Should the government decide who should run companies?
Imagine yourself as someone who wanted to infiltrate and control large US companies. What would be your "holy grail"? How about getting someone directly on their boards? That person could work directly to influence board decisions and be a watchdog to publicly shame other board members who won't vote for their goals. Well, in California, this wish is coming true for those who want to elevate "diversity" over merit. Starting in 2021, all publicly-listed companies will be required to have at least one person who is part of an under-represented racial group or is LGBT+. California governor Gavin Newson says “When we talk about racial justice, we talk about empowerment, we talk about power, we need to talk about seats at the table”. By requiring handing over power to someone solely based on their immutable identity, California is explicitly saying that the sole reason why these groups are underrepresented is "systemic racism" (i.e., not merit or pipeline problems) and the government has a responsibility to use coercion to change it.
As its been said that California is the future of American politics, do you see a connection to Biden's selection of Kamala Harris? Do you expect these government-required board members to improve the strength of the companies that they will be placed? Does a company have a responsibility to become more diverse? What do you think will happen next?
5
Be part of the movement!
Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.Create your free account
25 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.If California is the future of American politics, America is doomed!
DaveO276
Level 8
Oct 4, 2020
7
yep....
I would say they I would like that state to secede, but then it would just belong to China in about a year or two, and that state would then be an even worse problem for us.
@KeithThroop, How right you are. No one in this CA. State would even have to skip a beat, when cut loose from America. China, Russia, Ukraine, Israel, India do not have people with religious hatred for their own Country running their Silicon Industries. We do.
We are reaching a political tipping point.
Un-Constitutional. When the government has ANY control of companies, it is either fascism or socialism.
TimTuolomne
Level 9
Oct 4, 2020
6
How would you divide justifiable control (e.g., environmental issues) and otherwise?
@Admin. Until 1942, it was explicitly impossible for the US government to control any business, unless it was to prevent interstate commerce violations or monopolies. SCOTUS was un-Constitutionally coerced by FDR into deciding Wickard v Filburn, ultimately creating the possibility of a vast unaccountable Federal bureacracy. All illegal. The States have Constitutional authority for any regulation about which you are inquiring.
Most times gov't has forced its involvement to solve problems outside of maintaining law and order, it has failed miserably, generally creates multitudes of new problems with their forced solutions. And the further from the community the gov't is situated (federal vs municipal) the worse the effect, in general. Gov't needs to get its hands out of the medical industry, education and definitely the economy, not continue to fumble around claiming to fix perceived shortcomings.
@Admin WTH is "justifiable control" ? Gov't has no legal sway in the day to day operations of private companies as opposed to gov't agencies - entities. Companies do NOT have to "justify" their methods or hiring practices to the gov't. There is no legal/no lawful/no constitutional provision for gov't interference in corporate operations
@iThink I think you under estimate the ability to exert control over a wide variety of things. The government already has so many programs in place they can use to put pressure on persons or companies. Zoning, funding, IRS, law enforcement, civil rights, business license. You don't play ball funding is cut, permits or licenses don't get issued or renewed, you get drug into court and go bankrupt defending yourself.
@dd54...Something terms of elected service limited to one would tend to fix.
@dd54. Easy to do in a totalitarian government. Not possible in a free economy.
From fat cash cows into lean milking cows that will be needing government subsidies in no time.
eschatologyguy
Level 9
Oct 5, 2020
3
Some of the biggest cash cows are the social media companies. Wonder why they are so supportive of progressive ideas that will eventually come for them? Employees?
The nonprofit group Business Roundtable is one source for this kind of rubbish. The corporate movement toward wokeness is actually coming from within. It’s a strange phenomenon but it reminds me of the novel Babbitt by Sinclair Lewis. Babbitt is a morally weak businessman who secretly yearns for a bohemian lifestyle. Lewis, being a socialist himself, has a field day humiliating him, all the while painting Babbitt’s yearning as good and righteous.
GaryWitt
Level 8
Oct 5, 2020
2
Government intervention and/or control of private enterprise is a terrible idea. Government spends wealth. If allowed, it gets in the way of wealth creation.
It should set the legal framework, then get the Helli or if the way.
MrJABush
Level 4
Oct 5, 2020
2
Terrible is putting it mildly.
Can you be 15 years ahead when you are going backwards?
cRaZyTMG
Level 7
Oct 5, 2020
2
I don't know if California is going backwards... seems more like it's going downhill.
@Admin I see it from Christian perspective: California had so MUCH going for it; thus attacked the most, destroyed the most.
The NT explains there ARE evil people whose purpose then is to destroy.
Those for life get wearied, worn down by it all.
Actually, only Jesus's counsel works. 'Love your enemies'
We've done it, (on personal, small scale). Works.
We actually helped heal our enemies, and over the years, turning around.
Keeps us out of toxic emotions.
Think of the fruit, WINE, etc!
"Should the government decide who should run companies?"
So you're punking us. How many "Oh, hell yes!" we're you expecting to get?
Penrodster
Level 8
Oct 5, 2020
2
Ha! Yeah, guess was wasn't that neutral on this topic no matter how hard I tried. Perhaps I should have asked what should be done about this and how to get people to wake up and see that affirmative action at the board room level is a very scary escalation of progressive power.
What idiot came up with that idea?
People should be hired on merit.
Lightman
Level 8
Oct 4, 2020
2
Do you think it's more likely that that person was an idiot or smart for their cause?
@Admin. LGBTQ represent a percent or two of the population. Any time majority rights are infringed for special protection of a minority, it is un-Constitutional and wrong in a Representative Republic, because there HAS ALWAYS BEEN adequate remedy in the justice system for criminal wrongdoing, and in the civil system.
It was wrong with Affirmative Action, Segregation, Busing, and every other law that takes away the rights of law-abiding citizens for special protection of ANY minority.
Only by political sleight-of-hand, illegal coercion, votes in the dead of night, and the use of the media propaganda machine, encouraged by a happily apathetic electorate, have such immoral laws been enacted.
@Admin, @TimTuolomne They call all those sorts of things POSITIVE discrimination here... it is still discrimination, but hey Progs are hypocrites after all.
This type of thinking is exactly what is killing (economically) most of the "Free World"!!!
Men and women that are smart enough to start a company and get rich doing it are what drives progress!!!
By picking "leaders" by skin color/sex/ sexual orientation/ personal believes/ without regard to ability is a guaranteed fail!!!
A recent example is how Biden picked his running mate!!!
Using his criteria, he limited his ability to chose the best person for the job, to about 9% of the population!!!!
He effectively eliminated the other 91% of the USA population!!!!
Do you think that was the best idea?????????????????
Serg97
Level 8
Oct 5, 2020
1
The less the government decides for us, the better. I disagree that California represents the future of politics in this country. That state has proven over and over one of the absolute truths I believe... the government is hopelessly incompetent and inept. I refuse to believe the rest of the country doesn't see that.
coalburned
Level 8
Oct 5, 2020
1
If California isn't the future, what is? Maybe things will change now that California no longer pays more to the Fed than they receive... [sfchronicle.com]
@Admin I don't know, but anything other than California!
We’ve allowed corporations to become more powerful than our government. It’s corporate fascism
FrozenSoul
Level 7
Oct 5, 2020
0
It's hard to say which have more power... if a government can place people on the boards of companies. Who would you prefer to be in charge?
I don't mind if my own people run a business and I think that my government shouldn't meddle in it. However I also think that crooks should be prevented from being somebody's boss. If someone is a fraudster, he should for some years only work under supervision and without any powers or competences. Such a person should not run or manage anything
Corjova
Level 6
Oct 5, 2020
2
There are crooks everywhere where there is money to be made from power granted.
I think it is a wonderful way to promote the moving industry.
Rick-A
Level 8
Oct 4, 2020
2
Yup. I'm looking for some place with less socialist tendencies than the US.
@TimTuolomne Belize maybe? not sure but seems a lot of American people move to Belize for reasons other than warm climate.
@iThink. Maybe. I had in mind some other places, but COVID happened, and the socialists came out of the woodwork there too.
@Rick-A. It is working in Ca!!! You should see the off Brand Trucks getting people out of my Ca. city. Next Donkeys, and goats!
@dd54. I fear you are correct.
When you appoint people to positions of power based on nothing more than filling quotas you accomplish nothing more than than the erosion of cohesion with in what ever group you target.
To over look those best suited to such positions in favor of filling quotas you not only lose the abilities of your best people but you risk them leaving your country in search of more favorable opportunities in other countries, we in the United Kingdom learned this lesson back in the 1980's when we over looked our brightest people and began the so called brain drain that has taken us almost 30 years to recover from.
Never in human history has appointment based of quotas instead of ability worked out well, fail to learn this lesson and you end up with a group of people all with agendas unique to what ever quota they filled.
Understanding
Level 6
Oct 9, 2020
1
Imagine yourself as (((someone))) who wanted to infiltrate and control large US companies.
capnflummox
Level 4
Oct 8, 2020
1
20.10.05.2000M IS THIS A DELUSION OR AN ILLUSION? Now I understand that corporate law is a convoluted concept bordering on mysticism in an effort to explain things that don’t really need explaining. That’s why a whole sector of law is committed to it with its own battery of forked tongued lawyers to explain its incongruities (or rather explain them away). This is why communists see corporate law as a, weak spot, vulnerability they can exploit to harm capitalism. AND THEY’RE RIGHT only because of the extensive application of legal theory by lawyers seeking to validate their sorted profession.
I suggest you refine your question then refine it some more. Simply ask what is right & what is wrong? Simply ask who owns a thing & who seeks to own that same thing other than its owner? And to add the disgusting aroma of politics to the query, understand that to control a thing is to own that thing. Don’t quibble now, you know it to be true. This is the true reason, kept hidden behind the curtain, socialists always seek power – because they conflate power with control. In addition they always rebuke authority until they’ve attained it unto themselves. It’s rather like a motorist who needs ownership of an automobile (control), petrol to power the automobile (power), and finally a license to drive the automobile (authority). GOD help us if socialists get their hands on all three!
I wish to humbly adjust the sentence from the commentary I copied from this string. Whether it is the point of cleavage I don’t know – I’m just settling for it. But I digress.
The sentence I’m choosing for entry into the conversation is: “Board members are often appointed as representatives of shareholders.” Let’s try this: Board members are ALWAYS appointed (OR ELECTED) as representatives of the shareholders. An infamous attorney, or it could’ve been a famous one as I’ve known both, once told me not to go to a court house for justice; for justice go to a whore house. Corporate law is a crap shoot – a literal shit show. But I digress again.
I submit that this contemplation of governments dictating corporate board composition is in actuality an assumption of socialist government already in place – is it? (a little humor there) TAKE WARNING: Government dictating the composition of a corporate BOD (Board of Directors) is tantamount to the nationalization of that corporation. However you cut it, it’s confiscation of the private property belonging exclusively to the shareholders – albeit invisible, it’s still private property.
This effort in question is an attempt to walk a fine line between Nazi German & The Soviet Union destined to topple into full blown communism just like national socialism did in the past. And before someone asks, I do understand the difference between socialism & communism and that difference is getting smaller every day.
Now take me back to my old folks home.
1914wizard
Level 8
Oct 5, 2020
1
This is what will happen next:
California will have very few corporations and company headquarters here, it will turn into a corporate ghost town.
The companies and corporations will keep facilities there but the headquarters/corporate offices will be moved out of state.
Texas and Pennsylvania will see an increase to their economy from this exodus of headquarters and California loose their corporate tax base and to make up for that loss, will start raising property taxes and personal income tax, the property values will drop like a stone off a cliff.
California's economic and social check light is on but they are ignoring it.
This is the perfect metaphor of where California is heading
TheHerrDark
Level 7
Oct 5, 2020
1
From what I hear, the companies who escape to Austin are bringing their ideology with them 
Terrible idea. Who is to decide which minorities, racial, gender, political, environmental, religious, social will be chosen and who will represent them. That representative will have to be acceptable to the majority of the minorities (ironic term I have never used before). They can accomplish very little toward inclusiveness and will probably be disruptive and increase divisiveness. There are, and will always be, minorities in any society. Today minorities are demanding respect, which turns people off. It is much more difficult but much more effective if instead of demanding respect a group inspires respect. Government efforts to equalize society are never very effective and are used to placate rather than solve. The exponential increase in the disparity of wealth is the main problem. I have no idea how it could be achieved at this time, but people should be able earn equal to their productivity and pay according to their use of government services without subsidies or special favor.
Pand0ro
Level 7
Oct 5, 2020
0
Good points. Board members are often appointed as representatives of shareholders. Agree with you that inequality is an issue... I plan to make a post about that soon as it's unclear if redistribution of wealth will have a net positive effect (e.g., prices of commodities will go up, possibly offsetting purchasing power gains of poor people) or if inequality is more a result of the lost of middle class jobs to other countries and/or immigration of lower skilled people.
@TheMiddleWay Shareholders? In today's economy and especially the Wall Street shareholders are not investors but gamblers who in truth do not give a damn about morals and or "human rights," they are gamblers betting on next weeks stock prices. This canard about shareholders demanding anything but a rising stock price is pure bull put out by the liberal media and think tanks to force through their social agenda which is, by the way, Agenda 2030, which was Agenda 21, which was before that whatever. So, all in all, this is all propaganda for the cause of a New World Order. Whoops, damn it, I gave myself away; just another conspiracy nuts what I is. LOL
Is that how it went with Hong Kong? Family plays into it. I read about Ben and Jerry's, almost went under by Pillsbury. They put a little please help circle and phone number to an explanation. The SON of Pillsbury became upset his family would do that, waited until Christmas dinner, complained, they reversed.
Taking over is unhealthy in the long run.
Letting companies manage is healthy.
Greed prevents.
At all levels.
2FollowHim
Level 8
Oct 5, 2020
1
Slug Admin I guess: Just how much more obvious does Socialism have to make itself? Do they have to see Uncle Joe or Castro at the helm to recognize it as the Socialism it is? 1914wizard OUT PS. Great Post!
1914wizard
Level 8
Oct 4, 2020
0
Well, there is a Joe running for POTUS - he's probably someone's uncle, and his party has two Castros and several self-described socialists!
I admit that my post makes the assumption that the board members would be aligned with the goals of organizations that frame society as a system of oppression... with the only remedy to enact Socialism to redistribute money and power. It could be media bias, but it seems that the most educated minorities tend to get involved with racial activism.
This would be an obvious occurance of Gov't taking over means of production.
iThink
Level 9
Oct 4, 2020
0
Well... if the appointees are coordinated by a group... perhaps like BLM?
@Admin there should be NOBODY in a boardroom who is NOT an official employee/manager of any particular company. Gov't dictating such an idea reeks of Communism.
You do know that Soviet Russia was like that. Literally every company/manufacturing or service oriented as saddled with resident Political officers? It was their job to watch and listen and to ensure that company officers followed all required Gov't protocols.
This is textbook Communist rule.
Yes, a hallmark of fascism.
Old fashion fascism . Hitler was right. Big corporations threaten government
FrozenSoul
Level 7
Oct 4, 2020
1
I assume that Hitler would probably want to have someone on corporate boards... but I don't know if he did that in the 1930s.
@Darwin..... You are Funny! Do you stand on your head, when you are thinking up your answers?
@iThink
Yes he was socialist but he hated communist. But modern day, people think socialism and communism as one in the same.
@SocialDarwin Hitler did NOT hate communism - he hated Jews and he looked down his nose at the Russians. Not the same thing as hating communism.
BTW "Communism" is the proverbial utopian goal of "Socialism". Socialism is the path that leads to utopian Communism..."from each according to his ability to each according to his needs"
Get it?
Recent Visitors 81
Photos 127 More
Posted by Admin Does teaching "white guilt" also cultivate a "white pride" backlash?
Posted by Admin Is it time to take a knee on the Superbowl?
Posted by Admin Why not equality right now?
Posted by Admin How's Biden doing?
Posted by Admin How many good friends do you have from other political tribes?
Posted by Admin What did Trump do, if anything, to incite violence?
Posted by Admin Is free speech dead?
Posted by Admin Is free speech dead?
Posted by Admin Is free speech dead?
Posted by Admin Under what time and circumstance is the use of violence warranted?
Posted by Admin Now what?
Posted by Admin What do you expect to be achieved by this week's pro-Trump DC rally?
Posted by Admin What did you learn in 2020?
Posted by Admin Should pedophiles be allowed to have "child" sex robots?
Posted by Admin Do you have a "line in the sand" regarding political or social change?
Posted by Admin Should big tech firms hire more Blacks and Hispanics?