As Reuters reports http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/14/accounting-idUSL6E7IE1KH20110714
there is a sort of "co-opetition" going on between the accounting rules pushed by the United States versus those pushed by the IASB (international Accounting Standards Board)
For those of us concerned about creating rules that are just, neither set of rules is satisfactory.
What is needed is (a) minimum global standards of health, safety, pensions, and minimum living standards on a PPP basis, and (b) legal requirement to pay for the replacement of any environmental resource that is utilised by each company, so that the net impact on the environment is neutral.
Without (a) and (b), we will have the continuation of an existing set of incentives for investors to prefer companies which unethically but legally keep their environmental and social externalities off-balance sheet.
This damages all human beings while benefiting these investors - in other words, existing rules (whether those of the USA or those of the IASB) benefit the rich by hurting everyone, but disproportionately those who are poor.
Sphere: Related Content
Saturday, July 16, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Thought you might be interested in the connection between these two stories
http://www.baltic-course.com/eng/analytics/?doc=43496
http://www.baltic-course.com/eng/analytics/?doc=43383
The first story is how the banking experts have decried the call in Latvia to index pensions, saying it will hurt the economy. The pension is set to go up to 165 LVLs a month, the second story reveals that today the minimum subsistence level per person is 176.63LVLs.
The banks in Latvia contributed much to the bubble that was created that lead to the severe problems Latvia has had. How can they expect the poorest amongst the people to continue to fund the debt they created?
Post a Comment