Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 08-18-2019, 05:48 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,707
So, you're saying that he's still alive?
  #52  
Old 08-18-2019, 05:49 PM
Ukulele Ike is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 17,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
She's running for the Democratic nomination.
Are you two tag-teaming now?
__________________
Uke
  #53  
Old 08-18-2019, 06:02 PM
Boycott is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by sps49sd View Post
I was lukewarm about Warren- it seems everyone is espousing ideas that sound fine but don't stand up to scrutiny- but her (and Harris) using the 5 year anniversary of Ferguson to repeat the lie that Micheal Brown was murdered is just chumming for votes.

It doesn't appear to have hurt her support here, but it feels like Hilary Lite, saying something she (hopefully) doesn't believe to get unearned support.
I hadn't heard of that until you mention it. All I see from a search is a few tweets...is there any word of mouth comment? Because if it was just tweets well nobody really cares about a move like that outside the online social media bubble.
  #54  
Old 08-18-2019, 06:37 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
Yeah, I understand what the link shows--but your conclusion is wrong.

I'm reasonably positive on my own insurance, but that doesn't mean I think it's the best possible world. If you take away my insurance in the process of providing universal health coverage, I'd be very pleased--because under our current system, my own coverage could suddenly turn to shit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugazi View Post
.

If all my premiums went to taxes instead to pay for healthcare and I never had to deal with another insurance company, I'd be very happy.
My conclusion isn't wrong just because a couple of Dopers would be fine with banning private insurance. Sheesh.
Poll: Most Americans want universal healthcare but don't want to abolish private insurance
Quote:
a Hill-HarrisX survey released Thursday, 13 percent of respondents said they would prefer a health care system that covers all citizens and doesn't allow for private plans, an approach that is sometimes referred to as "single-payer."

The most popular option, at 32 percent, consisted of a universal, government-operated system that also would allow people to buy private, supplemental insurance.

Twenty-six percent of respondents said they wanted a government insurance plan offered to all citizens, but one that doesn't compel people with private plans to use it, a system sometimes called a "public option."
Talking about banning private insurance doesn't fly with the American public.
  #55  
Old 08-18-2019, 06:39 PM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
She's running for the Democratic nomination.

Regards,
Shodan
You know, for someone who belongs to the party of Trump, you have absolutely no room to question anyone's intelligence or rationality.
  #56  
Old 08-18-2019, 07:00 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,294
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
They got elected, thereby, ipso facto, they had electability.
You know, I suppose it's possible that I'm so politically naive that the above tautology is gonna BLOW MY FUCKIN MIND, in which case, great job posting it!

But if that's not the case, maybe you could reread what you quoted, look over the history of the thread, and figure out if maybe you're missing something in the conversation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
My conclusion isn't wrong just because a couple of Dopers would be fine with banning private insurance.
No fooling! MIND=BLOWN

Christ, y'all, can you knock it off with the Captain Obvious posts?

As for the rest of what you said, your new cite offers evidence that wasn't in the previous, and I appreciate that new cite. I'm not sure you're correct on the rationale behind those polling results, though.

Last edited by Left Hand of Dorkness; 08-18-2019 at 07:03 PM.
  #57  
Old 08-18-2019, 07:09 PM
AHunter3's Avatar
AHunter3 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NY (Manhattan) NY USA
Posts: 20,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by AHunter3
AHunter3 View Post
Who are these suburbanites who are perfectly happy with their health insurance?

"OK, we need you to get an x-ray. We don't do that here"
..
"Your prescription has been sent in to your pharmacy"
...

*later, goes to a specialist's office for the first time, feeling awful sick*
Xray- Down the hall to the left.
Pharmacy- ground floor.
Specialist- another office, 15 minutes away. Here's your appt.
I don't doubt you if that's what your experience has been. But what I posted above was my own personal experience with private employer-offered health insurance, and I actually am a suburbanite.
  #58  
Old 08-18-2019, 08:27 PM
tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,891

Moderating


Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder View Post
You know, for someone who belongs to the party of Trump, you have absolutely no room to question anyone's intelligence or rationality.
If you have a need or a desire to toss personal barbas, take it to The BBQ Pit, not here.

[ /Moderating ]
  #59  
Old 08-18-2019, 08:28 PM
sps49sd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 519
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boycott View Post
I hadn't heard of that until you mention it. All I see from a search is a few tweets...is there any word of mouth comment? Because if it was just tweets well nobody really cares about a move like that outside the online social media bubble.
Sure they were tweets, and the Washington Post gave them both four Pinocchios.

Vox had an article, too.

If you mean no progressive "really cares about" facts obscuring a narrative, then I understand you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
So, you're saying that he's still alive?
Are you addressing that to me, mister moderator, sir? Maybe you could address that query to the US Department of Justice.
  #60  
Old 08-18-2019, 08:42 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,510
Quote:
Originally Posted by AHunter3 View Post
I don't doubt you if that's what your experience has been. But what I posted above was my own personal experience with private employer-offered health insurance, and I actually am a suburbanite.
Thing is that those items have little to nothing to do with who is paying the bill or how it gets paid.

Well run large groups will run ... well. Coordinating and facilitating care. Some large groups and smaller pracowill be more disjointed, even as they might have other pluses. That will be true whatever the payment scheme.
  #61  
Old 08-18-2019, 08:56 PM
AHunter3's Avatar
AHunter3 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NY (Manhattan) NY USA
Posts: 20,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Thing is that those items have little to nothing to do with who is paying the bill or how it gets paid.

Well run large groups will run ... well. Coordinating and facilitating care. Some large groups and smaller pracowill be more disjointed, even as they might have other pluses. That will be true whatever the payment scheme.
I think not. Single payer is intrinsically NOT a patchwork of multiple medical practitioners each taking some but not all medical insurance, and employers who offer some but not all possible medical insurance plans. If there's only one they don't have to have you fill out the paperwork for it. You'll never get switched due to your employer deciding policy #2 is a better deal for the corporation.

I don't know about the rest of you folks but I would pay a premium $$$ to be free of the administrative overhead bullshit. I just want to walk in and get treated. Sign the acknowledgment and that's it.

And that IS how it was when I had Medicaid, btw.
  #62  
Old 08-18-2019, 09:06 PM
HMS Irruncible is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,382
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
I’m going to go out on a limb and boldly declare that a fusion syndicalist/fascist takeover of every major corporation in the United States is worse than building/not-building any wall.
This scans like a fistfight between Miles Davis and Lonnie Liston Smith, and I for one am ready to see this matter settled once and for all.
  #63  
Old 08-18-2019, 10:21 PM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,122
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomndebb View Post
If you have a need or a desire to toss personal barbas, take it to The BBQ Pit, not here.

[ /Moderating ]
I don't know what a "barbas" is, but I was calling into question Trump's lack of intelligence and rationality, not Shodan's. So my comment was actually less of a personal barbas than Shodan's thread-shitting shot at the Democratic voters in this thread was.
  #64  
Old 08-19-2019, 07:22 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,707
Quote:
Quoth sps49sd:

Are you addressing that to me, mister moderator, sir? Maybe you could address that query to the US Department of Justice.
To be absolutely clear: I am a moderator on this message board, but I am not a moderator in the Elections forum, and even if I were, I would make it clear whenever I was speaking as a moderator. Every post I've made in this thread, and in most other political discussions, has been as just another member of this board, and you are not required to pay me any more heed than any other member of this board.
  #65  
Old 08-19-2019, 08:11 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,510
Quote:
Originally Posted by AHunter3 View Post
I think not. Single payer ...
has nothing to do with radiology being in the same building.

What you now focus on is the issue of panels and of staying within network. The inconvenience of not being able to go to whatever doctor you want when you want, whether seeing a spine surgeon for a week of low back pain is a good idea or not.

FWIW the successes of the ACA in delivering better care at lower cost have occurred not by paying less but by way of encouraging these panels to work more efficiently in more coordinated teams. Eliminating panels completely is not something that should occur in a new system and is not automatically part of single payer.
  #66  
Old 08-19-2019, 09:58 AM
CaptMurdock's Avatar
CaptMurdock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Evildrome Boozerama
Posts: 2,002
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
That's exactly what his link shows. People are mostly positive on their own coverage, negative on "the system". That's why taking on the system is good politics but not simultaneously taking away anyone's current plan is not.
Well, as Darth Cheney is supposed to have said in response to the debacle of the Iraq War, "You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs."
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
I’m surprised Warren’s support for a wealth tax isn’t immediately disqualifying in the minds of rational voters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
She's running for the Democratic nomination.

Regards,
Shodan
Huh. I don't remember Statler and Waldorf getting a spinoff from the Muppet Show...
__________________
____________________________
Coin-operated self-destruct...not one of my better ideas.
-- Planckton (Spongebob Squarepants)
  #67  
Old 08-19-2019, 10:10 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptMurdock View Post
Well, as Darth Cheney is supposed to have said in response to the debacle of the Iraq War, "You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs."
Yeah, but when you're selling the idea to the public you don't talk about all the eggs you're going to break -- you only talk about that delicious "welcomed as liberators" omelette.
  #68  
Old 08-19-2019, 11:01 AM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,145
nm

Last edited by Fiddle Peghead; 08-19-2019 at 11:04 AM.
  #69  
Old 08-19-2019, 11:32 AM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
From your link:

Quote:
Headline: Elizabeth Warren’s Batty Plan to Nationalize . . . Everything


Quote:
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.
What does this even mean?

Quote:
The federal government would then dictate to these businesses the composition of their boards...
From Wikipedia on Accountable Capitalism Act:

Quote:
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.
Clearly the National Review is full of it here. That article makes some good points about the Act. It doesn't have to resort to this crap.

An alternative view from Vox.

Quote:
Warren’s 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.
...
[...Warren will] focus on how to prioritize workers in the American economic system while leaving businesses as the primary driver of it.
And on, with fairly detailed description of the act and what it hopes to accomplish, for anyone who's interested in reading it.
  #70  
Old 08-19-2019, 11:47 AM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,145
In regard to the above, from the Accountable Capitalism Act:

Quote:
(2) FAILURE TO OBTAIN CHARTER.—An entity to which paragraph (1) applies and that fails to obtain a charter from the Office as required under that paragraph shall not be treated as a corporation, body corporate, body politic, joint-stock company, or limited liability company, as applicable, for the purposes of Federal law during the period beginning on the date on which the entity is required to obtain a charter under that paragraph and ending on the date on which the entity obtains the charter.
I assume this is what the National Review link was referring to. Lawyers, or anyone for that matter, does this in fact mean that no corporation would be "permitted to legally operate without permission from the federal government."?

Last edited by Fiddle Peghead; 08-19-2019 at 11:48 AM.
  #71  
Old 08-19-2019, 12:15 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,143
IANAL, but it seems it would just strip the company of protections that being a corporation or limited liability companies enjoy.
  #72  
Old 08-19-2019, 01:43 PM
hopesperson is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: wi
Posts: 224
It's safe to say that failure to be treated as its legal entity of choice (i.e., corporation, llc, etc.) could be disastrous for a large company. As it stands, choice of entity is determined by filings made with secretaries of state or similar state-level bureaucracies, but as long as the filing complies with statutory formalities and companies continue to make simple annual update filings and pay taxes there is generally no way as a practical matter to "fail" to obtain or maintain a charter.

To add, I am not familiar with the Act other than as described in the last couple of posts.
  #73  
Old 08-19-2019, 01:43 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post


And on, with fairly detailed description of the act and what it hopes to accomplish, for anyone who's interested in reading it.
I read it, along with the wiki article on the proposal. It sounds batshit insane. From mandating the composition of corporate boards, to this:
Quote:
The conceit tying together Warren’s 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.
There is no requirement that individuals act like decent citizens, but Warren wants to create a duty for corporations to act a certain way? The idea that Warren thinks tinkering with the economy in this gigantic way is a good idea is absurd.

Then there is this from the Vox article:
Quote:
Instead of advocating for expensive new social programs like free college or health care, she’s 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.
Naïveté is the most charitable way to characterize this.

Last edited by Bone; 08-19-2019 at 01:44 PM.
  #74  
Old 08-19-2019, 01:51 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
There is no requirement that individuals act like decent citizens, but Warren wants to create a duty for corporations to act a certain way? The idea that Warren thinks tinkering with the economy in this gigantic way is a good idea is absurd.
Yes there is. There are many laws on the books dictating how people are supposed to be decent citizens. Such as, not killing, not stealing, not dumping hazardous materials improperly, etc...

Well right now the economy is not working at all for many people, maybe most people, at least not as well as it seems to be working for those of means. I mean the last election was won largely based on appeals to those being left behind by the economy. I think what's naive is continuing to do everything the way we have been and thinking somehow it's going to just magically improve for everyone. You may think concentration of wealth and wage stagnation are not problems, but that doesn't make them not problems to the electorate at large.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #75  
Old 08-19-2019, 01:57 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
Yes there is. There are many laws on the books dictating how people are supposed to be decent citizens. Such as, not killing, not stealing, not dumping hazardous materials improperly, etc...
There is certainly overlap with decency and certain prohibited actions, but there is no law regarding acting decent. For example, I'd say if you witness a murder, it'd be a decent thing to do to report it to the police. It's not a requirement.

Quote:
Well right now the economy is not working at all for many people, maybe most people, at least not as well as it seems to be working for those of means. I mean the last election was won largely based on appeals to those being left behind by the economy. I think what's naive is continuing to do everything the way we have been and thinking somehow it's going to just magically improve for everyone. You may think concentration of wealth and wage stagnation are not problems, but that doesn't make them not problems to the electorate at large.
Do you think it's possible to redistribute trillions of dollars without costing a dime?

In any event, I'm sure lots of folks think this type of economic action is great. I hope she makes this the centerpiece of her campaign.

Last edited by Bone; 08-19-2019 at 01:59 PM.
  #76  
Old 08-19-2019, 02:04 PM
HMS Irruncible is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,382
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
There is no requirement that individuals act like decent citizens, but Warren wants to create a duty for corporations to act a certain way?
It's true that there is no requirement that individuals act this way. But it's not crazy to note that corporations collectively act sociopathic because they are less subject to reputational pressures that humans are (feelings of shame, guilt, reciprocal obligation, etc).

I don't know exactly what the solution is, but I see it as a problem that corporations are amoral unfeeling golems that people utilize to do socially hostile and irresponsible things, yet we treat corporations as if they're humans and we allow them to accumulate astronomical amounts of unaccountable power.
  #77  
Old 08-19-2019, 02:06 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
There is certainly overlap with decency and certain prohibited actions, but there is no law regarding acting decent. For example, I'd say if you witness a murder, it'd be a decent thing to do to report it to the police. It's not a requirement.

I think you are putting too much weight into the word 'decent'. That, as far as I know, is not a legal term. Here's an example:

https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/loca...546616351.html

I would posit that this isn't acting decently, and if they aren't already legally in trouble for this, then they damn well should be. There are many ways in which corporations harm us and our country in the name of seeking profit. I don't think its wrong to try to rein some of that in.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Do you think it's possible to redistribute trillions of dollars without costing a dime?
I think it's possible to do a lot of things to help us get off of this self reinforcing spiral of wealth concentration and wage stagnation, but I don't think this question is helpful to the debate. Its an attempt to stifle the conversation by essentially declaring any attempts to address the issues that many many people have with the current economy as simply taking money from some and directly giving it to others. As far as I know nobody is literally talking about taking Bill Gates money and directly giving it to poor people in the way this question implies.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #78  
Old 08-19-2019, 02:29 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,696
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
I think you are putting too much weight into the word 'decent'. That, as far as I know, is not a legal term. Here's an example:

https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/loca...546616351.html

I would posit that this isn't acting decently, and if they aren't already legally in trouble for this, then they damn well should be. There are many ways in which corporations harm us and our country in the name of seeking profit. I don't think its wrong to try to rein some of that in.



I think it's possible to do a lot of things to help us get off of this self reinforcing spiral of wealth concentration and wage stagnation, but I don't think this question is helpful to the debate. Its an attempt to stifle the conversation by essentially declaring any attempts to address the issues that many many people have with the current economy as simply taking money from some and directly giving it to others. As far as I know nobody is literally talking about taking Bill Gates money and directly giving it to poor people in the way this question implies.
Wage stagnation won’t be solved with wealth redistribution. Global trade and global migration is what devalues domestic labor. Nothing Warren proposes will help.
  #79  
Old 08-19-2019, 02:34 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
It's true that there is no requirement that individuals act this way. But it's not crazy to note that corporations collectively act sociopathic because they are less subject to reputational pressures that humans are (feelings of shame, guilt, reciprocal obligation, etc).

I don't know exactly what the solution is, but I see it as a problem that corporations are amoral unfeeling golems that people utilize to do socially hostile and irresponsible things, yet we treat corporations as if they're humans and we allow them to accumulate astronomical amounts of unaccountable power.
To say that corporations act sociopathic is anthropomorphizing corporations in an odd way. We don't treat corps as humans exactly, but corporate personhood is useful in some contexts and not others. Corps don't vote for example. But to the extent that corporations act as a collective entity representing the group of owners known as shareholders, has benefits in a way that other legal forms of business do not. If this has been extended in ways that are ultimately not desirable, I think it's fine to make changes. But forcing corporations to have a duty to society at large and acting decent is a silly extension of that idea.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
I think you are putting too much weight into the word 'decent'. That, as far as I know, is not a legal term. Here's an example:

https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/loca...546616351.html

I would posit that this isn't acting decently, and if they aren't already legally in trouble for this, then they damn well should be. There are many ways in which corporations harm us and our country in the name of seeking profit. I don't think its wrong to try to rein some of that in.
I'm not familiar with that specific incident, but in general if a corporation (or anyone) pollutes as is described, there would be a host of environmental laws that would be triggered. Not sure what this is supposed to be an example of, but we have and do utilize the means to prohibit this type of illegal activity.

Quote:
I think it's possible to do a lot of things to help us get off of this self reinforcing spiral of wealth concentration and wage stagnation, but I don't think this question is helpful to the debate. Its an attempt to stifle the conversation by essentially declaring any attempts to address the issues that many many people have with the current economy as simply taking money from some and directly giving it to others. As far as I know nobody is literally talking about taking Bill Gates money and directly giving it to poor people in the way this question implies.
I'm not contesting the redistribution component of this. I'm saying the idea that this can be done without costing a dime is farcical.
  #80  
Old 08-19-2019, 02:39 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
I read it, along with the wiki article on the proposal. It sounds batshit insane. From mandating the composition of corporate boards, to this:

There is no requirement that individuals act like decent citizens, but Warren wants to create a duty for corporations to act a certain way? The idea that Warren thinks tinkering with the economy in this gigantic way is a good idea is absurd.

Then there is this from the Vox article:

Naïveté is the most charitable way to characterize this.
I quote Wiki again, regarding the "big ticket" items in the bill:

Quote:
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.
I don't think saying employees have a 40% say in who is on the board is mandating the composition of that board. It just means they have a say in it. As far as this being "batshit insane", I'm not sure why you would characterize it as such. Unorthodox perhaps, but not over-the-top insane by any means or "gigantic", as you say.

In any case, far from being an economist, I was interested in this type of discussion, which is why I posted the original Vox link, and will follow this.

Last edited by Fiddle Peghead; 08-19-2019 at 02:41 PM.
  #81  
Old 08-19-2019, 03:22 PM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 5,935
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
It's true that there is no requirement that individuals act this way. But it's not crazy to note that corporations collectively act sociopathic because they are less subject to reputational pressures that humans are (feelings of shame, guilt, reciprocal obligation, etc).

I don't know exactly what the solution is, but I see it as a problem that corporations are amoral unfeeling golems that people utilize to do socially hostile and irresponsible things, yet we treat corporations as if they're humans and we allow them to accumulate astronomical amounts of unaccountable power.
There is also the possibility of putting individuals in jail for their actions, but all that can happen to corporations is civil penalties. If you drive recklessly and mow down a some pedestrians with your car you can be charged with manslaughter and put away for a few years. no matter who you are that is a penalty that will hurt you and deter you from making the same mistake. But if as a corporation, you have an industrial accident that kills a bunch of people, then all that is likely to happen to you is a substantial fine. Worst case scenario, then you simply file for bankruptcy, shield as much of your assets as possible, curse your luck, and rebuild. So long as the probability of an accident is slightly less that the the cost of preventing the such accidents divided by the loss if there is an accident, there is no incentive to change.
  #82  
Old 08-19-2019, 03:50 PM
HMS Irruncible is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,382
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
To say that corporations act sociopathic is anthropomorphizing corporations in an odd way.
You think so? Corporations are self-anthropomorphizing legal instruments. The literal point is to make them like people, but to absorb the consequences of any unfortunate decisions made by the corp, or its board, or its employees.

Quote:
We don't treat corps as humans exactly, but corporate personhood is useful in some contexts and not others. Corps don't vote for example.
Corps don't vote, but they have freedom of speech, and thanks to Citizens United that means they can effectively cancel my vote by donating tons of money to their chosen candidate.

Quote:
But to the extent that corporations act as a collective entity representing the group of owners known as shareholders, has benefits in a way that other legal forms of business do not. If this has been extended in ways that are ultimately not desirable, I think it's fine to make changes. But forcing corporations to have a duty to society at large and acting decent is a silly extension of that idea.
It is absolutely reasonable to make any arbitrary demand of a public company to serve the public interest. There are already numerous laws regarding accounting requirements, transparency, etc. Corporations enjoy some very rich benefits thanks to their access to capital markets and the confidence-creating infrastructure of public accountability.

It is entirely reasonable to tell companies that if they want to continue being public companies, then they need to respect and promote certain public virtues over their own parochial interests. In fact this view was the norm in the US up until the 70's or so. The cult of shareholder value is a recent and harmful innovation.
  #83  
Old 08-19-2019, 04:23 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
You think so? Corporations are self-anthropomorphizing legal instruments. The literal point is to make them like people, but to absorb the consequences of any unfortunate decisions made by the corp, or its board, or its employees.
That's not the literal point, or any point that I see. The corporate form is an effective way to organize the interests of many many people. If two people want to start a business venture, an LLC or a partnership could be a good vehicle for that. But if there are millions of people, those legal entity structures are not very good. Other businesses that transact with the entity will want a single entity to deal with, the corporation itself.

Quote:
Corps don't vote, but they have freedom of speech, and thanks to Citizens United that means they can effectively cancel my vote by donating tons of money to their chosen candidate.
Donating money doesn't cancel your vote. Other votes cancel your vote.

Quote:
It is absolutely reasonable to make any arbitrary demand of a public company to serve the public interest. There are already numerous laws regarding accounting requirements, transparency, etc. Corporations enjoy some very rich benefits thanks to their access to capital markets and the confidence-creating infrastructure of public accountability.

It is entirely reasonable to tell companies that if they want to continue being public companies, then they need to respect and promote certain public virtues over their own parochial interests. In fact this view was the norm in the US up until the 70's or so. The cult of shareholder value is a recent and harmful innovation.
Don't get me wrong - I don't think there is anything in Warren's proposals that violate the constitution. Congress can certain make arbitrary demands of public companies in exchange for their recognition as legal entities. I just think it's wholly unserious and silly, which is why I think Warren should push the idea as much as possible.
  #84  
Old 08-19-2019, 05:37 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
... There is no requirement that individuals act like decent citizens, but Warren wants to create a duty for corporations to act a certain way? The idea that Warren thinks tinkering with the economy in this gigantic way is a good idea is absurd. ...
It's entirely possible that Warren, as a practical politician, is opening with a big-concept plan--knowing full-well that it won't be embraced by the majority of Americans--but with the goal in mind of accepting a compromise.

A compromise such as the overturning of the Citizens United decision.

I would be very much surprised if Warren genuinely believes that most provisions of the plan have any chance of being implemented soon. That's not what this is about. She's starting a conversation.

(my emphasis in the quote)
  #85  
Old 08-19-2019, 07:33 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
It's entirely possible that Warren, as a practical politician, is opening with a big-concept plan--knowing full-well that it won't be embraced by the majority of Americans--but with the goal in mind of accepting a compromise.

A compromise such as the overturning of the Citizens United decision.

I would be very much surprised if Warren genuinely believes that most provisions of the plan have any chance of being implemented soon. That's not what this is about. She's starting a conversation.

(my emphasis in the quote)
While I have no idea what she believes about the acceptability of this bill to the American public, I would agree it's an attempt to start a conversation about the fact that capitalism clearly isn't working for everyone, as if it ever did. And in the way governments exist in large part to provide for a climate where businesses and the economy can prosper, there is no reason why the government can't interfere with the natural progression of capitalism, and offer corrections to this imperfect system where needed. This seems like as good a place to begin as any. The fact that it hasn't been done before makes it seem a bit unusual, but I don't see it as some radical, crazy idea that will, evidently if you read that National Review link, end private ownership of business in the U.S. if enacted. If corporations are allowed to exist by governments and supported as a way to encourage their formation, why can't laws be enacted to ensure that the workers are treated fairly who work at them?
  #86  
Old 08-19-2019, 07:56 PM
BobLibDem is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
It's entirely possible that Warren, as a practical politician, is opening with a big-concept plan--knowing full-well that it won't be embraced by the majority of Americans--but with the goal in mind of accepting a compromise.

A compromise such as the overturning of the Citizens United decision.

I would be very much surprised if Warren genuinely believes that most provisions of the plan have any chance of being implemented soon. That's not what this is about. She's starting a conversation.

(my emphasis in the quote)
Certainly that would be an improvement on Obama's negotiation style: meet the other side more than halfway only to have them rub a handful of shit in your face and then blame you for perfection not being achieved. If that's her plan, I'm all for it. If she walks it back slightly to be palatable to those mythical independents and win the election, I'm okay with that.
  #87  
Old 08-19-2019, 08:49 PM
Moriarty's Avatar
Moriarty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 2,834
Warren is my first choice for President (and, in my heart of hearts, she would team with Buttigieg as her VP*).

For one, she’s brilliant. It’s evident when she speaks that she has an understanding of the issues, and she has ideas on what to do. Most specifically, her area of expertise is the financial security of middle America. People picking apart her proposals miss the point - no president gets all of their ideas codified into law, but Warren is a reliable advocate for the typical middle class person.

And, as a teacher by training, she does a good job taking what can seem complex and daunting and distilling it down to more manageable pieces.

I think these traits combine to give the average voter a sense that she would be highly competent at the helm. The message is clear - she has the smarts to do the job, she’ll be dedicated, and she will represent the interests of “average people”.

I also think that she’d devastate Trump. All he has to attack her is an offensive nickname, which I think will really start to grate on voters. There’s also the socialism stuff we’ve already seen here (e.g. she’s going to devastate successful people with her taxes and outlaw the free market) but that’s going to be the big attack against any Democrat in 2020, and is the bogeyman that probably accounts for 90% of the reflexive Republican voters anyway.

*And I want to win powerball.
  #88  
Old 08-20-2019, 07:33 AM
Shodan is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,808
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd
It's entirely possible that Warren, as a practical politician, is opening with a big-concept plan--knowing full-well that it won't be embraced by the majority of Americans--but with the goal in mind of accepting a compromise.

A compromise such as the overturning of the Citizens United decision.
I hope Warren doesn't think a Supreme Court decision can be overturned by a President. Best she can hope for is replace Ginsberg and that won't do it.
Quote:
... 75% of shareholders and directors must approve any political spending.
Apply this to unions and we can talk.

Regards,
Shodan
  #89  
Old 08-20-2019, 08:05 AM
BobLibDem is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,495
I can guarantee that Warren knows that presidents don't overturn Supreme Court decisions. Sure, she would replace Ginsburg with another liberal. In a dream world, she'd also replace John Roberts with...dare I say (dare, dare) Barack Obama.
  #90  
Old 08-20-2019, 11:45 AM
Shodan is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,808
So the idea is to propose a big-ticket plan that she can't bring off, in hopes of settling on a compromise that she also can't bring off.

Well, it's certainly thinking outside the box.

Regards,
Shodan
  #91  
Old 08-20-2019, 11:49 AM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 5,935
Nobodies mentioned the Pocahontas issue. Which is probably a good thing, but like it or not Trump will make it a centerpiece of his campaign should she be the nominee (or even running mate). The thing is I think that in the end it will probably work in her favor

I think most people are turned off by this childish taunt in poor taste. The only people who aren't are the Trump fans who are going to vote for him in any case. I think Warren can respond in a way that is dignified and reflects well on her while making Trump look foolish for using it, or if polls and focus groups suggest the better tack is to ignore it she is controlled enough to let it pass.

Trumps handlers may also have their focus groups and polls suggesting his repeated use of the phrase is hurting him. But Trump loves it, and every time he says it to a cheering crowd they will go wild. So even if his handlers tell him to knock it off there is no way he is going to stop.
  #92  
Old 08-20-2019, 01:19 PM
Hermione is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 710
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
I can guarantee that Warren knows that presidents don't overturn Supreme Court decisions. Sure, she would replace Ginsburg with another liberal. In a dream world, she'd also replace John Roberts with...dare I say (dare, dare) Barack Obama.
I thought I was the only one who'd entertained the possibility! There's precedent for it...William Howard Taft became a Supreme Court justice after his presidency, and from all accounts was far happier in that role than he'd ever been in the Oval Office.
__________________
We are of the spirit,
Truly of the spirit,
Only can the spirit
Turn the world around.
--Harry Belafonte (with the Muppets)
  #93  
Old 08-20-2019, 01:28 PM
Moriarty's Avatar
Moriarty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 2,834
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Godot View Post
Nobodies mentioned the Pocahontas issue.
I did when I wrote, "All he has to attack her is an offensive nickname, which I think will really start to grate on voters", which is to say that I agree with you.

The real key to winning an election is not flipping voters; it's turning out your supporters and dampening the involvement of the other side. From my perspective, Trump's biggest problem with Republican supporters right now (until, that is, his economic policies crater the economy) is that he's immature and boorish. I've often heard from people who reflexively support the GOP that they just wish he'd stop tweeting so much.

Meaning, in my opinion, that his attack of going after Warren with a childish, offensive, and petty nickname will only serve to disgust those probably want to like him (because of taxes and deregulation, usually) but can't because of how he behaves. Trump going to rallies to get his frothier supporters to chant "Pocahontas" over and over again will be a self-inflicted suppression of his voters.
  #94  
Old 08-20-2019, 02:59 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
So the idea is to propose a big-ticket plan that she can't bring off, in hopes of settling on a compromise that she also can't bring off.

Well, it's certainly thinking outside the box.

Regards,
Shodan
I suppose one might characterize it that way.

Hillary Clinton thought she could get a health care bill into law way back when. It took a decade and more for the ACA to finally happen. Now, as I've said, I don't know Warren's thinking, but this may be a way to get a conversation started, with the hopes of, yes, thinking outside the box and getting others to do the same.

Last edited by Fiddle Peghead; 08-20-2019 at 03:00 PM.
  #95  
Old 08-20-2019, 03:36 PM
BobLibDem is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
So the idea is to propose a big-ticket plan that she can't bring off, in hopes of settling on a compromise that she also can't bring off.

Well, it's certainly thinking outside the box.

Regards,
Shodan
It certainly is a different approach than promising a wall that Mexico would pay for or that we were going to pay off the national debt or that we were going to get a beautiful health care plan with better coverage that costs less and that we're going to love, buh-leeve me.
  #96  
Old 08-20-2019, 05:00 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,378
Quoting this from the Biden thread in order to avoid the continued hijacking of that thread:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamoral View Post
Yes, and it will work. He and his base will have a blast making fun of her and he'll campaign his ass off all over the midwest and the "Rust Belt" and the crowds will roar with laughter and applause, energizing Republicans. He'll do the exact same thing in the debates and she will be thrown off her "serious woman talking about serious business" game, be rattled by Trump's juvenile attacks and unable to parry it with any humor, and come off looking like Hillary 2.0. Black voters in the main are going to be unenthused about a woman who looks and speaks like someone's mom in 1997 at a PTA meeting warning the parents about the dangers of Marilyn Manson and Eminem, and their turnout will be lackluster. And anyone who thinks that Warren can connect with blue collar workers has never been a blue collar worker. We'll have 4 more "Tremendous", "Yuge" years.
This is exactly my gut feeling of what would happen if Warren got the nomination. I won't trust my gut if it goes against the data, but I will use it as a tiebreaker. So, for me to be convinced to switch from Sanders to Warren, the polls would have to show her being not just AS GOOD as Bernie in a matchup with Trump, but as being decisively BETTER. And as of now, they are still showing her (along with every other non-Biden candidate) as being decisively WORSE.

Last edited by Thing Fish; 08-20-2019 at 05:01 PM.
  #97  
Old 08-20-2019, 06:02 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
I can guarantee that Warren knows that presidents don't overturn Supreme Court decisions. Sure, she would replace Ginsburg with another liberal. ...
Yes, if Warren (or most any Democrat, really) gets the chance to nominate new Justices, that would improve the likelihood of eventually overturning Citizens United.

But more than that, the President gets many chances to promote national conversation on...whatever they find important. They can hold symposiums; they can make speeches to the nation; they can highlight egregious problems caused by a bad Supreme Court decision.

And eventually the Court will respond, to one degree or another. For example, the national consensus on gay marriage changed over time, and eventually the Court reflected that change. Something like that could happen with CU.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
...Hillary Clinton thought she could get a health care bill into law way back when. It took a decade and more for the ACA to finally happen. Now, as I've said, I don't know Warren's thinking, but this may be a way to get a conversation started, with the hopes of, yes, thinking outside the box and getting others to do the same.
Exactly. A president can highlight issues of his or her choice. Maybe only a handful, practically speaking---a president has to pick and choose. But it would appear that Warren will prioritize changes to the current set of economic rules that favor big money over individual Americans.
  #98  
Old 08-20-2019, 06:57 PM
iamthewalrus(:3= is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 11,925
Right now I'm planning to vote for Warren in the primary, although it's a long way away so that might change.

I think some of her policy proposals are silly, but I also think most of those are unlikely to pass and I'm not too worried. I think she's talented and educated and capable.

I'm generally in favor of her wealth tax proposal, although I'm not very optimistic on it passing. A majority of people pay a wealth tax on quite a lot of their assets (their home). Not sure why it's a social good for the middle class to pay a wealth tax but let billionaires continue to accumulate capital faster than everyone else.

Last edited by iamthewalrus(:3=; 08-20-2019 at 06:57 PM.
  #99  
Old 08-21-2019, 08:22 AM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 686
I wonder if the possibility of Warren winning -- and potentially pushing the Accountability act -- has already gotten into the heads of the Business Roundtable:
"The Business Roundtable, a group of chief executive officers from major U.S. corporations, issued a statement Monday with a new definition of the 'purpose of a corporation.'

The reimagined idea of a corporation drops the age-old notion that corporations function first and foremost to serve their shareholders and maximize profits. Rather, investing in employees, delivering value to customers, dealing ethically with suppliers and supporting outside communities are now at the forefront of American business goals, according to the statement."
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/19/the-...objective.html

I find it refreshing, even if it's nothing more than non-binding blather from a group with their finger to the wind.
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #100  
Old 08-21-2019, 09:13 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamthewalrus(:3= View Post
I'm generally in favor of her wealth tax proposal, although I'm not very optimistic on it passing. A majority of people pay a wealth tax on quite a lot of their assets (their home). Not sure why it's a social good for the middle class to pay a wealth tax but let billionaires continue to accumulate capital faster than everyone else.

There's no wealth tax at present and there's no reason any new tax couldn't be targeted at people who have millions or more in assets.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:24 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017