- Could our society implode on the race issue?
- Business becomes the villain? Is Hollywood Making money from Financial Crises?
- Limited best seller Inside Job: The Looting of the American Savings and Loans
- Now, AT&T, the once proud flagship of American commerce uses outright fraud to boost earnings
- Another New Thought: Helicopter money and fiscal rules
The Capitalist Manifesto by Louis Kelso, 1958 - A new social economic model from the past that could work today.
Note: I have made this post a link at the top of the page and will be adding additional resources about the book ASAP. I first read this book in 1973 I believe.
I am making this a primary link because Kelso's ideas are a middle way that may have the seed ideas for allowing our existing systems to evolve and expand to incorporate the human needs of the world and as an alternative to the path of communism which revolution can unfortunately lead us. That path leads to Tyranny as we have seen in both Russia and China.
Now China and Russia are authoritarian dictatorships manned my central planning corporate billionaires who keep the people down through a draconian police state. The ideas Kelso speaks of lead towards a humane capitalism in which nobody gets left behind or basically Ohana or Family.
Here is a readers review of the book:
"...The Capitalist Manifesto was written during the Cold War, when capitalism and communism were competing economic systems. In part one, Lou shows where he thinks Karl Marx made his big mistake and says:
The path the capitalist revolution will take faces in exactly the opposite
direction from that taken by the communist revolution. It seeks to diffuse
the private ownership of capital instead of abolishing it entirely. It seeks
to make all men capitalists instead of preventing anyone from being a
capitalist by making the State the only capitalist.
Part two of the book is Lou's program for the "capitalist revolution." It would help households become owners of corporate shares. They would pay for the shares through bank loans. Dividends on the shares would first repay the loans. After that, the dividends would be a major source of household income.
Each element of the program calls for new legislation. One major government program would make credit easily available for households to invest in businesses. A "Capital Diffusion Insurance Corporation" would be federally chartered, to insure against some of the risks, such as the failure of a business to sell all of a securities offering and the catastrophe to a borrower from multiple business failures. This insurance is intended to lower the bank's interest rate so that the borrower's loan payments would be less than the expected dividends on the shares.
To provide cash for loan repayment and household income, corporations would be required to pay out their entire net income in dividends. (Younger businesses could retain earnings for growth and reserves against risks.)
Lou and I agreed about the need to broaden the ownership of capital and increase the number of individuals who could receive investment income, as a supplement to work earnings. We had three differences about how that could be done:
1. Lou's programs placed an intermediary between the individual owners and the business. DPOs create a direct relationship between owners and management.
2. Lou's programs require extensive government legislation and oversight. Direct offerings use the existing legal framework, without any special treatment.
3. Lou's programs used Wall Street investment bankers, including Kelso & Co., in packaging and distribution. We have prepared electronic toolkits for use by the business itself in designing and completing direct offerings.
Lou believed passionately that each of these three elements was necessary. He told me that the intermediary was needed because the new owners did not have the experience or training to manage direct investments. He said this was a temporary measure and could gradually be eliminated as more people became capable of capital management. In our direct public offerings, over 90% of the investors have never owned shares directly in a business before. Nor do they have an account with a securities broker. Nevertheless, our interviews show that they read the offering documents and perform the same "risk/reward analysis" as securities analysts and investment managers.
Government intervention was necessary, Lou argued, because vast borrowings were required for workers to invest in businesses. The financial institutions would not extend that credit without government guarantees, tax benefits or other incentives. As to our direct offerings, one of Lou's followers referred to them as a "Marie Antoinette" response. (When told the French people could not afford bread, their queen reportedly said: "Let them eat cake.") The point of the comment being that households don't have money to invest, unless they can get loans that are repaid from the investments' income. However, we have seen that "workers" will choose to allocate money to owning shares in a business, rather than spend it on something else. The money is there, if it can be diverted from consumption. Government-supported borrowings are not necessary. (Ironically, Paul Samuelson, Nobel Laureate in Economics, referred to Lou's programs on television's "60 Minutes" as: "It really has a Marie Antoinette-ish ring to it. `Let them own capital!'")
Lou's programs are complex and require professional intermediaries and their advisers. The ESOP and all the other "_SOPs" involve creating trusts and intricate financing negotiations and documentation. There is clearly a role for investment bankers and their lawyers. Direct offerings rely on simple structures that have been used for centuries. We have demonstrated that they can be done without these financial engineers and sales forces.
These differences do not detract from the benefits that I and many others have gotten from Lou's writings and examples of his theories in action...."