|
The right wing ethnic nationalists did some research in an effort to at last solve the mystery; Of all the races and cultures that have ever existed, which of them are the most noble, the most morally upstanding, let's call them "the GREATEST NATION ON EARTH" for lack of a better term... Anyway, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised when you hear the results. Turns out it's actually themselves Obviously the smart money was on it being some obscure tribe in sub-Saharan Africa, but you can't argue with the learned scholars on the nationalist right when it comes to such matters.
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2018 20:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 05:32 |
|
|
Kraftwerk posted:I’m probably late with this. But have you guys seen Warren’s accountable capitalism act? It’s a loving hardon inducing bit of legislation that will likely never pass but goddam am I glad to see it happen. ...this is hardon-inducing? An Office of United States Corporations politely asking company directors to pretty-please think of their employees when making decisions? This has pretty much killed any enthusiasm I had left for Warren.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2018 21:38
|
|
|
The Maroon Hawk posted:...this is hardon-inducing? An Office of United States Corporations politely asking company directors to pretty-please think of their employees when making decisions? Doesn’t it have more teeth than that?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2018 21:45
|
|
|
quote:More concretely, United States Corporations would be required to allow their workers to elect 40 percent of the membership of their board of directors.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2018 21:52
|
|
|
Should be 60. That's the absolute floor.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2018 21:54
|
|
|
Past a certain point (of size of the corporation) it should probably be 100%, if you can show that the investor class is no longer adding any value, or that other sources of funding make more sense. But 40% > 0% so...
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2018 21:57
|
|
|
Even if such a measure could be passed, it's really important you go full 100% elected at the start, because chances are you're going to need the centrist dem support and they need to appear like they did something to curb your extremism. Having them talk you down from 100% to 60% isn't the worst compromise, whereas starting at 40% is going to get you talked out of the whole drat thing in favor of some other toothless method.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2018 22:18
|
|
|
Yea keep in mind this is the starting position. The GOP is gonna be like "40%?!? What are you asking for 30% for, we can't possibly give you 20%!"
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2018 22:27
|
|
|
The Maroon Hawk posted:...this is hardon-inducing? An Office of United States Corporations politely asking company directors to pretty-please think of their employees when making decisions? The bill itself wouldn't help much, and Warren remains kind of lackluster, but I do think it's good to steer the conversation towards actual power structures, rather than just relatively milquetoast redistributive welfare policies. Like, those welfare policies are definitely really good and important, but they're ultimately a bandaid that still leaves the exact same people with power. Warren's idea at least brings the conversation towards the idea of directly addressing the influence wealthy individuals/organizations have, though you'd definitely need more than 40% (ideally 100% and ideally they'd directly own the company instead of just electing board members) to really make a difference. edit: Basically, even the best re-distributive welfare still leaves the richest people as the richest people and leaves them the option of converting their wealth to political power.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2018 22:32
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Yea keep in mind this is the starting position. Don't you know what would happen to the markets if we give you 10%? How about you agree to a reasonable compromise of 0%? Still, anything that plants the idea in the mind of the public that, "Hey, wait a minute. Why DO these guys have all the power and call the shots without input from us?" would be a really good step in the right direction. Change THAT cultural assumption and poo poo gets wild.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2018 22:41
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Should be 100. That's the absolute floor.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2018 00:34
|
|
|
The Maroon Hawk posted:...this is hardon-inducing? An Office of United States Corporations politely asking company directors to pretty-please think of their employees when making decisions? Warren is... fine. She’s relatively honest and unlike literally every other mainstream Democrat not named “Bernie” her lukewarm incremental ideas are actually solid steps in the right direction. It’s just incredibly depressing that she’s literally the best the establishment has to offer.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2018 00:40
|
|
|
Bernie IS NOT EVEN A DEMOCRAT.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2018 01:24
|
|
|
Elizabeth Warren should ideally be about the bar to clear for an acceptable "hey its West Virginia, we need a Democratic majority in order to control committees" type candidate. She's fine, but the bar for Massachusetts should be higher.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2018 01:38
|
|
|
Pakistani Brad Pitt posted:Elizabeth Warren should ideally be about the bar to clear for an acceptable "hey its West Virginia, we need a Democratic majority in order to control committees" type candidate. She's fine, but the bar for Massachusetts should be higher. Yeah, Warren should be the right wing of the party
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2018 01:59
|
|
|
Freakazoid_ posted:Even if such a measure could be passed, it's really important you go full 100% elected at the start, because chances are you're going to need the centrist dem support and they need to appear like they did something to curb your extremism. Having them talk you down from 100% to 60% isn't the worst compromise, whereas starting at 40% is going to get you talked out of the whole drat thing in favor of some other toothless method. Of course, Republicans act in bad faith, and the Democratic base absolutely expects their representatives to water down and neuter whatever legislation they ever propose, so this can't work. And, in this case you propose 100% anyway, at the top level at least, because that's the right thing to do. But, in a well-functioning system, starting off with something close to what you actually want is better, because the agents involved in the negotiation have more information that way. It seems like we assume that all social interaction need to be adversarial in nature which is seriously dysfunctional.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2018 02:04
|
|
|
Yeah, maybe she would be fine as a Secretary of Commerce, not the nominee (I have a feeling she is generally open to a little too compromise). My matchup is probably Harris v Bernie at this point. I think Booker is just a bit too dirty and doesn't have enough pull in the beltway. Biden issue really isn't his age, but that he is a terrible campaigner and really has nothing to offer. Gillibrand has some killer political instincts, but I have a feeling she is going to be lurking in the corners, maybe to pull SOC? Btw, a bunch of primaries have been moved up, including Texas/New York/California. I think the most likely scenario is that the institutional pull for Harris will carry them, swamp out Bernie and everyone else early. I don't think the DNC needs "dirty tricks" at this point. Obviously we will see what happens, but I think it is the firmest way for the establishment to give the perception of a competitive primary while it is pretty much already be over by March 3rd.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2018 02:13
|
|
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:Past a certain point (of size of the corporation) it should probably be 100%, if you can show that the investor class is no longer adding any value, or that other sources of funding make more sense. The thing is the entire publicly traded stock market is now collectively owned by like a dozen or so funds and institutional investors. Americans feared "central planning" so much that they decided to hand over control of the commanding heights of our economy to a bunch of centrally planned and controlled investors and funds that no longer see a point in competition. After all, if I own 20% of eastern airlines and 20% of delta, what's the point of pitting them against each other? Carve up the routes or merge them to maximize profits.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2018 02:41
|
|
|
This may not be the best thread for this question but I was talking to a friend of mine today about how short sighted the US has been with regard to infrastructure spending and the like, and he went on for 10 minutes about how good Modi has been for India (he's an Indian immigrant to the US). Got me wondering about Modi and on the surface it seems like most of his claims regarding improved QoL for Indians is true. What is the thread consensus on Modi and his administration? He seems to be a sort of Indian 3rd Way centrist but I don't hear much about him in the news.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2018 02:44
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:This may not be the best thread for this question but I was talking to a friend of mine today about how short sighted the US has been with regard to infrastructure spending and the like, and he went on for 10 minutes about how good Modi has been for India (he's an Indian immigrant to the US). Got me wondering about Modi and on the surface it seems like most of his claims regarding improved QoL for Indians is true. What is the thread consensus on Modi and his administration? He seems to be a sort of Indian 3rd Way centrist but I don't hear much about him in the news. Modi is a hindu nationalist and a big fan of trump. A lot of hindu nationalists see Trump's seething hatred of muslims and align that with their own hatred. As far as economics go he's a pretty D&D friendly neoliberal
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2018 02:51
|
|
|
im one of those 'third way centrists' that ignores rape gangs against Muslim women and then angrily asks why journalists aren't reporting on all the days my state DIDN'T have mass riots aimed at our Muslim population.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2018 03:07
|
|
|
CAPS LOCK BROKEN posted:The thing is the entire publicly traded stock market is now collectively owned by like a dozen or so funds and institutional investors. Americans feared "central planning" so much that they decided to hand over control of the commanding heights of our economy to a bunch of centrally planned and controlled investors and funds that no longer see a point in competition. After all, if I own 20% of eastern airlines and 20% of delta, what's the point of pitting them against each other? Carve up the routes or merge them to maximize profits.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2018 03:11
|
|
|
Isn’t Modi the guy that Gabbard is involved with?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2018 03:28
|
|
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:Past a certain point (of size of the corporation) it should probably be 100%, if you can show that the investor class is no longer adding any value, or that other sources of funding make more sense. Increased subsidization of worker co-ops is a means of effecting democratic socialism which can be scientifically tested for its efficacy, and if it doesn't work out, it can be reversed like any other policy, which should help more people get on board with it. In contrast, I think making an increasing percentage of the board worker-controlled is likely to do nothing at first, except make members of the board agree to vote as a block, then there'd be some number like from 50% to 55% across which the change comes very suddenly. Regardless, I think it might work out better if they set the % to start at 40% and had it automatically increase by 5% every year to see how it affects the outcome of vote. Democrats would be much more likely to make a correct decision to intervene against the original legislation, if it had to be done, than to make the right decision by passing the same type of legislation over and over.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2018 03:35
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Isn’t Modi the guy that Gabbard is involved with? yea Tulsi loves his rear end, she got super angry that Obama didn't kiss Modi's rear end enough
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2018 03:37
|
|
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:It seems like we assume that all social interaction need to be adversarial in nature which is seriously dysfunctional. These are adversarial systems. If your defense lawyer starts talking about how he doesn't want to be adversarial and would prefer to come to a mutual agreement based in trust in the prosecution, you should probably start writing your "ineffective assistance of counsel" petition. If your union representative starts talking about mutual trust with your employer, you should probably stop hoping for any meaningful gains for workers in your union. And if a political party stops treating their relationship with the opposition as adversarial, that means they don't actually consider the other party to be their opposition anymore.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2018 03:38
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:These are adversarial systems. If your defense lawyer starts talking about how he doesn't want to be adversarial and would prefer to come to a mutual agreement based in trust in the prosecution, you should probably start writing your "ineffective assistance of counsel" petition. If your union representative starts talking about mutual trust with your employer, you should probably stop hoping for any meaningful gains for workers in your union. And if a political party stops treating their relationship with the opposition as adversarial, that means they don't actually consider the other party to be their opposition anymore.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2018 04:00
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Isn’t Modi the guy that Gabbard is involved with? Yeah, and I think of it as the #1 reason to not trust her as a leftist (though she still manages to be better than the vast majority of Dems despite this, which is just kinda pathetic).
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2018 04:04
|
|
|
pretty sure supporting modi makes you not a leftist actually
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2018 04:07
|
|
|
galenanorth posted:Increased subsidization of worker co-ops is a means of effecting democratic socialism which can be scientifically tested for its efficacy, and if it doesn't work out, it can be reversed like any other policy, which should help more people get on board with it. In contrast, I think making an increasing percentage of the board worker-controlled is likely to do nothing at first, except make members of the board agree to vote as a block, then there'd be some number like from 50% to 55% across which the change comes very suddenly. We're in agreement that the change would come suddenly somewhere north of 50% (probably more than 55% as well since you can count on a lot of workers voting against their own interests). We seem to disagree on whether that change would be cool and good.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2018 04:10
|
|
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:Yes yes, all human interactions are either entirely adversarial or entirely not. Thanks for being part of the problem, forums' poster Main Paineframe. What goes on in a legislature has very little to do with "human interaction". You're looking at defined systems that were explicitly designed to be adversarial and spouting some crazy "can't we all just get along" crap.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2018 04:39
|
|
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:At 40%, ideally, the workers would act as a sort-of kingmaker among the most worker-friendly of the investor class. More realistically the investors will circle the wagons with the rest of their class, of course, and rule the corporation as a bloc even if it means that a lot of them aren't really getting what they want. So at that point you up the percentage to 100% and start making guillotines. I agree that it'd be more than 55%, now that you mention it, and I think the resulting change would be good
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2018 04:51
|
|
|
About 1 in 3 people are bootlickers so honestly 75% worker control should be the target. Which means you would have to start around 90.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2018 06:19
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:What goes on in a legislature has very little to do with "human interaction". You're looking at defined systems that were explicitly designed to be adversarial and spouting some crazy "can't we all just get along" crap. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2018 06:48
|
|
|
"Imagine four Mitch McConnells at the edge of a cliff. The American government works the same way."
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2018 06:50
|
|
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:You're the one that brought union representation and attorneys into this, not me. As for politics, while I'm obviously not about to suggest that Democrats continue trying to share power in good faith with Republicans (Republicanism should be illegal IMO), perhaps - and hear me out here this idea might be controversial for some - perhaps designing a system of government around the assumption of political elites screwing each other over all the time isn't the greatest starting point. Crazy for some, I know It's a bad starting point for a centralized government, which was kind of the point for a lot of the founding fathers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2018 07:52
|
|
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:"Imagine four Mitch McConnells at the edge of a cliff. The American government works the same way."
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2018 09:48
|
|
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:You're the one that brought union representation and attorneys into this, not me. As for politics, while I'm obviously not about to suggest that Democrats continue trying to share power in good faith with Republicans (Republicanism should be illegal IMO), perhaps - and hear me out here this idea might be controversial for some - perhaps designing a system of government around the assumption of political elites screwing each other over all the time isn't the greatest starting point. Crazy for some, I know I dunno. Looking at basically the entire history of the United States, it turns out to have been a pretty reasonable assumption.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2018 14:09
|
|
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:Of course, Republicans act in bad faith, and the Democratic base absolutely expects their representatives to water down and neuter whatever legislation they ever propose, so this can't work. And, in this case you propose 100% anyway, at the top level at least, because that's the right thing to do. It's weird how you understand this part but then say that you want us to be non-adversarial to the side acting in bad faith.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2018 14:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 05:32 |
|
|
WampaLord posted:It's weird how you understand this part but then say that you want us to be non-adversarial to the side acting in bad faith. Welcome to 
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2018 14:35
|
|
