IT BEGINS: Elizabeth Warren Introduces ‘ACCOUNTABLE CAPITALISM ACT’
From the Post:
"Firebrand Senator Elizabeth Warren introduced new legislation this week; unveiling her ‘Accountable Capitalism Act’ that seeks to make the nation’s largest companies “more accountable” to local communities than “shareholders.”
Warren revealed her potential 2020 campaign promise in an op-ed published by the Wall Street Journal, where the left-wing legislator slammed the country’s biggest corporations for not treating their employees as “priorities.”
"That shift has had a tremendous effect on the economy," she wrote. "In the early 1980s, large American companies sent less than half their earnings to shareholders, spending the rest on their employees and other priorities."
"But between 2007 and 2016, large American companies dedicated 93% of their earnings to shareholders," Warren added..."
A couple of points that I don't think need stating but I'm going to anyway.
1. The dates she specifies were the last year of Bush 43 and all of Obama.
2. Share Holders put their money at risk in order to make money. Employees agree to work for a specific wage package with or without bonus. pSmart companies give good wage packages]
3. Communities receive taxes from companies and its employees in return for services rendered.
The three involved actors (Company, workers and community) all receive benefit from this arrangement. All are free to cancel the arrangement at any time. Forcing one component to do more than it's fair share cause the whole system to breakdown.
Yes I know there have been and some remain abuses of the system by companies, the workers and the communities. In these cases all suffer and eventually pass away, even the communities'.
"Firebrand Senator Elizabeth Warren introduced new legislation this week; unveiling her ‘Accountable Capitalism Act’ that seeks to make the nation’s largest companies “more accountable” to local communities than “shareholders.”
Warren revealed her potential 2020 campaign promise in an op-ed published by the Wall Street Journal, where the left-wing legislator slammed the country’s biggest corporations for not treating their employees as “priorities.”
"That shift has had a tremendous effect on the economy," she wrote. "In the early 1980s, large American companies sent less than half their earnings to shareholders, spending the rest on their employees and other priorities."
"But between 2007 and 2016, large American companies dedicated 93% of their earnings to shareholders," Warren added..."
A couple of points that I don't think need stating but I'm going to anyway.
1. The dates she specifies were the last year of Bush 43 and all of Obama.
2. Share Holders put their money at risk in order to make money. Employees agree to work for a specific wage package with or without bonus. pSmart companies give good wage packages]
3. Communities receive taxes from companies and its employees in return for services rendered.
The three involved actors (Company, workers and community) all receive benefit from this arrangement. All are free to cancel the arrangement at any time. Forcing one component to do more than it's fair share cause the whole system to breakdown.
Yes I know there have been and some remain abuses of the system by companies, the workers and the communities. In these cases all suffer and eventually pass away, even the communities'.
(1) does not do what he promises,
(2) lies about anything to the American people,
(3) votes on any bill that he hasn't read and/or can't correctly answer a quiz about its content,
(4) votes for any bill with any provision that exceeds the original intent of the US constitution,
(5) stays in office longer than 8 years,
(6) leaks any inside information to anyone.
Please add your favorites. ;^)
"Accountable Capitalism" is a complete oxymoron.
(8) votes for Elizabeth Warren or anything she proposes.
I know I'd be assassinated as soon as my campaign ads hit the air; there would be 534 other members of Congress that couldn't allow me to get beyond that 1st ad, let alone be on the ballot in November.
We are losing the battle of ideas - hate to say it. What do we Gulcher's have to counter? Name calling, or she's wrong, or let me explain the fundamentals of Economics to you over the next ten hours, or please take a few months to read Atlas Shrugged, then you wont fall for her nonsense.
Her ideas are idiotically stupid and there are a LOT of people out there who know it is nonsense. But far too many welcome her statements as truth. It sure sounds good.
They only need 51% of the vote to "win". The real truth won't win the day by itself. We must try harder and more intelligently in our communications to actually reach the general public.
What Woo--Woo-Warren heap big wanna do is socialist make big white company chiefs spend money, time and energy on sacred cows that do no make a profit.
Me go now to chase a buffalo. Aye-yee-yee-yee-yee-yee! Hi, ho, Honda! Away!
Pocahontas. I would add most women are better
than Evil Lizzy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6CU5...
It is clear she has a cockeyed view of free market capitalism and thinks the system seeks a free ride on the backs of others...however, one can see here that This is not the "system" she seeks to fix...she attacks only the one that actually works.
https://youtu.be/xlh3XOg1ieI
This is a new slogan. It sounds good and that is what matters.
None of the slogans the left is running with has any meaningful goals but they sound good to the socialist/communist ear. If you ask any individual on one of these rallies devoted to the "cause" you'll find they have no idea what they are demonstrating against or for.
She probably took this idea from Google: employees are already dictating there what the corporation can or cannot do.
It must be a nightmare for any normal person to work there, among the lunatic left.
I don't know the solution to this. Allowing investors to buy small fractions with no personal liability has huge advantages in allowing businesses to raise capital. While I'm skeptical about tinkering with business law, I don't agree at all with the indignation saying shareholders have a fundamental right to have limited liability and elect whatever board of directors they want. I'd have to learn more. Is this Warren's attempt to fix the problem or just pandering to people who don't believe in capitalism? It could be a little of both.
A partial solution could be to only allow actual human beings to vote their shares. Passive investors or otherwise indirect ownership, ie mutual funds, would not be able to vote.
Furthermore, for any of the top say 300 companies by Revenues, no one could serve on multiple boards of directors.