The End of Capitalism?

[HopAlongBunny]

Might this proposal be the beginning of the end of capitalism?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23306086

Making directors liable; won't this kill innovation? crush risk-taking? be the end of creativity?
Isn't it already true that where fraud of criminality is involved people may be held to account; unnecessary and heavy handed at best.

[Kadagar_AV]

I always liked how Japanese directors that fail just go kill themselves.

[Greyblades]

Would it be the end of capitalism? No, will it be claimed by the media run by those same directors? Yes. will people believe it and resist this tooth and nail without really understanding it? Considering some of the people out there who make such decisions think capitalism and socialism are mutually exclusive, I would not be surprised.

Oh, look at that, I'm getting opinionated again, probably should stop caring for the sake of my sanity.

[Fisherking]

So, he wants government regulators to decide who is good and who is bad?

Oh yes, that should solve the problem.

This is just a continuation of the phony too big to fail.

Can’t we criminalize government functionaries proposing stupid laws?

[Greyblades]

So, he wants government regulators to decide who is good and who is bad?

Oh yes, that should solve the problem.

This is just a continuation of the phony too big to fail.

Can’t we criminalize government functionaries proposing stupid laws?

So what's the alternative? Self regulation has a habit of not working and is open for exploitation (more so at least), and no regulation leaves us with the problems that needed regulation in the first place.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So, he wants government regulators to decide who is good and who is bad?

Oh yes, that should solve the problem.

This is just a continuation of the phony too big to fail.

Can’t we criminalize government functionaries proposing stupid laws?

No - it's the opposite of "too big to fail" - if you fail - it's your fault.

Not a terrible idea - but they should be held criminally responsible for the collapse of their companies, not financially responsible.

[Beskar]

Upper Management is a case of "Meant to get paid tons of money for more responsibility. Doesn't have any responsibility as there is always an intern at fault."

[Lemur]

It's no secret that the relationship between C-level executives and their boards of directors is (often) broken beyond repair, leading to insane distortions in pay and benefits.

For decades people have been saying that the answer is shareholder activism.

Personally, I have no idea. The mechanisms of self-regulation at the top of the corporate org structure are not working. Shareholders, for whatever reason, aren't doing the activism thing.

How we apply a fix without making things worse ... I have no idea. I think this is the sort of thing where you would want to talk to some people who've been studying economics and corporate structure for their entire lives, and get their suggestions.

[Fisherking]

I think Lemur is right.

Just more government regulation will not stop abuse. In the S&L scandal people were prosecuted. In the Too Big to Fail they could have been and should have been except government made a decision not to.

It was all a smoke and mirrors sham, so far as I am concerned. We guaranteed their debts and pay interest to them on our money. What a great deal we got! It is just fraud to me.

[HoreTore]

No - it's the opposite of "too big to fail" - if you fail - it's your fault.

Not a terrible idea - but they should be held criminally responsible for the collapse of their companies, not financially responsible.

I disagree - incompetence should hurt your wallet, not your freedom. Unless you also commit fraud or whatever in addition, of course.

Anyway, I thought a key concept in capitalism is the direct relation between property and person, arguing that a person will only take proper care of their own personal property, as they will be motivated not to destroy it(and thus hurting themselves).

How can this proposal then be the "end of capitalism"...? Unless you subscribe to the idea that capitalism simply means "let the rich rule the world unopposed, and everyone else an bugger off", this should be right up capitalisms alley.

[Rhyfelwyr]

State/judicial involvement in the the leadership of large companies? Sounds more like an extension of the current corporatist trends than anything else.

[Lemur]

State/judicial involvement in the the leadership of large companies?

The corporation (and the partial-to-complete severing of liability from ownership) is itself a construct of "state/judicial involvement." It's just been around a long time. Four hundred years or so.

The legal structure has been tweaked many, many times.

The failure of shareholders and boards to restrain executive compensation is a relatively new phenomenon.

[a completely inoffensive name]

As long as there is money to be made, capitalism will exist. Only when the concept of money itself becomes obsolete will capitalism cease to exist. I personally cannot wait until our Star Trek economy arrives.

[Papewaio]

It will show up around the same time as D-D fusion is figured out...

[Rhyfelwyr]

The corporation (and the partial-to-complete severing of liability from ownership) is itself a construct of "state/judicial involvement." It's just been around a long time. Four hundred years or so.

The legal structure has been tweaked many, many times.

The failure of shareholders and boards to restrain executive compensation is a relatively new phenomenon.

Of course, like I said it is an extension of existing trends (I exclude your last sentence when saying this - I can't say why that phenomena has occured). Although Cable's proposals are somewhat novel in that he is suggesting the creation of a legally institutionalised link that will be automatically applied to all UK companies, as opposed to only intervening in particular circumstances as with the East India Company and more recent bailouts.

Whether or not it will prove to be a good idea is hard to say. The danger is that it just leads to more corruption if companies lobby to make sure they don't get any bother from the government and end up getting guys that are sympathetic/on their paycheck to oversee them.

It would be better to try to dismantle or at least cripple the large corporations, rather than tame them when they continue to have the economic sway that they currently have.

As long as there is money to be made, capitalism will exist. Only when the concept of money itself becomes obsolete will capitalism cease to exist. I personally cannot wait until our Star Trek economy arrives.

Surely that depends on what you mean by capitalism? The exchange of goods and money for the sake of mutual material gain is the natural driving force behind economic transactions between individuals, and as such will always exist so long as it is not suppressed by external means. The economic system that prevails in the West today is something else entirely, and seems to me to be artificially propped up by a whole host of factors, and so I suspect that money will exist long after it is gone, just as money long preceeded it.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Surely that depends on what you mean by capitalism? The exchange of goods and money for the sake of mutual material gain is the natural driving force behind economic transactions between individuals, and as such will always exist so long as it is not suppressed by external means. The economic system that prevails in the West today is something else entirely, and seems to me to be artificially propped up by a whole host of factors, and so I suspect that money will exist long after it is gone, just as money long preceeded it.

By capitalism I mean the current system of having private enterprises and individuals directing resources to obtain a product or service of greater value than the value of the original resources used. Once all manufacturing and service jobs are mechanized and computerized and automated 100% from harvesting/mining to finished product we will have accomplished the greatest sci-fi invention in the Star Trek universe, the replicator. It won't be as efficient or speedy as in TNG, but it will be the same in principle.

[HopAlongBunny]

I could be wrong, but my understanding is that liability stops at the boundary of the assets.
This seems to extend that boundary; in effect the limited company and its agents can have liabilities/responsibilities greater than its assets.
In cases of criminal intent/fraud, redress can already break those boundaries; although it requires more work and can be countered with bankruptcy; so is this measure just hot-air being blown around to sound like something, which will amount to nothing, or is there something new in it?