MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Elizabeth Warren Plans To Destroy Capitalism By Pretending To ‘Save’ It

Warren's plan would overrule corporate leaders’ control over their own businesses. This is also known as "socialism."

Elizabeth WarrenJonathan Bachman/REUTERS/NewscomSen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) thinks she knows what ails capitalism: There aren't enough people telling the biggest businesses what to do.

Try to contain your surprise that Warren believes the profit motive is ruining capitalism. She wants the largest corporations in the United States to be legally answerable to people other than their shareholders, and she's introducing a bill to force it.

Warren's "Accountable Capitalism Act" would require that corporations that earn more than $1 billion in revenue a year (note "revenue," not "profits") would need a federal "charter" in order to operate. This charter would obligate these companies to consider all "stakeholders," not just shareholders, when making decisions. The bill would also require these corporations to permit employees to elect 40 percent of the company's board of directors; a super majority of 75 percent of directors and shareholders would have to approve political donations. (Gee, I wonder if somebody will propose something similar for unions?) Shareholders would be permitted to sue the company if they felt its actions were driven purely by profit and did not reflect the desires of its many "stakeholders."

The justification for all this is the common, economically sketchy claim of income inequality; that the rich are getting richer and that wages are stagnating. Warren complains in a Wall Street Journal commentary that shareholders have "extracted" $7 trillion in profits since 1985 that "might otherwise have been reinvested in the workers who helped produce them."

That number may look huge when presented this way, but it breaks down to $233 billion a year when calculated over 30 years. The United States' total Gross Domestic Product for 2016 was more than $18 trillion. (For extra fun homework, imagine taking this to its logical socialist conclusion, and calculate how much money each American would get from that $7 trillion profit figure if it were forcibly redistributed annually over that 30-year period.) Furthermore, Warren's argument assumes that because the money didn't get "reinvested" back into workers—in the form of, say, increased wages—those workers did not benefit from whatever it was that money did instead—like improvements to the machinery or software they use.

It's interesting that progressives (and many nominal conservatives) invoke "economic multipliers" when the government spends our tax dollars on subsidies and grants within the private sector. Entire communities, we are told, benefit when tax dollars are given to just a handful of politically connected firms. That money must acquire some special magic when it passes through a legislator's hands, because private sector profits apparently just get buried in a great big hole.

The truth is that our marketplace looks nothing like it did in 1985, and this is a good thing. Our options and our technologies have expanded dramatically and are increasingly accessible to more and more people. It's telling that none of that seems to be a consideration in Warren's proposal. Here's a reminder about the entire "growing income inequality" nonsense: Our middle class is shrinking because more people are moving up the economic ladder, not down.

Warren explains that she wants to essentially force these companies to use the "benefit corporation" model, which prizes a set of values above just profits. She notes that successful companies like Kickstarter and Patagonia have embraced such a model, and that it's legal in several states.

So, stay with me here: If these types of business models are so successful in the American market, then why wouldn't corporations adopt such a model voluntarily? We shouldn't need a federal bill at all! And what about companies that are reinvesting? Amazon brings in billions in revenue annually, but has operated for most of its lifetime barely making a profit. That it has recently started to increase its profit margin has inspired headlines over how dramatically their profits have increased. But here's what it actually looks like over time, courtesy of ReCode:

Amazon profitsCourtesy of ReCode

Amazon made the decision to invest in growth over profits for the long term, and the market has rewarded that decision. Now, it's getting the profits it passed up for years. Amazon is not legally operating under the public benefit corporation business model, but it certainly did operate for most of its lifespan with priorities other than profit. Yet Warren doesn't mention Amazon at all in her commentary. Why aren't they an example of a model corporation?

Warren even complains in her commentary that "companies are setting themselves up to fail" by funneling earnings to shareholders rather than reinvesting them. Assuming this is true, what does this have to do with her? Let them fail. This is why there is a marketplace. Why keep a poorly managed company alive if it's not creating value and drawing customers?

But Warren isn't really concerned about businesses failing. She's worried about the ones that succeed despite operating in ways that she doesn't like. What she really wants to is put the federal government in a position of evaluating and approving how companies grow. She wants to substitute the decisions of people who run businesses with the prejudices and preferences of people who think like she does. And she wants to use the courts to enforce her ideas of how corporations should be managed.

I brought up Amazon for a reason. Even though Amazon heavily reinvests in its own growth over profits it has constantly been getting crap over its low wages. Under Warren's bill, employees could essentially use the government to force Amazon to raise its wages. This would have benefited a certain number of employees, but it also would have done so at the expense of the company's growth. It would be creating fewer jobs. It would be smaller. There are some people who would see this as a good thing, but it could also result in a marketplace where people don't have the broad access to products and supplies that we have today. And that is not even getting into all the technology investments Amazon is responsible for that are making our lives better in any number of ways and will continue to do so in the future.

Warren says she wants American corporations to be looking out for "American interests." They are. They're just not always the same as Warren's political interests. She doesn't grasp the difference.

She has an apparently champion for her bill in Matt Yglesias over at Vox. Yglesias has also noted how frequently zoning regulations and NIMBY types keep much-needed urban housing development at bay. So he realizes when too many people have regulatory veto power over market decisions, stagnation is the outcome, and it ends up hurting any number of people. Why would this be any different?

Photo Credit: Jonathan Bachman/REUTERS/Newscom

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Just Say'n||

    We don't need Elizabeth Warren to destroy capitalism. That's what Trump was elected to do.

  • John||

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-g.....ectations/

    Retail sales, which are the total receipts at stores that sell merchandise and related services to final consumers, rose 0.5 percent in July, according to data released by the Commerce Department Wednesday. Economists had expected sales to rise by just 0.1 percent. The sales numbers were so strong that they exceeded the top range of expectations of economists surveyed by Bloomberg.

    Outside of auto and gas sales, retail sales grew an even stronger 0.6 percent.

    Productivity, which has had very small gains or even retreated in recent years, rose 2.9 percent in the most recent quarter compared with the prior quarter. That topped expectations for gains of 2.5 percent and was far above the paltry 0.4 percent increase in the first quarter.

    Worst Nazi ever.

  • Brandybuck||

    Gosh, he really is the second coming of Christ!

  • John||

    He hasn't destroyed the economy. Weren't we supposed to have a trade war and a second great depression by now?

    But hey, move the goal posts and avoid explaining reality by pretending anyone who points it out is just a Trump worshiper!! That will work. I am sure that will fool everyone.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    See, this is how it works.

    When the economy performs above expectations, Trump is the best ever. Because it's all due to him of course.

    When the economy performs below expectations, Trump is still the best ever. Because we aren't in a second Great Depression.

    Either way, Trump is the best ever!

  • John||

    The economy is doing well. The people who said it wouldn't should have to answer for being wrong about that. Certainly, if it wasn't doing well, they would rightfully expect Trump to answer for why. That is so simple even someone with as low an IQ as you have should be able to understand it. Now whether you are honest enough to admit to understanding it is a different question and one that is likely to be answered in the negative.

  • juris imprudent||

    Rightfully expect? You just implied a rational basis for people (yourself included) to hold the President accountable for the economy on the basis of the myth of the rightful ruler.

    You shouldn't be so quick to deride the intellectual capabilities of others when you show yourself to be rather deficient.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Juries, it is a well known fact that Little Jeffy is an idiot with a subnormal IQ. So John is right to impugn his intelligence. Also, your premise doesn't real,y address what Nohn is saying.

  • Jason Dawes the Elder||

    If the economy does badly under his watch, I guess we'll find out if that's true.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    And from 2008-2016 all the Obamatons said the same thing about The Lightbringer:

    When the economy performs above expectations, Trump Obama is the best ever. Because it's all due to him of course.

    When the economy performs below expectations, Trump Obama is still the best ever. Because we aren't in a second Great Depression.

    Either way, Trump Obama is the best ever!

    Partisanship is a hell of a drug.

  • Will Seth||

    Of course, Obama took all the credit but placed the blame on GWB. Isn't Obama still trying to take the credit for this economy?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    See, this is how it works. When something reflects poorly on democrats, well, both sides do it. When something reflects poorly on team red, well look at those assholes behaving badly.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Exactly. When can you EVER recall a democrat being accountable for anything?

  • Trumptard||

    Weiner

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    He was forced to account only after everything blew up in his face, and he had ceased being valuable to the party. Up to that point, the democrats wouldn't hear of it.

  • Rossami||

    Interesting rebuttal in a thread that opened with the claim that Trump will destroy capitalism.

    Nowhere in this thread did John claim that "Trump is the best ever". He's merely debunking the original claim that "Trump is the worst ever".

  • ||

    There was supposed to be a NUCLEAR HOLOCAUST!

  • Just Say'n||

    Yeah, I get that. But, I never ascribed to any of that. I never said there was going to be economic calamity or a nuclear holocaust ever. I write stupid stuff on here all the time and I don't think anyone could read my dumb remarks and think that I'm suffering from TDS.

    Which is what makes this so bizarre. Why are we pretending like Trump has some kind of great free market principles? I'll give you the deregulation, but he wants to control the economy too. Maybe not to the same extent as Warren, but he isn't all that different in how he views trade or American businesses (he criticizes businesses for moving overseas as being "not patriotic", which is exactly what Obama said).

    You're telling me that with a Democratic Congress he's not going to warm-up to some of these ideas like he did on some gun control proposals? Come on.

  • John||

    Why are we pretending like Trump has some kind of great free market principles?

    Because "great" is a relative term. He is a lot better in this regard than any President since Reagan. If that is not pure enough for your standards, fine. But don't pretend he isn't a real improvement over what we have had.

  • ||

    He's a lot better than the alternatives.

    Sad sure, but dude....Hillary.....Warren....SAD BEARD.

  • Cathy L||

    Sorry, bro, but this is what you get if you say something mean about daddy.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    I'll give you the deregulation, but he wants to control the economy too. Maybe not to the same extent as Warren, but he isn't all that different in how he views trade or American businesses (he criticizes businesses for moving overseas as being "not patriotic", which is exactly what Obama said).

    It only seems like that to you because you're not an nth dimensional De Sitter Space chess master.

  • Johnimo||

    "There was supposed to be a NUCLEAR HOLOCAUST!"

    Yes, it happened in Hawaii for about thirty minutes. They were all taking shelter and prepping for end of the world. LOL

  • ILuvPolitics||

    Check real wages, they are negative currently. And it is mostly due to his foreign policy creating higher gas prices.

    Yes, we will need much more data to be able to analyze his impact one way or the other.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Wages are actually higher. They appear lower due to an influx of people that were previously out of the job market. Some of whom are at lower to entry level wages ar the moment. Factoring them out against the people that have maintained employment in recent years and wages are up.

  • Thomas O.||

    Real estate needs to factor into this. Back in 1985, New York was the only place you'd expect to shell out $2000 a month for a shithole efficiency. Adjusted for inflation or not, rent's cutting into the budgets of a lot more people lately.

  • Just Say'n||

    Did I call him a Nazi?

    Sure he's marginally better than Warren, but he's not all that different from her in terms of economics, if we want to be honest here. The only difference is that she wants government to work to the benefit of rich white liberal urbanites, whereas Trump wants government to work to the benefit of poorer white somewhat conservative rural people.

    Where Trump would impose a steel tariff, Warren would impose a tariff over intellectual property theft. Same difference. Both cronyism masquerading as "free trade". To be fair, though, only one of those would be get called out, because all of our trade is just managed trade.

  • John||

    Sure he's marginally better than Warren, but he's not all that different from her in terms of economics, if we want to be honest here. The only difference is that she wants government to work to the benefit of rich white liberal urbanites, whereas Trump wants government to work to the benefit of poorer white somewhat conservative rural people.

    That is the most idiotic thing I have ever read. Trump cuts taxes and literally hundreds of billions of dollars in regulations and you think he is the same as Warren, who is literally come out in support of nationalizing the entire economy because of a few steel tariffs on China? That is so idiotic it is unworthy of a response.

    I understand you have to constantly virtue signal and express your superiority by showing how you hate Trump. I would never say you are some white trash deplorable. You are a top man.

    Now that we have exstablished that, can we at least try to have some connection to reality? Just a little?

  • Just Say'n||

    Those tax cuts were passed by the Republican Congress and the same thing would have been passed with any generic Republican at the helm. But, other things would not have occurred with a generic Republican at the helm- mainly the inability to eliminate Obamacare because of contradictory messages from the executive who didn't care or understand enough about healthcare policies to set out priorities and tariffs coupled with croniest pay-offs.

    I already said that Warren is marginally worse. What more do you want?

  • John||

    Those tax cuts were passed by the Republican Congress and the same thing would have been passed with any generic Republican at the helm.

    So what? Trump proposed them and signed them. That makes him a lot better than Warren who would have done neither. And no, a generic Republican would not have cut those regulations. We had a generic Republican for 8 years named George Bush and he didn't cut a single regulation.

    To say that that is "marginally better than Warren" is to say taxes and regulations don't really matter, which is completely retarded. There is really nothing else to say other than that you have let your desire to virtue signal and feel special over the evil white working class make you retarded. Maybe someday you will get tired of that and allow yourself to think again.

  • MarkLastname||

    Hey, can anyone find the goalposts? John just won't stop moving them.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    John isn't the one moving them. So,e people just have to knock Trump no matter what.

  • ||

    She's far worse? She could do serious limousine liberal socialist damage.

  • ||

    Not just stupid on the one hand but intellectually dishonest or inconsistent on the other.

    Trump wants government to work to the benefit of poorer white somewhat conservative rural people.

    Where Trump would impose a steel tariff

    I thought the steel and trade tariffs were going to hurt the poorer white somewhat conservative rural people?

  • Happy Chandler||

    Tax cuts with spending increases are just tax deferments.
    The Trump tax cuts introduced more distortions in the market and hurt many working class people with large families through the elimination of the personal exemption.

    http://www.politico.com/agenda.....one-000620

    Trump only claims to have eliminated $8B in regulations. Over $6B of that was a single action performed by Congress, reversing a raise in the labor standards for federal contractors. I.e. cutting the wages of the working class.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Cutting CAFE would save over 200BB.

    Giving free shit away is just a tax increase and a destruction of wealth.

  • Happy Chandler||

    Now, do the military budget.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Right after you do courts and police.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Ok, after we shed all the things in the federal budget that are not part of the enumerated powers of the federal,govt. under the constitution. The defense budget should be one of the last things cut, as it is actually a designated function of the federal govt.

  • chipper me timbers||

    "Tax cuts with spending increases are just tax deferments."

    Not necessarily. Budget pressure DOES reduce spending so in the future, it's equally possible that massive debt servicing costs will result in lower spending instead of higher taxes.

    Also, better to take the chance on that and keep the money you have now. The future is uncertain.

  • Happy Chandler||

    When has that ever happened?

    Reagan tax deferments came due under Bush and Clinton. W. tax deferments came due under Obama. Trump's tax deferments will come due when President Avenatti takes over.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Just do what Jackson did to pay off the national debt--destroy the large banks, sell off public lands, and block every spending bill that crosses the desk.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    I've got to go,with John on this. Just's statement that Warren and Trump are similar on economics is ridiculous.

    Seriously.

  • Happy Chandler||

    Keynesian stimulus for the win!
    Cut taxes and boost spending. Good for short term market results.

    Meanwhile, real wages are flat. Slightly down hourly, hours slightly up, take home essentially no growth.

    http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/realer.pdf

  • Just Say'n||

    The 1970's called, they need their failed economics back

  • Happy Chandler||

    Refer them to Arthur Burns.

    Tax cuts and increased spending leads to a short term economic boost.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Too bad it didn't succeed for barry.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    This same tired talking point. You've been keeping up with your vox talking points. But that is wages and not total compensation and isn't the whole secular stagnation nonsense that you claim.

  • Happy Chandler||

    http://www.bls.gov/news.release/eci.nr0.htm

    Private industry employment cost index was up 2.9% y/y in June.

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018.....years.html

    Inflation was 2.9% y/y in June.

    Remind me of your point?

    Also, cost index is total for all workers, not median. Pay raises for the top earners would bring up the index even if the average worker sees nothing.

  • ILuvPolitics||

    And really, it is not inflation. Inflation happens when people will pay more for stuff because they have more to spend (like bidding). Prices are up due to a supply shock in oil, which could be credited to this President.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    The point is here.

    You seem to seriously believe that income growth must be purely monotonic. What was the real wage growth from Mar 17 to Mar 18? Why it was 0.9%.

    So you can keep waiting for your endpoints to match your pre-selected outcome, or you can realize that income growth is a very noisy process that requires more than a 12 month period to have meaning.

    Now which of those words were too big for you to understand?

    p.s. Love the obligatory 1% stole muh money shot. You never disappoint.

  • Happy Chandler||

    So, I'm guessing you checked the June, May, and April numbers and didn't find what you wanted, and went back to March for one good number so you can accuse me of cherry picking, for taking the most recent data?

  • Happy Chandler||

    Compare the number from October 2016, the last month before the election:
    http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/20.....r-2016.htm

  • Happy Chandler||

    First, you complain about the statistic I chose. I figure what's most important to workers is their paycheck.

    Your statistic matches what I said before, and you complain that I didn't cherry pick the one month with a moderated gain.

    I'm thinking you might be looking for statistics to back your opinion rather than what the data say.

  • tlapp||

    Yes no fascist ever cut government regulations and taxes.

  • Sevo||

    Just Say'n|8.15.18 @ 2:07PM|#
    "We don't need Elizabeth Warren to destroy capitalism. That's what Trump was elected to do."

    Ya know, there's a lot to dislike about the guy, but if you didn't outright lie about things, you might be seen as other than a TDS victim.

  • Just Say'n||

    I have TDS? I thought I was a Russian bot?

  • John||

    You are just a sad virtue signaler. Where did the deplorabls touch you?

  • Just Say'n||

    The last thing I have ever done is virtue signal. I have no "virtue" to signal

  • ||

    You do realize that the people that usually engage in virtue signalling aren't really that virtuous either, right?

  • Just Say'n||

    E tu, mad.casual?

  • John||

    That is all you are doing here. You hate Trump. We get it. You are just so fucking smart and upper class. God damn it why don't those stupid hillbillies know their place?

  • Just Say'n||

    Quite the opposite. I have nothing but sympathy for the working class in this country, as you should know if you read how often I rage against well-to-do white liberals. That doesn't change the fact that I think he's doing them a disservice

  • JesseAz||

    You sure do use the adjective white in a lot of your posts. Are you sure you're not virtue signaling? Maybe a tech writer for the NYT?

  • ||

    Relax guys. He was being fasee....facetshu....sarcastic.

  • Happy Chandler||

    Fascistic?

  • Just Say'n||

    That better describes Warren, but nice try!

  • BigT||

    Exactly. The headline says:
    "This is also known as "socialism."

    But socialism is when the government owns the means of production. When the government has cozy relationships with companies that is fascism.
    *****

    There is a spectrum of cronyism - when the non-workers make the decisions - with free market capitalism at one end, then crony capitalism, then fascism, then socialism, then communism.
    The systems get more crony-ist as you go towards communism.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Just say'n doesn't suffer from TDS.

  • Sevo||

    Just Say'n|8.15.18 @ 2:19PM|#
    "I have TDS?"

    With a bullshit line like that, there's little doubt.

  • Nardz||

    Just Say'n doesn't have TDS, but there is a little bit of virtue signalling in his original post.

    Somewhat understandable, as if you don't parrot the "tariffs bad", "Trump stupid" dogma word for word, you get viciously ridiculed for not towing the groupthink line.

  • Nardz||

    Oh, and before you respond after being triggered by the "groupthink" line, please think of an example of how people - responding to every tariff article with the exact same lines repeating over and over again - display any nuance in their/your objections or differ in your opinions in any way. I'll listen...

  • ||

    please think of an example of how people - responding to every tariff article with the exact same lines repeating over and over again - display any nuance in their/your objections or differ in your opinions in any way. I'll listen...

    - The length of the hypotenuse of a right angle triangle is the square root of the sums of the squares of the two other sides.

    - A nuanced analysis reveals that the length of the hypotenuse of a right angle triangle varies between 83% and 112% of the square root of the sums of the squares of the two other sides.

    - Nah, the length of the hypotenuse of a right angle triangle is exactly the square root of the sums of the squares of the two other sides.

    - You're just parroting the Pythagorean groupthink line.

  • Nardz||

    Economics/trade dynamics = mathematical certainty?

    Okay, then you'll have no trouble providing the proof.
    I'll wait

  • ||

    Economics/trade dynamics

    The subject at hand is the effect of tariffs on production and consumption.

    you'll have no trouble providing the proof

    For any proof of showing that tariffs lower production (and a such standards of living) you'll claim that such an analysis lacks nuance and is just parroting the "tariffs bad" groupthink line.

    Were you genuinely interested, you would peruse Lesson 19 of this book.

  • Nardz||

    Thanks for the link, I'll read it tomorrow.

    What I was looking for specifically was a mathematical proof like the Pythagorean theorem you cited. Obviously, that wouldn't include any words. Point being, if you can't do it with just math then it's not certainty.

    My position on tariffs personally is agnostic - but I recognize that there's not only one way of doing things and that there are myriad factors in play.

  • ||

    a mathematical proof [...] Obviously, that wouldn't include any words

    There are several ways to prove the Pythagorean theorem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_theorem , and all proofs involve some words. So your assertion that a mathematical proof doesn't include any words is false.

    Point being, if you can't do it with just math then it's not certainty.

    A mistaken point: "just math" doesn't mean "without words". For example Euclid's proof of Euclid's theorem (about the infinity of primes) involves many words.

    but I recognize that there's not only one way of doing things

    There's only one way of imposing tariffs, which are a tax by the government on foreign imports.

    there are myriad factors in play

    Nah, tariffs are a single particular factor: they're a tax by the government on foreign imports.

  • perlchpr||

    Well, congratulations on hijacking the comments away from any discussion of the article on the very first thread, I guess. :-/

  • KAO||

    TDS is strong here....

  • John||

    She has an apparently champion for her bill in Matt Yglesias over at Vox. Yglesias has also noted how frequently zoning regulations and NIMBY types keep much-needed urban housing development at bay. So he realizes when too many people have regulatory veto power over market decisions, stagnation is the outcome, and it ends up hurting any number of people. Why would this be any different?

    It is not but you have to remember Yglesias is retarded. Seriously, he is not normal and is somewhere far up on the autism scale.

  • ||

    He claps his hands and wails with joy whenever he sees Chinese linking rings.

  • Happy Chandler||

    Maybe it's different because nothing in the proposal is a veto point? The reason zoning is bad is because it is only a stopping mechanism.

    Maybe it's because it's been done for decades in Germany, and as Trump reminds us, they're kicking our ass in trade?

  • MarkLastname||

    Germany's economic growth is anemic compared to the US, and that's despite being a significantly poorer country. So no, this pseudo-communist system is not really 'working out' the way you like to imagine.

  • MarkLastname||

    And you have to be pretty damned delusional to not see discretionary regulation as a stopping mechanism.

  • Dariush||

    "... you have to remember Yglesias is retarded."

    If I remember correctly, Yglesias is that fat cross-eyed fuck that wears those goofy fucking clown suits. People like him really think that they are our intellectual superiors.

  • Sevo||

    "Accountable Capitalism Act"
    When fuaxcahauntas claims that, you can be sure it means:
    "My Chance to Regulate the Hell out of Businesses Act"

  • John||

    Her chance to extort the hell out of business act. Let's have some truth in advertising here.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    That cunt must never be president. She is the poster child for why we need a constitutional amendment banning the practice of Marxism.

  • Mithrandir||

    If only the constitution didn't protect speech, amirite?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    We don't protect all kinds of speech. We don't protect incitement to violence, sedition, treason, etc.

    This is also why America needs the criminalization of Marxism enshrined in the constitution. To protect it from Marxist judges installed by our treasonous democrats.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    You and I are both stakeholders in the decision for Weigel to give us all his money. A stakeholder vote is 2 to 1 to make him do so. He must now pay up.

  • John C. Randolph||

    Same line of bullshit we heard from FDR and GWB.

    -jcr

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Reason will publish this article, then do 5 articles and hundreds of tweets on immigration. Priorities.

  • Ska||

    Christ, what an asshole.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Enough with the half measures. Nationalize corporations now. I'm not interested in her counting coups.

  • John||

    What is so magical about a billion dollars? Shouldn't all corporations be socially responsible?

  • Ska||

    They have to grow to a certain point to be worth fucking over.

  • perlchpr||

    If you kill them as calves, you never get any milk out of them at all.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    "What is so magical about a billion dollars? Shouldn't all corporations be socially responsible?"

    Comrade, comrade.............

    One step at a time.

  • BigT||

    "Accountable Capitalistm Act"

    Done.

  • CE||

    More like a 40 percent measure.

  • earthandweather||

    I can't even read this....I'm going to imagine that it will go away and that I don't need to know anymore about Elizabeth's latest treachery.

  • Just Say'n||

    You shut-up and read. This is the world we live in now.

  • ||

    Shareholders would be permitted to sue the company if they felt its actions were driven purely by profit and did not reflect the desires of its many "stakeholders."

    I'm not surprised, but this seems completely backwards. If you went in for the whole 'Accountable Corporate Charter' you should be *shielded* from such actions, not bound to it. Otherwise, you're asking people to sign a contract that, if they can't meet it's fanatical obligations, somebody gets to shoot them in the foot. You'd have to be a moron.

    If we let the workers pick 40% of the board and it turns out that we're (still) unanimous in our plan to grind live puppies into sausage for profit then, tough noogies. Choose a different 40% next time.

  • John||

    What are the desires of the "stakeholders"? What if my desire is that the company send it profits to ISIS to help kill the unbelievers. Do I get to sue when they don't do that?

  • chipper me timbers||

    Yeah no shit. This proposal of hears has lowered my opinion of her intellect and that was honestly as low as I thought was possible.

  • KAO||

    Great point

  • CE||

    Won't anyone stand up for profits?

    Profits are the difference between the value people freely place on a good or service, and the cost to society to create that value. Big profits are good. Bigger profits are better.

    When someone runs a business without profits, either they're not creating something people like enough, or they're using too many resources to make it.

  • CE||

    And a corollary: allowing profits to stay with those who earned them ensures that more resources go to those who use them more efficiently. Profits are green.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    I'm going to have a profits over people shirt made. I can wear it when my "socialism is treason" shirt is in the wash.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    This charter would obligate these companies to consider all "stakeholders," not just shareholders, when making decisions. The bill would also require these corporations to permit employees to elect 40 percent of the company's board of directors; a super majority of 75 percent of directors and shareholders would have to approve political donations. (Gee, I wonder if somebody will propose something similar for unions?) Shareholders would be permitted to sue the company if they felt its actions were driven purely by profit and did not reflect the desires of its many "stakeholders."

    God Lord this is a bunch of nonsense. But my favorite is the last part. How in the world is any judge or third party supposed to know if any particular decision was "driven purely by profit" or not?

    I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that this type of proposal is a variant of socialism that is a step beyond the "social democracy" of Norway.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    The presumption behind that ridiculous proposal is that the shareholders are not motivated by profits.

  • Microaggressor||

    So, does it meet the literal definition of the F word?

  • Cynical Asshole||

    It's pretty much fascism. Mussolini would have been proud. She probably had to translate it from the original Italian.

  • Restoras||

    It seems similar to National Socialism - sure, you can own the means of production, at least nominally, but you might have to make what state tells you to, or anything you else, if you want to remain the nominal owner. It's also a blatant redistribution plan to force more equality of outcomes while destroying equality of opportunity.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Warren's "Accountable Capitalism Act" would require that corporations that earn more than $1 billion in revenue a year (note "revenue," not "profits") would need a federal "charter" in order to operate.


    Such a rule would certainly guarantee that a company would never get big enough to report revenues of a billion. It would also certainly guarantee that a company would divide itself into various little companies with different names, which would lead to such a level of economic inefficiency that Mrs. Warrwn would get her which and make thr US look more like a Socialist country.

    Also, what makes the idea of granting a federal charter to a company not Fascism?

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Get her wish...

  • Just Say'n||

    Sounds a lot like the laws they have in Italy. That's working out well for them, right? It's an economic powerhouse that hasn't experienced decades of economic stagnation, right?

  • H. Farnham||

    "Also, what makes the idea of... not Fascism?"

    That was my first thought after reading the subtitle. I'd like to think that there's no way this bill would ever even make it to a vote... but who knows anymore.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Sounds like the sort of thing a freedom loving population overthrows a congress for passing it.

  • ||

    Such a rule would certainly guarantee that a company would never get big enough to report revenues of a billion.

    Disagree. The CEOs of such companies will be connected party insiders. No one in their right mind would take a job where the shareholders could both fire and sue you no matter how good a job you did. There would be a few crazies willing to try and they will get fired and sued. The only people who can and will rise in/to such positions will be people who are guaranteed the job and/or are somehow immune from lawsuit. Either party insiders or oligarchs and such.

  • Restoras||

    Sounds like a new name for political officer.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Or a bureaucrat, assigned from the Central Bureaucracy.........

    https://vimeo.com/69828947

  • ||

    It's like putting a rock in a stream hoping to block the water. Guess what happens? The flow of the water isn't block - it just goes around it.

    That's human nature.

    And control freaks and busy bodies like this twit infesting the progressive ranks don't understand this. They just don't understand human nature. Hence, they love force and coercion.

  • ||

    blocked

  • Microaggressor||

    I use a similar analogy for campaign finance regulation. It's like trying to stop a ship from sinking using your bare hands. But yours is better.

  • Happy Chandler||

    We kept hearing that about hours after Obamacare passed, but part time jobs have decreased as full time have increased.

    We kept hearing that about banks after Dodd Frank, but the banks just have consolidated more.

    How many times can libertarians be wrong?

  • Microaggressor||

    Umm, Dodd Frank is a major driver of consolidation, which libertarians have been pointing out since its inception. How stupid are you?

  • General_Tso||

    From their various comments, I'd say pretty F'ing stupid.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    And Obamacare has driven consolidation in the medical industry. But that's a feature of fascism and not a bug.

  • Microaggressor||

    Weird how the anti-fascist movement hasn't been very active against the Obama administration. It's almost as though the marxist definition of fascism has no resemblance to the historical one.

  • Happy Chandler||

    Consolidation in both industries was a long time trend that predated both pieces of legislation. Neither has appreciably affected it.

    Dodd Frank had size thresholds. Many predicted that banks would stay just under the threshold, like people predicted companies would hire people less than full time to avoid Obamacare regulations, or companies in Seattle not hiring enough people to face the higher minimum wage.

  • BYODB||


    Consolidation in both industries was a long time trend that predated both pieces of legislation. Neither has appreciably affected it.

    This is half true, and half false. You really are kind of an idiot, aren't you?

    Perhaps most idiotic of all? You ignore all the years of government tampering that was driving the consolidation before the ACA. You really are this stupid, aren't you?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Yeah, Barrycare had nothing to do with it.

  • thorsmjollnir||

    Medical device companies have absolutely consolidated as a response to Obamacare. Orthopedic companies went on a purchasing spree of smaller medical device companies after the passage of Obamacare as the thinking was the only way to survive in the long term under those conditions is to increase the breadth of their product portfolio.

  • MarkLastname||

    Seattle's minimum wage has caused disemployment, Obamacare did demonstrably disincentivize small businesses from expanding due to requirements it imposed on them, and you're ass backwards about Dodd-Frank: mist libertarian commenters we're saying would exacerbate 'too big to fail' by making regulatory compliance disproportionately more expensive for smaller banks. And that's what happened.

    Your strategy, it seems, is to just avoid accepting that you're wrong by pretending you live in a fictional universe where the things illustrating your wrongness didn't happen. I applaud your creativity in world building.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    what makes the idea of granting a federal charter to a company not Fascism?

    That "D" after her name. All "right thinking people" know that only RethugliKKKans are fascists.

  • perlchpr||

    Maybe Antifa will start protesting Warren.

    Yeah, right.

  • ||

    This from a woman who profited off foreclosed homes, tried to shameless put herself into the #metoo equation when she claimed to have been harassed by a now dead colleague and friend, and thinks she's part Cherokee because of her 'high cheek bones'.

    https://bit.ly/2BdQoNR

    Real stellar integrity right there. Her 'idea' is despicable. Socialism by other means.

    And no shit Sad Beard agrees with her. He's a progressive retard and business/economic illiterate.

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    How much does it cost to become a stakeholder, comrade?

  • Johnny B||

    Excellent point: To become a stakeholder, you just have to make noise by finding a way to claim victimhood. To become a shareholder, you need to buy some stock in the company. It is apparently easier to find a way to claim victimhood than it is to dig up the cash to buy the stock.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    A stakeholder sounds like someone whom I would pound a stake right through their heart.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    "I've abandoned free market principles to save the free market system"
    - George W Bush

  • Dillinger||

    yep

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Compassionate conservatism.
    Bleeding heart libertarian.

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    Interesting that Warren posts her manifesto behind a paywall.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    You didn't think she had a problem with HER profits, did you??

  • ||

    Between this splendidly idiotic idea from Lizzy and Krugman's hard on for the Broken Windows fallacy, America's economy would be in in strong progressive hands for years to come. And I shall name her....Amerizuela!

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    It will certainly be entertaining to see them try to fund all of their "free" goodies by "taxing the rich" when they've taken such steps to ensure that there won't be as many rich people around.

  • Happy Chandler||

    It worked in the '50's!

  • ||

    Oh. You're one of those.

  • Stevecsd||

    There was no Medicare or Medicaid, Great Society welfare state, or food stamps in the 1950's. Learn some history Happy.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    And don't forget that in the '50s, we were the last man standing.

  • CE||

    Not to mention no 21 trillion dollar national debt to pay 600 billion a year in interest on.

  • Restoras||

    And let's not forget unfunded liabilities of, what, $100 trillion? We'll have to confiscate the economic output of the entire world for a year and a half to cover it all.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    The last time the US had a real budget surplus and a net reduction in total debt was 1957. Defense spending was over 10% of GDP and welfare spending was less than 5%. Willing to accept those ratios along with your 50's tax rates?

  • MarkLastname||

    No, no it didn't, as evidenced by the 60s and 70s that followed.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    I'm not naive enough to believe that this is just about economics. I'm sure Warren and the other progs are salivating over the prospect of being able to shut down industries they hate, like firearms manufacturers.

  • John||

    It is also about money. Those other priorities will include funding the various shakedown operations run by the left. It is always about looting the country with the left.

  • Restoras||

    It isn't remotely about economics. It's entirely about control of the means of production, and redistribution to favored groups in the name of equality of outcomes.

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    Forbes gropes for the middle way.

  • juris imprudent||

    Mussolini couldn't have said it better - that all corporations must serve the state.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    I always understood the difference between Communism and Fascism as Communists owning the means of production while Fascists just told the owners what to do. A difference without a practical distinction. The same elites get richer and fuck up production so much that everybody, including the elites, is far worse off than they would have been.

    This sounds like Fascism. I guess we were all wrong about the Dems being Communists.

  • ||

    A difference without a practical distinction.

    Particularly since by this definition (which I agree with), modern China is more Fascist than Communist.

  • BYODB||


    I always understood the difference between Communism and Fascism as Communists owning the means of production while Fascists just told the owners what to do. A difference without a practical distinction.

    I've often thought this myself, and wondered why so many fight for so long over such a minor difference with no practical difference in their every day lives. In both scenarios, you are a cog with no volition. I guess that's what made them an axis, and the other side allies.

  • Happy Chandler||

    I've been hearing for a decade that regulating corporations in any was was socialism.

    No wonder socialism is so popular now!

  • MarkLastname||

    Ah, the myth that corporations weren't regulated before 2009/1993/1933 or whatever. Always a central delusion of leftist economic reasoning.

  • Microaggressor||

    There is a practical distinction though. At least Fascism permits profit and loss and price signals. They called it the "third way" for a reason.

  • CE||

    And Senator Warren and her Board of Overseers will mean you are free to ignore those signals. In fact, you'll be required to ignore them.

  • Happy Chandler||

    Fascism isn't defined by the economic system. That may have described Italian Fascism, but not German or more current fascist movements.

  • juris imprudent||

    No true fascist?

  • Microaggressor||

    No, he's just saying fascism isn't defined by its definition.

  • Happy Chandler||

    Fascism comes in different flavors. The economic system isn't an essential part of the definition (which is very fluid and hard to define).

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Oh that's fucking brilliant.

    "Because I said so."

    "Fuck you, that's why."

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    It's all about spectrums these days.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Provide an alternative definition, if you dare. Otherwise bullshit.

  • Happy Chandler||

    http://www.livescience.com/57622-fascism.html

    Still reading through. Seems fair.

    Fascism is impossible to define in a sentence. It either is too broad to be useful or too specific to encompass.

  • BYODB||


    It either is too broad to be useful or too specific to encompass.

    Did you just discover language? You really were serious about reinventing the wheel using a rube goldberg, huh?

  • Juice||

    "a form of political practice distinctive to the 20th century that arouses popular enthusiasm by sophisticated propaganda techniques for an anti-liberal, anti-socialist, violently exclusionary, expansionist nationalist agenda."

    The national socialists were totally anti-socialist.

  • Happy Chandler||

    First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Socialist.

    Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Jew.

    Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

    Learn some history. The socialists were the first they came for. This poem is kinda well known.

  • CapitalistRoader||

    Two of the The 25 Points of the Nazi Party

    13. We demand the nationalization of all trusts.

    14. We demand profit-sharing in large industries.

    Sounds like Fauxcahontas is a national socialist. And obviously, the national socialists were in competition with the international (Marxist) socialists back then so, yeah, Hitler went after them, just as Stalin went after the national socialists.

  • Happy Chandler||

    That wa under the section about the war effort. And, it never happened. Hitler allied with the business leaders learn some real history.

  • Kazinski||

    Lenin came for the Socialists first too. I would rather have been a Kulak in the early days of the Russian Revolution than a menshevik, I would have had a few more years to live.

    It's always that way. Even back in Roman Times the Peoples Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) had to settle the hash of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine before they could start on the Pharisees.

  • MarkLastname||

    I guess the Soviets weren't socialists either because they massacred the Mensheviks,

  • Set Us Up The Chipper||

    Yep this is straight up Fascism. In plain sight, for everyone to see.

  • Old Smokin' Egg||

    The real problem is that working-class people aren't allowed to buy shares of stock in public corporations, so don't have access to dividends, capital gains, etc. If we eliminated the requirement that only members of the 1% could invest in stock, and allowed anyone to spend as much money as they possessed and were willing to spend on shares, at the same price at which it's currently offered to greedy plutocrats, can there be any doubt that proles would take full advantage of the opportunity?

  • Sevo||

    Old Smokin' Egg|8.15.18 @ 3:04PM|#
    "The real problem is that working-class people aren't allowed to buy shares of stock in public corporations, so don't have access to dividends, capital gains, etc. If we eliminated the requirement that only members of the 1% could invest in stock, and allowed anyone to spend as much money as they possessed and were willing to spend on shares, at the same price at which it's currently offered to greedy plutocrats, can there be any doubt that proles would take full advantage of the opportunity?"

    Sarc or stupidity?

  • ||

    Sarc or stupidity?

    What - you never heard of the law that people whose income is in the lower 99th percentile are forbidden from investing in mutual funds and 401ks?

  • Microaggressor||

    My 401k is proof that I am the 1%.

    Egg is just pointing out the absurdity of the claim that profits to shareholders don't benefit workers. Workers have 401ks. Warren plans to plunder the workers while pretending to help them. It's the bread and butter of the socialist playbook.

  • Nardz||

    It's weird that whenever progressives target the rich they end up raping the middle/working class...

  • Restoras||

    Well, that's where the money is - and they aren't connected to the party apparatus at all and can't put up much of a fight.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Everyone should be barred from mutual funds. Explain to me how the fuck I realize capital gains in the same year that a mutual fund DECLINES in value? Oh, and just to duct tape some nails onto that fire hydrant shoved up my ass, I can't sell that fund at any time during the day; no, I get to wait until the end of the trading session and like it! (Can you tell I despise mutual funds?)

    ETF's

  • Headache||

    Options

  • Earth Skeptic||

    I vote BOTH

  • Juice||

    Robinhood, bruh.

  • Rob Misek||

    It's called regulations, they are often good and necessary.

    Would you like aircraft maintenance to be unregulated?

    How about your food and medicine?

    If you were on a long dangerous voyage, or in space, all of your activities would be regulated for the good of everyone.

    But because you can piss on a piece of earth today, your capitalism doesn't give a damn about anyone else or the future, in which you will be absent.

    So let's just look ahead to when there is no "you" and start making good decisions.

  • Sevo||

    Stupidity, no question.
    Fuck off, slaver.

  • ||

    Would you like aircraft maintenance to be unregulated?

    Yes, because those who own and operate the planes have a direct stake in making sure they are reliable. Maintenance that is done simply because it is mandated by regulation is a waste of resources that can be used to perform needed maintenance.

    How about your food and medicine?

    Yes. I wonder if you have any idea why Epipens are so expensive?

    If you were on a long dangerous voyage, or in space, all of your activities would be regulated for the good of everyone.

    We are not on a long and dangerous voyage, and we are not in space. We are talking about the government of a free society.

    But because you can piss on a piece of earth today, your capitalism doesn't give a damn about anyone else or the future

    I can't make sense out of this. No "ism" gives a damn about anyone. "Isms" aren't sentient.

    So let's just look ahead to when there is no "you" and start making good decisions.

    Define "Good."

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    Good (n) - A misnomer of "What Rob Misek wrongthinks is best"

  • Cynical Asshole||

    I wonder if you have any idea why Epipens are so expensive?

    BECUZ EVUL KKKOCHPORAYSHUNZ, obvs.

    This guy makes Tony seem like a font of philosophic genius.

  • Happy Chandler||

    Non-regulation in certain industries never lasts long because people tend to get upset when they see people dying.

    Try to eliminate the county health inspections on restaurants. Tell the people that dirty restaurants will fail after they only kill some people. Also, explain how outbreaks such as the romaine lettuce outbreak will be identified and the cause eliminated without a central authority to trace it.

    Try to eliminate regulations on financial securities and see how people react to market ripoffs. That's why we got Dodd-Frank, because the deregulation under Clinton and Bush failed.

    Take away regulations on car safety. Why do you think we know the name Ralph Nader? The movement he started to require safety improvements in automobiles probably has saved more lives than anything since Penicillin.

  • ||

    Try to eliminate the county health inspections on restaurants. Tell the people that dirty restaurants will fail after they only kill some people.

    Do you have examples of the scourge of death that afflicted the country from dirty restaurants prior to the advent of county health inspectors? Would it not be possible for a third-party service to rate restaurants, much the way we used to have third-party certification of organic foods, which was much more reliable and trustworthy before government got involved?

    explain how outbreaks such as the romaine lettuce outbreak will be identified and the cause eliminated without a central authority to trace it

    Why wouldn't they be? Isn't your assumption that only a central authority could manage this baked into your question?

    Try to eliminate regulations on financial securities and see how people react to market ripoffs. That's why we got Dodd-Frank, because the deregulation under Clinton and Bush failed.

    There are just too many erroneous assumptions in these two sentences to even address within the character limit here.

  • ||

    The movement he started to require safety improvements in automobiles probably has saved more lives than anything since Penicillin.

    Um . . . no. The meaningful improvements in automobile safety, like the meaningful reductions in emissions and increases in fuel efficiency were brought about by market forces. Nader and the government merely trailed along afterwards and took the credit, like they attempted to do with trans-fats. I guarantee you that if Congress' trans-fat ban had passed, we would now be being told that the disappearance of trans-fats only happened because the government made it so.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Here. LOOK.Look at the damned chart, and pay particular attention to deaths per Vehicle Miles Traveled. It's been going down since the data began in 1925. And especially -- pay attention here --

    You cannot tell from the chart when government began regulating and "making cars safer".

    Fuck off, slaver.

  • Happy Chandler||

    I looked carefully, and I did see that the trend had stopped, and reversed between 1960 and 1965, and then resumed dropping.

    Did something important happen in 1965?

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Did you see all the other bumps in the curve? Why did you not comment upon them?

    Or are you looking at deaths per capita which ignores the boom in driving? Deaths per VMT is what counts.

  • Happy Chandler||

    I was looking at deaths per VMT. The early 60's are the only time I saw in there postwar that had more than a single year increase in a row.

    I do see about a 15% drop between 1973 and 1974. Did something happen in 1974?

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Dipshit.

    1930-5.

    1942-3.

    1945.

    1948.

    1955.

    1983.

    Bastiat talked about the unseen, but I think he'd never met anyone as willfully blind as you.

  • Happy Chandler||

    Okay, it happened a lot before the 60's, and once after 1966?

    What was your point?

  • ||

    Deaths per VMT hovers between about 4.7 and 5.7 from 1957 to 1970, after which it resumes it's steady downward trend.

    What changed toward the end of this period? Increased competition from foreign markets - i.e. Japanese and German cars.

    Why - did you have something else in mind?

  • Happy Chandler||

    It goes up from 5.3 to 5.5 from 1958 to 1966, then drops to 4.3 in 1972.
    Arbitrary endpoints are fun!
    Every year from 1966 to 1973 showed a steady drop (new, safer cars gaining in popularity) and a huge drop in 1974 (national speed limit). There's a clear peak in1966.

    Or are you saying the influx of Beetles and Microbusses among the hippies helped matters?

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    There was a lot more downward trend before government got involved.

  • Happy Chandler||

    You've got lots of assertion, but haven't actually shown any evidence that anything in there was wrong.

    Regulations don't come from on high because people want to control things. Regulations come from the ground, because people like not being poisoned and not dying. Except for the regulations which are to protect cartels.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Regulations don't come from on high because people want to control things. Regulations come from the ground, because people like not being poisoned and not dying. Except for the regulations which are to protect cartels.

    I see a hell of a lot of assumptions and assertions there.

    Fuck off, slaver.

  • ||

    You've got lots of assertion, but haven't actually shown any evidence that anything in there was wrong.

    I showed that

    1) you haven't shown any crisis in food service that has been abated by government regulation

    2) I asserted what everyone already knows - i.e. that organic food labels meant a lot more back when they were 100% privately regulated

    3) I questioned your assumption that only the government could possibly raise awareness about something like a salmonella outbreak (where you beg the question that government is any good at this, anyway)

    4) I pointed out that your word salad about Dodd-Frank doesn't have any relationship with anything that has happened in the real world

    5) I pointed out that you are simply assuming, without evidence, that Ralph Nader was the cause of car safety on account of because he said so.

    In other words the only content of my post was showing that "You've got lots of assertion, but haven't actually shown any evidence to support any of your assumptions about how helpless we would be without government regulation."

    All I have to do to counter your statements is point out that they're baseless. If you want to contradict me with something substantial, fee free.

  • Happy Chandler||

    Truthfully, I know more about the drugs side of it.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elixir_sulfanilamide

    There's been more and more, as people get upset about fraudulent drugs or people dying. The Barr case had a huge effect.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Perhaps you'd like to comment on the War On (Some) Drug (Users), and especially the current government-induced opiod crisis.

  • Happy Chandler||

    Totally against it.

    California was first on medical marijuana, early on recreational. Berkeley did decriminalization years ago.

    San Francisco has a low OD rate because of harm reduction.

    I worked at a company that made generic oxy. I could have walked out with a few handfuls every day. Sometimes I wish I had!

  • Sevo||

    Happy Chandler|8.15.18 @ 10:42PM|#
    "California was first on medical marijuana'

    You are one scumbag, cherry-picking piece of shit:
    "Gov. Jerry Brown on legalized marijuana: 'How many people can get stoned and still have a great state?'"
    [...]
    " After legalization, he said, "if there's advertising and legitimacy, how many people can get stoned and still have a great state or a great nation? The world's pretty dangerous, very competitive. I think we need to stay alert, if not 24 hours a day, more than some of the potheads might be able to put together."
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pos
    t-politics/wp/2014/03/02/gov-jerry-brown-
    on-legalized-marijuana-how-many-people-
    can-get-stoned-and-still-have-a-
    great-state/?utm_term=.a5252c464151

    Are you capable of embarrassment, or are you so far to the left that embarrassment doesn't bother you any more.
    How much of a pathetic excuse for humanity are you?

  • Happy Chandler||

    The people voted for marijuana long before Jerry.

    Your ignorance doesn't make me stupid.

  • MarkLastname||

    And how many people die because more effective drugs would've been developed and brought to market if costs weren't prohibitive due to the FDA?

    Same old fallacy: you don't understand the concept of trade offs. Hey, let's ban automobiles, just imagine the lives we'd save. Oh, never mind all the people who died because they had to try and take a covered wagon to the hospital.

  • Giant Realistic Flying Tiger||

    WRONG.

    Norman Borlaug, bitch. Saved upwards of a billion lives through his work on genetically modified organisms, MOST of them in third-world countries. But hey, you don't give a shit about poor brown people, do you. Their lives don't matter.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    Would you like aircraft maintenance to be unregulated?

    What would be wrong with that? No, seriously.

    Yes, I'm aware of the widely held view that CEOs and shareholders of corporations (including airlines) are soulless ghouls who only care about the Almighty Dollar. But let's look at that: how much does a Boeing 757 cost? How many millions of dollars go swirling down the drain if one of them falls out of the sky? Not just the loss of the plane itself, although that's a shit ton of money.

    Hell, I do proper maintenance on my car without the government forcing me to. It's an expensive item (for me at least) and I don't want the goddamn thing barfing its transmission all over the road before I've got it paid off.

    Now, if we're talking government-run airlines then you might have a point.

  • ||

    Now, if we're talking government-run airlines then you might have a point.

    ^ This.

    On the topic of the health inspectors, the nastiest kitchens I have ever seen are consistently those that are government-run.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    We have seen government ran hospitals, including government ran psych hospitals.

    The worst hospitals in NYC are the HHC hospitals. The worst housing in NYC is the NYCHA housing.

  • ||

    You don't even want to know the shit we found at a public hospital we demolished last year.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    I assume that is a literal statement.

  • ||

    lol.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    This is one of the most insanely idiotic comments I've ever seen. At no point were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone who read it is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

  • Microaggressor||

    Next time you decide to comment on a libertarian site, it would be helpful to know the difference between private regulation and government regulation to avoid embarrassing yourself in astonishing ignorance.

  • thorsmjollnir||

    Any good classical liberal will tell you that it isn't antithetical to the notion of limited government to have regulations for certain things such as on food and medicine. For example, we execute contracts to buy food all the time. Your exchange of money with a grocer is executing a contract. Where markets don't work perfectly, such as when there are asymmetries in information, then regulation may be beneficial in so far as such regulation steps into the place of the consumer to help the transaction work better. So for food, some regulations are reasonable in that they help ensure you know what's in the food you are eating or where it came from. That is simply allowing the market to work as intended. This sort of notion was at least discussed by Bastiat in that the government has the same authority as the individual, but no more.

    However, your attempt to point out situations where reasonable regulation has some benefit does not then justify any and every type of conceivable form of regulation. The problem with you and many other progressives is that they have zero guiding principle to say "maybe that's going too far."

  • ||

    your attempt to point out situations where reasonable regulation has some benefit does not then justify any and every type of conceivable form of regulation.

    ^ This x 1000.

  • Stephen Lathrop||

    What can (and should) justify, "any and every type of conceivable form of regulation," would be a policy system designed to encourage experiment, followed by correction based on results. Just to be clear, I would bound the scope of policy experiments using some agreed-upon principles for limiting government.

    What can't justify saying "maybe that's going too far," is any kind of ideology developed by exercise of pure reason in reliance on axioms.

    Work toward the former, and shun the latter.

  • Sevo||

    Stephen Lathrop|8.15.18 @ 6:13PM|#
    "What can (and should) justify, "any and every type of conceivable form of regulation," would be a policy system designed to encourage experiment, followed by correction based on results."

    What lefty shitbags like you do not understand is that gov't regulations to nothing of the sort. But then, you're pretty stupid that way.
    Fuck off.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    let's look at one of my favorite examples of over-protective counter-productive regulations: those stupid yellow arrows and reduced speed signs on freeway curves. DoTs put them up when some fool runs off the curve, in the hope it will deter future litigators.

    The real safety principle is that if you should never drive faster than what you can see and how good your brakes are. If there's snow on the road but you can see miles ahead, you slow down. If it's foggy, or if the road curves sharply, you slow down.

    What really happens is people see those signs, especially teh reduced speed signs, and think they can go that fast because the government says that is a safe speed. They stop thinking. And when they screw up, they sue, get lots of money, still remain paralyzed for life, and the DoT puts up more signs and lowers the speed limit.

    I would far rather fly an airline that pays attention to safety on their own or based on what the manufacturer says than on what some mindless government bureaucrat decided, who has no skin in the game, will remain employed and get his pension regardless of how good those regulations are.

  • Stephen Lathrop||

    Scarecrow, you seem to be ignoring the collaborative complexity of airline maintenance. It's hard to deal with, sometimes, except by applying retributive penalties for breaking rules.

    Who in airline management can be sure, when they put maintenance out for bid, that strength-coded fasteners used by the contractor will in fact be made to specified standards, instead of to far lower ones, to save costs—with the costs accounted for only collectively, via contract terms?

    Even if you sample and test continuously, it never proves what will happen in the next batch delivered. If you're testing everything, all the time, then maybe you end up paying more than if you did the maintenance yourself.

    Government regulations seem to have a done a fair job keeping that under control. Although, to be sure, my bolt example came from a case of flaunted regulations.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Hmm, I seem to remember fraudulent fasteners even with government regulation. Surprising how everyone just took their word for it, because government said so. Surprising.

  • ||

    Government regulations seem to have a done a fair job keeping that under control.

    How does everything you just said not apply to making sure you're complying with regulations?

  • Sevo||

    Stephen Lathrop|8.15.18 @ 6:27PM|#
    "Scarecrow, you seem to be ignoring the collaborative complexity of airline maintenance. It's hard to deal with, sometimes, except by applying retributive penalties for breaking rules."

    Shitbag, you seem to be inventing bullshit to support your lefty assholery.

  • CE||

    Yes.

  • Rob Misek||

    All laws are regulations that apply to everyone.

    Today the market operates within their framework. As it may when more regulations protect those who cannot protect themselves. The price of civilization.

    Do you advocate the abolishment of all laws just because some are wrong?

    Your skull will be an ornament on someone's dashboard, in a Mad Max utopia, long before you can enjoy cheaper pizza pockets in your parents basement.

  • Rob Misek||

    The military is a prime example of how strict regulation is required when working towards common goals in a competitive and unregulated environment.

    That logical advantage applies everywhere the potential for conflict exists.

  • Rob Misek||

    For those of you apt to say Fuck Off in reply, that is exactly what the military would say to you.

    The difference is, they will kick your ass and make it happen.

    In your case, I'm not going anywhere.

  • DRM||

    The only good fake Indian is a dead fake Indian. Somebody ought to put her out of our misery.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    If DRM lights the Preet lamp and nobody sees it, is it really lit?

  • Liberty Gibbet||

    Without buying into Elizabeth Warren's feel-good tyranny, it's worth asking, I think, what we should expect from a company for the gift of incorporation. A partnership, if it does terrible wrong, lets the partners be sued, or even jailed. A corporation shields owners from bankruptcy and, mostly, from conviction. So in exchange for the government gift of incorporation, shouldn't we expect something? And shouldn't we convert a corporation back into a partnership of its shareholders if it fails to meet that expectation? Perhaps we should expect them not to move assets into tax havens, for example.

    While I think Warren's notion of stakeholders is silly, it is certainly the case that corporate boards of directors are insiders clubs, and that there are no fair elections for boards. Maybe we should consider rational reform before the likes of Elizabeth Warren impose something worse.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    Get off of your knees.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    For extra fun homework, imagine taking this to its logical socialist conclusion, and calculate how much money each American would get from that $7 trillion profit figure if it were forcibly redistributed annually over that 30-year period.

    Let's see: $7 Trillion dollars / 300 Million people (assuming that's a decent rough average) / 30 years

    7X10^12 / 300X10^6 / 30 years = ~777.78 per year for each person.

    Don't spend it all in one place.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    I'm really hoping I didn't fuck up the math, because that would be embarrassing.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    I used 320 million and was down under $730. YMMV (Your Math May Vary)

  • Happy Chandler||

    So more than an extra $3,000 for a family of four, every year?
    That's not nothing!

  • Microaggressor||

    But the tax cuts were crumbs, right Nancy?

  • Happy Chandler||

    There were no tax cuts. There were deferred tax hikes.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    There are no entitlements, just theft from future generations.

  • Happy Chandler||

    Social Insurance.

  • Sevo||

    Happy Chandler|8.15.18 @ 10:46PM|#
    "Social Insurance."

    Bullshit.

  • MarkLastname||

    Chicken pot pie.

    Just thought I'd join in the 'random irrelevant series of words' retort game.

  • RabbitHead||

    It wouldn't exist . After the first few years of siphoning off the incentive to risk capital, it would all go to shit and the 7 trillion in value would never be created

  • thorsmjollnir||

    I don't know why it would be distributed to each American since the legislation is supposed to make these companies redistribute the money to their employees, not the entirety of the American population.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    he realizes when too many people have regulatory veto power over market decisions, stagnation is the outcome, and it ends up hurting any number of people. Why would this be any different?

    Because KKKOCHPORAYSHUNZ!!111!!1!!!!11!!!!!!1!!!!

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    Well, first of all actual profits are calculated after subtracting costs, and costs includes the money that corporations have "reinvested" in their workers.

    And I can't get behind the paywall - what does she mean when she says that shareholders "extracted" $7 trillion. And does she show even the hint of a clue that she understands who the shareholders of public corporations are?

    I know she's a darling of the left, but she's always struck me as a self-promoting fool.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    A Democrat that was once a Republican? Self-promoting fool?

    A photo negative of Trump. Not in a good way, either.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    FTA:

    Warren's "Accountable Capitalism Act" would require that corporations that earn more than $1 billion in revenue a year (note "revenue," not "profits") would need a federal "charter" in order to operate. This charter would obligate these companies to consider all "stakeholders," not just shareholders, when making decisions.

    [Emphasis added] She's talking about revenue, not profits. She's probably just smart enough to realize that if she had said "profits" it would give companies a loophole to exploit by reinvesting their revenues back into themselves to get below the magical $1 billion mark.

    what does she mean when she says that shareholders "extracted" $7 trillion.

    Typical Marxist horseshit about the poor exploited proletariat and the greedy KKKOCHPORAYSHUNZ stealing all the wealth, I assume.

  • Happy Chandler||

    http://www.npr.org/2017/03/01/.....nversation

    80% of the people (poor, working and middle class combined basically) own 8% of the stock. For your average worker, stock gains are minimally relevant to well being compared to wage gains.

    Wage gains have been flat to slightly negative the past year.

  • Juice||

    The impact of capital gains on a person is not dependent on the percentage of total stock owned by his income group. Even if your figures are correct (which they most likely aren't because you're probably only counting direct holdings and not considering pension funds), the incomes also work out to something like 10% or so. So you could say 80% of people make 10% of the income so raising their wages would have minimal effect.

  • Happy Chandler||

    Try reading the article before making stuff up.

    These figures include ownership of an individual stock, a stock mutual fund or a self-directed 401(k) or IRA.

    Approximately half of Americans have zero holdings.

  • Happy Chandler||

    http://fivethirtyeight.com/fea.....vestments/

    The top 1% gets a third of their income from capital gains. The next 4% get about ten percent. Everyone else 5% or less.

    Capital gains really matter for five percent of the population. Wages count for 95%.

  • Sevo||

    "The top 1% gets a third of their income from capital gains. The next 4% get about ten percent. Everyone else 5% or less."

    Our fucking lefty loser is sorry s/he didn't figure out how to make money!
    Fuck off, slime bag.

  • MarkLastname||

    Where do wages come from? From revenue. Where does revenue come from? From the use of investment. Where does investment come from? Profits. What do share prices going up reflect? Increased investment of previously earned profits.

    I guess you're one of those people that has no understanding finance and consequently hates it. I bet you like to go on idiotic tangents about buybacks too.

  • Colossal Douchebag||

    Excellent alt text on the photo.

    This woman's ideas would be [hilarious, scary] if they weren't so [scary, hilarious].

    Fascism, pure and simple.

    Total, complete, utter non-starter. Pure political self-promotion.

  • thorsmjollnir||

    One thing this article overlooks is what shareholders actual do. They invest in a company in order to provide that company capital so that the company can expand. The market works nicely in that investors are always studying companies to identify the ones with the most capacity for growth or with their desired risk/reward balance. Investors, which include anyone with a 401(k), then throw present money at the companies that most need it with the prospect of achieving a future reward. What happens when investors are told they can no longer get returns above inflation because Elizabeth Warren said so? My guess is at least stagnation and capital fleeing to foreign markets, like China. We will probably see a lot of deadweight loss in the form of circumvention strategies particularly for those companies on the cusp of reaching the $1 billion arbitrary threshold.

    These wage programs, to the extent that they achieve their stated goals of increasing wages for lower and middle income earners, only move the bar a little higher. It will not set wages for these people into perpetual growth. All it will do is increase inflation and then when we get to the next point, people like Elizabeth Warren will be complaining that wages are stagnant and there's an income gap.

  • Happy Chandler||

    That's not what happened in Germany.

  • MarkLastname||

    Germany never had a Glass-Steagall act too; nor, before very recently, did it have a national minimum wage. Neither of those facts had the effect in Germany leftists say they should. Maybe we should mimic them in those respects?

  • creech||

    What happened to Democrats like Sen.Mansfield and Sen. Magnusson. Both these guys fought hard against Amtrak (the socialist passenger railroad scheme) in 1972. Even some Republicans supported Amtrak and it was created.
    And has blown tens of billions of taxpayer dollars since providing choo choos to tumbleweed towns in East Jibip. Why aren't there a few Democrats who will stand up to the Warrens in their party, like a handful of Republicans who sometimes stand up to Trump?

  • ILuvPolitics||

    "(Gee, I wonder if somebody will propose something similar for unions?)"

    Ummmm, they only took it to SCOTUS, who ruled that it was an unconstitutional violation of free speech. This was perhaps the worst legal ruling since Roe or Citizens United--considering they had to completely ignore another Constitutional right in order to rule this, and could have ruled far more narrowly. (They could have ruled that unions cannot engage in political speech, rather than EFFECTIVELY killing unions. The actual fallout of a ruling should have some bearing on said ruling, it should not live in a legal vacuum. Or they could have ruled that unions do not have to cover non-union employees, and that non-union employees can be paid at a lower rate with fewer benefits, if they want to save $15/month.)

    But if you want to go that route, then let's have employees of companies take this suit to the Supreme Court and rule the companies' political speech as a violation on the individual workers' first amendment rights. I'm sure that if a conservative employee brings the suit over a company's liberal leanings, then SCOTUS will argue in their favor, but if a liberal brings it against a conservative company, SCOTUS would once again bestow individual rights upon corporations. Because the Constitution says that it is applicable to corporations and individual people equally and they are textualists, of course (or do they call it originalism again? Either way, this is sarcasm).

  • Giant Realistic Flying Tiger||

    If you're forced to join a union
    AND that union participates in political speech
    THEN that union is forcing you to support its political speech.

    If you're forced to join a corporation...

    Wait, nobody's forced to join a corporation. They choose to work there. Funny how that works.

  • Happy Chandler||

    Workers already weren't forced to support their political speech. They were required to support the bargaining that they would benefit from.

    Right to work got routed in Missouri. Even red states don't like right to work.

  • Giant Realistic Flying Tiger||

    And in Alabama, Chrysler let union reps in to try and unionize their plants. They got rejected by the workers.

    Seems even auto workers don't like unions.

  • Happy Chandler||

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/.....shed-limbs

    Cheap wages, little training, crushed limbs. That's something we should all aspire to.

  • Sevo||

    Oh, LOOK! Happy Horseshit finds a tear-jerker article!
    Fuck off, asshole

  • DRM||

    Telling the government to give certain people part of the public treasury is inherently political speech, whether the subcategory of that speech is "lobbying", "political advocacy ads", or "collective bargaining". And that someone might benefit from an organization telling the government to give him the public's money doesn't actually justify forcing him to pay for that speech against his will.

  • ||

    Workers already weren't forced to support their political speech.

    Yes, they were, on account of the fact that money is fungible. The fact that they used 100% of my dues on paperclips is what enabled them to donate 100% of your dues to Joe Democrat.

    They were required to support the bargaining that they would benefit from.

    You know, back when I was teaching, and being forced against my will to pay union dues, I found out from shopping myself around to private schools that the union was actually holding my wages down. Why is that a service that I should have to pay for?

  • Juice||

    We were informed of a raise that was to start July 1. Not much, more of a cost of living thing. It wasn't on my paychecks when it should have been. Why? Apparently, even though I'm not a member of any union nor do I pay any fee to any union, my position is considered part of a bargaining unit. The union disputed some shit about changing pay scales or something claiming that it would decrease pay over time even though it would do no such thing and actually looks like it would make it easier for some people to get bigger raises in the future, just not people already at the top of their pay bracket. Anyway because of the union, I'm being paid less for the time being and I don't think I'll ever see that small amount of money that I thought I'd be getting.

  • Happy Chandler||

    Workers could choose to reduce their dues to not find anything except negotiations. Agency fees. A compromise to avoid the free rider problem.

  • MarkLastname||

    There is no free rider problem. Unions pushing wages above the market rate is the problem. Workers being free to undersell other workers is a solution.

  • MarkLastname||

    So you also don't know money is fungible? What do you know?

    Also, if someone mows your lawn without telling you them demands $100 as compensation because they unilaterally decided that's a good price, do they have a right to take it from you?

    It doesn't matter if they benefit from bargaining: they didn't consent to it.

  • Nardz||

    There is no logical consistency in any of your paragraphs of bitching.

  • reardensteel||

    Ayn Rand could not have made up anything better than this.

  • Sonny Bono's Ghost||

    What you are describing here is actually Fascism - Private owneship, but State Control.

  • drisco304||

    If the state controls it, then it not's really private ownership. Just ask the German Jews in the 1930s.

  • Happy Chandler||

    Germany had this before the Nazis. The Nazis ended it. Germany brought it back in 1976. It works.

  • Tony||

    Well it's not like Jesus hath declared that profit motive shall be the only motivating factor for corporations, which, as government-created entities, have in principle a primary responsibility of making society better. People like you guys have simply tried to sell the idea that maximizing profits for owners by itself results externally in maximum social good. Sen. Warren simply notices the obvious: it doesn't.

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    "maximizing profits for owners by itself results externally in maximum social good. Sen. Warren simply notices the obvious: it doesn't."

    Ok, so you tell us. What does (or would)? Because this thing from the appalling Warren is just bullshit full of buzzwords...….

  • Tony||

    If they want the goodies government provides them, primarily limited liability, i.e., externalizing losses, then they can in exchange abide by whatever rules government deems prudent. Labor protections, environmental responsibility, and even the stuff Warren proposes maybe.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    The goodies that government "provides" them, like the ability to pay extortion taxes for all of those valuable government crony payoff schemes services and meddling in entirely voluntary and mutual individual exchanges. For their own good, of course.

  • Tony||

    So let them not take the handout and practice their business with full liability exposure.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|8.15.18 @ 10:23PM|#
    "So let them not take the handout and practice their business with full liability exposure."

    So *wooosh* once again.
    I hadn't seen here the last day or so. I'd hoped you'd died and improved the world's IQ as a result.

  • RabbitHead||

    Maximum Liberty is the social good. Freedom. If you are willing to trade your freedom for economic gain then you, are putting yourself up for sale.

    Chattel.

    If you try to take peoples' freedom in return for material gain you are a slaver, and should fuck off

  • MarkLastname||

    But Tony insists he's not a full blown communists.
    Just move to Cuba already.

  • Adam Wildavsky||

    I think technically she's proposing fascism, not socialism, but I'd be prepared to hear arguments to the contrary.

  • Nardz||

    Socialism, fascism, communism - merely types of progressivism

  • fdog50||

    I agree. This is just the sort of government-labor-corporate "co-operation" that Mussolini wanted.

  • drisco304||

    A bill from Senator Warren: "This bill is intended to help our side and hurt the other side. See attached 1469 pages of other pertinent information."

  • BYODB||


    Shareholders would be permitted to sue the company if they felt its actions were driven purely by profit and did not reflect the desires of its many "stakeholders."


    Dear god, Democrats. Please run this witch next time around. You won't believe the results!

  • Presskh||

    Agree. She is my dream Dem candidate!

  • AD-RtR/OS!||

    Not just "socialism", but EVIL SOCIALISM, practiced by Evil Stupid Senators.

  • CE||

    Why didn't she call it "The Anti-Dog-Eat-Dog Rule", like in the book? Or does she not know that she's a Randian villain?

  • David Fanale||

    Excellent.

  • swampwiz||

    I don't agree with this. It is far better to have hyper-efficient corporations that (or their equity investors) can be hit with high tax levels so as to fund Friedmenian Guaranteed Income.

  • David Fanale||

    Sounds like the Twentieth Century Motor Co.

  • georgekaplan||

    Elizabeth Warren doesn't know the slightest thing about business. The fact she has a "D" proves it.

  • PG23COLO||

    Government control of the private economy is not socialism, but fascism.

    Just sayin . . .

  • The gouch||

    THIS PARAMECIUM IS SOOOO "F" STUPID!!!!!!

  • Inigo Montoya||

    Shorter version of Warren's plan:

    Profit motive always bad medicine. Warren know heap better about running business because Great Spirit (Marx) speak in her dreams. She force big corporate tribes to spread the wampum evenly to all or else face her legislative scalping knife. Soon big tribes will fade away like ghost of dishonored ancestor, but that no concern of wise old squaw like her.

  • Salero21||

    Warren is cuckoo, she's a Loony who belongs in the Loony bin. She's also a freak, and a COMMIE.
    Commies are a bunch of Damned, Despicable, Detestable, and Disgusting people.

  • Johnimo||

    The left is populated by economic "illiterates," or is it 'idiots"? We NEED her to run for the office of President. She's even screechier than Hillary, if that's possible, and it would be a ton of fun to watch her debate Trump.

  • Duelles||

    What an idiot. No company gets to $1 BILLION. Revenue if not considering the benefits to its customers or suppliers. Drive a wooden stake through . . . . Oops! Not PC!

  • cc2||

    Warren is a simpleton who believes that corporations steal from the people--never explaining how they force customers to buy their products. Does someone force people to stand in line to buy the latest iPhone? In the process of making money for shareholders (who also happen to be in many cases people's 401k accounts, not just the "rich") companies both create jobs and provide products/services that people want/need. If a company doesn't try damned hard to provide what people need, they vanish. It is too bad that they don't always provide the salaries that Warren prefers but note that many companies when forced by their unions to raise wages went bankrupt because the laws of economics don't care about your ideology.

  • Presskh||

    Elizabeth Warren (AKA Pocahontas) is a fucking idiot, even more of a fucking idiot than her socialist buddy, Bernie Sanders. People who believe her stupid ideas and vote for her or Bernie are fucking idiots, as well. No other realistic way to describe them.

  • Sebastian Cremmington||

    Steve Bannon has the exact same position on this issue!!! You are calling Deplorables "fucking idiots"!

  • TangoDelta||

    How can she save it, she doesn't understand it. Seriously, I think the only thing she could save is megalomaniacal nanny statists.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    So, Pocahantalini?

  • Happy Chandler||

    This has been practiced for over forty years in Germany. It works. Bayer, BMW, Mercedes, etc.

    As far as fascism, codetermination was ended by the Nazis. They didn't want workers having a say.

  • Sevo||

    Happy Chandler|8.15.18 @ 10:54PM|#
    'blather, claims absent cites, bullshit and armwaving'

    Can we assume your education is a product of government schools, or are you just congenitally not too bright?

  • Happy Chandler||

    My second stalker today! I must be on to something.

  • turco||

    What an idiot.

  • Kazinski||

    Long time ago about 2000, I met a guy who worked for a cell phone company, back before smartphones, and everyone was counting minutes, and keystrokes on text. He said that the cellphone companies were just raping everyone (I don't doubt that part), and the government should just take the spectrum back and run the companies like utilities.

    I told him that's a great idea if we have reached the apex of cell phone technology, because the second the government takes it over that's the last new model of cellphone you'll see, and the last bit of innovation we'll get.

    We will get the same thing with the whole economy from Warren's proposal.

    Isn't one Venezuela enough? Didn't what we just see what happens to an economy me corporations are run to maximize income equality rather than income?

    And one other thing, what percentage of share holders are people saving for retirement, already retired, or pension funds? Let's cut their profits in half and give the rest to millennials, that's a great idea.

  • Happy Chandler||

    Do BMW or Mercedes have any innovation? Germany has had this rule over forty years.

  • Sevo||

    Happy Chandler|8.15.18 @ 11:45PM|#
    "Do BMW or Mercedes have any innovation? Germany has had this rule over forty years."

    Yeah, they have both moved a lot of manufacturing out of Germany, but a fucking ignoramus like you would never understand.

  • Happy Chandler||

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.....production

    Fourth highest in the world.

    I'm rubber you're glue.

  • Sebastian Cremmington||

    Gore had the better SS plan because it involved matching retirement contributions for lower income people—get them invested in the stock market literally!!

  • Whorton||

    "Warren's "Accountable Capitalism Act" would require that corporations that earn more than $1 billion in revenue a year (note "revenue," not "profits") would need a federal "charter" in order to operate."

    Gawd. . .

    Is this woman F'ing smoking crack?

  • vek||

    Native Americans like Warren don't smoke crack... They smoke peyote!

  • SimonP||

    God, you really get what you pay for with this site.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Fuck off, commie shitstain.

  • Sevo||

    SimonP|8.15.18 @ 11:45PM|#
    "God, you really get what you pay for with this site."
    Why, no! You paid nothing and got far more value than that, you fucking lefty ignoramus.
    If you'd have paid attention, you might have learned something!
    But lefty ignoramuses don't do that, right, lefty ignoramus?

  • ||

    SimonP is missing the disclaimer that he would've still gotten his information for free, it's just better when you demand that someone else pay for it.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Even better when you complain about free shit.

  • flyfishnevada||

    "For extra fun homework, imagine taking this to its logical socialist conclusion, and calculate how much money each American would get from that $7 trillion profit figure if it were forcibly redistributed annually over that 30-year period."

    I enjoy how the author doesn't do the math for us because most readers have a fundemental understanding of economics and simple math Warren and her ilk sorely lack.

  • Tionico||

    a couiple of definitions:

    socialism is equal distribution of the profits from the means of production.

    fascism is government control over private means of production.

    She is promoting fascism by merely redefining it, and calling it socialism. What she is really promoting is total government control of private means of production. But I guess she figures since far too many folks think Bernie Sanders is a kindly and generous old gentleman, and HE promotes socialism, if she merely mentions the acceptible name for what SHE is promoting tthe masses will be too lazy and ignorant to question her. And she will sneak it by them.

    This twit is as dangerous as they come. Would that she WERE a harmless indian maid.......

  • vek||

    Fascism is just a sub type of socialism... Frankly it's one of the better varieties. Sure as hell beats Leninist, Maoist, or Kim style socialism! At least fascism allows a fair amount of market based economy to exist in smaller industries... That's why fascist systems generally don't completely collapse, they just have slower growth than places with freer markets.

  • Sylvie1||

    Mr. Shackford, "She wants to substitute the decisions of people who run businesses with the prejudices and preferences of people who think like she does." is a confusing locution.

    "She want to substitute the prejudices and preferences of people who think like she does for the decisions of people who run businesses," or

    "She wants to replace the decisions of people who run businesses with the prejudices and preferences of people who think like she does."

    would be seemlier English.

  • Rob Misek||

    All laws are regulations that apply to everyone.

    Today the market operates within their framework. As it may when more regulations protect those who cannot protect themselves. This is the price of civilization.

    Do you advocate the abolishment of all laws just because some are wrong?

    Your skull will be an ornament on someone's dashboard, in a Mad Max utopia, long before you can enjoy cheaper pizza pockets in your parents basement.

    The military is a prime example of how strict regulation is required when working towards common goals in a competitive and unregulated environment.

    That logical advantage applies everywhere the potential for conflict exists.

    For those of you apt to say Fuck Off in reply, that is exactly what the military would say to you.

    The difference is, they will kick your ass and make it happen.

    In your case, I'm not going anywhere.

  • tlapp||

    More "good intentions" as justification for stealing economic freedom.

  • ||

    I see the fake-it-till-your-Native Warren has taken Maxine Waters' advise about "what this liberal will be all about".

  • TxJack 112||

    Warren is a special kind of stupid. Like all leftist radicals, she thinks businesses exist to employ people and pay wages. Businesses exist to sell products and make a profit. They make a profit by managing costs. The stupidity of her proposal is beyond comprehension. When has government "oversight" ever improved anything? To understand how such a move would destroy the economy, all you have to do is look at the cities who have been stupid and imposed a $15 minimum wage. The result has been businesses closing and higher unemployment. When Government imposes rules that increase the cost of doing business for whatever reason, a portion of those businesses close or are sold to larger companies, others lay off employees and the remaining ones struggle to survive. The result is always the same in that, in the end, a few large corporation control the entire market.

  • ||

    Oh she's not stupid, this is a ploy with all the Fabian markings of infesting the host. It checks all the boxes of forethought.

  • Juvenal||

    Desperate politicians make for desperate choices: anything to get elected. Warren never was a friend of the average person as she always pretends to be -- and the fawning media relentlessly (and disingenuously) proclaim. From her ludicrous posing as a native american to her shady real estate dealings, she has always been -- and still is -- a ruthless self promoter. Just another ambitious, soulless prole on the make. Fortunately, she lacks the Clintonesque ability to sell her used cars: not real charisma whatsoever. For this reason alone, she'll never get much traction nationally, no matter what pandering nonsense she wraps herself in.

  • mjerryfuerst||

    The headline suggests "Warren's plan would overrule corporate leaders' control over their own businesses. This is also known as "socialism."" Your implied definition of socialism is wrong, and the rest of the article is thus nonsense

  • ||

    The ignorance of business of this woman tells me those houses she flipped were not under her business model, or she is just playing incredibly dumb for this bill to pass. How on earth do you equate an 100 year old insurance company as the same as an IPO company for pharma tech or block chain is beyond me.

  • Joe_C||

    There's also a large argument that wasn't made (or maybe I missed?). If corporations are beholden to the government over shareholders, why would anyone be a shareholder? I'm sure that's what she wants as well.

    The problem with the right is they believe there is a god that we all need to submit to, and the problem with the left is that they believe they are god and we should submit to them.

  • Heraclitus||

    If corporations want charters granted by the government then, yes, they should take the interests people other than their stakeholders into account. This is why charters were granted in the first place. This is why corporations get personhood rights and why we help them when they go into bankruptcy. They should not be treated solely as cash cows by investors.

  • Lloyd Clucas||

    "Fascism" is the word you are looking for, Mr Shackford. Brush up on Mussolini. My economic definition of Fascism seems to parallel his: "Ostensible private ownership, actual public control."

    With Socialism, democratic or otherwise, the state owns the means of production outright.

  • Sebastian Cremmington||

    She has the same position as Steve Bannon.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    And?

  • Mark22||

    Not that I particularly care what Steve Bannon says or thinks, but... care to back that statement up with some evidence?

  • Poshboy||

    I don't have a problem with the 40% of Board of Directors being elected by the employees. I've worked with enough boards to know that the members of most of them are just in it for a fat sinecure. The real decisions are unfortunately left up to the C-suite to screw up. And if there would be a codicil in the proposed law banning elected BoD membership to dues-paying union members, it might be a perfect amendment to another corporate governance bill.

    The rest of Warren's bill is rubbish.

  • Rob Misek||

    Capitalism is about negotiating bailouts and golden parachutes.

  • HillTown Trader||

    bailouts and parachutes come from failure.

    In Capitalism success comes when you endless seek the what customers want and produce it for them at the best most competitive price.

    Bailouts are rare. Striving capitalists providing us with innovative products and services are more the norm.

  • Spookk||

    lol

  • Rob Misek||

    The problem is that people are stupid and easily manipulated by advertising propaganda such that what they "want" often causes harm. Capitalists profit from this.

    Regulations ostensibly only mitigate harm.

    That being said, I don't see any banning disposable plastic products or legislating 25 year warranties on all products.

  • Mark22||

    Capitalism Progressivism is about negotiating bailouts and golden parachutes.

    Fixed that for you.

    Capitalism says: if you screw up, you go bankrupt.

  • HillTown Trader||

    Ms Warren stated that that those employee/shareholders could sue, but not in court. Her bill outlines that these new federally chartered corporations would be subject to the jurisdiction to a federal tribunal, NOT the courts. There would be NO right of appeal.

    Clearly Ms Warren is clueless about due process, and wants kangaroo courts to punish the successful.

  • HillTown Trader||

    Ms Warren is assuming that her Senate seat is secure; it is not.

    AGMartha Oakley made the same mistake in 2010, but Republican Scott Brown shot past through hard work

  • HillTown Trader||

    Senator Warren spent today bashing Police, calling them "Racists from front to back." Big Mistake!!

    When the Massachusetts Police Captains Association endorsed Scott Brown for Senate in 2010, over the sitting Attorney General Martha Coakley, a whole lot of moderates in Massachusetts sat up and paid attention. Coakley spent her time as AG NOT enforcing laws, but subverting laws to achieve "social justice" goals. The police were not pleased with the chief enforcement officer and the bravely let everyone know.

    So Ms Warren might not be so very smart insulting the police in the months before her election.

    My email box has had more then a few pings from old Mass friends, outraged at Warren's absence and vitrol.

  • Spookk||

    The cops in our country are mostly over-militarized goons with -0- accountability. We could do with a lot fewer of them, and would never miss their absence.

  • Jerryskids||

    Just to be contrarian, I won't join in on the Elizabeth Warren bashing. Personally, I think that woman should be placed on a pedestal. With a rope around her neck.

  • Spookk||

    Given all the power and perks that corporations receive in our society, I think some extra accountability is a fine idea.

  • mtrueman||

    "Our middle class is shrinking because more people are moving up the economic ladder, not down."

    The bpttom 40% of Americans have negative assets. They are in debt. You can't borrow your way up the economic ladder.

  • Mark22||

    The bpttom 40% of Americans have negative assets. They are in debt. You can't borrow your way up the economic ladder.

    They can reduce spending and start saving.

  • Chad Brick||

    Corporations are legal entities created *by government*, that are granted market-distorting limited liability. Neither the corporation nor the limited liability could exist in a truly libertarian state. Any self-consistent libertarian would

    1: Oppose their existence
    2: Concede that since the government does in fact create them, it has the right to regulate them

  • Sebastian Cremmington||

    These commenters are simply knee jerk anti-Warren. Steve Bannon has literally the exact same position as Warren on this particular issue.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Steve Bannon has literally the exact same position as Warren on this particular issue.

    And?

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "Corporations are legal entities created *by government*, that are granted market-distorting limited liability. Neither the corporation nor the limited liability could exist in a truly libertarian state."

    Nonsense.

    Limited liability is no more "market distorting" than unlimited liability - and not one iota more of an artificial legal construct.
    Unlimited liability allows someone to be held liable for the actions of someone else who he in business with regardless of whether he had any knowledge of or control over or collusion with the person who actually committed the act. If he simply had more wealth than the person who actually committed the act, he becomes the target.

    Standards of liability are artificial legal constructs - not some law of nature. The unlimited version being enforced by government isn't any less "market distorting" than a limited version being enforced by government.

  • See Double You||

    ^^^THIS^^^

    The "but but but limited liability is a government creation!" only tells half the story and is therefore totally misleading. Unlimited liability is simply a legal doctrine developed under common law. Limited liability may be a creature of statute, but unlimited liability is a creature of the courts. They're both legal fictions created by the state which dictate from whom a creditor or injured third-party can seek a judgment.

    And as usual, detractors misapprehend the scope of protection afforded by limited liability.

  • Mark22||

    Corporations are legal entities created *by government*, that are granted market-distorting limited liability. Neither the corporation nor the limited liability could exist in a truly libertarian state. Any self-consistent libertarian would

    In a libertarian state, corporate liability would be a contractual and insurance matter; it would certainly not be unlimited. You couldn't have large scale private investment if every investor was liable with their personal wealth for every corporation he invests in.

    In our current progressive system, government imposes all sorts of mandatory liabilities on corporations, and in turn limited the liability of shareholders.

    So, fine, get rid of the corporate charter and stop regulating corporations; in particular, allow corporations to simply limit their own liability contractually without a corporate charter.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "Unlimited liability is simply a legal doctrine developed under common law. Limited liability may be a creature of statute, but unlimited liability is a creature of the courts."

    Yes - and both are equally part of the government.

  • AndrewEB||

    So she plans on turning America's economy into something that's something similar to Nordic countries like Denmark, which, as noted, CATO and conservatives have praised Denmark for having free markets and a robust economy?

    Not very consistent guys.

  • AndrewEB||

    So she plans on turning America's economy into something that's something similar to Nordic countries like Denmark, which, as noted, CATO and conservatives have praised Denmark for having free markets and a robust economy, even though they have some of the strongest codetermination laws in the world, similar to what Warren is proposing?

    Not very consistent guys.

  • Mark22||

    CATO and conservatives have praised Denmark for having free markets and a robust economy,

    Cato and conservatives have praised the Nordic countries for being economically more free in some areas.

    Overall, however, the Nordic countries are conformist, authoritarian, stagnant countries. Their citizens are substantially poorer than Americans. The Nordic model is a lousy model for the US.

  • Mark22||

    that the rich are getting richer and that wages are stagnating.

    Well, I don't know about the rich, but the bitch is certainly getting richer.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online