Politics And Current Events

[shmenguin]

I think at this point he's mostly campaigning for the VP spot, a Biden-Beto ticket probably makes sense. If he weren't going all in for the VP spot, he probably would have committed to the TX senate race.

i'm guessing he wants a regular talking head gig on cable news. i wish they'd accelerate that contract offer.

[Kaiser]

I think at this point he's mostly campaigning for the VP spot, a Biden-Beto ticket probably makes sense. If he weren't going all in for the VP spot, he probably would have committed to the TX senate race.

I wouldn't hire Beto to unwrap Wonka bars. What's he going to do as VP, teach America how to breathe with their mouths open?

[Troy Loney]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-bla ... e?ref=home

The light bulb,” the president began. “People said what’s with the light bulb. I said here’s the story, and I looked at it. The bulb that we’re being forced to use. No. 1, to me, most importantly, the light’s no good. I always look orange. And so do you. The light is the worst.

You gotta love it.

[shafnutz05]

There are so many worthless candidates at this point, I'm not sure it makes sense to single any of them out. Like Klobachar, what the hell is her purpose at this point?

Hey, she finished third in the official Drudge Poll this morning

[Tomas]

Meanwhile in Slovakia:

A liar, dirtbag, **** and mental midget were some of the choice words used by Parliamentary Chair Andrej Danko (Slovak National Party/SNS) to address opposition’s OLaNO leader Igor Matovic during a heated fracas in the Parliament on Thursday.

https://newsnow.tasr.sk/policy/matovic- ... ht-ticket/

[NailedPenguin]

+1 for utilizing "heated fracas" in their story.

[Freddy Rumsen]

[shafnutz05]

Monster.

[Freddy Rumsen]

The Gubermint strikes again.

[grunthy]

I’d rather they not ban them from being sold, but ban them from being used in all public forums. Same with all forms of smoking.

[MR25]

[Ted]

THIS TIME, Schiff will get that wascally wabbit.

[Morkle]

So actually someone who has no idea about economics and stuff, why actually is that a bad idea? CoL goes up, and raises haven't followed suit.

Can you give me the dumbed-down version of why it's a bad idea? What we have now, doesn't really seem that great either?

Seizing corporate profits would crush the price of stocks, if not render them worthless. Why buy shares in a company if the profits the company earns will just be seized and redistributed by the government? It would gut people's retirement accounts, which for most folks are heavily invested in stocks. It would also attack the financial reserves and endowments of a lot of charities and nonprofits. Those sorts of entities also invest in order to make money. Finally, it would also cripple the ability of companies to raise capital buy selling stock on the equities markets.

To use an analogy, let's say a hamburger costs a dollar. How much would you pay for the exact hamburger when someone else is going to eat 90% of it before it gets to your plate?

Understood, thanks for putting it in layman's terms for me.

[eddy]

On Dec. 29, 2016, the Obama administration announced that it was giving nearly three dozen Russian diplomats just 72 hours to leave the United States and was seizing two rural East Coast estates owned by the Russian government. As the Russians burned papers and scrambled to pack their bags, the Kremlin protested the treatment of its diplomats, and denied that those compounds — sometimes known as the “dachas” — were anything more than vacation spots for their personnel.

The Obama administration’s public rationale for the expulsions and closures — the harshest U.S. diplomatic reprisals taken against Russia in several decades — was to retaliate for Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election. But there was another critical, and secret, reason why those locations and diplomats were targeted.

Both compounds, and at least some of the expelled diplomats, played key roles in a brazen Russian counterintelligence operation that stretched from the Bay Area to the heart of the nation’s capital, according to former U.S. officials. The operation, which targeted FBI communications, hampered the bureau’s ability to track Russian spies on U.S. soil at a time of increasing tension with Moscow, forced the FBI and CIA to cease contact with some of their Russian assets, and prompted tighter security procedures at key U.S. national security facilities in the Washington area and elsewhere, according to former U.S. officials. It even raised concerns among some U.S. officials about a Russian mole within the U.S. intelligence community.

https://news.yahoo.com/exclusive-russia ... soc_trk=tw

story goes into much more detail beyond this. good read.

[Troy Loney]

So actually someone who has no idea about economics and stuff, why actually is that a bad idea? CoL goes up, and raises haven't followed suit.

Can you give me the dumbed-down version of why it's a bad idea? What we have now, doesn't really seem that great either?

Seizing corporate profits would crush the price of stocks, if not render them worthless. Why buy shares in a company if the profits the company earns will just be seized and redistributed by the government? It would gut people's retirement accounts, which for most folks are heavily invested in stocks. It would also attack the financial reserves and endowments of a lot of charities and nonprofits. Those sorts of entities also invest in order to make money. Finally, it would also cripple the ability of companies to raise capital buy selling stock on the equities markets.

To use an analogy, let's say a hamburger costs a dollar. How much would you pay for the exact hamburger when someone else is going to eat 90% of it before it gets to your plate?

Understood, thanks for putting it in layman's terms for me.

I don't think that's an accurate reflection of what this proposal is. The proposal seems to focus more on the stakeholder model, and while taxation is a method for influencing how corporations spend their money, this isn't about just raiding the corporate profits, as it is to create a model that incentivizes treating workers and the community as stronger stakeholders, and not just focusing squarely on the shareholders.

[dodint]

You think it's appropriate to focus on those with no direct investment in a company over the owners of the company? Yowza.

[Troy Loney]

You think it's appropriate to focus on those with no direct investment in a company over the owners of the company? Yowza.

Reading comprehension?

The shareholder stakeholder model, which is the current model, says that all decisions are based on increasing value for the shareholders. The flaws of this model are rather clear, and it would benefit society for the corporate stakeholder model to account more for the other parties.

[dodint]

Having studied shareholder derivative suits and seeing what riles up those kind of people I'm confident in saying that if we systematically divert equity/resources away from them they will quickly dissolve their ownership stakes in domestic companies and invest elsewhere. These people eat their own Boards when they don't agree with something; imagine just giving their equity away to the community.

The idea that corporations are here for anyone but their ownership is quaint.

[tifosi77]

It I am a cattle rancher that owns 5,000 acres downstream from a pollution farm plant, I would say I am a bigger stakeholder in the operation of that pollution farm's activity than anyone who has bought common stock in the operation of that business.

[Troy Loney]

Having studied shareholder derivative suits and seeing what riles up those kind of people I'm confident in saying that if we systematically divert equity/resources away from them they will quickly dissolve their ownership stakes in domestic companies and invest elsewhere. These people eat their own Boards when they don't agree with something; imagine just giving their equity away to the community.

The idea that corporations are here for anyone but their ownership is quaint.

I feel like you are missing something here. What you are describing is how the system is intended to operate under the shareholder-stakeholder model. The proposal is to change the model to adjust the balance between workers/customer/community.

[dodint]

I don't think the shareholder-stakeholder system is flawed so maybe that's the disconnect?

I'd be on board with you, maybe, if industries weren't so oppressively over-regulated to begin with. Tif's farmer can file a civil suit if the farmer wants a crack at the profits. Or the farmer can try and get the EPA involved. Or any number of other bureaucratic paths to relief.

[tifosi77]

Because seeking redress for harm is preferable to trying to prevent it happening in the first place?

[dodint]

Alrighty then.

[Shyster]

The shareholder stakeholder model, which is the current model, says that all decisions are based on increasing value for the shareholders. The flaws of this model are rather clear, and it would benefit society for the corporate stakeholder model to account more for the other parties.

If those other parties want a say in how a certain public corporation is run, they are free to buy and vote their shares like everyone else.

[Tomas]

Having studied shareholder derivative suits and seeing what riles up those kind of people I'm confident in saying that if we systematically divert equity/resources away from them they will quickly dissolve their ownership stakes in domestic companies and invest elsewhere. These people eat their own Boards when they don't agree with something; imagine just giving their equity away to the community.

The idea that corporations are here for anyone but their ownership is quaint.

Did you say DERIVATIVE LAWSUITS?

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals ... 9C9E0FD579