• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

“The United States Has Lost the Will and Ability to Prosecute Top Corporate Executives”

 
 
 
This was always called fascism.

The intermingling of large corporate interests with the government.

Otherwise known as the "revolving door".

It is the kind of system that leads to the Trump supporter, and potentially a much nastier version of fascism.
 
untermensche said:
This was always called fascism.

The intermingling of large corporate interests with the government.

Otherwise known as the "revolving door".

It is the kind of system that leads to the Trump supporter, and potentially a much nastier version of fascism.
Click to expand...

I dunno Hillary seems a lot more entwined with government and corporations than Trump.
 
dismal said:
untermensche said:
This was always called fascism.

The intermingling of large corporate interests with the government.

Otherwise known as the "revolving door".

It is the kind of system that leads to the Trump supporter, and potentially a much nastier version of fascism.
Click to expand...

I dunno Hillary seems a lot more entwined with government and corporations than Trump.
Click to expand...

Hillary is fascism with a unnerving smile.

And I said, "Trump supporter", not Trump.

Trump is the result of being born on third base with a huge amount of innate greed.
 
untermensche said:
dismal said:
I dunno Hillary seems a lot more entwined with government and corporations than Trump.
Click to expand...

Hillary is fascism with a unnerving smile.

And I said, "Trump supporter", not Trump.

Trump is the result of being born on third base with a huge amount of innate greed.
Click to expand...
Didn't Clinton work in corporate law in Arkansas--for corporations?
Doesn't Trump want to do away with the EPA, which has caught him for infringements in the past?
 
JonA said:
Not fascism.

Corporatocricy.
Click to expand...

Same thing.

There is no law of nature that says fascism must include concentration camps, although US jails look like imprisonment of an undesirable people to many.
 
Short of fraud or some other intentional tort (e.g. Board of Directors approves decision of CEO to go buy people from the white slavery market) it's incredibly difficult to get at the decision makers. It's based off "The Business Judgement Rule," which says that there's a rebuttable presumption that business decisions are made with due care, on an informed basis by independent and disinterested directors who make decisions in the good faith belief that the decision is in the best interest of the corporation. To rebut the presumption a shareholder must somehow show that the Board engaged in an invalid exercise of the business judgment rule.

In other words, the burden is on a plaintiff who's tools available to him/her/them consist of inspection of corporate books and records. That's called "demand." But a strategic judgment about demand must be made. One can avoid demand if they can cast a reasonable doubt that a majority of the board is not independent and/or disinterested in a transaction or by casting a reasonable about that the board has engaged in a valid exercise of the business judgment rule. The problem is, without demand, a plaintiff is not entitled to discovery. It can and has been done, but usually it fails miserably.

A corporation that's bleeding money and whose stock is in the shitter, but that gives its Board Members and officers big raises? No fucking problem because courts are loathe to question the business judgment of executives, because it isn't rational to make a decision not in the best interest of the company. Also, bad decisions are not susceptible to rebuttal. Think about that one.

Corporate waste is usually where you'll get them: corporate waste occurs when a corporation overpays for property or executive management salaries without receiving due consideration and must be something that no person of ordinary sound business judgment would find advisable.

But who gives a shit about that?

Wanna pay Michael Ovitz $138 million to work for one year and then fire him not because he's incompetent, but basically because he's such a fucking asshole?
Disney replied to that question with an emphatic "yes!" Actually, most of the money came in a severance package. Did it matter that Eisner and Ovitz were good buddies? No, because past business relationships are no indication that a director is not disinterested, not does it represent a conflict of interest. The size of the package doesn't matter either. After all, who's to question what a Board of Directors can or can't do with their money? As long as they take an adequate time to deliberate the decision and do a fair amount of investigation, they're good to go.

Insider trading should be where they get a lot of these guys. The rule, 10b-5 is pretty basic and seems to cast a wide net, but we all know how that goes.

Once in a while they catch a Bernie Madoff and make a big deal out of it. But by and large, decision makers are incredibly well insulated from the consequences of their decisions and actions.

There is a legitimate argument to be made about protecting people from bad business decisions. Business brings with it a lot of risk and to punish everyone for shitty decisions would pretty much wipe out business in a short amount of time. But... fucking come on.
 
untermensche said:
This was always called fascism.

The intermingling of large corporate interests with the government.

Otherwise known as the "revolving door".

It is the kind of system that leads to the Trump supporter, and potentially a much nastier version of fascism.
Click to expand...

You obviously didn't read the article. It seems more like the fascist Ruth Bader Ginsberg, the facist ACLU and American Bar Association, chicken shit prosecutors, and not enough staff at the DOJ to spend the enourmous amount of time required to investigate and prove the cases beyond reasonable doubt are factors that play into it.

From the article:

article said:
Exactly. There’s a sense the DOJ is completely corrupt, which is a misunderstanding. There’s the soft corruption of the revolving door, no question about that. But it’s not the only factor at play.
Click to expand...

And then untermensche expresses that same misunderstanding that the article warned against from the outset. Why am I not surprised?
 
Corporatism is not fascism. Fasicism is a type of corporatism, but the word is not used in that sense when nowadays such as when people refer to the corporatist wing of the Democratic party versus the progressive wing. Classically, Corporatism refers to a broad family of ideologies which includes fascism, but not all corporatist ideologies are fascist. The "corporation" in "corporatism" doesn't map one-to-one with the common usage of "corporation' on these boards which refers to business corporations. Instead, it's a more general sense of corporations as in "organizations of people" which maps better onto the word "interest groups" as used in the modern political parlance. So, a corporation in the sense of corporatism might include a group of business corporations, e.g. pharmaceutical interest groups, but it can also mean a group of clergymen, or an ethnic group, or labor unions. The defining feature of corporatism is that society is defined by these interest groups. The word corporatism in the modern, pejorative sense is used to mean a capitalist system where business corporations as interest groups, i.e. military-industrial complex, big pharma, big agriculture, etc. control the government. That is, the state is beholden to these groups. Fascism had a corporatist perspective in the classical sense, but in fascism business corporations are entirely beholden to the state to achieve the end-goal of autarky. In fascism, everything is beholden to state nationalist interests. So, it's really a sleight of hand when people equivocate between the two senses of the word. A modern corporatist would negotiate open trade agreements for the interest of the capitalistic class at the expense of the working class, but such a thing would be anathema to the fascist.
 
Axulus said:
You obviously didn't read the article. It seems more like the fascist Ruth Bader Ginsberg, the facist ACLU and American Bar Association, chicken shit prosecutors, and not enough staff at the DOJ to spend the enourmous amount of time required to investigate and prove the cases beyond reasonable doubt are factors that play into it.

From the article:

article said:
Exactly. There’s a sense the DOJ is completely corrupt, which is a misunderstanding. There’s the soft corruption of the revolving door, no question about that. But it’s not the only factor at play.
Click to expand...

And then untermensche expresses that same misunderstanding that the article warned against from the outset. Why am I not surprised?
Click to expand...

You merely describe some of the symptoms of fascism and then somehow claim I am wrong.

In fascism the corporate world through intermingling with the government and on it's own creates all kinds of means to carry out malfeasance.

Fascism is corporatism with a free hand.

It is a natural progression of capitalism.
 
We don't have bald corporatism.

We have state sponsored corporatism.

This used to be known as fascism.

Again, fascism can assume many faces.

But a nation that launches massive attacks of other nations, thinks it has the right to send drones into other nations, has a massive part of it's population in jail, has hundreds of military bases all over the world, has been involved in many coups overthrowing democratic governments, and has a concentration camp in Cuba that is above any law, should rightly be called what it is.

A violent fascist nightmare.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom