Current Events > "Elizabeth Warren has a plan to save capitalism"

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2
Antifar 08/15/18 3:15:36 PM #1:	https://www.vox.com/2018/8/15/17683022/elizabeth-warren-accountable-capitalism-corporations Elizabeth Warren has a big idea that challenges how the Democratic Party thinks about solving the problem of inequality. Instead of advocating for expensive new social programs like free college or health care, shes introducing a bill Wednesday, the Accountable Capitalism Act, that would redistribute trillions of dollars from rich executives and shareholders to the middle class without costing a dime. Warrens plan starts from the premise that corporations that claim the legal rights of personhood should be legally required to accept the moral obligations of personhood. Traditionally, she writes in a companion op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, corporations sought to succeed in the marketplace, but they also recognized their obligations to employees, customers and the community. In recent decades they stopped, in favor of a singular devotion to enriching shareholders. And thats what Warren wants to change. The new energy on the left is all about making government bigger and bolder, an ideal driven by a burgeoning movement toward democratic socialism. Its inspired likely 2020 Democratic contenders to draw battle lines around how far theyd go to change the role of government in American life. Warren supports expanding many of the programs in play, and shes voted to do so. But the rollout of her bill suggests that as she weighs whether to get into the presidential race, shell focus on how to prioritize workers in the American economic system while leaving businesses as the primary driver of it. Warren wants to eliminate the huge financial incentives that entice CEOs to flush cash out to shareholders rather than reinvest in businesses. She wants to curb corporations political activities. And for the biggest corporations, shes proposing a dramatic step that would ensure workers and not just shareholders get a voice on big strategic decisions. Warren hopes this will spur a return to greater corporate responsibility, and bring back some other aspects of the more egalitarian era of American capitalism post-World War II more business investment, more meaningful career ladders for workers, more financial stability, and higher pay. As much as Warrens proposal is about ending inequality, its also about saving capitalism. The conceit tying together Warrens ideas is that if corporations are going to have the legal rights of persons, they should be expected to act like decent citizens who uphold their fair share of the social contract and not act like sociopaths whose sole obligation is profitability as is currently conventional in American business thinking. 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. The charter tells company directors to consider the interests of all relevant stakeholders shareholders, but also customers, employees, and the communities in which the company operates when making decisions. That could concretely shift the outcome of some shareholder lawsuits but is aimed more broadly at shifting American business culture out of its current shareholders-first framework and back toward something more like the broad ethic of social responsibility that took hold during WWII and continued for several decades. ... More concretely, United States Corporations would be required to allow their workers to elect 40 percent of the membership of their board of directors. https://imgur.com/az1Nbk3 --- kin to all that throbs <cite>Antifar posted [p:906934337] in "Eliz... [t:76905799]...</cite> <quote>https://www.vox.com/2018/8/15/17683022/elizabeth-warren-accountable-capitalism-corporations <quote>Elizabeth Warren has a big idea that challenges how the Democratic Party thinks about solving the problem of inequality. Instead of advocating for expensive new social programs like free college or health care, shes introducing a bill Wednesday, the Accountable Capitalism Act, that would redistribute trillions of dollars from rich executives and shareholders to the middle class without costing a dime. Warrens plan starts from the premise that corporations that claim the legal rights of personhood should be legally required to accept the moral obligations of personhood. Traditionally, she writes in a companion op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, corporations sought to succeed in the marketplace, but they also recognized their obligations to employees, customers and the community. In recent decades they stopped, in favor of a singular devotion to enriching shareholders. And thats what Warren wants to change. The new energy on the left is all about making government bigger and bolder, an ideal driven by a burgeoning movement toward democratic socialism. Its inspired likely 2020 Democratic contenders to draw battle lines around how far theyd go to change the role of government in American life. Warren supports expanding many of the programs in play, and shes voted to do so. But the rollout of her bill suggests that as she weighs whether to get into the presidential race, shell focus on how to prioritize workers in the American economic system while leaving businesses as the primary driver of it. Warren wants to eliminate the huge financial incentives that entice CEOs to flush cash out to shareholders rather than reinvest in businesses. She wants to curb corporations political activities. And for the biggest corporations, shes proposing a dramatic step that would ensure workers and not just shareholders get a voice on big strategic decisions. Warren hopes this will spur a return to greater corporate responsibility, and bring back some other aspects of the more egalitarian era of American capitalism post-World War II more business investment, more meaningful career ladders for workers, more financial stability, and higher pay. As much as Warrens proposal is about ending inequality, its also about saving capitalism. The conceit tying together Warrens ideas is that if corporations are going to have the legal rights of persons, they should be expected to act like decent citizens who uphold their fair share of the social contract and not act like sociopaths whose sole obligation is profitability as is currently conventional in American business thinking. 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. The charter tells company directors to consider the interests of all relevant stakeholders shareholders, but also customers, employees, and the communities in which the company operates when making decisions. That could concretely shift the outcome of some shareholder lawsuits but is aimed more broadly at shifting American business culture out of its current shareholders-first framework and back toward something more like the broad ethic of social responsibility that took hold during WWII and continued for several decades. ... More concretely, United States Corporations would be required to allow their workers to elect 40 percent of the membership of their board of directors.</quote> https://imgur.com/az1Nbk3</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Damn_Underscore 08/15/18 3:16:21 PM #2:	Complaining about Wall Street & big business and doing nothing about it? --- Shenmue II = best game of all time Shenmue = 2nd best game of all time <cite>Damn_Underscore posted [p:906934374] in "Eliz... [t:76905799]...</cite> <quote>Complaining about Wall Street & big business and doing nothing about it?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#3	Post #3 was unavailable or deleted.
StucklnMyPants 08/15/18 3:18:07 PM #4:	Antifar posted... https://imgur.com/az1Nbk3 --- Who looks outside, dreams; who looks inside, awakes. <cite>StucklnMyPants posted [p:906934466] in "Eliz... [t:76905799]...</cite> <quote><cite>Antifar posted...</cite> <quote>https://imgur.com/az1Nbk3</quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FLUFFYGERM 08/15/18 3:19:34 PM #5:	Sounds good to me imo --- Do good. Eat communists. <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:906934553] in "Eliz... [t:76905799]...</cite> <quote>Sounds good to me imo</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
The Trent 08/15/18 3:21:36 PM #6:	Antifar posted... Warren wants "a lot of things that i don't want/care about" is how that sentence ends --- i swear to God most of y'all cats just don't know The Trent you barely know yourself so i guess most of y'all should be offended <cite>The Trent posted [p:906934667] in "Eliz... [t:76905799]...</cite> <quote><cite>Antifar posted...</cite> <quote>Warren wants</quote> "a lot of things that i don't want/care about" is how that sentence ends</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Damn_Underscore 08/15/18 3:22:19 PM #7:	The article is really vague. It says she has some ideas and she introduced a bill "that would redistribute trillions of dollars to the middle class", but what exactly does the bill do? --- Shenmue II = best game of all time Shenmue = 2nd best game of all time <cite>Damn_Underscore posted [p:906934711] in "Eliz... [t:76905799]...</cite> <quote>The article is really vague. It says she has some ideas and she introduced a bill "that would redistribute trillions of dollars to the middle class", but what exactly does the bill do?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
GreatEvilEmpire 08/15/18 3:22:25 PM #8:	Personhood? What's next, Google for President? Fake Pocahontas need to go away. --- Sig under construction! <cite>GreatEvilEmpire posted [p:906934713] in "Eliz... [t:76905799]...</cite> <quote>Personhood? What's next, Google for President? Fake Pocahontas need to go away.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Questionmarktarius 08/15/18 3:22:58 PM #9:	I'm going to need to see the text of the bill before I can even start to have any sort of opinion. Warrens plan starts from the premise that corporations that claim the legal rights of personhood should be legally required to accept the moral obligations of personhood. What does that even mean? A new charter would remove that crutch, and leave executives accountable as human beings for the rights and wrongs of their own decisions. Okay, that could get interesting. <cite>Questionmarktarius posted [p:906934748] in "Eliz... [t:76905799]...</cite> <quote>I'm going to need to see the text of the bill before I can even start to have any sort of opinion. <quote>Warrens plan starts from the premise that corporations that claim the legal rights of personhood should be legally required to accept the moral obligations of personhood. </quote> What does that even mean? <quote>A new charter would remove that crutch, and leave executives accountable as human beings for the rights and wrongs of their own decisions.</quote> Okay, that could get interesting.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
A_Good_Boy 08/15/18 3:23:11 PM #10:	FLUFFYGERM posted... Sounds good to me imo record scratch --- Who is? I am! <cite>A_Good_Boy posted [p:906934764] in "Eliz... [t:76905799]...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote>Sounds good to me imo</quote> record scratch</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
AlephZero 08/15/18 3:23:13 PM #11:	Antifar posted... shes introducing a bill Wednesday, the Accountable Capitalism Act, that would redistribute trillions of dollars from rich executives and shareholders to the middle class literally the democratic party in 2018 --- "There is value in segregation." - qwertyman2002 01001100 01010101 01000101 00100000 00110100 00110000 00110010 <cite>AlephZero posted [p:906934768] in "Eliz... [t:76905799]...</cite> <quote><cite>Antifar posted...</cite> <quote>shes introducing a bill Wednesday, the Accountable Capitalism Act, that would redistribute trillions of dollars from rich executives and shareholders to the middle class </quote> literally the democratic party in 2018</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Antifar 08/15/18 3:24:53 PM #12:	Damn_Underscore posted... what exactly does the bill do? 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. The charter tells company directors to consider the interests of all relevant stakeholders shareholders, but also customers, employees, and the communities in which the company operates when making decisions. That could concretely shift the outcome of some shareholder lawsuits but is aimed more broadly at shifting American business culture out of its current shareholders-first framework and back toward something more like the broad ethic of social responsibility that took hold during WWII and continued for several decades. More concretely, United States Corporations would be required to allow their workers to elect 40 percent of the membership of their board of directors. Warren also tacks on a couple of more modest ideas. One is to limit corporate executives ability to sell shares of stock that 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. The aim is to disincentivize stock-based compensation in general as well as the use of share buybacks as a tactic for executives to maximize their own pay. The other proposal is to require corporate political activity to be authorized specifically by both 75 percent of shareholders and 75 percent of board members (many of whom would be worker representatives under the full bill), to ensure that corporate political activity truly represents a consensus among stakeholders, rather than C-suite class solidarity. --- kin to all that throbs <cite>Antifar posted [p:906934870] in "Eliz... [t:76905799]...</cite> <quote><cite>Damn_Underscore posted...</cite> <quote>what exactly does the bill do?</quote> <quote>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. The charter tells company directors to consider the interests of all relevant stakeholders shareholders, but also customers, employees, and the communities in which the company operates when making decisions. That could concretely shift the outcome of some shareholder lawsuits but is aimed more broadly at shifting American business culture out of its current shareholders-first framework and back toward something more like the broad ethic of social responsibility that took hold during WWII and continued for several decades. More concretely, United States Corporations would be required to allow their workers to elect 40 percent of the membership of their board of directors. Warren also tacks on a couple of more modest ideas. One is to limit corporate executives ability to sell shares of stock that 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. The aim is to disincentivize stock-based compensation in general as well as the use of share buybacks as a tactic for executives to maximize their own pay. The other proposal is to require corporate political activity to be authorized specifically by both 75 percent of shareholders and 75 percent of board members (many of whom would be worker representatives under the full bill), to ensure that corporate political activity truly represents a consensus among stakeholders, rather than C-suite class solidarity.</quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Damn_Underscore 08/15/18 3:28:22 PM #13:	Questionmarktarius posted... A new charter would remove that crutch, and leave executives accountable as human beings for the rights and wrongs of their own decisions. Okay, that could get interesting. What does this mean though? I mean CEOs are already accountable as human beings and as representatives of their companies. Think of people like Steve Jobs, Michael Eisner, and Ellen Pao. --- Shenmue II = best game of all time Shenmue = 2nd best game of all time <cite>Damn_Underscore posted [p:906935062] in "Eliz... [t:76905799]...</cite> <quote><cite>Questionmarktarius posted...</cite> <quote><quote>A new charter would remove that crutch, and leave executives accountable as human beings for the rights and wrongs of their own decisions.</quote> Okay, that could get interesting.</quote> What does this mean though? I mean CEOs are already accountable as human beings and as representatives of their companies. Think of people like Steve Jobs, Michael Eisner, and Ellen Pao.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SK8T3R215 08/15/18 3:29:03 PM #14:	Antifar posted... One is to limit corporate executives ability to sell shares of stock that 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. lol k --- New York Knicks, New York Jets, New York Yankees. <cite>SK8T3R215 posted [p:906935099] in "Eliz... [t:76905799]...</cite> <quote><cite>Antifar posted...</cite> <quote>One is to limit corporate executives ability to sell shares of stock that 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.</quote> lol k</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FLUFFYGERM 08/15/18 3:29:07 PM #15:	Damn_Underscore posted... Questionmarktarius posted... A new charter would remove that crutch, and leave executives accountable as human beings for the rights and wrongs of their own decisions. Okay, that could get interesting. What does this mean though? I mean CEOs are already accountable as human beings and as representatives of their companies. Think of people like Steve Jobs, Michael Eisner, and Ellen Pao. No one at Volkswagen was publicly executed for the emissions scandal. --- Do good. Eat communists. <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:906935104] in "Eliz... [t:76905799]...</cite> <quote><cite>Damn_Underscore posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Questionmarktarius posted...</cite> <quote><quote>A new charter would remove that crutch, and leave executives accountable as human beings for the rights and wrongs of their own decisions.</quote> Okay, that could get interesting.</quote> What does this mean though? I mean CEOs are already accountable as human beings and as representatives of their companies. Think of people like Steve Jobs, Michael Eisner, and Ellen Pao.</quote> No one at Volkswagen was publicly executed for the emissions scandal.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FLUFFYGERM 08/15/18 3:29:53 PM #16:	SK8T3R215 posted... Antifar posted... One is to limit corporate executives ability to sell shares of stock that 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. lol k What's wrong with that? A buyback is supposed to be a sign of confidence in your company's trajectory. So they should be held responsible for issuing a buyback, just in case they're doing stock buybacks simply to raise the stock price in order to sell their own shares at the new high. --- Do good. Eat communists. <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:906935136] in "Eliz... [t:76905799]...</cite> <quote><cite>SK8T3R215 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Antifar posted...</cite> <quote>One is to limit corporate executives ability to sell shares of stock that 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.</quote> lol k</quote> What's wrong with that? A buyback is supposed to be a sign of confidence in your company's trajectory. So they should be held responsible for issuing a buyback, just in case they're doing stock buybacks simply to raise the stock price in order to sell their own shares at the new high.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
AlephZero 08/15/18 3:30:08 PM #17:	Antifar posted... Warren also tacks on a couple of more modest ideas. One is to limit corporate executives ability to sell shares of stock that 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. The aim is to disincentivize stock-based compensation in general as well as the use of share buybacks as a tactic for executives to maximize their own pay. Democrats are a meme. In the 90s Democrats were salty that executives were paid a huge salary regardless of how they performed so Clinton signed a package of laws that incentivized stock-based compensation. Now they want to disincentivize stock-based compensation. --- "There is value in segregation." - qwertyman2002 01001100 01010101 01000101 00100000 00110100 00110000 00110010 <cite>AlephZero posted [p:906935152] in "Eliz... [t:76905799]...</cite> <quote><cite>Antifar posted...</cite> <quote>Warren also tacks on a couple of more modest ideas. One is to limit corporate executives ability to sell shares of stock that 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. The aim is to disincentivize stock-based compensation in general as well as the use of share buybacks as a tactic for executives to maximize their own pay. </quote> Democrats are a meme. In the 90s Democrats were salty that executives were paid a huge salary regardless of how they performed so Clinton signed a package of laws that incentivized stock-based compensation. Now they want to disincentivize stock-based compensation.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Questionmarktarius 08/15/18 3:31:15 PM #18:	Damn_Underscore posted... Questionmarktarius posted... A new charter would remove that crutch, and leave executives accountable as human beings for the rights and wrongs of their own decisions. Okay, that could get interesting. What does this mean though? I mean CEOs are already accountable as human beings and as representatives of their companies. Think of people like Steve Jobs, Michael Eisner, and Ellen Pao. I dunno. Maybe actual prison time instead of some bigass fine that just gets passed on as a "cost"? <cite>Questionmarktarius posted [p:906935218] in "Eliz... [t:76905799]...</cite> <quote><cite>Damn_Underscore posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Questionmarktarius posted...</cite> <quote><quote>A new charter would remove that crutch, and leave executives accountable as human beings for the rights and wrongs of their own decisions.</quote> Okay, that could get interesting.</quote> What does this mean though? I mean CEOs are already accountable as human beings and as representatives of their companies. Think of people like Steve Jobs, Michael Eisner, and Ellen Pao.</quote> I dunno. Maybe actual prison time instead of some bigass fine that just gets passed on as a "cost"?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Tyranthraxus 08/15/18 3:31:43 PM #19:	This bill has no chance of passing, but I support it regardless as if it were to pass it would mass drive investors away from >$1bn companies and investing in smaller (a few hundred million) companies instead. This is by far a better way to grow the economy as you help elevate the small guy into larger competitors. The >$1bn guys don't really need investors anymore at this point. Those are just glorified savings accounts with a slightly higher interest rate. --- It says right here in Matthew 16:4 "Jesus doth not need a giant Mecha." https://imgur.com/dQgC4kv <cite>Tyranthraxus posted [p:906935244] in "Eliz... [t:76905799]...</cite> <quote>This bill has no chance of passing, but I support it regardless as if it were to pass it would mass drive investors away from >$1bn companies and investing in smaller (a few hundred million) companies instead. This is by far a better way to grow the economy as you help elevate the small guy into larger competitors. The >$1bn guys don't really need investors anymore at this point. Those are just glorified savings accounts with a slightly higher interest rate.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FLUFFYGERM 08/15/18 3:32:31 PM #20:	AlephZero posted... Antifar posted... Warren also tacks on a couple of more modest ideas. One is to limit corporate executives ability to sell shares of stock that 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. The aim is to disincentivize stock-based compensation in general as well as the use of share buybacks as a tactic for executives to maximize their own pay. Democrats are a meme. In the 90s Democrats were salty that executives were paid a huge salary regardless of how they performed so Clinton signed a package of laws that incentivized stock-based compensation. Now they want to disincentivize stock-based compensation. wasn't it also democrats who were fear mongering about paper bags and saying we should use plastic bags? lol --- Do good. Eat communists. <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:906935291] in "Eliz... [t:76905799]...</cite> <quote><cite>AlephZero posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Antifar posted...</cite> <quote>Warren also tacks on a couple of more modest ideas. One is to limit corporate executives ability to sell shares of stock that 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. The aim is to disincentivize stock-based compensation in general as well as the use of share buybacks as a tactic for executives to maximize their own pay. </quote> Democrats are a meme. In the 90s Democrats were salty that executives were paid a huge salary regardless of how they performed so Clinton signed a package of laws that incentivized stock-based compensation. Now they want to disincentivize stock-based compensation.</quote> wasn't it also democrats who were fear mongering about paper bags and saying we should use plastic bags? lol</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SK8T3R215 08/15/18 3:32:40 PM #21:	FLUFFYGERM posted... SK8T3R215 posted... Antifar posted... One is to limit corporate executives ability to sell shares of stock that 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. lol k What's wrong with that? A buyback is supposed to be a sign of confidence in your company's trajectory. So they should be held responsible for issuing a buyback, just in case they're doing stock buybacks simply to raise the stock price in order to sell their own shares at the new high. "Hey I have to sell my holdings in the Company for tax reasons/portfolio diversification/to make a purchase. Oh wait we did a small buyback a year ago so I can't sell any of my holdings now." Share grants usually have lockup periods already and this would just make executives want more cash instead which would reduce their pay being tied to Company performance. --- New York Knicks, New York Jets, New York Yankees. <cite>SK8T3R215 posted [p:906935302] in "Eliz... [t:76905799]...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote><cite>SK8T3R215 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Antifar posted...</cite> <quote>One is to limit corporate executives ability to sell shares of stock that 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.</quote> lol k</quote> What's wrong with that? A buyback is supposed to be a sign of confidence in your company's trajectory. So they should be held responsible for issuing a buyback, just in case they're doing stock buybacks simply to raise the stock price in order to sell their own shares at the new high.</quote> "Hey I have to sell my holdings in the Company for tax reasons/portfolio diversification/to make a purchase. Oh wait we did a small buyback a year ago so I can't sell any of my holdings now." Share grants usually have lockup periods already and this would just make executives want more cash instead which would reduce their pay being tied to Company performance.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FLUFFYGERM 08/15/18 3:33:13 PM #22:	SK8T3R215 posted... FLUFFYGERM posted... SK8T3R215 posted... Antifar posted... One is to limit corporate executives ability to sell shares of stock that 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. lol k What's wrong with that? A buyback is supposed to be a sign of confidence in your company's trajectory. So they should be held responsible for issuing a buyback, just in case they're doing stock buybacks simply to raise the stock price in order to sell their own shares at the new high. "Hey I have to sell my holdings in the Company for tax reasons/portfolio diversification/to make a purchase. Oh wait we did a small buyback a year ago so I can't sell any of my holdings now." Share grants usually have lockup periods already and this would just make executives want more cash instead which would reduce their pay being tied to Company performance. You would still be able to sell holdings that you held prior to the buyback. --- Do good. Eat communists. <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:906935339] in "Eliz... [t:76905799]...</cite> <quote><cite>SK8T3R215 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote><cite>SK8T3R215 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Antifar posted...</cite> <quote>One is to limit corporate executives ability to sell shares of stock that 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.</quote> lol k</quote> What's wrong with that? A buyback is supposed to be a sign of confidence in your company's trajectory. So they should be held responsible for issuing a buyback, just in case they're doing stock buybacks simply to raise the stock price in order to sell their own shares at the new high.</quote> "Hey I have to sell my holdings in the Company for tax reasons/portfolio diversification/to make a purchase. Oh wait we did a small buyback a year ago so I can't sell any of my holdings now." Share grants usually have lockup periods already and this would just make executives want more cash instead which would reduce their pay being tied to Company performance.</quote> You would still be able to sell holdings that you held prior to the buyback.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Antifar 08/15/18 3:34:42 PM #23:	There's a bit more detail here as to what this would actually do https://newrepublic.com/article/150695/cure-corporate-americas-selfishness A federal corporate charter, required for all companies with over $1 billion in annual revenue, would be granted through a new Office of United States Corporations in the Commerce Department. The charter could be revoked if corporations didnt follow its rules, including engaging in repeated and egregious illegal conduct. Shareholders could also sue companies for charter violations. --- kin to all that throbs <cite>Antifar posted [p:906935412] in "Eliz... [t:76905799]...</cite> <quote>There's a bit more detail here as to what this would actually do https://newrepublic.com/article/150695/cure-corporate-americas-selfishness <quote>A federal corporate charter, required for all companies with over $1 billion in annual revenue, would be granted through a new Office of United States Corporations in the Commerce Department. The charter could be revoked if corporations didnt follow its rules, including engaging in repeated and egregious illegal conduct. Shareholders could also sue companies for charter violations.</quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Damn_Underscore 08/15/18 3:35:30 PM #24:	Antifar posted... Damn_Underscore posted... what exactly does the bill do? 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. The charter tells company directors to consider the interests of all relevant stakeholders shareholders, but also customers, employees, and the communities in which the company operates when making decisions. That could concretely shift the outcome of some shareholder lawsuits but is aimed more broadly at shifting American business culture out of its current shareholders-first framework and back toward something more like the broad ethic of social responsibility that took hold during WWII and continued for several decades. More concretely, United States Corporations would be required to allow their workers to elect 40 percent of the membership of their board of directors. Warren also tacks on a couple of more modest ideas. One is to limit corporate executives ability to sell shares of stock that 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. The aim is to disincentivize stock-based compensation in general as well as the use of share buybacks as a tactic for executives to maximize their own pay. The other proposal is to require corporate political activity to be authorized specifically by both 75 percent of shareholders and 75 percent of board members (many of whom would be worker representatives under the full bill), to ensure that corporate political activity truly represents a consensus among stakeholders, rather than C-suite class solidarity. The charter thing is totally vague. The only thing that I think would have any effect is 40% of the board of directors being elected by employees. Having to wait to sell company stock wouldn't have much effect, and is the last paragraph saying that someone who holds one share has the same say as someone who holds hundreds or thousands or millions of shares? That doesn't even sound fair. I get the idea of it, but I own some stock (nothing substantial) and I rarely vote in shareholders' votes because I don't feel like it. --- Shenmue II = best game of all time Shenmue = 2nd best game of all time <cite>Damn_Underscore posted [p:906935457] in "Eliz... [t:76905799]...</cite> <quote><cite>Antifar posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Damn_Underscore posted...</cite> <quote>what exactly does the bill do?</quote> <quote>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. The charter tells company directors to consider the interests of all relevant stakeholders shareholders, but also customers, employees, and the communities in which the company operates when making decisions. That could concretely shift the outcome of some shareholder lawsuits but is aimed more broadly at shifting American business culture out of its current shareholders-first framework and back toward something more like the broad ethic of social responsibility that took hold during WWII and continued for several decades. More concretely, United States Corporations would be required to allow their workers to elect 40 percent of the membership of their board of directors. Warren also tacks on a couple of more modest ideas. One is to limit corporate executives ability to sell shares of stock that 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. The aim is to disincentivize stock-based compensation in general as well as the use of share buybacks as a tactic for executives to maximize their own pay. The other proposal is to require corporate political activity to be authorized specifically by both 75 percent of shareholders and 75 percent of board members (many of whom would be worker representatives under the full bill), to ensure that corporate political activity truly represents a consensus among stakeholders, rather than C-suite class solidarity.</quote></quote> The charter thing is totally vague. The only thing that I think would have any effect is 40% of the board of directors being elected by employees. Having to wait to sell company stock wouldn't have much effect, and is the last paragraph saying that someone who holds one share has the same say as someone who holds hundreds or thousands or millions of shares? That doesn't even sound fair. I get the idea of it, but I own some stock (nothing substantial) and I rarely vote in shareholders' votes because I don't feel like it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
AlephZero 08/15/18 3:35:34 PM #25:	Why don't Democrats come out and say that they want a "maximum wage" and anyone with total assets over a certain dollar value should be forced to redistribute it. --- "There is value in segregation." - qwertyman2002 01001100 01010101 01000101 00100000 00110100 00110000 00110010 <cite>AlephZero posted [p:906935463] in "Eliz... [t:76905799]...</cite> <quote>Why don't Democrats come out and say that they want a "maximum wage" and anyone with total assets over a certain dollar value should be forced to redistribute it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ThanksUglyGod 08/15/18 3:36:14 PM #26:	This makes a lot of sense, so of course it won't go anywhere. Still, good on her for bringing it up at least. <cite>ThanksUglyGod posted [p:906935498] in "Eliz... [t:76905799]...</cite> <quote>This makes a lot of sense, so of course it won't go anywhere. Still, good on her for bringing it up at least.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FLUFFYGERM 08/15/18 3:36:17 PM #27:	AlephZero posted... Why don't Democrats come out and say that they want a "maximum wage" and anyone with total assets over a certain dollar value should be forced to redistribute it. I don't think this is trying to create anything like a maximum wage... --- Do good. Eat communists. <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:906935502] in "Eliz... [t:76905799]...</cite> <quote><cite>AlephZero posted...</cite> <quote>Why don't Democrats come out and say that they want a "maximum wage" and anyone with total assets over a certain dollar value should be forced to redistribute it.</quote> I don't think this is trying to create anything like a maximum wage...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Tyranthraxus 08/15/18 3:37:30 PM #28:	AlephZero posted... Why don't Democrats come out and say that they want a "maximum wage" and anyone with total assets over a certain dollar value should be forced to redistribute it. because most money from the 1% isn't gained through wages so it's pointless to limit wages like that. That's like banning howitzer cannons and saying you've solved gun violence. --- It says right here in Matthew 16:4 "Jesus doth not need a giant Mecha." https://imgur.com/dQgC4kv <cite>Tyranthraxus posted [p:906935573] in "Eliz... [t:76905799]...</cite> <quote><cite>AlephZero posted...</cite> <quote>Why don't Democrats come out and say that they want a "maximum wage" and anyone with total assets over a certain dollar value should be forced to redistribute it.</quote> because most money from the 1% isn't gained through wages so it's pointless to limit wages like that. That's like banning howitzer cannons and saying you've solved gun violence.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SK8T3R215 08/15/18 3:40:37 PM #29:	FLUFFYGERM posted... SK8T3R215 posted... FLUFFYGERM posted... SK8T3R215 posted... Antifar posted... One is to limit corporate executives ability to sell shares of stock that 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. lol k What's wrong with that? A buyback is supposed to be a sign of confidence in your company's trajectory. So they should be held responsible for issuing a buyback, just in case they're doing stock buybacks simply to raise the stock price in order to sell their own shares at the new high. "Hey I have to sell my holdings in the Company for tax reasons/portfolio diversification/to make a purchase. Oh wait we did a small buyback a year ago so I can't sell any of my holdings now." Share grants usually have lockup periods already and this would just make executives want more cash instead which would reduce their pay being tied to Company performance. You would still be able to sell holdings that you held prior to the buyback. I don't see why they should just have an arbitrary lockup time period for stock payments, why can't a Company allow for a portion of it to vest over a period instead? How would they pay taxes if they get stock but can't liquidate any portion of it? Companies are already paying executives more stock than cash to align their interests with shareholders, I don't see how this is going to help more and will instead push them to want more cash instead. --- New York Knicks, New York Jets, New York Yankees. <cite>SK8T3R215 posted [p:906935732] in "Eliz... [t:76905799]...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote><cite>SK8T3R215 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote><cite>SK8T3R215 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Antifar posted...</cite> <quote>One is to limit corporate executives ability to sell shares of stock that 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.</quote> lol k</quote> What's wrong with that? A buyback is supposed to be a sign of confidence in your company's trajectory. So they should be held responsible for issuing a buyback, just in case they're doing stock buybacks simply to raise the stock price in order to sell their own shares at the new high.</quote> "Hey I have to sell my holdings in the Company for tax reasons/portfolio diversification/to make a purchase. Oh wait we did a small buyback a year ago so I can't sell any of my holdings now." Share grants usually have lockup periods already and this would just make executives want more cash instead which would reduce their pay being tied to Company performance.</quote> You would still be able to sell holdings that you held prior to the buyback.</quote> I don't see why they should just have an arbitrary lockup time period for stock payments, why can't a Company allow for a portion of it to vest over a period instead? How would they pay taxes if they get stock but can't liquidate any portion of it? Companies are already paying executives more stock than cash to align their interests with shareholders, I don't see how this is going to help more and will instead push them to want more cash instead.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Questionmarktarius 08/15/18 3:40:46 PM #30:	The linked Friedman article is great: http://doc.cat-v.org/economics/milton_friedman/business_social_responsibility Antifar posted... A federal corporate charter, required for all companies with over $1 billion in annual revenue, would be granted through a new Office of United States Corporations in the Commerce Department. Soon: management companies worth exactly $999,999,999.99, managing several nigh-identical companies also worth exactly $999,999,999.99. Every corporation is going to split itself apart when it gets close to a billion, and those spinoffs will mysteriously have suspiciously overlapping boards of directors. Hell, that may even work out great. <cite>Questionmarktarius posted [p:906935739] in "Eliz... [t:76905799]...</cite> <quote>The linked Friedman article is great: http://doc.cat-v.org/economics/milton_friedman/business_social_responsibility <cite>Antifar posted...</cite> <quote>A federal corporate charter, required for all companies with over $1 billion in annual revenue, would be granted through a new Office of United States Corporations in the Commerce Department. </quote> Soon: management companies worth exactly $999,999,999.99, managing several nigh-identical companies also worth exactly $999,999,999.99. Every corporation is going to split itself apart when it gets close to a billion, and those spinoffs will mysteriously have suspiciously overlapping boards of directors. Hell, that may even work out great.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Cosmic_Diabetic 08/15/18 3:42:14 PM #31:	Elizabeth Warren: YOU GUYS! WALL STREET!!! The World: Yes, ....and? Elizabeth Warren: And that's how I saved America. --- Others find humanity by looking in their own hearts. Only lost souls need to search for it outside themselves." <cite>Cosmic_Diabetic posted [p:906935813] in "Eliz... [t:76905799]...</cite> <quote>Elizabeth Warren: YOU GUYS! WALL STREET!!! The World: Yes, ....and? Elizabeth Warren: And that's how I saved America. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Antifar 08/15/18 3:42:44 PM #33:	Damn_Underscore posted... The charter thing is totally vague. That's correct! --- kin to all that throbs <cite>Antifar posted [p:906935855] in "Eliz... [t:76905799]...</cite> <quote><cite>Damn_Underscore posted...</cite> <quote>The charter thing is totally vague.</quote> That's correct!</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Antifar 08/16/18 9:15:05 AM #34:	This is already being framed as "nationalizing everything" on the right, which, lol https://twitter.com/ZackFinkNews/status/1029868663019581440 --- kin to all that throbs <cite>Antifar posted [p:906977651] in "Eliz... [t:76905799]...</cite> <quote>This is already being framed as "nationalizing everything" on the right, which, lol https://twitter.com/ZackFinkNews/status/1029868663019581440</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
HypnoCoosh 08/16/18 9:17:36 AM #35:	--- We make men without chests and expect from them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. - C.S. Lewis <cite>HypnoCoosh posted [p:906977727] in "Eliz... [t:76905799]...</cite> <quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
KhanJohnny 08/16/18 9:25:34 AM #36:	0Questionmarktarius posted... Damn_Underscore posted... Questionmarktarius posted... A new charter would remove that crutch, and leave executives accountable as human beings for the rights and wrongs of their own decisions. Okay, that could get interesting. What does this mean though? I mean CEOs are already accountable as human beings and as representatives of their companies. Think of people like Steve Jobs, Michael Eisner, and Ellen Pao. I dunno. Maybe actual prison time instead of some bigass fine that just gets passed on as a "cost"? You can't throw people in jail for making poor business decisions, but for violating the law. <cite>KhanJohnny posted [p:906978001] in "Eliz... [t:76905799]...</cite> <quote>0<cite>Questionmarktarius posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Damn_Underscore posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Questionmarktarius posted...</cite> <quote><quote>A new charter would remove that crutch, and leave executives accountable as human beings for the rights and wrongs of their own decisions.</quote> Okay, that could get interesting.</quote> What does this mean though? I mean CEOs are already accountable as human beings and as representatives of their companies. Think of people like Steve Jobs, Michael Eisner, and Ellen Pao.</quote> I dunno. Maybe actual prison time instead of some bigass fine that just gets passed on as a "cost"?</quote> You can't throw people in jail for making poor business decisions, but for violating the law.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
King_Hellebuyck 08/16/18 9:30:16 AM #37:	This is interesting, good to see Warren focusing on workers again --- All Hail King Connor! Official Connor Hellebuyck fanboy <cite>King_Hellebuyck posted [p:906978141] in "Eliz... [t:76905799]...</cite> <quote>This is interesting, good to see Warren focusing on workers again</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
King_Hellebuyck 08/16/18 9:31:17 AM #38:	Antifar posted... This is already being framed as "nationalizing everything" on the right, which, lol https://twitter.com/ZackFinkNews/status/1029868663019581440 ...wrong link? --- All Hail King Connor! Official Connor Hellebuyck fanboy <cite>King_Hellebuyck posted [p:906978187] in "Eliz... [t:76905799]...</cite> <quote><cite>Antifar posted...</cite> <quote>This is already being framed as "nationalizing everything" on the right, which, lol https://twitter.com/ZackFinkNews/status/1029868663019581440</quote> ...wrong link?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Balrog0 08/16/18 9:31:52 AM #39:	yeah I knew this would earn her the enmity of socialists --- But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. <cite>Balrog0 posted [p:906978202] in "Eliz... [t:76905799]...</cite> <quote>yeah I knew this would earn her the enmity of socialists</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Coffeebeanz 08/16/18 9:33:29 AM #40:	Vox lol --- Physician [Internal Medicine] <cite>Coffeebeanz posted [p:906978265] in "Eliz... [t:76905799]...</cite> <quote>Vox lol</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Romes187 08/16/18 9:38:45 AM #41:	If we don't like how a company does business, let's just not buy stuff from them :) <cite>Romes187 posted [p:906978437] in "Eliz... [t:76905799]...</cite> <quote>If we don't like how a company does business, let's just not buy stuff from them :)</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Antifar 08/16/18 9:39:02 AM #42:	King_Hellebuyck posted... Antifar posted... This is already being framed as "nationalizing everything" on the right, which, lol https://twitter.com/ZackFinkNews/status/1029868663019581440 ...wrong link? Whoops, sorry about that: https://twitter.com/zachdcarter/status/1030062637361586176 --- kin to all that throbs <cite>Antifar posted [p:906978455] in "Eliz... [t:76905799]...</cite> <quote><cite>King_Hellebuyck posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Antifar posted...</cite> <quote>This is already being framed as "nationalizing everything" on the right, which, lol https://twitter.com/ZackFinkNews/status/1029868663019581440</quote> ...wrong link?</quote> Whoops, sorry about that: https://twitter.com/zachdcarter/status/1030062637361586176</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
MangaFan462 08/16/18 9:39:22 AM #43:	ACA type 2! Lmao, 0.0 Disaster --- https://i.redd.it/zwfbqetu2b8y.jpg / https://cdn.awwni.me/120ze.png / https://cdn.awwni.me/120w7.jpg https://imgur.com/ft0Sl2D /// MangaFan462 <cite>MangaFan462 posted [p:906978471] in "Eliz... [t:76905799]...</cite> <quote>ACA type 2! Lmao, 0.0 Disaster</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Alphamon 08/16/18 9:41:32 AM #44:	Antifar posted... King_Hellebuyck posted... Antifar posted... This is already being framed as "nationalizing everything" on the right, which, lol https://twitter.com/ZackFinkNews/status/1029868663019581440 ...wrong link? Whoops, sorry about that: https://twitter.com/zachdcarter/status/1030062637361586176 ah yes. the man who wants to hang women who have had abortions lol. and thats a never trumper. holy shit all republicans are radicals <cite>Alphamon posted [p:906978551] in "Eliz... [t:76905799]...</cite> <quote><cite>Antifar posted...</cite> <quote><cite>King_Hellebuyck posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Antifar posted...</cite> <quote>This is already being framed as "nationalizing everything" on the right, which, lol https://twitter.com/ZackFinkNews/status/1029868663019581440</quote> ...wrong link?</quote> Whoops, sorry about that: https://twitter.com/zachdcarter/status/1030062637361586176</quote> ah yes. the man who wants to hang women who have had abortions lol. and thats a never trumper. holy shit all republicans are radicals</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
King_Hellebuyck 08/16/18 9:41:33 AM #45:	Antifar posted... King_Hellebuyck posted... Antifar posted... This is already being framed as "nationalizing everything" on the right, which, lol https://twitter.com/ZackFinkNews/status/1029868663019581440 ...wrong link? Whoops, sorry about that: https://twitter.com/zachdcarter/status/1030062637361586176 Holy shit @ the smugness of that idiot --- All Hail King Connor! Official Connor Hellebuyck fanboy <cite>King_Hellebuyck posted [p:906978552] in "Eliz... [t:76905799]...</cite> <quote><cite>Antifar posted...</cite> <quote><cite>King_Hellebuyck posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Antifar posted...</cite> <quote>This is already being framed as "nationalizing everything" on the right, which, lol https://twitter.com/ZackFinkNews/status/1029868663019581440</quote> ...wrong link?</quote> Whoops, sorry about that: https://twitter.com/zachdcarter/status/1030062637361586176</quote> Holy shit @ the smugness of that idiot</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Lorcus 08/16/18 9:45:34 AM #46:	Man that plan is a plan <cite>Lorcus posted [p:906978715] in "Eliz... [t:76905799]...</cite> <quote>Man that plan is a plan</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Space_Man 08/16/18 9:46:31 AM #47:	wait, so this thing is basically saying that if companies want to make decision, then everyone has to vote on it? What if it turns out that everyone is evil and greedy anyway? Like, what if it just makes things worse.. --- There sure are a lot of different mes just like you have a lot of different yous! I'm going outside to play now I hope all the different yous have fun too. Bye! <cite>Space_Man posted [p:906978754] in "Eliz... [t:76905799]...</cite> <quote>wait, so this thing is basically saying that if companies want to make decision, then everyone has to vote on it? What if it turns out that everyone is evil and greedy anyway? Like, what if it just makes things worse..</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Coffeebeanz 08/16/18 9:46:43 AM #48:	Elizabeth Warren is the ideal Democrat. Says everything you want to hear. Gets literally none of it accomplished. --- Physician [Internal Medicine] <cite>Coffeebeanz posted [p:906978761] in "Eliz... [t:76905799]...</cite> <quote>Elizabeth Warren is the ideal Democrat. Says everything you want to hear. Gets literally none of it accomplished.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Anarchy_Juiblex 08/16/18 9:53:14 AM #49:	Sounds like vague platitudes. Stuff like this requires specifics before I would consider it. I absolutely support holding corporations more accountable. The idea that they solely have a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders is ridiculous. --- "Tolerance of intolerance is cowardice." ~ Ayaan Hirsi Ali <cite>Anarchy_Juiblex posted [p:906979006] in "Eliz... [t:76905799]...</cite> <quote>Sounds like vague platitudes. Stuff like this requires specifics before I would consider it. I absolutely support holding corporations more accountable. The idea that they solely have a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders is ridiculous.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
King_Hellebuyck 08/16/18 9:53:33 AM #50:	Coffeebeanz posted... Elizabeth Warren is the ideal Democrat. Says everything you want to hear. Gets literally none of it accomplished. Im not sure how much you expect her to accomplish on her own or how you expect her to do it. Proposing things like this ahead of the midterms is a rallying call for voters to support candidates who are on board with these plans. --- All Hail King Connor! Official Connor Hellebuyck fanboy <cite>King_Hellebuyck posted [p:906979018] in "Eliz... [t:76905799]...</cite> <quote><cite>Coffeebeanz posted...</cite> <quote>Elizabeth Warren is the ideal Democrat. Says everything you want to hear. Gets literally none of it accomplished.</quote> Im not sure how much you expect her to accomplish on her own or how you expect her to do it. Proposing things like this ahead of the midterms is a rallying call for voters to support candidates who are on board with these plans.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Esrac 08/16/18 10:25:51 AM #51:	I like the sound of it, but I'm not optimistic that it'll go anywhere. Fingers crossed. --- http://steamcommunity.com/id/Esrac/wishlist/ <cite>Esrac posted [p:906980368] in "Eliz... [t:76905799]...</cite> <quote>I like the sound of it, but I'm not optimistic that it'll go anywhere. Fingers crossed.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2

Current Events > "Elizabeth Warren has a plan to save capitalism" (+) Yeah! (+)

Current Events > "Elizabeth Warren has a plan to save capitalism"