Artikelnya bagus... Saya terjemahkan beberapa paragraf saja, khususnya tentang legislasi B dan selebihnya sih pengantar historis dari saya:
Negara Amerika sedang melakukan beberapa inovasi yang masih bersifat eksperimental agar perekonomian seluruh negara bisa bersifat lebih adil dan demokratis, yakni mencapai kesejahteraan yang berkesinambungan (sustainable prosperity) yang dinikmati oleh rakyat banyak bersama (shared prosperity). Eksperimen ekonomi pertama: meloloskan undang-undang dimana dasar hukum perusahaan adalah bukan semata-mata mencari profit SAJA, tapi dengan memperhatikan tujuan publik/komunitas. Seperti pernah dibahas sebelumnya, perusahaan yang ingin memperbesar profitnya saja sering melakukan tingkah laku "eksternalitas biaya". Artinya sebisa mungkin sumber daya sekitar (yang umumnya dianggap bebas sebab adalah milik publik/komunitas) digunakan sebesar-besarnya (sebab bebas dan tanpa harga/biaya). Ini bisa berakibat "merugikan tujuan publik (common public purpose)", misalnya polusi berlebihan, mencemarkan sumber air, atau bahkan menyedot habis sumber air. Contoh common public purpose nya adalah kebersihan dan kelestarian lingkungan hidup, upaya mencegah peningkatan kriminal di masyarakat, bakti sosial, dll. Di Indonesia banyak perusahaan dengan sendirinya masih bersifat 'membaur dengan masyarakat', tapi di Amerika yang kultur 'sue and countersue'/saling menjegal ke pengadilan sudah kelewat batas, perusahaan yang mengorganisir bakti sosial atau pendirian posko banjir atau mendirikan sekolah dan rumah sakit gratis malah bisa masuk bui gara-gara ada pemegang saham yang gak rela. Akibatnya perusahaan sudah berubah menjadi mahluk berdarah dingin, yang sering kali juga berakibat pada proses pemilihan manajer/dirikturnya. Banyak orang komplein manajer amerika katanya ganas gak peduli lingkungan/masyarakat dan cenderung bersifat psikopat (neken bawahan). JAdilah kemudian diusahakan membuat legislasi B, supaya perusahaan ini sadar mereka masih merupakan bagian dari masyarakat. Pertanyaan diskusinya: Apakah perlu dibuatkan proporsi (dari keuntungan) yang boleh dikeluarkan untuk menunjang tujuan masyarakat ini? Apakah pengeluaran ini bagian dari BIAYA pokok/operasi, ataukah merupakan persentase dari KEUNTUNGAN? (cara pikir akuntan -pos biaya vs pos penarikan keuntungan). Artinya kalau tidak untung tidak usah memikirkan kesejahteraan rakyat sekitarnya? Menurut saya sih kegiatan sosial ini seharusnya adalah bagian dari biaya yang akan mengurangi keuntungan, dan nantinya akan mengurangi pajak juga. Jadi biaya 'sosial' ini sejajar dengan biaya bahan mentah, biaya tenaga kerja, dan biaya pemasaran. Jadi alih-alih merugikan masyarakat dengan tingkah laku eksternalitasnya, perusahaan dapat membantu masyarakat dan memperkokoh komunitas. Lalu kemudian masalahnya berlanjut pula, tindakan sosial apa yang termasuk memperkokoh komunitas? Apakah yang hanya menyalurkan derma ke satu religius saja, ataukah yang menyokong 'ke-olahragaan tertentu saja, atau ke orang-orang tertentu saja? Jadi ini bisa menjadi sumber masalah baru sebab bisa menjadi lubang untuk menggalakkan korupsi. Kalau insentif buat koperasi saja bisa dijadikan ajang korupsi, apalagi kegiatan-kegiatan semacam bakti sosial yang menyebar ke mana-mana. Mana tau di daerah ini memang benar ada klub sepak bola "the jangkrik Tapi tentu saja ada orang yang mendebat bahwa semua kewajiban itu sudah dibebankan dengan membayar beban pajak. Dan pajak ini cuma dibebankan dari keuntungan. Bagaimana menentukan besaran biaya 'sosial' ini yang masuk akal? Apakah 100 ribu setahun masuk akal, ataukah 5% keuntungan masuk akal? Biaya ini tidak ada pasarnya dan tentu sulit untuk dicari harga wajarnya menurut hukum ekuilibrium supply dan demand. Seperti ada cuplikan dari penulis Oscar Wilde, "nowadays men knows the price of everything and the value of nothing" - sekarang ini segala macam barang ada harganya, tapi tidak ada yang tau nilai sebenarnya. Dimana menurut warren buffet, price is what you pay... and value is what you get. Bisa jadi perusahaan cuma mengeluarkan sedikit uang untuk penyemprotan nyamuk malaria di daerahnya, tapi benefit yang diperoleh masyarakat dan juga bagi perusahaan (VALUE) seringkali lebih besar dari biaya (PRICE) yang dibayar. Namun kasus sebaliknya tentu bisa saja terjadi... --- On Thu, 22/7/10, sidqy suyitno <sidqy_suyi...@yahoo.com> wrote: From: sidqy suyitno <sidqy_suyi...@yahoo.com> Subject: [Keuangan] Washington Post: Making the economy more just To: sidqy_suyi...@yahoo.com Received: Thursday, 22 July, 2010, 11:40 AM Wednesday, July 21, 2010http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/20/AR2010072002754.html Making the economy more just By Katrina vanden Heuvel[1] Congress has passed the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, but the task of transforming our economy into one of shared and sustainable prosperity has only just begun. Structural reform will come not through the sweep of a single piece of legislation but with new, innovative economic models that better reflect the democratic values of this country. The good news is that some of these transformative ideas are already taking root. Here are five ways to build a more just economy that Americans are experimenting with across the country. The answer is 'B' Corporations are compelled to pursue a single objective: maximize profit. In fact, a company can be sued for following goals that veer from that statutory obligation. That's why Maryland State Sen. Jamie Raskin sponsored the Benefit Corporation legislation that was signed into law this spring. It gives businesses the option to register as a "B corporation," an entity legally obligated to maximize both shareholder value and advance a common public purpose such as cleaner air, open space or affordable housing. The B corporation's stated public goal is vigorously monitored by independent, third-party groups. It's a new business model with social consciousness in its DNA. B corporation legislation has also been passed in Vermont, and it is being considered in New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Oregon, Washingtonand Colorado. Banks for the people Hundreds of billions of public dollars have flowed to bail out Wall Street banks, which, in turn, have rewarded us by resuming the practice of giving obscene salaries and bonuses while failing to get credit flowing again. One bank that didn't need to be bailed out, though, was the state-owned Bank of North Dakota. The bank, which was created in 1919, avoided the subprime and derivatives debacle and has $4 billion under management to meet its customers' credit needs. The state-bank model looks increasingly appealing to states and residents who are tired of giving their money to giant multinationals that fail to reinvest in their communities. Proposals for state-owned banks are being considered by Massachusetts, Virginia, Washington, Illinois, Michigan, Hawaii, Vermontand New Mexico, and they were championed by gubernatorial candidates in Oregonand Michigan. Move your big money Arianna Huffington's Move Your Money campaign handed consumers a creative tool with which to hit the big banks. It encourages them to divest their money from those banks and open accounts at smaller community banks and credit unions. Last week in New York City, the most powerful local union presidents and city Comptroller John Liu took another step when they let Wall Street banks know their response to the mortgage crisis is unacceptable. The threat made implicitly in a letter -- and explicitly by some of the union leaders -- is that these institutional investors will move their pensions to more responsive financial institutions if the banks don't improve mortgage-modification efforts immediately. The banks have until Sept. 1 to take specific steps, such as developing a plan to increase the number of modifications involving principal write-downs. These unions represent over 500,000 working families, and New York Cityhas a few bucks at its disposal, too. Civic and labor leaders can use this model to let banks know that if they don't behave as good corporate citizens, they will move their big money to institutions that do. Taxing the casino The high-speed wheelers and dealers of stocks, derivatives and currencies in the Wall Street casino were major players in bringing our economy to its knees. That kind of short-term trading serves no useful purpose, and a financial speculation tax is one way to rein it in. A tax of 0.25 percent or less on each trade would be negligible for regular investors but significant to those looking for the quick score. It would also generate significant revenue at a time when resources are slim; an Institute for Policy Studies report points out that such a tax could bring in an estimated $180 billion annually -- more than any other revenue-raiser on the table. There is also global support for the reform. Britainimposes a 0.5 percent stock "stamp tax" on each trade on the Londonstock exchange. Also in favor of the tax are French President Nicolas Sarkozy -- who will chair the Group of 20 in 2011 -- and German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Worker is boss The Post reports that non-financial companies are "hoarding" $1.8 trillion in cash while they continue to "hold back on hiring." Not so the Evergreen Cooperatives of Cleveland -- community-based, worker-owned operations supported by a mix of private and public funds. The Evergreen Cooperative Laundry and Ohio Cooperative Solar are already up and running, and 10 other such enterprises are slated to open in the city this year. Workers buy equity in the co-ops through payroll deductions and earn a living wage working at green jobs. The businesses focus on the local market -- meeting the procurement needs of "anchor institutions" such as large hospitals and universities in the area. Each co-op pays 10 percent of its pretax profits back to the umbrella organization to help seed new enterprises. Other cities considering this model include Atlanta, Baltimore, Pittsburghand Detroit. And other towns around Ohioare considering it as well. At a time when so many jobs are being slashed or outsourced, the Clevelandcooperatives show us how we can create local jobs and reinvest in our communities. Those who believe the financial sector should serve rather than dominate the economy will welcome these reforms. They are radical and achievable. But they will demand determined idealism and tough organizing in the years ahead. ________________________________ [1]Katrina vanden Heuvel is editor and publisher of the Nation and writes a weekly column for The Post. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]