If President Warren & Democratic Congress passed this bill, would U B concerned?

[sokoloff]

She claimed that her great great great grandmother was half Cherokee because that's what people in her family told her.  There aren't any records from that period to prove or disprove the claim.  How does it matter in any way if someone believes that they are 1/32 Native American?

Different people have different thresholds for honesty requirements from politicians, particularly around matters where dishonesty may convey or convey the appearance of an attempt to take a personal advantage.

There’s no single threshold of honesty that’s right for every voter, but this will lead some to distrust her. In a practical sense, I believe she can’t win the DNC primary, only in part because of this. (I also can’t believe the previous winner of the GOP primary, so don’t wager based on my prognostications.)

I won’t vote for her because of her obvious pro-invasive government and anti-free market views. I’m one of the voters who wouldn’t care (that much) about her lack of honesty (or as you might see it, lack of correctness) on this particular matter, as I think politicians are, by trade necessity, less honest (on average) than the average person I hang out with.

[sokoloff]

Because I find it amusing.


Why do you worry so much about my motivation for posting it?

[GuitarStv]

She claimed that her great great great grandmother was half Cherokee because that's what people in her family told her.  There aren't any records from that period to prove or disprove the claim.  How does it matter in any way if someone believes that they are 1/32 Native American?

Different people have different thresholds for honesty requirements from politicians, particularly around matters where dishonesty may convey or convey the appearance of an attempt to take a personal advantage.

There’s no single threshold of honesty that’s right for every voter, but this will lead some to distrust her. In a practical sense, I believe she can’t win the DNC primary, only in part because of this. (I also can’t believe the previous winner of the GOP primary, so don’t wager based on my prognostications.)

Do you have proof that her claim of 1/32 Cherokee ancestry is dishonest?

I won’t vote for her because of her obvious pro-invasive government and anti-free market views.

Sure, and that's a perfectly valid reason to vote (or not) for someone.  It's weird then that given this valid reasoning, in your first post you felt the need to mention her ancestry though.

I’m one of the voters who wouldn’t care (that much) about her lack of honesty (or as you might see it, lack of correctness) on this particular matter, as I think politicians are, by trade necessity, less honest (on average) than the average person I hang out with.

Again, you're claiming that she's not honest.  What evidence is this being based upon?


FWIW, I don't have strong feelings regarding Warren one way or another.  Her current claim is unverifiable to the best of my knowledge, and the person making an unverifiable claim should have the burden of proof for the claim upon them.  But to call her a liar without knowing the truth is at least as dishonest.

[doneby35]

Isn't that something that she leveraged to advance her career? claiming that she's native american whereas there's no proof that she is? I would think that's the main problem.

[mathlete]

In my book she’s a crackpot extreme socialist whose public statements are not consistent with the principles this country was founded upon.

The biggest principle that this country was founded on was hypocrisy. "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty" except for black people, we're gonna deprive them of liberty and steal the fruits of their labor for the next 100 years.

Appeals to founding principles have almost no relevance today.

[FIPurpose]

Isn't that something that she leveraged to advance her career? claiming that she's native american whereas there's no proof that she is? I would think that's the main problem.

I'm pretty sure being Native has not been advantageous. I think her radio show and series of books did a lot more for her to become a Senator.

[mathlete]

Isn't that something that she leveraged to advance her career? claiming that she's native american whereas there's no proof that she is? I would think that's the main problem.

According to some old meme that contained other lies or misleading information, yes.

Should outwardly appearing white people with no evidence of family claims of native american heritage not put themselves on lists of minority faculty? Yeah, probably.

Is this a scandal that has any merit whatsoever outside of its use as political fodder? Fuck no.

Read more here: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/elizabeth-warren-wealthy-native-american/

[swampwiz]

She claimed that her great great great grandmother was half Cherokee because that's what people in her family told her.  There aren't any records from that period to prove or disprove the claim.  How does it matter in any way if someone believes that they are 1/32 Native American?

Different people have different thresholds for honesty requirements from politicians, particularly around matters where dishonesty may convey or convey the appearance of an attempt to take a personal advantage.

There’s no single threshold of honesty that’s right for every voter, but this will lead some to distrust her. In a practical sense, I believe she can’t win the DNC primary, only in part because of this. (I also can’t believe the previous winner of the GOP primary, so don’t wager based on my prognostications.)

Do you have proof that her claim of 1/32 Cherokee ancestry is dishonest?

I won’t vote for her because of her obvious pro-invasive government and anti-free market views.

Sure, and that's a perfectly valid reason to vote (or not) for someone.  It's weird then that given this valid reasoning, in your first post you felt the need to mention her ancestry though.

I’m one of the voters who wouldn’t care (that much) about her lack of honesty (or as you might see it, lack of correctness) on this particular matter, as I think politicians are, by trade necessity, less honest (on average) than the average person I hang out with.

Again, you're claiming that she's not honest.  What evidence is this being based upon?


FWIW, I don't have strong feelings regarding Warren one way or another.  Her current claim is unverifiable to the best of my knowledge, and the person making an unverifiable claim should have the burden of proof for the claim upon them.  But to call her a liar without knowing the truth is at least as dishonest.

Why should anyone be forced to defend what she believes her ancestry is?  And why would it be seem odd that a white person from Oklahoma, of all states, in the USA to have some Amerind heritage?

[BicycleB]

Isn't that something that she leveraged to advance her career? claiming that she's native american whereas there's no proof that she is? I would think that's the main problem.

No, it isn't something that she leveraged to advance her career. Per Politifact, she was already hired. Her employer had employees fill out a form stating whether the employee was a part of a minority group. The employer, a law school, then identified her while discussing its "diverse faculty."

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/dec/01/facts-behind-elizabeth-warren-and-her-native-ameri/

In having family lore that the family is partly of Native American descent, she is similar to millions of other Americans, including my high school prom date. Many such people have no documentation, as my date did not.

In politics, when you don't like somebody's ideas but they're right, the simplest defense is to make personal attacks. The Native American "lie" attack is just such an attack.

As such, it often distracts from the actual idea. Warren's bill would change corporate regulation to include more stakeholders, possibly improve job quality in America, and possibly even reduce the number of people who qualify for govt benefits instead of working. Further thoughts on this bill, anyone?

PS. One aspect of the bill not yet discussed its possible effect of enhancing FIRE quality... or, on the other hand, reducing the desire to FIRE. If the bill succeeds in its mission of raising job quality, would you be less tempted to FIRE?

[GuitarStv]

Why should anyone be forced to defend what she believes her ancestry is?  And why would it be seem odd that a white person from Oklahoma, of all states, in the USA to have some Amerind heritage?

The claim is effectively unverifiable, so Russell's Teapot would suggest that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon Warren if she wants people to believe her claim.

Of course, since the claim is of no consequence whatsoever to her political career (and not something that she was using to "get ahead") . . . there's no real need for her to prove anything to anyone.

[golden1]

Sigh, I knew it was only a matter of time before this devolved into a “pocahontas” argument.  I love that the Trump supporters (and any other conservative for that matter since you support him my your inaction) in this thread think they have the stones to call any other politician dishonest. 

I have been a big fan of Warren since reading her book about 10 years ago “Two Income Trap”.  She has been a great senator for us in MA.  Personally I don’t know that she would be a great president, but she is one of the few people fighting to protect workers and consumers. 

If you actually read what this proposal actually wants to do instead of having a typical knee jerk ZOMG socialism reaction, you might actually be surprised and learn something.  Having worker representation on corporate boards is not a new idea, nor is it anti-capitalist.  Many countries with thriving economies are doing this.  It would benefit workers and change incentives towards employees.  Yes, CEO pay would likely go down dramatically, but this is not a terrible trade off in my opinion.  Also, it would only effect companies of a certain size which would not put burdens on small business.

It doesn’t have a tinkers chance in hell, but I wish that it could pass, and I think that it is a good position for democrats to support.  No large expensive social programs, just a change of incentives. 

[Jrr85]

Sigh, I knew it was only a matter of time before this devolved into a “pocahontas” argument.  I love that the Trump supporters (and any other conservative for that matter since you support him my your inaction) in this thread think they have the stones to call any other politician dishonest. 

I have been a big fan of Warren since reading her book about 10 years ago “Two Income Trap”.  She has been a great senator for us in MA.  Personally I don’t know that she would be a great president, but she is one of the few people fighting to protect workers and consumers. 

If you actually read what this proposal actually wants to do instead of having a typical knee jerk ZOMG socialism reaction, you might actually be surprised and learn something.  Having worker representation on corporate boards is not a new idea, nor is it anti-capitalist.  Many countries with thriving economies are doing this.  It would benefit workers and change incentives towards employees.  Yes, CEO pay would likely go down dramatically, but this is not a terrible trade off in my opinion.  Also, it would only effect companies of a certain size which would not put burdens on small business.

It doesn’t have a tinkers chance in hell, but I wish that it could pass, and I think that it is a good position for democrats to support.  No large expensive social programs, just a change of incentives.

I hold her "academic" work against her much more than any political lies.  People expect politicians to lie and its baked in now.  But lots of people still like to cite academic work as authoritative.  So dressing up advocacy as research like she did for the two income trap and her "medical bankruptcy" research is a much bigger mark against her. 

[GuitarStv]

I hold her "academic" work against her much more than any political lies.  People expect politicians to lie and its baked in now.  But lots of people still like to cite academic work as authoritative.  So dressing up advocacy as research like she did for the two income trap and her "medical bankruptcy" research is a much bigger mark against her.

Warren wrote the book 'Two Income Trap' with her daughter.  You're claiming that she 'dressed it up as research', can you elaborate exactly what you mean by that?

[Norioch]

Yeah, "The Two Income Trap" doesn't claim to be an academic work, any more than "The Audacity of Hope" or "The Art of the Deal".

[Joeko]

The thread went from a discussion on an idea to attacks on Elizabeth Warren.  Amazing

[GuitarStv]

The thread went from a discussion on an idea to attacks on Elizabeth Warren.  Amazing

It only took four posts for the attacks on the person rather than the idea to come out.

[MrUpwardlyMobile]

The thread went from a discussion on an idea to attacks on Elizabeth Warren.  Amazing

It only took four posts for the attacks on the person rather than the idea to come out.

Welcome to the Internet! Where everything is an irrelevant fight over nothing. (Or porn or FIRE blogs)

[Jrr85]

I hold her "academic" work against her much more than any political lies.  People expect politicians to lie and its baked in now.  But lots of people still like to cite academic work as authoritative.  So dressing up advocacy as research like she did for the two income trap and her "medical bankruptcy" research is a much bigger mark against her.

Warren wrote the book 'Two Income Trap' with her daughter.  You're claiming that she 'dressed it up as research', can you elaborate exactly what you mean by that?

Fair enough that the two-income trap wasn't an academic work, but it still flaunted her academic credentials and then presented research misleadingly in order to hide that according to their numbers (which I'm a little skeptical of outside of high tax state and local jurisdictions), two-income families were struggling primarily because of increases in taxes, not increases in the other payments they flagged as culprits. 

[GuitarStv]

I hold her "academic" work against her much more than any political lies.  People expect politicians to lie and its baked in now.  But lots of people still like to cite academic work as authoritative.  So dressing up advocacy as research like she did for the two income trap and her "medical bankruptcy" research is a much bigger mark against her.

Warren wrote the book 'Two Income Trap' with her daughter.  You're claiming that she 'dressed it up as research', can you elaborate exactly what you mean by that?

Fair enough that the two-income trap wasn't an academic work, but it still flaunted her academic credentials and then presented research misleadingly in order to hide that according to their numbers (which I'm a little skeptical of outside of high tax state and local jurisdictions), two-income families were struggling primarily because of increases in taxes, not increases in the other payments they flagged as culprits.

By 'flaunted her academic credentials', do you mean 'mentioned that she had an education in the information about the author bit at the back'?  FFS, she didn't even mention them on the cover.

[MilesTeg]

What's wrong with the bill?  Why shouldn't a corporate board of directors owe some kind of duty to employees and or customers?   Maybe not an outright fiduciary duty, like they owe to the shareholders, but possibly something like the duty of good faith and fair dealing in contract law, which essentially translates as the duty not to outright cheat you. 

What's wrong with Elizabeth Warren?  I find her very personable and intelligent.  She is willing to engage in real policy debate.  Hells bells, she was a personal finance author!  She's one of us.

I guess my question is why would employees be rewarded for the risk of capital taken by owners (stockholders)? When a company has a bad quarter, are we going to start taking benefits from the employees as well? Because that's the risk owners take; I'll give you capital to invest for a portion of the profits. When the company does have that bad quarter, the owners don't see a return on their risk/investment.

And the risks that employees take on? Those don't count for anything? Or do you just consider them to hold little to no value?

What risks do employeees take on?  They get paid an agreed upon amount for specific work.

Ask all the coal miners that are out of a job because their skills are no longer relevant (but were essential at the time).

Ask all the I.T. folks that invested heavily in a high level of education just to get laid off so they could be replaced by off shore workers.

etc.

[scantee]

It’s okay to just not like or want to vote for a politician. You don’t even need a specific reason beyond “I don’t agree with her.”  But people aren’t comfortable with that, so they search for justifications as to why their dislike of someone is grounded in reason. For more mundane politicians, that leads to them try to spin mundane personality flaws or life mistakes as some grave, unbelievable injustice. Minor things like “she may have lied once four decades ago” or “I kind of don’t like a book she once wrote” are held up as the worst offenses ever.

It’s not necessary. You can just not like her politics.  That’s enough. Honestly it’s better to own that because it’s necessary if we’re going to try to discuss the merits of different policy proposals. Like codetermination, for example.

[daverobev]

It’s okay to just not like or want to vote for a politician. You don’t even need a specific reason beyond “I don’t agree with her.”  But people aren’t comfortable with that, so they search for justifications as to why their dislike of someone is grounded in reason. For more mundane politicians, that leads to them try to spin mundane personality flaws or life mistakes as some grave, unbelievable injustice. Minor things like “she may have lied once four decades ago” or “I kind of don’t like a book she once wrote” are held up as the worst offenses ever.

It’s not necessary. You can just not like her politics.  That’s enough. Honestly it’s better to own that because it’s necessary if we’re going to try to discuss the merits of different policy proposals. Like codetermination, for example.

I think, if you try and look at the world from a broader perspective, it isn't enough, though. Close mindedness - people who only ever vote for one party, and don't really think for themselves - are... a terrible bane on society, really. It is a natural thing to screen out 'noise' and focus on what is directly important. But I think it is a massive detriment that people are so stuck in a rut with politics.

It is our fault, and it is the news' fault, and it is the politicians fault, and it goes in ever decreasing circles (or, so it feels). We are causing massive damage to the planet, to ecosystems. Almost all scientists agree on this - and yet, we do nothing (or, the things we do are offset by some other thing - one step forward, two steps back).

We are fighting fighting fighting, devoting time and energy to anger and populism and blame, when we need to be doing something better. I look at my children and just go... what is this shit, that we're passing on to them? Why are we not all trying to do better?

Of course - people fight on the internet, and that's great - no blood, no police. But then we all get up next day and contribute to environmental destruction - the best of us still using too much, the worst.. well.

To the OP, why the fuck would anyone be concerned about something progressive? Fear of losing out, I guess. Just like the coal miners. Well, guess what - you need a budget in place to pay for training. There are parts of the UK that are still massively hateful towards Thatcher for closing coal mines, but holy fuck - it was a shitty dirty dangerous life-reducing job. We always fight against progress - the luddites, the saboteurs. We shouldn't. Change is hard (and hardest for older people who are set in their ways - I understand that).

The best companies are good corporate citizens. Not just on the surface to look good, but actually. Oh, the horror - a company that doesn't shit on its employees. Wow. Socialism. So very afraid.

We need, humans together, to really think about this shit from a high level. To move us in the right direction. Net zero homes. Better public transport that is low emission, and affordable. A massive reduction in the complexity of government, taxation, all of it. More equitable social safety nets that don't treat claimants as a problem. Care for mother nature. Corporations doing their bit. A general reduction in selfishness or unthinkingness.

[Imma]

I feel like the whole idea of board representation is way overblown.

First, the employees would only have rights to elect directors, correct?  So it's not like individual employees are going to be "represented".  It's still just a couple of directors in the room.

Second, I think the impact of boards in general is far less than most people think.  At any company that's functioning well, management is running the show, not the board.  They're in place to be consulted and rubber stamp management decisions.

I agree with you, but I think it does change the mindset of board member to "be there to represent the employees". While it might seem little, I think it can cause a huge culture shift in a company. Considering the typical Executive board, how many are there to represent the employees' interests? HR?

If everyone is already happy, then this wouldn't change much. This rule is obviously to help influence companies that regularly make short-sighted decisions at the detriment of the employee.

To take this discussion, yes, I think that's how it works out in my country. In the NL, there is a committee of employees (elected by employees) that meets with the board regularly. They also need to be asked for their advice on important matters that concern employees, and the board is legally obligated to seriously consider that advice - as in, when they don't take the employees' advice they have to motivate why they don't. They can't just throw it away and pretend it never happened. The employees also have some rights to get independent legal counsel etc. This system has worked for decades and it works quite well. The informal power of the committee is big. They are taken seriously. Employees tend to elect the most capable workers. And they have more eyes and ears in the workforce, unlike the board who tends to receive biased information through 10 layers of management. Their information can be quite valuable to the board.

It is often difficult for Americans to understand though. When Dutch companies are bought by large American corporations, they generally don't know how companies work in here, and they think all this employee representation is kind of silly and unnecessary. They try to bypass the committee all the time, because they want to keep important decisions secret until the last minute. That doesn't fit with our culture at all - and bypassing the committee can actually be illegal.

[sokoloff]

In the NL, there is a committee of employees (elected by employees) that meets with the board regularly. They also need to be asked for their advice on important matters that concern employees, and the board is legally obligated to seriously consider that advice - as in, when they don't take the employees' advice they have to motivate why they don't. They can't just throw it away and pretend it never happened.

There are downsides as well, however. Substantially all of our Dutch employees get the same annual raise percentage, in accordance with the workers council negotiations, whether they work on a factory floor or are highly skilled software engineers. When the market rate for software engineers outstrips the site-wide raise maximum, our software engineers "go without", that is, at least until they decide to go quit and work someplace else.

The workers council absolutely hurts those software engineers. Now, whether the tradeoffs are worth this harm, I can't say.

[arebelspy]

MOD NOTE:

All discussions of race as related to potential candidates is off topic, and should cease immediately.

Race baiting is not allowed. Please click "report to moderator" on any post that violates the forum rules.

Feel free to discuss economic policy. If the thread derails again, it will be locked.

Cheers!

[MrUpwardlyMobile]

MOD NOTE:

All discussions of race as related to potential candidates is off topic, and should cease immediately.

Race baiting is not allowed. Please click "report to moderator" on any post that violates the forum rules.

Feel free to discuss economic policy. If the thread derails again, it will be locked.

Cheers!

Definitely the right way to go. There really doesn’t need to be discussion of race on this forum or anywhere else (except maybe ancestry.com)

[bookgirl]

Having worked in Int'l MNCs I've seen the flip side of how these policies are often detrimental  My experience is that many large  to small MNCs refuse to hire, or grow a workforce in countries with these policies.  Instead many will downsize/consolidate their European workforces to pro-employer EU countries.    Furthermore MNCs are often unwilling, or reluctant, to implement many new pro-employee compensation and benefit programs as work councils make it very difficult, if not impossible, to modify/reduce/eliminate these offerings as the market or business conditions change.

So although there may be some benefits, the negatives are significant from my experience.

[EnjoyIt]

Yes I would be concerned.
No I would hate a President Warren because I too believe she is a socialist crackpot.

I just remind all pro socialists to look at history.  Historically those who help socialists come into power (the intelligent and rich ones) are very quickly eliminated once the over-through is stabilized.

Every socialist regime has said that this time it will be different. But it never is. 

[Norioch]

Yes I would be concerned.
No I would hate a President Warren because I too believe she is a socialist crackpot.

I just remind all pro socialists to look at history.  Historically those who help socialists come into power (the intelligent and rich ones) are very quickly eliminated once the over-through is stabilized.

Every socialist regime has said that this time it will be different. But it never is.

Elizabeth Warren doesn't claim to be a socialist. Even those politicians in the US who *do* self-proclaim to be socialist, such as Bernie Sanders, aren't talking about completely eliminating the concept of private property. No serious politician in the US is. Self-proclaimed democratic socialists in the US want economies closer to like what they have in Scandinavian countries, which are generally democratic, prosperous, and happy, and could hardly be accurately described as "regimes". You can split hairs all you want about the definition of "socialism" but the right has been decrying any hint of any social program whatsoever as "socialism" for decades, and by that standard the United States has had socialism since its inception as a country.

[PDXTabs]

Yes I would be concerned.
No I would hate a President Warren because I too believe she is a socialist crackpot.

I just remind all pro socialists to look at history.  Historically those who help socialists come into power (the intelligent and rich ones) are very quickly eliminated once the over-through is stabilized.

Every socialist regime has said that this time it will be different. But it never is.

What exactly do you think goes on in modern day Germany?

[EnjoyIt]

Yes I would be concerned.
No I would hate a President Warren because I too believe she is a socialist crackpot.

I just remind all pro socialists to look at history.  Historically those who help socialists come into power (the intelligent and rich ones) are very quickly eliminated once the over-through is stabilized.

Every socialist regime has said that this time it will be different. But it never is.

What exactly do you think goes on in modern day Germany?

What do you think happened in Germany in the 1930s?

[gaja]

For the original topic of the post: in all Norwegian companies of more than 30-50 employees, that employees are to have representation in the board. Experience has shown that the most efficient way to do that, is to choose representatives that are already chosen as union representatives. In addition, employees are often encouraged to buy shares of the company so they can vote over the other board representatives. Loyal and satisfied employees are more productive, so in the end we all profit. As in the Netherlands, recruiting leaders from the US haven't always worked very well. And trying to cooperate with Japanese companies is a challenge. We don't really understand this hierarchy thing they are going on about.

Yes I would be concerned.
No I would hate a President Warren because I too believe she is a socialist crackpot.

I just remind all pro socialists to look at history.  Historically those who help socialists come into power (the intelligent and rich ones) are very quickly eliminated once the over-through is stabilized.

Every socialist regime has said that this time it will be different. But it never is.

What exactly do you think goes on in modern day Germany?

What do you think happened in Germany in the 1930s?

I doubt you ask because you want to discuss this very interesting part of political history. But I'm going to answer anyway. As in the rest of Europe, there was a relatively strong, and growing communist movement, that people on the right side of the political specter found threathening. This led to increasingly extreme standpoints, which in Germany culminated in KPD being blamed for the Reichsdag fire, and mass arrested by the fascist Nazi party. They were the first inmates of the concentration camps. The "red danger" was treated differently in different European countries, and in the Scandinavian countries the growth of strong unions and socialist parties ensured that the "pure" communists never grew too strong. Whether the parties decided to join Comintern or not, was often a deciding factor in which direction they later developed.
A simplified summary: https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/modern-world-history-1918-to-1980/weimar-germany/the-communist-party-and-weimar-germany/

In Norway, we have had socialist governments most of the time since the 1930's. From 1945 to 1961, Labour had a absolute majority in parliament. (And at that time, they really were left wing socialists, not the neo-liberal ideology they follow today.) Can't say I remember anything from history class about intelligent and rich people being eliminated during those years? Or could it be that you are a bit confused about the difference between "communist" and "socialist"?

[EnjoyIt]

For the original topic of the post: in all Norwegian companies of more than 30-50 employees, that employees are to have representation in the board. Experience has shown that the most efficient way to do that, is to choose representatives that are already chosen as union representatives. In addition, employees are often encouraged to buy shares of the company so they can vote over the other board representatives. Loyal and satisfied employees are more productive, so in the end we all profit. As in the Netherlands, recruiting leaders from the US haven't always worked very well. And trying to cooperate with Japanese companies is a challenge. We don't really understand this hierarchy thing they are going on about.

Yes I would be concerned.
No I would hate a President Warren because I too believe she is a socialist crackpot.

I just remind all pro socialists to look at history.  Historically those who help socialists come into power (the intelligent and rich ones) are very quickly eliminated once the over-through is stabilized.

Every socialist regime has said that this time it will be different. But it never is.

What exactly do you think goes on in modern day Germany?

What do you think happened in Germany in the 1930s?

I doubt you ask because you want to discuss this very interesting part of political history. But I'm going to answer anyway. As in the rest of Europe, there was a relatively strong, and growing communist movement, that people on the right side of the political specter found threathening. This led to increasingly extreme standpoints, which in Germany culminated in KPD being blamed for the Reichsdag fire, and mass arrested by the fascist Nazi party. They were the first inmates of the concentration camps. The "red danger" was treated differently in different European countries, and in the Scandinavian countries the growth of strong unions and socialist parties ensured that the "pure" communists never grew too strong. Whether the parties decided to join Comintern or not, was often a deciding factor in which direction they later developed.
A simplified summary: https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/modern-world-history-1918-to-1980/weimar-germany/the-communist-party-and-weimar-germany/

In Norway, we have had socialist governments most of the time since the 1930's. From 1945 to 1961, Labour had a absolute majority in parliament. (And at that time, they really were left wing socialists, not the neo-liberal ideology they follow today.) Can't say I remember anything from history class about intelligent and rich people being eliminated during those years? Or could it be that you are a bit confused about the difference between "communist" and "socialist"?

I am once again reminded that blanket statements are never appropriate.  I think the comment above should say that more often then not as opposed to always.  In regards to Norway it is an interesting example of not true socialism.  It is more of a country with a good economy that then heavily began taxing its citizens to provide extensive social programs.  In reality, Norway is a free market with little government interference, no minimum wage laws.  Actually Norway I believe ranks extremely high on economic freedom which allows it to have higher taxes to pay for such programs.  I believe the only real government intervention in Norway is on education and the funding of healthcare which is clearly far from socialism.  I think Norway is actually a very capitalist society with high taxes and a generous social program.  I am not saying it is a bad thing.  I am just rationalizing what I am seeing there.  Actually I think the US has far more economic intervention and is far more socialist than Norway.

But for every Norway we have a Venuzaula which is clearly socialist and failing. 

[PDXTabs]

I believe the only real government intervention in Norway is on education and the funding of healthcare which is clearly far from socialism.  I think Norway is actually a very capitalist society with high taxes and a generous social program.

But for every Norway we have a Venuzaula which is clearly socialist and failing.

Absolutely. So you tell me, who do I have to vote for to live in Norway?

EDITed to add: The largest political party in Norway is the Labour Party which wikipedia identifies as having a social democracy ideology. Which is exactly what we are talking about, and you are either being intentionally difficult or incredibly thick. Since when someone says "modern day", they clearly don't mean 90 years ago, I think it must be the former.

[gaja]

For the original topic of the post: in all Norwegian companies of more than 30-50 employees, that employees are to have representation in the board. Experience has shown that the most efficient way to do that, is to choose representatives that are already chosen as union representatives. In addition, employees are often encouraged to buy shares of the company so they can vote over the other board representatives. Loyal and satisfied employees are more productive, so in the end we all profit. As in the Netherlands, recruiting leaders from the US haven't always worked very well. And trying to cooperate with Japanese companies is a challenge. We don't really understand this hierarchy thing they are going on about.

Yes I would be concerned.
No I would hate a President Warren because I too believe she is a socialist crackpot.

I just remind all pro socialists to look at history.  Historically those who help socialists come into power (the intelligent and rich ones) are very quickly eliminated once the over-through is stabilized.

Every socialist regime has said that this time it will be different. But it never is.

What exactly do you think goes on in modern day Germany?

What do you think happened in Germany in the 1930s?

I doubt you ask because you want to discuss this very interesting part of political history. But I'm going to answer anyway. As in the rest of Europe, there was a relatively strong, and growing communist movement, that people on the right side of the political specter found threathening. This led to increasingly extreme standpoints, which in Germany culminated in KPD being blamed for the Reichsdag fire, and mass arrested by the fascist Nazi party. They were the first inmates of the concentration camps. The "red danger" was treated differently in different European countries, and in the Scandinavian countries the growth of strong unions and socialist parties ensured that the "pure" communists never grew too strong. Whether the parties decided to join Comintern or not, was often a deciding factor in which direction they later developed.
A simplified summary: https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/modern-world-history-1918-to-1980/weimar-germany/the-communist-party-and-weimar-germany/

In Norway, we have had socialist governments most of the time since the 1930's. From 1945 to 1961, Labour had a absolute majority in parliament. (And at that time, they really were left wing socialists, not the neo-liberal ideology they follow today.) Can't say I remember anything from history class about intelligent and rich people being eliminated during those years? Or could it be that you are a bit confused about the difference between "communist" and "socialist"?

I am once again reminded that blanket statements are never appropriate.  I think the comment above should say that more often then not as opposed to always.  In regards to Norway it is an interesting example of not true socialism.  It is more of a country with a good economy that then heavily began taxing its citizens to provide extensive social programs.  In reality, Norway is a free market with little government interference, no minimum wage laws.  Actually Norway I believe ranks extremely high on economic freedom which allows it to have higher taxes to pay for such programs.  I believe the only real government intervention in Norway is on education and the funding of healthcare which is clearly far from socialism.  I think Norway is actually a very capitalist society with high taxes and a generous social program.  I am not saying it is a bad thing.  I am just rationalizing what I am seeing there.  Actually I think the US has far more economic intervention and is far more socialist than Norway.

But for every Norway we have a Venuzaula which is clearly socialist and failing.

By that logic; when politicians like Warren propose to introduce laws that work in Norway, wouldn't that be a positive thing for capitalist USA?

But I'm afraid your logic is a bit flawed. The key question in socialism vs capitalism, is whether the state/people or private actors should own the means of production. Norway now has a state vs private ownership ratio that is substantially larger than China. Included here is of course the 1000 billion pension fund, but more important are companies such as Statskog, which owns 1/5 of the Norwegian land mass. Not included in the state property are hydroelectric production, which by law has to have a majority of municipal and/or county ownership, and other types of local or regional public ownership. Here is the state report from 2016: https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/b7e367d388ba41dd839f34d64c0e4cc1/the-state-ownership-report-2016.pdf

As to minimum wage; no, we don't have that. Instead, we have laws supporting the unions when they bargain for collective agreements every second year. In businesses where the degree of union membership has declined, we have started implementing a form of minimum wage through mandatory adherence to the collective agreements. This, together with a quite comprehensive working environment act, does not make for a very free market. But it ensures a very predictable environment for private actors.

[fdhs_runner]

I doubt you ask because you want to discuss this very interesting part of political history. But I'm going to answer anyway. As in the rest of Europe, there was a relatively strong, and growing communist movement, that people on the right side of the political specter found threathening. This led to increasingly extreme standpoints, which in Germany culminated in KPD being blamed for the Reichsdag fire, and mass arrested by the fascist Nazi party. They were the first inmates of the concentration camps. The "red danger" was treated differently in different European countries, and in the Scandinavian countries the growth of strong unions and socialist parties ensured that the "pure" communists never grew too strong. Whether the parties decided to join Comintern or not, was often a deciding factor in which direction they later developed.
A simplified summary: https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/modern-world-history-1918-to-1980/weimar-germany/the-communist-party-and-weimar-germany/

Perhaps what they were referring to is what that particular party/movement called themselves: the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP). We abbreviated Nationalsozialistische to Nazi.

[gaja]

I doubt you ask because you want to discuss this very interesting part of political history. But I'm going to answer anyway. As in the rest of Europe, there was a relatively strong, and growing communist movement, that people on the right side of the political specter found threathening. This led to increasingly extreme standpoints, which in Germany culminated in KPD being blamed for the Reichsdag fire, and mass arrested by the fascist Nazi party. They were the first inmates of the concentration camps. The "red danger" was treated differently in different European countries, and in the Scandinavian countries the growth of strong unions and socialist parties ensured that the "pure" communists never grew too strong. Whether the parties decided to join Comintern or not, was often a deciding factor in which direction they later developed.
A simplified summary: https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/modern-world-history-1918-to-1980/weimar-germany/the-communist-party-and-weimar-germany/

Perhaps what they were referring to is what that particular party/movement called themselves: the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP). We abbreviated Nationalsozialistische to Nazi.

You mean in the same way as North Korea's official name is "the democratic people's republic"?

[obstinate]

Yes, I would be concerned. I think there are more targeted ways to accomplish pretty much any given policy goal than to give line employees a vote in how companies are run. FWIW, I'm a liberal, but I like to think of myself as a pragmatic one.

[obstinate]

In the NL, there is a committee of employees (elected by employees) that meets with the board regularly. They also need to be asked for their advice on important matters that concern employees, and the board is legally obligated to seriously consider that advice - as in, when they don't take the employees' advice they have to motivate why they don't. They can't just throw it away and pretend it never happened.

There are downsides as well, however. Substantially all of our Dutch employees get the same annual raise percentage, in accordance with the workers council negotiations, whether they work on a factory floor or are highly skilled software engineers. When the market rate for software engineers outstrips the site-wide raise maximum, our software engineers "go without", that is, at least until they decide to go quit and work someplace else.

The workers council absolutely hurts those software engineers. Now, whether the tradeoffs are worth this harm, I can't say.

Many of the best simply leave for Switzerland or the US, where they can earn a market rate for their skills. This is always the given and take of anything that flattens the compensation curve too much.

[EnjoyIt]

I believe the only real government intervention in Norway is on education and the funding of healthcare which is clearly far from socialism.  I think Norway is actually a very capitalist society with high taxes and a generous social program.

But for every Norway we have a Venuzaula which is clearly socialist and failing.

Absolutely. So you tell me, who do I have to vote for to live in Norway?

EDITed to add: The largest political party in Norway is the Labour Party which wikipedia identifies as having a social democracy ideology. Which is exactly what we are talking about, and you are either being intentionally difficult or incredibly thick. Since when someone says "modern day", they clearly don't mean 90 years ago, I think it must be the former.

Why resort to personal attacks to get a point across?

[PDXTabs]

Why resort to personal attacks to get a point across?

It isn't a personal attack to call someone out for being intentionally difficult when everyone else it trying to have a serious conversation about balancing the desires of the capitalist class who want nothing more than to maximize their return on capital with the working class that would prefer to have their labor valued enough to live indoors, eat healthy food, visit the doctor whenever they need to, and educate their children. Please note that neither of those groups of people want to live in modern day Venezuela.

[use2betrix]

Sigh, I knew it was only a matter of time before this devolved into a “pocahontas” argument.  I love that the Trump supporters (and any other conservative for that matter since you support him my your inaction) in this thread think they have the stones to call any other politician dishonest. 

It’s a bit narrow to think that someone who thinks Warren is an idiot for claiming she is Native American, means they must support Trump.

I am not a Trump fan and have never even voted republican (though I would for the right candidate). Yet, I still think it was foolish for Warren to make that claim.


It always shows how blinded people are and lose credibility in political discussion when they automatically assume that every person that doesn’t agree with “everything” about their political party, it must mean they’re a staunch supporter of the other.

Both parties have tons of garbage that fu****g suck about them. The blindness of people who fully see no faults with “their” party, is everything that is wrong with our country. And the fact that so many Democrats just follow CNN and Huffingtonpost and republicans that just follow fox, only further perpetuates the confirmation bias that runs so rampant with views like the quote above.

[EnjoyIt]

Why resort to personal attacks to get a point across?

It isn't a personal attack to call someone out for being intentionally difficult when everyone else it trying to have a serious conversation about balancing the desires of the capitalist class who want nothing more than to maximize their return on capital with the working class that would prefer to have their labor valued enough to live indoors, eat healthy food, visit the doctor whenever they need to, and educate their children. Please note that neither of those groups of people want to live in modern day Venezuela.

It is a personal attack to call some one "incredibly thick."  It is also not "being difficult" when one has alternate views to yours.

I think if the US government is willing to relax on regulations and allow capitalism to flourish so that everyone's income rises and then that income is taxed to help cover the cost of a social safety net, who would argue with that?  The argument comes from increasing regulations while also increasing taxation which becomes a double hit.  I do believe Norway has some of the highest economic freedom in the world which may explain the higher pay and therefor the higher taxes. 

Again, I think the US is far more socialist than Norway because the US is way to intertwined in private economy.  The US constantly creates winners and losers such as the corn industry, health insurance industry, coal industry, etc.  Also like any good socialist country we need a strong military and police force. So yeah, I like what Norway has going for it.

There is a huge downside of socializing business such as the practice of giving everyone in an industry a flat raise every year and that relates to productivity.  Those who can be more productive are penalized and tend to slow down while those who are less productive have no incentive to do better.  I recently saw this play out right in front of me.  A group of employees used to be heavily incentivized for their productivity.  To simplify payroll this incentive was significantly diminished to almost nothing and across the board productivity suffered.  The old Russian saying goes "If they think they are paying us, let them think we are working."

[PDXTabs]

@EnjoyIt,

Fair enough, In that case I apologize. I like some of the points that you are making. I actually don't really like the Warren bill, even though I like her personally and absolutely would vote for her for president. With that said, if we had German style work councils, I don't really see it crippling us (they are, after-all, the largest economy in Europe). FYI: people who like the Nordic model have been calling themselves Social Democrats or even Socialists for longer than I have been alive. This is because they want a strong social safety net, even if they don't want to socialize the means of production.

[gaja]

Why resort to personal attacks to get a point across?

It isn't a personal attack to call someone out for being intentionally difficult when everyone else it trying to have a serious conversation about balancing the desires of the capitalist class who want nothing more than to maximize their return on capital with the working class that would prefer to have their labor valued enough to live indoors, eat healthy food, visit the doctor whenever they need to, and educate their children. Please note that neither of those groups of people want to live in modern day Venezuela.

It is a personal attack to call some one "incredibly thick."  It is also not "being difficult" when one has alternate views to yours.

I think if the US government is willing to relax on regulations and allow capitalism to flourish so that everyone's income rises and then that income is taxed to help cover the cost of a social safety net, who would argue with that?  The argument comes from increasing regulations while also increasing taxation which becomes a double hit.  I do believe Norway has some of the highest economic freedom in the world which may explain the higher pay and therefor the higher taxes. 

Again, I think the US is far more socialist than Norway because the US is way to intertwined in private economy.  The US constantly creates winners and losers such as the corn industry, health insurance industry, coal industry, etc.  Also like any good socialist country we need a strong military and police force. So yeah, I like what Norway has going for it.

I’m sorry, but... huh? Is this a parallel world where believing something makes it true? We might score high on business friendly, due to relatively low corruption and semi-efficient bureaucracy, but I have never before seen anyone claim that we have less regulation than... anyone. And I have definitely not seen any research that would support such a claim.

We have a state operated monopoly for alcohol, for crying out loud! Shops are not allowed to keep open on Sundays. All details of the agricultural sector (down to number of pigs) are decided by the parliament once a year. Our single coal company is owned by the state. Advertisements for alcohol, tobacco, and anything aimed at children is banned. Until recently, this also included the sale of licorice shaped as pipes.

And for private businesses; browse through the working environment law. If you still think the US is more regulated than Norway, I will be happy to read your proof. https://www.arbeidstilsynet.no/en/laws-and-regulations/the-working-environment-act/

Everyone is entitled to their own belief about which type of politic works best. But to have a discussion about pros and cons of different solutions, you can’t twist reality to support your arguments.

[Psychstache]

It is a personal attack to call some one "incredibly thick."  It is also not "being difficult" when one has alternate views to yours.

I think if the US government is willing to relax on regulations and allow capitalism to flourish so that everyone's income rises and then that income is taxed to help cover the cost of a social safety net, who would argue with that?  The argument comes from increasing regulations while also increasing taxation which becomes a double hit.  I do believe Norway has some of the highest economic freedom in the world which may explain the higher pay and therefor the higher taxes. 

Again, I think the US is far more socialist than Norway because the US is way to intertwined in private economy.  The US constantly creates winners and losers such as the corn industry, health insurance industry, coal industry, etc.  Also like any good socialist country we need a strong military and police force. So yeah, I like what Norway has going for it.

I’m sorry, but... huh? Is this a parallel world where believing something makes it true? We might score high on business friendly, due to relatively low corruption and semi-efficient bureaucracy, but I have never before seen anyone claim that we have less regulation than... anyone. And I have definitely not seen any research that would support such a claim.

We have a state operated monopoly for alcohol, for crying out loud! Shops are not allowed to keep open on Sundays. All details of the agricultural sector (down to number of pigs) are decided by the parliament once a year. Our single coal company is owned by the state. Advertisements for alcohol, tobacco, and anything aimed at children is banned. Until recently, this also included the sale of licorice shaped as pipes.

And for private businesses; browse through the working environment law. If you still think the US is more regulated than Norway, I will be happy to read your proof. https://www.arbeidstilsynet.no/en/laws-and-regulations/the-working-environment-act/

Everyone is entitled to their own belief about which type of politic works best. But to have a discussion about pros and cons of different solutions, you can’t twist reality to support your arguments.

Yes, there is a parallel universe where this is true, it's called the modern USA.

https://nypost.com/2018/08/19/giuliani-truth-isnt-truth/



Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

[EnjoyIt]

Why resort to personal attacks to get a point across?

It isn't a personal attack to call someone out for being intentionally difficult when everyone else it trying to have a serious conversation about balancing the desires of the capitalist class who want nothing more than to maximize their return on capital with the working class that would prefer to have their labor valued enough to live indoors, eat healthy food, visit the doctor whenever they need to, and educate their children. Please note that neither of those groups of people want to live in modern day Venezuela.

It is a personal attack to call some one "incredibly thick."  It is also not "being difficult" when one has alternate views to yours.

I think if the US government is willing to relax on regulations and allow capitalism to flourish so that everyone's income rises and then that income is taxed to help cover the cost of a social safety net, who would argue with that?  The argument comes from increasing regulations while also increasing taxation which becomes a double hit.  I do believe Norway has some of the highest economic freedom in the world which may explain the higher pay and therefor the higher taxes. 

Again, I think the US is far more socialist than Norway because the US is way to intertwined in private economy.  The US constantly creates winners and losers such as the corn industry, health insurance industry, coal industry, etc.  Also like any good socialist country we need a strong military and police force. So yeah, I like what Norway has going for it.

I’m sorry, but... huh? Is this a parallel world where believing something makes it true? We might score high on business friendly, due to relatively low corruption and semi-efficient bureaucracy, but I have never before seen anyone claim that we have less regulation than... anyone. And I have definitely not seen any research that would support such a claim.

We have a state operated monopoly for alcohol, for crying out loud! Shops are not allowed to keep open on Sundays. All details of the agricultural sector (down to number of pigs) are decided by the parliament once a year. Our single coal company is owned by the state. Advertisements for alcohol, tobacco, and anything aimed at children is banned. Until recently, this also included the sale of licorice shaped as pipes.

And for private businesses; browse through the working environment law. If you still think the US is more regulated than Norway, I will be happy to read your proof. https://www.arbeidstilsynet.no/en/laws-and-regulations/the-working-environment-act/

Everyone is entitled to their own belief about which type of politic works best. But to have a discussion about pros and cons of different solutions, you can’t twist reality to support your arguments.

For actual accuracy of economic freedom and ratings
https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

The US is slightly higher than Norway.

[Imma]

In the NL, there is a committee of employees (elected by employees) that meets with the board regularly. They also need to be asked for their advice on important matters that concern employees, and the board is legally obligated to seriously consider that advice - as in, when they don't take the employees' advice they have to motivate why they don't. They can't just throw it away and pretend it never happened.

There are downsides as well, however. Substantially all of our Dutch employees get the same annual raise percentage, in accordance with the workers council negotiations, whether they work on a factory floor or are highly skilled software engineers. When the market rate for software engineers outstrips the site-wide raise maximum, our software engineers "go without", that is, at least until they decide to go quit and work someplace else.

The workers council absolutely hurts those software engineers. Now, whether the tradeoffs are worth this harm, I can't say.

This is actually quite unusual. I have not worked for a company that gave everyone the same raise and neither has my S/O.

How it normally works is that the workers council and/or the union negotiate a % raise to correct inflation (many companies just follow the Consumer Price Index every year) and then every individual will get a performance-based raise on top of that. The same goes for bonuses: many companies will give every employee a 13th salary when the company reaches a profit target, but on top of that individual workers might get a performance-based bonus. So, for example, everyone will get at least a 1% raise + a 13th salary, but some people might get a 5% raise and a 14th salary as a bonus.

It is true that wages are not as high as they can get in the US. Making a six figure income is hard. The prime minister only earns about 200k. The trade-off is that education and healthcare are cheap. I will never have to worry about health care costs in retirement, because my health insurance is €1500/year + 5% of my income from work and covers any necessary care, and university tuition is €2000/year. If I retire at 25 x annual spending it will be a very fat FIRE because I will also have a state pension + company pension at conventional retirement age.

[thisisjeopardy]

We would be fine. As long as their is a stock market there will always be speculators

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[fdhs_runner]

I doubt you ask because you want to discuss this very interesting part of political history. But I'm going to answer anyway. As in the rest of Europe, there was a relatively strong, and growing communist movement, that people on the right side of the political specter found threathening. This led to increasingly extreme standpoints, which in Germany culminated in KPD being blamed for the Reichsdag fire, and mass arrested by the fascist Nazi party. They were the first inmates of the concentration camps. The "red danger" was treated differently in different European countries, and in the Scandinavian countries the growth of strong unions and socialist parties ensured that the "pure" communists never grew too strong. Whether the parties decided to join Comintern or not, was often a deciding factor in which direction they later developed.
A simplified summary: https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/modern-world-history-1918-to-1980/weimar-germany/the-communist-party-and-weimar-germany/

Perhaps what they were referring to is what that particular party/movement called themselves: the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP). We abbreviated Nationalsozialistische to Nazi.

You mean in the same way as North Korea's official name is "the democratic people's republic"?

This probably should have been a separate thread in Off Topic, but no, not at all.