Wall Street Needs an Eco-Makeover. ~ Toni Nagy

Via on Nov 1, 2011

It is not enough for major companies to green wash for good PR.

Do you ever find yourself jealous of the 1960’s and those moments in history when people were so politically active that their efforts eventually became public policy? Maybe now is our time? The Occupy Wall Street protests have an energy so potent and contagious that it is becoming a movement with revolutionary intentions.

Although they are criticized for unclear broad messaging, or for being a group of rich kids flirting across drum circles, their widespread effect has more power than what the naysayer’s claim, who say the protestors are saying nothing. The more open the conversation the more inclusive the crusade can be, and the prevailing thread that sews together everyone on the streets is the desire for change.

But how does change happen? There is a common belief that the only way systemic change can come about is if the entire system collapses. Much like the inevitability of the fall of Rome, the balance of life suggests America must suffer as much as she has prospered–and solely through destruction can she be reborn.

Photo: Chris Lott

I don’t know about you, but that idea scares the crap out of me. If the systems that provide my creature comforts were to break down, I think I would be genuinely screwed. I have no clue how to build a yurt, and I don’t think I could subsist on berries and bear feces.

I have never shot a gun, and I would have a really hard time self-manufacturing electricity to check Facebook. But that doesn’t mean I don’t want change…I am just hoping, maybe naively, it can be achieved incrementally.

The main conflict is that our political and economic systems can never transform as long as they are linked with and controlled by the motherboard of capitalism as it has currently manifested.

If the main incentive of both our economic and our political system is the same, I don’t buy into the ideal that real change can happen. The people at OWS are trying to take back the power, but the systems that control the people are not going to give it up without a fight.

Aristotle once said (Politics 1.10, translated by Benjamin Jowett):

“Money was intended to be used in exchange, but not to increase at interest. And this term interest, which means the birth of money from money, is applied to the breeding of money because the offspring resembles the parent. Wherefore of all modes of getting wealth this is the most unnatural.”

Money is better than having to bring seven goats to get your clothes back from the dry cleaners, but when money is the motivating force of the economy for money’s sake, then it becomes highly problematic. Publicly traded companies have one main responsibility, which is to make money at all costs.

Photo: Magda Wojtyra

This creates a conflict that extends through all arenas of business because companies make decisions that will make them the most money regardless whether the cheaper chemicals in your kid’s toys have noxious off-gassing fumes that will give you cancer of the eyeball. This breeding of money has birthed a common denominator of business that is exploitative to the core.

One would hope that our government would protect us from corporate irresponsibility, but when big business funds elections the political system will never prioritize the people over profit. If politicians were to try and create standards that  would effect a company’s bottom line, like enforcing labels on GMO foods so the public could decide if it wanted fish genes in the strawberry jelly, they wouldn’t get any funding for their campaigns.

 

We want and expect our politicians’ actions to echo their promises, but policies are compromised by the connective tissue between Wall Street and campaign finance. In a capitalist system we first have to change the way we do business, to change the way we run our country.

The only way Wall Street is going to change fundamentally is if its policies are reoriented to propagate the triple bottom line business model. Each decision must take into consideration not just profit, but how it will affect both the people who consume the product and the planet that provides the resources. It is not enough for major companies to green wash for good PR. The global standard of business has to be philanthropic at its roots for any actual improvement in our political arena to take place. Wall Street needs an eco-makeover with a triple bottom line standard so that our government may actually prioritize the health of the planet and her citizens.

Photo: Aaron Bauer

This is where the top 1% comes in. There is obviously a grossly uneven distribution of wealth in this country, but are all the rich people going to get together and say “Wow, this is getting boring, having everything. This has got to end! We should pay way more taxes pronto and get rid of all this excess money!” Morally, yes they should, but the likelihood of that psychological shift is not in the cards. Maybe the French had the right idea by cutting off the heads of the rich for their revolution, and maybe that would make a fascinating reality show, but as it stands these are still peaceful protests. So if the rich want to keep their heads they are going to have to go back to kindergarten and learn how to share. And I am not just talking about giving away a small percentage to charity, but the 95% of wealth that is invested in Wall Street.

If the fiduciary responsibility of Wall Street is to make money for the shareholders, then now is the time for shareholder activism. The shareholders must be patient enough to understand that a business that honors the triple bottom line is really the only truly sustainable model. New companies that may threaten the livelihood of big business need to be supported by people with the vision and foresight to wait for their ROI. The rich need to commit to impact investing

Maybe re-imagining the way we do business isn’t as sexy of a revolution as Che had pursued, but be honest with yourself, what are you willing to give up? Would you die for health care? Are you wiling to kill for a better mortgage rate? To change how business is conducted on a global scale, we need some hippie trustafarians that have the money and insight to see it through. The revolution may not be televised, but it still needs to be funded.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Toni Nagy writes for the blog tonibologna.com, an amazing blog about Toni Nagy and her baby. It was not easy for Toni to get the job writing for Toni, but with enough ass- kissing and dedication, Toni was able to impress Toni with her prowess. That, and a little bit of nepotism…

Toni went to Sarah Lawrence College, where she got on the pre-professional track of making tons of money, and majored in philosophy and dance. She currently lives in the Monadnock region of New Hampshire where she raising hell and her baby. She has written many text messages, and has been published by Huffington Post and Salon.com.

About elephant journal

elephant journal is dedicated to "bringing together those working (and playing) to create enlightened society." We're about anything that helps us to live a good life that's also good for others, and our planet. >>> Founded as a print magazine in 2002, we went national in 2005 and then (because mainstream magazine distribution is wildly inefficient from an eco-responsible point of view) transitioned online in 2009. >>> elephant's been named to 30 top new media lists, and was voted #1 in the US on twitter's Shorty Awards for #green content...two years running. >>> Get involved: > Subscribe to our free Best of the Week e-newsletter. > Follow us on Twitter Fan us on Facebook. > Write: send article or query. > Advertise. > Pay for what you read, help indie journalism survive and thrive—and get your name/business/fave non-profit on every page of elephantjournal.com. Questions? info elephantjournal com

331 views

3 Responses to “Wall Street Needs an Eco-Makeover. ~ Toni Nagy”

  1. Mark Ledbetter says:

    PARTONE.
    I appreciate greatly the non-violent orientation of Ele and the OWS movement. But naiveté runs rampant. I’m still suspicious of where all y’all may move when non-violence doesn’t work.

    Ele: This breeding of money has birthed a common denominator of business that is exploitative to the core.

    Me: It’s not breeding of money that is exploitative. It’s people. Moral people like to blame systems, but the problem is in the people, not the systems. Everybody’s not doing yoga and following the Buddha, you know. Sad to say, most people are exploitative… under ANY system.

    Ele: One would hope that our government would protect us from corporate irresponsibility…

    Me: Our government? They’re the ones in bed with Wall Street in the first place.

    Ele: but when big business funds elections the political system will never prioritize the people over profit.

    Me: Election funding is only a tiny part of it. Wall Street and Govt. will remain buddies even without overt election funding. Strict separation of Commerce and State, as intended by the Constitution, is the only way. Get rid of ALL connections, not just this tiny little campaign funding connection.

  2. Mark Ledbetter says:

    PART TWO
    Ele: In a capitalist system we first have to change the way we do business, to change the way we run our country.

    Me: Fantastic. Go for it. That’s one of the great things about a capitalist system. It leaves you free to do such things. You are free to be communist or anything else under capitalism. (But don’t try to be capitalist under communism! Off to the Gulag or Lao Gai camps with you.)

    Ele: We should pay way more taxes pronto and get rid of all this excess money!

    Me: Pay taxes to who? The American war machine? Govt-Wall Street collusionists? That’s where your tax money goes, you know. Bombs and bailouts.

  3. Mark Ledbetter says:

    ART THREE
    Ele: Maybe the French had the right idea by cutting off the heads of the rich for their revolution…

    Me: Historically this is what it eventually comes to. First moral people want voluntary morality. When that doesn’t work, they want enforced morality. That’s when heads start flying.

    Ele: Too big to fail is too big to allow.

    Me: Allow? OWSers are trying to be peaceful, but the language of authoritarianism (“allow” is authoritarian) is creeping in. Who’s going to allow who to do what? And who will provide the allowers with their guns (you can’t allow or disallow without guns, right)? That’s the part you aren’t considering deeply. They” AREN’T too big. Just let them fail. The world will not come to an end.

    Sorry for the unusual negativity I keep inserting into Ele. But it's always negativity for Peace and Freedom!

Leave a Reply