Here I was hoping it was some plan to recover the money corporations have been hiding in tax havens. Instead we're going to let the fed manage several aspects of corporate affairs for any suitably...
Here I was hoping it was some plan to recover the money corporations have been hiding in tax havens. Instead we're going to let the fed manage several aspects of corporate affairs for any suitably large corporation. While I don't mind the notion of making corporations more accountable, especially at that level... this looks a bit boneheaded. I give it less than six months before this new part of the DoC is subject to regulatory capture. The fed can't enforce a damn thing on entities with that kind of money.
This rubs the libertarian in me the wrong way. I'd prefer UBI, so that everyone working at a shitty corp can walk off their jobs and put them out of business in short order. That's a better way for workers to hold them accountable than some weaksauce federal regulations that'll end up subverted in no time.
Wow, you are correct. The Guardian piece is crap in comparison to the Vox article you posted. Thanks. edit: here is an Ouline.com link for the WSJ op-ed she wrote that is mentioned in both articles.
Wow, you are correct. The Guardian piece is crap in comparison to the Vox article you posted. Thanks.
edit: here is an Ouline.com link for the WSJ op-ed she wrote that is mentioned in both articles.
Thanks for posting the Vox article. I think it is interesting that the author contrasted Warren's plan with ideas such as free college and universal healthcare. It doesn't seem like these ideas...
Thanks for posting the Vox article. I think it is interesting that the author contrasted Warren's plan with ideas such as free college and universal healthcare. It doesn't seem like these ideas conflict at all, and I think it would be a good idea to look into implementing both sets of ideas (I lean Social Democrat).
In regards to the bill itself, I'm confused why it gives shareholders the right and responsibility to "sue if they believed directors weren’t fulfilling those obligations." Isn't the whole problem that shareholders do not have in mind the best interests of the other stakeholders involved? It seems like this could seriously limit the effectiveness of this bill. Shareholders have no motive to make sure workers are paid fairly at the expense of their own profits. Why not give workers or unions the right to sue in that situation (and of course expand unions)? I seriously doubt any majority of shareholders is going to say "Hey, you know what, we're giving too much to ourselves and not enough to workers."
Another thing I thought of was in addition to limiting how much executives can be paid in shares, perhaps those shares could be divvied up among workers. It would probably stretch a little thin at that point, but it might be a nice little bonus as long as it isn't used as an excuse to pay workers less in salary and hourly wages.
Either way, I seriously doubt this bill is going to get passed any time soon. Republican voters might seem to like it now, but I doubt Republican politicians will get behind it. Plus the numbers they showed of actual Republicans supporting something like this was lower than I expected from how the author was talking about it in the article.
So... the shareholders will reward companies that take care of shareholders. That's the current system, Mr Kelly. Ms Warren's proposals are interesting. They're similar to the "triple bottom-line"...
Kevin Kelly, the CEO of Benchmark Investments, said on Fox Business. “The private market will reward those that take care of their stakeholders.”
So... the shareholders will reward companies that take care of shareholders. That's the current system, Mr Kelly.
Ms Warren's proposals are interesting. They're similar to the "triple bottom-line" approach I've heard about here in Australia, where companies have to report outcomes in three areas: social, environmental, and financial.
There's a significant difference between the word shareholders and stakeholders. Shareholders is one group of stakeholders. As you pointed out, companies take care of their shareholders now,...
There's a significant difference between the word shareholders and stakeholders. Shareholders is one group of stakeholders. As you pointed out, companies take care of their shareholders now, usually at the expense of other stakeholders (e.g. employees, current customers, potential customers, regulators).
No, he's not; Kevin Kelly is referring to stakeholders. My point is that the only "private market" that applies to companies is the stock market - which covers only one subset of stakeholder:...
No, he's not; Kevin Kelly is referring to stakeholders. My point is that the only "private market" that applies to companies is the stock market - which covers only one subset of stakeholder: shareholders.
I am fully aware of that. My point is that the only "private market" that applies to companies is the stock market, so the only stakeholders which can currently reward a company are shareholders.
Shareholders is one group of stakeholders.
I am fully aware of that. My point is that the only "private market" that applies to companies is the stock market, so the only stakeholders which can currently reward a company are shareholders.
Should corporations have limited life, e.g. 50 years? It seems longevity leads to accumulation of power and perhaps there should be some mechanism to dismantle ever-growing fictitious entities.
Should corporations have limited life, e.g. 50 years? It seems longevity leads to accumulation of power and perhaps there should be some mechanism to dismantle ever-growing fictitious entities.
Sure. Seems to be working well for copyrights. /s In reality, if that was a regulation, companies would dissolve and then reform as a different name or get bought out by the shell company that is...
Sure. Seems to be working well for copyrights. /s
In reality, if that was a regulation, companies would dissolve and then reform as a different name or get bought out by the shell company that is owned by the same parent company, etc. (see AT&T).
I don't feel like that solution solves the problem.
Here I was hoping it was some plan to recover the money corporations have been hiding in tax havens. Instead we're going to let the fed manage several aspects of corporate affairs for any suitably large corporation. While I don't mind the notion of making corporations more accountable, especially at that level... this looks a bit boneheaded. I give it less than six months before this new part of the DoC is subject to regulatory capture. The fed can't enforce a damn thing on entities with that kind of money.
This rubs the libertarian in me the wrong way. I'd prefer UBI, so that everyone working at a shitty corp can walk off their jobs and put them out of business in short order. That's a better way for workers to hold them accountable than some weaksauce federal regulations that'll end up subverted in no time.
Edit: Vox has a much more detailed article. Makes it sound a lot better. In fact I'm intrigued now, lots of reading to do.
Wow, you are correct. The Guardian piece is crap in comparison to the Vox article you posted. Thanks.
edit: here is an Ouline.com link for the WSJ op-ed she wrote that is mentioned in both articles.
Thanks for posting the Vox article. I think it is interesting that the author contrasted Warren's plan with ideas such as free college and universal healthcare. It doesn't seem like these ideas conflict at all, and I think it would be a good idea to look into implementing both sets of ideas (I lean Social Democrat).
In regards to the bill itself, I'm confused why it gives shareholders the right and responsibility to "sue if they believed directors weren’t fulfilling those obligations." Isn't the whole problem that shareholders do not have in mind the best interests of the other stakeholders involved? It seems like this could seriously limit the effectiveness of this bill. Shareholders have no motive to make sure workers are paid fairly at the expense of their own profits. Why not give workers or unions the right to sue in that situation (and of course expand unions)? I seriously doubt any majority of shareholders is going to say "Hey, you know what, we're giving too much to ourselves and not enough to workers."
Another thing I thought of was in addition to limiting how much executives can be paid in shares, perhaps those shares could be divvied up among workers. It would probably stretch a little thin at that point, but it might be a nice little bonus as long as it isn't used as an excuse to pay workers less in salary and hourly wages.
Either way, I seriously doubt this bill is going to get passed any time soon. Republican voters might seem to like it now, but I doubt Republican politicians will get behind it. Plus the numbers they showed of actual Republicans supporting something like this was lower than I expected from how the author was talking about it in the article.
So... the shareholders will reward companies that take care of shareholders. That's the current system, Mr Kelly.
Ms Warren's proposals are interesting. They're similar to the "triple bottom-line" approach I've heard about here in Australia, where companies have to report outcomes in three areas: social, environmental, and financial.
There's a significant difference between the word shareholders and stakeholders. Shareholders is one group of stakeholders. As you pointed out, companies take care of their shareholders now, usually at the expense of other stakeholders (e.g. employees, current customers, potential customers, regulators).
Yeah, but from the context of the article Kevin Kelly is clearly referring to shareholders specifically
No, he's not; Kevin Kelly is referring to stakeholders. My point is that the only "private market" that applies to companies is the stock market - which covers only one subset of stakeholder: shareholders.
I am fully aware of that. My point is that the only "private market" that applies to companies is the stock market, so the only stakeholders which can currently reward a company are shareholders.
Thanks for posting those. So it looks like Williamson’s piece is mostly a straw man argument.
Should corporations have limited life, e.g. 50 years? It seems longevity leads to accumulation of power and perhaps there should be some mechanism to dismantle ever-growing fictitious entities.
Sure. Seems to be working well for copyrights. /s
In reality, if that was a regulation, companies would dissolve and then reform as a different name or get bought out by the shell company that is owned by the same parent company, etc. (see AT&T).
I don't feel like that solution solves the problem.