- Thread starter
- #101
Well, instead of saying "played with" I could have said "find loopholes and advantages in", or something else. Semantics.I do agree that setting arbitrary limits on figures in regulations just begs to be played with on the back end. So any time you see a specific number, you're seeing an opportunity for the regs to be played with.
On a macro scale, my interest with this proposal is more about the fundamental function of American corporations. As I mentioned, the (current) reason for the existence of a corporation is to maximize shareholder value. Warren and others are trying to change "shareholders" to "stakeholders", and that would be a pretty profound change.
I think it's a conversation worth having, and sometimes a couple of parts taken from a variety of ideas can yield some pretty good stuff.
.
I understand why people like the proposal, or don't, but perspective and intent, are desires and not limits.
Where you mentioned "an opportunity for the regulations to be played with", that's not what I meant at all. The legislation sets the regulations and the limits. Someone acting within the limits of regulations is obeying the law and isn't playing with anything. They are simply using the limit someone else has determined to regulate the return on their investment. You cannot make someone do what they don't want to do, unless you forbid their doing what they want it altogether.
If you want to stop rich people from getting richer, you are going to have to stop them from gaining a return on the money they invest, simple as that. Her proposal just tries to reallocate the resources. If the government limits who can get rich off an endeavor, the limits aren't restricted to the Board of Directors. If they choose to try and screw the rich people, they are going to screw everyone. A rich person can find a country that wants corporate investment, quicker than an unemployed person can find a job.
That's not playing around with anything, just defining the difference between dreams and risks. Don't make the mistake of thinking it is a some kind of game, money talks and bullshit walks. Give money a reason to walk away, and watch what happens (it seems as though people would have figured that out by now).
Politics is (unfortunately) about optics, and I'm just looking at the optics of this. One of the primary drivers behind this current wave of interest in Euro-socialism is our expanding wealth disparity. Warren, for better or worse, is addressing it. And the way she is addressing it is by trying to fundamentally change the very character of corporations.
.