Liz Warren's "Accountable Capitalism Act"

Mac1958

Diamond Member
Dec 8, 2011
115,171
88,423
3,635
Opposing Authoritarian Ideological Fundamentalism.
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?
.
 
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.

What, Stormy Mack, you need your "Safe Space" don't you?

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?

I think the more you regulate these people, the more they just think up clever ways to outsmart the regulations.

So instead of making up new laws, you set up a special branch of Corporate Investigation. They will have special grand juries made up of working people who lost their homes and jobs to corporate shenanigans. And when these guys are convicted, instead of sending them to Club Fed, you send them to the prison were the rapists and murderers are, and lock them in a cell with THIS GUY...

images


and a jar of Vaseline.
 
Thoughts?
Tell us yours first.
Sure!

1. What I don't know is whether Warren and her supporters understand that the reason for the existence of a corporation is to maximize shareholder value. So I'd be curious to know if she realizes what a fundamental change this is. I doubt many of her supporters do. Or if they care.

2. That said, what this amounts to is an attempt at increased regulation of capitalism, not a move towards ACTUAL socialism (no doubt that this will be the hyperbole of some who see this - but there is a clear difference between government ownership and government regulation. Who knows if they know that.)

3. This clearly is an effort to address both wealth inequality and corporate behaviors that are ultimately counter-productive to the corporation, and since the other side continues to push towards simplistic and naive libertarianism, I guess I can live with that.

4. As a financial advisor, I have to wonder how this would affect stock and corporate valuations & performance, particularly in an increasingly competitive global landscape, and after looking at that fairly closely over the last few years and discussing it with peers, I'm not convinced it would have a negative impact on either.

5. I understand the Right's concern about a "slippery slope", and that concerns me, too. There are elements of the Left who are just as crazed as some elements on the Right, and I would be concerned that this would be nothing more than a stepping stone for them. I'd have to be convinced otherwise.

Overall, I understand the goals and the reasoning behind it, and I'd like to see it debated nationally. If I can be convinced that my "slippery slope" concerns are unwarranted, I could live with it.

Okay, you?
.
 
Last edited:
Her plan sounds like a perfect way to move corporations to Mexico or other destinations offshore! I wonder what she would replace them with?
 
Sure!

1. What I don't know is whether Warren and her supporters understand that the reason for the existence of a corporation is to maximize shareholder value. So I'd be curious to know if she realizes what a fundamental change this is. I doubt many of her supporters do. Or if they care.

2. That said, what this amounts to is an attempt at increased regulation of capitalism, not a move towards ACTUAL socialism (no doubt that this will be the hyperbole of some who see this - but there is a clear difference between government ownership and government regulation. Who knows if they know that.)

3. This clearly is an effort to address both wealth inequality and corporate behaviors that are ultimately counter-productive to the corporation, and since the other side continues to push towards simplistic and naive libertarianism, I guess I can live with that.

4. As a financial advisor, I have to wonder how this would affect stock and corporate valuations & performance, particularly in an increasingly competitive global landscape, and after looking at that fairly closely over the last few years and discussing it with peers, I'm not convinced it would have a negative impact on either.

5. I understand the Right's concern about a "slippery slope", and that concerns me, too. There are elements of the Left who are just as crazed as some elements on the Right, and I would be concerned that this would be nothing more than a stepping stone for them. I'd have to be convinced otherwise.

Overall, I understand the goals and the reasoning behind it, and I'd like to see it debated nationally. If I can be convinced that my "slippery slope" concerns are unwarranted, I could live with it.

Okay, you?
.

Thanks.

Well, it's clearly unconstitutional. That would be my gripe with it. Any discussion beyond that would only be semantic.

The stock market is already distorted. Stocks are way too high. It's inflated. It has its own set of problems. I expect a correction soon. A 50% bust isn't out of the question.
 
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?
.
Looks like it goes too far

I’d rather see the tax code rewritten to incentivize better worker and community impacts
We just gave them close to a 50 percent tax cut and received nothing in return. I’d like to see those cuts tied to more jobs, better pay and incentives, less outsourcing, energy and environmental impacts
 
Something has to be done about corporate America and income inequality, so Pocohontas deserves credit for trying. Most of her fellow pols in Congress are criminals, who like the status quo. So at least she is making an effort.

My concerns are more about the undue power and influence the largest corps have attained. I tend to think we don’t need more laws and government agencies, but rather impose anti/trust laws on the books and break up into small pieces the big corps. Teddy Roosevelt did it.
 
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?
.
Looks like it goes too far

I’d rather see the tax code rewritten to incentivize better worker and community impacts
We just gave them close to a 50 percent tax cut and received nothing in return. I’d like to see those cuts tied to more jobs, better pay and incentives, less outsourcing, energy and environmental impacts
Dumbass, The only reason to invest/start a business is for more profit. If it’s not for profit it’s a waste of time
 
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?
.
Looks like it goes too far

I’d rather see the tax code rewritten to incentivize better worker and community impacts
We just gave them close to a 50 percent tax cut and received nothing in return. I’d like to see those cuts tied to more jobs, better pay and incentives, less outsourcing, energy and environmental impacts
Dumbass, The only reason to invest/start a business is for more profit. If it’s not for profit it’s a waste of time

Not to a left loon...they believe buisnesses are created soley to pay taxes to fund their BS.
 
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?
.
Sounds like Italian fascism to me.
 
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?
.
Sounds like Italian fascism to me.

There is little difference between Fascism and democratic socialism.
 
WTH is the matter with you? Ignoramous.

Fauxahontas doesn't have a prayer of getting this through

Actually, we are probably one recession away from getting the whole left wing wish list imposed on us.

And I don't necessarily think this is a good thing.

One more bad recession like 2008, and people are going to be DEMANDING these kinds of reforms.

Not to a left loon...they believe buisnesses are created soley to pay taxes to fund their BS.

You mean like roads and infrastructure and poverty relief? That BS?

I liked it under it's original title, "Civilization".

The problem with the right is that it's been taken over by wannabe anarchists.
 
Sounds like Italian fascism to me.
Well, we can assign to it any "isms" that we'd like, or we can just examine it on its specific merits.
.
I am assigning it an ism based on its merits. We have the luxury of historical perspective to dissect it if we so choose. My statement does not have to be taken as derogatory.
 
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.
We have too many regulations as it is. We don't need another government agency. These regulations are slowly strangling the US economy as liberals try to "de-risk" away all bad things. The perverse outcome is more regulation, more bureaucracy, more dead-weight costs, less productivity, less investment, and less economic growth.

Focusing on all stakeholders does the same thing. There are too many competing interests for directors to consider. And how do you prioritize which ones? If shutting a factory is best for shareholders but not for the community, what do you choose? Other interests can be, and are, protected to some degree in the legal code.

  • Corporations under the charter would be required to allow their workers to elect 40% of the membership of its Board of Directors
Capital comes before labor in the legal code for a reason - capital is formed prior to the hiring of labor. You can't hire a bunch of people first then go out and raise capital. You need the capital to go hire labor. Therefore, capital is prioritized over labor.

As for workers electing board members, the board is answerable to the owners of the company. If labor wants to have a board seat, buy a stake in the company. By giving labor a say over the running of the company, they are telling the owners of private property what they can do with their property without having a stake in the company.

  • 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.
I don't have a problem with this. Stock option compensation, while beneficial, has become a bit of a joke in some ways. I have no problem with a long vesting period.

  • 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.
It's impossible to get 75% of shareholders to approve since 75% of shareholders usually don't vote. I don't have a problem with limiting corporations political activities, however.
 

Forum List

Back
Top