You know, we were just thinking to ourselves that what America needs more of is really God-awful ideas. Right on cue, here comes Elizabeth Warren:
Elizabeth Warren wants to fundamentally change who big corporations are accountable to https://t.co/07QcFJlB61
— Vox (@voxdotcom) August 15, 2018
There are people who say that ideas don't matter in politics anymore … and then, there is @elizabethforma @SenWarren — out with an intriguing, creative new idea: https://t.co/3ft9ADWlJB
— Ronald Klain (@RonaldKlain) August 15, 2018
https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1029724659422572544
More from Matt Yglesias at Vox:
Instead of advocating for expensive new social programs like free college or health care, she’s introducing a bill Wednesday, the Accountable Capitalism Act, that would redistribute trillions of dollars from rich executives and shareholders to the middle class — without costing a dime.
…
The conceit tying together Warren’s ideas is that if corporations are going to have the legal rights of persons, they should be expected to act like decent citizens who uphold their fair share of the social contract and not act like sociopaths whose sole obligation is profitability — as is currently conventional in American business thinking.
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. That could concretely shift the outcome of some shareholder lawsuits but is aimed more broadly at shifting American business culture out of its current shareholders-first framework and back toward something more like the broad ethic of social responsibility that took hold during WWII and continued for several decades.
Because getting the government involved in businesses is always such a good idea.
The naiveté in Warren's bill is absolutely adorable.
One of the left's great delusions is that Warren is a serious policy expert with a deep understanding of the subject matter she tries to legislate. https://t.co/rTJK3EaS1H
— Alexandra F. Baldwin (@VerumVulnero1) August 15, 2018
No offense…but this proposal, as structured?
I want no part of the Federal government gaining more power to hyperregulate large businesses.
We are one step away from them managing how they run their businesses. NO THANKS. https://t.co/mqwNUgqR4I
— Pradheep J. Shanker, M.D., M.S. (@Neoavatara) August 15, 2018
People never look at the other side of the coin:
Imagine TRUMP having the powers listed here…and then asking the corporate governance of, say, Twitter, to demand more fairness in who they ban.
You guys good with that? Because, that is the power Warren is basically suggesting.
— Pradheep J. Shanker, M.D., M.S. (@Neoavatara) August 15, 2018
Any time a liberal proposes new federal regulation, liberals should ask one simple question:
"Do I want Donald Trump to have these powers?"
If the answer is 'No', go back to the drawing board.
— Pradheep J. Shanker, M.D., M.S. (@Neoavatara) August 15, 2018
Seems like a pretty good rule of thumb.
I’d love to have a real debate about how we can structure a policy to broadly hold decision makers & corporate stakeholders responsible for the external costs they impose on others. That would cover both financial companies AND environmental policy.
We’re not having that debate.
— (((Jeremy Posner))) (@jmp_nyc) August 15, 2018
I think that is a valid debate. That is about the interaction of corporations with the public and government.
But internally controlling private industry isn't the way to do that, anymore than you can forcibly control individuals.
— Pradheep J. Shanker, M.D., M.S. (@Neoavatara) August 15, 2018
But the imposition of external costs are at the core of that interaction.
Environmental law is a key example. It’s not that forcing companies to clean up their act is imposing new costs, it’s forcing them to bear the costs they were previously imposing on others.
— (((Jeremy Posner))) (@jmp_nyc) August 15, 2018
Fair. But again, when we talk about individuals…we impose costs directly on them.
Now, if you think corporations need to pay more in taxes, etc, to carry that burden…that is a reasonable argument.
Having govt meddle with their decision making? That is not reasonable.
— Pradheep J. Shanker, M.D., M.S. (@Neoavatara) August 15, 2018
Exactly.
Hard pass.https://t.co/FOPTU7KqKH pic.twitter.com/xH6YaqMyLR
— Stephen Miller (@redsteeze) August 15, 2018
No thanks https://t.co/ygb2NZaOGY
— Meech (@michi83) August 15, 2018
"Make corporate governance great again."
Also, "corporations have too much influence over politics."
Same people. https://t.co/NPqZhTYQvj
— Mo Mo (@molratty) August 15, 2018
Last word to Elizabeth Warren herself:
— David Rutz (@DavidRutz) August 15, 2018
Nailed it.
Editor’s note: This post has been updated with additional tweets.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member