Warren and the Divine Right of Capital: Accountable Capitalism Act

[Andylusion]

How do you square this circle: The structure and legal basis of the modern MAGA corporation bears a great deal of resemblance to feudal estates, and this reality is at odds in an era that claims to value democracy over the Divine Right of Kings?

Warren has a plan:

Accountable Capitalism Act - Wikipedia

"The Accountable Capitalism Act, 115th Congress (2017-2018) S. 3348 is a proposed federal bill introduced by Senator Elizabeth Warren in August 2018.

"It would require that employees elect 40% of a board of directors of any corporation with over $1 billion in tax receipts, and that 75% of shareholders and directors must approve any political spending.

"Corporations with revenue over $1 billion would be required to obtain a federal corporate charter.

"The Act contains a 'constituency statute' that would give directors a duty of 'creating a general public benefit' with regard to a corporation's stakeholders, including shareholders, employees, and the environment, and the interests of the enterprise in the long-term.[1]"

The US is among a minority of OECD countries that gives no representation to the workforce (majority) in corporate governance.

For years Warren has claimed "corporations are not people."

Now her Accountable Capitalism Act demands that corporations that claim the legal rights of personhood should be legally required to accept the moral obligations of personhood.

Let's say you hire people to do yard work. You hire people to mow the lawn, and trim the bushes, and rake leaves.

Do we get to determine where you spend your money? What political spending you make? Do we get a voice in how you run your home?

You hire some guy to fix your car. Does he now get to a vote on what you do with your car?

How much investment have employees made into the company, that then gives them the right to have a vote in how the company operates?

A CEO has massive amounts of stock in the company, and thus has an vested interest in how the company performs. If the company performs badly, he could lose millions of dollars.

What does an employee, of say Walmart, lose if the company performs badly?

Nothing? Then why should an employee have a say in how the company operates when they have no risk of loss?

Why do you people on the left, think you should have any say in how something you don't own, or have in risk involved in, should be used or run?

 

[basquebromance]

Warren is literally shitting on the american dream, my friends!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So Communism is a step back, well, five steps back, from National Socialism.

So Communism is a step back, well, five steps back, from National Socialism.

Where's Jim?

"In particular, Nazis admired the Jim Crow-era laws that discriminated against black Americans and segregated them from white Americans, and they debated whether to introduce similar segregation in Germany.

"Yet they ultimately decided that it wouldn’t go far enough.

"'One of the most striking Nazi views was that Jim Crow was a suitable racist program in the United States because American blacks were already oppressed and poor,' he says. 'But then in Germany, by contrast, where the Jews (as the Nazis imagined it) were rich and powerful, it was necessary to take more severe measures.'

"Because of this, Nazis were more interested in how the U.S. had designated Native Americans, Filipinos and other groups as non-citizens even though they lived in the U.S. or its territories.

"These models influenced the citizenship portion of the Nuremberg Laws, which stripped Jewish Germans of their citizenship and classified them as 'nationals.'"

https://www.history.com/news/how-the-nazis-were-inspired-by-jim-crow

Yes, Democrats are very similar to Commies. Commies are very similar to Nazis.

Yes, Democrats are very similar to Commies. Commies are very similar to Nazis.

Hitler killed millions of communists and gave a medal to Henry Ford.

Ford was an asshole...….so what?

Ford was an asshole...….so what?

Was he capitalist or communist?
Did your pal Adolph try to kill him or give him a medal?

He was an asshole.

And he didn't kill millions, like your buddy Stalin.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The scary part for me about Warren is that I don't think she's weighed in on her view of the Fed. I'm no Trump fan, but his impact on the Fed seems to be that Powell has expanded on their role simply being about being an inflation hawk. Important, yes. But it did nothing to prevent the great housing meltdown in banking … which is something the Fed had authority to regulate. But, under Reagan-Greenspan's takeover from Volker … definitely it was out of bounds. The Bernank took Milton Freedman very literally when it came to the duty of the central bank to make sure deflation did not occur.

Powell seems willing to allow cheap interest rates to fuel increased deficit spending to stave off a recession, despite Trump's anti-free trade tariffs, and under Greenspan before 2000, that would be heresy. But, the dems criticized the "old" Fed of ignoring unemployment. I'm not making a value judgment because I just don't know where this is going. Trump's definitely politicized the Fed, but Warren sees a need to redistribute wealth. And that scares me.

Powell seems willing to allow cheap interest rates to fuel increased deficit spending to stave off a recession, despite Trump's anti-free trade tariffs, and under Greenspan before 2000, that would be heresy. But, the dems criticized the "old" Fed of ignoring unemployment. I'm not making a value judgment because I just don't know where this is going. Trump's definitely politicized the Fed, but Warren sees a need to redistribute wealth. And that scares me.

What is your opinion on the Fed's latest Repo device?

Elizabeth Warren Demands Repo Loan Answers as NY Fed Repo Data Disappears

"From this past Friday evening through Sunday, if you clicked on any of the web pages at the New York Fed pertaining to the hundreds of billions of dollars it has been pumping out weekly to Wall Street’s securities firms since September 17, you saw the message below..."

It seems more of a Refi and No Credit Check used car scheme, to me.

It seems more of a Refi and No Credit Check used car scheme, to me.

Only if you had 100% collateral and paid back the loan in a week...…...

 

[bendog]

Elizabeth Warren Net Worth 2019 | The Net Worth Portal

when she starts living more modestly and giving away her fortune to lead the way, i'll listen. otherwise hearing a multi-millionaire bitch at the rich is ironic beyond belief.

What makes you think her lifestyle is not modest, compared to Trump Tower, for example?

I'm still open to Warren making her case, although forcing workers to be on corp boards and the ideas that seem to flow out make me consider not voting.

But personal greed is not her thing.

 

[georgephillip]

The US is a Democratic Republic.
Would you prefer an aristocracy?
Corporations are closer to a feudal nature than a democratic one.
Give me one good reason to refrain from changing that reality.

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly: A Summary

"Look closely at the stock market and it betrays some fundamental assumptions about the creation of wealth in today’s markets.

"Only 1% of the total value of equity on Wall Street is actual investment in the sense of new money going into firms.

"The remaining 99% is speculation – people buying and selling existing stock in the aftermarket of equity."

"The remaining 99% is speculation – people buying and selling existing stock in the aftermarket of equity."

What's wrong with that?

"The remaining 99% is speculation – people buying and selling existing stock in the aftermarket of equity."

What's wrong with that?

Tan Liu: Why Many Of Todays Most Owned Stocks Are Ponzi Schemes

Trading stocks in a secondary market doesn't make them a Ponzi scheme.

Trading stocks in a secondary market doesn't make them a Ponzi scheme

Ponzi Scheme | Investor.gov

"A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that pays existing investors with funds collected from new investors. Ponzi scheme organizers often promise to invest your money and generate high returns with little or no risk..."

"With little or no legitimate earnings, Ponzi schemes require a constant flow of new money to survive. When it becomes hard to recruit new investors, or when large numbers of existing investors cash out, these schemes tend to collapse."

"A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that pays existing investors with funds collected from new investors. Ponzi scheme organizers often promise to invest your money and generate high returns with little or no risk..."

Exactly. Glad you agree that buying/selling stock in the secondary market doesn't fit that definition.

Exactly. Glad you agree that buying/selling stock in the secondary market doesn't fit that definition.

Tan Liu: Why Many Of Today's Most-Owned Stocks Are Ponzi Schemes | Seeking Alpha

"When one person buys low and sells high, another is also buying high and needs to sell for even higher. And a system where current investors' profits are dependent on cash from new investors is by definition how a Ponzi scheme works.

"Stocks provide a return to today's investors via two mechanisms: dividends and capital gains.

"Dividends provide and income stream which can be quantitatively valued.

"Capital gains result from speculation - an expectation that future dividends will be higher than the market currently expects."

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The scary part for me about Warren is that I don't think she's weighed in on her view of the Fed. I'm no Trump fan, but his impact on the Fed seems to be that Powell has expanded on their role simply being about being an inflation hawk. Important, yes. But it did nothing to prevent the great housing meltdown in banking … which is something the Fed had authority to regulate. But, under Reagan-Greenspan's takeover from Volker … definitely it was out of bounds. The Bernank took Milton Freedman very literally when it came to the duty of the central bank to make sure deflation did not occur.

Powell seems willing to allow cheap interest rates to fuel increased deficit spending to stave off a recession, despite Trump's anti-free trade tariffs, and under Greenspan before 2000, that would be heresy. But, the dems criticized the "old" Fed of ignoring unemployment. I'm not making a value judgment because I just don't know where this is going. Trump's definitely politicized the Fed, but Warren sees a need to redistribute wealth. And that scares me.

Powell seems willing to allow cheap interest rates to fuel increased deficit spending to stave off a recession, despite Trump's anti-free trade tariffs, and under Greenspan before 2000, that would be heresy. But, the dems criticized the "old" Fed of ignoring unemployment. I'm not making a value judgment because I just don't know where this is going. Trump's definitely politicized the Fed, but Warren sees a need to redistribute wealth. And that scares me.

What is your opinion on the Fed's latest Repo device?

Elizabeth Warren Demands Repo Loan Answers as NY Fed Repo Data Disappears

"From this past Friday evening through Sunday, if you clicked on any of the web pages at the New York Fed pertaining to the hundreds of billions of dollars it has been pumping out weekly to Wall Street’s securities firms since September 17, you saw the message below..."

The Fed’s $29 trillion in cumulative bailout programs secretly stretched from December 2007 through at least July 2010.

Wow! That sounds like a lot of loans!!

How much was repaid?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"The remaining 99% is speculation – people buying and selling existing stock in the aftermarket of equity."

What's wrong with that?

"The remaining 99% is speculation – people buying and selling existing stock in the aftermarket of equity."

What's wrong with that?

Tan Liu: Why Many Of Todays Most Owned Stocks Are Ponzi Schemes

Trading stocks in a secondary market doesn't make them a Ponzi scheme.

Trading stocks in a secondary market doesn't make them a Ponzi scheme

Ponzi Scheme | Investor.gov

"A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that pays existing investors with funds collected from new investors. Ponzi scheme organizers often promise to invest your money and generate high returns with little or no risk..."

"With little or no legitimate earnings, Ponzi schemes require a constant flow of new money to survive. When it becomes hard to recruit new investors, or when large numbers of existing investors cash out, these schemes tend to collapse."

"A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that pays existing investors with funds collected from new investors. Ponzi scheme organizers often promise to invest your money and generate high returns with little or no risk..."

Exactly. Glad you agree that buying/selling stock in the secondary market doesn't fit that definition.

Exactly. Glad you agree that buying/selling stock in the secondary market doesn't fit that definition.

Tan Liu: Why Many Of Today's Most-Owned Stocks Are Ponzi Schemes | Seeking Alpha

"When one person buys low and sells high, another is also buying high and needs to sell for even higher. And a system where current investors' profits are dependent on cash from new investors is by definition how a Ponzi scheme works.

"Stocks provide a return to today's investors via two mechanisms: dividends and capital gains.

"Dividends provide and income stream which can be quantitatively valued.

"Capital gains result from speculation - an expectation that future dividends will be higher than the market currently expects."

Ponzi scheme organizers often promise to invest your money and generate high returns with little or no risk..."

When I buy shares in the secondary market, there is no "organizer" promising me high returns with little risk.

"When one person buys low and sells high, another is also buying high and needs to sell for even higher.

Yup. That's how stocks work. And commodities. And land. Still not a Ponzi scheme.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Todd crushes poor Georgie again. Awesome. Thanks for the entertainment

 

[Andylusion]

"The remaining 99% is speculation – people buying and selling existing stock in the aftermarket of equity."

What's wrong with that?

"The remaining 99% is speculation – people buying and selling existing stock in the aftermarket of equity."

What's wrong with that?

Tan Liu: Why Many Of Todays Most Owned Stocks Are Ponzi Schemes

Trading stocks in a secondary market doesn't make them a Ponzi scheme.

Trading stocks in a secondary market doesn't make them a Ponzi scheme

Ponzi Scheme | Investor.gov

"A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that pays existing investors with funds collected from new investors. Ponzi scheme organizers often promise to invest your money and generate high returns with little or no risk..."

"With little or no legitimate earnings, Ponzi schemes require a constant flow of new money to survive. When it becomes hard to recruit new investors, or when large numbers of existing investors cash out, these schemes tend to collapse."

"A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that pays existing investors with funds collected from new investors. Ponzi scheme organizers often promise to invest your money and generate high returns with little or no risk..."

Exactly. Glad you agree that buying/selling stock in the secondary market doesn't fit that definition.

Exactly. Glad you agree that buying/selling stock in the secondary market doesn't fit that definition.

Tan Liu: Why Many Of Today's Most-Owned Stocks Are Ponzi Schemes | Seeking Alpha

"When one person buys low and sells high, another is also buying high and needs to sell for even higher. And a system where current investors' profits are dependent on cash from new investors is by definition how a Ponzi scheme works.

"Stocks provide a return to today's investors via two mechanisms: dividends and capital gains.

"Dividends provide and income stream which can be quantitatively valued.

"Capital gains result from speculation - an expectation that future dividends will be higher than the market currently expects."

Capital gains is not exclusively the result of speculation. Investors are looking at a number of factors, only some of which are based on assumed future value. For example, they look at the companies current, and historical profit. They look at current and historical dividends. They look at growth trends, and other factors.

Those things are not speculation, anymore than getting a job is based on speculation. There is always risk when getting a job, that you will not fit with the company, that the company could close your department, or even that the company could close entirely.

None of which is speculation. But if you know the company wishes to expand into a different market, you are speculating that this expansion will succeed.... or you wouldn't take the job would you?

Now obviously there are some parts that are speculation. Such as if you hear that Google is starting up a new product line, you could buy the stock under the assumption the product line will be successful, and thus the value of the company will grow.

However that is still not a ponzi scheme.

The entire point of a ponzi scheme, is that there is no underlying asset. You are pretending to have an investment, when in reality there is nothing. You are just taking money from one person, to give to another.

With stocks though, there is an underlying asset. You own stock in a company. That is in fact an asset. No matter what happens, there is a real investment involved. No one was being duped, or defrauded.

Saying that "It is still dependent on someone else buying it"..... is irrelevant. All value that exists anywhere on this planet.... only exists because someone is willing to pay for it.

If no one is willing to buy your food.... your food has no value. If no one will buy your car, your car has no value. Where you work, if no one is willing to buy the product or service you provide, then your product or service has no value.

If you are suggesting that anything that is dependent on others buying it, is a ponzi scheme, then absolutely everything in the world is a ponzi scheme. And if everything is, then nothing is.

 

[georgephillip]

How do you square this circle: The structure and legal basis of the modern MAGA corporation bears a great deal of resemblance to feudal estates, and this reality is at odds in an era that claims to value democracy over the Divine Right of Kings?

Warren has a plan:

Accountable Capitalism Act - Wikipedia

"The Accountable Capitalism Act, 115th Congress (2017-2018) S. 3348 is a proposed federal bill introduced by Senator Elizabeth Warren in August 2018.

"It would require that employees elect 40% of a board of directors of any corporation with over $1 billion in tax receipts, and that 75% of shareholders and directors must approve any political spending.

"Corporations with revenue over $1 billion would be required to obtain a federal corporate charter.

"The Act contains a 'constituency statute' that would give directors a duty of 'creating a general public benefit' with regard to a corporation's stakeholders, including shareholders, employees, and the environment, and the interests of the enterprise in the long-term.[1]"

The US is among a minority of OECD countries that gives no representation to the workforce (majority) in corporate governance.

For years Warren has claimed "corporations are not people."

Now her Accountable Capitalism Act demands that corporations that claim the legal rights of personhood should be legally required to accept the moral obligations of personhood.

Let's say you hire people to do yard work. You hire people to mow the lawn, and trim the bushes, and rake leaves.

Do we get to determine where you spend your money? What political spending you make? Do we get a voice in how you run your home?

You hire some guy to fix your car. Does he now get to a vote on what you do with your car?

How much investment have employees made into the company, that then gives them the right to have a vote in how the company operates?

A CEO has massive amounts of stock in the company, and thus has an vested interest in how the company performs. If the company performs badly, he could lose millions of dollars.

What does an employee, of say Walmart, lose if the company performs badly?

Nothing? Then why should an employee have a say in how the company operates when they have no risk of loss?

Why do you people on the left, think you should have any say in how something you don't own, or have in risk involved in, should be used or run?

What does an employee, of say Walmart, lose if the company performs badly?

Nothing? Then why should an employee have a say in how the company operates when they have no risk of loss?

What does the Walmart worker lose?
How about her job and house, for starters.
What entitles the CEO to earn hundreds of times more than the average employee even though those hundreds of employees are far more productive than the executive?

 

[georgephillip]

How do you square this circle: The structure and legal basis of the modern MAGA corporation bears a great deal of resemblance to feudal estates, and this reality is at odds in an era that claims to value democracy over the Divine Right of Kings?

Warren has a plan:

Accountable Capitalism Act - Wikipedia

"The Accountable Capitalism Act, 115th Congress (2017-2018) S. 3348 is a proposed federal bill introduced by Senator Elizabeth Warren in August 2018.

"It would require that employees elect 40% of a board of directors of any corporation with over $1 billion in tax receipts, and that 75% of shareholders and directors must approve any political spending.

"Corporations with revenue over $1 billion would be required to obtain a federal corporate charter.

"The Act contains a 'constituency statute' that would give directors a duty of 'creating a general public benefit' with regard to a corporation's stakeholders, including shareholders, employees, and the environment, and the interests of the enterprise in the long-term.[1]"

The US is among a minority of OECD countries that gives no representation to the workforce (majority) in corporate governance.

For years Warren has claimed "corporations are not people."

Now her Accountable Capitalism Act demands that corporations that claim the legal rights of personhood should be legally required to accept the moral obligations of personhood.

Let's say you hire people to do yard work. You hire people to mow the lawn, and trim the bushes, and rake leaves.

Do we get to determine where you spend your money? What political spending you make? Do we get a voice in how you run your home?

You hire some guy to fix your car. Does he now get to a vote on what you do with your car?

How much investment have employees made into the company, that then gives them the right to have a vote in how the company operates?

A CEO has massive amounts of stock in the company, and thus has an vested interest in how the company performs. If the company performs badly, he could lose millions of dollars.

What does an employee, of say Walmart, lose if the company performs badly?

Nothing? Then why should an employee have a say in how the company operates when they have no risk of loss?

Why do you people on the left, think you should have any say in how something you don't own, or have in risk involved in, should be used or run?

Do you have any problems with the following contents of Warren's bill:

Accountable Capitalism Act - Wikipedia

"Section 3 of the Act would establish an 'Office of United States Corporations', with a director appointed by the President on consent of the Senate, at the Department of Commerce to grant charters to large federal corporations, and monitor compliance with the Act's requirements.

"Section 4 requires corporations with over $1 billion in tax receipts to obtain a federal charter."

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How do you square this circle: The structure and legal basis of the modern MAGA corporation bears a great deal of resemblance to feudal estates, and this reality is at odds in an era that claims to value democracy over the Divine Right of Kings?

Warren has a plan:

Accountable Capitalism Act - Wikipedia

"The Accountable Capitalism Act, 115th Congress (2017-2018) S. 3348 is a proposed federal bill introduced by Senator Elizabeth Warren in August 2018.

"It would require that employees elect 40% of a board of directors of any corporation with over $1 billion in tax receipts, and that 75% of shareholders and directors must approve any political spending.

"Corporations with revenue over $1 billion would be required to obtain a federal corporate charter.

"The Act contains a 'constituency statute' that would give directors a duty of 'creating a general public benefit' with regard to a corporation's stakeholders, including shareholders, employees, and the environment, and the interests of the enterprise in the long-term.[1]"

The US is among a minority of OECD countries that gives no representation to the workforce (majority) in corporate governance.

For years Warren has claimed "corporations are not people."

Now her Accountable Capitalism Act demands that corporations that claim the legal rights of personhood should be legally required to accept the moral obligations of personhood.

Let's say you hire people to do yard work. You hire people to mow the lawn, and trim the bushes, and rake leaves.

Do we get to determine where you spend your money? What political spending you make? Do we get a voice in how you run your home?

You hire some guy to fix your car. Does he now get to a vote on what you do with your car?

How much investment have employees made into the company, that then gives them the right to have a vote in how the company operates?

A CEO has massive amounts of stock in the company, and thus has an vested interest in how the company performs. If the company performs badly, he could lose millions of dollars.

What does an employee, of say Walmart, lose if the company performs badly?

Nothing? Then why should an employee have a say in how the company operates when they have no risk of loss?

Why do you people on the left, think you should have any say in how something you don't own, or have in risk involved in, should be used or run?

What does an employee, of say Walmart, lose if the company performs badly?

Nothing? Then why should an employee have a say in how the company operates when they have no risk of loss?

What does the Walmart worker lose?
How about her job and house, for starters.
What entitles the CEO to earn hundreds of times more than the average employee even though those hundreds of employees are far more productive than the executive?

What entitles the CEO to earn hundreds of times more than the average employee even though those hundreds of employees are far more productive than the executive?

Cool story bro!!

Those super productive employees should pool together all their money, maybe you could kick in a couple of hundred bucks too, and they should start up their own store.

I'm sure they'll beat nasty old WalMart at their own game. Easily.

Please keep us up to date on your soon to be success story!!!

 

[Andylusion]

How do you square this circle: The structure and legal basis of the modern MAGA corporation bears a great deal of resemblance to feudal estates, and this reality is at odds in an era that claims to value democracy over the Divine Right of Kings?

Warren has a plan:

Accountable Capitalism Act - Wikipedia

"The Accountable Capitalism Act, 115th Congress (2017-2018) S. 3348 is a proposed federal bill introduced by Senator Elizabeth Warren in August 2018.

"It would require that employees elect 40% of a board of directors of any corporation with over $1 billion in tax receipts, and that 75% of shareholders and directors must approve any political spending.

"Corporations with revenue over $1 billion would be required to obtain a federal corporate charter.

"The Act contains a 'constituency statute' that would give directors a duty of 'creating a general public benefit' with regard to a corporation's stakeholders, including shareholders, employees, and the environment, and the interests of the enterprise in the long-term.[1]"

The US is among a minority of OECD countries that gives no representation to the workforce (majority) in corporate governance.

For years Warren has claimed "corporations are not people."

Now her Accountable Capitalism Act demands that corporations that claim the legal rights of personhood should be legally required to accept the moral obligations of personhood.

Let's say you hire people to do yard work. You hire people to mow the lawn, and trim the bushes, and rake leaves.

Do we get to determine where you spend your money? What political spending you make? Do we get a voice in how you run your home?

You hire some guy to fix your car. Does he now get to a vote on what you do with your car?

How much investment have employees made into the company, that then gives them the right to have a vote in how the company operates?

A CEO has massive amounts of stock in the company, and thus has an vested interest in how the company performs. If the company performs badly, he could lose millions of dollars.

What does an employee, of say Walmart, lose if the company performs badly?

Nothing? Then why should an employee have a say in how the company operates when they have no risk of loss?

Why do you people on the left, think you should have any say in how something you don't own, or have in risk involved in, should be used or run?

What does an employee, of say Walmart, lose if the company performs badly?

Nothing? Then why should an employee have a say in how the company operates when they have no risk of loss?

What does the Walmart worker lose?
How about her job and house, for starters.
What entitles the CEO to earn hundreds of times more than the average employee even though those hundreds of employees are far more productive than the executive?

I've lost numerous jobs. I own my own house. I have never lost my house, because I lost my job. You just find another job.

Alternatively, I had a CEO that pulled out $50,000 in cash... plus put a mortgage on his personal home, AND had a family member pull out a mortgage on their personal home, and with the combined funds of all three, purchased the company he was then running.

If that company had folded, two homes would be lost, with the $50,000 in cash.

Tell me what Walmart employee would lose all that? None.

What entitles the CEO to earn hundreds of times more than the average employee even though those hundreds of employees are far more productive than the executive?

Everything I just pointed to above. CEOs have tons more risk involved. Additionally... they own far more responsibility.

For example. My former CEO had a product go defective during his vacation. He was three states away, and purchased a flight back to Ohio on Tuesday night, flew here, worked for two days and early Friday morning flew back to his vacation.

You know what happens when there is a product failure and I'm on vacation? I have no idea, because my phone is off, and I'm on the beach.

CEOs own a ton of responsibility that an average worker never has to deal with.

We had a supplier completely fail to meet their contractual obligations. We had to hire lawyers, and fly to Arizona, to meet with their executives.

By "We" I mean the executives of the company. Not "we" the employees. I didn't have to go anywhere.

There are many reasons CEOs earn much larger amounts of money than employees.

You have no risk. You can simply find another job. You don't have to answer for problems in the company. You don't have to be on-call for your entire life. You go home, and just stay there. You only work 40 hours. CEOs on average, work 50 to 60 hours. Even when they are not at work, they are often working. Zuckerberg, said he's often answering Emails before 5 AM.

 

[Andylusion]

How do you square this circle: The structure and legal basis of the modern MAGA corporation bears a great deal of resemblance to feudal estates, and this reality is at odds in an era that claims to value democracy over the Divine Right of Kings?

Warren has a plan:

Accountable Capitalism Act - Wikipedia

"The Accountable Capitalism Act, 115th Congress (2017-2018) S. 3348 is a proposed federal bill introduced by Senator Elizabeth Warren in August 2018.

"It would require that employees elect 40% of a board of directors of any corporation with over $1 billion in tax receipts, and that 75% of shareholders and directors must approve any political spending.

"Corporations with revenue over $1 billion would be required to obtain a federal corporate charter.

"The Act contains a 'constituency statute' that would give directors a duty of 'creating a general public benefit' with regard to a corporation's stakeholders, including shareholders, employees, and the environment, and the interests of the enterprise in the long-term.[1]"

The US is among a minority of OECD countries that gives no representation to the workforce (majority) in corporate governance.

For years Warren has claimed "corporations are not people."

Now her Accountable Capitalism Act demands that corporations that claim the legal rights of personhood should be legally required to accept the moral obligations of personhood.

Let's say you hire people to do yard work. You hire people to mow the lawn, and trim the bushes, and rake leaves.

Do we get to determine where you spend your money? What political spending you make? Do we get a voice in how you run your home?

You hire some guy to fix your car. Does he now get to a vote on what you do with your car?

How much investment have employees made into the company, that then gives them the right to have a vote in how the company operates?

A CEO has massive amounts of stock in the company, and thus has an vested interest in how the company performs. If the company performs badly, he could lose millions of dollars.

What does an employee, of say Walmart, lose if the company performs badly?

Nothing? Then why should an employee have a say in how the company operates when they have no risk of loss?

Why do you people on the left, think you should have any say in how something you don't own, or have in risk involved in, should be used or run?

What does an employee, of say Walmart, lose if the company performs badly?

Nothing? Then why should an employee have a say in how the company operates when they have no risk of loss?

What does the Walmart worker lose?
How about her job and house, for starters.
What entitles the CEO to earn hundreds of times more than the average employee even though those hundreds of employees are far more productive than the executive?

What entitles the CEO to earn hundreds of times more than the average employee even though those hundreds of employees are far more productive than the executive?

Cool story bro!!

Those super productive employees should pool together all their money, maybe you could kick in a couple of hundred bucks too, and they should start up their own store.

I'm sure they'll beat nasty old WalMart at their own game. Easily.

Please keep us up to date on your soon to be success story!!!

Yeah, this has been my problem with left-wing thinking.

If executives really don't provide any help.... why don't the employees just do it all themselves? If employees have all talent and skill... nothing is stopping them from making your own company, and building your own stuff. Go and do it.

 

[georgephillip]

Tan Liu: Why Many Of Todays Most Owned Stocks Are Ponzi Schemes

Trading stocks in a secondary market doesn't make them a Ponzi scheme.

Trading stocks in a secondary market doesn't make them a Ponzi scheme

Ponzi Scheme | Investor.gov

"A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that pays existing investors with funds collected from new investors. Ponzi scheme organizers often promise to invest your money and generate high returns with little or no risk..."

"With little or no legitimate earnings, Ponzi schemes require a constant flow of new money to survive. When it becomes hard to recruit new investors, or when large numbers of existing investors cash out, these schemes tend to collapse."

"A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that pays existing investors with funds collected from new investors. Ponzi scheme organizers often promise to invest your money and generate high returns with little or no risk..."

Exactly. Glad you agree that buying/selling stock in the secondary market doesn't fit that definition.

Exactly. Glad you agree that buying/selling stock in the secondary market doesn't fit that definition.

Tan Liu: Why Many Of Today's Most-Owned Stocks Are Ponzi Schemes | Seeking Alpha

"When one person buys low and sells high, another is also buying high and needs to sell for even higher. And a system where current investors' profits are dependent on cash from new investors is by definition how a Ponzi scheme works.

"Stocks provide a return to today's investors via two mechanisms: dividends and capital gains.

"Dividends provide and income stream which can be quantitatively valued.

"Capital gains result from speculation - an expectation that future dividends will be higher than the market currently expects."

Capital gains is not exclusively the result of speculation. Investors are looking at a number of factors, only some of which are based on assumed future value. For example, they look at the companies current, and historical profit. They look at current and historical dividends. They look at growth trends, and other factors.

Those things are not speculation, anymore than getting a job is based on speculation. There is always risk when getting a job, that you will not fit with the company, that the company could close your department, or even that the company could close entirely.

None of which is speculation. But if you know the company wishes to expand into a different market, you are speculating that this expansion will succeed.... or you wouldn't take the job would you?

Now obviously there are some parts that are speculation. Such as if you hear that Google is starting up a new product line, you could buy the stock under the assumption the product line will be successful, and thus the value of the company will grow.

However that is still not a ponzi scheme.

The entire point of a ponzi scheme, is that there is no underlying asset. You are pretending to have an investment, when in reality there is nothing. You are just taking money from one person, to give to another.

With stocks though, there is an underlying asset. You own stock in a company. That is in fact an asset. No matter what happens, there is a real investment involved. No one was being duped, or defrauded.

Saying that "It is still dependent on someone else buying it"..... is irrelevant. All value that exists anywhere on this planet.... only exists because someone is willing to pay for it.

If no one is willing to buy your food.... your food has no value. If no one will buy your car, your car has no value. Where you work, if no one is willing to buy the product or service you provide, then your product or service has no value.

If you are suggesting that anything that is dependent on others buying it, is a ponzi scheme, then absolutely everything in the world is a ponzi scheme. And if everything is, then nothing is.

Capital gains is not exclusively the result of speculation. Investors are looking at a number of factors, only some of which are based on assumed future value. For example, they look at the companies current, and historical profit. They look at current and historical dividends. They look at growth trends, and other factors

Is this a definition of "speculation" you can subscribe to: an expectation future dividends will be higher than the market currently expects?

If so, what's the value of a company that continuously pays no dividends and does not appear as if it ever will?

WeWork’s Unraveling Is Another Indictment of Wall Street’s Universal Bank Model

 

[Andylusion]

How do you square this circle: The structure and legal basis of the modern MAGA corporation bears a great deal of resemblance to feudal estates, and this reality is at odds in an era that claims to value democracy over the Divine Right of Kings?

Warren has a plan:

Accountable Capitalism Act - Wikipedia

"The Accountable Capitalism Act, 115th Congress (2017-2018) S. 3348 is a proposed federal bill introduced by Senator Elizabeth Warren in August 2018.

"It would require that employees elect 40% of a board of directors of any corporation with over $1 billion in tax receipts, and that 75% of shareholders and directors must approve any political spending.

"Corporations with revenue over $1 billion would be required to obtain a federal corporate charter.

"The Act contains a 'constituency statute' that would give directors a duty of 'creating a general public benefit' with regard to a corporation's stakeholders, including shareholders, employees, and the environment, and the interests of the enterprise in the long-term.[1]"

The US is among a minority of OECD countries that gives no representation to the workforce (majority) in corporate governance.

For years Warren has claimed "corporations are not people."

Now her Accountable Capitalism Act demands that corporations that claim the legal rights of personhood should be legally required to accept the moral obligations of personhood.

Let's say you hire people to do yard work. You hire people to mow the lawn, and trim the bushes, and rake leaves.

Do we get to determine where you spend your money? What political spending you make? Do we get a voice in how you run your home?

You hire some guy to fix your car. Does he now get to a vote on what you do with your car?

How much investment have employees made into the company, that then gives them the right to have a vote in how the company operates?

A CEO has massive amounts of stock in the company, and thus has an vested interest in how the company performs. If the company performs badly, he could lose millions of dollars.

What does an employee, of say Walmart, lose if the company performs badly?

Nothing? Then why should an employee have a say in how the company operates when they have no risk of loss?

Why do you people on the left, think you should have any say in how something you don't own, or have in risk involved in, should be used or run?

Do you have any problems with the following contents of Warren's bill:

Accountable Capitalism Act - Wikipedia

"Section 3 of the Act would establish an 'Office of United States Corporations', with a director appointed by the President on consent of the Senate, at the Department of Commerce to grant charters to large federal corporations, and monitor compliance with the Act's requirements.

"Section 4 requires corporations with over $1 billion in tax receipts to obtain a federal charter."

Yes I do. Where in the constitution, does it give the Federal Government, the authority to force companies into Federal Charters?

All rights reserved for the states, means just that.

Further, we have way too many Federal Agencies as it is. If all these endless government agencies provided a benefit to the American people, then the 1920s and 1950s should have been the most miserable times in American history. The 1800s should have been the worst growth, and worst increase in the standard of living.

And right now..... with the size of the Federal government now.... you shouldn't even be able to consider a possible complaint. Our system should be such a Utopia, that to find something to complain about shouldn't even be possible.

And can you actually tell me what real benefit these hundreds of government agencies actually provide?

But you want to open "yet another government agency"?

And lastly, if that isn't enough... have you not noticed that every government agency that interacts with corporations, ends up being a tool of corporations? You create another government agency, and the biggest players in the game, are going to move to use that agency for their own benefit.

You just created another system of crony socialism.

Why? For what? Don't you have enough agencies with revolving doors into protected companies, using government for their benefit?

No, I am completely against Warren's new way to get into bed with big corporations. We need fewer people like her, having the wealthy corporations sucking her tits for government protection.

 

[Andylusion]

Trading stocks in a secondary market doesn't make them a Ponzi scheme.

Trading stocks in a secondary market doesn't make them a Ponzi scheme

Ponzi Scheme | Investor.gov

"A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that pays existing investors with funds collected from new investors. Ponzi scheme organizers often promise to invest your money and generate high returns with little or no risk..."

"With little or no legitimate earnings, Ponzi schemes require a constant flow of new money to survive. When it becomes hard to recruit new investors, or when large numbers of existing investors cash out, these schemes tend to collapse."

"A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that pays existing investors with funds collected from new investors. Ponzi scheme organizers often promise to invest your money and generate high returns with little or no risk..."

Exactly. Glad you agree that buying/selling stock in the secondary market doesn't fit that definition.

Exactly. Glad you agree that buying/selling stock in the secondary market doesn't fit that definition.

Tan Liu: Why Many Of Today's Most-Owned Stocks Are Ponzi Schemes | Seeking Alpha

"When one person buys low and sells high, another is also buying high and needs to sell for even higher. And a system where current investors' profits are dependent on cash from new investors is by definition how a Ponzi scheme works.

"Stocks provide a return to today's investors via two mechanisms: dividends and capital gains.

"Dividends provide and income stream which can be quantitatively valued.

"Capital gains result from speculation - an expectation that future dividends will be higher than the market currently expects."

Capital gains is not exclusively the result of speculation. Investors are looking at a number of factors, only some of which are based on assumed future value. For example, they look at the companies current, and historical profit. They look at current and historical dividends. They look at growth trends, and other factors.

Those things are not speculation, anymore than getting a job is based on speculation. There is always risk when getting a job, that you will not fit with the company, that the company could close your department, or even that the company could close entirely.

None of which is speculation. But if you know the company wishes to expand into a different market, you are speculating that this expansion will succeed.... or you wouldn't take the job would you?

Now obviously there are some parts that are speculation. Such as if you hear that Google is starting up a new product line, you could buy the stock under the assumption the product line will be successful, and thus the value of the company will grow.

However that is still not a ponzi scheme.

The entire point of a ponzi scheme, is that there is no underlying asset. You are pretending to have an investment, when in reality there is nothing. You are just taking money from one person, to give to another.

With stocks though, there is an underlying asset. You own stock in a company. That is in fact an asset. No matter what happens, there is a real investment involved. No one was being duped, or defrauded.

Saying that "It is still dependent on someone else buying it"..... is irrelevant. All value that exists anywhere on this planet.... only exists because someone is willing to pay for it.

If no one is willing to buy your food.... your food has no value. If no one will buy your car, your car has no value. Where you work, if no one is willing to buy the product or service you provide, then your product or service has no value.

If you are suggesting that anything that is dependent on others buying it, is a ponzi scheme, then absolutely everything in the world is a ponzi scheme. And if everything is, then nothing is.

Capital gains is not exclusively the result of speculation. Investors are looking at a number of factors, only some of which are based on assumed future value. For example, they look at the companies current, and historical profit. They look at current and historical dividends. They look at growth trends, and other factors

Is this a definition of "speculation" you can subscribe to: an expectation future dividends will be higher than the market currently expects?

If so, what's the value of a company that continuously pays no dividends and does not appear as if it ever will?

WeWork’s Unraveling Is Another Indictment of Wall Street’s Universal Bank Model

Dividends alone is not a determining factor.

Again... you own a share of the company itself. That has value, even without dividends. Warren Buffet's company, Berkshire Hathaway, pays no dividends. But the company itself has grown. That growth has value. You as owner, have part ownership in that company, which has value.


Let's spin this around into something easier.

I own a house. Do I get dividends? No. But that house is an investment. Why? Because it has value that increases. Even without dividends showing me direct value, I know that over time property values do increase. Again... why? Because we all know that people need places to live. We can look at the history of property values, and see the increase.

Just like we know that people will need a car, so owning shares in a car company will have value.

Just like we know that people will need food, so owning shares in a food company will have value.

Now I am NOT saying... 'there is no speculation'. Again, everything has some amount of speculation. Democrats could take over my city, and put in place section 8 housing in my area, and the value of my house will drop like a rock. It could happen.

Government could put in place terrible protectionism, that could kill the auto market, and the car company I own shares in, could close.

But again, there is a huge difference between speculating on a real assets, and a ponzi scheme that has no assets.

 

[georgephillip]

Elizabeth Warren Net Worth 2019 | The Net Worth Portal

when she starts living more modestly and giving away her fortune to lead the way, i'll listen. otherwise hearing a multi-millionaire bitch at the rich is ironic beyond belief.

What makes you think her lifestyle is not modest, compared to Trump Tower, for example?

I'm still open to Warren making her case, although forcing workers to be on corp boards and the ideas that seem to flow out make me consider not voting.

But personal greed is not her thing.

I'm still open to Warren making her case, although forcing workers to be on corp boards and the ideas that seem to flow out make me consider not voting.

German corporations have had workers sitting on their boards for years, and since those workers had voting rights, many German companies which might have followed US interests to China stayed home instead.

There are examples of successful corporations which function democratically:

Mondragon Corporation - Wikipedia

"The Mondragon Corporation is a corporation and federation of worker cooperatives based in the Basque region of Spain.

"It was founded in the town of Mondragon in 1956 by graduates of a local technical college. Its first product was paraffin heaters.

"It is the tenth-largest Spanish company in terms of asset turnover and the leading business group in the Basque Country.

"At the end of 2014, it employed 74,117 people in 257 companies and organizations in four areas of activity: finance, industry, retail and knowledge.[3] By 2015, 74,335 people were employed."

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Trading stocks in a secondary market doesn't make them a Ponzi scheme.

Trading stocks in a secondary market doesn't make them a Ponzi scheme

Ponzi Scheme | Investor.gov

"A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that pays existing investors with funds collected from new investors. Ponzi scheme organizers often promise to invest your money and generate high returns with little or no risk..."

"With little or no legitimate earnings, Ponzi schemes require a constant flow of new money to survive. When it becomes hard to recruit new investors, or when large numbers of existing investors cash out, these schemes tend to collapse."

"A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that pays existing investors with funds collected from new investors. Ponzi scheme organizers often promise to invest your money and generate high returns with little or no risk..."

Exactly. Glad you agree that buying/selling stock in the secondary market doesn't fit that definition.

Exactly. Glad you agree that buying/selling stock in the secondary market doesn't fit that definition.

Tan Liu: Why Many Of Today's Most-Owned Stocks Are Ponzi Schemes | Seeking Alpha

"When one person buys low and sells high, another is also buying high and needs to sell for even higher. And a system where current investors' profits are dependent on cash from new investors is by definition how a Ponzi scheme works.

"Stocks provide a return to today's investors via two mechanisms: dividends and capital gains.

"Dividends provide and income stream which can be quantitatively valued.

"Capital gains result from speculation - an expectation that future dividends will be higher than the market currently expects."

Capital gains is not exclusively the result of speculation. Investors are looking at a number of factors, only some of which are based on assumed future value. For example, they look at the companies current, and historical profit. They look at current and historical dividends. They look at growth trends, and other factors.

Those things are not speculation, anymore than getting a job is based on speculation. There is always risk when getting a job, that you will not fit with the company, that the company could close your department, or even that the company could close entirely.

None of which is speculation. But if you know the company wishes to expand into a different market, you are speculating that this expansion will succeed.... or you wouldn't take the job would you?

Now obviously there are some parts that are speculation. Such as if you hear that Google is starting up a new product line, you could buy the stock under the assumption the product line will be successful, and thus the value of the company will grow.

However that is still not a ponzi scheme.

The entire point of a ponzi scheme, is that there is no underlying asset. You are pretending to have an investment, when in reality there is nothing. You are just taking money from one person, to give to another.

With stocks though, there is an underlying asset. You own stock in a company. That is in fact an asset. No matter what happens, there is a real investment involved. No one was being duped, or defrauded.

Saying that "It is still dependent on someone else buying it"..... is irrelevant. All value that exists anywhere on this planet.... only exists because someone is willing to pay for it.

If no one is willing to buy your food.... your food has no value. If no one will buy your car, your car has no value. Where you work, if no one is willing to buy the product or service you provide, then your product or service has no value.

If you are suggesting that anything that is dependent on others buying it, is a ponzi scheme, then absolutely everything in the world is a ponzi scheme. And if everything is, then nothing is.

Capital gains is not exclusively the result of speculation. Investors are looking at a number of factors, only some of which are based on assumed future value. For example, they look at the companies current, and historical profit. They look at current and historical dividends. They look at growth trends, and other factors

Is this a definition of "speculation" you can subscribe to: an expectation future dividends will be higher than the market currently expects?

If so, what's the value of a company that continuously pays no dividends and does not appear as if it ever will?

WeWork’s Unraveling Is Another Indictment of Wall Street’s Universal Bank Model

If so, what's the value of a company that continuously pays no dividends and does not appear as if it ever will?

Whatever a willing buyer and a willing seller can agree on...…...