Concentration of power and wealth to a limited number of companies is not just a monopoly problem, it's an oligopoly problem. I honestly don't know how people aren't familiar with this in the US -...
Concentration of power and wealth to a limited number of companies is not just a monopoly problem, it's an oligopoly problem. I honestly don't know how people aren't familiar with this in the US - nearly everyone has a cell phone and internet service at this point. We should all be familiar with the extremely limited set of choices we have when buying a cell phone. With internet, it's often a single choice for broadband.
We also pretty much all use Microsoft windows on our computers, shop online at amazon, and use google for all our searches. How anyone can be blind to the concentration of power at this point baffles me.
I have a solution: dissolve corporations at the slightest hint of wrongdoing. They're legal constructs, and have no inherent right to exist. As such, they have no legitimate claim to due process....
I have a solution: dissolve corporations at the slightest hint of wrongdoing. They're legal constructs, and have no inherent right to exist. As such, they have no legitimate claim to due process. There's no reason not to kill off corporations that abuse workers, mishandle data, or shaft consumers.
I suspect a few of the more conservative members of Tildes will disagree, but they should ask themselves just how important the free market really is to them, because every time a state grants papers of incorporation to a business, they're engaging in market intervention by allowing a business to socialize risk while continuing to privatize profits.
I don't mean to rain on your parade too much, but I'm fairly tired of seeing your comments like "dissolve the corporations", "revoke their charter", or even jokingly (?) "death to the bankers" in...
I don't mean to rain on your parade too much, but I'm fairly tired of seeing your comments like "dissolve the corporations", "revoke their charter", or even jokingly (?) "death to the bankers" in seemingly every other thread, ad nauseam.
If you want to write up (or submit) an essay on what could realistically take the place of the modern economy (and how we might get there) after you dissolve corporations that would be interesting. Dropping into every thread that mentioned corporations with this 'solution' is not.
That's not the same position; have you looked at it? It's demeaning to both @demifiend's argument and Warren's to say that they're even remotely similar, with Warren's being something I imagine...
That's not the same position; have you looked at it? It's demeaning to both @demifiend's argument and Warren's to say that they're even remotely similar, with Warren's being something I imagine that he dislikes. The difference there's like the difference between "I think that we should start to punish repeat offenders of crime" and "Kill anyone who even looks like they were gonna start shoplifting" in terms of relative extremity. The fiend's is a nuclear option, Warren's is more or less left-of-centre. EDIT: another comparison would be between say, "I think censorship's a little bit bad," and "Censorship is morally reprehensible and disgustingly anti-human." Both are valid, but one's a bit more extreme.
I've looked at Warren's proposal, and while I think it's flawed I'd be willing to accept it as a good first step toward improvement. Here are my concerns: Who or what defines a "very large...
I've looked at Warren's proposal, and while I think it's flawed I'd be willing to accept it as a good first step toward improvement. Here are my concerns:
Who or what defines a "very large corporation"? Why is size even a factor? IMO, businesses incorporated by state governments should not be permitted to operate outside the state in which they were incorporated.
A better criterion for requiring Federal incorporation would be operation across state lines or across international lines.
Multinational corporations based outside the US aren't mentioned. IMO, they should be required to create Federally incorporated subsidiaries if they wish to operate in the US, and booting out bad multinationals should be as simple as dissolving their US subsidiaries.
Incidentally, I've written to Ms. Warren to outline these concerns; I'm not just "yelling at a cloud" here. While I don't expect her to implement my suggestions, I think that putting an end to the "shareholder value uber alles" paradigm Milton Friedman foisted upon us is important enough to settle for the existing proposal as a first step.
No, of course not (nor am I anything remotely close to a mod). You are free to do as you wish, I just hoped to guide this discussion to more productive pastures.
No, of course not (nor am I anything remotely close to a mod). You are free to do as you wish, I just hoped to guide this discussion to more productive pastures.
Thanks for the clarification. If you had been posting ex officio, I would have dropped the subject. Instead, I'll add a couple of points: State governments already have the legal authority to...
No, of course not (nor am I anything remotely close to a mod). You are free to do as you wish
Thanks for the clarification. If you had been posting ex officio, I would have dropped the subject. Instead, I'll add a couple of points:
State governments already have the legal authority to revoke corporate charters that they've issued. State attorneys general may use a writ of quo warranto (by what authority) to nuke a corporation. There is no reason Federal authorities cannot do the same, given that the Constitution gives Congress authority over interstate commerce.
We need not fundamentally change the way we structure our economy to resurrect the common use of the corporate death penalty. It is only a matter of mustering the political will to overturn a few decades worth of case law.
You'll know I'm not joking about "death to the bankers" when I suggest giving them a fair and public trial by jury before hanging them.
What happens after that? What do all the employees do? They start collecting unemployment? If you nuked Amazon Facebook and Google you'd have what, hundreds of thousands of unemployed? Curious,...
What happens after that? What do all the employees do? They start collecting unemployment? If you nuked Amazon Facebook and Google you'd have what, hundreds of thousands of unemployed? Curious, not being combative.
Under the current law (AFAIK), the employees start collecting unemployment. I think it would be better if non-executives working for corporations subject to dissolution receive 12 months' pay,...
What happens after that? What do all the employees do? They start collecting unemployment?
Under the current law (AFAIK), the employees start collecting unemployment. I think it would be better if non-executives working for corporations subject to dissolution receive 12 months' pay, which should be funded by the former corporation's assets. Furthermore, any corporation that can't prove it has enough cash to cover its payroll for a year should be shut down.
I don't think there are any existing statutes providing for employees of dissolved corporations, but that's something we should fix.
Thanks, this is a much better response. I read your initial comment (particularly pre-edit w/ the "at the slightest hint of wrongdoing") as something like: "corporations are bad, and shouldn't...
Thanks, this is a much better response. I read your initial comment (particularly pre-edit w/ the "at the slightest hint of wrongdoing") as something like: "corporations are bad, and shouldn't exist". I don't necessarily disagree with what you have to say, but oftentimes the erm... forceful nature with which you say it leads me to jump to the wrong conclusions about the intended meaning.
The idea that the Federal Gov't should be allowed to dissolve corporations who's actions have repeatedly proved detrimental to the people of the US is more reasonable to me, and along with @Pilgrim's link to Warren's bill gives me the context to understand what the end goal would look like.
To be clear here, are you talking about literally anyone who works at a bank? Just the CEO? The C-Suite? Directors and above? Where do you draw the line?
You'll know I'm not joking about "death to the bankers" when I suggest giving them a fair and public trial by jury before hanging them.
To be clear here, are you talking about literally anyone who works at a bank? Just the CEO? The C-Suite? Directors and above? Where do you draw the line?
Alternative solution: dissolve all laws and regulation that's shown even the slightest amount of dysfunction or negativity regardless of the net value on society. They're legal constructs, and...
Alternative solution: dissolve all laws and regulation that's shown even the slightest amount of dysfunction or negativity regardless of the net value on society. They're legal constructs, and have no inherent right to exist. As such, they have no legitimate claim to affect anyone. There's no reason not to kill off laws and regulations that abuse citizens, mishandle data, or shaft children.
I suspect a few of the more conservative members of Tildes will disagree, but they should ask themselves just how important "law and order" really is to them, because every time a legislator writes a law that denies you the right to kill people you disagree with or creates regulation to stop you from handing out mercury immortality pills to the world, they're engaging in chaos by allowing something to be considered "right" or """wrong."""
I'm just about as anti-corp, anti-war, anti-corruption as you are, from what I can tell (a bit more pro-human, though, I'd estimate), but this is just kind of...iffy. You're screaming into a void that's giving you pretty serious side eye for it.
Seriously, though; @arghdos is kinda right. You've worn out that argument. It's a bit dull at this point, and you're not adding anything to the discussion with it, generally. You've worn out the argument of virtually anyone who would try handling your position with a bit of finesse for what'll more than likely be months on this site. It's zealotry, more or less. Ironically, I think this is one of your more Tildes-ish comments on it, but you've just worn out the argument so much at this point it has nowhere near the desired effect you'd want it to have if you wanted to influence opinions.
For effective communication and swaying of opinions you have to bend your communication style to the medium. That's what people like @go1dfish fail to do, and why they come off as so misguided at some points even if we completely ignore their opinions.
I understand you're bitter at the world, and you have a right to be, to some extent. The world hasn't been kind to you. But direct that energy somewhere positive, like at your local Food Not Bombs collective, for example. Or a good old march, if that's more your style. Yelling at clouds isn't going to get you far.
Screaming "KILL WHITEY!" is a fun thing to do, but whose head do you think you're turning, at this point? Tildes is, barring a few assorted left wingers, pretty Radically SV-Libertarian. I feel like, if anything, you're just going to end up sparking someone into creating another corporation to spite you and it's counterproductive. You've gotta keep in mind, "The first step to anarchism is shooting yourself in the foot before taking the first step," was supposed to be a joke, not accurate entirely in reality.
Part of the problem is that corporate stockholders and board members are isolated from the consequences of the corporations' actions. I'd like to see them all made directly and very personally...
Part of the problem is that corporate stockholders and board members are isolated from the consequences of the corporations' actions. I'd like to see them all made directly and very personally responsible for any wrongdoing on the part of the corporation - no more hiding behind legal constructs that only exist to abdicate responsibility. I'd also make it much easier to sue them, and bring back class actions. Yes, if you hold stock in a shady corporation, you will face jail time. Don't like it, find better things to invest in.
In extreme cases I'd even support liquidation of the corporation. That's what typically happened before the 'too big to fail' era. When one corporation fucked up spectacularly, the crisis of confidence that caused would result in it being liquidated and consumed by the rest of them. Now however we seem to be terrified at the idea of letting a corporation cease to exist.
It would be a rather scary world if whatever company I work for might suddenly not exist if they did something with "the slightest hint of wrongdoing". Yeah, there needs to be more accountability,...
It would be a rather scary world if whatever company I work for might suddenly not exist if they did something with "the slightest hint of wrongdoing".
Yeah, there needs to be more accountability, but what you're suggesting would cause serious instability if you were literally that punitive.
Welcome to my world, and that of the vast majority of workers in the US. We live under "at-will employment", where we can lose our jobs for any reason, or no reason at all. The company getting...
It would be a rather scary world if whatever company I work for might suddenly not exist if they did something with "the slightest hint of wrongdoing".
Welcome to my world, and that of the vast majority of workers in the US. We live under "at-will employment", where we can lose our jobs for any reason, or no reason at all. The company getting nuked would just be one more possible reason to lose a job.
Yeah, there needs to be more accountability, but what you're suggesting would cause serious instability if you were literally that punitive.
The instability is already in effect for anybody obliged by circumstance to work for a living. My approach might be unreasonable, but at least it would redistribute some of the existential terror upwards.
Concentration of power and wealth to a limited number of companies is not just a monopoly problem, it's an oligopoly problem. I honestly don't know how people aren't familiar with this in the US - nearly everyone has a cell phone and internet service at this point. We should all be familiar with the extremely limited set of choices we have when buying a cell phone. With internet, it's often a single choice for broadband.
We also pretty much all use Microsoft windows on our computers, shop online at amazon, and use google for all our searches. How anyone can be blind to the concentration of power at this point baffles me.
I knew someone would call this out, lol. It's a generalization, but it definitely applies to the general populace more than to tildes users.
Also, we don't have a movie industry anymore. We have Disney.
I have a solution: dissolve corporations at the slightest hint of wrongdoing. They're legal constructs, and have no inherent right to exist. As such, they have no legitimate claim to due process. There's no reason not to kill off corporations that abuse workers, mishandle data, or shaft consumers.
I suspect a few of the more conservative members of Tildes will disagree, but they should ask themselves just how important the free market really is to them, because every time a state grants papers of incorporation to a business, they're engaging in market intervention by allowing a business to socialize risk while continuing to privatize profits.
I don't mean to rain on your parade too much, but I'm fairly tired of seeing your comments like "dissolve the corporations", "revoke their charter", or even jokingly (?) "death to the bankers" in seemingly every other thread, ad nauseam.
If you want to write up (or submit) an essay on what could realistically take the place of the modern economy (and how we might get there) after you dissolve corporations that would be interesting. Dropping into every thread that mentioned corporations with this 'solution' is not.
I'd point out that @demifiend's position is one that is being talked about by Dems, specifically Warren: https://www.warren.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/warren-introduces-accountable-capitalism-act
I personally think it's a solid beginning for a decent discussion.
That's not the same position; have you looked at it? It's demeaning to both @demifiend's argument and Warren's to say that they're even remotely similar, with Warren's being something I imagine that he dislikes. The difference there's like the difference between "I think that we should start to punish repeat offenders of crime" and "Kill anyone who even looks like they were gonna start shoplifting" in terms of relative extremity. The fiend's is a nuclear option, Warren's is more or less left-of-centre. EDIT: another comparison would be between say, "I think censorship's a little bit bad," and "Censorship is morally reprehensible and disgustingly anti-human." Both are valid, but one's a bit more extreme.
I've looked at Warren's proposal, and while I think it's flawed I'd be willing to accept it as a good first step toward improvement. Here are my concerns:
Incidentally, I've written to Ms. Warren to outline these concerns; I'm not just "yelling at a cloud" here. While I don't expect her to implement my suggestions, I think that putting an end to the "shareholder value uber alles" paradigm Milton Friedman foisted upon us is important enough to settle for the existing proposal as a first step.
Are you saying this as a moderator?
No, of course not (nor am I anything remotely close to a mod). You are free to do as you wish, I just hoped to guide this discussion to more productive pastures.
Thanks for the clarification. If you had been posting ex officio, I would have dropped the subject. Instead, I'll add a couple of points:
What happens after that? What do all the employees do? They start collecting unemployment? If you nuked Amazon Facebook and Google you'd have what, hundreds of thousands of unemployed? Curious, not being combative.
Under the current law (AFAIK), the employees start collecting unemployment. I think it would be better if non-executives working for corporations subject to dissolution receive 12 months' pay, which should be funded by the former corporation's assets. Furthermore, any corporation that can't prove it has enough cash to cover its payroll for a year should be shut down.
I don't think there are any existing statutes providing for employees of dissolved corporations, but that's something we should fix.
Thanks, this is a much better response. I read your initial comment (particularly pre-edit w/ the "at the slightest hint of wrongdoing") as something like: "corporations are bad, and shouldn't exist". I don't necessarily disagree with what you have to say, but oftentimes the erm... forceful nature with which you say it leads me to jump to the wrong conclusions about the intended meaning.
The idea that the Federal Gov't should be allowed to dissolve corporations who's actions have repeatedly proved detrimental to the people of the US is more reasonable to me, and along with @Pilgrim's link to Warren's bill gives me the context to understand what the end goal would look like.
To be clear here, are you talking about literally anyone who works at a bank? Just the CEO? The C-Suite? Directors and above? Where do you draw the line?
C-Suite and above.
What about jobs within the bank unrelated to how they operate, such as the chief information/tech officer?
The CTO gives orders to all of the rest of the techies in the company, so they can stand trial with the rest of the C-suite.
Alternative solution: dissolve all laws and regulation that's shown even the slightest amount of dysfunction or negativity regardless of the net value on society. They're legal constructs, and have no inherent right to exist. As such, they have no legitimate claim to affect anyone. There's no reason not to kill off laws and regulations that abuse citizens, mishandle data, or shaft children.
I suspect a few of the more conservative members of Tildes will disagree, but they should ask themselves just how important "law and order" really is to them, because every time a legislator writes a law that denies you the right to kill people you disagree with or creates regulation to stop you from handing out mercury immortality pills to the world, they're engaging in chaos by allowing something to be considered "right" or """wrong."""
I'm just about as anti-corp, anti-war, anti-corruption as you are, from what I can tell (a bit more pro-human, though, I'd estimate), but this is just kind of...iffy. You're screaming into a void that's giving you pretty serious side eye for it.
Seriously, though; @arghdos is kinda right. You've worn out that argument. It's a bit dull at this point, and you're not adding anything to the discussion with it, generally. You've worn out the argument of virtually anyone who would try handling your position with a bit of finesse for what'll more than likely be months on this site. It's zealotry, more or less. Ironically, I think this is one of your more Tildes-ish comments on it, but you've just worn out the argument so much at this point it has nowhere near the desired effect you'd want it to have if you wanted to influence opinions.
For effective communication and swaying of opinions you have to bend your communication style to the medium. That's what people like @go1dfish fail to do, and why they come off as so misguided at some points even if we completely ignore their opinions.
I understand you're bitter at the world, and you have a right to be, to some extent. The world hasn't been kind to you. But direct that energy somewhere positive, like at your local Food Not Bombs collective, for example. Or a good old march, if that's more your style. Yelling at clouds isn't going to get you far.
Screaming "KILL WHITEY!" is a fun thing to do, but whose head do you think you're turning, at this point? Tildes is, barring a few assorted left wingers, pretty Radically SV-Libertarian. I feel like, if anything, you're just going to end up sparking someone into creating another corporation to spite you and it's counterproductive. You've gotta keep in mind, "The first step to anarchism is shooting yourself in the foot before taking the first step," was supposed to be a joke, not accurate entirely in reality.
That's where my love goes. The internet gets my hatred. Regardless, I see your point.
Cheers.
Part of the problem is that corporate stockholders and board members are isolated from the consequences of the corporations' actions. I'd like to see them all made directly and very personally responsible for any wrongdoing on the part of the corporation - no more hiding behind legal constructs that only exist to abdicate responsibility. I'd also make it much easier to sue them, and bring back class actions. Yes, if you hold stock in a shady corporation, you will face jail time. Don't like it, find better things to invest in.
In extreme cases I'd even support liquidation of the corporation. That's what typically happened before the 'too big to fail' era. When one corporation fucked up spectacularly, the crisis of confidence that caused would result in it being liquidated and consumed by the rest of them. Now however we seem to be terrified at the idea of letting a corporation cease to exist.
I was content to let stockholders lose their investment if they had money in a corporation that got nuked for malfeasance. :)
Smaller investors, sure. The guys holding the lion's share? That bears closer scrutiny and more direct consequences. :)
It would be a rather scary world if whatever company I work for might suddenly not exist if they did something with "the slightest hint of wrongdoing".
Yeah, there needs to be more accountability, but what you're suggesting would cause serious instability if you were literally that punitive.
Welcome to my world, and that of the vast majority of workers in the US. We live under "at-will employment", where we can lose our jobs for any reason, or no reason at all. The company getting nuked would just be one more possible reason to lose a job.
The instability is already in effect for anybody obliged by circumstance to work for a living. My approach might be unreasonable, but at least it would redistribute some of the existential terror upwards.