7. Economics, Trade and Business
7.1 Commerce Power Limitations
The power of Congress to pass laws which regulate Interstate Commerce, or commerce with foreign nations, shall not be construed to include any right to regulate or prohibit any legal activity which takes place only within a given state and which, in principle, only has direct effects within a state.
But Congress shall retain the power to regulate emissions or other forms of pollution which may “migrate” between states, with harmful effects elsewhere than their point of origin. Congress shall also have the authority to define and provide for punishments for offenses constituting acts of war, sedition, insurrection, or any similar criminality which may arise in the course of commerce of any kind, including crimes committed entirely within a state.
Explanation: This Amendment effectively overturns the Wickard v Fliburn decision of 1942 on which any number of later decisions which treat intrastate commerce as if it was interstate commerce were based. It leaves intact, at least in principle, Mulford v. Smith of 1939, in which the Supreme Court upheld tobacco quotas. That is, while a farmer may well raise several hundred bushels of wheat to feed livestock and should not be impeded for his resourcefulness, tobacco is a different kind of cash crop and no individual or family or livestock would reasonably consume the equivalent of several hundred bushels of burley.
This Amendment is also intended to encourage citizen entrepreneurship via such practices as barter exchanges, yard sales, bake sales, and hundreds of other small scale “economic” activities which, if the assessed value of goods or services does not exceed $ 5000 (in constant dollars) in annual real market value, per individual or family, shall not be factored into government accounting for taxation purposes. A secondary objective is to mitigate the sometimes over-reaching power of both the Federal Government with respect to micro-business and to mitigate the power of financial institutions over private lives and over local communities.
Thanks to David Block for considerable input about these matters. Adapted from Randy Barnett’s Bill of Federalism
7.2 Mortgages and Related Securities
Home and other real estate shall be financed through local banks and other lending institutions, or local branches of such facilities. Mortgages shall not be traded as derivatives or any similar financial instruments. Mortgages may be sold from one bank or other lending institution to another but only on condition that (1) the buyer of the “paper” is also located in the same state as the property in question, and (2) the home (or other property) owner shall be given a minimum notification of 90 days in which he or she may seek alternative financing and, at his or her discretion, change lending institutions without penalty. These rules apply even in the event of insolvency of the original or subsequent lenders. Mortgages shall always be administered within the state where the property purchase has been made. Out-of-state property purchasers must also observe these provisions and be present, in person, at all occasions when necessary legal or financial documents must be signed.
7.3 Limits on Interest Rates
Congress shall establish usury standards to limit the amount of interest that can be legally charged for deferred payment purchases of all kinds.
Explanation: The exact ceiling for interest rates should be determined after comprehensive debate in both chambers of Congress to produce easy to understand and administer legislation within one calendar year following ratification of this Amendment.
It is presumed that the discussion should begin with a 10 % rate recommendation but with the understanding that after review of an agreed upon maximum the effects of that rate upon the US economy will be promptly reviewed and any necessary adjustments made, for example, if it is deemed important to set one rate level for certain categories of businesses, such as those in the import / export trade, and another for domestic consumers.
The purpose of this Amendment is to ensure that consumer purchasing power remains the backbone of the US economy and to curtail the excesses of the finance industry.
7.4 Labor Union Rights and Responsibilities
Unions shall have the right to organize in all businesses with more than 100 employees. Unions shall not, however, make unreasonable demands, nor shall workers who wish to remain independent from unions be compelled to join, that is, there shall be no “closed shops.” Union membership should be predicated on the advantages of belonging to such a group, not upon exclusion from employment unless one signs a union agreement.
The reasonableness of union demand shall be arbitrated by bi-partisan (or multi-partisan) committees which are selected by local courts in consultation with both labor and management. Such committees shall consist of professionals, including shop stewards or equivalents, who understand the needs of the business which is the subject of a labor dispute. The purpose of such committees is to ensure that neither the union nor the business involved are acting unreasonably, or more positively, that both are seeking the common good, including the good of the wider community of which they are a part.
Unions have the right to strike but, unless a court rules otherwise because of unique circumstances, this must be a three-stage process. That is, a legal strike shall consist of a one-day work stoppage followed by a minimum of 30 days return to work. This would tell management that employees are serious and have real grievances which ought to be given due consideration. The month long “grace period” is intended to allow management to resolve the issue behind the strike and for a union to revise its demands upon discussions with management. A business may wish to provide union leadership with information relevant to the dispute that make economic realities clear about limitations in its financing abilities, or to offer new ideas meant to resolve non-wage issues. Unions would need time to consider the offers of management.
Both parties to a dispute may agree to extend this 30 day period as many days as are desired for successful negotiations. However, if this process is unsuccessful, a union shall be authorized to carry out a work stoppage of one week. The only restriction is that such a stoppage shall not cause major difficulties for the business such that vital plant operations which should be continuous, for example, should not be interrupted even when most normal commerce is shut down.
Again, after a one week work stoppage, another 30 day minimum is required during which negotiations should take place to resolve the dispute. This 30 days may also be extended when both parties to it agree to do so. Only when these first two stages have not resolved the issue, shall a strike of indefinite duration be allowable by law.
Unions must be responsible in seeking changes in contracts. This means that it is not always feasible for businesses to offer the kinds of wage increases union members may desire, or offer other benefits asked for. But this Amendment seeks to resolve the issue of what is reasonable by means of appeal to bi-partisan committees charged with the responsibility of determining what is actually within reason for union demands.
Management may seek alternatives for some labor demands, and it is within the rights of business to make counter offers which, rather than acceding to all wage increase requests, might propose guarantees for job security, improved health care coverage, expanded maternal leave, flexible work scheduling, subsidized education, or the like. After all, at stake is quality of life and the first concern for any business must be staying competitive in the marketplace.
Unions, similarly, might come to understand that the better course of action than above cost-of-living wage increases which may well be unsustainable in any long run, is to seek new incentives for staying on the job and making a commitment to a company: For instance, periodic meetings of boards of directors in which union representatives are free to make criticisms and recommendations, options for part time work for family members, bonus pay for superlative job performance, and so forth.
This Amendment has, as an additional purpose, motivating all parties to labor disputes to find non-strike solutions, since work stoppages incur costs on everyone, business, labor, and the community. While it may well happen that management and labor become adversarial in outlook, it is far better when they can work in tandem for mutual advantage as members of a team.
Congress shall have the authority to exclude some businesses or occupations from union organizing for reasons of national security. In such cases the wages or other benefits due workers should be at levels similar to union compensation standards.
7.5 Employee Ownership Rights
All employees at businesses with more than 100 non-administrative personnel, shall have the right to own shares in the company and be encouraged to do so. This shall be the case whether or not a business has publicly traded stock. Companies shall have the freedom to decide how best to make stock available, whether in return for outstanding service, in lieu of bonuses, as part of stock option plans, or anything else.
Clearly, employees who own part of a business they work for have greater interest in the success of the firm, are more conscious of costs, are less tolerant of correctable problems, and are more willing to provide benefit of their ideas and experience to management. This can only benefit the US economy and communities throughout the nation. Congress shall reserve the right to establish minimum stock compensation levels, although the intention of this Amendment is that market logic will establish various business and industry standards.
Businesses shall have the right to buy back all stock when an employee quits or is terminated for cause. There is no guarantee that a business will succeed, after all, and stock values may fall as well as rise. This is the nature of the Capitalist system. For this reason public employees, in exchange for job security and other benefits, and also because of practical problems otherwise, are not eligible for stock compensation. This Amendment is meant as incentive for the private sector.
7.6 Right to Affordable Housing
Every U.S. citizen has the right to affordable housing. All construction companies engaged in interstate commerce which build multiple housing units or multiple occupancy residential developments shall provide some percentage of total new units which can be afforded for rent or sale to people with low incomes. The exact percentage shall be determined by local governments, that is, cities, townships, counties, or the like.
This percentage shall not be such that it imposes an unfair burden on construction companies. Moreover, local governments are hereby encouraged to create incentives for such companies in return for their co-operation, for example, through promotions that thank such firms, through transparent tax breaks, and so forth.
Local governments should make serious efforts toward achievement of the goal of affordable housing for U.S. citizens. This Amendment cannot compel such governments to do so and can only seek to influence this outcome. However, it is within the rights of the Federal Government to publish reports and otherwise provide information to the public about communities that are not seeking to achieve this worthy goal.
The Federal Government shall assume good faith on the part of local governments unless research studies or public complaints or news reports make it clear that the national goal of finding affordable housing is languishing in specific places
It is not expected that this alone will solve the problem addressed by this Amendment but it should help.
Further, the Federal Government shall not be “in the business” of providing mortgage loans to unqualified home buyers and shall never engage in sub-prime loans or granting of similar forms of credit at any time for housing purposes. The Government shall dismantle the Federal National Mortgage Association, also known as Fannie Mae, and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, otherwise known as Freddie Mac, in an orderly manner in not more than two years from ratification of this Amendment.
However, the following classes of potential home buyers are exempted from these provisions: Military Veterans, including members of the Coast Guard Former Peace Corps or VISTA volunteers who have completed at least four years of service School teachers who work in communities identified by the Department of Education as critical need areas or neighborhoods, presuming long term employment contracts Medical workers who work in critical need areas identified by the office of the Surgeon General, presuming long term employment contracts
For these people the Government is authorized to create a new Federal home loan program albeit one that is assumed to be substantially smaller in scope and assets than Fannie or Freddie.
As well, while there is strong caution saying that this right should be seldom used, the House of Representatives is authorized to add other exempt categories of possible home buyers.
What is expressly forbidden is adding whole demographics, either de jure or de facto, such as ethnic or racial populations, or overly broad groups, such as economic classes.
Additionally, this Amendment encourages Congress to enact legislation which does two things:
(1) solves affordable housing problems one at a time, with review provisions for rescission in case new laws have unintended consequences, and
(2) provides incentives for private industry toward the goals outlined here.
It is understood that the problem of finding affording housing for all citizens cannot be accomplished all at once. However, it is a reasonable goal to work on the problem year to year, reducing the magnitude of the issue with each new Congress.
Note: So that there is no misunderstanding, this Amendment simply follows a principle in use for many construction firms throughout the United States, namely, as a condition of a building permit, depending on a project, a developer must provide street lights or a short access road or the like. In other words, to use a hypothetical example, if a developer builds 1000 new homes, possibly 10 %, must be affordable for the lower middle class. These need not be on the exact same site.
The Amendment says that government should never make loans to unqualified home buyers. and it expressly forbids any such thing.
Nothing at all says that housing for the less well off should be equal in worth to the homes of the affluent, only that such housing should be affordable.
The idea is not to provide free housing; the idea is to ensure that reasonable cost housing is available for those who qualify but only have modest means. This has become a serious and endemic problem in America, and could easily become a problem in the future again even if a temporary “fix” somehow materializes. This Amendment should also go far toward disposing of the problem of people with no place to live in towns where they work.
7.7 Financial Services
Congress shall have the responsibility to ensure that financial services never exceed in value 20 % of the total worth of the American economy. This means worth as measured by objective standards arrived at by independent experts or agencies –and verified through empirical means.
As a goal, a minimum of 50 % of Gross Domestic Product shall be earned in the real productive non-services economy, this target to be achieved in any legal ways open to the Congress.
Obviously this cannot happen before sufficient preparations over an extended period of time. Therefore, the Congress shall have 2 years to make such preparations and another two years for full implementation. This time table shall commence immediately upon ratification of this Amendment. During the first two years the Congress is expected to make serious progress toward creating a plan that can reasonably be expected to make the goals outlined in this Amendment feasible. America can no longer allow finance capital to squander the wealth, including human capital, of this country.
Finance Capital shall be regulated to the extent that common practices that led to the economic catastrophe that began in 2007 and resulted in massive problems in 2008 shall become impossible in the future. This necessarily must mean a complete end to obscene bonus payments to people who add no productive value to the economy. If this means that a significant number of people are discouraged from employment in financial services that would be all for the good. The rest of us do not need their greed-centered values, their willingness to risk the livelihoods and fortunes of everyone else, nor their general irresponsibility.
Laws should be enacted that make such conduct felony crimes. If retroactive, upon recommendation of the Congress, various executives and their partners in avarice could find themselves incarcerated in Federal penitentiaries. Such individuals, sometimes entire corporate offices, should, at a minimum, be prohibited for life from participation in the financial services sector in any capacity whatsoever. If they are humiliated in the process, so much the better. None of them are qualitatively morally superior to Bernie Madoff.
This Amendment has as its chief purpose ending a system in which the real economy is sacrificed to the interests of a class of wealthy sons-of-bitches who do not care for anyone except themselves, and who have no higher goal in life than amassing fortunes for no redeeming purposes.
If the exact numbers indicated here as economic goals are not completely practical, any solutions that move the country substantially in the direction of achieving these objectives, and which realistically can dethrone the finance capital aristocracy, would be acceptable as temporary expedients until such time as a completely reconstructed financial system can be attained.
This Amendment authorizes Congress to pass all necessary legislation intended to reconstruct the American economy in such a way that its success does not require the dubious services of finance capital speculators, hedge fund managers, inside traders, or anyone whose life story compares, at any scale, with Michael Miliken, Ivan Boesky, Bernard Ebbers, John Thain, Jimmy Cayne, Hank Paulson, Robert Rubin, Dick Fuld, Douglas Poling, Walter Wriston, Jonathan Lieberg, Fabrice Tourre, Ken Lewis, Angelo Mozilo, Carl Icahn, or James Haas,
By no means is this list complete. This Amendment hereby authorizes any interested persons who so desire to compile their own lists of names of financial capital villains, and to publicize them for the common good. Missing from the list are names of women; this shortcoming ought to be rectified as soon as possible.
7.8 Protection of Economic Security, Trade Agreements and Corporate Policy
No trade agreements with foreign nations shall be entered into which allows another country to sell goods or services in American which does not permit the United States to sell equivalent goods or services there. No trade agreements shall be entered into with foreign nations which results in disadvantage to American workers in terms of rates of pay based on free market wage rates, occupational safety standards, or child labor considerations. And American economic policy should protect industries which are vital to our nation’s interests, especially with respect to military needs but including competitiveness at the corporate level.
Explanation: Time is long past due when the mythology of free trade should have been exposed as grossly misleading and an inadequate guide for US economic policy. For a variety of reasons free trade is intellectually unjustified but especially because key assumptions on which it is based are demonstrably false. There is no such thing as Absolute market self-interest optimization. Research makes it clear that markets always, usually sooner rather than later, become susceptible to a host of irrationalities, ranging from panics to bull-market stampedes. Moreover, even the best market information is imperfect and many decisions are based on at least partial ignorance which, in turn, skews market valuations. To mention just a few of the problems.
This manifestly does not say that Keynesian economic theory is the answer to all problems, that system is also tragically flawed, but in point of fact, laissez-faire free trade ideology often serves the interests of the United States poorly.
This Amendment requires the Congress and the Executive to renegotiate all trade treaties which violate the provisions in it. If foreign nations are not agreeable then existing treaties shall be nullified or allowed to expire. But in no case shall provisions of this Amendment be unenforced beyond a four year grace period.
Congress and the Executive shall have the responsibility to encourage development of new economic theory which can better guide policy decisions than existing alternatives Even if such new theory eventually arises independently of government our political leaders should seek to give recognition to new economic theory –any which do not evince the flaws of existing views. At such time as any new theory, adopted as a guide to official policy, becomes problematic, this process shall be repeated to find another workable new theory.
But the American people cannot accept any policy based on defective ideas that have allowed whole industries, like consumer electronics, to vanish from our country, that have allowed massive technology transfers which benefit other nations far more than short range profits benefit America, and that have resulted in the “hollowing out” of still other industries. Further, important aspects of current economic theory obviously are wrong-minded when the outcome is export of millions of American jobs to other nations.
Congress and the Executive shall have the responsibility to identify necessary industries which have since disappeared from the United States and either act in concert with the private sector to buy back what we need to re-establish such industries, or underwrite the creation of replacement industries –with the objective of sale of all assets to private parties in no more than four years for any such industry.
None of this is intended to recommend anything remotely like a centrally planned economy; Soviet style economics has been discredited long ago. Rather, the goal is a reinvigorated private sector in which leadership in economics is primarily market centered. However, crucial economic thinking can also be found in educational institutions and various public venues and ought to be made effective use of in developing new policy alternatives founded on other assumptions besides “raw” free trade standards first devised by Adam Smith at the time of the American Revolution.
Yet Smith was right in an enduring sense in that he understood that business, if it is void of fundamental morality, in effect, devours its own children. This principle, the necessity of some form of business ethics, must be integral to any new economic theory, just as new theory must look to national interests before considerations of simple profit. The dogma of the primacy of profit is self-destructive. Profit must serve a goal higher than benefit to individuals with little or no thought to effects on whole communities.
The dogma of large scale pump-priming and deficit spending as a viable solution to fiscal crises is also dysfunctional and has had the effect of passing on a gigantic debt burden to future generations. This cannot be allowed to continue. Congress and the Executive shall assume the responsibility for correcting this problem –bringing it under control and well on the way to permanent solution– in no more than four yeas from ratification. The responsibility will continue in perpetuity to monitor the economy to make certain that, objectively, US policy ensures American leadership among the nations.
This Amendment is also intended to make offshore tax and other havens unavailable to US citizens and US corporations, and to close loopholes in the law whereby businesses (supposedly) operate from mail boxes in Delaware.
It should also disallow and prohibit any unfair advantages to foreign corporations doing business in the United States in competition with America companies.Congress and the Executive shall be empowered to correct such problems and should do so within four years from ratification of this Amendment and to review the status of the economy afterward at a minimum of four year intervals to make sure that similar problems do not arise again, or to make necessary changes if they do.
This Amendment shall also ensure that:
There shall be no hostile takeovers, or any similar actions, toward businesses which are deemed essential to the American economy
Technology transfer of any kind, by any business, must be approved by Congress and passed into specific law, signed by the President.
To ensure competitiveness in the international marketplace, as well as domestically, business tax rates shall be established and maintained at levels similar to those of America’s chief economic rivals.
Congress and the Executive shall have the responsibility to encourage development of new economic theory which can better guide policy decisions than existing alternatives. Even if such new theory eventually arises independently of government, our political leaders should seek to give recognition to new economic theory –any which do not evince the flaws of existing views. At such time as any new theory, adopted as a guide to official policy, becomes problematic this process shall be repeated to find another workable new theory.
The American people cannot accept any policy based on defective ideas that have allowed whole industries, like consumer electronics, to vanish from our country, that have allowed massive technology transfers which benefit other nations far more than short range profits benefit America, and that have resulted in the “hollowing out” of still other industries. Further, important aspects of current economic theory obviously are wrong-minded when the outcome is export of millions of American jobs to other nations.
For these reasons there shall be no hostile takeovers of businesses which are deemed vital to the American economy. Anyone who purchases a business or who enters into a merger with a business, whether the purchaser is an individual person or a corporation, or which otherwise enters an agreement which results in new management or ownership, shall do so only on the understanding that a productive and profit-making company shall not be dismantled, “milked” for maximum profits, or in any other way hindered in its ability to operate effectively in the marketplace.
Hostile takeovers are only one issue which must be addressed. We face a whole range of problems which arise from faulty economic theory. Reference may be made to an article published in the New Yorker magazine for October 25, 2011, as a stand-in for a plethora of books and other articles which cannot be documented here. “Where is the New Keynes?,” by John Cassidy, points out that the economic crisis that emerged in 2007 and erupted into near-disaster in 2008, was the fault not only of the malfeasance of individuals or corporations, or malfeasance of government, but largely because economic theory allowed a host of dysfunctional practices to take place –with outcomes that were thought to be impossible– on the grounds that existing theory surely could not be wrong.
As we are painfully aware, neither the laissez faire theories that were most responsible for the mess were viable, nor were Keynesian remedies meant to ameliorate the massive recession nearly adequate to the problem, and hence they pretty much failed.
As Cassidy said, in identifying the first lesson to learn from the crisis:
1. Finance matters.
“This lesson might seem obvious to the man in the street, but many economists somehow managed to forget it.”
Indeed, many denied it until the roof fell in. Many of the sordid details documented in a book of 2008 by Kevin Phillips, Bad Money. But to return to Cassidy, the second lesson is likewise obvious in hindsight, namely:
2. Credit busts are different from ordinary recessions.
In fact, “debt overhang in the public and private sectors tends to produce “lost decades” in which entire national economies are traumatized and suffer lost productivity at massive scale, very high levels of unemployment, gargantuan new indebtedness that somehow must be paid for, and a large number of other ills.””
The third lesson concerns intellectual integrity and the penalties for lack of integrity:
3. Positive feedback and multiple equilibria have to be taken seriously.
“With the rise of rational expectations theory, the idea that financial markets and entire economies can spiral into bad outcomes….was relegated to a mathematical curiosity.”
Again the primary reason clearly was that economists and others were self-deluded because of politically expedient theories that “buttered their bread.” That both Smithian and Keynesian theories were approximately equally faulty excuses nothing.
Fourthly, neither Keynes nor Smith even thought about market irrationalities. But:
4. Especially in financial markets, self-regarding rational behavior isn’t necessarily socially optimal.
Human beings are many things and among them, they are herd animals, conformists, sometimes susceptible to wishful thinking or paranoid fears, and, in any case, must work with imperfect information no matter how hard they try for comprehensiveness and accuracy.
Fifth, there are such things as liquidity traps, that is, manipulation of money supply or interest rates or other such interventions, finally reach a point of diminishing returns and basically nothing happens, the system becomes unresponsive. As Cassidy phrased it:
5. Monetary policy doesn’t always work very well
Lastly, for this article, there is the fact that while ” Fiscal stimulus programs don’t provide a panacea for deep recessions,…the alternatives— do-nothing policies or austerity —are much worse. ”
Few “official” economists seem able to learn even such simple lessons as these.
Cassidy was at pains to salvage as much as possible of Keynes’ theories, but this is not the point here. As David Block put it, maybe a better title question is “Where is the New Hayek?” Or where is the new Drucker or Schumpeter or Polanyi or Veblen?
We simply do not have the kind of economic theory we actually need. We do not have such theory because the political Right has made a fetish out of Adam Smith and the political Left has made a fetish out of Keynes. And so each side defends their hero with all available energy and makes no effort to seek genuine objectivity. Any such thing is beyond their ability to conceive.
What is objectively true is that continuing to follow either Keynes or Smith (or their latter day acolytes) is guaranteed to result in our eventual ruin. Or, at best, buying time until another mess develops which could turn out to be worse than 2008 – 2009 – 2010.
At least some measures can be taken now to correct obvious problems. Here are some of the measures this Amendment mandates:
* For all businesses deemed important to the American economy, the United States shall maintain manufacturing and sales capabilities within the boundaries of the nation. Inasmuch as some industries, like much of consumer electronics, now only exists at small scale in America, Government policy shall ensure that this industry is revived, as shall all others which should, by rights, be located in the country, such as shoes, refrigerators, or anything else.
If this requires some form of protectionist policy then that is what should be done. However, non-protectionist policies ought to be preferred in all cases where it is feasible.
* Technology transfer must be kept to a minimum consistent with economic advantage and competitiveness, and because national economic security demands it. Moreover, military security may also make this imperative.
Violation of this provision shall be regarded as a serious felony crime. Any transfer of technology shall be offset with approximately equal value advantage gained by the United States from the country to whom technology is transferred.
* In cases of sales, for example of automobiles, imports of vehicles into the United States, shall be allowed only when the exporting nation allows a similar number of American-made cars to be imported into that country. This principle applies to all goods and products.
As a related example, if an American corporation or industry purchases a billion dollars of some product or type of goods from a nation, that nation shall purchase a similar amount from the United States if it wishes to continue to do business in the United States.
This may be offset. For example, goods of a certain kind purchased from the USA may only total $ 250 million, but other goods could make up the difference, for instance soybeans and sorghum in lieu of rye, or finished wood products in lieu of fabrics. The same principle applies to electronics, aircraft manufactures, or anything else.
* A demand for profit margins that are unrealistic for an industry, for example newspapers especially, since journalism provides a constitutionally vital function for the nation, shall not be tolerated and those making such demands shall be regarded as in violation of the Law.
Is there some reason why stockholders cannot be satisfied with a reasonable level of financial gain in an industry which provides a respected and necessary service in the life of the nation? Especially in the case of businesses that allow the possibility of social or cultural influence? But this principle applies to businesses that provide nutrition, education, or any other critical product or service.
In all cases this means export / import since not only may products be traded in the international marketplace, but also such things as overseas news bureau information services.
Therefore: Congress shall pass legislation that expedites the success of socially useful and necessary businesses that are not able to earn profits at the level of profit leaders. However, this provision is NOT intended to translate into handouts of money, at least not beyond such things as pilot programs to test ideas intended for a company’s future prospects, or the like. Priority is to provide such things as expedited access to Government sponsored research results, elimination of red tape, and so forth. In return it is expected that executives of such companies will not be awarded extravagant bonuses or unreasonable perks.
This Amendment requires the Congress and the Executive to renegotiate all trade treaties which violate the provisions in it. If foreign nations are not agreeable then existing treaties shall be nullified or allowed to expire. But in no case shall provisions of this Amendment be unenforced beyond a four year grace period,starting from the date of ratification of this Amendment.
But these are only some of the measures that this amendment is intended to inspire. With serious effort to create new economic theory any number of additional actions would doubtless be conceived that deserve attention, testing, perfecting, and general implementation. The spirit in which this Amendment is written should guide others in such endeavors.