Rubio introduces bill that would let shareholders to sue corps if they put wokeness over profits
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 09:50:28 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Rubio introduces bill that would let shareholders to sue corps if they put wokeness over profits
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: Rubio introduces bill that would let shareholders to sue corps if they put wokeness over profits  (Read 746 times)
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: September 25, 2021, 03:40:40 PM »

One thing that Rubio misses here is that his proposal even in his universe is "unneeded." Why? Because if a corp is really not paying much attention to profits, e.g., because its main goal is to make AOC happy, it will be subject to a hostile takeover. That is what hostile takeovers are all about, to get rid of management that is not deploying corporate assets in a profit maximizing way to such a degree that it becomes profitable to incur the transaction costs of effecting the hostile takeover. The market is self correcting in this instance.
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: September 25, 2021, 05:09:58 PM »
« Edited: September 25, 2021, 05:15:24 PM by Universe Man »

If what Democrats is pushing through is Socialism then this is literally Fascism. I mean, it’s not not Fascism and I am not be judgmental. Forcing corporations to implement state policies meant to protect “the natural order” (here against “wokeness”) from the top bottom is fascism. Again, this is not a Godwin thing but an objective observation. Maybe if people work hard, they can sell “a little fascism is needed for a healthy society” the way they do with “socialism” and not needing to do a credit check when you call 911.


Well the argument he is making is that if companies are costing their shareholders money with these types of actions , then the shareholders should be able to sue for violation of fiduciary duty .


The question really comes down to what do you think the main purpose of a corporation is :

- Is it mainly to make their shareholders more money or not  


The original  point of being a business is to be a business.


And who owns the business in this case

The shareholders who elected the directors. Some of them are part of the public, some of them not. None of them Marco Rubio. If share holders don’t like how a business is run, they can fire of the board or sell their stock. If market conditions have been made difficult, that’s the role of trust busting.


He’s letting shareholders make the decision if they want to sue or not . It’s not Marco Rubio deciding who gets sued or not

Can you not be so literal?
Logged
7,052,770
Harry
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,222
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: September 25, 2021, 07:17:44 PM »

Can you also sue if you think the company is being too conservative? Or is this a one-sided thing like the "religious freedom" laws?
Logged
Holy Unifying Centrist
DTC
Atlas Politician
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,201


Political Matrix
E: 9.53, S: 10.54

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: September 25, 2021, 07:24:00 PM »

The entire reason Marco Rubio is a thing is because of woeness.  How else would such an empty suit moron rise the ranks of the GOP like that?

Yeah, I strongly agree with this post. This dude is not impressive in the slightest. He's not smart, he's not charismatic, he's not that accomplished. He only made it so far because he was media manufactured.


Torie's post hit the nail on the head:

One thing that Rubio misses here is that his proposal even in his universe is "unneeded." Why? Because if a corp is really not paying much attention to profits, e.g., because its main goal is to make AOC happy, it will be subject to a hostile takeover. That is what hostile takeovers are all about, to get rid of management that is not deploying corporate assets in a profit maximizing way to such a degree that it becomes profitable to incur the transaction costs of effecting the hostile takeover. The market is self correcting in this instance.
Logged
beaver2.0
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,769


Political Matrix
E: -2.45, S: -0.52

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: September 25, 2021, 09:30:48 PM »

Can you also sue if you think the company is being too conservative? Or is this a one-sided thing like the "religious freedom" laws?
From the blurb it doesn’t look like it says what views are legit for a suit.  I wonder if this means if a shareholder could sue saying the company would make more money using a Mexican factory and only its political beliefs are keeping it running a US factory with higher-paid workers?
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,251


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: September 25, 2021, 09:42:54 PM »

NC Yankee knows what he's about, and what Rubio is about. As soon as I saw the word "shareholders" in Rubio's announcement I could tell without reading further that this is a clumsy rearguard attempt to legally entrench the nihilistic orthodoxy of shareholder value and describe it in a way that will appeal to a party base that's rightly rejected that orthodoxy. At least when Josh Hawley does stunts like this they involve imposing some norms on corporate behavior that aren't imposed by fusionist dogma already.
Logged
Hammy
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,711
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: September 25, 2021, 09:47:32 PM »

I see "wokeness" is the latest in their barrage of vague, meaningless, or completely subjective terms that they want to apply to (and punish for) literally anything they disagree with. Not that it wasn't this already.
Logged
indietraveler
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,039


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: September 25, 2021, 10:47:30 PM »

Corporations have entire departments to analyze these "woke positions" from a financial standpoint. Facts don't care about little Marco's feelings. If some of these actions were viewed as being financially risky corporations wouldn't be doing them.

Can anyone name a specific "woke" item that is actually hurting a corporation lol.
Logged
CEO Mindset
penttilinkolafan
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 925
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: September 26, 2021, 09:42:07 AM »

ceos should be able to have members of the board and sharehoulders publicly executed at their discretion

shareholders have no right to know anything about what a company is doing or have opinions
Logged
ProudModerate2
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,351
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: September 26, 2021, 02:02:39 PM »

Who gets to decide what exactly is considered "woke"?
This entire idea is just stupid.
Logged
SWE
SomebodyWhoExists
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,234
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: September 26, 2021, 03:24:15 PM »

Incredible how Donald Trump wasn't the stupidest person on the 2016 GOP Primary Debate stage
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,258
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: September 26, 2021, 03:50:40 PM »

If what Democrats is pushing through is Socialism then this is literally Fascism. I mean, it’s not not Fascism and I am not be judgmental. Forcing corporations to implement state policies meant to protect “the natural order” (here against “wokeness”) from the top bottom is fascism. Again, this is not a Godwin thing but an objective observation. Maybe if people work hard, they can sell “a little fascism is needed for a healthy society” the way they do with “socialism” and not needing to do a credit check when you call 911.


Well the argument he is making is that if companies are costing their shareholders money with these types of actions , then the shareholders should be able to sue for violation of fiduciary duty .


The question really comes down to what do you think the main purpose of a corporation is :

- Is it mainly to make their shareholders more money or not  


The original  point of being a business is to be a business.


And who owns the business in this case

The shareholders who elected the directors. Some of them are part of the public, some of them not. None of them Marco Rubio. If share holders don’t like how a business is run, they can fire of the board or sell their stock. If market conditions have been made difficult, that’s the role of trust busting.


He’s letting shareholders make the decision if they want to sue or not . It’s not Marco Rubio deciding who gets sued or not

 As previously pointed out, repeatedly: Shareholders. Already. Can. Do. This.
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,357


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: September 26, 2021, 04:39:37 PM »

If what Democrats is pushing through is Socialism then this is literally Fascism. I mean, it’s not not Fascism and I am not be judgmental. Forcing corporations to implement state policies meant to protect “the natural order” (here against “wokeness”) from the top bottom is fascism. Again, this is not a Godwin thing but an objective observation. Maybe if people work hard, they can sell “a little fascism is needed for a healthy society” the way they do with “socialism” and not needing to do a credit check when you call 911.


Well the argument he is making is that if companies are costing their shareholders money with these types of actions , then the shareholders should be able to sue for violation of fiduciary duty .


The question really comes down to what do you think the main purpose of a corporation is :

- Is it mainly to make their shareholders more money or not  


The original  point of being a business is to be a business.


And who owns the business in this case

The shareholders who elected the directors. Some of them are part of the public, some of them not. None of them Marco Rubio. If share holders don’t like how a business is run, they can fire of the board or sell their stock. If market conditions have been made difficult, that’s the role of trust busting.


He’s letting shareholders make the decision if they want to sue or not . It’s not Marco Rubio deciding who gets sued or not

 As previously pointed out, repeatedly: Shareholders. Already. Can. Do. This.


Well then it’s not fascist 
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,258
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: September 26, 2021, 05:09:52 PM »

If what Democrats is pushing through is Socialism then this is literally Fascism. I mean, it’s not not Fascism and I am not be judgmental. Forcing corporations to implement state policies meant to protect “the natural order” (here against “wokeness”) from the top bottom is fascism. Again, this is not a Godwin thing but an objective observation. Maybe if people work hard, they can sell “a little fascism is needed for a healthy society” the way they do with “socialism” and not needing to do a credit check when you call 911.


Well the argument he is making is that if companies are costing their shareholders money with these types of actions , then the shareholders should be able to sue for violation of fiduciary duty .


The question really comes down to what do you think the main purpose of a corporation is :

- Is it mainly to make their shareholders more money or not  


The original  point of being a business is to be a business.


And who owns the business in this case

The shareholders who elected the directors. Some of them are part of the public, some of them not. None of them Marco Rubio. If share holders don’t like how a business is run, they can fire of the board or sell their stock. If market conditions have been made difficult, that’s the role of trust busting.


He’s letting shareholders make the decision if they want to sue or not . It’s not Marco Rubio deciding who gets sued or not

 As previously pointed out, repeatedly: Shareholders. Already. Can. Do. This.


Well then it’s not fascist  

Except if Rubio is concocting some half-assed legislation to make it harder for corporations to take socially progressive positions at their majority shareholders consent because they believe it's in their company's long term benefit,  then yes it sort of IS fascism for the State to be demanding businesses follow a very specific political ideology.

You're just okay with it because that brand of fascist belief mirrors your own corporatist views.
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: September 26, 2021, 05:42:53 PM »

If what Democrats is pushing through is Socialism then this is literally Fascism. I mean, it’s not not Fascism and I am not be judgmental. Forcing corporations to implement state policies meant to protect “the natural order” (here against “wokeness”) from the top bottom is fascism. Again, this is not a Godwin thing but an objective observation. Maybe if people work hard, they can sell “a little fascism is needed for a healthy society” the way they do with “socialism” and not needing to do a credit check when you call 911.


Well the argument he is making is that if companies are costing their shareholders money with these types of actions , then the shareholders should be able to sue for violation of fiduciary duty .


The question really comes down to what do you think the main purpose of a corporation is :

- Is it mainly to make their shareholders more money or not  


The original  point of being a business is to be a business.


And who owns the business in this case

The shareholders who elected the directors. Some of them are part of the public, some of them not. None of them Marco Rubio. If share holders don’t like how a business is run, they can fire of the board or sell their stock. If market conditions have been made difficult, that’s the role of trust busting.


He’s letting shareholders make the decision if they want to sue or not . It’s not Marco Rubio deciding who gets sued or not

 As previously pointed out, repeatedly: Shareholders. Already. Can. Do. This.


Well then it’s not fascist  

Except if Rubio is concocting some half-assed legislation to make it harder for corporations to take socially progressive positions at their majority shareholders consent because they believe it's in their company's long term benefit,  then yes it sort of IS fascism for the State to be demanding businesses follow a very specific political ideology.

You're just okay with it because that brand of fascist belief mirrors your own corporatist views.

Wasn’t Corporatism another name Mussolini also considered for his ideology.
Logged
GoTfan
GoTfan21
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,578
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: September 26, 2021, 06:14:53 PM »

Shareholders are usually the ones who push the 'wokeness'.
Logged
Progressive Pessimist
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,562
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.71, S: -7.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: September 26, 2021, 06:30:19 PM »


Our society has been perpetually circling the drain for awhile now, but we will finally descend into that drain when "wokeness" becomes a legal definition.

I see "wokeness" is the latest in their barrage of vague, meaningless, or completely subjective terms that they want to apply to (and punish for) literally anything they disagree with. Not that it wasn't this already.

See also: "cancel culture" and "critical race theory."

Shareholders are usually the ones who push the 'wokeness'.

Thank you! This bill has it backwards. A corporation would not engage with "wokeness" if it didn't benefit their bottom-line, as they see it. Republicans, the most cynical people on Earth, really can't process this?
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.045 seconds with 11 queries.