Situation A: shareholders elect 100% of board members.
Situation B: shareholders elect 60% of board members.
How do we get from A->B? The government must COMPEL companies to adopt a charter that removes 40% of shareholder agency with no compensation. Kind of not how private property and liberty work.
It’s designed to address inequality of outcome. Which is only a problem if you believe the government should pick winners and losers. How dare those owners of companies expect to make returns on their investments.
Wasn’t fair game then, isn’t fair game now. If I punched someone last week and went unpunished is it wrong to try and stop me from punching someone this week? Or do you allow me to punch someone else because of precedent?
The federal government hasn’t passed a budget since what, 2008? They want to tell big corporations how to run their businesses?! Bunch of second rate attorneys need to get their own house in order and leave us alone.
And? Still not “nationalization”, no matter how hard you try. And the shareholders aren’t being deprived of their property - they still hold the same value of the company in their hands. Shareholders aren’t gods - they are people with contractual rights.
This is juvenile. Who said owners aren’t entitled to an ROI?
Point is, shareholder primacy theory is relatively new - it’s not grounded in an ancient truth. And the idea is to make sure companies share more of the fruits of the pool of revenue with the workers who help make the pool occur, since companies aren’t doing so now.
Does this square with doctrinaire libertarianism? No. So? Who cares? If it actually worked (and I have my doubts) will workers be happier and have more money to spend in the consumer economy? Yes. Will they have more ability to pay down debt, save for kid’s college, and better handle (exploding) health care costs? Will they be better able to save up some seed money to start businesses of their own? Yes. Will they be able to take better care of their aging parents? Yes. Would actual, practicing capitalism be made healthier? Yep.
If all this good stuff comes at the low, low cost of making some dopey anti-government feudalists upset because it violates their secular religion’s precepts and makes the donor class (you know, the elite - the ones you hate, except when you love them) a little less rich, am I open to make that deal?
You bet.
And that’s why libertarian types and their corporate overmasters fear legislation like this. Even if it doesn’t get passed, it starts a long overdue conversation about the assumptions on which companies operate.
Given the track record of our legions of Harvard law degrees and MBAs running our economy and big finance in the last decade, I’ll gladly take my chances. A dose of horse sense from someone on the front lines is exactly what the clubby, insular corporate boards need.
Why conservatives/libertarians who recently discovered they hate “the Elite” are suddenly so protective of them in corporate boardrooms, though - anybody’s guess. The hypocrisy is astounding.
At the very least, I trust most of the people with power to understand math principles. I had to explain to someone the other day that taking the average of a set of averages isn’t the same as taking an average of the whole thing.
To be fair, they’re running it amazingly. They always have. If the very goal of running the entire system is “benefit me as much as possible while doing it,” they’re receiving nothing but amazing grades.
They really only hate the elite in an abstract sense. If you get down to the nitty gritty it always devolves into hating the Liberal Elite.
They are the owners of the company. And depriving them of their voting agency is diminishing their private property rights yes. Do you have the same opinion when voters are required to show ID to vote? I would wager not. You’d argue that deprives people of their agency and it resembles a pole tax.
If you can’t make decisions how to run your own business then it isn’t your business.
Yeah. Property rights. So passe. “Imagine no possessions, I wonder if you can.”
Bullshit. The fiduciary responsibility of managers to maximize returns was recently articulated clearly by Friedman. But OWNERS of the means of production have always called the shots. As well they should. They take all the risks, it’s their ass on the line. Labor gets to go home at the end of the day. Ownership doesn’t.
“Share”, you mean pay employees more because they’re forced to by government? From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
As opposed to the system we have now where free people sell their labor to the owners of capital in a free market. Where companies have to pay skilled workers more to keep them around. Let’s just give people more money despite how much value they add. What could go wrong?
Lizzy is assuming (like all statists) that the owners and the corporations would just stand still and maintain current behaviours while the government tries to centrally plan. If this bill passed the multinationals would simply pull up stakes and go incorporate in Ireland or elsewhere. Then they’d own multiple US subsidiaries all with sales <$999 million to avoid Lizzy’s regulations. Or some other techniques that the first rate private sector lawyers could use to skate circles around the second rate litigators.
Just one more chain will set you free. Just give up a little more liberty so we can “solve” the problem of some people making more than others.
Companies provide goods and services to customers, they employ people to deliver them at market rates and earn returns for their owners. It’s the fairest system humans have ever devised and it’s working worldwide. The number of people living in extreme poverty worldwide is at an all time low. Humanity is doing better than ever.
But like I said this is a fruitless conversation with zero minds changed. There can be no reconciliation of our viewpoints.
40% is VERY sizeable control on a board. If the government is mandating a minimum of 51% instead of 40%, would you consider that control being that it constitutes voting majority on the board and a solid block of power?
If no, why?
If yes, other than a bare technicality of voting percentage, is there a fundamental substantial change that happens at that point in your head?
For my money I think this bill (if passed, and I pray to God it never sees the light of day) leads to one thing and one thing only: massive increase in corruption
Well the way I see it the bill mandates the government effectively has control of minimum 40% of the board–they put up the candidates, they have final say on what constitutes…whatever the hell it was “substantial social benefit”…and almost surely will be at odds with the other members of the board.
If you want that voting block on your side, you pony up. Like the cesspool congressional lobbying is currently only within a board of a multinational.
I’ll try to clarify: You said above to BG that nothing in the bill would constitute “control” over the corporation in question. Other than 11% voting power, is there any reason you say this bill would not constitute “control”?
Because while you technically might be correct at 40% voting rights, to me that just doesn’t pass the ol’ smell test. It’s a sizeable portion of corporate power.
Don’t the workers in the company select this 40%? I haven’t seen anything that says the government selects the board reps.
That would be developed in court (like it is now, for fiduciary duties). I agree, I don’t know exactly what it means either, but it’s not really that less vague than the other fiduciary standards.
Probably, and certainly at first. But I think the point is is get them in the room. To have any kind of influence, you first must have access.
To get the workers’ reps on your side, what do you do? Do you pay workers more?
Not been snarky or smart alecky here - but if that is what you mean…isn’t that the point of the bill? If you want the 40%'s blessing on something, you secure their buy-in through more rewards for those workers? Isn’t this another kind of collective bargaining?
It is, but it rests with the corporation’s employees, not the government. Does that make more sense in terms of my position? The government is not dictating a corporate outcome, and the worker’s reps vote the way they want. The government simply mandates they be at the table, able to have a voice, and can vote a (sizeable) minority.
Courts, through shareholder suits. Shareholders who don’t think the corporation is upholding this standard would sue, and courts would develop case law defining the term.
Feels like it when you’ve put over 10 years into being their employee. Then one day they lock the doors for the last time and you’re left scrambling to find work to cover your humble middle class life. They still have their posh neighborhoods, fancy cars, and private schools though.
Kinda Shocked I dont see much here on Trumps squad going to the tennis court prison… Must be the work of Q…
So how many days before Cohn or Manifort drop a Rubel on Trump with some collusion dirt to save their brown eye??? I say 8 days tops … A few days in Gen pop and they crack like cheap glass