Liz Warren's "Accountable Capitalism Act"

[Tehon]

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

Labor is the only means by which humans improve upon nature and therefore deserves the higher rank. But we live in a capitalist world and in such a world labor is reduced to a commodity meant to be bought and sold and thus becomes subservient to capital.

 

[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.

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.

Yeah, I was thinking in terms of the great depression and the rising tide of socialism and how that forced the ruling class to offer concessions in the form of the new deal. That was done by the "left" in this country. As opposed to the "right" reaction to the same problem in Europe who took a more extreme approach with the rise of fascism.

 

[gipper]

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.

Yeah, I was thinking in terms of the great depression and the rising tide of socialism and how that forced the ruling class to offer concessions in the form of the new deal. That was done by the "left" in this country. As opposed to the "right" reaction to the same problem in Europe who took a more extreme approach with the rise of fascism.

Agreed.

The only way major reforms are passed by the two criminal parties, is when the American people rise up and demand it. The ruling class knows this, so they work diligently at keeping us divided using propaganda promoted by the media. Clearly their divisive tactics are working.

 

[Mac1958]

The only way major reforms are passed by the two criminal parties, is when the American people rise up and demand it. The ruling class knows this, so they work diligently at keeping us divided using propaganda promoted by the media. Clearly their divisive tactics are working.

And it's being done by both ends of the media.

As long as we eat what they're shoveling, this continues.
.

 

[Tehon]

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.

Yeah, I was thinking in terms of the great depression and the rising tide of socialism and how that forced the ruling class to offer concessions in the form of the new deal. That was done by the "left" in this country. As opposed to the "right" reaction to the same problem in Europe who took a more extreme approach with the rise of fascism.

Agreed.

The only way major reforms are passed by the two criminal parties, is when the American people rise up and demand it. The ruling class knows this, so they work diligently at keeping us divided using propaganda promoted by the media. Clearly their divisive tactics are working.

Yep, and then following the implementation of reforms, the socialist and communist movements, the movements that were responsible for pushing the reforms, were destroyed. Then the slow erosion of those reforms commenced and continues even now.

 

[gipper]

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.

Yeah, I was thinking in terms of the great depression and the rising tide of socialism and how that forced the ruling class to offer concessions in the form of the new deal. That was done by the "left" in this country. As opposed to the "right" reaction to the same problem in Europe who took a more extreme approach with the rise of fascism.

Agreed.

The only way major reforms are passed by the two criminal parties, is when the American people rise up and demand it. The ruling class knows this, so they work diligently at keeping us divided using propaganda promoted by the media. Clearly their divisive tactics are working.

Yep, and then following the implementation of reforms, the socialist and communist movements, the movements that were responsible for pushing the reforms, were destroyed. Then the slow erosion of those reforms commenced and continues even now.

Funny thing is the ruling class demands and receives socialism for themselves, all the while claiming socialism for the masses is tyrannical communism and unsustainable. LMFAO!

 

[Tehon]

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.

Yeah, I was thinking in terms of the great depression and the rising tide of socialism and how that forced the ruling class to offer concessions in the form of the new deal. That was done by the "left" in this country. As opposed to the "right" reaction to the same problem in Europe who took a more extreme approach with the rise of fascism.

Agreed.

The only way major reforms are passed by the two criminal parties, is when the American people rise up and demand it. The ruling class knows this, so they work diligently at keeping us divided using propaganda promoted by the media. Clearly their divisive tactics are working.

Yep, and then following the implementation of reforms, the socialist and communist movements, the movements that were responsible for pushing the reforms, were destroyed. Then the slow erosion of those reforms commenced and continues even now.

Funny thing is the ruling class demands and receives socialism for themselves, all the while claiming socialism for the masses is tyrannical communism and unsustainable. LMFAO!

Being somewhat literate in Marxist theory, I find that a perverted understanding of what socialism is, but I get what you are saying.
The ruling class loves public money.

 

[gipper]

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.

Yeah, I was thinking in terms of the great depression and the rising tide of socialism and how that forced the ruling class to offer concessions in the form of the new deal. That was done by the "left" in this country. As opposed to the "right" reaction to the same problem in Europe who took a more extreme approach with the rise of fascism.

Agreed.

The only way major reforms are passed by the two criminal parties, is when the American people rise up and demand it. The ruling class knows this, so they work diligently at keeping us divided using propaganda promoted by the media. Clearly their divisive tactics are working.

Yep, and then following the implementation of reforms, the socialist and communist movements, the movements that were responsible for pushing the reforms, were destroyed. Then the slow erosion of those reforms commenced and continues even now.

Funny thing is the ruling class demands and receives socialism for themselves, all the while claiming socialism for the masses is tyrannical communism and unsustainable. LMFAO!

Being somewhat literate in Marxist theory, I find that a perverted understanding of what socialism is, but I get what you are saying.
The ruling class loves public money.

Agreed it isn’t really socialism when it only applies to a small segment of society. However it does prove that our central government is not representing and protecting the rights of all the people.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

You know what, having lived through no less than five recessions, I get a little tired of rich people telling me to suck it up because they are making money.

We don't have recessions because of "regulation", we have them because the watchdogs were asleep, and it almost always happens when the Republicans try to make the watch-dogs more "business friendly".

 

[JoeB131]

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

Again, a misreading of German history. The industrialists weren't co-opted by the Nazis, the Nazis were co-opted by industrialists.

The Industrialists said, "Yup, we'll let you become Chancellor, but Ernst Roehm and the rest of the revolutionaries have to go!" and Hitler gleefully killed Roehm and 10,000 other more radical Nazis who wanted to nationalize industry. (See, "Night of the Long Knives")

Night of the Long Knives - Wikipedia

Hitler also wanted to conciliate leaders of the Reichswehr, the official German military who feared and despised the SA, in particular Röhm's ambition to merge the Reichswehr (German Army) and the SA under his own leadership. Additionally, Hitler was uncomfortable with Röhm's outspoken support for a "second revolution" to redistribute wealth. In Röhm's view, President Hindenburg'sappointment of Hitler as Chancellor on January 30, 1933 had brought the Nazi Party to power, but had left unfulfilled the "socialist" aims of the Party.

 

[keepitreal]

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?
.

the wealth gap continues to grow and it's fair to wonder how long people will accept it

Thoughts?

How long will people accept it?

Who do you think is making people rich?

Until they feel losses, nothing will change

There are not enough people willing to forgo anything,
to force companies to give customers better prices
take care of their employees and invest in the community.

Wealthy companies & corporations are a problem,
but, the people making them wealthy, is the real problem

 

[OODA_Loop]

Wealthy companies & corporations are a problem,
but, the people making them wealthy, is the real problem

Corporations provide jobs. Well paying jobs when you have value to offer.

 

[Pilot1]

We already have thousands, and thousands of regulations on every facet of "capitalism" in the U.S. More will only further hinder productivity. She keeps citing "stakeholders". The only legitimate stakeholder of a corporation, or any business are those that invest their own money (private equity) in the hopes of gaining a return on their investment. STOCKHOLDERS are the stakeholders, and the purpose of a corporation is NOT to create jobs, but to make money for the stockholders (owners).

Another insult to private property RIGHTS. How rich is Lizzy? How'd she get that way?

 

[Tehon]

Yeah, I was thinking in terms of the great depression and the rising tide of socialism and how that forced the ruling class to offer concessions in the form of the new deal. That was done by the "left" in this country. As opposed to the "right" reaction to the same problem in Europe who took a more extreme approach with the rise of fascism.

Agreed.

The only way major reforms are passed by the two criminal parties, is when the American people rise up and demand it. The ruling class knows this, so they work diligently at keeping us divided using propaganda promoted by the media. Clearly their divisive tactics are working.

Yep, and then following the implementation of reforms, the socialist and communist movements, the movements that were responsible for pushing the reforms, were destroyed. Then the slow erosion of those reforms commenced and continues even now.

Funny thing is the ruling class demands and receives socialism for themselves, all the while claiming socialism for the masses is tyrannical communism and unsustainable. LMFAO!

Being somewhat literate in Marxist theory, I find that a perverted understanding of what socialism is, but I get what you are saying.
The ruling class loves public money.

Agreed it isn’t really socialism when it only applies to a small segment of society. However it does prove that our central government is not representing and protecting the rights of all the people.

From the revolutionary marxist perspective it isnt socialism if capital exists.

 

[Hiryuu]

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?
.

It will help limit the number of corporations with revenues in excess of $1 billion, and increase the number of corporations with revenues around $990 million.

Unless you stop people from investing their money, you aren't going to stop the rich from getting richer. Don't think that corporations like PepsiCo cannot separate all the brands and franchises they own, run them separately, and the same people make the same money (they'll just own more smaller corporations).

 

[Mac1958]

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?
.

It will help limit the number of corporations with revenues in excess of $1 billion, and increase the number of corporations with revenues around $990 million.

Unless you stop people from investing their money, you aren't going to stop the rich from getting richer. Don't think that corporations like PepsiCo cannot separate all the brands and franchises they own, run them separately, and the same people make the same money (they'll just own more smaller corporations).

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.
.

 

[Weatherman2020]

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?
.

Everything the government touches gets better, so why not?

Said no one ever.

 

[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.
.

 

[Natural Citizen]

The Federal Reserve is a private corporation.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Was there anything in Warren's bill about National ID Cards?