Elizabeth Warren, another nieve, dangerous socialist

[Axulus]

When some right wingers proclaim that Democrats want to run the US like Venezuela, with the inevitable results, I usually dismiss it as over dramatic hyperbole. However, this lame brained idea from Elizabeth Warren, supposedly in the running for future president and leader of the Democratic party, has me questioning how hyperbolic those right wing claims really are.

Warren wants to create an Office of United States Corporations inside the Department of Commerce and require any corporation with revenue over $1 billion — only a few thousand companies, but a large share of overall employment and economic activity — to obtain a federal charter of corporate citizenship.

...

More concretely, United States Corporations would be required to allow their workers to elect 40 percent of the membership of their board of directors.

Under Senator Warren’s proposal, no business with more than $1 billion in revenue would be permitted to legally operate without permission from the federal government. The federal government would then dictate to these businesses the composition of their boards, the details of internal corporate governance, compensation practices, personnel policies, and much more. Naturally, their political activities would be restricted, too. Senator Warren’s proposal entails the wholesale expropriation of private enterprise in the United States, and nothing less. It is unconstitutional, unethical, immoral, irresponsible, and — not to put too fine a point on it — utterly bonkers.

Plus all sorts of other government controls in the proposal. Hugo Chavez would be proud. If Warren is the nominee, I will not be voting for her.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vo...th-warren-accountable-capitalism-corporations

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.na...an-nationalize-everything-woos-hard-left/amp/

 

[Worldtraveller]

I like this idea. But then, I'm all for things that actually implement democracy in more levels, and not just pretend democracy at the government.

I also think we should change the house/senate (and maybe VP) to be 50% drafted, not elected, and really get a representative government.

 

[SimpleDon]

Why do you think that this socialism? Socialism is the government taking over the means of production. This is the government dictating that the board of directors should have 40% of the board selected by the workers. That if corporations are people, they have to be good citizens. That they are responsible for more than just making a profit for the shareholders. They bear a responsibility to their customers, the workers and the society in which they operate. These are common requirements in most developed countries.

The problem with liberals like Warren isn't that they will put us on a path to socialism, it is that they try to change things too far too fast. These are not wildly inappropriate things to do, to require corporations to be responsible citizens. It is not inappropriate to require corporations to be chartered by the federal government instead of the state governments, this allows the corporations to shop the states for the lowest common denominator in corporate governance, which is Delaware right now, but South Dakota is racing them to the bottom. In effect, we have now a nationwide charter for corporations, but it is Delaware's.

Obviously, the requirement that only the billion dollar a year corporations have to be chartered by the federal government is unworkable, corporations are chartered when they are small, just starting to grow. And what happens if a large corporation drops below a billion dollars a year, do they then re-charter with a state?

 

[ZiprHead]

Weren't corporate charters required to have good citizenship clauses years ago?

 

[laughing dog]

The corporate form of ownership conveys many benefits to the firm and its owners. It is a legal construct.

I agree with Simple Don that the proposal (as written) creates a number of problems. However, there is no impediment to introducing some of those ideas into the federal corporate tax code. For example, suppose the level of corporate income taxation depends not only on the income but the proportion of its board elected by the workers?

 

[SimpleDon]

The income inequality that we are suffering right now hurts the economy. And if nothing is done to correct it will just get worse and the economy will just keep getting worse.

Wages create the majority of the demand for goods and services. The lower relative wages are, the lower demand is. If the split of the gains from productivity between wages and profits had held at 50/50 like it was in the post world war 2 period, the median household income would be over 90,000 dollars today. It is less than 60,000 dollars a year now.

What happened roughly in 1980 to produce this inequality? Neoliberalism is what caused it.

Neoliberalism is junk economics. It is based on flawed ideas, chief among which is the idea that we have or should have a free market and free trade and that we have or should have a free market for labor where wages go up or down based on the demand for labor because "the lower wages are the more workers businesses will be hired."

Neoliberals constantly blur whether these ideas are what we should be changing our economy to or if it describes the economy that we have. They tend to say that good economic results are because we have these things already and that bad economic results are not the fault of these ideas and are why we need to embrace these ideas. This is intellectually bankrupt but they get away with it because no academic economists are going to call them on it because they would lose their grants and their ability to publish in the mainstream economics journals that determine their professional advancement and their incomes.

 

[Trausti]

The income inequality that we are suffering right now hurts the economy. And if nothing is done to correct it will just get worse and the economy will just keep getting worse.

Wages create the majority of the demand for goods and services. The lower relative wages are, the lower demand is. If the split of the gains from productivity between wages and profits had held at 50/50 like it was in the post world war 2 period, the median household income would be over 90,000 dollars today. It is less than 60,000 dollars a year now.

What happened roughly in 1980 to produce this inequality? Neoliberalism is what caused it.

Neoliberalism is junk economics. It is based on flawed ideas, chief among which is the idea that we have or should have a free market and free trade and that we have or should have a free market for labor where wages go up or down based on the demand for labor because "the lower wages are the more workers businesses will be hired."

Neoliberals constantly blur whether these ideas are what we should be changing our economy to or if it describes the economy that we have. They tend to say that good economic results are because we have these things already and that bad economic results are not the fault of these ideas and are why we need to embrace these ideas. This is intellectually bankrupt but they get away with it because no academic economists are going to call them on it because they would lose their grants and their ability to publish in the mainstream economics journals that determine their professional advancement and their incomes.

A way to address income inequality is to limit the importation of cheap unskilled and skilled labor. But don't mention that.

 

[ruby sparks]

Elizabeth Warren is a Red Bitch and deserves to be sent to western Europe where she belongs. Both her and that commie bastard Sanders.

 

[whollygoats]

Elizabeth Warren is a Red Bitch and deserves to be sent to western Europe where she belongs. Both her and that commie bastard Sanders.

Sorry...You can't have our Red Bitch. We need her here.

Bernie sends his best, but he can't get away to western Europe right now. He's busy.

 

[laughing dog]

A way to address income inequality is to limit the importation of cheap unskilled and skilled labor. But don't mention that.

Creating permanent labor shortages does increase wages but also stunts economic growth.

 

[Underseer]

Why do you think that this socialism? Socialism is the government taking over the means of production. This is the government dictating that the board of directors should have 40% of the board selected by the workers. That if corporations are people, they have to be good citizens. That they are responsible for more than just making a profit for the shareholders. They bear a responsibility to their customers, the workers and the society in which they operate. These are common requirements in most developed countries.

The problem with liberals like Warren isn't that they will put us on a path to socialism, it is that they try to change things too far too fast. These are not wildly inappropriate things to do, to require corporations to be responsible citizens. It is not inappropriate to require corporations to be chartered by the federal government instead of the state governments, this allows the corporations to shop the states for the lowest common denominator in corporate governance, which is Delaware right now, but South Dakota is racing them to the bottom. In effect, we have now a nationwide charter for corporations, but it is Delaware's.

Obviously, the requirement that only the billion dollar a year corporations have to be chartered by the federal government is unworkable, corporations are chartered when they are small, just starting to grow. And what happens if a large corporation drops below a billion dollars a year, do they then re-charter with a state?

He's a conservolibertarian. To him there are only three political ideologies in the world:

• conservative extremist neofeudalism
• libertarian extremist neofeudalism (which is totally different, I swear!)
• everything else, which is all the same thing: socialism, democratic socialism, communism, fascism, etc.

So anything that doesn't involve turning most of America into obedient serfs is socialism. See how that works?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Why do you think that this socialism? Socialism is the government taking over the means of production.

True, this isn't Socialism. Socialism is "collective" ownership of the means of production. When you have "collective" control but "private" ownership you have Fascism.

 

[untermensche]

I see no evidence no less proof of naivete.

US capitalism last collapsed in 2006-8.

None of the so- called economic experts on the right saw it coming.

They don't have a clue.

The system runs despite their total ignorance.

 

[Underseer]

https://www.esquire.com/news-politi...arren-corporations-wall-street-journal-op-ed/

Huh. In part, she's bringing back the way things used to be with corporations.

It used to be that each state required corporate charters to be about more than just profit. Charters had to include things like working for the common good. The corporations pitted states against each other, by threatening to move if those laws weren't changed. So now all the states have removed those charter requirements, and corporations exist solely for profit.

Warren is just finding a way to bring some of the old ways back. No wonder all the serfs on the right are up in arms about this. What's the point of establishing a new aristocracy to rule over us if they have to start following similar rules as mere commoners?

- - - Updated - - -

I see no evidence no less proof of naivete.

US capitalism last collapsed in 2006-8.

None of the so- called economic experts on the right saw it coming.

They don't have a clue.

The system runs despite their total ignorance.

What the conservolibertarians are pushing is not capitalism at all: it's neofeudalism. if anything, their preferred economic policies are anti-capitalist.

 

[ZiprHead]

I see no evidence no less proof of naivete.

US capitalism last collapsed in 2006-8.

None of the so- called economic experts on the right saw it coming.

They don't have a clue.

The system runs despite their total ignorance.

I saw it coming and moved my retirement account to a safe fund and I'm a dumb fuck.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Wages create the majority of the demand for goods and services. The lower relative wages are, the lower demand is. If the split of the gains from productivity between wages and profits had held at 50/50 like it was in the post world war 2 period, the median household income would be over 90,000 dollars today. It is less than 60,000 dollars a year now.

You still haven't addressed the issue of where the money would come from to fund the huge amount of capital that businesses have spent in that interval.

 

[prideandfall]

Huh. In part, she's bringing back the way things used to be with corporations.

It used to be that each state required corporate charters to be about more than just profit. Charters had to include things like working for the common good. The corporations pitted states against each other, by threatening to move if those laws weren't changed. So now all the states have removed those charter requirements, and corporations exist solely for profit.

Warren is just finding a way to bring some of the old ways back. No wonder all the serfs on the right are up in arms about this. What's the point of establishing a new aristocracy to rule over us if they have to start following similar rules as mere commoners?

god damnit man, "great again" is only referring to the RACISM, SEXISM, and WHITE MALE CONTROL OF EVERYTHING of the early 20th century, not to the tax codes or corporate responsibility or infrastructure spending.

 

[untermensche]

I see no evidence no less proof of naivete.

US capitalism last collapsed in 2006-8.

None of the so- called economic experts on the right saw it coming.

They don't have a clue.

The system runs despite their total ignorance.

I saw it coming and moved my retirement account to a safe fund and I'm a dumb fuck.

Some actually saw it coming. A tiny few.

Have you read or seen 'The Big Short'?

The Republicans and Democrats saw nothing. The entire federal government saw nothing. The Wall Street "experts" saw nothing.

The TV talking heads saw nothing.

But now they know everything again.

The claims from those in the government that they understand the economy bring vomit to my mouth.