Senator Warren: "When the big firms talk about markets, they're not talking about competition"

[phantom power]

So, when the phone in the shebeen began jingling on Thursday afternoon, I figured she might be stopping by. And, anyway, I had a fuse I wanted to light, just for mischief's sake. This week, the House of Representatives voted to eliminate the Estate Tax, which has been a plutocrat's dream shot since it was first enacted at the turn of the last century by that RINO bastard Teddy Roosevelt. For all the smoke that gets blown about small farmers and grandpa's general store -- a cultural milieu, I might add, with which Warren is far more familiar than, say, former entitlements-moocher Paul Ryan -- this is about billionaires making sure that nobody in their families has to work unto the next dozen generations. So I just threw it out there. She responded with a laugh that may very well have fused several of the apps on my phone together.

"I can't believe it," she said. "Well, yes, I can. This isn't just a really bad idea. This is an attack on our values -- getting rid of the estate tax in order to help a handful of really rich people, and telling our children that there's no money for them to go to school, to help them with their student loans, to build the necessary infrastructure so that they can get to and from the jobs that will help them pay off those loans...well, that's just...obscene."

She's trying to reframe the debate about regulations and the economy back to the consensus that existed before the Big Casino opened in the 1980's and 1990's -- that sensible regulation and strict enforcement is a friend to the markets, not their enemy. "When the big firms talk about markets, they're not talking about competition," she said. "They're talking about making more money for themselves by rigging the game." I would point out that there is absolutely no way she could do any of this within the opulent asylum that is the way we elect presidents these days. She's well out of it, and we are the better for that.

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a34418/a-visit-from-senator-professor-warren/

[840high]

1. kick

[renegade000]

2. this is a necessary framing, and has the benefit of being true!

The most damaging false dichotomy that has been sold to the public over the past decades has been the choice of either:
- laissez-faire markets vs. full-blown socialism

It's served the GOP and its plutocratic backers well. We hem and haw about how "socialism" (or whatever the euphemism of the day) is isn't necessary a totally dirty word, but we really should be counterattacking by pointing out how bloody awful laissez-faire markets are for the notion of fair and competitive enterprise and the type of society that GOP claims it seeks. We should be proud of the legacy of past progressive champions, like FDR, to establish a society in which the playing field was flatter and more competitive.

After all, in his Second Bill of Rights speech, FDR declared the desire for:
"The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad"

This is desire that breaks the false dichotomy, and I'm glad people like Warren are embracing it!

[blackspade]

3. Roundhouse.

[JDPriestly]

4. And on a topic related to Elizabeth Warren's advocacy of stricter regulations.

May I remind everyone that the corporate form -- which has made so much of our prosperity possible -- is a legal construct.

The corporate form -- which permits investors to limit the personal risk they choose to take on when investing to the amount paid for the shares of stock they purchase in the corporation or the amounts they loan to and otherwise invest in the corporation -- is a LEGAL CONSTRUCT. Nothing more.

A corporation is not a natural born American citizen. It is not a person at all. It is simply the invention of the law, OF THE GOVERNMENT. A corporation has no feelings, no thoughts (and therefore no opinions, The people who manage corporations have the opinions.), no skin, no nervous system. It is a fiction, a LEGAL FICTION. .

(Same for other business forms with the exception maybe of the stands outside farms that sell produce. Even Farmers' Markets usually borrow space from the people's government to set up their markets. Been that way since time immemorial.)

Corporations are not born out of the wombs of humans. There is no human sperm involved in the conception of a baby corporation.

Corporations are created by the simple process of some human or group of humans filing documents usually including articles of incorporation with a state government bureau. And when all the signatures have been attached and the t's crossed and the i's dotted (and the IRS number obtained), the investors get the privilege of not being totally liable possibly down to their last dimes for the losses of the business.

Compare that to the sole proprietor of a business who is in it and liable up to the gold in his fillings. Debts, court judgments, all of it can be the sole responsibility of the owners of businesses that are not incorporated. And which business form is preferable in most cases? You guessed it. The one that protects the investors/owners and is the gift of the government.

Yes, dear libertarians, corporations and a lot of other American businesses owe their privileged status to GOVERNMENTS. They would not exist as corporations (or limited liability companies, etc.) if it were not for that nasty thing you hate called the GOVERNMENT.

Further, corporations and all businesses in the US rely on the public sector to help them stay in business. Yes. We have a system of private arbitration that can resolve business disputes. But sooner or later if you want to collect your debts (possibly even including even the judgments of a private arbitrator) or go bankrupt (maybe because it is advantageous to do so), you are probably going to have to rely on public, government authorities to enforce the "law" for you. That's part of what courts are for. Then there is the sheriff's office, possibly located in the courthouse itself, that will enforce your liens and judgments and even serve process for you.

You business folks cannot exist without the court system that the taxpayers subsidize for you. Even if you don't personally resort to it, it's very existence protects your interests.

So, contrary to the pipe-dreams of libertarians and right-wing Republicans, there is no "free" market, that is no market free of a lot of support and reliance on our taxpayer funded courts and police forces to say nothing of other public institutions like schools and streets and freeways and satellites and laws that ensure the safety of the environment in which businesses operate.

And may I make special mention of the patent courts and the government services that protect copyrights at this point. I don't own any patents. It's mostly businesses and very creative individuals that and who do. So the patent courts are pretty much a gift to protect business interests. I wouldn't have it any other way. Who would?

It's very little to ask in exchange for all the help that business and corporations in particular receive from the public sector that those businesses and corporations operate so as to reduce the risk of their mistakes and even fraud to the taxpayers who so generously fund the services that make their potential success possible. Is it really too extreme to say that the corporations, banks and businesses that benefit from our legal system do what they can to reduce their risk of defaulting on debts, that they do what they can to avoid perpetrating fraud on others in the business cycle? It's in everyone's interest.

Elizabeth Warren is right to call for stricter regulation of our business sector. After all, that sector thrives on the environment that our government and our laws provide for it. The regulations help even the playing field and reduce fraud. They keep us all out of bankruptcy courts. In a healthy society, businesses can't pick and choose what laws they want to comply with and which they don't. It's up to the people's representatives to write the rules.

What a shame that so many Republicans and so many investors don't understand this.

Thanks, Elizabeth Warren for sticking up for ordinary Americans on this.

[d_legendary1]

5. This is very true

|

Take this fine video, for example. This is what corporations want as competition.

[JDPriestly]

7. That's so great. What a wonderful ad.

Our local high speed internet cable provider story. We have Time-Warner and only subscribe to the internet services. No additional cable.

We needed to change the credit card number for the payments on our account. My husband tried to do it on-line. But that proved impossible. So he searched and searched and searched and found a telephone number. And then when he called the number, Time-Warner informed him he would b be charged $5 for the service call.

That's ridiculous. Sorry, Time Warner. We subscribe to your services, but we do not like you. You are not consumer-friendly, not for seniors who didn't grow up with computers, you aren't.

[calimary]

6. Kicking like a Rockette!

[liberal_at_heart]

8. She is one of the only ones who will say what no one else will say and what must be said.

I have never seen anything like her. She is one of a kind.

[closeupready]

9. +1. If I were playing armchair psychiatrist, I'd say part of that is

due to 1) her small stature; and 2) her gender. She is a brilliant woman who has likely been discriminated against and pushed around for forever, and she succeeded DESPITE that rough treatment. People like that often tend to be quite bold, and I love her for that.