Liz Warren's "Accountable Capitalism Act"

[Mac1958]

Everything the government touches gets better, so why not?
Said no one ever.

Correct, because most people don't exist in a shallow, simplistic, binary world.

Most know that this all exists on a continuum, and that the key is striking the proper balance.
.

Either you have a capital investment in the corporation, in which case you have a stake in the outcomes, or you don't. Where is the continuum?

The amount of each.
.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Naw, man, you are like most battered housewife Republicans, making excuses for your abusers...

I am not a Republican but not only Republicans think you have to work.

 

[Tehon]

Everything the government touches gets better, so why not?
Said no one ever.

Correct, because most people don't exist in a shallow, simplistic, binary world.

Most know that this all exists on a continuum, and that the key is striking the proper balance.
.

Either you have a capital investment in the corporation, in which case you have a stake in the outcomes, or you don't. Where is the continuum?

The amount of each.
.

The amount of each of what?

 

[OODA_Loop]

The amount of each.
.

When pressed for details the mask of ,gov control of the means of production through regulation shows it face.

 

[Mac1958]

A shareholder is a person who owns equity (stock) in a corporation.
In Warren's context, a stakeholder would be people who are affected by the actions of a corporation: Employees, consumers and society in general.

This in a nutshell. It is giving PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS to those with NO ownership rights. Employees, and consumers CHOOSE to work, or buy from the corporation. They are not forced to do either. They have NO ownership rights at all. Warren is wrong.

I very much doubt that this end of the discussion would ever make it into public discourse, since we'd much rather keep things real simple 'n stuff. But yeah, she's certainly extending this share-/stake-holder thing out a bunch. But that's essentially the overall Euro-socialist model that's gaining favor.
.

 

[Mac1958]

Everything the government touches gets better, so why not?
Said no one ever.

Correct, because most people don't exist in a shallow, simplistic, binary world.

Most know that this all exists on a continuum, and that the key is striking the proper balance.
.

Either you have a capital investment in the corporation, in which case you have a stake in the outcomes, or you don't. Where is the continuum?

The amount of each.
.

The amount of each of what?

Cripes, make a point. I've got multiple conversations going on right now.
.

 

[there4eyeM]

As long as so many embrace money as god, we are lost.

 

[JoeB131]

I am not a Republican but not only Republicans think you have to work.

I work 80 hours a week, thank you very much. I've been working since I was 16, and I'm 56 now. I have no problem with working.

But when 40% of the population has less than one percent of the wealth, and the 1% has 43% of the wealth, the issue here isn't "work", is it?

 

[Pilot1]

[I very much doubt that this end of the discussion would ever make it into public discourse, since we'd much rather keep things real simple 'n stuff. But yeah, she's certainly extending this share-/stake-holder thing out a bunch. But that's essentially the overall Euro-socialist model that's gaining favor.
.

Which is why Trump was elected, and Brexit happened. To STOP the march towards Euro-Socialism where those that haven't earned the rights are given them by government for the purpose of CONTROL. Because we all know government is always benevolent.

 

[Mac1958]

[I very much doubt that this end of the discussion would ever make it into public discourse, since we'd much rather keep things real simple 'n stuff. But yeah, she's certainly extending this share-/stake-holder thing out a bunch. But that's essentially the overall Euro-socialist model that's gaining favor.
.

Which is why Trump was elected, and Brexit happened. To STOP the march towards Euro-Socialism where those that haven't earned the rights are given them by government for the purpose of CONTROL. Because we all know government is always benevolent.

Well, we'll find out. There is clearly momentum on the Left for this, so it will be up to the Right to fend it off with reason and effective communication.
.

 

[Natural Citizen]

You don't understand Marxist theory. It's okay to admit you have never read him outside of maybe the manifesto.

Tread lightly, Tehon. You have absolutely no idea who you're inviting into a debate with a comment like that. If you're not careful, you just might get what you're asking for.

Think it through.

 

[Tehon]

You don't understand Marxist theory. It's okay to admit you have never read him outside of maybe the manifesto.

Tread lightly, Tehon. You have absolutely no idea who you're inviting into a debate with a comment like that. If you're not careful, you just might get what you're asking for. And in front of all of your friends.

Think it through.

Bring it.

 

[JoeB131]

Okay, I'm out...

 

[Hiryuu]

I do agree that setting arbitrary limits on figures in regulations just begs to be played with on the back end. So any time you see a specific number, you're seeing an opportunity for the regs to be played with.

On a macro scale, my interest with this proposal is more about the fundamental function of American corporations. As I mentioned, the (current) reason for the existence of a corporation is to maximize shareholder value. Warren and others are trying to change "shareholders" to "stakeholders", and that would be a pretty profound change.

I think it's a conversation worth having, and sometimes a couple of parts taken from a variety of ideas can yield some pretty good stuff.
.

I understand why people like the proposal, or don't, but perspective and intent, are desires and not limits.

Where you mentioned "an opportunity for the regulations to be played with", that's not what I meant at all. The legislation sets the regulations and the limits. Someone acting within the limits of regulations is obeying the law and isn't playing with anything. They are simply using the limit someone else has determined to regulate the return on their investment. You cannot make someone do what they don't want to do, unless you forbid their doing what they want it altogether.

If you want to stop rich people from getting richer, you are going to have to stop them from gaining a return on the money they invest, simple as that. Her proposal just tries to reallocate the resources. If the government limits who can get rich off an endeavor, the limits aren't restricted to the Board of Directors. If they choose to try and screw the rich people, they are going to screw everyone. A rich person can find a country that wants corporate investment, quicker than an unemployed person can find a job.

That's not playing around with anything, just defining the difference between dreams and risks. Don't make the mistake of thinking it is a some kind of game, money talks and bullshit walks. Give money a reason to walk away, and watch what happens (it seems as though people would have figured that out by now).

 

[JimBowie1958]

I was going to start this thread in the CDZ in an effort to keep the wild, goofy, shallow hyperbole to a minimum, but what the hell, the nihilist in me took control and here we are.

And one more thing: This is the kind of proposal that is a natural and predictable reaction to the constantly-expanding wealth inequality in this country. If you defend that increasing inequality, you're going to have to convince people that it's better than Warren's proposal. I'd love to know how you'd do that, person by person.

Warren is introducing a bill that is designed to effectively change the fundamental character of American corporations. Currently, the reason for the existence of a corporation is to maximize shareholder value. Instead, Warren proposes that if corporations are going to have the legal rights of persons, they should be expected to act like citizens and uphold certain social contracts.

So she proposes the creation of an Office of United States Corporations that requires any corporation with revenue over $1 billion to obtain a "federal charter of corporate citizenship". This charter would require the following of the corporation:

• Company directors must (provably) consider the interests of all relevant STAKEholders, including shareholders, customers, employees and communities, when making decisions.
• Corporations under the charter would be required to allow their workers to elect 40% of the membership of its Board of Directors
• Limit corporate executives' ability to sell shares of stock they receive as pay, requiring that such shares be held for at least five years after they were received and at least three years after a share buyback. This is to dis-incentivize them to authorize the use of share buybacks and stock-based compensation to maximize their own pay.
• Require corporate political activity to be authorized specifically by both 75% of shareholders and 75% of board members, to ensure that such activity truly represents the view of STAKEholders.

Currently, about 80% of the stock market is owned by about 10% of the population, and over executive compensation continues to soar, even after the Meltdown of 2008. And people are watching.

Warren and her supporters specifically say that, rather than moving to socialism, she is trying to regulate capitalism enough to save it. Meanwhile, the wealth gap continues to grow and it's fair to wonder how long people will accept it.

Thoughts?
.

Warrens ideas dont go far enough.

Corporations that work for profit should not be allowed to participate in our political process AT ALL, period, end of story.

We need a Constitutional amendment that specifically states that while corporations may have some economic and legal rights as individuals they are not persons for any other purposes.

CEO and other officers that have more than 40x the average salary of their own workforce should have a special 50% windfall income tax.

Ban all lobbyists inside DC/Capitol Hill that work for any for-profit corporation.

 

[JimBowie1958]

More of that "democratic socialism"

No thanks....and her act doesn't have a prayer

If we let these corporations to run around unfettered by regs or law, the people of our country will increasingly reject capitalism. 2008 has done irreparable harm to the image of capitalism and we need to hobble these CEOs so they dont do even worse.

 

[Hiryuu]

Warrens ideas dont go far enough.

Corporations should not be allowed to participate in our political process AT ALL, period, end of story.

We need a Constitutional amendment that specifically states that while corporations may have some economic and legal rights as individuals they are not persons for any other purposes.

CEO and other officers that have more than 40x the average salary of their own workforce should have a special 50% windfall income tax.

Ban all lobbyists inside DC/Capitol Hill that work for any for-profit corporation.

I believe you missed the obvious. It is the political process (in Senator Warren's proposal) trying to mess with corporations, so what you really mean is that corporations shouldn't be able to defend themselves from our political process.

 

[Natural Citizen]

You don't understand Marxist theory. It's okay to admit you have never read him outside of maybe the manifesto.

Tread lightly, Tehon. You have absolutely no idea who you're inviting into a debate with a comment like that. If you're not careful, you just might get what you're asking for. And in front of all of your friends.

Think it through.

Bring it.

Okay. I'd love to debate it with you. I'm getting ready to jump off here, though. I'll start a new thread this evening. I'll whistle for ya.

 

[Ame®icano]

Of course, it's again, or always Warren as sole expert on economy who's trying to "fix" something that doesn't need fixing.

The sole purpose of regressives and globalists is to destroy capitalism along with Western culture. Every decision they make is based on achieving this goal, as Lizzy Cheekbones has demonstrated.

They are actually trying to save it and yeah it needs fixing.

Don't let your feelings fuck up your intelligence.

Uhm, wait... what intelligence?

 

[Dana7360]

Everything the government touches gets better, so why not?
Said no one ever.

Correct, because most people don't exist in a shallow, simplistic, binary world.

Most know that this all exists on a continuum, and that the key is striking the proper balance.
.

If people don’t like what a company does they don’t buy from that company. Ask Facebook and Twitter.

If people don’t like what an unelected and unaccountable Government agency does, too bad.
Ask anyone who’s had to deal with the IRS, BLM, EPA, etc etc.

The counter-argument is that because a corporation exists within a society in which there are many shared and symbiotic affects of behaviors, it must be held to a certain level of corporate responsibility and regulation. So the question, again, is striking the proper balance between pure free market capitalism and corporate responsibility.
.

So people go to prison because an unaccountable Government employee feels an employee was not treated “fairly”

Sounds like communism.

Then you don't know what communism is.

Communism is an economic system where there is no private ownership of anything.

The government owns everything in a communist economy.

Now, tell me how regulating corporations is the government taking ownership of a private corporation.