Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: My 123 Solution - How we can fix it and still be ourselves.

Posted 12 years ago on Oct. 31, 2011, 4:04 p.m. EST by qwiksilver (46) from Los Angeles, CA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Number 1: Get rid of the fictional “personhood” of corporations.

A. Because of that “personhood” the CEOs and the boards are not responsible for their actions and are not financially liable.

B. Corporate “personhood” is the only “person” in the US that is above the law and not subject to any punishment of any kind. How do you punish a person who does not really exist. You do the above and any corporation that gets out of hand can be brought to heel with the rule of law.

Number 2: Break up companies “too big to fail.” We did it before and it proved to be a boon to the consumer (Ma Bell into Baby Bells). Unfortunately, at about the time we did that unprecedented move we also did the unprecedented move of bailing out a corporation (Chrysler). Too bad we followed the later model and not the former.

Number 3: A separation of banking and investment. Like church and state, they should not mix. They did in the 1920s and look what we got. They did in the 2000s and look what we got. Global meltdown every time. (Pensions should also be separated from investments. No more 401ks to meltdown.)

This will create accountability without destroying incentive and ensure that companies really think before acting. It will also slow down merger mania that kills competition. The last point keeps our savings, pensions and mortgages out of the hands of gamblers.

We can still be us. Have our accustomed culture. Have our identity without the silliness that gets us into trouble.



Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by Kooch (77) 12 years ago

Number one is the only one that is radical in any way. The rest of your suggestions just take a modicum of political guts from our reps. The fact that they haven't already done or started doing those things is evidence of betrayal.
I would add a #4 that is also non-radical: Outlaw commoditization of debt by the banks. CDO's have not been around long and allow banks to gamble in ways that are obviously a problem.

Your #1 is actually more radical than people realize. It shouldn't be, but is. The Citizens United decision is only the latest in over a hundred years of corporate law. #1 should be done, but it will cause a big mess at first.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 12 years ago

doesn't solve debt

[-] 1 points by qwiksilver (46) from Los Angeles, CA 12 years ago

It does solve some of the volatility that creates joblessness that creates a citizenry that feeds off of the system instead of putting into the system. It gets rid of the excesses that have us in the mess we are in. We wouldn't need bail outs that vacuum up tax dollars that should go into infrastructure jobs that create tax dollars and other jobs that create more tax dollars that.....what do you know....help with the debt.

[-] 1 points by Odin64 (36) 12 years ago

The problem with the system is that you can't get rid of the system just make it more ineffective

the system is almost a natural law like gravity

[-] 1 points by qwiksilver (46) from Los Angeles, CA 12 years ago

Then why are you here if you just want to let nature take its course? Better to go play on facebook and pretend nothing is wrong.

[-] 1 points by Odin64 (36) 12 years ago

the driving force of capitalism is the law of supply and demand, if you are going protest capitalism then you must completely abstain from society

[-] 0 points by Odin64 (36) 12 years ago
  1. Fix one contradicts fix 3 because a corporation, is in reality people investing capital into thier company in return for a small interest

  2. Fix two I completely agree with, the as consumers we vote with out money, and Big Government is over riding our vote and keeping the companies that our holding our economical system back afloat.

  3. Fix 3 on contradictory with itself, you invest you money into the bank for a very small return (.01% interest become the risk of losing your money is low) And with out the bank giving other people you money so they can create even more income, making them rich the back rich and you get you money back.

  4. the separation of church and state only implies that the state (federal not state.) can not imply a nation religion like Iran or the Vatican.

[-] 1 points by qwiksilver (46) from Los Angeles, CA 12 years ago

There was a separation between banks and investing at one point. Then along came the deregulation craze. Banks could loan your money out, but they could not dabble in Wall Street with your money. Big difference.

Before corporate personhood if a company collapsed the board and the owners paid a huge price. Many went from mansion to tenament. Their families went right with them. No Ruth Madoffs trotting around in diamonds after the collapse. Along comes this entity that no one can control and we have fingers pointing to something that does not exist. It is like a child standing in front of a broken vase and blaming the accident on an imaginary friend. Boards have an imaginary friend to point to when their very human schemes fail.

Or to put it another way about the whole fiction of corporate personhood: I'll believe a corporation is a person when Texas executes one.

And the separation of church and state was a metaphor. And yes, I know my 1st amendment.

[-] 1 points by Odin64 (36) 12 years ago

capitalism is incredibly resilient, no matter how much regulation the government the system would naturally adopt to maximum efficiency, the more regulations are imposed the more the black market and loop holes companies will exploit to maintain their standard of living

the problem is two fold

  1. Over imposing government
  2. Misinformed / ignorant population
[-] 0 points by happybanker (766) 12 years ago

"No more 401ks to meltdown"... Most everyone has a Money Market or Stable Value option within their 401k. If that is what you want, you are free to choose that. Don't touch my options, though...

[-] 1 points by qwiksilver (46) from Los Angeles, CA 12 years ago

If a person wants to play the market, that's fine. But a pension is a pension. Not someone else's gambling piggy bank.

[-] 0 points by happybanker (766) 12 years ago

Not going to happen. Inflation would eat a pension fund alive over multiple decades without market based investments.

[-] 1 points by qwiksilver (46) from Los Angeles, CA 12 years ago

One word for you: Enron

[-] 0 points by happybanker (766) 12 years ago

I take it you didn't get the memo on the change in the laws after Enron? Pension funds are limited now on the percentage of the company's own stock they can hold in the fund. Anymore one word pearls of wisdom?