Sign in  |  Register  |  Help

Most Read on APEsphere

Most Commented on APEsphere

Blogs we like

Resources

By Andrew Newton on 04 Jan, 2010 - 09:01 UTC

In 9 days time the US Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission begins hearing what senior bankers have to say about the causes of the crisis.


I will be keeping a close eye on the Commission’s work and posting background and analysis here on the APEsphere blog. Let me explain why.


The FCIC in a nutshell


Phil Angelides (pictured above), the man appointed to chair the commission, last September defined the FCIC’s mission as being “to conduct a full and fair investigation in the best interests of the nation—pursuing the truth, uncovering the facts, and providing an unbiased, historical accounting of what brought our financial system and our economy to its knees.”


The Commission’s 10 members — six chosen by Democrats, 4 by Republicans – have until December to report back to Congress. They have the power to subpoena witnesses, and to refer individuals for criminal investigation and prosecution.


Who cares?


The Commission is investigating the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. The Global Financial Crisis (GFC) has produced a longer term Global Economic Crisis that has impacted the everyday lives of real people around the world to an extraordinarily severe degree:

 

No wonder countries are marking an upward trend in stress-related mental illness and crime.


What could this Commission achieve?


We want to ensure that this crisis cannot be repeated. A thorough public investigation of the causes can help channel anger into the political will to undertake effective regulatory reform, including the dismantling of powerful institutions known to be “too big to fail”. While regulatory reform is already underway in Washington and elsewhere, further and more profound reform is a potential outcome of this Commission’s work.


The committee set up in 1934 to investigate the causes of the 1929 crash and the Great Depression that followed it signals what is possible. Once Ferdinand Pecora became the committee’s lead investigator and began cross-examining Wall Street’s leaders the ground was laid for reforms that included the establishment of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Glass-Steagall Act that separated staid commercial banking from risk-fuelled investment banking – reforms that kept Wall Street out of systemic trouble for forty years.


But the FCIC could achieve much more than this, and needs to do so.


When South Africa emerged from apartheid, a Truth and Reconciliation Commission was established to consign to history the egregious, state-supported human rights violations that were committed against a large section of its people.


In 1995, after decades of the systematic abuse of economic, social and political rights known as apartheid, the South African government set up a Truth and Reconciliation Commission to give ordinary people an opportunity to air their grievances against a system that institutionalized racial segregation and discrimination in all aspects of life.


According to the then Minister of Justice Dullah Omar, "... a commission is a necessary exercise to enable South Africans to come to terms with their past on a morally accepted basis and to advance the cause of reconciliation."


The TRC was a forum in which anyone who felt that he or she was a victim of the system could be heard. Those on both sides who had done wrong could also give testimony and request amnesty.
Now, political establishments around the world have been shown to have placed the interests of a powerful financial minority above those of the majority.


Dead babies will never learn to speak, and how do you give voice to the 100 million starving? But what the FCIC can do is provide public, open and free discussion of the causes of the crisis, confront those responsible with those they have impacted, raise the question of prosecution and possible amnesty rather than assume as now a cosy settlement between corporations and regulators.


How else do governments and financial institutions expect the results of egregious risk taking at great cost to communities and individuals to be put behind us? How else will they lay to rest the cynicism, mistrust of institutions and raw anger that that behaviour has garnered?
 

Rachel Maddow looks at the unconstitutional nature of the Defund ACORN Act and speculates which other corporations risk being defunded on the same basis as ACORN.

From kitchen utensils to reclining chairs, a Scripps Howard News Service investigation has identified thousands of contaminated consumer products.

 

The actual quantity of products affected is unknown due to what the news service terms "haphazard screening, an absence of oversight and substantial disincentives for businesses to report contamination".

ADVERTISEMENT

A report on last week's Business in the Community Conference suggests it is getting easier to see who is committed to responsible business.

 

If a company's responsible business focus is on "giving back" then it appears those initiatives have been the first to suffer as cash flows tighten. Those were hardly indicative of a truly responsible approach to business in the first place.

 

More disturbing are tales of banks completely stripping out their CSR teams. Either those teams had the wrong kind of skills needed for rebuilding trust in the sector (i.e. they were focused on the goodwash version of CSR rather than on instilling an ethical culture and appropriate corporate governance mechanisms) or financial firms have not realised the extent of the problems their sector faces.

If you smoke and get ill or die, insurers pay. Could that explain their sizeable investments in tobacco stocks? Talk about Benson & Hedging your bets!

 

Harvard's Dr. Wesley Boyd asks: do these people have the moral authority to lobby on healthcare reform?

Controvery surrounds Florida's Department of Environmental Protection order that paper giant, Georgia-Pacific, renew its search to find ways to clean the waste water released from its Palatka, FL plant. The order is based on DEP February, 2009 findings that the toxic chemical dioxin is still being detected in waterways downstream from the plant. A company representative indicates that dioxin is not present at dangerous levels while enviornmental activists contend that Georgia-Pacific will simply fund studies that prove they are not culpable.

ADVERTISEMENT

Our current focus on efficient and mass production of food is pumping us full of hormones and antibiotics.  It is also using up much of the grain produced around the world thus contributing to starvation and malnutrition for much of the globe. The out-put from factory farms sends chemicals into watersheds, rivers and lakes.Wake up and smell the offal!

Excellent coinage: "eco-bling"
By A P Newton on 17 May, 2009 - 10:33 UTC

Via Eco Scraps: shiny "green" gadgets and technologies that don't necessarily deliver any eco benefit now have a name: eco-bling.

A nice piece in the Times from Daniel Goleman, author of Ecological Intelligence, about the relatively new discipline of Industry Ecology and the Life Cycle Assessment process used to analyse the myriad impacts of the products we buy.  As in, just because something's "organic" or "green" it doesn't mean it doesn't have many hidden, perhaps unacceptable, costs.

BAE Systems, Europe’s largest defence company, had to answer shareholder concerns about company ethics at its annual meeting on Tuesday.

 

According to the Times report, BAe is subject to Serious Fraud Office investigations ofthe company's arms sales into South Africa, the Czech Republic, Tanzania and Romania. Meanwhile, BAe is also the subject of an investigation by the US Department of Justice.

 

Dick Olver, the chairman, stated that good progress was being made on improving ethical standards, but when questioned by an arms sales campaigner and investor appeared to say that whatever the company had done had been done to support the men and women on the front line. Note that does not necessarily mean our men and women on a front line that should matter to us politically, just whoever happens to be on the receiving end of the arms sales.

Companies merely doing business with the regime in South Africa had their lawsuits dismissed. That left those who provided tools for repression.

 

According to the plaintiffs, the car manufacturers Daimler, Ford and General Motors knew their cars were to be used to suppress dissent. IBM knew its IT systems were to being used to strip people of their rights. The action can also proceed against Rheinmetall Group, which owns an armaments maker.

 

These actions under the Alien Tort Claims Act are to be permitted to proceed. The cases against them describe classic examples of what we at APEsphere refer to as the "use chain". In other words, as the BBC report put its: "The judge disagreed with IBM's argument that it was not the company's place to tell clients how to use its products."

 

Claims against banks Barclays and UBS were dismissed.

The APEsphere troop

Small Change: Why Business Won't Save the World

Posted by edwarmi to the Guest Bloggers blog

Why doesn't business fix itself instead of meddling with others where it has no comparative advantage? >>

  • 6
  • on 15 Jan 2010

Corporate-Driven Healthcare Reform

Posted by christinearena to the Case in Point blog

As Washington fights an uphill battle, corporate players McKesson and GE deliver the health care reform the Nation desperately needs. >>

  • 0
  • on 22 Jul 2009

Belly of the Beast

Posted by christinearena to the Case in Point blog

This article explores the negative consequences of large scale factory farms (CAFOs) and profiles one company offering a sustainable alternative. >>

  • 2
  • on 06 May 2009

News by Impact