User Tag List

First 3777858687

Results 861 to 866 of 866

  1. #861
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    16,962

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sung Jin-Woo View Post
    If you are implying what they say on TV is at all accurate most of the time, you are part of the problem with politics.
    If a farmer is being interviewed on TV and says tariffs fucked up his business, my first reaction isn't to shout at the TV, "Liar!"
    Think.

  2. #862

    Default

    you keep sharing crap that's behind pay walls or wants me to donate/subscribe. I actually wanted to read this one too.

  3. #863
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    16,962

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Officer Ed Powell View Post
    you keep sharing crap that's behind pay walls or wants me to donate/subscribe. I actually wanted to read this one too.
    Just click the X in the upper right-hand corner of the Barron's subscription offer and it will go away. Then continue reading.
    Think.

  4. #864
    Senior Member ceecee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    11,773

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Officer Ed Powell View Post
    you keep sharing crap that's behind pay walls or wants me to donate/subscribe. I actually wanted to read this one too.
    Here you go but I don't pay for it.

    Can a socialist reform markets? The idea might sound like a contradiction. But anyone interested in the health of the American economy needs to take a hard look at the policies of the often-caricatured Sen. Bernard Sanders. His ideas force a reckoning with assumptions embedded in American politics about who gets to have power in the marketplace.

    Markets are constructed by law. They can take as many forms as the set of background legal rules that constitute them. They aren’t a Platonic form instantiated in law, but a range of possibilities constituted by law. That said, we often think of “textbook” markets as populated by firms driven by shareholder wealth maximization, and characterized by strong property rights and enforcement of private contracts, with few other legally recognized forms of economic coordination. People across the political spectrum frequently essentialize this particular type of market as “the market” or as the “market solution.”

    This rigidity makes no sense. Markets are always characterized by background coordination rights, determined by law, which decide who—Wall Street, corporate managers, workers, the public, or some combination—has the authority to manage economic activity. These coordination rights, allocated by law, have numerous permutations.

    Imagine, for example, a market characterized by legal rules disfavoring corporate consolidation and the domination of smaller players by more powerful ones, while favoring horizontal cooperation among small players, including in the form of labor unions. Consider also some changes to corporate law, which allocates coordination rights within firms. No law of nature compels corporate managers to run their organizations for the benefit of shareholders to the exclusion of their workers and the communities where they do business. Corporations were once thought of as quasi-public entities required to justify their special legal privileges by serving the public interest. Imagine, then, legal reforms that give workers a voice in corporate governance, and that modify the fiduciary duties of corporate directors so they run not only to shareholders but also to other stakeholders, including workers. This is also a market.

    And it’s very much the sort of market that Sanders favors, judging by his detailed plan on antitrust and corporate law reform, together with his decades-long support of labor organizing. The central, unifying theme of this plan is to expand democratic participation in the economy while breaking up the consolidation of economic power and control. Its underlying goal is to disperse rather than concentrate economic coordination rights: allowing consumers, workers, and small firms to participate more fully in economic coordination.

    The current permissive landscape of corporate mergers and acquisitions too often results only in short-term shareholder profits, and fees for investment bankers and lawyers, while undermining workers, re-investment in the business, research and development, and communities. The Sanders plan targets this problem. It would “institute bright-line merger guidelines that set caps for vertical mergers, horizontal mergers, and total market share.” It also promises to undo recent mergers that have caused harm, and to unwind companies that have acquired dominant positions in their markets, if they have wielded that power in harmful ways. Sanders specifically cites consolidation in agribusiness, the hospital sector, and telecommunications for social and economic harms to workers and the public.

    The plan also aims to “end institutional deference to the consumer welfare standard.” The legal standard, distilled by conservative jurist Robert Bork in the 1970s and adopted widely thereafter, operates across antitrust law as a kind of meta-rule that bends legal doctrine and government agency practice toward using speculative consumer benefits to justify corporate power. In the context of mergers, it serves as a smoke screen for productive “efficiencies” that frequently consist of mass layoffs and in shutting down operations in favor of on-paper, short-term economic gains to a few. Sanders would direct antitrust regulators to consider factors beyond cost savings—which frequently don’t reach or benefit consumers anyway—with a focus upon preserving fair competition.

    The Sanders plan also emphasizes the executive branch’s authority to make meaningful enforcement choices and to define the rules of fair competition. It begins with a stark assessment: “The Federal Trade Commission has failed its mission...Even as it has handled monopolists with kid gloves, it has attacked the organizing efforts of workers and professionals, including in the gig economy.” In addition to reversing these enforcement choices, Sanders says the FTC should more aggressively define the rules of fair competition. The agency already has considerable rule-making authority it isn’t using. The plan would ban mandatory arbitration clauses, noncompete clauses, and certain other facially unfair contractual provisions, while empowering the FTC to do more.

    Sanders’ proposal would also change the character of corporations themselves. Corporations are creatures of the state; their behavior is already driven and constrained by legal norms. It was a judge who ruled that Jim Buckmaster and Craig Newmark, the creators of Craigslist, were not permitted to protect their community-oriented approach to running their successful business, forcing them to accommodate their powerful, monetization-minded shareholder, eBay, in a joust for corporate control. Sanders’ plan would institute federal corporate charters, using them to modify the shareholder primacy norm, including workers and other stakeholders’ interests in corporate decision-making. It would also provide directly for a worker role in corporate governance, through the election of corporate directors.

    Sanders’ plan shows he is willing to radically reconstruct markets—and his team knows the details well enough to do so. It also avoids the orthodoxy that largely suffuses economic policy thinking. Even a progressive version of that orthodoxy—one that disregards the ground-up legal creation of markets and conceptualizes any changes to the existing rules in terms of discrete “market failures”—is likely to seriously limit real changes. If instead she or he recognizes that both real-world markets and economists’ theoretical models are deeply constituted by the background legal rules that create them, then a president will have removed the most powerful internal obstacles to creating an economy that truly works for all.
    I know the woman that wrote this, I met her a couple years ago. I was shocked to see this in Barron's - not exactly a bastion of radical revolutionary thought - but she is sharp and her background is in labor law.

    Sanjukta Paul - Law School - Wayne State University

    Corporation charters is something I heard about awhile back - I think Warren has also proposed this. Sounds like a good idea.
    I like to rock n' roll all night and *part* of every day. I usually have errands... I can only rock from like 1-3.
    Likes Totenkindly liked this post

  5. #865
    cute lil war dog Bush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Enneagram
    3w4 sp/so
    Posts
    5,247

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Officer Ed Powell View Post
    0:25



    I bet half of you cowards don’t even click on this video
    I hesitated clicking at first because I wasn't sure whether there would be a trigger warning. WARNING TO EVERYONE WHO CLICKS THAT LINK: There's no trigger warning. You've been warned.

    That said, I urge everyone to be strong. Courageous. Brave. Click that Internet video link. After all, "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself." Whoever's reading this, I have confidence that you can muster up the resolve to click a link on the Internet.



    Look, my wife is from Nigeria and we visit regularly. I'm pretty familiar with Boko Haram and with how the country works. I can assure you that the reasoning this woman uses is.. well, at least it's only halfway bullshit. I can understand how 'the story only picked up when girls got involved' could be convincing, but the truth is that it wasn't picked up even then. Its not as if the media was paying close attention to the situation, was apathetic toward the boys, and then said -- "Oh, shit! A GIRL got hurt! Now, and only now, we have to report this!"

    Long and short, the main reason why it wasn't picked up is that Nigeria isn't really on our radar. I don't blame anyone for that, since to be honest it's only natural to care about things that are closer to home, literally and metaphorically. This puts it pretty well:

    Boko Haram kidnapping highlights failures in media coverage

    As an African who grew up in Sierra Leone and who has now lived in the US for more than a decade, I struggle to understand why my home remains a dark, unfathomable place to so many Americans. I struggle to grasp why significant occurrences on the continent, like the current turmoil in Sudan — where, according to the Central Committee of Sudan Doctors, on a single day, at least 118 pro-democracy activists lost their lives at the hands of the military — rarely gain and hold the attention of the American public. Is Africa’s “otherness” to blame, leading to a fundamental disinterest among Americans in what happens to its people? Or is American disinterest simply the byproduct of the US media’s sporadic and often half-hearted coverage of the continent?
    J. Scott Crothers
    Founder, Truthtology, est. 1952
    Prophet and Channel, God Almighty
    Author, the Holy scripture Elevenetics

    "Just as jet fuel cannot melt steel beams, so too cannot the unshakeable pillars of Truthtology ever be shaken, whether by man, nature, or evidence."
    - Elevenetics
    Likes Officer Ed Powell liked this post

  6. #866

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bush View Post
    I hesitated clicking at first because I wasn't sure whether there would be a trigger warning. WARNING TO EVERYONE WHO CLICKS THAT LINK: There's no trigger warning. You've been warned.

    That said, I urge everyone to be strong. Courageous. Brave. Click that Internet video link. After all, "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself." Whoever's reading this, I have confidence that you can muster up the resolve to click a link on the Internet.



    Look, my wife is from Nigeria and we visit regularly. I'm pretty familiar with Boko Haram and with how the country works. I can assure you that the reasoning this woman uses is.. well, at least it's only halfway bullshit. I can understand how 'the story only picked up when girls got involved' could be convincing, but the truth is that it wasn't picked up even then. Its not as if the media was paying close attention to the situation, was apathetic toward the boys, and then said -- "Oh, shit! A GIRL got hurt! Now, and only now, we have to report this!"

    Long and short, the main reason why it wasn't picked up is that Nigeria isn't really on our radar. I don't blame anyone for that, since to be honest it's only natural to care about things that are closer to home, literally and metaphorically. This puts it pretty well:

    Boko Haram kidnapping highlights failures in media coverage
    I think perhaps Straughan is confusing or muddling up the media coverage vs social media reaction. She is right though in her assessment of how one event got a shitload of traction on social media, which did lead to a little more media coverage than it may have otherwise received, whereas the other got little traction on social media, and got covered in a segment on PBS (IIRC) nightly news but few other outlets. There is certainly an empathy gap that plays into how some of these narratives are reported and how certain people react to these types of events. Michelle Obama for instance made a point of saying these radical groups are against girls getting an education, but that's only half of it. They're generally against anyone getting a secular education. I don't think people like Michelle Obama consciously decide to pay more attention to one than the other, I think that shit's just so hardwired into how we empathize with boys vs girls when they experience similar injustices, and also partly due to 50+ years of hearing a very particular one-side narrative. Narratives like that, when repeated enough, tend to be accepted as indicative of fact some universal truth and people tend not to question them. In some cases, people even become hostile when someone else suggests maybe the narrative is either false or incomplete. It's not unlike how a large number of people began to believe the Bush Admin's insistence that Saadam had WMDs and was tight with Bin Laden, despite no real evidence for either claim. Or for instance we still constantly hear the "77 cents for every dollar" one even today, and it tends to incite strong emotional reactions, despite this being a statistic that's been debunked by multiple sources ad infinitum.

    While that USA Today piece makes good points on how the media is quick to abandon stories, it still fails to address how the media didn't even abandon the crisis that happened earlier with the burning of the boys, they simply barely covered it in the first place. I mean it's really shitty how the girls' stories just sort of dropped off, but put in perspective with the boys' stories, hey at least they even got that much coverage in the first place.

    This all reminds me of that 'America The Book' the Daily Show writers put out several years ago. It satirically looked at how media handles tragedies, and IIRC it was something like 1 American abducted or murdered is equal to 500 foreigners abducted or murdered (paraphrasing). We can at least agree that if one American girl or boy had been abducted by Boko Haram, they'd have gotten 10fold the media coverage. Pretty depressing stuff
    Likes Bush liked this post

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO