USA Democratic party 2020 candidates and primaries thread

[PointOfViewGun]

I’m not making an argument about Europe vs US. I’m expressing my concerns as a US voter. I’m not interested in doing things just because other countries do them, and I am concerned about property rights that will be impacted by this mandatory gradual transfer of ownership proposal from Sanders.
You brought up European “economic success,” not me.
Perhaps you are missing the point?
Any company regardless of size formulates compensation as a total package; inputs and outputs. If I’m making 100k in W2 wages, plus the value of my employer provided healthcare coverage, plus the value of other benefits like paid vacation, discounts, etc, these are all just costs as far as management is concerned. Tack on mandatory share distribution that must pay dividends through an employee-owned and controlled (union owned?) fund, and that has value too. So rather than treat the shares and dividends as a bonus to employees, what any company will rationally do is consider them part of compensation, and adjust accordingly, whether that means reduced cash wages, higher employee premiums for health insurance, etc.
If I want to buy shares, I’ll buy shares. I don’t need the government to require my employer to give them to me as a form of payment. It might make sense in terms of wanting to reshape how the economy works for ideological reasons, but for most people earning a wage, it’s just payment by different means; means that, to me, are less desirable than my current situation. I vote no.

Amazing. What a lovely deflection to brush away your pointless arguments. Make counter-points that make no sense or contain no relevance whatsoever and then simply brush them away with "you started talking about that" path. Great. I'll take that as an admission of pointlessness of your interjection. What you consider so extreme is common place in many wealthy European nations.

You yourself posted earlier from Sanders' website that there is a 20% cap on this. So, no, property is not eroded. When an employee leaves it doesn't change that 20%. You don't get your 0.000001% and leave the remaining 19.999999% to become the new 20%. That cap remains the same. A company pays dividends if shareholders decide to get their share of the profits of a company. They could choose not to do that and keep investing that money in the company indefinitely. If the CEO of the company wants to get a big cut from the profits while paying the workers minimum wage they get to share a bit of that profit with the workers as well. We're talking about sharing profits, not the revenues. If there is no profit a company can not pay dividends. You're talking about shareholders wanting to screw the employees just because of greed and deciding to take the dividends the workers would receive from their wages and other benefits. That's not a valid argument. Hence, you're clearly missing the point.

Is there not a risk of this being unconstitutional in the US? It is confiscation of assets after all.

So, you'll just ignore my requests for you to expand on your claim that Sanders is not a communist? Strange...

No, there is no problem with the constitution. If you read Sanders' proposal the idea is to transfer stock by issuing new ones.

[Love Mountain]

What entitles workers to any shares of the company?

[Aexodus]

Amazing. What a lovely deflection to brush away your pointless arguments. Make counter-points that make no sense or contain no relevance whatsoever and then simply brush them away with "you started talking about that" path. Great. I'll take that as an admission of pointlessness of your interjection. What you consider so extreme is common place in many wealthy European nations.

Can I have a citation on forced stock redistribution in any country?

[Lord Thesaurian]

Is there not a risk of this being unconstitutional in the US? It is confiscation of assets after all.

If there isn’t then there should be. In terms of legal precedent, if the government is allowed to seize and redistribute 20% of the ownership of my company, what’s to stop them from taking more? Or other kinds of assets? Maybe 20% of the equity of homes worth over “x”million USD should be transferred to a sovereign wealth fund that pays dividends to all residents of the country? This isn’t taxation after all, it’s direct confiscation similar to civil asset forfeiture, only now I’m not even suspected of a crime, I just have the misfortune of owning a company with a certain level of revenue, and I have no chance of getting my property back.

And here's the real kicker, if the company goes bust or gets nationalised then those share earnings are lost. Although you can have optional reimbursement where employees are given the choice between shares, salary or benefits or a negotiable combination thereof.

Cash is king, as they say. Give me cash and let me spend it however I want. In my experience, when your department shuts down or you get laid off through no fault of your own, you don’t get to design your compensation package. The company gives you what amounts to a legal settlement in exchange for your agreement not to sue them, and you can take it or leave it. Any cash you get is also taxed as supplemental income (22% flat federal withholding rate plus entitlement taxes plus city and state).

I don't know where you're getting this from. While Sanders is zealous about his crusade for labor rights and their share in economic prosperity, I doubt he even knows enough about economics to subscribe to one theory or another. I haven't seen him articulate on the matter. Then again, I also haven't seen an in-depth interview about his economic views across a spectrum of issues, so maybe I simply haven't seen it.

One doesn’t need to know Sanders’ personal beliefs to judge his policy proposals as he’s outlined them. The idea behind mandatory worker ownership proposals like Sanders’ is that the workers are entitled to some level of ownership of the enterprise by virtue of having input their labor. Wages and benefits alone are not enough to compensate the workers for their labor because the value of the enterprise is itself determined by the “socially necessary labor” required to operate it, per the labor theory of value. The latter assumption is the only one under which mandatory worker ownership is anything other than confiscation of private property.

Amazing. What a lovely deflection to brush away your pointless arguments. Make counter-points that make no sense or contain no relevance whatsoever and then simply brush them away with "you started talking about that" path. Great. I'll take that as an admission of pointlessness of your interjection. What you consider so extreme is common place in many wealthy European nations.

You yourself posted earlier from Sanders' website that there is a 20% cap on this. So, no, property is not eroded. When an employee leaves it doesn't change that 20%. You don't get your 0.000001% and leave the remaining 19.999999% to become the new 20%. That cap remains the same. A company pays dividends if shareholders decide to get their share of the profits of a company. They could choose not to do that and keep investing that money in the company indefinitely. If the CEO of the company wants to get a big cut from the profits while paying the workers minimum wage they get to share a bit of that profit with the workers as well. We're talking about sharing profits, not the revenues. If there is no profit a company can not pay dividends. You're talking about shareholders wanting to screw the employees just because of greed and deciding to take the dividends the workers would receive from their wages and other benefits. That's not a valid argument. Hence, you're clearly missing the point.

You sure wrote alot just to say nothing at all. A share entitles the shareholder to that proportion of the corporation's assets and earnings. Shareholders can typically demand an advisory vote on the total compensation given to top executives, but I have no idea what you’re talking about “screwing the employees.” My point has nothing to do with shareholders who purchased their shares at market prices. If you have something to say about my post other than irrelevant rants and accusations, I’ll be happy to address it.

[sumskilz]

If you read Sanders' proposal the idea is to transfer stock by issuing new ones.

Unless forcing a company to give away shares makes that company worth more, then it is effectively the same thing. It's simply dilution.

[alhoon]

If I want to buy shares, I’ll buy shares. I don’t need the government to require my employer to give them to me as a form of payment. It might make sense in terms of wanting to reshape how the economy works for ideological reasons, but for most people earning a wage, it’s just payment by different means; means that, to me, are less desirable than my current situation. I vote no.

Don't worry, there will be re-education camps to correct your way of thinking my friend.

So, you'll just ignore my requests for you to expand on your claim that Sanders is not a communist?

It would be hard to expand on a claim that Sanders is not a communist since he's a bona fide communist as our posts have proven.

A few pages before you said that I am making assumptions on his motives. Yeap, I do. But I am basing these assumptions on things he has said and supported for years and his rhetorics about the evil bosses and things in his 40 years career from openly supporting the Sandinistas in the 80s to praising China's communism nowdays.
He may try to call himself a "democratic socialist" but he isn't fooling too many people with that. He is a communist.

No, there is no problem with the constitution. If you read Sanders' proposal the idea is to transfer stock by issuing new ones.

And he said the end goal was the company to be 100% owned by the employees.

[Cope]

Cash is king, as they say. Give me cash and let me spend it however I want. In my experience, when your department shuts down or you get laid off through no fault of your own, you don’t get to design your compensation package. The company gives you what amounts to a legal settlement in exchange for your agreement not to sue them, and you can take it or leave it. Any cash you get is also taxed as supplemental income (22% flat federal withholding rate plus entitlement taxes plus city and state).

I wasn't talking about redundancy packages, just general employment terms. In the old days it used to be common for people working in certain sectors (rail, aviation, tourism, retail etc.) to get specific benefits like free flights or discounted products in lieu of additional salary. Certain industries offered shares on the same basis. Of course you could usually negotiate just for the money but sometimes the perks were more valuable.

[Lord Thesaurian]

I wasn't talking about redundancy packages, just general employment terms. In the old days it used to be common for people working in certain sectors (rail, aviation, tourism, retail etc.) to get specific benefits like free flights or discounted products in lieu of additional salary. Certain industries offered shares on the same basis. Of course you could usually negotiate just for the money but sometimes the perks were more valuable.

Perks like that are still around, usually offered by large companies that can afford them. Given the choice between perks and cash, I’d rather have the cash, but that’s just me.

[Love Mountain]

I wasn't talking about redundancy packages, just general employment terms. In the old days it used to be common for people working in certain sectors (rail, aviation, tourism, retail etc.) to get specific benefits like free flights or discounted products in lieu of additional salary. Certain industries offered shares on the same basis. Of course you could usually negotiate just for the money but sometimes the perks were more valuable.

Why do you say "in the old days"? I thought such perks were still fairly common.

If there isn’t then there should be. In terms of legal precedent, if the government is allowed to seize and redistribute 20% of the ownership of my company, what’s to stop them from taking more? Or other kinds of assets? Maybe 20% of the equity of homes worth over “x”million USD should be transferred to a sovereign wealth fund that pays dividends to all residents of the country? This isn’t taxation after all, it’s direct confiscation similar to civil asset forfeiture, only now I’m not even suspected of a crime, I just have the misfortune of owning a company with a certain level of revenue, and I have no chance of getting my property back.

Owning part of a company. Publicly traded companies and corporations aren't meant to be owned by one person. Moreover, I'm not sure that something as abstract as a company share is directly analogous to private property as most people understand it. There is a difference between forcing a company to issue stock to its workers, and seizing somebody's house.

One doesn’t need to know Sanders’ personal beliefs to judge his policy proposals as he’s outlined them. The idea behind mandatory worker ownership proposals like Sanders’ is that the workers are entitled to some level of ownership of the enterprise by virtue of having input their labor. Wages and benefits alone are not enough to compensate the workers for their labor because the value of the enterprise is itself determined by the “socially necessary labor” required to operate it, per the labor theory of value. The latter assumption is the only one under which mandatory worker ownership is anything other than confiscation of private property.

You kind of do if you're accusing him of LTV. I can certainly see the argument for LTV that you're making, but it's not a closed deal. It can be a measure to combat inequality for the sake of combating inequality, and as a way to ensure that workers have a small ownership stake in the prosperity of the company for whatever reason. So no, I don't think this is an outright declaration of LTV.

I will say though, this scheme will play havoc with markets and I don't think it's a good idea. I kind of doubt Sanders will make headway with this anyway, considering the tall number of tasks he has on the list that are more important. There are better ways to increase worker welfare that make more sense to pursue first.

[PointOfViewGun]

Can I have a citation on forced stock redistribution in any country?

What you quoted is said in relation to employee board membership for large companies. That is quite common in Europe. It is mandated in the countries I already mentioned, such as Austria, Denmark, Croatia, France, Germany and Hungary. Employee stock ownership is mostly done voluntarily which even exists in USA.

You sure wrote alot just to say nothing at all. A share entitles the shareholder to that proportion of the corporation's assets and earnings. Shareholders can typically demand an advisory vote on the total compensation given to top executives, but I have no idea what you’re talking about “screwing the employees.” My point has nothing to do with shareholders who purchased their shares at market prices. If you have something to say about my post other than irrelevant rants and accusations, I’ll be happy to address it.

That's one way to avoid actually addressing the shortcomings of your previous statements. Convenient that you have no idea what I'm referring to either. This is the second time you're using that tactic to get out of a failed argument of yours in this thread. You basically argued that just because workers get a share of the profit, again not even revenue, companies would try to take it out of workers through giving less wages or other kinds of benefits. That's not a valid argument. Clearly, you're hiding behind throwing tantrum labels to avoid addressing the actual shortcomings of your position. It all boils down to the same failed point. No, employee stock ownership that is capped at 20% does not magically chip away from a company as workers retire.

Unless forcing a company to give away shares makes that company worth more, then it is effectively the same thing. It's simply dilution.

Not necessarily. That's not an automatic response.

It would be hard to expand on a claim that Sanders is not a communist since he's a bona fide communist as our posts have proven.

A few pages before you said that I am making assumptions on his motives. Yeap, I do. But I am basing these assumptions on things he has said and supported for years and his rhetorics about the evil bosses and things in his 40 years career from openly supporting the Sandinistas in the 80s to praising China's communism nowdays.
He may try to call himself a "democratic socialist" but he isn't fooling too many people with that. He is a communist.

And he said the end goal was the company to be 100% owned by the employees.

Your inability in this thread to counter any counter argument against your slandering proves otherwise. The least you can do is not to lie about what we have or have not done here. What you base those assumptions are not facts. Please don't whore around labels like that. No, Sanders didn't praise China's communism. He made a remark in an interview about how China done a lot to raise people out of poverty while talking about USA, China and the trade agreement. Nowhere in the interview he praises anything about communism. You're simply gobbling up sound bites without the slight fact checking. Where did he say that that is the end goal?

[Lord Thesaurian]

Owning part of a company. Publicly traded companies and corporations aren't meant to be owned by one person. Moreover, I'm not sure that something as abstract as a company share is directly analogous to private property as most people understand it. There is a difference between forcing a company to issue stock to its workers, and seizing somebody's house.

Publicly traded companies are owned by shareholders etc. Those shareholders either bought their shares, or were given shares in exchange for something. Companies that give stock to their employees were not forced to, and therein lies the issue of legal precedent. In terms of ownership and the ability of the government to redistribute that ownership, it’s a new frontier. If the government can seize and redistribute a kind of asset, not just taxes, that should concern anyone who owns anything.

You kind of do if you're accusing him of LTV. I can certainly see the argument for LTV that you're making, but it's not a closed deal. It can be a measure to combat inequality for the sake of combating inequality, and as a way to ensure that workers have a small ownership stake in the prosperity of the company for whatever reason. So no, I don't think this is an outright declaration of LTV.

I’m not interested in why he does what he does. I’ve no problem believing that his stated rationale, the desire to combat income inequality and democratize company ownership, is genuine. The proposal itself is concerning for the aforementioned reasons, and personally undesirable as a voter that would be directly impacted by it. The reason for bringing up LTV and referencing worker ownership under the USSR is to provide political context. Sanders is a socialist, so I take him at his word. There are lots of ways to combat income inequality without mandating redistribution of ownership.

That's not a valid argument. Clearly, you're hiding behind throwing tantrum labels to avoid addressing the actual shortcomings of your position. It all boils down to the same failed point. No, employee stock ownership that is capped at 20% does not magically chip away from a company as workers retire.

Quote where I claimed that it does, then I’ll engage your strawman. You haven’t said much about my position, especially given how upset you are by its “shortcomings.”

[Love Mountain]

Publicly traded companies are owned by shareholders etc. Those shareholders either bought their shares, or were given shares in exchange for something. Companies that give stock to their employees were not forced to, and therein lies the issue of legal precedent. In terms of ownership and the ability of the government to redistribute that ownership, it’s a new frontier. If the government can seize and redistribute a kind of asset, not just taxes, that should concern anyone who owns anything.

Sure. Stock options are often offered to executives in exchange for their services. However, that's not exactly something that can be directly evaluated. Historically, stock options in companies like Microsoft were a longshot. The value of stock options for first Microsoft employees was essentially unknown, and it definitely cost very little to the company to issue at the time, if anything. On the last point, there is a difference between forcing a company to issue new shares to its workers and confiscating personal property like a house or a car. It's not something that affects most people. Especially when it's aimed directly at public companies and corporations, rather than private individuals. My concern is mainly with the economic impact, not with property rights of individuals.

I’m not interested in why he does what he does. I’ve no problem believing that his stated rationale, the desire to combat income inequality and democratize company ownership, is genuine. The proposal itself is concerning for the aforementioned reasons, and personally undesirable as a voter that would be directly impacted by it. The reason for bringing up LTV and referencing worker ownership under the USSR is to provide political context. Sanders is a socialist, so I take him at his word. There are lots of ways to combat income inequality without mandating redistribution of ownership.

Alright sure, let's forget LTV. I agree that the proposal seems ill-designed.

[alhoon]

Your inability in this thread to counter any counter argument against your slandering proves otherwise. The least you can do is not to lie about what we have or have not done here.

I see we are of the exactly same mind but for the other side of this argument.

No, Sanders didn't praise China's communism. He made a remark in an interview about how China done a lot to raise people out of poverty.

Aaaand... there you have it. That was quite correctly taken as a praise of China's communism by the article and similar ones.

You may disagree with my assumptions but they're all based on things he said and still says. He is not hiding, mind you. He is open about what he believes for the past 40 years. I don't dislike him, I strongly disagree with what he believes and what he wants.
As I said in a similar post, the communist party of Greece has positions and agenda that are very similar to what Sanders suggests. Same with the Communist party of Russian Federation.

From the Russian communists, here's something telling: "The First Secretary Gennady Zyuganov also expressed that they should learn from China's successful example and build Russian socialism." See how communists nowdays rebrand themselves as socialists and praise China's communism?

Such things like "A lot of communist parties in not-communist countries have an agenda similar to Sanders and they speak like him" are partially what I base my assumptions on and why I say that Sanders is a communist.

Where did he say that that is the end goal?

In the article I have quoted.

[Love Mountain]

The economic positions that the Communist Party of Russia and the Politburo promote have very little to do with Communism. In fact, China is actively trying to privatize some aspects of its economy even more while nationalizing others. The only thing Sanders, Russian, and Chinese communists have in common is that they all argue for more state intervention. You can call that authoritarianism if you want, I know that Thatcher and Raeganite types are happy to call anything that involves government "authoritarian", but that does not make them the same or similar. I doubt Zyuganov actually understands the Chinese economy any more than my 6th grade teacher.

[alhoon]

The economic positions that the Communist Party of Russia and the Politburo promote have very little to do with Communism. In fact, China is actively trying to privatize some aspects of its economy even more while nationalizing others. The only thing Sanders, Russian, and Chinese communists have in common is that they all argue for more state intervention. You can call that authoritarianism if you want, I know that Thatcher and Raeganite types are happy to call anything that involves government "authoritarian", but that does not make them the same or similar. I doubt Zyuganov actually understands the Chinese economy any more than my 6th grade teacher.

I agree in most of those.
Sanders is obviously closer to traditional communism than the weird "State-oversight anarchocapitalism" which is the Chinese communism. He's more radical than the current Russian communists with the worker-owned companies. However, they have more things in common than "State intervention" (housing, income inequality, healthcare, education and more) and to be sincere "State intervention" is a huge thing, not a small one.

For the record, Zyuganov probably doesn't give a crap about what the Chinese actually do, he just wants to give a positive spin to his message and to his "brand". But it is undeniable that communists are like that nowdays. They have stopped fighting to export the revolution etc etc.

[Ludicus]

Well...someone has said:"Struggle against the powerful, not accommodation of their interests, is how America produced the conditions for its greatest social reforms"

CNN poll: Bernie Sanders surges to join Biden atop

For the first time in the entirety of this campaign, in CNN's national polling, Joe Biden doesn't have the lead position all to himself," CNN political director David Chalian said on Wednesday's New Day. Sanders jumped 7 percentage points since December by eating into Biden's support among nonwhite voters and Warren's support among liberal Democrats. In head-to-head polling against Trump, all six leading Democrats beat Trump nationally, with only Sen. Amy Klobuchar's (D-Minn.) lead falling within the margin of error.

-----
Biden's interview, Joe Biden Argues Age Is Just a Number - The New York Times
AH: So do you think that this younger generation as a whole is not participating enough...?
Biden: What’s happening is it’s awakened now.
---
Indeed. In fact, Sanders won more primary votes from Americans under 30 than Clinton and Trump combined.The irony: according to a poll conducted by the YouGov for the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation. 70% of millennials say they're "likely" to vote for a socialist
"The historical amnesia about the dangers of communism and socialism is on full display in this year's report," said Marion Smith, Executive Director of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation.

No, my dear, Sanders is not the American Stalin.

[Love Mountain]

I agree in most of those.
Sanders is obviously closer to traditional communism than the weird "State-oversight anarchocapitalism" which is the Chinese communism. He's more radical than the current Russian communists with the worker-owned companies. However, they have more things in common than "State intervention" (housing, income inequality, healthcare, education and more) and to be sincere "State intervention" is a huge thing, not a small one.

For the record, Zyuganov probably doesn't give a crap about what the Chinese actually do, he just wants to give a positive spin to his message and to his "brand". But it is undeniable that communists are like that nowdays. They have stopped fighting to export the revolution etc etc.

Uhh, I wouldn't compare Sanders to China. China still has a lot of SOEs, but they have effectively privatized large swathes of the economy because they realized that it works better. This was particularly apparent during Deng-Zemin years, but started to reverse during the latter years of Jintao and especially now with Xi. Sanders on the other hand seeks to drastically reduce wealth inequality. I could type more, but to make it brief. Sanders and Xi have very different economic priorities, very different methods of achieving them, and very importantly, very different economies to manage... China's state capitalism is not really directly comparable to a US mixed economy.

I'm also not sure why you say "State Intervention" is a huge thing. Regulations and state intervention are a constant reality of the American economy. Some areas need more of it, others need less of it, and a lot more research and evaluation needs to be done on the topic.

[alhoon]

Well, as I said, I mostly agree that the economic positions of those communists differ from each other and I also agree that comparing those economies is like comparing peaches with oranges. Sure, oranges are better, cheaper and healthier but they are otherwise hard to compare.

I also agree that Sanders has very different priorities than the communist party of China that wants to maintain its dominance in the country first and foremost by any means necessary, not address income inequality like Sanders.
They are state-communists while Sanders is more "benign" communist. He doesn't use nice words and a popular in his country ideology to remain in power but actually believes that stuff. See how Xi dresses and his cars and stuff and see how Sanders seems mostly... unkempt. Yes, he is rich, I know that. But he's not filthy rich nor he lives in luxury.

However while state intervention is nothing new anywhere in the West, Sanders wants to break up the banks by government regulations. He wants to greatly increase the oversight of the state on the economy and that is expressed in and affects many things.

[Love Mountain]

I can see why Sanders is a big thing in the West, but I don’t see his ideas as inherently radical. In terms of government oversight, United States is a very lax country in many regards. Antitrust for example, is wildly less invasive when compared to countries like Israel, Sweden, or... well a lot of the OECD really. Tightening up on a lot of this stuff and forcing breakup of banks isn’t really re-inventing capitalism.

On the other hand, the potential ramifications are certainly great. And some of the things he proposes are radical from a libertarian perspective. I don’t think that anyone bere will object to greater banking regulations and oversight. Or is somebody actually sympathetic to the fat cats on wall street?

[Ludicus]

I'm also not sure why you say "State Intervention" is a huge thing. Regulations and state intervention are a constant reality of the American economy..

Unless you are Ayn Rand, that's pretty obvious

----------

Democrats point to Nordic nations as models of socialism
..and they are right. According to the Democracy Index released by The Economist - page 46, please,

Countries in western Europe occupy seven of the top ten places in the global democracy ranking, including the top three spots, and the region boasts the largest number of “full democracies” of anywhere in the world, with a total of 15.
Norway ,Iceland ,Sweden, Finland ,Ireland ,Denmark, Switzerland, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Germany, United Kingdom, Austria, Spain, France, Portugal.

How is that possible?...
White House blasts Nordic socialism, ‘The Opportunity Costs of Socialism’ ergo, "something is rotten in the state of Denmark", right?
Spain has a socialist government; Portugal's socialist alliance, with the informal support of the far left, soundly defeated -once again- its challengers on the right, and guess what, "Portugal is a success in Europe Euronews What? are you kidding me? a plain democracy, how is that possible?