Warren and the Divine Right of Capital: Accountable Capitalism Act

[Meister]

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.

I have to question just how many companies that George has owned. I'm guessing, none.

 

[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.

I have to question just how many companies that George has owned. I'm guessing, none.

I have to question just how many companies that George has owned. I'm guessing, none.

Why do you think that's relevant to Warren's ACA?

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"

Warren's ACA applies mainly to corporations earning over a billion dollars in tax revenues which would likely exempt most small businesses, right?

 

[dblack]

Great example:

What is forced arbitration?

Who's doing the forcing?

Duh, the one's telling you to either sign away your rights or leave.

Nope. Force arbitration requires the government to do the forcing. Do you have any examples of corporations forcing things on people without employing government to do their dirty work?

 

[dblack]

Do you have any examples of corporate tyranny that don't employ government?

I'm unaware of any examples of corporations that don't require government for their existence, are you?

They could exist without government, but they wouldn't have government looking out for their interests - and they wouldn't have nearly as much power.

It is impossible to diminish the power of corporations without using government, but I don't believe it's possible to shrink government without corporations filling that vacuum.

Unless you're talking about giving corporations a police force and an army, your claim is delusional. Corporations don't have the power to coerce us.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Corporations are legal entities, thus can't exist without govt by definition.

cor·po·ra·tion
noun

1. a company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law.

Great example:

What is forced arbitration?

Who's doing the forcing?

Duh, the one's telling you to either sign away your rights or leave.

Nope. Force arbitration requires the government to do the forcing. Do you have any examples of corporations forcing things on people without employing government to do their dirty work?

Nope. Already provided the most obvious example. They say sign this (thing that forfeits your legal rights) or leave and follow through on that. No govt in sight. Dream on..

 

[dblack]

Nope. Already provided the most obvious example. They say sign this (thing that forfeits your legal rights) or leave and follow through on that. No govt in sight. Dream on..

"Sign this or leave" is not force.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Nope. Already provided the most obvious example. They say sign this (thing that forfeits your legal rights) or leave and follow through on that. No govt in sight. Dream on..

"Sign this or leave" is not force.

Of course it is where no option allows for the retention of a person's previous legal rights.
"Forced" as in "make (someone) do something against their will."

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Nope. Already provided the most obvious example. They say sign this (thing that forfeits your legal rights) or leave and follow through on that. No govt in sight. Dream on..

"Sign this or leave" is not force.

Of course it is where no option allows for the retention of a person's previous legal rights.
"Forced" as in "make (someone) do something against their will."

Goldman Sachs has yet to force me to sign anything.

 

[sparky]

Unless you're talking about giving corporations a police force and an army, your claim is delusional.

ah...errrhum....didn't we already do that?

Goldman Sachs has yet to force me to sign anything.

yes they did....

~S~

 

[Grumblenuts]

Nope. Already provided the most obvious example. They say sign this (thing that forfeits your legal rights) or leave and follow through on that. No govt in sight. Dream on..

"Sign this or leave" is not force.

Of course it is where no option allows for the retention of a person's previous legal rights.
"Forced" as in "make (someone) do something against their will."

Goldman Sachs has yet to force me to sign anything.

So.. ? Who ever said this was all about you?

 

[georgephillip]

Do you have any examples of corporate tyranny that don't employ government?

I'm unaware of any examples of corporations that don't require government for their existence, are you?

They could exist without government, but they wouldn't have government looking out for their interests - and they wouldn't have nearly as much power.

It is impossible to diminish the power of corporations without using government, but I don't believe it's possible to shrink government without corporations filling that vacuum.

Unless you're talking about giving corporations a police force and an army, your claim is delusional. Corporations don't have the power to coerce us.

They could exist without government, but they wouldn't have government looking out for their interests - and they wouldn't have nearly as much power.

Government charters are necessary for corporate existence, right?

 

[georgephillip]

Do you have any examples of corporate tyranny that don't employ government?

I'm unaware of any examples of corporations that don't require government for their existence, are you?

They could exist without government, but they wouldn't have government looking out for their interests - and they wouldn't have nearly as much power.

It is impossible to diminish the power of corporations without using government, but I don't believe it's possible to shrink government without corporations filling that vacuum.

Unless you're talking about giving corporations a police force and an army, your claim is delusional. Corporations don't have the power to coerce us.

Unless you're talking about giving corporations a police force and an army, your claim is delusional. Corporations don't have the power to coerce us.

They coerce us with forced arbitration agreements, and their police power was amply demonstrated during Katrina.

Why would you think private corporations are less likely to abuse a monopoly of violence than public police forces?

 

[Grumblenuts]

The dirty secret of capitalism -- and a new way forward

^(Excellent TED TALK by one very notable exception to the George Carlin Rule.)

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Unless you're talking about giving corporations a police force and an army, your claim is delusional.

ah...errrhum....didn't we already do that?

Goldman Sachs has yet to force me to sign anything.

yes they did....

~S~

You're lying.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Nope. Already provided the most obvious example. They say sign this (thing that forfeits your legal rights) or leave and follow through on that. No govt in sight. Dream on..

"Sign this or leave" is not force.

Of course it is where no option allows for the retention of a person's previous legal rights.
"Forced" as in "make (someone) do something against their will."

Goldman Sachs has yet to force me to sign anything.

So.. ? Who ever said this was all about you?

You're free to list all the things Goldman forced you to sign.

 

[Grumblenuts]

You're free to list all the things Goldman forced you to sign.

And you're free to GFY. No one suggested it was all about me either. Not so however for many employees and iPhone owners these days. Having to opt out of a "forced arbitration" clause for example is being "forced" to do something to retain your legal rights. Unless one happens to enjoy having to always stay on their toes and then jump through technobabble hoops to stay ahead of whatever nefarious crap Goldman Sachs type lawyers cook up next to screw a bit more out of everyone they possibly can.

 

[daveman]

Capitalists corrupt government with their money.
Corporations provide capitalists with their money.
Government regulates corporations.

If you weaken government, capitalists and their corporations become stronger.
Isn't that what you really want?

Setting aside the incorrect assumption that a weaker government means stronger corporations (corporate power depends on government power), I don't want to weaken government. I want it to have all the power it needs to do its job. The question is, what IS the job of government?

In my view government is there to maximize our freedom to create the kind of society we want, voluntarily. It's there to prevent bullies from forcing themselves on others. You, however, see the government as a tool for doing the bullying, a means of forcing your ideas on everyone else. This is why I've always seen socialism as fundamentally authoritarian. Even if it's run perfectly democratically, it still places the authority of government above all else.

EDIT: - I almost forgot to insert a silly graphic!

Setting aside the incorrect assumption that a weaker government means stronger corporations (corporate power depends on government power), I don't want to weaken government. I want it to have all the power it needs to do its job. The question is, what IS the job of government?

In the context of 2019, I would say government's job is to protect the individual from the power of private tyrannies:

Political positions of Noam Chomsky - Wikipedia

What's your opinion on the job of government?

In the context of 2019, I would say government's job is to protect the individual from the power of private tyrannies:

Exactly!!

Because if Goldman Sachs wants to force me to ………….ummm………….I can't stop them because...…….

Help me out. I can't see anything that Goldman can do to me that requires government protection.

Ditto for Exxon-Mobil, AT&T and Microsoft. Amazon.....Coke.....Walmart. Meh.

Because if Goldman Sachs wants to force me to ………….ummm………….I can't stop them because...…….

Help me out. I can't see anything that Goldman can do to me that requires government protection.

You can't see the influence Goldman Sachs wields over the economy you and millions of other individuals function within?

Fight Forced Arbitration|consumeradvocates.org

"What is forced arbitration?
In forced arbitration, a company requires a consumer or employee to submit any dispute that may arise to binding arbitration as a condition of employment or buying a product or service. The employee or consumer is required to waive their right to sue, to participate in a class action lawsuit, or to appeal. Forced arbitration is mandatory, the arbitrator’s decision is binding, and the results are not public.

"Where is forced arbitration commonly used?
Forced arbitration is being written into more and more terms of agreement and contracts, including those used for employment, insurance, home-building, car loans and leases, credit cards, retirement accounts, investment accounts, and nursing facilities, to name a few."

Can you see how power vacuums in the public sphere will be filled by private tyrannies?

Do you believe private courts and private police enhance individual liberties?

You can't see the influence Goldman Sachs wields over the economy you and millions of other individuals function within?

No, I don't see anything Goldman can do to me that requires government protection.

Why don't you explain what Goldman, Exxon, AT&T or Walmart can do to you?

Require him to work in exchange for a paycheck.

 

[Grumblenuts]

You can't see the influence Goldman Sachs wields over the economy you and millions of other individuals function within?

Fight Forced Arbitration|consumeradvocates.org

"What is forced arbitration?
In forced arbitration, a company requires a consumer or employee to submit any dispute that may arise to binding arbitration as a condition of employment or buying a product or service. The employee or consumer is required to waive their right to sue, to participate in a class action lawsuit, or to appeal. Forced arbitration is mandatory, the arbitrator’s decision is binding, and the results are not public.

"Where is forced arbitration commonly used?
Forced arbitration is being written into more and more terms of agreement and contracts, including those used for employment, insurance, home-building, car loans and leases, credit cards, retirement accounts, investment accounts, and nursing facilities, to name a few."

Can you see how power vacuums in the public sphere will be filled by private tyrannies?

Do you believe private courts and private police enhance individual liberties?

Bears repeating...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You're free to list all the things Goldman forced you to sign.

And you're free to GFY. No one suggested it was all about me either. Not so however for many employees and iPhone owners these days. Having to opt out of a "forced arbitration" clause for example is being "forced" to do something to retain your legal rights. Unless one happens to enjoy having to always stay on their toes and then jump through technobabble hoops to stay ahead of whatever nefarious crap Goldman Sachs type lawyers cook up next to screw a bit more out of everyone they possibly can.

No one suggested it was all about me either

Anyone on this thread forced to sign something by Goldman?

 

[Grumblenuts]

This thread is likely a poor sampling of America as well, but anyone with an iPhone who doesn't want forced arbitration should a legal problem arise for starters. I don't even have a cell phone, but I'm lucky being retired. Most, like it or not, have to carry a smart phone around these days for work.

Buried in the fine print for the new Apple credit card is what’s called an “arbitration provision.”

What that means is that in the event of a dispute with Apple or Goldman Sachs, the bank that actually manages the card and handles the financing, you might have forfeited your right to sue either company. Instead, Goldman Sachs or Apple can choose to resolve the problem through an arbitration process, in which a theoretically neutral judge outside of the court system decides.