Who's Mad ?

[docB]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Free market capitalism requires that the people who make bad decisions be held responsible for those decisions. We have had two major changes in our model of corporate ownership that has divorced free market economics from corporate decision making:

1) A steady decline in shareholder rights: The legal protections offered to shareholder, and infact the legal definition of a shareholder, have become so legally diluted that they are almost worthless. The CEO and board who ostensibly make decisions on behalf of the shareholders are, in reality, not answerable to them in any practical way. Without shareholder oversight the natural inclination of the decision makers to loot the company has nothing to balance against, and the long term investment is rapidly transfered to the executives' short term bonuses.

2) A steady decline in the concept of stockholding as ownership in a company. The rise of unregulated corporate financial products means that most investors are, at this point, either completely unaware of what they're investing in (any kind of stock 'fund') or if they are they are not invested in the sense that they have any longterm interest in the investment (microtransactions now can last only minutes, dividend earning stock has almost disappeared as a financial product). Even if stockholders have leverage to control a company, it doesn't matter if they are not themselves invested in better longterm outcomes for that company.

The result is that we have corporates who are 'owned' by groups of shareholders who have no interest in looking more than a few hours down the road, and who are powerless to enfore their interestes if they do. It makes the drive for long term investment nearly non-existent. Which kills companies, like Hostess.

I think you raise excellent points here. I would back plans to reform the corporate system and return it to more free market principles. What we are doing now though is giving up on the free market as an ideal and going socialist with all the clear problems that entails.

Can we fast forward 300 years to the Star Trek era where there is no money and people work to better themselves and the rest of humanity?

We already did. It lasted from 1922 to 1991.

Ok, but I'll be damned if I wear the red shirt. Or was it the yellow?

Those companies who make those decisions, if unprofitable will fail and the model will change. Look at AIG, BoA, Citigroup and all the other huge companies that received bailouts. They were practicing the sort of unaccountable management you described. They all should have gone out of business, yet some larger entity decided to take taxpayer money and bail them out. THAT is the larger problem. These companies can do as they will and Uncle Sam has taken away the consequences.

I say let all these companies fail. GM too.

I agree. Conservatives are unfairly portrayed as supporting business no matter what. We support the idea that business be allowed to function with as little government interference as possible but when they fail they fail. New, better companies will take over their niches.

Now a lot of these companies have failed because of political and regulatory factors that have made them non competitive (e.g. GM and its untenable union contracts).

How much money should a person earn? Is there no point in progressive taxation? Why would you work for the weakest and most underprivileged and have such a lack of empathy for their plight. Why not work on wall street? I don't think you envy their money, I think you envy their profession.

That question is absurd. I answer that the government should never determine when somone has made "enough."

On the contrary I am empathetic.

When I first read this I though you said "empathic" and you were choosing your role in the previously mentioned Star Trek utopia.😀

 

[8654Marine]

I hate monopolies. Period. Be it gov't or corporations.

GV, you go dude!

 

[danielmd06]

I'm really starting to like this General Veers guy.

 

[RustedFox]

I'm really starting to like this General Veers guy.

Not too long ago, he changed his avatar from his present one to a different one. Can't rightly remember what it was.

There was much outcry. "Change back!" "You can't change from Dr. Strangelove".

Veers for president.

 

[Apollyon]

Veers for president.

You know he's a Canuck, right? I don't believe he is a natural born American.

 

[GeneralVeers]

You know he's a Canuck, right? I don't believe he is a natural born American.

Correct. However since the Liberals present routinely remind us about how the out-of-date Constitution no longer applies (since we now have iPhones), then will anyone care?

 

[diphenyl]

Correct. However since the Liberals present routinely remind us about how the out-of-date Constitution no longer applies (since we now have iPhones), then will anyone care?

I find conservatives are strict constitutionalists only when it suits their agenda, say for instance when talking about the second amendment. When it's about that the constitution is a perfect document, must be taken literally with no room for interpretation. However when it comes to say the anti-establishment clause, or anything else that goes against their social agenda, they start spouting "oh it's a living document that must change with society".

 

[Perrotfish]

Those companies who make those decisions, if unprofitable will fail and the model will change. Look at AIG, BoA, Citigroup and all the other huge companies that received bailouts. They were practicing the sort of unaccountable management you described. They all should have gone out of business, yet some larger entity decided to take taxpayer money and bail them out. THAT is the larger problem. These companies can do as they will and Uncle Sam has taken away the consequences.

I think the Republican side of taking away the consensequences of failure was to take away the regulation that forced to people who made the bad decisions to suffer with the company they caused to fail. When shareholders have no practical ability to enforce their theoretical ownership, and in fact no real longterm commitment to the company itself, then the executives happily loot the company during their tenures and then float safely down on golden parachutes while the compnay crashes to the ground. For the next set of executives to make a better business model to replace the bad one, they need to work in a world where the last set of executives didn't get rich bankrupting the company.

 

[GeneralVeers]

I find conservatives are strict constitutionalists only when it suits their agenda, say for instance when talking about the second amendment. When it's about that the constitution is a perfect document, must be taken literally with no room for interpretation. However when it comes to say the anti-establishment clause, or anything else that goes against their social agenda, they start spouting "oh it's a living document that must change with society".

I don't believe I have ever said that it's a "living document and must change". It certainly can change, however there is a strict procedure for how to change it. The Constitution has been amended many times, and that is the vehicle for change. The reason the bar is high (2/3 Congressional majority and 3/4 of States) is that it should only be changed if there is a very good reason with broad support from both politicians and the people.

The Constitution as written should be narrowly construed and all policy should adhere to the letter of the Constitution. If laws are inadequate, and society has significantly changed and wants something taken out or modified, then they should pursue the appropriate procedures to do so.

Obama has largely gotten his wish, as his executive orders, appointment of unelected "Czars", interference in the banking industry and bankruptcy proceedings are all largely unconstitutional.

 

[diphenyl]

I don't believe I have ever said that it's a "living document and must change". It certainly can change, however there is a strict procedure for how to change it. The Constitution has been amended many times, and that is the vehicle for change. The reason the bar is high (2/3 Congressional majority and 3/4 of States) is that it should only be changed if there is a very good reason with broad support from both politicians and the people.

The Constitution as written should be narrowly construed and all policy should adhere to the letter of the Constitution. If laws are inadequate, and society has significantly changed and wants something taken out or modified, then they should pursue the appropriate procedures to do so.

Obama has largely gotten his wish, as his executive orders, appointment of unelected "Czars", interference in the banking industry and bankruptcy proceedings are all largely unconstitutional.

I'll give an example. When it comes to amendment number 2, conservatives do not believe in any room for interpretation, it's set in stone. However when it comes to #14, they start spouting about what the founding father "really meant" and it that it has to be interpreted with a modern context.

I do agree with you veers that the interstate commerce clause is used and abused far too often. I'm sure we can both agree to that.

Do you believe veers that there is a constitutional right to privacy in that #10 established it? I think it falls under it.

 

[bob1234]

I'll give an example. When it comes to amendment number 2, conservatives do not believe in any room for interpretation, it's set in stone. However when it comes to #14, they start spouting about what the founding father "really meant" and it that it has to be interpreted with a modern context.

I do agree with you veers that the interstate commerce clause is used and abused far too often. I'm sure we can both agree to that.

Do you believe veers that there is a constitutional right to privacy in that #10 established it? I think it falls under it.

Written laws were done so by man, an imperfect being. Natural law is what permeates all written things. I am going to say what I want and maintain my privacy with force if necessary. The founders incorporated some of these things into the law of the land, but at the end of the day it is just ink on paper. Murder is illegal, but it happens every single day. You have a natural and written right to defend yourself and your property. If you don't agree with those people you are going to have to use violence rid of them.

 

[GeneralVeers]

I'll give an example. When it comes to amendment number 2, conservatives do not believe in any room for interpretation, it's set in stone. However when it comes to #14, they start spouting about what the founding father "really meant" and it that it has to be interpreted with a modern context.

I do agree with you veers that the interstate commerce clause is used and abused far too often. I'm sure we can both agree to that.

Do you believe veers that there is a constitutional right to privacy in that #10 established it? I think it falls under it.

#14 - If strictly interpreted shouldn't cause any problems. "Congress shall manage commerce between the few states". Essentially it's designed to stop trade wars between the states, not for government to come in and tax everything. This is an unfortunately worded amendment as it leaves a lot of room to interpretation. When you look at the reason it was set up for, the meaning is clear and limited in scope.

 

[EctopicFetus]

#14 - If strictly interpreted shouldn't cause any problems. "Congress shall manage commerce between the few states". Essentially it's designed to stop trade wars between the states, not for government to come in and tax everything. This is an unfortunately worded amendment as it leaves a lot of room to interpretation. When you look at the reason it was set up for, the meaning is clear and limited in scope.

Consider health insurance cant be sold across state lines. Medicaid is state run etc.

Just putting all that out there.

 

[GeneralVeers]

Consider health insurance cant be sold across state lines. Medicaid is state run etc.

Just putting all that out there.

That's not why the commerce clause was written. It was written to make sure that Maryland doesn't pass laws preventing Virginia companies from selling insurance.

If the Commerce Clause is interpreted in any other context than the one above, it effectively renders null and void the rest of the protections in the Constitution.

 

[WilcoWorld]

That's not why the commerce clause was written. It was written to make sure that Maryland doesn't pass laws preventing Virginia companies from selling insurance.

If the Commerce Clause is interpreted in any other context than the one above, it effectively renders null and void the rest of the protections in the Constitution.

Well, there you go interpreting.

 

[GeneralVeers]

Well, there you go interpreting.

It's not interpreting. The Commerce clause was put in place to address a very specific problem. Unfortunately it was poorly worded, and a broad interpretation leads to abusive, overreaching government.

 

[jl lin]

I'm more sad than mad. I was hoping we could begin an honest discussion about the cost of entitlement, taxes, and spending. Instead America just chose the "easy" path of more spending, more taxes (on us), and more entitlements. Eventually the bill will come due, and it's not going to be pretty. Think Greece, but on a scale 50X larger.


As a student of history I know that whenever a civilization has gone down this path, it inevitably fails. I now know how the citizens of Rome felt in the 5th century as they watched Barbarians pour through the city gates, and realized that it was over.

^ This, so totally this!