Elizabeth Warren wants to rob shareholders, reward plebs.

JonesBones

Excuse my contraflow
@Steel
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
28,400
Reaction score
0
Republicans better kill this shit. Workers represented on the Board? Fuck that. Corporations exist to pay shareholders, not employees.

JIM CRAMER: You've produced a very thoughtful article in the Wall Street Journal about companies shouldn't be accountable only to shareholders. Tell us about it.

ELIZABETH WARREN: All right. So you know how American economy worked for decades, shoot, for centuries. And that was that the biggest companies in this country had multiple responsibilities: a responsibility to their shareholders, to their employees, to their customers, and to the communities that they were involved in. And it worked, right? Everybody got richer--

JIM CRAMER: And we're coming back to it like, a -- Salesforce is saying that. But the vast majority of are not coming back to it.

ELIZABETH WARREN: That's right. Stock market went up. Productivity goes up. And workers do better. We built the great American middle class. And then what happened? You start, basically, in the 1980s. And corporations start shifting over. And they say, "Wait, wait, wait. We have just one, single-minded focus. Shovel as much money as you can into the pockets of the shareholders. And forget about the rest of that stuff." And the consequence has been that the shareholders have done really well. The 10% of Americans that owns more than 80% of all the stocks, shovel money in there. But workers, wages have flattened out. In fact, lately, it looks like hourly wages, adjusted for inflation, have gone down.

Full transcript of interview:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/15/cnb...abeth-warren-speaks-with-cnbcs-jim-crame.html

old video of Cramer bragging about fucking people over and manipulating the market:




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, 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.

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.

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 that’s what Warren wants to change.

https://www.vox.com/2018/8/15/17683022/elizabeth-warren-accountable-capitalism-corporations
 
The trauma her people have endured as Natives has really radicalized her
 
Republicans better kill this shit. Workers represented on the Board? Fuck that. Corporations exist to pay shareholders, not employees.

JIM CRAMER: You've produced a very thoughtful article in the Wall Street Journal about companies shouldn't be accountable only to shareholders. Tell us about it.

ELIZABETH WARREN: All right. So you know how American economy worked for decades, shoot, for centuries. And that was that the biggest companies in this country had multiple responsibilities: a responsibility to their shareholders, to their employees, to their customers, and to the communities that they were involved in. And it worked, right? Everybody got richer--

JIM CRAMER: And we're coming back to it like, a -- Salesforce is saying that. But the vast majority of are not coming back to it.

ELIZABETH WARREN: That's right. Stock market went up. Productivity goes up. And workers do better. We built the great American middle class. And then what happened? You start, basically, in the 1980s. And corporations start shifting over. And they say, "Wait, wait, wait. We have just one, single-minded focus. Shovel as much money as you can into the pockets of the shareholders. And forget about the rest of that stuff." And the consequence has been that the shareholders have done really well. The 10% of Americans that owns more than 80% of all the stocks, shovel money in there. But workers, wages have flattened out. In fact, lately, it looks like hourly wages, adjusted for inflation, have gone down.

Full transcript of interview:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/15/cnb...abeth-warren-speaks-with-cnbcs-jim-crame.html

old video of Cramer bragging about fucking people over and manipulating the market:




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, 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.

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.

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 that’s what Warren wants to change.

https://www.vox.com/2018/8/15/17683022/elizabeth-warren-accountable-capitalism-corporations


I saw that Vox piece and was surprised at how friendly the article was to the idea. They lean pretty far right.
 
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.

I totally agree with this. But, a hell of a lot of people's moral obligations only extend as far as themselves.
 
Workers need to demand their fair share from these greedy scumbags and government should be the people's advocate, not the corporation's advocate.

Teddy is rolling in his fucking grave right now.
 
Reason #5672561 why nobody takes her seriously outside of a few idiots.
 
So workers (who work for their money) are plebs, but persons who earn their money by investment and money manipulation are the salt of the earth, eh?

As far as your appraisal of corporations - that they exist to pay shareholders and not employees - it's completely normative and conclusory. There's nothing natural or sovereign about the American corporate form: it's a legal creation.

Anyways, I don't always see eye to eye with Warren, but I like her position here. All corporate boards should have a worker representative, even if it would make jack shit difference to its decisions.
 
Well I certainly like the idea of wealth redistribution. Not sure if this would be the best way.
But income inequality is probably the biggest issue facing western countries today not just the US.
If it brought down the Romans it can bring down you.
 
Well I certainly like the idea of wealth redistribution. Not sure if this would be the best way.
But income inequality is probably the biggest issue facing western countries today not just the US.
If it brought down the Romans it can bring down you.

When the vast majority of the population has no incentive to work for and protect the elites, they won't.
 
Don’t know enough about the mechanics of her bill to sound off but she is onto a legitimate problem that is contributing to the destabilization of our society.
 
Well I certainly like the idea of wealth redistribution. Not sure if this would be the best way.
But income inequality is probably the biggest issue facing western countries today not just the US.
If it brought down the Romans it can bring down you.
In soviet Russia, income inequality brings down YOU! Wait, I'm not sure I'm getting that joke right.

I don't really mind income inequality if everyone is still doing better. I know there's a big problem of envy, but shit like uber, amazon prime, smart phones have all come about under the current system. Actual poverty is more of a concern than someone who still lives better than royalty 80 years ago but are pissed because someone they don't know is really rich.
 
In soviet Russia, income inequality brings down YOU! Wait, I'm not sure I'm getting that joke right.

I don't really mind income inequality if everyone is still doing better. I know there's a big problem of envy, but shit like uber, amazon prime, smart phones have all come about under the current system. Actual poverty is more of a concern than someone who still lives better than royalty 80 years ago but are pissed because someone they don't know is really rich.

Yeah you have to be careful with those "socialist" policies.
Because obviously investments are also very important and I don't have a problem with people investing good making money of it.
But if you have people that have a skilled job not making enough money that's a problem.
The issue is really a shrinking middle class. I think ideal you want to have few poor people and few very rich people but middle class being something you can achieve by working hard etc.
 
In soviet Russia, income inequality brings down YOU! Wait, I'm not sure I'm getting that joke right.

I don't really mind income inequality if everyone is still doing better. I know there's a big problem of envy, but shit like uber, amazon prime, smart phones have all come about under the current system. Actual poverty is more of a concern than someone who still lives better than royalty 80 years ago but are pissed because someone they don't know is really rich.

That would be fine if we were all still owning homes, buying cars, going on vacation. Doing things that stimulated job growth through consumption.

Saying I have penicillin, so I am better off then a king in the 1700's, doesn't really address the idea that wealth concentration is bad economic policy.
 
That would be fine if we were all still owning homes, buying cars, going on vacation. Doing things that stimulated job growth through consumption.

Saying I have penicillin, so I am better off then a king in the 1700's, doesn't really address the idea that wealth concentration is bad economic policy.
I wasn't talking about penicillin, I'm talking about luxuries. Our poor people are fat and have youtube in their pocket.
 
Yeah you have to be careful with those "socialist" policies.
Because obviously investments are also very important and I don't have a problem with people investing good making money of it.
But if you have people that have a skilled job not making enough money that's a problem.
The issue is really a shrinking middle class. I think ideal you want to have few poor people and few very rich people but middle class being something you can achieve by working hard etc.
The middle class has split upwards and downwards. The US still creates the most new millionaires every year. I agree that a middle class should be by FAR the highest percentage of the population, but I'm not on board with complaining that some people are just doing too well and should be taken down a peg.
 
What is the meaningful difference between a smart phone and penicillin?

One is needed to live and has saved countless lives. The other is used to play games on and post pictures.

Smart phone makers have higher profit margins than drug companies btw.
 
OP is misleading. Corporations exist to do more than "pay shareholders".

@JonesBones If a corp exists only to pay shareholdders, what do you believe should happen to companies that do not pay dividends?
 
Back
Top