The control of natural resources and the laws, rules and
regulations surrounding their usage are heavily in dispute, especially as it
concerns climate change. Many crimes, insurrections and wars map history over
the ownership and control of such resources. Natural Resources such as the sun,
the wind and the sea are engaging numerous economists hoping to assign a value
to these resources or to their usage. At the very same time, coal, petroleum,
natural gas and other extracted non-renewable resources are being taxed in the
form of mining royalties and environmental charges. And numerous Governments
have implemented or considering charges for polluting the air, non-designated landfills
and waterways. If the message is not clear, climate change is a signal of the
end of human existence on the earth. Tax collection will not stop that, using
these funds to slow or reverse the impact of, and to change, current practices
is the only solution.
Competition vs. collaboration as a problem solving mechanism
is the human being next evolutionary step. Competition, in the law courts, in
the law making parliament, for government contracts, on the sporting field, for
jobs, for funding, for everything, should not be the way of life. Finding and
matching persons suited to particular tasks and working out an attainable action
plan is much more important, than funding a plan structured around the wrong or
unfit people. Deploying and motivating the right team of people, armed with the
right tools and supplied with the right resources, is the heart of any plan,
even a wrong plan. For such people, selected based on their attitude and
aptitude more than their academic grades, will take the initiative to correct
and complete the mission. For unlike competition, collaboration will had more
than one winner with no losers.
The conflict embroiling owners vs. workers must have resulted
and held on to from the caste and slavery systems, when people were born into
social groupings and had no hope of status changing mobility. Education systems
have brought change allowing the unskilled to become proficient and move from
worker into management, changing the discussion to employers vs. employees.
Nowadays, the term employer encompasses owners and management; the majority and
minority owners that elect and select the board of directors and the appointed
executives, with their administrative and supervisory staff representing the
operation's management. The terms employee, however, can extend to the said
executive, administrative and supervisory staff and, as always, unskilled manual
workers. Hence, the only remaining clash is about individual vs. collective
bargaining to negotiate employment contracts with the owners of the operation
via its board of directors.
People who argue about profit making ventures, capitalism
vs. socialism, whether to retained such profits to further develop operations
or to payout dividends to persons who took the risk to invest and buy into
operations uncertain of any returns, are in fact discussing wealth
distribution. Now, if there is no wealth to distribute, would there be a
friendly academic debate over how to create wealth or would the same arguments
occur in futuristic terms. What should be done with the wealth created? Recent
views leads to a mix of economic systems, capitalism to create wealth; by
providing luxury products (foods, skills, houses, phones and cars) to satisfy
wants and contribute taxes, and socialism to distribute wealth; by providing
basic products (health, education, shelter, communication and transportation)
to satisfy needs, eradicate poverty and raise living standards across the
board.
Rationale
T.A.J & Associates Company Limited uses this occasion to comment on topics that have been covered, both academically and by the mainstream media, to add its opinion and point out investment opportunity, not to invoke any social action.
