L'homme avant le profit Elles s'appellent coopératives, mutuelles, associations ou fondations, elles emploient 2,3 millions de personnes et revendiquent, au nom des valeurs qu'elles incarnent, une place à part dans le tissu économique et social. Pourtant, l'homme de la rue, et même leurs propres salariés, ont souvent du mal à percevoir leur spécificité. C'est qu'elles forment un ensemble hétéroclite, où l'on trouve à la fois des géants de la banque et de l'assurance, des associations vouées à l'insertion sociale, des établissements de soins ou d'enseignement... Pour affirmer leur différence et améliorer leur visibilité, elles se regroupent sous la bannière de l'économie sociale et solidaire (ESS) et ont tenu récemment, à Paris, leurs états généraux. Philippe Frémeaux est un militant de l'ESS - il préside la SCOP (société coopérative et participative) qui édite le mensuel « Alternatives économiques ». Mais la réalité n'est pas toujours conforme à l'idéal.
Executive Excess 2011: The Massive CEO Rewards for Tax Dodging Guns don’t kill people, the old saw goes. People do. By the same token, corporations don’t dodge taxes. People do. The people who run corporations. And these people — America’s CEOs — are reaping awesomely lavish rewards for the tax dodging they have their corporations do. In fact, corporate tax dodging has gone so out of control that 25 major U.S. corporations last year paid their chief executives more than they paid Uncle Sam in federal income taxes. This year’s Institute for Policy Studies Executive Excess report, our 18th annual, explores the intersection between CEO pay and aggressive corporate tax dodging. We researched the 100 U.S. corporations that shelled out the most last year in CEO compensation. Corporate outlays for CEO compensation — despite the lingering Great Recession — are rising. This contrast shows up starkly in the 2010 ratio between average worker and average CEO compensation. What are America’s CEOs doing to deserve their latest bountiful rewards?
The Meltdown According to Stiglitz Freefall:America, Free Markets, andthe Sinking of the World EconomyBy Joseph E. StiglitzW.W. Norton & Co., 361 pp; $27.95 Barack Obama ran for President on the promise of "change we can believe in." When it comes to the financial crisis, he has instead "only slightly rearranged the deck chairs on the Titanic," writes Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Nobel prize-winning economist, is perhaps the closest thing we have to John Maynard Keynes in both his theoretical outlook and his cogent kibitzing of policymakers. Although Stiglitz spends much of the book exploring what went wrong and why—"peeling back an onion," he calls it—his emphasis is on the future, not the past. The President did engender a sense of hope, he writes. Obama also brought in Lawrence Summers, who boasted of having ensured during his stint as Bill Clinton's Treasury Secretary that derivatives would stay unregulated. Stiglitz frames Freefall as a book about "a battle of ideas."
The Crisis of Global Capitalism: ten years on - 2009 Ralph Miliband Series on The Future of Global Capitalism Date: Wednesday 21 October 2009 Time: 6.30-8pm Venue: Old Theatre, Old Building Speaker: Professor John Gray Chair: Martin Jacques The financial upheavals of the past two years have occurred against the background of a decade of crisis in global capitalism. The neo-liberal model has collapsed. John Gray is emeritus professor at LSE and author of Gray's Anatomy: selected writings| and False Dawn: delusions of global capitalism|. This event is supported by the LSE Annual Fund. The event is free and open to all with no ticket required. Media queries: please contact the Press Office if you would like to reserve a press seat or have a media query about this event, email pressoffice@lse.ac.uk| Podcast A podcast of this event is available to download from the LSE Public Lectures and Events: podcasts and videos channel|.
Valoriser le capital humain : facteur clé pour une conduite du progrès réussie Cette progression est intimement liée à la notion de changement. Celui-ci peut résulter d’une succession de petites décisions qui ont entrainé un changement productif et positif pour l’entreprise. Parfois, l’urgence de changement se fait sentir davantage. Il faut alors trouver le moyen d’adapter l’entreprise sans perturber ses équilibres pour lui donner plus de possibilités de progresser. Le mot « changement » est souvent teinté « gestion de crise ». Pourtant, c’est bien là une étape cruciale dans le développement de toute société. Changer, c’est faire évoluer son entreprise. Alors comment optimiser cette démarche ? Tout d’abord en intégrant pleinement les raisons qu’a l’entreprise de s’adapter et de changer. Il est donc impératif de bien identifier les enjeux et les objectifs de l’entreprise avant toute action. Si les équipes sont le moteur de la croissance, il est primordial de les impliquer dès les premières réflexions sur les changements à mettre en place.
Our Economic Ruin Means Freedom for the Super-Rich by George Monbiot The model is dead; long live the model. Austerity programmes are extending the crises they were meant to solve, yet governments refuse to abandon them. The United Kingdom provides a powerful example. The cuts, the coalition promised, would hurt but work. They hurt all right – and have pushed us into a double-dip recession. This result was widely predicted. Two questions arise. Surely the corporate class and the super-rich – the only people the government will listen to – can see that these policies are destroying the markets on which their wealth relies? To understand this conundrum we should first understand that what is presented as an economic programme is in fact a political programme. Neoliberals claim that we are best served by maximising market freedom and minimising the role of the state. As Colin Crouch shows in The Strange Non-Death of Neoliberalism, the state and the market are not, as neoliberals insist, in perpetual conflict. So where is the economic elite?
'Freefall' Excerpt: Too Late To Fix The Biggest Banking Blunder In History? Reprinted from Freefall by Joseph Stiglitz. Copyright (c) 2010 by Joseph E. Stiglitz. Used with permission of the publisher, W.W. Norton & Company, Inc. The entire series of efforts to rescue the banking system were so flawed, partly because those who were somewhat responsible for the mess--as advocates of deregulation, as failed regulators, or as investment bankers--were put in charge of the repair. Worse still were the implications for governance. The U.S. government did something worse than trying to re-create the financial system of the past: It strengthened the too-big-to-fail banks; it introduced a new concept--too-big-to-be- financially-resolved; it worsened the problems of moral hazard; it burdened future generations with a legacy of debt; it cast a pallor of the risk of inflation over the U.S. dollar; and it strengthened many Americans' doubts about the fundamental fairness of the system.
Global capitalism and 21st century fascism Story highlights The crisis of global capitalism is unprecedented, given its magnitude, its global reach, the extent of ecological degradation and social deterioration, and the scale of the means of violence. We truly face a crisis of humanity. The stakes have never been higher; our very survival is at risk. I want to discuss here the crisis of global capitalism and the notion of distinct political responses to the crisis, with a focus on the far-right response and the danger of what I refer to as 21st century fascism, particularly in the United States. Facing the crisis calls for an analysis of the capitalist system, which has undergone restructuring and transformation Facing the crisis calls for an analysis of the capitalist system, which has undergone restructuring and transformation in recent decades. Militarised accumulation, financial speculation - and the sacking of public budgets By the late 1990s, the system entered into chronic crisis. William I. Source: Al Jazeera
The EU Budget’s Outsize Political Role BRUSSELS – The debate over the next year will be significantly influenced and constrained by national interests. Member states, facing serious fiscal problems of their own, are unlikely to agree to pay more to the EU budget, which will thus probably remain at 1% of EU-wide GDP, as in the previous MFF. But this is no excuse to give up on overhauling the budget’s role in EU governance. The EU budget is unlike any other. First, size is not everything. The budget’s potential goes well beyond its face value. Second, size relative to the recipient country’s GDP is far from trivial. Finally, the destination of EU funds, not their size, affects their capacity to deliver economic growth. The next MFF should answer three questions: What is the budget’s role in times of crisis? The EU budget played an important role in the recent economic crisis. For example, the MTFA facility is not funded, so the budget’s implicit-guarantee function should be strengthened. This would be a mistake.