Friday, August 17, 2018

Elizabeth Warren-- Saving Capitalism From... Itself, Of Course

>


Recently a guy who's writing a book about the years when Mo Ostin ran Warner Bros Records-- the glory years-- interviewed me and asked me why everyone respects and admires Mo so much and how it differed from other executives who ran other record companies. I had some experience at SONY (then CBS Records) and with post-Mo Warners chieftains. My perspective was fairly simple. Mo instilled in his vice presidents a sense of obligation to stakeholders-- our artists, our customers, our employees, our shareholders, the art itself that we were releasing, our society-- that had to be foremost in our minds. It was so much like what my grandfather, a small businessman, had taught me decades earlier that I was floored. Both also implied that by fulfilling obligations to and responsibility for this stakeholders, my own situation would be satisfactory to my own ambitions.

I never felt anything at CBS remotely like that. It was a dog-eat-dog world based on greed and selfishness. it was ugly and i couldn't wait to get out. After AOL "bought" Warner Bros, the first meet with senior staff with Steve Case, our new leader, was catastrophic. As we were walking out I told my boss that I had decided while he was speaking to leave the company. (He had too.) Case told us that all this bowing and scraping to the artists and the employees and the customers, etc was O.V.E.R. and that going forward it was all about US. We're all going to be RICH, he shouted, like some kind of cheap motivational counsellor. But everyone was rich and every was rich because we built a better company.

Let me give you an example, the same one I gave the writer who interviewed me. No one ever wanted to leave Warner Bros, unlike the constant movement between the other music companies. One of the reasons was our posture towards insurance. If the insurance industry came up with something new that would benefit our employees, we would also jump right on it-- like parental leave, for example. Case sneered at the idea. If the law called on the company spending $10 towards health insurance, we would spend $10, not $11, let alone $25. I was a dark, mean little world on the horizon. Today Warners has around a quarter of the employees, few hits and is, basically, a money laundering operation for a Russian oligarch, Leonid Blavatnik, who reports to Putin and has been a funnel for funds to Trump. Warner Bros... once the single biggest source of contributions to the Democratic Party and to socially progressive initiatives!

On Wednesday, Elizabeth Warren introduced legislation, the Accountable Capitalism Act, that seems to be trying to codify-- at least in part-- Mo's ideas about how to run a company. She described it as an effort "to help eliminate skewed market incentives and return to the era when American corporations and American workers did well together. The legislation aims to reverse the harmful trends over the last thirty years that have led to record corporate profits and rising worker productivity but stagnant wages." Take that, CBS!
For most of our country's history, American corporations balanced their responsibilities to all of their stakeholders - employees, shareholders, communities-- in corporate decisions. It worked: profits went up, productivity went up, wages went up, and America built a thriving middle class.

But in the 1980s a new idea quickly took hold: American corporations should focus only on maximizing returns to their shareholders. That had a seismic impact on the American economy. In the early 1980s, America's biggest companies dedicated less than half of their profits to shareholders and reinvested the rest in the company. But over the last decade, big American companies have dedicated 93% of earnings to shareholders-- redirecting trillions of dollars that could have gone to workers or long-term investments. The result is that booming corporate profits and rising worker productivity have not led to rising wages.

Additionally, because the wealthiest top 10% of American households own 84% of all American-- held shares-while more than 50% of American households own no stock at all-- the dedication to "maximizing shareholder value" means that the multi-trillion dollar American corporate system is focused explicitly on making the richest Americans even richer.

"There's a fundamental problem with our economy. For decades, American workers have helped create record corporate profits but have seen their wages hardly budge. To fix this problem we need to end the harmful corporate obsession with maximizing shareholder returns at all costs, which has sucked trillions of dollars away from workers and necessary long-term investments," said Senator Warren. "My bill will help the American economy return to the era when American companies and American workers did well together."

Since the passage of the Republican tax bill, American companies have already announced more than half a trillion dollars in stock buybacks this year while real wages remain flat. There is an urgent need to end the grip of shareholder value maximization and return to the era when American corporations produced broad-based growth that helped workers and shareholders alike. The Accountable Capitalism Act:

• Requires very large American corporations to obtain a federal charter as a "United States corporation," which obligates company directors to consider the interests of all corporate stakeholders: American corporations with more than $1 billion in annual revenue must obtain a federal charter from a newly formed Office of United States Corporations at the Department of Commerce. The new federal charter obligates company directors to consider the interests of all corporate stakeholders-- including employees, customers, shareholders, and the communities in which the company operates. This approach is derived from the thriving benefit corporation model that 33 states and the District of Columbia have adopted and that companies like Patagonia, Danone North America, and Kickstarter have embraced with strong results.

• Empowers workers at United States corporations to elect at least 40% of Board members: Borrowing from the successful approach in Germany and other developed economies, a United States corporation must ensure that no fewer than 40% of its directors are selected by the corporation's employees.

• Restricts the sales of company shares by the directors and officers of United States corporations: Top corporate executives are now compensated mostly in company equity, which gives them huge financial incentives to focus exclusively on shareholder returns. To ensure that they are focused on the long-term interests of all corporate stakeholders, the bill prohibits directors and officers of United States corporations from selling company shares within five years of receiving them or within three years of a company stock buyback.

• Prohibits United States corporations from making any political expenditures without the approval of 75% of its directors and shareholders: Drawing on a proposal from John Bogle, the founder of the investment company Vanguard, United States corporations must receive the approval of at least 75% of their shareholders and 75% of their directors before engaging in political expenditures. This ensures any political expenditures benefit all corporate stakeholders.

• Permits the federal government to revoke the charter of a United States corporation if the company has engaged in repeated and egregious illegal conduct: State Attorneys General are authorized to submit petitions to the Office of United States Corporations to revoke a United States corporation's charter. If the Director of the Office finds that the corporation has a history of egregious and repeated illegal conduct and has failed to take meaningful steps to address its problems, she may grant the petition. The company's charter would then be revoked a year later-- giving the company time before its charter is revoked to make the case to Congress that it should retain its charter in the same or in a modified form.
Did I mention that during the Mo years, Warner Bros was the most successful and profitable music company in history?


Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, August 26, 2009

Jim Cramer Tells His Audience That Investing In Glenn Beck's Sinking Ship Is A Great Idea

>


If Glenn Beck weren't one of the most negative and divisive forces on the American political scene you could almost feel sorry for him. With the latest batch of 16 advertisers pledging to stop underwriting his hate-filled, anti-American propaganda, there are now 3 dozen former advertisers who have told Fox News that they're fed up with the unbalanced hatred and racism. Among the companies who have joined the boycott of Glenn Beck's dementia are AT&T, Campbell Soup, Clorox, FreeCreditReport.com, Johnson & Johnson, Verizon, Farmers Insurance, Lowe's, Sprint, UPS. They all agree with ColorOfChange that Beck's offensive racism is over the line.

Interestingly, Lowe's has gone a bit further, much to their credit. In an e-mail to ColorOfChange, Meliski Cox, a spokesperson for Lowe’s wrote, “While we will continue to advertise on news programming, including FOX News, there are certain programs on the FOX Network that do not meet Lowe's advertising guidelines, including The O’Reilly Factor and Glenn Beck Program." The spokesman for Clorox was also very clear that his company is finished with Beck's repulsive approach:
“Per our advertising standards, we don't advertise in programs that display exploitive sex or violence, treat ethnic, religious, or political groups in a disparaging manner, present facts inaccurately or distort them to blatantly partisan advantage, and treat individuals or groups in a demeaning manner,” said Adam Oberweiser, a spokesperson for Clorox, in a phone message to a ColorOfChange.org member. “We have had limited advertisements on the Glenn Beck Program in the past, however the statements he made during that show would not adhere to our programming standards. Furthermore, we will not be advertising on his program in the future since he did violate our own advertising standards.”

Meanwhile, on Monday Jim Cramer was defending Beck, calling him a nice guy. I'm sure Blondi thought her master was nice too-- until he had his doctor, Werner Haase, test a cyanide capsule on her (and ordered her dog handler to shoot her 5 pups in the bunker). Listen to Mr. Suave calling the vicious racist and violence inciter "a nice guy" and insuring investors that Fox News' parent company is still a great buy because the advertisers will all come back in the end. Following Jim Cramer's investment advice is the surest route to the poor house anyone has ever devised.




UPDATE: Palin Solidifies Her Losers Club Bonds

Quitter Sarah Palin is urging Glenn Beck, who is under pressure by the defection of a rapidly growing list of three dozen advertsiers. to hang in there. She hasn't started tweeting yet but she's been playing aound on Facebook:
"FOX News' Glenn Beck is doing an extraordinary job this week walking America behind the scenes of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and outlining who is actually running the White House.

"Monday night he asked us to invite one friend to watch; tonight I invite all my friends to watch."

Palin is referring to Beck's attack this week on the background of Van Jones, who the Los Angeles Times describes as "a White House environmental advisor and co-founder of an African American political advocacy group that organized an advertising boycott of his program."

Labels: , , , ,

Friday, March 27, 2009

America's Unsexiest Men

>

3 very ugly, very white men they missed this year: Evan, Joe & Ben

Have you noticed how almost every story about Indiana reactionary Senator Evan Bayh mentions he's "handsome?" Even apart from his ugly politics, he isn't handsome. He's kind of ugly in fact, unless being "white bread" means the same as "handsome." I've never seen a picture of Bayh that looked vaguely attractive. But every Inside-the-Beltway pundit writing about him always describes him as handsome, as though it were part of his title. Maybe it's just because of the rest of what inhabits their world. Moving outside-the-Beltway, this week's Boston Phoenix named the 100 Unsexiest Men in America; obviously, Rush Limbaugh topped the list. George W. Bush was #91. In between... take a look; you've got everyone from Bernie Madoff, Joe the Plumber, Rod Blagojevic, John Edwards, Bobby Jindal, Michael Steele, Dick Cheney, McCain, and the guy who does the FreeCreditReport.com TV ads to Brett Michaels, Lil Wayne, Tweety, Warren Jeffs, Kid Rock and the fabulous duo, John Boehner & Eric Cantor. ("You would think a guy with ears as big as Cantor’s would see the irony in crusading against earmarks. And you’d also think that a guy whose name could reasonably be mispronounced 'boner' would avoid being such a dick. Then again, these are privileged white men who call themselves the 'minority.'”) There's no accounting for taste but how the hell did they miss Miss McConnell and Lindsey Graham? Unless, of course there's a follow-up edition for the 100 Unsexiest Women.

"To the masses, unsexiness is defined in superficial ways-- pores big enough to drive Hummers through, and hair that grows like kudzu in unwanted places, and unexplained protuberances. Think Danny Bonaduce or Carrot Top (or virtually any man you can think of with red hair). To the faceless myrmidons here at Phoenix Unsexy Headquarters, however, unsexiness is an altogether different quality, defined instead by gypping jillions out of charities or punching your girlfriend or yelling at your cinematographer."

"Our annual survey of the year’s Unsexiest Men is a corrective to this sort of deplorable behavior. Assembled by a watchful team with a low tolerance for hypocrisy, wastefulness, and unfunny comedians, our list holds men accountable for their rampantly unsexy ways. Consider this list a compendium of social subpoenae from the High Court of Sexiness."

Special mention goes to poor Jim Cramer, the 7th unsexiest man in America: "CNBC’s Jim Cramer is the Jenna Jameson of financial reporting: the more the economy took it in the rear, the louder his screams of ecstasy became. We had this loudmouthed, prop-wielding financial Gallagher on our list a full year before he got pwned by Jon Stewart-- but in 2009, Cramer wins our most-devolved award, streaking up the list from his 91st-place showing in 2008 to now land inside the top 10. How’d we figure it? Simple calculation: we moved him up a spot every time the market went down like a porn star-- and added bonuses every time he whimpered 'I should’ve done better.'”

Labels: , , , ,

Thursday, March 12, 2009

John Stewart Eviscerates Jim Cramer And TV Business Shows-- Historical Television

>


Tonight John Stewart, a comedian, did more to uncover the complicity of corporate television in the grand theft of as much as one-fifth of the wealth of this country's inhabitants than anyone-- more than anyone Inside the Beltway, more than any Wall Street watchdogs, and more than any media watchdogs. I'd like to see every bankster in the country forced to appear with him for an hour. Let's hope Barney Frank, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi were watching. Yesterday, Cramer was preparing himself for the slaughter he was too lame to avoid. Tonight he came off like a beaten dog. Comedy Central caught a predator tough guy who crumbled and couldn't stand up for himself. If you think Stewart's been tough on Cramer and MSNBC before tonight... forget it! Watch it over at Crooks and Liars.

And tomorrow we'll post the entire interview including the 8 minutes Comedy Central cut.

OK, it's tomorrow. Here it is:





Labels: , ,