Disagree. Right wingers underestimate her - she speaks populism very well. She may not be out of central casting, but as a messenger to the middle class, Republicans would be right to be worried about her.
(And the attempt to hang her by her purported lie about having Native American heritage would get zero traction - are Republicans really prepared to say with a straight face that lying to get ahead in your career is disqualifying for the Presidency?)
So did Warren, @Basement_Gainz…
Trump would destroy her faster than he can a Big Mac…
I agree that populism, big government, attacking banks, safety net programs etc… are wildly popular with a certain subset of voters. But Liz has advocated nationalizing businesses on multiple occasions. Given that the average voter can look at the results of Soviet style nationalization in Venezuala in real time… this may be a bad cycle for that message.
I believe she serves the Dems better by just barking at people from the Senate. She can please the far left without actually pulling the party that way.
To be fair, comparing Venezualas cause/effect to anything near our own makes even less sense than comparing American and European healthcare.
Plus the Venezuala thing is easy as hell to plot bandaid around. You just point to the corruption and ignoring the will of the people. Then you’re back to greedy business people and wanting higher taxes.
I’m unaware of this - do you know of an example?
I was saying her calls for nationalization of US industries in the future would look bad in light of VZ. not too many nationalized industries in the Soviet sense in the US. Education maybe…
Yeah there’s no comparison between US and VZ right now. Hope I didn’t come off that way.
I don’t think he ever really did that.
All she needs to do is take a DNA test. If, or when, it comes back that she isn’t Native American she can just apologize and say that she was led to believe it because she was always told that by her family, which is what she has been saying.
“Accountable Capitalism Act” left wing hot take, right wing hot take and full text links below.
I thought she just wanted to nationalize banks (which she does). But that bill would cede control of all corporations with revenue >$1B to the federal government. That’s a few miles left of Bernie.
“Warren wants to create an Office of United States Corporations inside the Department of Commerce and require any corporation with revenue over $1 billion — only a few thousand companies, but a large share of overall employment and economic activity — to obtain a federal charter of corporate citizenship.”
“The charter tells company directors to consider the interests of all relevant stakeholders — shareholders, but also customers, employees, and the communities in which the company operates — when making decisions.”
“A new charter would remove that crutch, and leave executives accountable as human beings for the rights and wrongs of their own decisions.”
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/3348/all-info
There were articles before he ran for POTUS where he slowed down his businesses by insisting that he review and sign all the checks. He did run his businesses. Some of them into the ground, but he ran them.
I thought all of his creditors put him on a short leash. Maybe that was after he failed in the casino and football businesses.
This ain’t nationalization, and you do yourself no favors buying into Williamson’s breathless tantrum claiming it is.
Requiring corporations to change their structure and corporate governance isn’t nationalization - it might be stricter rules, it might be liberal, it might be a big deal if enacted, but it’s not nationalization. That’s hogwash.
States have all kinds of various rules on how an LLC and corporate boards work (these are state creatures) - is that nationalization? To require majority votes of members for certain important acts in an LLC is pretty common - is that nationalization? No, it’s a rule mandating a certain kind of corporate governance.
Warren’s legislation is very “liberal” and places some significant limitations on how corporate governance takes place for some very large corporations. It’s a serious reform being proposed. It might be worst bill ever or the best ever, but the state isn’t taking over the corporation or its property. Words matter still matter, last I checked.
The claims of “nationalization” are nothing more than a hyperbolic attempt to discredit the legislation at the beginning. Don’t be suckered into the spin.
What socialist nonsense is this? Requiring a privately owned business to adopt a government authored charter and stacking their board against their will isn’t nationalization?
Giving the government control of the members of your board, your charter, what your decision making priorities are. That’s control. You’ll note the phrase control in the definition of nationalization below. Having a government body stack your board, rewrite your charter and limit your ability to run your business, that’s a mile beyond LLC board rules.
na·tion·al·i·za·tion
ˌnaSH(ə)nələˈzāSHən,ˌnaSH(ə)nəˌlīˈzāSHən/
noun
“the nationalization of the railroads”
Given all we have to corraborate this is the big Donald’s word, it might actually be more likely that it’s completely made up than true
Eh I’d doubt much of the country has any idea what’s going on in VZ. An even smaller knows how that would related to Warren’s brand of nationalization, but I get what you’re saying
Of course not. That’s preposterous on its face. Every state in the union has some form of requirements for the corporate form. Think about the requirement to have a general partner in addition to limited partners in a limited partnership. No one is saying What about muh freedom to make an LP any way I want with only limited partners?? That’s just state control of muh partnership!!
The government has no control - the government doesn’t vote. The government - a law, really - requires a certain board composition. The government doesn’t sit inside the boardroom and vote.
Good Lord.
This isn’t a huge step away from the requirement of independent directors on the board - which, likewise, limits absolute freedom over board composition. No one is claiming that’s nationalization, are they?
This definition helps me, not you. You haven’t described a single instance of transfer of ownership or control over a private business to the government. The government doesn’t vote on business decisions. The government doesn’t set the board’s agenda. The government doesn’t authorize contracts, approve budgets, or green light joint ventures. The government simply would require that that board having other people at the table to help make those decisions, whatever they wind up being.
Liberal? Populist? Sure. Evidence that the government now controls the business? Be serious.
Dude the bill requires that Lizzy’s new agency to choose the new board members for the corporation and fucking write a new charter and bylaws for them. Board members that are not elected by shareholders but chosen by government (with no ownership percentage).
They also get to be the last arbiters of whether the new stacked board’s decisions agree with the government charter and are “socially responsible”. They are removing the shareholders agency in astoundingly 1984 fashion.
We aren’t going to reach common ground on this. In my opinion that’s straight up commie command and control of the economy. I respect you, but this is absolutely miles beyond 'you need a GP and an LP in an LLP".
In order for this to be equivalent the state would mandate who the GP is and make half of all your decisions for you…
Whatever Lizzy’s new ‘Ministry of Commerce’ says it means.
Doesn’t the act say the workers get to elect at least 40% of the directors? How is that the government choosing the directors?
No, they don’t - courts do, via sharehokder lawsuits. (Same as they do now - difference is the fidiluciary obligation will change.)
Not in any more astounding fashion in which it was changed in the early 1980s - if it was fair game to change to shareholder primacy then via policy and legislation, why is it foul to change it away now?
It’s not. Maybe it is in the libertarian blog world, but it isn’t in the corporate governance world. Command and control is what it says it is - this is light years away from that.
Not really - that rule says one of the partners has to have total personal liability exposure to the partnership’s misdeeds/mistakes. That’s a serious requirement. So why no libertarian tantrums over that infringement on a partnership’s freedom to do what it wants with its partners? Why does the government require at least one schmuck to have unlimited liability?
As is, I don’t dispute that the legislation is liberal and major. But the hyperbole with which it has been attacked is over the top and stupid. I suspect that’s because they fear it’s an idea that - if sober minds calm down and examine - would be taken seriously (even if not enacted as is) given the problem it’s designed to address and remedy.
Can’t have that, though - so shout it down.
