Warren: Federal government must have more control over large corporations


Readers!
 
For many reasons, mostly political but partly ethical, I do not use Google, Facebook, Twitter. They practice corrupt business policies, while targeting conservative websites for censoring, facts repeatedly confirmed by news stories and by my sense that Facebook has taken action to prevent my readers from recommending Behind the Black to their friends.
 
Thus, I must have your direct support to keep this webpage alive. Not only does the money pay the bills, it gives me the freedom to speak honestly about science and culture, instead of being forced to write it as others demand.

 

Please consider donating by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar below.


 

Regular readers can support Behind The Black with a contribution via paypal:

Or with a subscription with regular donations from your Paypal or credit card account:


If Paypal doesn't work for you, you can support Behind The Black directly by sending your donation by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman, to
 
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652

 

You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage. And if you buy the books through the ebookit links, I get a larger cut and I get it sooner.

They’re coming for you next: Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) this week proposed a new law that would give the federal government more control and power over large corporations.

The bill would create a new bureaucracy, would require all corporations with more than $1 billion in annual revenue to get that bureaucracy’s permission to operate, and require that 40% of their corporate boards be elected by employees.

To translate this into plain language, this is simply a power grab by Democrat Warren, which of course is par for the course for any Democrat. Give them the power to run things, and everything will be perfect! We can see what they mean simply by looking at the past fascist efforts of socialists in Venezuela, the Soviet Union, East Germany, North Korea, and every other socialist paradise where all power was centralized into the hands of ideologues like Warren.

Don’t you want the same here for America?

Share

15 comments

  • Phill O

    This is way more than a power grab IMO. With this is the power to stop anyone doing business who does not tote the dems line. Consider it a way to get rid of that pesty cake business. It is the NAZI state to be rid of the Jews, though this time it is conservatives.

    The liberals in Canada are doing it already though subversively.

  • Cotour

    And the Liberals / Democrats like to call Trump a Fascist? This is there well known mode of operation, always point the finger at your opponent and call them out for the offensive actions you yourself are conducting and promoting.

    Warren proposes and promotes Fascism, this is Fascism! Text book Fascism.

    “Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of radical authoritarian ultranationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy, which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe. The first fascist movements emerged in Italy during World War I before it spread to other European countries. Opposed to liberalism, Marxism and anarchism, fascism is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum.

    Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete and they regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties. Such a state is led by a strong leader—such as a dictator and a martial government composed of the members of the governing fascist party—to forge national unity and maintain a stable and orderly society. Fascism rejects assertions that violence is automatically negative in nature and views political violence, war and imperialism as means that can achieve national rejuvenation. Fascists advocate a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky through protectionist and interventionist economic policies.”

    Lord, forgive for in their desperation they will go to any length to remain relevant and consequential. They will pander and go to any length.

  • wodun

    Who is persuasive enough to make the case against it? Whoever it is has to be smart enough to get it past the media gatekeepers, or what Stalin called useful idiots. It is just too bad that no messenger will be found who isn’t a racist NAZI who hates women.

  • Edward

    Government control and power over corporations was one of the factors in 1930s Germany that their Nationalist Socialist German Worker’s Party instituted, which made German corporations accountable to the bureaucracy. Recall that in the movie “Schindler’s List,” he was able to go into business because he fooled those in power into believing that he was friends with a high mucky muck (one photo was worth a thousand lives).

    But then, why shouldn’t Warren advocate for more power and control of U.S. corporations? She is one of those who believes that those who built their own businesses didn’t build that:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AMoBU7lFUA (one minute)

    Since you didn’t build that, why should you be allowed to make the important decisions about how to run it?

    The problem that Karl Marx had was that he saw the owners of factories running those factories and incorrectly concluded that the owners have all the power. Today we see that it is the managers who run the companies — who have all the power — and only sometimes are those managers the owners. Thus, Marx made the poor decision to advocate for the workers to be the owners so that they could run their companies and share in the profits. Unfortunately for Marx, the Elizabeth Warrens of the world were the true operators of companies in Marxist countries, and those were people with little knowledge on how things run. It was the Warrens of those countries who kept the profits that the workers made (from each according to his ability) and distributed them as they saw fit (to each according to his need, and the political bureaucratic managers in Marxist countries ended up with even more need than those in capitalist countries).

    Thus the Soviet Union diverted resources from where they were needed so that they could make a few firsts in space and look good to their sponsored countries, the North Koreans spend vital resources on rockets and nukes so that they can intimidate the world, and the socialists in Venezuela live well while telling their populace to raise and slaughter their own rabbits in order to eat.

    The reality is that the U.S., with its freedoms and the exceptionalism that De Tocqueville described, was able to go in three centuries from (literally) a backwoods village that couldn’t even feed itself (under Marx-like philosophy) to a world power able to end two worldwide wars (under free market capitalist philosophy). Warren would prefer the original failed Plymouth Colony model over the successful U.S. model, because in the latter model, We the People have more power than Senator Warren (or Stalin, or Kim, or Chavez).

    Why run for Senate if the people you are going to rule — er — serve have more power than a Senator does?

  • wayne

    Supreme Court vs. New Deal’s National Industrial Recovery Act
    https://youtu.be/8L7txbm8S5Q
    3:28

    “The National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA or NRA) was the centerpiece of the early New Deal legislation. It organized industries into cartel-like structures with codes of conduct. Included in the codes was a minimum wage requirement and a vague requirement to allow collective bargaining. The Supreme Court voided the NIRA on the grounds that it overstepped Congress’s right to regulate the economy under the interstate commerce clause. At that time, the clause was interpreted as being limited to transportation over state lines such as railroads. This video depicts that situation just before the NIRA was invalidated in 1935. That decision led President Roosevelt to propose that Congress enlarge the Supreme Court beyond the 9 justices so that he could appoint more judges. His “court packing” proposal was rejected but the Supreme Court enlarged its view of interstate commerce in 1937.”

  • Col Beausabre

    Today we see that it is the managers who run the companies — who have all the power — and only sometimes are those managers the owners.

    See “A Theory of the Large Managerial Firm” Journal of Political Economy June 1965

    https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/259012?journalCode=jpe

    Essentially, the authors’ argument is that the modern firm is so large and complex that it’s investors (owners) can’t judge if management is running the firm to maximize their return on investment as Agency Theory (managers will run the firm so as to maximize profit because the shareholders will then maximize the reward management gets) states so management pursues it’s own goals – like maximizing their return not the owners. and in particular gaming the executive compensation system of the firm

    An eye opener when I read it 35 or so years ago.

  • wayne

    Col Beausabre-
    Great stuff!

    (the 1960’s also saw the rise of the modern “conglomerate,” on the theory (in part) that economies of scale were readily applicable, interchangeable, and transferable.)

    For a very old blast from the past,

    “Philip Dru: Administrator; A Story of Tomorrow, 1920-1935”
    Edward Mandell House
    Published 1912
    http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/6711

    Practically the play-book for Woodrow Wilson’s bizzaro progressive scientific-authoritarianism. Wherein, genius mastermind “administrators,” run everything, for your own good, of course…

    Don’t have a link handy, but highly recommend as well:

    “The Cartelization of Commerce”
    Prof Richard Epstein
    cited as:
    “Richard A. Epstein, 22 Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 209 (1998)”

    “The Topic of this Essay is whether we should consider undoing the New Deal….I shall first ask what our Nation hoped to achieve when it put the New Deal in place. And then I shall ask if it’s worth undoing the New Deal.

  • wayne

    Most excellent:

    “Pirates & the Theory of the Firm – Intro to Political Economy, Lecture17”
    Prof. Mike Munger Duke University
    https://youtu.be/a9bRw6ZWIvA
    52:19

    “lecture overview:
    1. Price signals scarcity, and organizes production through profit, and encourages innovation
    But…wait: If markets are so great, why are there firms? Firms, after all, are the explicit suppression of the market mechanism. “Make or buy”: For many firms, for many items, they choose to make the product.
    2. Higher transactions costs in price system, larger firms.
    If cost of using prices falls, firms get smaller (careful, though: network economies).
    3. But there is a more interesting story: PIRATES! The way that pirate ships, and groups, were organized is an answer to the problem of transactions costs. A specialized kind of firm,
    Individuals could not operate ships, or capture treasure, but they had no way to enforce contracts. The “Code” is more like “guidelines,” because not directly enforceable.
    4. Very flat structure, command divided between Quartermaster (mostly) and Captain (in times of battle). Both are elected.
    5. First instances of insurance, pensions, and workplace democracy.
    6. Key problem: must give quarter if asked. If resistance, fight fiercely. But if no resistance, treat captives well. Must maximize difference between resistance/no resistance, to improve net revenues and reduce risk.”

  • Phill O

    Cotour Nice assessment! There was one point lacking and let me explain:

    Religion, particularly Jewish and Christian churches need to be eradicated as they give absolutes in morality. Goebbels was able to create a different morality based on humanism and lies. Seems like the current dems are following suite on this. Trump has made the error (in the dems eyes) of accepting evangelical ideas into his agenda. They can not tolerate this!

  • Robert Pratt

    I wonder about those who think employees have standing in such things. If you want to be an owner start your own firm or invest your earnings in one.

  • wayne

    Robert Pratt-
    Good stuff.

    If we’re going to play this radical egalitarian Game, maybe we start first with expropriating all of her money. She got all her wealth by flipping foreclosed houses. She can lead by example. (When she’s not being a useful idiot at her day job, she’s quite the bourgeoisie capitalist pig, land-owner & landlord.)

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/05/elizabeth-warren-real-estate-profiteer-jillian-kay-melchior-eliana-johnson/

  • wayne

    Don Draper on Compensation
    “That’s what the money is for!”
    https://youtu.be/3kX7wY0wvVY
    1:01

  • Phil Berardelli

    I wish someone would ask Sens. Warren and Sanders if they would be willing to give up their fortunes in a gesture of leading by example. Likewise their multiple residences. If they are truly committed to equality, then why not adjust their incomes and assets to match the national average? And if Rep. Pelosi and Sen. Schumer agree with their positions, then why not shed their own excessive wealth? I’m asking rhetorically, of course, because there is no chance these phonies would ever sacrifice their own financial positions to benefit others. Fortunately, more and more of the voting public recognizes this sham for what it is and will oppose it, as they did two years ago this November.

  • Cotour

    Related, because this is how the Warren, Sanders, Liberal / Leftist mind operates:

    This is a response from me to a conversation that I am engaged in with a liberal / Lawyer friend of mine and is very instructive. The subject: CHICAGO: WHEN WILL THEY DO WHAT MUST BE DONE?

    ——————–

    Let this be a member of your family, then we will see how Liberal and “Libertarian” you remain.

    https://chicago.cbslocal.com/2018/08/16/teen-killed-west-chicago-stabbed-run-over-burned-alive-3-teens-charged/

    Yours is just an internal, idealistic, Liberal even Leftist conversation, makes you feel good, complete and total BS. Your politics is a real world danger to all who are subject to it. But not you, you live a very nice and safe life, but when it comes down to taking care of business and actually solving a real world problem like Chicago you in effect take the side of the offenders and murderers. “It would cost too much in law suits”. Typical and totally fraudulent.

    You and your kind are the danger that grows in the entire world. This extreme Left philosophy must be rejected, as extreme Right philosophy must also be rejected. But there are extreme situations in life that must be dealt with in equal terms, and Chicago for one is that situation and this is the time!

  • Cotour

    Related follow up: THE REAL WORLD COST OF LIBERAL INCORRECT THINKING IS HIGH

    http://dailycaller.com/2018/08/16/couple-bikes-isis-territory/

    Two young, beautiful and idealistic people indoctrinated into the Liberal thinking that defends murderers like my lawyer friend and are unable to properly interpret the world because of that indoctrination, and by the way worked for HUD in Washington.

    And, these people insist by the power of law that we all be just as stupid and “idealistic” as they are under the label of “fairness” and “justice”. I just say not, I call out irrational thinking and point to it and then ask them to please justify and explain it. They never can.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *