Liz Warren's "Accountable Capitalism Act"

[rightwinger]

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

Very true

Profit under the constraints of benefitting from a society

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Capital creates no wealth
Labor creates wealth

 

[Toro]

Capital creates no wealth
Labor creates wealth

That's very silly.

There are whole manufacturing plants that don't have any labor, and those plants are certainly creating wealth.

Capital is is the transformation of labor into another form, whether that's physical or financial.

 

[Manonthestreet]

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?
.

Think the goal is pass legislation that will fail so more draconian measures can be taken under that umbrella.
Also does nothing for the person not covered by this. The measures dealing with politics are very troubling.

 

[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.

 

[westwall]

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?
.

That's not too far from the controls that the third reich imposed on the corporate entities that it allowed to continue operating.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

So she wants the biggest corporation of all, the fed, to increase control over all other corporations. She aspires to become the CEO of that biggest corporation.
No thanks!
I make money on that low end and my car (Ford Fiesta) has more features, luxuries and comforts than the car owned by a fictitious ultra-filthy-rich TV character from the 1960’s, Amos Burke.

 

[Dana7360]

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.

How is following the constitution by the government exercising their constitutional right to regulate business being unconstitutional?

You might want to read the commerce clause to the constitution. It gives the government the right to regulate international and interstate commerce.

And before you say that there's commerce that's only within one state and not internationally, look up the supreme court case on the woman who was giving marijuana brownies to AIDs patients for free. The court ruled that since the ingredients she bought came from other states, it's interstate commerce. She went to prison.

That clause covers all commerce in America so saying that regulating corporations is unconstitutional is just showing you don't know what's in the constitution.

 

[edthecynic]

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.

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."

President Abraham Lincoln, annual message to Congress, December 3, 1861

 

[OODA_Loop]

This is the Democratic Socialist means of controlling production.

 

[Ame®icano]

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the Massachusetts Democrat, made this quite clear on Wednesday when she introduced the "Accountable Capitalism Act." A more accurate name would have been the "First Step to Overthrowing Capitalism Act," because a long-term objective of the Democratic Socialists of America is crushing capitalism. They want an economy that isn't free and open but subject to their boot on its throat.

Sen. Warren Reveals Democratic Socialists' Hidden Agenda

Every socialist promise the same thing and deliver the same thing. Just give it some time.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

How is following the constitution by the government exercising their constitutional right to regulate business being unconstitutional?

You might want to read the commerce clause to the constitution. It gives the government the right to regulate international and interstate commerce.

And before you say that there's commerce that's only within one state and not internationally, look up the supreme court case on the woman who was giving marijuana brownies to AIDs patients for free. The court ruled that since the ingredients she bought came from other states, it's interstate commerce. She went to prison.

That clause covers all commerce in America so saying that regulating corporations is unconstitutional is just showing you don't know what's in the constitution.

It is more than regulating, it is designed to stop corporations from contributing to political parties and specifically the GOP. Do they want to regulate the unions to the same sanctions as 75% of the union members before a union could contribute or endorse? Aren’t the unions specifically there for the employees? It will challenge the Constitution on that part of the law for sure and then you may get another Citizens United type ruling, but go for it.

 

[Natural Citizen]

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.

How is following the constitution by the government exercising their constitutional right to regulate business being unconstitutional?

You might want to read the commerce clause to the constitution. It gives the government the right to regulate international and interstate commerce.

And before you say that there's commerce that's only within one state and not internationally, look up the supreme court case on the woman who was giving marijuana brownies to AIDs patients for free. The court ruled that since the ingredients she bought came from other states, it's interstate commerce. She went to prison.

That clause covers all commerce in America so saying that regulating corporations is unconstitutional is just showing you don't know what's in the constitution.

I'm afraid it's a bit more complex than this.

Carry on, however.

 

[theHawk]

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.

 

[Mac1958]

That's not too far from the controls that the third reich imposed on the corporate entities that it allowed to continue operating.

More and more people are warming up to this kind of thing, as wealth inequality continues to expand.

I wonder how the GOP plans to provide the electorate with an answer, outside of screaming SOCIALISM AAUUGGHH, NAZI AAUUGGHH, and HITLER AAUUGGHH.
.

 

[Tehon]

That's not too far from the controls that the third reich imposed on the corporate entities that it allowed to continue operating.

More and more people are warming up to this kind of thing, as wealth inequality continues to expand.

I wonder how the GOP plans to provide the electorate with an answer, outside of screaming SOCIALISM AAUUGGHH, NAZI AAUUGGHH, and HITLER AAUUGGHH.
.

They don't have an answer. When push comes to shove they will use force to control the electorate. History is replete with examples of this very thing.

 

[Tehon]

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.

 

[gipper]

That's not too far from the controls that the third reich imposed on the corporate entities that it allowed to continue operating.

More and more people are warming up to this kind of thing, as wealth inequality continues to expand.

I wonder how the GOP plans to provide the electorate with an answer, outside of screaming SOCIALISM AAUUGGHH, NAZI AAUUGGHH, and HITLER AAUUGGHH.
.

They don't have an answer. When push comes to shove they will use force to control the electorate. History is replete with examples of this very thing.

To expect either party to do what the majority of Americans want, is terribly naive. They will do what the .01% want.

 

[Tehon]

That's not too far from the controls that the third reich imposed on the corporate entities that it allowed to continue operating.

More and more people are warming up to this kind of thing, as wealth inequality continues to expand.

I wonder how the GOP plans to provide the electorate with an answer, outside of screaming SOCIALISM AAUUGGHH, NAZI AAUUGGHH, and HITLER AAUUGGHH.
.

They don't have an answer. When push comes to shove they will use force to control the electorate. History is replete with examples of this very thing.

To expect either party to do what the majority of Americans want, is terribly naive. They will do what the .01% want.

And the .01% will do what is expedient for themselves. That doesn't rule out offering some type of reforms to quell the rising tide but I think those would come from the Democratic party as opposed to the GOP.

 

[gipper]

That's not too far from the controls that the third reich imposed on the corporate entities that it allowed to continue operating.

More and more people are warming up to this kind of thing, as wealth inequality continues to expand.

I wonder how the GOP plans to provide the electorate with an answer, outside of screaming SOCIALISM AAUUGGHH, NAZI AAUUGGHH, and HITLER AAUUGGHH.
.

They don't have an answer. When push comes to shove they will use force to control the electorate. History is replete with examples of this very thing.

To expect either party to do what the majority of Americans want, is terribly naive. They will do what the .01% want.

And the .01% will do what is expedient for themselves. That doesn't rule out offering some type of reforms to quell the rising tide but I think those would come from the Democratic party as opposed to the GOP.

A good example of this is BO signed a bill supported by both parties, cutting social security benefits. There is no way in Hell the Ds would ever do this with Trump. They and their MSM friends would demonize the shit out of such a bill, purely for political gain.