Special K Breadcrumbs

CONCLUSIONS

Mark Achbar

Joel Bakan

Jennifer Abbott

This documentary is an exercise in explanation a hidden reality, and as such, an exercise in opinion. A central feature in any work done with passion is the positioning of the author. The authors of the documentary, Mark Achbar , Jennifer Abbott and Joel Bakan , position themselves clearly on one side from the beginning of the documentary, and try to present reality from a new perspective, let the enemy shelling and pass arguments to refute them with numerous examples, at least, undo much of his argument. They also similes devastating to their opponents, such as psychopathy compared with the final profile of the corporations. This may seem biased by the bias of the information, since the adversary could also probably provide examples of his thesis, but must take into account the depth of the opponent, since corporations are constantly using their power to hide the bad and enhance their better parts.

The documentary proposes as a center of study to the corporation, but in our view, what lies along the entire length of the film is the socioeconomic system that allows that part of society and economic overreach the boundaries of acceptability.

The current crisis is a systemic crisis, and are the practices of large corporations and the various markets that are vitiating the economy, creating huge imbalances. Positions in this context are on a scale that goes from radical to conservative. In reality, the political situation in recent years to erase the political-economic views to the left half of the twentieth century traditional spectrum. And so the views are developed between liberal and neoconservative positions (Or liberal), so that no calls for a clear system revolution, if not the most radical of the cases, a transformation of the system supported by more stringent laws for the markets and corporations.

These changes in the law ranging from "the issez faire, laissez passer "to profound transformations of the same. But when it comes to legislating itself tempers and delay system more realistic proposals, decanting into the conservative side the final result.

We would propose, for example, abolish the death penalty to individuals and institute the death penalty legal persons. By regulating the vacuum created by the application of it was not occupied, nor for any of the owners of the corporation convicted, or by other corporations in the sector. Perhaps then the consequences of breaking the law are at the level of punishment, and the tendency to violate the law is reversed.

There is a clear dissociation between the socioeconomic system and the individual, so that the latter does not feel guilty for any damage caused to third parties or the planet that we operate as a species. This includes almost all individuals in the system, from mere consumers up owners and executives of the largest corporations, from " brokers" of any stock to citizens of the "first world".

Historically the construction of the system has been paradoxical, great advances to the state have been generated in an attempt to give more freedom to the individual, but this freedom has been exploited tends towards increasing impunity by corporations. We think this has been due to the asymmetry of power between "the equity" and political systems that housed, ie political decisions for a specific purpose are used by those who have the knowledge and means to exploit them in any its length, and rarely used if have not the media. Or something more serious, "the Equity "puts pressure on their behalf in the areas of political or directly in the selection of these.


do This reflection from the rich part of the world, Spain is currently the ninth world's richest country , and as such plays a part of supremacy over the rest of the world, and that as citizens we can reverse this. Just as workers or officers of a corporation does not feel responsibility, this extrapolated to the first world society, the force is going to condemn us, but ultimately the benefits we enjoy at the expense of "globalization" We go through rights. At present there are examples of this is changing, the fact that anonymous citizens who are willing to sue corporations where they work, or even the governments they serve, as is the case Wikileaks.

Fortunately in this state of things there are numerous individuals, associations and institutions working in different fields re-routing system. In the past two decades has flourished rebellious opposition to this state of affairs. This movement has been called " antiglobalization "proposes new ways and denouncing the excesses. Actually the term, like many others proposed by the media is wrong in concept. The myriad components of the movement, while unorthodox, is not the most contrary to a global regulatory system, rather the contrary, emphasizes the failures of a system that creates wealth in the world at the expense of the other party, and that neither equity nor redistributed importa.Y also creates this wealth without taking into account, nor the impact on the planet, and its continuation in the future.

Today four sectors are used as basic in the study of the segmentation of the global economy, agricultural sector, industrial sector, service sector and technology sector. We would propose a fifth sector, or a duplication of the previous four sectors in a fifth called "sustainable industry", containing all the economic activities with minimal impact or no negative impact on the ecology and sociedad.Emprendiendo, implementing and actions such as expanding Ecolabel the fair trade, or research and development sources clean energy. ( Video support)


All these rules, aimed at sustainability of human actions on the planet and the fair redistribution of the product among its inhabitants, can only be done in a gradual, comprehensive and fair, and must include both the tangible products of human activity, such as intangibles, ie, knowledge and culture or cultures. ( support Video)


depressing vision of the world is the worst way to analyze reality, since it can lead us to believe that or "all bad" or "this has no solution," in reality is much more productive from the complaint (Video 1 support, and 2 3 ) and historical study ( Video support ). But then you have to locate the strengths of the current state of things and try to change the reality that we do not like from the knowledge, making intelligent proposals ( Video support) and working to scale the mountain from which Ray tells us Anderson at the end of the documentary.

man's arrogance has no limit, as they actually propose to life on the planet as the ultimate consequence of our failure, when what we are heading is towards the sixth extinction, and it would be even the most destructive of the six, this honor belongs to the extinction Cambrian period, which took with it 54% of the families of existing species at that time. But maybe if this is the first species in which the purpose is known and is expected in advance, and what is more sad, you know the solution in what we might call "microsociology" but not the way to stop "macro-sociological." But the end of life on this planet will not come until the sun bearing a red giant , but as they said the ancient Gauls 's not going to happen tomorrow .