Bat shit crazy Elizabeth is at it again, now she wants to take over companies.

[Slade3200]

Making the government in control of the companies operating structure is socialism. Making everyone part of a companies operating structure is closer to a democracy.

except in this case the gov is forcing the issue and getting involved in private business to tell them how to run it. at best, gray area.

When companies “go public” they have a bunch of legal standards they need to adhere to... do you think that these regulations that have been set up constitute government control over our public companies?

Regulations to be followed are not "stakeholders" who's investment has to be protected. If you change the rules to make boards responsible not to just the shareholders but pretty much everyone else, then you add people with no risk in the venture to the decision making process.

That’s a good point, except employees do have skin in the game as their job is their livelihood. I’m a small business owner so I appreciate the roll of owners and employees. I don’t think this idea is fair at all to small business. I’m not convinced it would be good for the big corps either... the value I see in this is it creates a check that looks out for the workers over the greed of the shareholders. For billiondollar companies that means a lot of workers and their families being effected, and also a lot of historical corruption and money floating around at the top

The thing is once an employee is paid, the money is theirs. the risk is to their future earnings, and nothing stops them from getting another job.

The failure of a company is far more catastrophic to shareholders, nevermind any loss of value in the company.

If a companies stock drops 25% employees still get paid, shareholders on the other hand see their holdings slashed.

So wanting a return on your investment is automatically greed?

ROI isn’t greed in itself but it can be. I was speaking more to fiscal corruption and decisions made for profits that negatively impact workers.

 

[martybegan]

except in this case the gov is forcing the issue and getting involved in private business to tell them how to run it. at best, gray area.

When companies “go public” they have a bunch of legal standards they need to adhere to... do you think that these regulations that have been set up constitute government control over our public companies?

Regulations to be followed are not "stakeholders" who's investment has to be protected. If you change the rules to make boards responsible not to just the shareholders but pretty much everyone else, then you add people with no risk in the venture to the decision making process.

That’s a good point, except employees do have skin in the game as their job is their livelihood. I’m a small business owner so I appreciate the roll of owners and employees. I don’t think this idea is fair at all to small business. I’m not convinced it would be good for the big corps either... the value I see in this is it creates a check that looks out for the workers over the greed of the shareholders. For billiondollar companies that means a lot of workers and their families being effected, and also a lot of historical corruption and money floating around at the top

The thing is once an employee is paid, the money is theirs. the risk is to their future earnings, and nothing stops them from getting another job.

The failure of a company is far more catastrophic to shareholders, nevermind any loss of value in the company.

If a companies stock drops 25% employees still get paid, shareholders on the other hand see their holdings slashed.

So wanting a return on your investment is automatically greed?

ROI isn’t greed in itself but it can be. I was speaking more to fiscal corruption and decisions made for profits that negatively impact workers.

Sometimes to keep a company afloat you have to make decisions that negatively impact the workers. The difference is the workers can find another job, if a company goes under the shareholders lose everything.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

What a dumb bitch ... They are losing on RTW, they lost with citizens united so now they are trying to find another way in.



Elizabeth Warren's New Bill Aims to Reinvent U.S. Capitalism


U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren has a plan to rewrite the rules for large U.S. businesses--and it's a provocative one.

The Democratic Senator from Massachusetts is introducing a new bill on Wednesday that would require corporate executives "to consider the interests of all major stakeholders in company decisions--not only shareholders," Warren wrote an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal. The Accountable Capitalism Act would require companies with more than $1 billion in annual revenue--including Facebook, Google, and Amazon--to comply with a federal charter that looks out for workers' interests. Currently, U.S. businesses secure corporation charters from states, not on the federal level.

One of the biggest changes that the bill proposes is for employees to elect at least 40 percent of board directors. The bill also seeks to impose limits on when executives can sell company shares. Directors and officers would have to hold shares for five years before
selling them, or in the case of a company stock buyback, three years. Warren's bill also takes aim at political contributions by requiring approval for all political expenditures from at least 75 percent of shareholders.




.

Leave it up to Trump lovers to totally ignore what is said and make shit up..

 

[Slade3200]

When companies “go public” they have a bunch of legal standards they need to adhere to... do you think that these regulations that have been set up constitute government control over our public companies?

Regulations to be followed are not "stakeholders" who's investment has to be protected. If you change the rules to make boards responsible not to just the shareholders but pretty much everyone else, then you add people with no risk in the venture to the decision making process.

That’s a good point, except employees do have skin in the game as their job is their livelihood. I’m a small business owner so I appreciate the roll of owners and employees. I don’t think this idea is fair at all to small business. I’m not convinced it would be good for the big corps either... the value I see in this is it creates a check that looks out for the workers over the greed of the shareholders. For billiondollar companies that means a lot of workers and their families being effected, and also a lot of historical corruption and money floating around at the top

The thing is once an employee is paid, the money is theirs. the risk is to their future earnings, and nothing stops them from getting another job.

The failure of a company is far more catastrophic to shareholders, nevermind any loss of value in the company.

If a companies stock drops 25% employees still get paid, shareholders on the other hand see their holdings slashed.

So wanting a return on your investment is automatically greed?

ROI isn’t greed in itself but it can be. I was speaking more to fiscal corruption and decisions made for profits that negatively impact workers.

Sometimes to keep a company afloat you have to make decisions that negatively impact the workers. The difference is the workers can find another job, if a company goes under the shareholders lose everything.

Oh for sure. If it’s a matter of keeping a company afloat then thats not a scenario I’m talking about. We are talking about billion dollars a year companies here.

 

[martybegan]

Regulations to be followed are not "stakeholders" who's investment has to be protected. If you change the rules to make boards responsible not to just the shareholders but pretty much everyone else, then you add people with no risk in the venture to the decision making process.

That’s a good point, except employees do have skin in the game as their job is their livelihood. I’m a small business owner so I appreciate the roll of owners and employees. I don’t think this idea is fair at all to small business. I’m not convinced it would be good for the big corps either... the value I see in this is it creates a check that looks out for the workers over the greed of the shareholders. For billiondollar companies that means a lot of workers and their families being effected, and also a lot of historical corruption and money floating around at the top

The thing is once an employee is paid, the money is theirs. the risk is to their future earnings, and nothing stops them from getting another job.

The failure of a company is far more catastrophic to shareholders, nevermind any loss of value in the company.

If a companies stock drops 25% employees still get paid, shareholders on the other hand see their holdings slashed.

So wanting a return on your investment is automatically greed?

ROI isn’t greed in itself but it can be. I was speaking more to fiscal corruption and decisions made for profits that negatively impact workers.

Sometimes to keep a company afloat you have to make decisions that negatively impact the workers. The difference is the workers can find another job, if a company goes under the shareholders lose everything.

Oh for sure. If it’s a matter of keeping a company afloat then thats not a scenario I’m talking about. We are talking about billion dollars a year companies here.

Why should they get singled out for "special" treatment? And again, if you give employees 40% of the board, AND make the entire board beholden to every person even remotely connected to the company, what do you think will happen to the shareholders?

And as the stock becomes less attractive, what happens when the company's value drops below a billion? Do they then go back to the old way?

 

[iceberg]

Regulations to be followed are not "stakeholders" who's investment has to be protected. If you change the rules to make boards responsible not to just the shareholders but pretty much everyone else, then you add people with no risk in the venture to the decision making process.

That’s a good point, except employees do have skin in the game as their job is their livelihood. I’m a small business owner so I appreciate the roll of owners and employees. I don’t think this idea is fair at all to small business. I’m not convinced it would be good for the big corps either... the value I see in this is it creates a check that looks out for the workers over the greed of the shareholders. For billiondollar companies that means a lot of workers and their families being effected, and also a lot of historical corruption and money floating around at the top

The thing is once an employee is paid, the money is theirs. the risk is to their future earnings, and nothing stops them from getting another job.

The failure of a company is far more catastrophic to shareholders, nevermind any loss of value in the company.

If a companies stock drops 25% employees still get paid, shareholders on the other hand see their holdings slashed.

So wanting a return on your investment is automatically greed?

ROI isn’t greed in itself but it can be. I was speaking more to fiscal corruption and decisions made for profits that negatively impact workers.

Sometimes to keep a company afloat you have to make decisions that negatively impact the workers. The difference is the workers can find another job, if a company goes under the shareholders lose everything.

Oh for sure. If it’s a matter of keeping a company afloat then thats not a scenario I’m talking about. We are talking about billion dollars a year companies here.

what qualifications would the average worker need to have in order to be on the board of directors anyway *AND* understand fully what they are talking about? the problems faced to keep a billion dollar company afloat are a bit different than someone working the lines who wants a longer lunch break.

 

[buckeye45_73]

It's a stupid plan.
That's what I expect from Warren.

Great analysis. Thanks for the invigorating conversation

Commie tries to control private property.
She can fuck off.
It's as simple as that.

What’s your definition of commie, genius??

Any a-hole who thinks "stakeholders" should get a say in a corporations workings.

You’re not having a very good day are you?

So to summarize. Todd here thinks the definition of a communist is “any a-hole who thinks stakeholders should get a say in a corporations workings.

Go sleep it off buddy

no they aren't commies, but that's stupid. Just because you can put a widget together, it doesn't mean you know how to run a company. It's a skill, and most people don't have it. It's why people make so much money doing it.

 

[Slade3200]

That’s a good point, except employees do have skin in the game as their job is their livelihood. I’m a small business owner so I appreciate the roll of owners and employees. I don’t think this idea is fair at all to small business. I’m not convinced it would be good for the big corps either... the value I see in this is it creates a check that looks out for the workers over the greed of the shareholders. For billiondollar companies that means a lot of workers and their families being effected, and also a lot of historical corruption and money floating around at the top

The thing is once an employee is paid, the money is theirs. the risk is to their future earnings, and nothing stops them from getting another job.

The failure of a company is far more catastrophic to shareholders, nevermind any loss of value in the company.

If a companies stock drops 25% employees still get paid, shareholders on the other hand see their holdings slashed.

So wanting a return on your investment is automatically greed?

ROI isn’t greed in itself but it can be. I was speaking more to fiscal corruption and decisions made for profits that negatively impact workers.

Sometimes to keep a company afloat you have to make decisions that negatively impact the workers. The difference is the workers can find another job, if a company goes under the shareholders lose everything.

Oh for sure. If it’s a matter of keeping a company afloat then thats not a scenario I’m talking about. We are talking about billion dollars a year companies here.

Why should they get singled out for "special" treatment? And again, if you give employees 40% of the board, AND make the entire board beholden to every person even remotely connected to the company, what do you think will happen to the shareholders?

And as the stock becomes less attractive, what happens when the company's value drops below a billion? Do they then go back to the old way?

The bill is supposed to be applied to companies with over a Billion a year in annual revenue, not companies valued at a Billion. You asked what happens to shareholders when employees have representation on the board? Well they have to be more transparent and listen to the perspective of that group.

 

[martybegan]

The thing is once an employee is paid, the money is theirs. the risk is to their future earnings, and nothing stops them from getting another job.

The failure of a company is far more catastrophic to shareholders, nevermind any loss of value in the company.

If a companies stock drops 25% employees still get paid, shareholders on the other hand see their holdings slashed.

So wanting a return on your investment is automatically greed?

ROI isn’t greed in itself but it can be. I was speaking more to fiscal corruption and decisions made for profits that negatively impact workers.

Sometimes to keep a company afloat you have to make decisions that negatively impact the workers. The difference is the workers can find another job, if a company goes under the shareholders lose everything.

Oh for sure. If it’s a matter of keeping a company afloat then thats not a scenario I’m talking about. We are talking about billion dollars a year companies here.

Why should they get singled out for "special" treatment? And again, if you give employees 40% of the board, AND make the entire board beholden to every person even remotely connected to the company, what do you think will happen to the shareholders?

And as the stock becomes less attractive, what happens when the company's value drops below a billion? Do they then go back to the old way?

The bill is supposed to be applied to companies with over a Billion a year in annual revenue, not companies valued at a Billion. You asked what happens to shareholders when employees have representation on the board? Well they have to be more transparent and listen to the perspective of that group.

They are employees, and companies are free to form as employee owned or run if they so choose to.

This law is nothing more than a government attempt at more control over companies.

 

[easyt65]

Bat shit crazy Elizabeth is at it again, now she wants to take over companies...

You mean like How Obama 'nationalized' GM, gave part of it to the unions, sold a piece off to a foreign company, and ended up selling the majority of the shares off at a tax payer loss?

I guess she can't think of anything original.....


-----------------

"Taxpayers lost $9.26 billion on the U.S. government's automotive industry rescue program, according to a final tally released by U.S. Treasury.

The government said it recovered $70.42 billion of the $79.68 billion it gave to General Motors, Chrysler, Ally Financial, Chrysler Financial and automotive suppliers through the federal Auto Industry Financing Program. The program was part of the larger Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP."

Like every other time the government tries to take over and run anything, it is always the tax payers who end up paying for it.

 

[Papageorgio]

Workers already have plenty of rights. All this would do would make the workers and stockholders even more at odds.

Stockholders are the owners of the company, they are the ones who take the risks, and the company has a fiduciary responsibility to return on their investment.

Generally speaking I agree. When a company is making over a billion a year they take in a greater responsibilities than the smaller fish, IMO

Not government's job to get that involved in how they run their company.

I agree, but billion dollar companies play a different game than all the others. They deserve more oversight

Making everyone part of the company's operating structure is not oversight, it's socialism.

Making the government in control of the companies operating structure is socialism. Making everyone part of a companies operating structure is closer to a democracy.

If you want to control a company form one. People don't own companies for a reason and others form and own companies for a reason. This is nothing more than a way to control campaign contributions to Republicans under the guise of a distorted democracy reasoning. We already have people wanting it to include all corporations, so there is no slippery, it is already in freefall.

I am sure that these corporations will find an end around to bust this idea as I have already thought of one in less than 24 hours.

You don't like how a company treats you, leave, I did and it worked out well.

 

[Papageorgio]

I agree, but billion dollar companies play a different game than all the others. They deserve more oversight

Making everyone part of the company's operating structure is not oversight, it's socialism.

Making the government in control of the companies operating structure is socialism. Making everyone part of a companies operating structure is closer to a democracy.

except in this case the gov is forcing the issue and getting involved in private business to tell them how to run it. at best, gray area.

When companies “go public” they have a bunch of legal standards they need to adhere to... do you think that these regulations that have been set up constitute government control over our public companies?

Regulations to be followed are not "stakeholders" who's investment has to be protected. If you change the rules to make boards responsible not to just the shareholders but pretty much everyone else, then you add people with no risk in the venture to the decision making process.

That is the point, the risk factor, which for a stockholder is much greater than an employee.

 

[Slade3200]

That’s a good point, except employees do have skin in the game as their job is their livelihood. I’m a small business owner so I appreciate the roll of owners and employees. I don’t think this idea is fair at all to small business. I’m not convinced it would be good for the big corps either... the value I see in this is it creates a check that looks out for the workers over the greed of the shareholders. For billiondollar companies that means a lot of workers and their families being effected, and also a lot of historical corruption and money floating around at the top

The thing is once an employee is paid, the money is theirs. the risk is to their future earnings, and nothing stops them from getting another job.

The failure of a company is far more catastrophic to shareholders, nevermind any loss of value in the company.

If a companies stock drops 25% employees still get paid, shareholders on the other hand see their holdings slashed.

So wanting a return on your investment is automatically greed?

ROI isn’t greed in itself but it can be. I was speaking more to fiscal corruption and decisions made for profits that negatively impact workers.

Sometimes to keep a company afloat you have to make decisions that negatively impact the workers. The difference is the workers can find another job, if a company goes under the shareholders lose everything.

Oh for sure. If it’s a matter of keeping a company afloat then thats not a scenario I’m talking about. We are talking about billion dollars a year companies here.

what qualifications would the average worker need to have in order to be on the board of directors anyway *AND* understand fully what they are talking about? the problems faces to keep a billion dollar company afloat are a bit different than someone working the lines who wants a longer lunch break.

I totally agree. I also think 40% is way too much. This bill seems to be similar to the union idea, which I’m not a huge fan of in all cases. Either way. Whoever is speaking for the workers should be one or some knowledgeable representatives.

 

[iceberg]

The thing is once an employee is paid, the money is theirs. the risk is to their future earnings, and nothing stops them from getting another job.

The failure of a company is far more catastrophic to shareholders, nevermind any loss of value in the company.

If a companies stock drops 25% employees still get paid, shareholders on the other hand see their holdings slashed.

So wanting a return on your investment is automatically greed?

ROI isn’t greed in itself but it can be. I was speaking more to fiscal corruption and decisions made for profits that negatively impact workers.

Sometimes to keep a company afloat you have to make decisions that negatively impact the workers. The difference is the workers can find another job, if a company goes under the shareholders lose everything.

Oh for sure. If it’s a matter of keeping a company afloat then thats not a scenario I’m talking about. We are talking about billion dollars a year companies here.

what qualifications would the average worker need to have in order to be on the board of directors anyway *AND* understand fully what they are talking about? the problems faces to keep a billion dollar company afloat are a bit different than someone working the lines who wants a longer lunch break.

I totally agree. I also think 40% is way too much. This bill seems to be similar to the union idea, which I’m not a huge fan of in all cases. Either way. Whoever is speaking for the workers should be one or some knowledgeable representatives.

i think unions had their day and that day is gone. or at least is used to be. if the disparity is that great then maybe a union is a good way to keep the billion $ corps at bay.

 

[Slade3200]

Great analysis. Thanks for the invigorating conversation

Commie tries to control private property.
She can fuck off.
It's as simple as that.

What’s your definition of commie, genius??

Any a-hole who thinks "stakeholders" should get a say in a corporations workings.

You’re not having a very good day are you?

So to summarize. Todd here thinks the definition of a communist is “any a-hole who thinks stakeholders should get a say in a corporations workings.

Go sleep it off buddy

no they aren't commies, but that's stupid. Just because you can put a widget together, it doesn't mean you know how to run a company. It's a skill, and most people don't have it. It's why people make so much money doing it.

I’d never propose that a widget maker run a billion dollar company

 

[Slade3200]

ROI isn’t greed in itself but it can be. I was speaking more to fiscal corruption and decisions made for profits that negatively impact workers.

Sometimes to keep a company afloat you have to make decisions that negatively impact the workers. The difference is the workers can find another job, if a company goes under the shareholders lose everything.

Oh for sure. If it’s a matter of keeping a company afloat then thats not a scenario I’m talking about. We are talking about billion dollars a year companies here.

Why should they get singled out for "special" treatment? And again, if you give employees 40% of the board, AND make the entire board beholden to every person even remotely connected to the company, what do you think will happen to the shareholders?

And as the stock becomes less attractive, what happens when the company's value drops below a billion? Do they then go back to the old way?

The bill is supposed to be applied to companies with over a Billion a year in annual revenue, not companies valued at a Billion. You asked what happens to shareholders when employees have representation on the board? Well they have to be more transparent and listen to the perspective of that group.

They are employees, and companies are free to form as employee owned or run if they so choose to.

This law is nothing more than a government attempt at more control over companies.

Sorry if you answered this before... but how exactly is the government controlling the company? Like do you think they are part of the 40% or are you just talking about the regulation?

 

[buckeye45_73]

Commie tries to control private property.
She can fuck off.
It's as simple as that.

What’s your definition of commie, genius??

Any a-hole who thinks "stakeholders" should get a say in a corporations workings.

You’re not having a very good day are you?

So to summarize. Todd here thinks the definition of a communist is “any a-hole who thinks stakeholders should get a say in a corporations workings.

Go sleep it off buddy

no they aren't commies, but that's stupid. Just because you can put a widget together, it doesn't mean you know how to run a company. It's a skill, and most people don't have it. It's why people make so much money doing it.

I’d never propose that a widget maker run a billion dollar company

So what are you talking about? when you say stakeholder (I'm assuming workers) get a say in corporation workings(I'm assuming how the company is run)

 

[martybegan]

Sometimes to keep a company afloat you have to make decisions that negatively impact the workers. The difference is the workers can find another job, if a company goes under the shareholders lose everything.

Oh for sure. If it’s a matter of keeping a company afloat then thats not a scenario I’m talking about. We are talking about billion dollars a year companies here.

Why should they get singled out for "special" treatment? And again, if you give employees 40% of the board, AND make the entire board beholden to every person even remotely connected to the company, what do you think will happen to the shareholders?

And as the stock becomes less attractive, what happens when the company's value drops below a billion? Do they then go back to the old way?

The bill is supposed to be applied to companies with over a Billion a year in annual revenue, not companies valued at a Billion. You asked what happens to shareholders when employees have representation on the board? Well they have to be more transparent and listen to the perspective of that group.

They are employees, and companies are free to form as employee owned or run if they so choose to.

This law is nothing more than a government attempt at more control over companies.

Sorry if you answered this before... but how exactly is the government controlling the company? Like do you think they are part of the 40% or are you just talking about the regulation?

The crux of the bill is to change the fiduciary responsibility of the board from the shareholders to an amorphous term called "stakeholders" which basically means anyone that interacts with the company.

As a regulator, government is ALWAYS a stakeholder, and as the big old bully on the block, their power would be increased exponentially.

She also notes the "Environment" as a stakeholder, thus opening up the floodgates for the environmentalists to get their feet in the door.

As for the 40% thing, what is the reason to make any company over a certain value a partially employee owned company?

The purpose is to dilute shareholder power.

 

[iceberg]

Sometimes to keep a company afloat you have to make decisions that negatively impact the workers. The difference is the workers can find another job, if a company goes under the shareholders lose everything.

Oh for sure. If it’s a matter of keeping a company afloat then thats not a scenario I’m talking about. We are talking about billion dollars a year companies here.

Why should they get singled out for "special" treatment? And again, if you give employees 40% of the board, AND make the entire board beholden to every person even remotely connected to the company, what do you think will happen to the shareholders?

And as the stock becomes less attractive, what happens when the company's value drops below a billion? Do they then go back to the old way?

The bill is supposed to be applied to companies with over a Billion a year in annual revenue, not companies valued at a Billion. You asked what happens to shareholders when employees have representation on the board? Well they have to be more transparent and listen to the perspective of that group.

They are employees, and companies are free to form as employee owned or run if they so choose to.

This law is nothing more than a government attempt at more control over companies.

Sorry if you answered this before... but how exactly is the government controlling the company? Like do you think they are part of the 40% or are you just talking about the regulation?

gray area - sure. but when the gov can tell people who must be on the board w/o regard of that persons qualifications, what would be a better word?

 

[Slade3200]

What’s your definition of commie, genius??

Any a-hole who thinks "stakeholders" should get a say in a corporations workings.

You’re not having a very good day are you?

So to summarize. Todd here thinks the definition of a communist is “any a-hole who thinks stakeholders should get a say in a corporations workings.

Go sleep it off buddy

no they aren't commies, but that's stupid. Just because you can put a widget together, it doesn't mean you know how to run a company. It's a skill, and most people don't have it. It's why people make so much money doing it.

I’d never propose that a widget maker run a billion dollar company

So what are you talking about? when you say stakeholder (I'm assuming workers) get a say in corporation workings(I'm assuming how the company is run)

Making sure that the workers are represented and have a voice in billion dollar companies is quite different than saying that they are running it. I don’t think this is neccessary for small or even larger businesses but when you are talking about the big dogs that operate more like small countries, I don’t think having some democratic elements would be so bad.