It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A Few Questions about Wealth and Large Corporations

page: 3
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: boohoo

Truth is I didn't read your sources, and I doubt many will. You're missing a key point - what you propose removes choice. I support free choice. If I choose to pass my business down to my kids because I don't want my employees hands on that's my decision. If there are consequences to that decision so be it. Either way, I made the decision. If my employees quit, so be it. If they starve, so be it (that's a harsh example). If they stay and complain, so be it. Either way, it's my business that I choose what to do with. If I choose to run it into the ground that's my privilege. I don't believe that working for a company makes one entitled to own a part of it. You're entitled to a wage. An honest days pay for an honest days work, as they say.

This is a bit of a stretch and somewhat on a different plane, but, if I was selling my house and two people offered to buy it it's my choice who I sell to. I don't have to base my decisions regarding my property on what is best for society. If Person A is a single mom who needs a house for her kids, and Person B is a rich guy who wants to rent my house out for profit, it's still my choice who I sell to.

Personally I like with the concept of employee owned businesses and, to a degree, co-ops. However, I will never expect that they become mandatory.

I'll end with this (because there's no sense debating back and forth)...
I respect your opinions and your desires, but I disagree. Further, you need to understand that just because you believe something is right doesn't necessarily mean it is (and same for me, or others). There are just as many facts regarding walmart to point out the positives it creates in the communities, and there's plenty of negative opinions on co-ops, esops, etc.

There are millions - tens of millions - of people in the US that believe things are working just fine. There's not a single system of economics or government on this earth without problems, and this one is no different.

I think it would be in your best interest to reign in your temper, control your wild accusations, and take a look at things on a bigger picture. What may be good for you personally may be something that 1000 people around you dislike. Remember that for every fact there is a contradicting fact, and for every opinion there is a dissenting one. Above all, people should be free to choose. My question is about wealth - I believe that people should be free to build wealth as high as they want.




posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 06:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: stolencar18
Above all, people should be free to choose. My question is about wealth - I believe that people should be free to build wealth as high as they want.


Perhaps you are not a Fascist, but you most certainly are a Reactionary, whom is a supporter of 2nd world economic structures. What you call "free choice", I define as Neo-feudalism, per your statement: I don't believe that working for a company makes one entitled to own a part of it. I find position this mind-boggling because I very clearly stated that employees should be BUYING SHARES, not receiving a handout of FREE shares. Who in their right mind would oppose ways to maintain local employment and tax revenues in communities across the nation, through the expansion of ESOP/Co-op companies? Especially considering what the country has gone through in the last 10 years? You are basically saying that you are OK with everything that has been done in that period by Wallstreet, Fannie May, Walmart, etc.

What other Reactionaries like yourself don't seem to realize is that your beliefs only STRENGTHENS Fascist fiscal policy. Your kind will only regret that support when the real consequences of Fascist victory comes knocking on your door.
edit on 24-6-2015 by boohoo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 07:00 PM
link   
I like the directness of your questions, and am surprised that nobody has just given you a direct answer. So here goes my opinion.


originally posted by: stolencar18
1. What is an acceptable level of richness? Please explain your answer.
2. What is an acceptable level of profits for a large corporation?
3. At what point do I cross from "a good hearted local businessman providing jobs in my community" to something you view as greedy, selfish, etc?
4. At what point do you think you or others are entitled to the profits my business earns?
5. Please indicate why you feel that those conditions are appropriate.


Answer 1: I think $50 million is an acceptable maximum amount of personal wealth. Because -- it seems like more than enough to live comfortably, but not enough to corrupt your soul too much.

Answer 2: I think a corporation should have 0% income after expenses. Really, all corporations should be Not For Profit. That model has been proven to work. Rather than make obscene profits, corporations should give their consumers and employees a break.

Answer 3: You cross the line when you have personal wealth of $50 million accrued. From that point on, you are just corrupting your soul to obtain more wealth (See items 1 and 2 above.)

Answer 4: After $50 million, you should return all the money above that back to the state, i.e. have 100% tax rate.

Answer 5: My conditions above are appropriate because: hey -- it -- is -- just -- money guys. Just -- money. How much money do you actually need? Are you telling me $50 MILLION dollars is not enough? You need MORE THAN THAT?

I think most of you will (at least) defend my right to my opinions, even those who disagree with my answers. But the percentage of people who will belittle and insult my answers will be way more than those that will actually make $50 million during the course of their lives -- it is statistically unlikely that even one person on this thread will achieve that. If you think you have a good shot at making $50 million, you are most likely dreaming, but good luck to you.



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 11:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Axial Leader
I think most of you will (at least) defend my right to my opinions, even those who disagree with my answers. But the percentage of people who will belittle and insult my answers will be way more than those that will actually make $50 million during the course of their lives -- it is statistically unlikely that even one person on this thread will achieve that. If you think you have a good shot at making $50 million, you are most likely dreaming, but good luck to you.


I pointed out much the same and got blasted. The undeniable truth is that large portions of the USA populace cannot and are unwilling to be swayed at this juncture because they prefer "having the legal option to form dynasties" based on inherited wealth, even though NONE of them will EVER acquire enough wealth to take advantage of such a legal situation. Adopting sustainable economics polices and business strategies is, quite simply, impossible for this culture and its entrenched business climate.

In my posts I said that employees should be allowed to BUY SHARES in the companies they work for, not receiving a handout of FREE shares, that they should be paid enough to NOT qualify for public assistance, NOT specifically getting a minimum wage, so that wages and tax revenues would stay local and people here lost their minds, touting "free choice" as the main reason.

This nation is nothing more than a 2nd world, fascist stronghold run on Neo-feudalistic principles.
edit on 25-6-2015 by boohoo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: boohoo
Yeah -- it is a touchy subject, Boo -- very touchy. And frankly I don't quite understand the attitude that a lot of people here are representing.

For example, if you have a neighbor that plays music loud and I mean REALLY REALLY LOUD all the time -- you can't sleep, you are beginning to wither under the constant noise. Your children are getting sick. Your marriage is falling apart. You are messing up at work because of the lack of sleep, and you are going to be fired. Your life is a nightmare.

In that case -- do you have a right to ask your neighbor to turn it down a little?

Can you demand that? Because -- your neighbor being purely selfish beyond anything reasonable?

Or should you just SUFFER? Because -- after all -- the neighbor has a right to play his music as loud as he wants? Who are you to complain? The fact that you are suffering is YOUR problem -- not his!

Attitude. Substitute "loud music" above for "excessive wealth". And someone thinks this analogy is a stretch, then they aren't aware of true poverty in this world.

Neo-feudalistic fascism. I get the picture. It is pretty grim.



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 04:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Axial Leader
Because -- after all -- the neighbor has a right to play his music as loud as he wants? Who are you to complain? The fact that you are suffering is YOUR problem -- not his!

Attitude. Substitute "loud music" above for "excessive wealth". And someone thinks this analogy is a stretch, then they aren't aware of true poverty in this world.

Neo-feudalistic fascism. I get the picture. It is pretty grim.


Exactly, who in their right mind would oppose ways to maintain local employment and tax revenues in communities across the nation, through the expansion of ESOP/Co-op companies? Especially considering what the country has gone through in the last 10 years? I was strictly talking about the financial aspects of how the "owners of capital" have stolen from the average taxpayer, with TOTAL disregard for the "collateral damage

These supporters of "free choice" are basically saying that they are OK with everything that has been done in that period by Wallstreet, Fannie May, Walmart, etc. They also said they wouldn't bother reading ANY of the sources I posted, showing the economic benefits of ESOP/Co-op companies. I also pointed out that Walmart employs 2.2 million people whom collect over $6 Billion in public assistance per year. I asked, who was responsible for this number of people on public assistance? Was it the local government, federal government, Walmart leadership, the employees themselves? In 2013,the Walton family's net worth was $144.7 billion, so, why can't they pay back the government the $6 billion that their employees took from taxpayers OR simply pay their employees enough so they no longer qualify for public assistance? What we have in the United States DOES NOT WORK, if it was working, 2.2 million Walmart Employees wouldn't need $6 Billion in public assistance per year.

Again, we are talking about Robber Barron's here, who's actions are on par with those whom supported the Italian Fascist economy of 1922-1943. People like stolencar18 and CIAGypsy further illustrate how there is no hope for Americans at this stage because too many REACTIONARIES in America are vying for positions of power or think they are already in positions of power. They have FULLY bought into an illusion and sadly these folks are too far gone to reason with at this stage. There is no going back for them, so must be written off as the ENEMY.

Only a sympathizer of Fascist Economic Policy would support the following:



EVEN GERMAN CEO'S DISLIKE AMERICAN BIG BUSINESS!!!

It must not be forgotten that we are a former "slave owning nation" that fought "tooth and nail" to maintain the legal right to own slaves (also the USA turned indentured servants, whom by contract, were set to be released in 7 years, into indefinite slaves through legal loopholes as well).

So, I ask, can we REALLY expect responsible business leadership from a nation that was formed on these values?
edit on 25-6-2015 by boohoo because: (no reason given)




top topics
 
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join