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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Donating money doesn’t cancel your vote. Other votes cancel your vote.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Apply this to unions and we can talk.
Regards,
Shodan
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quoting this from the Biden thread in order to avoid the continued hijacking of that thread:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
I find it refreshing, even if it’s nothing more than non-binding blather from a group with their finger to the wind.
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.