9 ms·

This is a fantastic idea, and I can't see how anyone (other than the people who stand to lose directly) could oppose it. All the same I know that they will. Co

by Y_Y 8y ago

This is a fantastic idea, and I can't see how anyone (other than the people who stand to lose directly) could oppose it. All the same I know that they will. Consumers are anything but rational, and that is by design. The ultra-rich know well the value of hearts and minds, and that it's quite possible to spend money convincing (at least some) people of whatever you'd like them to believe. Maybe it's just because I'm a pinko-European, but in the unlikely event of this succeeding, I think it could really be the start of the pendulum swinging in the right direction in global economics.

Cthulhu_ 8y ago
> [...] I can't see how anyone (other than the people who stand to lose directly) could oppose it. And there you have it; the shareholders and CEO would stand to lose directly, they have a huge amount of money (and they're both national and international players; a foreign investor would give less of a shit about US workers), they're in politics (directly or paying for it), etc. I hope this gets traction, but I'm cynical, and I'm confident the US is already an oligarchy in the pockets of those that made 7 trillion out of their 250 billion investment.
klenwell 8y ago
Article was flagged out first time I brought it up. It's back now. But you get the point.
- rectang 8y ago
  I hope we can have a civil HN discussion about this bill. I generally like Warren-style capitalism but am not sure yet what to think of this. When an article (or comment) gets flagged, HN accounts with sufficient karma may have the opportunity to "vouch". I used that once for this article already. This doesn't guarantee that the article will stay for long since there's an HN algo which tends to shuffle off pages with a lot of downvoting and flagging. (Which I think is a really nice feature, by the way. Thanks to the moderators for their good sense and hard work.) ETA: And that also means that if you want to keep this discussion alive for a while, relentlessly downvoting posts which don't agree with your bent, even when civil and well-argued, is counterproductive. There are some great comments arguing against Warren right now that I hope will be rescued from the greys.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
castlecrasher2 8y ago
I'm a low-level manager/tech lead in a huge company and I personally think it's an awful idea. I believe this law would ultimately create people-pleasing executive leadership, moreso than they already are. I'm envisioning political campaigns at work with promises they don't keep when elected while still talking the talk.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
nodesocket 8y ago
Whenever I see posts or leftist commentary saying the stock market only benefits the ultra-rich and wealthy CEOs it shows a downright ignorant view of capital markets. Working class Americans have lots of skin in the game in the market through 401k's, retirement plans, pensions, traditional investments. The ideology that it's a rigged system for the rich to stay rich and oppress the middle and lower class is a load of nonsense. > Maybe it's just because I'm a pinko-European Maybe.
- subway 8y ago
  > Whenever I see posts or leftist commentary saying the stock market only benefits the ultra-rich and wealthy CEOs Nobody has said anything of the sort here.
  - castlecrasher2 8y ago
    The article practically opened with it. Did you read it?
    - subway 8y ago
      Yeah. Twice now, just to make sure I wasn't missing something. Nowhere is it even remotely implied that the market only benefits the ultra-rich and CEOs.
      - mrep 8y ago
        Fifth paragraph (and nodesocket said "rich to stay rich", not just ultra-rich and ceos): Because the wealthiest 10% of U.S. households own 84% of American-held shares, the obsession with maximizing shareholder returns effectively means America’s biggest companies have dedicated themselves to making the rich even richer.
        subway 8y ago
        That statement is pointing out the existence of a feedback loop in need of dampening. It's not saying the market needs to go away, or that it only benefits a minority. To imply it's a cry that the game was designed to be rigged is a straw-man.
sokoloff 8y ago
From a reading only of the WSJ article (no additional research), I would be inclined to oppose it on Constitutional grounds, as a States' Rights issue. I see no standing that the federal government has to force all companies with $1BB in annual revenues to get a federal charter. (Feds have the power to regulate foreign/interstate commerce, so over $1BB in interstate/foreign revenue is a threshold with a chance at having Constitutional standing, though it's still a stretch from there to say the feds have the power to force specific corporate governance practices unrelated to commerce itself.) I doubt this will go anywhere (I think it's another grandstanding issue for the Bernie-types), but if it does, I'd expect a challenge (with a reasonable chance of success) on Constitutional grounds (see Article 10).
- fixermark 8y ago
  1) As of the Great Depression (approximately), it's understood the Fed's interstate commerce regulatory authority extends to intrastate commerce, on the grounds that the economy of one state impacts the economy of adjacent states---i.e. if Idaho discounts potato sales from Idahoans to Idahoans, and as a result depresses the potato demand from the farms of neighboring states, the Federal government can intervene on what is a completely Idaho-internal policy. It is under this theory that the Fed prohibits certain drugs (even if the drugs were manufactured and sold completely in-state). 2) Given that corporations exist only as a legal construct, I'm pretty certain that the government has a great deal of lattitude in what it can compel corporations to do or refrain from doing. It's worth noting that the US law also treats corporations as people; however, it does so because of the law itself (1 U.S.C. §1); modifications to that law can alter the nature of corporations in US law.
  - sokoloff 8y ago
    Re 2: It's clear that some government has a great deal of latitude. The Constitutional question is whether the federal government has that latitude on a governance (not commerce) topic.
- Y_Y 8y ago
  I'm inclined to agree with you, your point about constitutionality is well taken. I know we're getting into thorny political philosophy at this point, but I'd be inclined to support this bill, even if there is a good case to be made that it's unconstitutional. In my opinion, any purpose served by having a constitution is in the benefit of the people and the state, if the constitution proscribes something that would definitely benefit the state, then it is the constitution which is wrong. Whether or not this would be ultimately beneficial, or the principle that the constitution is trying to protect here (don't interfere in the affairs of lawful citizens) is more important in the end are value judgements, and difficult ones at that. I don't doubt that if my circumstances were different I would be making an argument like yours.
quotemstr 8y ago
If I bought a share in a company fair and square, I bought that share came with a certain expectation of control. That share is my property. Giving control to people who haven't bought control fair and square is a taking of my property, and as a general heuristic, we should be extremely skeptical of taking people's property for some kind of ostensible good. Would you support a bill forcing owners of large houses to set aside some of their space for the homeless? Would you give your squatter a vote equal to your own in matters of deciding how to arrange the furniture and paint the walls?
- ummonk 8y ago
  Well, rent-control kind of works like this. You are forced to continue renting out your property to the renter at the price they've been renting it for.
  - quotemstr 8y ago
    And rent control has been working great, hasn't it? Rent control is a repulsive manipulation of the market that strangles necessary growth in the housing stock. It privileges a few undeserving people who lucked into rent controlled apartments over the interest of society at large.
    - enwa 8y ago
      Except your concern for "the interest of society at large" was essentially zero just a few minutes earlier when talking about stocks.
      - quotemstr 8y ago
        There's no contradiction. My position is that society as a whole benefits when we allocate scarce resources to their most productive ends, and the system of ownership and profit optimization does just that. Adam Smith was right about the invisible hand.
        8y ago

by Y_Y 8y ago

Cthulhu_ 8y ago

> [...] I can't see how anyone (other than the people who stand to lose directly) could oppose it. And there you have it; the shareholders and CEO would stand to lose directly, they have a huge amount of money (and they're both national and international players; a foreign investor would give less of a shit about US workers), they're in politics (directly or paying for it), etc. I hope this gets traction, but I'm cynical, and I'm confident the US is already an oligarchy in the pockets of those that made 7 trillion out of their 250 billion investment.

klenwell 8y ago

Article was flagged out first time I brought it up. It's back now. But you get the point.

rectang 8y ago
I hope we can have a civil HN discussion about this bill. I generally like Warren-style capitalism but am not sure yet what to think of this. When an article (or comment) gets flagged, HN accounts with sufficient karma may have the opportunity to "vouch". I used that once for this article already. This doesn't guarantee that the article will stay for long since there's an HN algo which tends to shuffle off pages with a lot of downvoting and flagging. (Which I think is a really nice feature, by the way. Thanks to the moderators for their good sense and hard work.) ETA: And that also means that if you want to keep this discussion alive for a while, relentlessly downvoting posts which don't agree with your bent, even when civil and well-argued, is counterproductive. There are some great comments arguing against Warren right now that I hope will be rescued from the greys.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

castlecrasher2 8y ago

I'm a low-level manager/tech lead in a huge company and I personally think it's an awful idea. I believe this law would ultimately create people-pleasing executive leadership, moreso than they already are. I'm envisioning political campaigns at work with promises they don't keep when elected while still talking the talk.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

nodesocket 8y ago

Whenever I see posts or leftist commentary saying the stock market only benefits the ultra-rich and wealthy CEOs it shows a downright ignorant view of capital markets. Working class Americans have lots of skin in the game in the market through 401k's, retirement plans, pensions, traditional investments. The ideology that it's a rigged system for the rich to stay rich and oppress the middle and lower class is a load of nonsense. > Maybe it's just because I'm a pinko-European Maybe.

subway 8y ago
> Whenever I see posts or leftist commentary saying the stock market only benefits the ultra-rich and wealthy CEOs Nobody has said anything of the sort here.
- castlecrasher2 8y ago
  The article practically opened with it. Did you read it?
  - subway 8y ago
    Yeah. Twice now, just to make sure I wasn't missing something. Nowhere is it even remotely implied that the market only benefits the ultra-rich and CEOs.
    - mrep 8y ago
      Fifth paragraph (and nodesocket said "rich to stay rich", not just ultra-rich and ceos): Because the wealthiest 10% of U.S. households own 84% of American-held shares, the obsession with maximizing shareholder returns effectively means America’s biggest companies have dedicated themselves to making the rich even richer.
      - subway 8y ago
        That statement is pointing out the existence of a feedback loop in need of dampening. It's not saying the market needs to go away, or that it only benefits a minority. To imply it's a cry that the game was designed to be rigged is a straw-man.

sokoloff 8y ago

From a reading only of the WSJ article (no additional research), I would be inclined to oppose it on Constitutional grounds, as a States' Rights issue. I see no standing that the federal government has to force all companies with $1BB in annual revenues to get a federal charter. (Feds have the power to regulate foreign/interstate commerce, so over $1BB in interstate/foreign revenue is a threshold with a chance at having Constitutional standing, though it's still a stretch from there to say the feds have the power to force specific corporate governance practices unrelated to commerce itself.) I doubt this will go anywhere (I think it's another grandstanding issue for the Bernie-types), but if it does, I'd expect a challenge (with a reasonable chance of success) on Constitutional grounds (see Article 10).

fixermark 8y ago
1) As of the Great Depression (approximately), it's understood the Fed's interstate commerce regulatory authority extends to intrastate commerce, on the grounds that the economy of one state impacts the economy of adjacent states---i.e. if Idaho discounts potato sales from Idahoans to Idahoans, and as a result depresses the potato demand from the farms of neighboring states, the Federal government can intervene on what is a completely Idaho-internal policy. It is under this theory that the Fed prohibits certain drugs (even if the drugs were manufactured and sold completely in-state). 2) Given that corporations exist only as a legal construct, I'm pretty certain that the government has a great deal of lattitude in what it can compel corporations to do or refrain from doing. It's worth noting that the US law also treats corporations as people; however, it does so because of the law itself (1 U.S.C. §1); modifications to that law can alter the nature of corporations in US law.
- sokoloff 8y ago
  Re 2: It's clear that some government has a great deal of latitude. The Constitutional question is whether the federal government has that latitude on a governance (not commerce) topic.
Y_Y 8y ago
I'm inclined to agree with you, your point about constitutionality is well taken. I know we're getting into thorny political philosophy at this point, but I'd be inclined to support this bill, even if there is a good case to be made that it's unconstitutional. In my opinion, any purpose served by having a constitution is in the benefit of the people and the state, if the constitution proscribes something that would definitely benefit the state, then it is the constitution which is wrong. Whether or not this would be ultimately beneficial, or the principle that the constitution is trying to protect here (don't interfere in the affairs of lawful citizens) is more important in the end are value judgements, and difficult ones at that. I don't doubt that if my circumstances were different I would be making an argument like yours.

quotemstr 8y ago

If I bought a share in a company fair and square, I bought that share came with a certain expectation of control. That share is my property. Giving control to people who haven't bought control fair and square is a taking of my property, and as a general heuristic, we should be extremely skeptical of taking people's property for some kind of ostensible good. Would you support a bill forcing owners of large houses to set aside some of their space for the homeless? Would you give your squatter a vote equal to your own in matters of deciding how to arrange the furniture and paint the walls?

ummonk 8y ago
Well, rent-control kind of works like this. You are forced to continue renting out your property to the renter at the price they've been renting it for.
- quotemstr 8y ago
  And rent control has been working great, hasn't it? Rent control is a repulsive manipulation of the market that strangles necessary growth in the housing stock. It privileges a few undeserving people who lucked into rent controlled apartments over the interest of society at large.
  - enwa 8y ago
    Except your concern for "the interest of society at large" was essentially zero just a few minutes earlier when talking about stocks.
    - quotemstr 8y ago
      There's no contradiction. My position is that society as a whole benefits when we allocate scarce resources to their most productive ends, and the system of ownership and profit optimization does just that. Adam Smith was right about the invisible hand.
      - 8y ago