Liz Warren's "Accountable Capitalism Act"

[danielpalos]

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?
.

Government should fix the Standard for the goalposts; not micromanage the private sector;

we really just need a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, unemployment compensation for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, and Industrial Automation to help with social costs.

 

[gipper]

A good example of this is BO signed a bill supported by both parties, cutting social security benefits.

LIAR!

You don’t know this? Really? CNN didn’t tell you? LMFAO.

This should enlighten you to the fact that you are uninformed.

Obama cuts social security...

Baby Boomer Social Security Shocker

 

[Hiryuu]

Government should fix the Standard for the goalposts; not micromanage the private sector;

we really just need a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, unemployment compensation for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, and Industrial Automation to help with social costs.

The tide raises all boats, but it never changes the boat you are in. The minimum wage will always be the minimum, and everything else will adjust to be the same it is now accordingly. You cannot manufacture artificial equality, you'll just keep moving the goal posts.

(Edit)
If you really just want to screw with the rich people, you raise the minimum wage and limit the possible income of the rich at the same time. Although you'll be surprised when you try crap like that and find out the only consistent real minimum wage is $0 a hour.

 

[westwall]

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.

Incorrect on YOUR part silly boy. The GOVERNMENT had bureaucrats in every corporation. Those bureaucrats told those corporations what to buy, how much to pay for it, what to make with it, how much they could sell it for and to whom. Furthermore you had to be a member of the Nazi Party even to remain in business.

Are you truly this ignorant of how it worked or are you trying to lie your way out of the awful truth of what you support?

 

[Mac1958]

The thread in which you're posting is something. Perhaps you can provide a thoughtful and reasonable response.

The Meltdown of 2008 was in many ways the result of a lack of regulation. I'll be more than happy to go into detail, such as Alan Greenspan's abject refusal to regulate derivatives (begged for by CLTC Chair Brooksley Born), the complete lack of reserve requirements for credit default swaps, the fact that ratings agencies got away with selling AAA (Treasury-level) ratings for shit-filled CMOs and CDOs, zero regulation on the makeup or opacity of these shit securities, John Paulsen being free to create CDOs that were specifically created to fail so that he could short them (with the help of Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank and others), Morgan Stanley and GS being free to short shit securities at the same time they were selling them, banks leveraging up to a stratospheric 30:1 and higher, and more.

Just ask.
.

You can regulate their ability to do the things they did. You will never stop them from figuring out another way to do it. Until the people stop doing business with the banks that are screwing them over, there's nothing the government can really do about it (except take everything from everyone and pretend it is theirs). At that point you are going to have to understand the banks didn't work alone, and the government not only had oversight privileges, they were in the middle of it. That's why a bunch of people didn't get hauled to court and asked to testify, as well as why the people who were blamed, got a big fat parachute from the government.

Of course you can regulate and change the behaviors and capacities in the financial services industry. I'm in it.

All of the things I listed could have been avoided with proper, flexible regulation. Not terribly tough. But Greenspan and libertarian thought fucked things up. He even admitted he screwed up.
.

 

[Mac1958]

Unaccountable Government and communism has little differences.

That's just silly. If we don't get past shallow, binary thinking, we'll be asking for a huge pushback in the opposite direction.

Efficient, effective regulation is key for healthy capitalism. When it's lacking, we see the growing distortions and inequities that we're seeing.
.
.

 

[danielpalos]

Government should fix the Standard for the goalposts; not micromanage the private sector;

we really just need a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, unemployment compensation for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, and Industrial Automation to help with social costs.

The tide raises all boats, but it never changes the boat you are in. The minimum wage will always be the minimum, and everything else will adjust to be the same it is now accordingly. You cannot manufacture artificial equality, you'll just keep moving the goal posts.

(Edit)
If you really just want to screw with the rich people, you raise the minimum wage and limit the possible income of the rich at the same time. Although you'll be surprised when you try crap like that and find out the only consistent real minimum wage is $0 a hour.

nothing but gossip, right wingers?

solving simple poverty is a social goal that be accomplished by merely using Capitalism, for all of its capital worth in modern times.

Only in right wing fantasy, do we take your inflation canard, seriously; but, only for twice a day moments.

strike one.

 

[Hiryuu]

Of course you can regulate and change the behaviors and capacities in the financial services industry. I'm in it.

All of the things I listed could have been avoided with proper, flexible regulation. Not terribly tough.
.

If your response is, the government didn't do what it was supposed to, to stop what it knew was going on, that's not going to help your case. In fact, it says more about the people in the industry that knew what was going on and didn't do anything about it. If you want to claim you are in the industry and knew how to fix it, and didn't do what was necessary to accomplish that, then I really don't give a damn about your excuses.

You cannot claim ignorance and competence at the same time. If you weren't ignorant of what was happening, you were incompetent at protecting the interests of the investors.

 

[Hiryuu]

solving simple poverty is a social goal that be accomplished by merely using Capitalism, for all of its capital worth in modern times.

Only in right wing fantasy, do we take your inflation canard, seriously; but, only for twice a day moments.

strike one.

That's no problem, I never take your misconception government can end poverty seriously. And by the way, inflation better describes your dreams

See you if and when you ever make it to the ballpark.

 

[OODA_Loop]

I am not a Republican but not only Republicans think you have to work.

I work 80 hours a week, thank you very much. I've been working since I was 16, and I'm 56 now. I have no problem with working.

But when 40% of the population has less than one percent of the wealth, and the 1% has 43% of the wealth, the issue here isn't "work", is it?

So what is the issue > You dont make as much as you would like for 80 hours work ?

 

[Pilot1]

[That's just silly. If we don't get past shallow, binary thinking, we'll be asking for a huge pushback in the opposite direction.

Efficient, effective regulation is key for healthy capitalism. When it's lacking, we see the growing distortions and inequities that we're seeing.
.
.

We already have a plethora of regulation on every facet of Capitalism to the point where we can't even call it capitalism. What more Government regulation do you want to install? Effective, and efficient Regulation is more an OXYMORON than Jumbo Shrimp.

Have you ever run a business?

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Cutting business regulation and encouraging economic growth. I haven't heard anything from democrats except actually calling people Nazi's and Hitler

The thread in which you're posting is something. Perhaps you can provide a thoughtful and reasonable response.

The Meltdown of 2008 was in many ways the result of a lack of regulation. I'll be more than happy to go into detail, such as Alan Greenspan's abject refusal to regulate derivatives (begged for by CLTC Chair Brooksley Born), the complete lack of reserve requirements for credit default swaps, the fact that ratings agencies got away with selling AAA (Treasury-level) ratings for shit-filled CMOs and CDOs, zero regulation on the makeup or opacity of these shit securities, John Paulsen being free to create CDOs that were specifically created to fail so that he could short them (with the help of Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank and others), Morgan Stanley and GS being free to short shit securities at the same time they were selling them, banks leveraging up to a stratospheric 30:1 and higher, and more.

Just ask.
.

The melt down was caused by lenders being forced by the government to loan money to people who could never pay it back. Nice try at revisionism.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Unaccountable Government and communism has little differences.

That's just silly. If we don't get past shallow, binary thinking, we'll be asking for a huge pushback in the opposite direction.

Efficient, effective regulation is key for healthy capitalism. When it's lacking, we see the growing distortions and inequities that we're seeing.
.
.

Black and white is how the world works. Put an unaccountable bureaucrat in charge of controlling your life and you’ve lost liberty. And that process is escalating exponentially.

Quasi feel good regulations that are suggested is nothing but government control of how a business operates.

And you’ll say oh no, they’ll never fine a company for X, and I say BS. Take your first example.

• Company directors must (provably) consider the interests of all relevant STAKEholders, including shareholders, customers, employees and communities, when making decisions.

Ok, my boss didn’t take my interests into account.

Now the burden of proof is entirely upon the company and theirs no possible evidence they can provide they did.

 

[task0778]

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?
.

Company directors must (provably) consider the interests of all relevant STAKEholders, including shareholders, customers, employees and communities, when making decisions.
Ok, provable to whom? The federal gov't? As in, Congress, or the President? I don't think so, who gets to decide who is a relevant stakeholder and whether their interests are adequately considered?

Corporations under the charter would be required to allow their workers to elect 40% of the membership of its Board of Directors.
Profit motive down the toilet. If you like paying more for less, this is the plan for you. Why? Cuz it'll get really hard to make any decisions that are in the best interests of the company. What's really bad about this whole idea os the notion that these big companies and corps are not already taking the interests of their customers and employees into account. It would be counter-productive if they didn't, CNN would be all over their asses and they wouldn't be able to sit down to dinner anywhere without being harassed.

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.
Shareholders are going to do one of two things with whatever compensation they get: either they are going to spend that money or they are going to invest it, wherever they think it's going to get the best ROI. Not allowing them to do either for 5 years or whatever seems kinda stupid to me. Gotta wonder if that would even be Constitutional, would the SCOTUS shoot that down? Hope so. Oh, and BTW that also means less tax revenue for the states and feds.

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.
Again, who are the stakeholders? Who decides that? My guess, the politicians who grant or approve the charter. I do not want the effing federal gov't controlling our companies and corps to that extent. What this looks like to me is a naked attempt to get around the Citizens v United case by making next to impossible for big corps to donate anything because the shareholders would not approve of donations going to the opposite party of their choice.

What this is, is a step in the direction of a true socialist state where the gov't doesn't yet own the corps and companies but they sure as hell have a big say in their governance. We don't like what you're doing for whatever reason so you ain't getting a charter or we're going to revoke it. A lot of the big guys are going to be looking to move offshore. And if I were a foreign company thinking about building a new plant here somewhere, I'd think twice if this law goes into effect.

 

[Toro]

"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

But doesn't.

Lincoln was a lawyer, not a god.

 

[Toro]

Labor is the only means by which humans improve upon nature

This is factually wrong.

Total factor productivity - Wikipedia

 

[Toro]

Warrens ideas dont go far enough.

... CEO and other officers that have more than 40x the average salary of their own workforce should have a special 50% windfall income tax.

That's very leftist of you, Jim.

 

[Tehon]

Labor is the only means by which humans improve upon nature

This is factually wrong.

Total factor productivity - Wikipedia

Technological and scientific advances are not the result of human labor?

 

[Mac1958]

Of course you can regulate and change the behaviors and capacities in the financial services industry. I'm in it.

All of the things I listed could have been avoided with proper, flexible regulation. Not terribly tough.
.

If your response is, the government didn't do what it was supposed to, to stop what it knew was going on, that's not going to help your case. In fact, it says more about the people in the industry that knew what was going on and didn't do anything about it. If you want to claim you are in the industry and knew how to fix it, and didn't do what was necessary to accomplish that, then I really don't give a damn about your excuses.

You cannot claim ignorance and competence at the same time. If you weren't ignorant of what was happening, you were incompetent at protecting the interests of the investors.

I'm not claiming anything, I'm just pointing out what happened and what could have prevented it.

I know these facts don't match shallow partisan talking points, but that's not my problem.
.

 

[task0778]

Labor is the only means by which humans improve upon nature

This is factually wrong.

Total factor productivity - Wikipedia

Technological and scientific advances are not the result of human labor?

They are also the result of capital. No capital, no advances.

BTW, I'm not sure if Lincoln was right or wrong, in his day maybe you didn't need much capital. But you sure as hell do today, times have changed in 150+ years.