed notion of a more idyllic era, and any group that argues as such is a motley crew of delusional nuts. Besides, what one group views as the successes of the “old way” of doing things, I can assure you there is another group of people who do not share the same sense of nostalgia (think African-Americans and 300 years of slavery, or women who were not given equal treatment in the workforce or at the ballot box, or Native Americans and a near complete genocide of their people… and on and on).

This reality should also be a wake up call to the uninformed amnesiacs -- those who have dangerously forgotten historical reality. You understand where you are going, only by first understanding where you have been. Having a rational comprehension of historical development is an absolute requirement to grounding policy discussions in the harshness of every day nuts and bolts of reality. Instead, uninformed amnesiacs constantly rear their ugly head in political airwaves by tossing out policy positions that are completely detached from what is viable, functional, and ultimately sustainable. It is very unfortunate that a quick catch phrase has more political utility than a constructive framework to solve public problems, or that a one-liner TV sound-byte has more influence than intellectual discourse. It is a sad reality of ignorance run rampant in our society. Among the flood of fear mongering commentary in politics these days, I’m not sure who is the most influential, the misguided nostalgic or the uninformed amnesiac. It’s a tie.

Further, the ebb and flow of recent history should shake the do-nothing fatalists from their slothful slumber (here, I am not speaking of the religious-oriented doomsday fatalists that are also in abundance in our public square… although, there are some similarities, as well as in some cases, overlap, between the two). You know the type I speak of –- the ones who view the sad condition of the public square as merely an outcrop of inevitability, and because corporate influence over politics was inevitable, there is nothing that we can do about it to make improvements, so goes the sentiment. As a result, a large segment of our voting population has disengaged from the public square altogether. Our complete immersion into this new corporate world has made it all too easy to fall into this unproductive trap and the belief that the way the world is, is the way it will always be, that a commitment to positive change is futile, that the dominance of public policy by corporate power is eternal and everlasting (until the day the capitalist machine commits mass suicide of itself). But it is not only the disenchanted and disengaged that are beholden to this fatalistic worldview; ironically, I see this perspective creep into the efforts of those tasked with political leadership and is evidenced through a whole range of position papers and talking points by so-called public leaders. Recent shallow attempts to substantially curb the powers of financial institutions, trading houses, healthcare insurers, pharmaceuticals, not to mention failing to curb the influence of every corporation in public elections, all point to a defeated worldview and ultimately impotent leadership. I have two points for the fatalists: first, only a fool would argue that no good has come from the rise of the corporation over the past 120 years. You simply are not weighing things with rational, objective thought if your conclusion is that only bad things have come from the rise of corporate power. There is no question that big business is the culprit of a great deal of the problems facing the world today (environmental destruction, for example), but in an odd twist of reality, its very weaknesses offers to the public its tremendous strengths (technological achievements through research and development, for example) that will finally play a vital role in finding sustainable solutions to the great global issues. Second, the rise of corporate power was no more inevitable than you deciding what to eat for breakfast in the morning. A study of the legal development of the corporation serves as a constant reminder that there was nothing at all inevitable about the current state affairs, that concrete real-life decisions by people in the very recent past ultimately made it possible for the reality we now experience. These decisions were not inevitable, but were in fact among a range of choices; some decisions made with right intentions, some with ill intentions, some with an eye toward the common good, some bent toward self-interests. And today, we face a similar range of choices. Whereas the inevitability of the fatalist can result in only one outcome -- total failure, those of right mind and bearing an ethic of responsibility understand that our generation has before it a range of options, some leading to continued decay of the public square, some leading to constructive improvement for the common good.

Finally (though this is not an all-inclusive list by any means), the ebb and flow of recent history should dispel the silly spell of the utopists. Just as it is the fool who would argue that no good has resulted from global business, only a nut can argue with a straight face that all good has come from these changes – changes that are so good in fact, that they will finally lead to an idealized view of the ultimate good teleological end. Be wary of the one who speaks as though they have uncovered the final solution to solve all of the world’s woes. In recent years, some business writers have with much fervor, embraced the concept of a corporate-based solution to social ills. Obviously, they have not read the same history books that those of reasonable mind have read, an account of century after century where a new path to utopia was revealed, which in reality amounted to a twisted joke at best and a recipe for social catastrophe at worst. The pie-in-the-sky faithfulness and enthusiasm for the capability of the corporation greatly clouds the judgment of some political and social thinkers, and misleads a segment of our population. There is little doubt in my mind that if we ever hope to make any progress on a number of the great global challenges facing our generation, that big business has to be a part of the problem solving process. However, it is unreasonable to believe that by simply letting the corporation to run hog wild over public policy that somehow it is all going to come out smelling roses in the end. Very recent financial history ought to serve as a reminder that in fact, the opposite is true.

As it has been from the beginning, our task is a far simpler one: to daily nurture, preserve, create, grow, and sustain that which has been provided to us in the natural order, to further harness those things that work and discard those things that do not, to use the fullest of our faculties to improve upon those things that are broken and inadequate, to selflessly serve the needs of our brother and of our sister for the purpose of preparing for a better day and a better way for the greater community. Is the way forward, back to a bygone era? Is the way forward, doing nothing? Is the way forward, inventing uninformed, unrealistic and ultimately untenable positions? No! The way forward for our community of people is an every day, laborious process of working out of complex problems with the power of love and of truth and in the spirit of peace, toward a more just, equitable and sustainable future.

One of the primary sources leading to impotent leadership is ignorance; the other is greed. Ignorance is not bliss, folks. Ignorance is terrifyingly dangerous. Humans are charged with the responsibility to use our God-given brain and rationality, to examine why the world is the way it is, and test how it may be improved to better sustain life. This discussion about the rise of corporate power in modern life is exactly that, an examination about why the American public square is the way it is, what decisions were made that made this reality possible, and how can we make new decisions to shape the public into a more constructive, sustainable direction. No, this process is not as easy to do as simply shooting blindly from the hip on some bobble-head babbling political talk radio or TV show. This process requires work and due diligence and tireless effort. But whereas the current atmosphere of ignorant political banter will only lead to more of the same failed public policies and a continued decay of our communities, this form of careful, thoughtful, reasoned examination empowers leaders with knowledge and understanding to boldly shape policy toward a more sustainable future.

I hope to continue the examination of corporate history in the next few days. I hope you will join me then. Be empowered with truth, my friends.

Peace

Jeremy MacNealy

The Call to a Sustainable Future and the Revolutionary Paradigm Shift in Global Business

It has been some time since I last wrote to you, my dear friend. These past many weeks I poured myself into study in preparation for the South Carolina bar examination. It is a monumental task to prepare for, the test itself even worse. I have no idea if I passed or failed. I do know that I poured my being into it in preparation and that I could not have spent any more effort that what I gave. I am glad to be done with it, hopefully forever.

Much has transpired since I last had time to reflect through writing. The event that stands out most in my mind is the oil catastrophe in the Gulf. It deeply saddens me the thought of what we lost as a result of extreme recklessness by BP and other affiliated parties. If any possible good can come from this, it must be this: the collective realization that we cannot continue to conduct business in the same way that we have in decades past. We must finally find it within our public conscience that the only hope we have in a future Earth to be inherited and enjoyed by our children, and our children’s children, and the only hope in having an economy that can meet the needs of the present generation as well as the needs of future generations, is in this one key word: “sustainability.” You will hear me say this many times: there is no future in business if there is no future in Earth; to have a sustainable Earth, we must have sustainable business. Thus the ends become means, and the means the end: to sustainability by sustainability.

After I have had a chance to complete my discussion on the history of the business corporation up to the present era, I will reorient the discussion to the emergence of this important strategic paradigm shift called sustainable development. I will show that there is no clear intellectual parent that gave the concept birth, but that a unifying force across many spectrums converged to shape this concept and prepare it for implementation by the 21st Century global corporation. I will go into all of these things in much greater detail later, but for now I will briefly explain what I think sustainability means, or what it ought to mean, as there are numerous interpretations of the concept depending on the context and who you are talking too. In the business context, and as it applies to the global economy, sustainability is simply this: to achieve measured, responsible profitable growth over the very long term. On the surface this sounds too simplistic, and at first glance seems not much different than what a Milton Friedman disciple would argue – that profitability is the end all and be all of business. But that is precisely where I disagree with Friedman’s conclusions. My understanding of what profitability means and what it takes to achieve long-term profitability is much broader in practical scope than Friedman’s, and further, deeper in ethical root. Profitability is not the end all and be all of business; purpose is the end all and be all of business, as it ought to be for all human endeavors and publicly created entities. Profitability, and by extension business, must ultimately serve the ends of purpose. I will refer to this concept as purpose-driven profits. Deeply imbedded within this concept of purpose-driven profitability is the full recognition that to achieve profitability from one quarter to the next, from year to the next, from one decade to the next, there must be a continual consideration and reevaluation of all facets that go into implementing a successful, sustainable, long-term business model across multiple spectrums and economies, including responsible resource consumption, efficient energy usage, safe and lawful waste disposal, fair labor practices, effective research and development, community reinvestment to encourage growth among emerging consumers, conflict resolution to insure stable markets, adequate and affordable healthcare and medical care and housing and infrastructure, and on and on. These variables confront every major multi-national corporation today. In the near future, I will supply ample primary sources to back up this conclusion.

But why focus on profitability at all, one might inquire? Because bottom-line profitability, while it is not the end all and be all of business, it is VERY VERY VERY important, it is critically important. I cannot emphasize that point enough. One of the many lessons the latest financial crisis should teach us is the great cost on the public purse when big businesses become unprofitable and unsustainable. The public simply cannot afford to keep picking up the tab because corporations have deployed a faulty and short-lived business model. It is incumbent upon those charged with leading these great multi-national corporations to apply the greatest care and skill and caution to insure that their respective operations are not only profitability next quarter and next year, but 10, 20, and 50 years from now. Further, it is incumbent upon our elected officials to establish a sufficient and effective regulatory framework to correct corporate misbehavior when businesses have not lived up to their end of the public bargain.

These very discussions are starting to emerge in business courses around the country. The country’s leading business school, in fact, UPenn’s Wharton School was the very first to create a PhD program dedicated to business ethics. The University of Virginia, the University of Michigan, Harvard and others are similarly updating their curriculum to confront this paradigm shift taking place in boardrooms across the globe: how do we implement a long-term business model that simultaneously seeks profits as well as purpose, that aims to make money as well as make a difference, that is environmentally friendly, socially responsible, and morally justifiable? The key is sustainability.

Peace

Jeremy MacNealy

The Headline of the Past 20 Years -- "Bret Michaels Has a Bad Heart"

Wrapping up law school, finding a new home in South Carolina, packing, and preparing for the SC bar have taken up what meager time I previously enjoyed while writing. However, as always, I have stayed on top of the goings on in Washington and Wall Street and the Gulf and elsewhere, and I am well aware of what the greedy puppet masters are doing. They are up to their usual good for them and no good for you. No good for you, no good for the American citizen, no good for global citizens, no good for our Earth. No damn good.

If there is a story line that should head every news outlet in America this year, last year, and at least the last 20 years, it is this: "Wall Street Fat Cats Buy Out Big Wig Pols, Again." Every day, that should be the headline. Instead, with all of the critical situations facing the world, I continually read that Bret Michaels is having heart problems...

...

???

...

Seriously?

It is no wonder we face such great challenges in our world today. When Bret "who gives a *#$& about" Michaels is one of the most searched about topics on the web, is the one who is the center of attention of a significant portion of our population... folks... I don't know how to say it any other way -- we are screwed.

Why have we allowed Washington big wigs to sell out their vote to maintain the status quo for the six largest banks on Wall Street, and not break them up as prudence demands so as to avert another "too big to fail" crisis? Answer: Bret Michaels. Rock of Love. Every Rose Has Its Thorn.

FYI: the "landmark" financial reform bill that is set for passage in the next week or two can do NOTHING to end "too big to fail." So long as a handful of the biggest banking institutions are equivalent in size to nearly 70% of the U.S. economy, the Dodd bill can be interpreted as little more than a permanent bailout mechanism. A little over one hundred years ago Teddy whacked the biggest and the baddest institutions across the chin, and broke them down to size. I see no one with the balls to do it now.

Why have we allowed Washington big wigs to maintain the status quo with the entire banking sector and not demand that banks spin off their highly leveraged derivatives trading desks which put at risk consumer and commercial deposits? Answer: Bret Michaels. Rock of Love.

FYI: the "landmark" financial reform bill permits banks to keep running their in-house casinos. The "Volcker" Rule was given the boot earlier this week with all Republicans opposing the provision as well as several sold-out Dems.

Why have we allowed Washington big wigs to maintain the status quo with proprietary trading in the hedge fund industry, giving the hedge funds (and the banks) license to use enormous amounts of leverage and creating nuclear weapons out of financial instruments? Answer: Bret Michaels.

FYI: the "landmark" financial reform bill increases capital requirements for derivatives trading only marginally in some cases, and nominally in many other cases. Thanks to Warren Buffet's whiny, pathetic begging, many corporations are exempt from the capital requirements altogether, and those who must abide by the new rules need not fret: you guys will still be able to bet with way more than you actually have on your books. By the way, if you are an average Joe or Jane reading this -- care to know how much leverage you can bet with at your broker? Only 100% of your deposits, or in other words, a 1-to-1 ratio of debt (margin, leverage) to your capital deposited with the broker. The so-called "landmark" Dodd bill lets banks gamble at 20-1 debt to capital ratios.

Why have we allowed Washington big wigs to maintain the status quo on shareholder voting rights and not give minority-holding shareholders in particular, greater voting power so as to create a market-based checks and balances system on executive compensation? Answer: Apparently, Bret Michaels.

FYI: Twenty years ago executive compensation was ten times greater than average worker compensation. Today, that ratio is more than 100 to 1. The "landmark" financial reform bill does nothing to create a market-based solution to this problem.

Why have we allowed Washington big wigs to sell out their vote to Big Oil and allowed them to run roughshod without proper oversight and regulation? Answer: Bret, I guess.

FYI: BP originally said it was only losing 5000 barrels of oil a day from its off-shore rig in the Gulf -- now we know it is anywhere from 50,000 to 90,000 a day. The largest environmental crisis in the history of the world could have been averted if we demanded of our politicians that they be leaders, and not puppets, that they be servants of the people, and not takers of the purse.

Bret Michaels isn't the reason for our current woes. And the fact that Republicans and a good number of Democrats have completely sold out to Wall Street donors, isn't the problem either. We are the problem. I am weary of this drawn out and tired excuse that the way things are is due to 'inevitability.'

...

"We can't break up the big banks or properly regulate big oil or end highly leveraged derivatives trading because these groups are too powerful?"

Pathetic. Nonsense.

American banks were "created" not by divine intervention, but by our founding leaders, one by one, as needed. At the year 1800, only 300 corporations existed in the U.S. THREE HUNDRED! Small banks were created one by one by special charter from our early legislators to fulfill one primary purpose: SERVE THE PUBLIC GOOD.

What can be created by our early legislators, can be broken down by our present legislators. The status quo in Washington, and on Wall Street and Houston, Texas, is no more inevitable than the Browns sucking every year. OK - that one might be inevitable. But you get my point. Inevitability is the response of the weak and ill-suited. We have a choice, a free will, to create a healthier and more sustainable financial sector and energy policy, and thereby, a more sustainable economy and labor market. We have the way -- yet, we do not have the will; we have the means -- unfortunately, we do not have the muster.

The act of doing right and bringing good, must be brought about by the tireless efforts of those of goodwill and of right mind. [Echoing the great MLK as he took on the naysayers that said racism and segregation was the American way]. And the collectivity of those of goodwill and of right mind -- people power -- can override the abuses of Washington and Wall Street. This is the future for our nation that WE can choose to have. Unplug yourself from the mindless Hollywood culture, plug into reality, and be an agent for positive change in this world, today.

In the words of Marley: "Get up. Stand up."

Peace

Jeremy

Glenn Beck takes on Kings, Mark, and the entire Judeo-Christian Tradition, and Loses

I could spend every waking hour of my life rebutting the b.s. that Glenn Beck airs on his show. I would rather never spend a minute responding to his trash. There are infinitely more important things in this world to dedicate ones time to than engaging an idiot. I take seriously the warning, never wrestle with a pig because you will get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it. Nevertheless, after days of deliberating about whether to write this blog in opposition to yet another insane position he has taken, I conclude that on this topic there is a broader audience beyond Beck that must hear the truth of what I will share below.

Glenn Beck attacked the essence of the Christian tradition this week when he warned his listeners to avoid all churches that speak of "social justice" and "economic justice." He went on to say that such terms were code words for Nazism and Communism. Uttered from a white man who made $32 million last year. Convenient.

And this is the guy that CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) selected to be its keynote speaker for the 2010 conference. Wow. Scary.

At the core of the Judeo-Christian tradition is an ethic that calls people to serve the needs of the poor, and to speak against those "powers" that perpetuate injustice. God has a particular affinity for the impoverished and the plight they bear each and every day. His people are instructed to carry forward the same concern. The central command of loving God, and loving our neighbor is not a Hallmark Valentine card. It is a call to bear the cross, to suffer and serve among the very lowly and outcast of society. This is not an ethic of comfort, convenience, or complacency. It is an ethic of the cross.

The ancient scriptures, from Genesis down through Revelation, cannot be read in any other way. To make this point, I will show that even from a small obscure passage in the Book of Kings, there lies within one of the many derivatives of this core ethic. Call it social justice, call it economic justice, call it community development -- for the authors of Kings, they call it the act of "restoring" an economic injustice back to a sustainable and right position.

2 Kings 4, and its conclusion, 2 Kings 8:1-6 --

The Book of Kings is often perceived as a work of cut and dry history. It is much more than that. It is in fact a rich theological treatise with the ultimate purpose of revealing to the community of believers the will of God in the rough road of history. The original audience of Kings message was in exile from their homeland, displaced and suffering both from a lack of identity, and from political and economic hardship. They knew well of their great heroes and prophets of the past – they dreamed back to the days of Moses, David, and Elijah. They remembered the wealth of Solomon’s reign and wondered how this economic tragedy had befallen them. The exilic community cried aloud, asking, “Where are our heroes and great prophets”, “Where is our land and wealth?”, “Where is our God?” The author of Kings responds masterfully with a story of restoration.

In 2 Kings Chapter 4 we get a series of miraculous restorations performed by the powerful prophet Elisha. Note the following: first, by miraculously filling empty jars with oil, Elisha brings economic restoration to an impoverished woman whose husband and primary bread-earner had passed away; next, a woman whose husband was old and sexually impotent had motherhood restored to her by miraculously conceiving of a son. The restoration stories continue: the same child that was miraculously conceived, later fell ill and died, only to be restored back to life by Elisha. Following this miraculous restoration story we are told of one of Elisha’s male servants who was instructed to make dinner for a company of men. The servant went out and collected wild food – food that was in fact poisonous to eat; the whole company of men was on the verge of being poisoned to death. Elisha responds by miraculously restoring the food so that it was healthy to eat. Finally, food is brought to serve the hungry people, only that there wasn't enough food to go around. Verse 42: “Elisha said, “Give it to the people and let them eat.” But his servant said, “How can I set this before a hundred people?” Elisha repeated, “Give it to the people and let them eat, for thus says the Lord, “They shall eat and have some left.” Elisha once again displays God’s power by restoring the food supply for the community so that all had plenty to eat, and then some.

The importance of this series of miracle stories found in 2 Kings 4 is that this exiled community who first read the Book of Kings was rich with great "stories" of resurrection and restoration, but in their suffering present they did not have a Moses to split their “Red Sea” or an Elisha to raise their “dead.” They had a powerful Past, but lived in a painful Present. To aid this community in linking the past with the present, the obscure little passage 2 Kings 8:1-6 is used as an addendum to chapter 4, reminding them that they not only had a great Story of the past, but also had a real, living Story for the present. Ultimately, they are reminded that they didn’t need an Elisha to bring about an unlikely series of miracles, rather they needed a retelling and a reliving of the Story, accomplished by every day means and through every day people.

Note the repetition of the word "restore" starting with verse 4...

“Now the king was talking with Gehazi the servant of the man of God, saying, “Tell me all the great things that Elisha has done.” While he was telling the king how Elisha had restored a dead person to life, the woman whose son he had restored to life appealed to the king for her house and her land (which had been confiscated by the government during the famine). Gehazi said, “My lord king, here is the woman, and here is her son whom Elisha restored to life.” When the king questioned the woman, she told him the same. So the king appointed an official for her saying, “Restore all that was hers, together with all the revenue of the fields from the day that she left the land until now.” Seven years of wages was restored to her household.

It was customary in that day to reclaim property confiscated by the government at the end of a seven-year period of vacancy. The problem in this case is that the husband likely passed away during the famine, and he would’ve been the legal owner of the property in that day. So this woman is essentially attempting to make a claim of ownership before the king without a receipt if you will, without a deed. But here we see Gehazi speaking on her behalf, representing her interests, in order to restore back to her family what was rightfully hers in the first place.

Also note that Gehazi, speaking on the woman's behalf before the government, is the one that helps her to be restored. Elisha is not in the story. Recall, in the previous miracle stories, Gehazi had failed to raise the child back from death. Only Elisha was capable of the miracle restoration. Gehazi did not have the gift of Elisha. But he was no less effective at bringing about a different kind of restoration - one of economic justice.

The Christian tradition took the Elisha miracles a step further. The Book of Mark describes one that is infinitely more powerful in our Lord Jesus Christ. The Gospel of Mark portrays the New Prophet that could outdo Elisha in every capacity. Elisha feeds 100 people with 20 pieces of bread -- Jesus feeds 40 times as many with a third less the resources – using only 7 loaves of bread. In the resurrection story of the child, note the elaborate method that Elisha has to employ - an entire ritual to raise the dead child back to life. But in Mark's account, Jesus simply takes hold of the dead daughter and tells her to get up. Mark intentionally makes these contrasts to indicate the new and more powerful kind of restorative work available to his community of faith, a community of faith that includes those who call themselves Christian today.

Glenn Beck warns his listeners to avoid churches who practice the teachings of the ancient scriptures. Beck is a damn fool.

In a south-side community of Chicago called Lawndale, Christian believers gather together not just for Sunday worship but also for everyday working of the Kingdom-building process. In this inner-city neighborhood, like many throughout the United States, white flight and racism created an economic vacuum that have taken a toll on the fabric of the community and on the building structures themselves. Many buildings in these areas are beaten up and broken down, showing a history of neglect and decay. To respond, this church in Lawndale was reminded of the powerful restoration stories of the past. They thought back to the story of how Jesus brought back to life a dead Lazarus. Instead of taking this miraculous story of the past and tucking it away into the confines of hopefulness in the “sometime in the near future,” they took this story, and integrated it and implemented it into practice – making the feel good restoration story of the past a reality in the broken present. The church bought a broken, battered, and beaten up building from the city of Chicago for $1. Over the course of several months, they began to rebuild, restore, and resurrect the formerly broken structure, so that once renewed it could provide reasonable, affordable housing for the poor people in the community. They called this building the “Lazarus Project.”

That's what economic and social justice seeks to do. That is the real working of Christ's love operating to bring a semblance of restoration to communities being destroyed by a broken system.

The authors of Kings and Mark show the importance of taking the restoration stories of the past and incorporating them for a rebuilding work in the broken present. Thus, the resurrection no longer remains merely a "feel good" story, but an active reality in the life of the community. The “good news” moves from being “pie in the sky” hopefulness, to being a renewing power in the reality of every day existence. In other words, between the stories of restorations past and the story of a future restored, we are called to bring restoration in the painful stories of our present. From Story to Reality, this is the redemptive, reconciling, and restorative power of Christ.

I guess you didn't learn that one at your Mormon church, huh Beck? Dummy.

Peace

Jeremy

Senator Kaufman Proposes Real Wall Street Reform, Finally

I've discussed the grossly inadequate financial reform proposal by Senator Dodd. One of its many glaring omissions is the failure to ban proprietary trading practices by banking institutions. Instead, Dodd's bill merely grants the Federal Reserve an opportunity to research the topic and draft a rule proposal to implement. Basically, it's a do-nothing bill.

In the previous blog, I noted that I see only two potential factors that could put U.S. banking policy back on the track it ought to be on: (1) Buffett and Munger making a media blitz in favor of the Volcker Rule, that will in turn put pressure on Congress to do the right thing, or (2) European lawmakers beat us to the punch and pass landmark financial reform before we do (European lawmakers support the Volcker Rule).

There appears to be an emerging third hope: a Washington politician actually shows some leadership and stands up to the Wall Street lobbyists and proposes true financial reform.

Senator Kaufman of Delaware displays his breadth of knowledge and understanding of a difficult issue, in his latest piece that can be found on his website. Among other things, he explains why he favors the Volcker Rule. Kaufman gets it. Thankfully, someone in Washington does. I will link it below. I encourage you to read it. Here is a snippet from his piece that I appreciate because it captures a faulty argument I hear all the time from those who want to keep the status quo on Wall Street. Please read:

"I start by asking a simple question: Given that deregulation caused the crisis, why don’t we go back to the statutory and regulatory frameworks of the past that were proven successes in ensuring financial stability?

And what response do I hear when I raise this rather obvious question? That we have moved beyond the old frameworks, that the eggs are too scrambled, that the financial industry has become too sophisticated and modernized and that it was not this or that piece of deregulation that caused the crisis in the first place.

Mind you, this is a financial crisis that necessitated a $2.5 trillion bailout. And that amount includes neither the many trillions of dollars more that were committed as guarantees for toxic debt nor the de facto bailout that banks received through the Federal Reserve’s easing of monetary policy. The crisis triggered a Great Recession that has thrown millions out of work, caused millions to lose their homes, and caused everyone to suffer in an American economy that has been knocked off its stride for more than two years.

Given the high costs of our policy and regulatory failures, as well as the reckless behavior on Wall Street, why should those of us who propose going back to the proven statutory and regulatory ideas of the past bear the burden of proof? The burden of proof should be upon those who would only tinker at the edges of our current system of financial regulation. After a crisis of this magnitude, it amazes me that some of our reform proposals effectively maintain the status quo in so many critical areas, whether it is allowing multi-trillion-dollar financial conglomerates that house traditional banking and speculative activities to continue to exist and pose threats to our financial system, permitting banks to continue to determine their own capital standards, or allowing a significant portion of the derivatives market to remain opaque and lightly regulated."

http://kaufman.senate.gov/press/floor_statements/statement/?id=aca5b91a-6e51-4d6b-a367-414ad9641500

Kaufman really does get it. Now, if we can just get a majority of the dumb herd in Washington to follow along, we just might avoid another financial securities calamity.

On another note, I am considering starting a Group on Facebook that will be open to those who are interested in following along with my investment trades. Currently, there are a few of you who are already following my trading activity through texting. Given the fact I am SLOWWWWW at texting, I think I can improve upon the way I pass on my investment trades. Utilizing a Facebook Group may be the better approach. Through it, I can send private messages to the group when I enact a new trade. A message notification will then be sent to your email account. Many of you have Blackberries so you can receive an email notification through your phone. At that point, you can enact your own trades should you choose to follow along. As a few of you know already, within the next couple weeks I will be closing my investment position in a biotech that I own; it should at that time reach what I have estimated to be its fair value. Because of the biotech investment, my portfolio is up just over 300% in less than three months. An amazing year so far to say the least -- I give thanks to God for giving me the opportunity. There are more opportunities on the horizon. I will likely re-enter the biotech stock at a later date (along with a few others) but in the immediate term, there is a more traditional company that I believe is poised to release blockbuster numbers in the coming weeks, and I want to be invested in it as it is currently severely undervalued in comparison to its rivals. Keep a look out for a new Facebook Group in the near future, and feel free to follow along with my trades. Together, I am confident, we can beat the 'pros' on Wall Street.

Sticking with the investment topic, awhile back I started a series on how to invest intelligently. I haven't forgotten about the series and I do plan to finish it at some time in the near future. Law School and Bar Prep will keep me occupied over the next few months, but I will pick back up with the series soon. I will also include an outline of my investment strategy, and how I applied it to increase the value of my portfolio over 300% in less than 3 months. There are some lessons to be learned from these experiences that I think may also benefit you.

“God, give us grace to accept with serenity the things that cannot be changed, courage to change the things that can be changed, and the wisdom to distinguish one from the other." - Reinhold Niebuhr

Peace

Jeremy