Politics

sameoldlama
Posts: 624
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2017 7:43 am

Re: Politics

Postby sameoldlama » Mon Aug 20, 2018 1:46 pm

B&W
Just do a search on Warren's "Accountable Capitalism Act" and then you can pick the media source you think will give it the fairest review. And on the defense spending say we are in agreement in such - public funding of a common defense makes sense however the execution of that concept has become corrupted to serve private interests. I think you could say that about many government run programs from infrastructure, healthcare to education.

Pitt
I used to dream of wine, women and song - well beer, women and sports but you get the point.

Now I dream about wearing shorts or track pants and a t-shirt w/ sneakers, never waking up to an alarm and being down to one boss (me). And the only suit I'm keeping is catch all black - good for funerals and weddings.
The actual work I do isn't bad but these days with phone / non-stop access you never leave the job and it's become much more a "we need more faster" environment than ever in my career - the stress levels is way up.
Wendall : That's very linear Sheriff
Ed Tom : Age will flatten a man Wendall

PittGradPSUMad
Posts: 394
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2017 8:47 pm

Re: Politics

Postby PittGradPSUMad » Mon Aug 20, 2018 8:44 pm

To be sure, Llama, retirement is better than advertised providing your health and your money hold out. No guarantees on either of those.
Yeah, well, that's like your opinion, man.

Blue&White
Posts: 2393
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2017 10:01 am

Re: Politics

Postby Blue&White » Mon Aug 20, 2018 9:32 pm

Just do a search on Warren's "Accountable Capitalism Act" and then you can pick the media source you think will give it the fairest review

Ok, I did a search and read up on it. Please tell me which private industries they want to nationalize because I didn't see any mention of that, or anything close to that.
Alex Cora sucks. Mickey Callaway sucks. Baseball sucks. Everything and everyone just sucks. Is it football season yet?

sameoldlama
Posts: 624
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2017 7:43 am

Re: Politics

Postby sameoldlama » Tue Aug 21, 2018 8:57 am

You don't see inserting government "oversight" directly into a private corporations to ensure they are accountable to "the people" as the first step towards nationalizing private business including mandating rank & file workers selecting board members?

This isn't regulatory oversight - this direct input into how the company operates it's day to day business. This is government control of business and capital under the guise of what's best for "the people". And the people it's best for are the people in government.
Wendall : That's very linear Sheriff
Ed Tom : Age will flatten a man Wendall

Nat@PSU
Posts: 187
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 5:56 pm

Re: Politics

Postby Nat@PSU » Tue Aug 21, 2018 10:19 am

You keep referencing identity politics. The current doofus in Chief is spouting nothing BUT identity politics. Spare me.
- Nat

Let's Go State!!

Blue&White
Posts: 2393
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2017 10:01 am

Re: Politics

Postby Blue&White » Tue Aug 21, 2018 10:50 am

You don't see inserting government "oversight" directly into a private corporations to ensure they are accountable to "the people" as the first step towards nationalizing private business including mandating rank & file workers selecting board members?

No, I don't.

Here is, as I see it, the problem: our modern verson of corporate capitalism is not capitalism in any real sense. I've read Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations and he would be appalled at what is being done in his name. Capitalism, as he describes it, assumes people making decisions take both the benefit and the risk. But, that is not the case in our economy. Very often executives take all the benefit and employees and shareholders take most of the risk. When was the last time you saw a company not meet some expectation and walk out all the executives while the employees kept their jobs? Or even saw the exec team walked out before the employees get let go? Look at Walls Fargo as a perfect example - they have had non stop scandals for 2 years now (they were in the news again today). As a result, they have let go of thousands of people to improve their financial situation. But, the executives that were responsible for the divisions who were engaged in criminal activity all walked away with millions, including the CEO. Hey, at least they did push out those execs, but given that actual crimes were committed I guess they had little choice. Usually, the CEO and his directs all stay pretty much whole and people like those of us on this board get the hook. We get no bonuses, no raises, and some percentage of us get shown the door with a crappy exit package. Like I said, the risks don't follow the reward.

That is what Warren is trying to address. And, all the people who are screaming that is way off base in her assessment of the problem are full of shit. She is not off base at all. Her analysis and identification of the issue is spot on. What can be debated is her solution. Reasonable people can certainly disagree with her proposal and there are potentially other ways to fix the problem. I've honestly not looked at what she's suggesting carefully enough to register an opinion on it. But, I think her fundamental point is exactly right - people like us get screwed over and over. And CEOs and their exec teams spend a lot of money on lobbyists to ensure that doesn't change.
Alex Cora sucks. Mickey Callaway sucks. Baseball sucks. Everything and everyone just sucks. Is it football season yet?

sameoldlama
Posts: 624
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2017 7:43 am

Re: Politics

Postby sameoldlama » Tue Aug 21, 2018 11:08 am

Nat@PSU wrote:You keep referencing identity politics. The current doofus in Chief is spouting nothing BUT identity politics. Spare me.


Perhaps we have different definitions of what constitutes identity politics or perhaps you are simply deflecting because - despite espousing values associated with those ideologies (identity politics and egalitarianism) perhaps you realize they are generally associated with authoritarian forms of government - so terms like "social justice" and "economic justice" get tossed around because they sound as if they come from a place of moral righteousness.

Identity politics is the very core of your - and the progressive liberal ideology. You are certainly free to develop your own ethics and value system - if you want to plant your pole on identity politics and egalitarianism and you believe that ideology can results in a prosperous and sustainable society have at it. For personal and intellectual reasons I'd rather see meritocracy as the fundamental ethical principle in our society.

But if you want to play the "Hypocrite Game" perhaps you can explain to me why HRC, BO, Boxer, Schumer, Feinstein all voted "yea" for the Secure Fence Act and spoke strongly of the need for secure borders and stop illegal immigration and both HRC and BO spoke out against trying to illegally enter the US with minors or sending unaccompanied minors and now they are advocating open borders and sanctuary cities. What legal, ethical and moral principle changed in the last decade?
Wendall : That's very linear Sheriff
Ed Tom : Age will flatten a man Wendall

sameoldlama
Posts: 624
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2017 7:43 am

Re: Politics

Postby sameoldlama » Tue Aug 21, 2018 11:26 am

B&W
There's a difference between regulatory oversight and direct intervention. Requiring businesses have a federally approved charter for the to be good corporate citizens?

If you want to institute regulatory oversight to increase transparency to the shareholders (the people who technically own the company) so they can make more educated investing decisions I can understand that - let's face it - with the institution of 401k and people "automatically investing" it almost like casino theory and using chips - people don't pay as much attention to where their money is going in their 401k because they don't write someone out a check every month - if you did you would scrutinize performance of a fund or stock and there would be more scrutiny on executive behavior.

Notice this will only apply to corporations with $1B in revenue (it this is truly a moral and ethical issue shouldn't it apply to all businesses - why only the really big money guys?). Let's say B&W starts the Yoga Pants Oh Yeah Baby corporation and as expected - it a worldwide success. The cake is rolling in. As long as you have not violated any existing tax, commerce, labor or environmental laws why is it Elizabeth Warren's business how you manage your business - that's between you - your customers - your employees - and any investors you decide to take on.

If your product delivers what the consumer values they will buy it - that's up to the market not the government - and the consumer can decide what is important to them - be it price, functionality or buying from a "socially conscious company"

If you want to retain employees who add value to your company you have to pay them market rate or they will go someplace else. But that's between you and the employee - not you the employee and Liz.

If dad invests and is happy getting dividends in Nutty Bars while you take home millions - that's his choice.

This measure doesn't allow more informed choice - it removes choice - it restricts freedom. There's a difference between reform and taking over.
Wendall : That's very linear Sheriff
Ed Tom : Age will flatten a man Wendall

Blue&White
Posts: 2393
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2017 10:01 am

Re: Politics

Postby Blue&White » Tue Aug 21, 2018 12:08 pm

There's a difference between regulatory oversight and direct intervention.

Yes, there is. But, she's not advocating direct government intervention. What she's advocating is a different board structure that gives a voice to employees. How you get from her proposal to all that other stuff is beyond me. And, here's the thing - corporate structures are artificial constructs that only exist becuase laws were passed to allow for them. Every state can pass a law tomorrow elimimating corporations as they exist today. You have no right to incorporate. You have no right to issue shares through a market and send it out to the general public. We do it becuase it is an efficient way of organizing and raising capital, but it's not a right. So, what Warren is suggesting is a change to corporate law that would revamp how a board of directors should be constituted.

Reasonable people can disagree on her suggestions. But, what reasonable people can't do is must make up a bunch of bullshit as an argument against it. This isn't about people making more informed choices. It's about giving a voice to stakeaholders who currently are not represented in the Board room. You want to disagree with it, that's fine, but if you want to be taken seriously than please base you disagreement on the actual proposal being made.

Like I said before, I've not spent enough time looking at Warren's proposal to say what I agree or disagree with. But, what I do agree with is her overview of the specific situation and her identification of it as a problem. Our economy is not sustainable as it is with the country split between 5% of "haves" and the rest of us "have nots". The middle class is vanishing. People are drowning in debt and not saving for retirement. That's not just because people make poor decisions. It's becuase they can't afford to live in this economy and not borrow. And our entire focus has been making the richest people richer and giving them more abilities to cut jobs, cut wages, and screw employees. I think Donald Trump is a world class asshole but I give him credit for also identifying this a real problem in this country and talking about it during the election. That is why I think he won - because he pointed out that Main Street is getting continually screwed by Wall Street. For all his bashing of Warren, his rhetoric during the 2016 campaign was very consistent with her overall message. The difference is he clearly never believed it and most everything he's done since in office has been contrary to what he said and who he would help. The only mystery to me is how the working class people who supported him dont' see that, but whatever. But, this proposal, or something like it, is very consistent with what Trump ran on.
Alex Cora sucks. Mickey Callaway sucks. Baseball sucks. Everything and everyone just sucks. Is it football season yet?

sameoldlama
Posts: 624
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2017 7:43 am

Re: Politics

Postby sameoldlama » Tue Aug 21, 2018 3:07 pm

Listen I am open to reform in terms of publicly held companies (meaning they trade publicly) and the compensation packages of their executives something I've stated previously) - how we achieve that and the degree to which the government acts we differ on. I would have no issue of a government agency creating a public summary disclosing executive compensation and giving a ratings of their fiduciary practices so investors / potential employees know what they are getting into.

Where is clearly going is the government dictating thresholds for those indicators and mandating behavior.

And I would also say his should not apply to any privately held business. If you decide not to issue stock for the B&W Yoga Pants venture and all investment is private the government has zero business in dictating how you conduct that business (in terms of deeming what is "fair" vs a true legal requirement).

IMO this no different than Obamacare - that was step 1 in what the true desire was government run single payer healthcare - but the Democrats know they couldn't start there. If you don't think Liz and Bernie don't want to get control of as much capital as they can you haven't been listening to them. Democrats have previously discussed nationalizing 401ks.

But this is where you and I split on egalitarianism - I don't feel our Constitution guarantees us equal outcomes and that's not the governments jobs - their job is to provide a fair game and let the outcomes fall where they may. I will grant you that we have had some Witovet level shitty refs and corrupt refs - but the solution isn't redistributing wealth across the board (not everyone got rich by cheating) but to get fair refs.

I've told you before if you want to gas up the car / grab a six pack I'll go get the pitch fork and torches for the Wall Street speculators who gamed the system / stuffed their pockets / crashed the economy and then held their hands out for a bailout. They cheated.
I read that one of idiot Kardashians / Jenners is nearing a billion dollar net worth - I think these people are a plague on society and wouldn't but anything they sell - but I don't think they should be subject to onerus tax rates or special government oversight - the came up with a product people wanted to buy and got crazy rich - good for them.

I still would say nearly everyone I know is doing better financially then their parents and far better than their grandparents. But we are probably all significantly less wealthy than those top 5%ers - in an absolute sense we are more wealthy but in a relative sense you've lost ground - the ability to make passive income has increased significantly with the global economy and the internet. The last few years I've made more in passive income than I did on an annual basis for the first 20 years of my career. Money makes money. Ownership makes money. You only get so far of your labor.

My opinion but socialism directs us away from ownership and long term destroys upward mobility - and I still believe the US is among the best economies to achieve upward mobility.
Wendall : That's very linear Sheriff
Ed Tom : Age will flatten a man Wendall