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.

 

Elizabeth Warren’s Batty Plan to Nationalize . . . Everything

page: 11
28
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2018 @ 06:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Gyo01

Exactly. What this does is prevent business owners form effective capitalization. If I have a business and it reaches that threshold, then the voting value of every share of stock I own is now 60% of what it once was. To maintain ownership of my company I have to now hold 83.4% of the stock to retain ownership instead of 50%. That leaves me a mere 16.6% instead of 50%-1 to sell.

It's an opening to a hostile takeover of a corporation by employees big enough to drive a semi truck through... sideways.

TheRedneck




posted on Aug, 19 2018 @ 06:08 PM
link   
This plan sounds very familiar. In fact many of these ideas were tried. You keep giving companies to the workers e eventually no ones left to pay the bills.


edit on 8/19/18 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2018 @ 06:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: WhateverYouSay
a reply to: TheRedneck

Ok...how is that relevant to the topic? Please be specific and talk about her actual plan. Not about someone's hyperbolic generalization


The general attitude prevalent among many these days is that if you are rich ( and that mainly just means if you have more than someone else -> the person complaining about "the rich"), you did not earn that fairly. Plainly put, if you have more than they do, it isn't because you worked hard and did everything you were supposed including making smart decisions, it's because you kept others down.

This is because people have been taught that wealth and riches are a zero sum game and that there is only so much in the world. So, if I have more than you, I stole that extra from you and others unfairly, and I'm being greedy in having more than my fair share of the world's finite pie.

This is stupid.

I'll explain why.

If I go and get a tomato seed and spend time growing a tomato plant that produces lots of tomatoes. Those tomatoes have real, tangible value. They are a form of wealth. I could conceivably sell them for money or eat them or any of a variety of things. Other people will want them. They are, in short, a part of that worldly wealth pie.

According to the zero sum idea, if I have tomatoes I grew myself out of a seed that you don't have, then I stole them from you and I should be forced to give you an equal share of my tomatoes whether you did anything to help me grow them or not ... whether or not you even knew I was putting forth effort to grow a tomato plant ... whether or not you even *want* my tomatoes (you might hate them, but as they have value, you ought to at least receive the equivalent to their worth, right?).

Thing is that if I had not gone to the time, effort, and trouble to take that tiny seed and grow the plant, tend it, and see that it produced tomatoes, there wouldn't have been any ... no wealth.

And everything of worth, minus certain natural resources maybe, is like this and even those have to be pulled out of the ground and refined, so lots of time and effort still has to go into making those worth anything.

So maybe ... just maybe ... not all of what is produced is stolen. Maybe not all of wealth is zero sum. Maybe the paradigms you've been taught aren't exactly as you believe them to be.



posted on Aug, 19 2018 @ 09:51 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Starting a company from an idea is not the same as understanding the company you work for and having a say regarding the direction of the company. I did not contradict myself.

This debate is interesting. If the government is something to be run like a business then most of you would have to agree with the elitists. Most of you are arguing against the common man's right to represent himself.

Welcome to your elitists oligarchy. You support the same ideas that have lead our government down a path against the will of the American people. Those at the top believe most of the population is to ignorant to know what's best for them. And most of you agree with their ideology.

Why should democracy exist anywhere if the common man is to ignorant to represent himself in business? How much more ill equipped is he to represent himself in global governance? Be careful what you wish for because you may just get it.

I believe in the common man. I don't believe the owners and wealthy are nearly as smart or superior to the workforce as they believe, and as it appears many of you believe. Although I agree that many in the workforce don't have the aptitude to start and run a business, I don't believe many businesses owners/shareholders have the aptitude to do the day to day jobs their employees do.

It is a partnership not a dictatorship. But if business should be a dictatorship then so should governance. You can't justify seperating these two ideologies without creating a contradiction.

edit on 19-8-2018 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2018 @ 10:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73

Most of us are arguing for our right to represent ourselves and have control over the things we might create and start. The right to enjoy the fruits of our labors.

If you labor for someone else instead of for yourself, then the fruits of your labor are what you and that person agree they are, but the person hiring you holds the most power and rightly so. You don't get to go to the employer and demand they hire you on your terms, not unless you have a very particular, rare, and extremely highly sought after skill set.

Not many of us are Liam Neeson.



posted on Aug, 19 2018 @ 10:30 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Try to bring the idea that you own to market without laborers.

I don't care how unique a skillset may be. The idea is only one part of the equation. And for some reason society has dictated the idea be allowed to have a disproportionate share of the revenue.

The Waltons never become billionaires without the person who works behind the counter. Employers and employees are partners. Anyone who can't see this doesn't deserve any form of democracy in my opinion.

There is nothing new under the sun. Very few people have ever become wealthy bringing a unique idea to the market. The ownership class is just as replaceable as the employees.

As long as you argue for yourself, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Which is the only thing pure capitalism is good at.


edit on 19-8-2018 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2018 @ 10:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73

And if all I am paying you to do is sweep the floors of my shop, try assuming you:

1. know my business and product better than I do and deserve to tell me how to do things

2. because you sweep the floors, you need to be paid equal to me whose ideas and efforts are the reason you have a floor to sweep in this location

I guarantee you that you will not get far. There are a lot of people in the world who can sweep the floor of my shop, and I won't have to put up with the bad advice and the delusions of grandeur out of almost all of them.



posted on Aug, 20 2018 @ 05:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73


Starting a company from an idea is not the same as understanding the company you work for and having a say regarding the direction of the company. I did not contradict myself.

You can tell yourself that all you want; if one cannot start a company, one cannot effectively run a company. That's like saying someone can fly a plane, but they don't need to know how to take off and land to sit the co-pilot's seat.

I noticed you didn't even address the questions I posed... I will assume that means you (like probably 75% of everyone else) don't even know what the terms mean.


This debate is interesting. If the government is something to be run like a business then most of you would have to agree with the elitists. Most of you are arguing against the common man's right to represent himself.

I addressed this earlier, but perhaps you simply missed it.

Firstly, when I say the government should be run "like a business," that is referring to using sound financial principles. It does not refer to the representative aspect. No government in the world produces a product or service for a marketplace, and thus several aspects are simply inconsistent with actual business practices. Not every business is a corporation even; there are also partnerships and sole proprietorships, as well as closed and open corporations (not every corporation allows the public to purchase stock)... in some cases there is so stock and no Board of Directors. But in every case, the business must run on sound economic principles. I suppose I can understand the confusion to some degree because you obviously have no idea how a business works.

Secondly, if Proctor & Gamble is producing a substandard good at high price, I am not required to purchase it. I have a choice economically. I do not have to work there; I can find other companies to work for, or I can even work for myself. I also have that choice. I do not have a choice to pick and choose which government I live under; not everyone has the ability to simply move to another country, and even those who do have to deal with that country's immigration and naturalization process.

Thirdly, even if I desperately need that product that is substandard and expensive, there is nothing preventing me from creating it myself! I have the right to start up a business myself that can do the exact same thing Proctor & Gamble does (which has led to many small businesses starting up). I do not have the right to simply decide that since the United States is screwing up immigration, I am going to establish my own immigration policy for the country.

This is also why I oppose such idiotic laws as Obamacare (which many arguing for stakeholders here also support): When any product or service is mandated by law to be purchased, that company is granted the ability to effectively make law, which deprives me of the economic right to choose whether or not I want to deal with that company or even that industry. In that case, the three reasons I have given above are no longer applicable, and you are right: every single citizen of the United States should be allowed to have some say in how the company is run.

Interestingly enough, the United States was originally set up so voting rights were restricted to landowners, similar to a corporate structure. That didn't go over well, and a second Constitution that addressed that (as well as other issues) was ratified and is still in use today.


I believe in the common man. I don't believe the owners and wealthy are nearly as smart or superior to the workforce as they believe, and as it appears many of you believe. Although I agree that many in the workforce don't have the aptitude to start and run a business, I don't believe many businesses owners/shareholders have the aptitude to do the day to day jobs their employees do.

And I would agree with you to a point. Most CEOs have little idea of the details of every position under them. How could they? How could anyone be an expert at everything? They would be inferior to the guy who does the job. No one here (that I know of) is saying otherwise.

But that also has no bearing on who should run the company. The CEO does not even get to decide, based on his position, who sits on the Board of Directors! The Board of Directors decide who the CEO is! You seem to have that backwards. While it is true that, especially in smaller corporations, the CEO often has a seat on the Board, that is because he is also likely the guy who started the company, and thus owns a large share of stock in a closed corporation. Open, and especially publicly-traded corporations are much less likely to have such an arrangement.

Every employee of a corporation is also not equally responsible for that corporation succeeding or failing. There may be thousands of material handlers at Walmart warehouses, so one of them screwing up is not a big deal in the grand scheme of things... they can be fired and someone else hired, or they can be chewed out and hopefully further incidents avoided. But there is only one CEO, by definition. If the CEO screws up, it affects the whole company. Thus, the CEO must be particularly good at being a CEO to not bankrupt the company, while a material handler is not going to bankrupt anyone. A good CEO is therefore simply worth more than a material handler. As the number of people underneath him increases and the amount of money that is being made increases, the value of that CEO increases.

That's why we have seen a rise in the relative compensation of CEOs concurrent with the expansion of companies to global status: the number of employees and the value of the companies have increased, probably beyond the increase in CEO salaries. The '10x' idea has been floated, but that would really only be reasonable where there were maybe 100 employees and the value of the company was 100 times the compensation of the CEO.


You can't justify seperating these two ideologies without creating a contradiction.

I think I just did.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 20 2018 @ 06:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You missed my point. The system describe in the OP is utterly without basis. It has no proven metrics for success, and it is a shot in the dark with potentially company / economy killing effects, much like you see in Venezuela etc...I work at an executive level, it is not easy to turn a large ship...the 3 P's need practiced at all times People, Planning and Programs, SMART: Specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time bound.

Well sometimes you have to try new things. You can't know it will fail it you've never tried it before, and nothing will ever get better if things stay the same.



posted on Aug, 20 2018 @ 06:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: neo96

What's idiotic about it?
Having a bunch of employees making collective decisions about the financial directions of corporations ? Try that in your own household. Imagine your kids deciding whether to get toys or pay the electric bill..🎃

It's hard to imagine line workers at a company having the collective opinion of 1 or 2 children in a household. In fact, I think that comparison is rather insulting to people who aren't corporate executives.



posted on Aug, 20 2018 @ 06:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I thought it was a generous comparison. Kids in a household do care about the household, they just don't understand the bills. In my experience, most employees don't care one whit about their company, and don't understand jack about how it runs.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 20 2018 @ 07:33 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Yeah no. Scientifically, kids do not have the mental processing power of an adult. A child can never understand the finer details of the responsibilities of taking care of a family. A worker of a company, as a fully grown adult, merely has to exert effort to understand the direction the company wants to head in.

Comparing a line worker to a child is basically saying a line worker is an idiot who could never understand the finer details of running a company. That is insulting, imo.
edit on 20-8-2018 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2018 @ 07:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

While you do have a point about mental capacity being more developed in adults, this line shows my position:

A worker of a company, as a fully grown adult, merely has to exert effort to understand the direction the company wants to head in.

That assumes said worker cares to put forth the effort. In my experience, precious few would put out the effort to stick their head in a bucket of water if it caught on fire.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 20 2018 @ 07:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: toysforadults

That's what I'm saying. It sounds like a really good idea and could potentially go a long way to helping the ongoing wage stagnation our country is experiencing. IF implemented properly. Big if there I guess.



Therein lies the problem. Socialism and Communism and their ideas all sound GREAT on paper. I'm sure even my conservative brothers understand that in a "perfect world" of course we'd all follow the socialism and communist ways.

The problem for myself and the vast majority of my fellow Americans, is we live in reality. IN reality people are flawed and easily corrupted people. It's the reason Communism and Socialism has failed EVERY SINGLE TIME it's been tried through out the world. They always come back and say "well if someone else was running it" but sorry no Reality gets them every time.

Capitalism is great because it doesn't demand that people be pure, it doesn't demand that people be uncorrupted. It works regardless because it USES our human nature. It uses every individual American working for their own individual needs and desires and makes it better not worse. Capitalism, yes it often times may seem selfish, but the beauty is that it doesn't just reward that individual, like a rising tide, all boats are lifted.

edit on 8/20/2018 by PsychoEmperor because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2018 @ 07:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You missed my point. The system describe in the OP is utterly without basis. It has no proven metrics for success, and it is a shot in the dark with potentially company / economy killing effects, much like you see in Venezuela etc...I work at an executive level, it is not easy to turn a large ship...the 3 P's need practiced at all times People, Planning and Programs, SMART: Specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time bound.

Well sometimes you have to try new things. You can't know it will fail it you've never tried it before, and nothing will ever get better if things stay the same.


The problem with that is when we "try new things" via legislation, it's next to impossible to get rid of when it doesn't work. I doubt very many people would think Obamacare is working out well, but now that it's law, we can't seem to scrap it to get something that might work.

And even the lesser argument of "fixing" legislative abortions once they've been passed seldom works either. Often the cures end up as bad as or worse than the disease.



posted on Aug, 20 2018 @ 07:57 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Unions used to be very successful at organizing worker interest. Yet we've demonized and stripped them of their powers over and over again. I really don't think that questions of motivation are really a good reason to not implement a policy. Workers were successfully engaged in their place of employment before. I don't see why we can't get them engaged again.
edit on 20-8-2018 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2018 @ 08:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You missed my point. The system describe in the OP is utterly without basis. It has no proven metrics for success, and it is a shot in the dark with potentially company / economy killing effects, much like you see in Venezuela etc...I work at an executive level, it is not easy to turn a large ship...the 3 P's need practiced at all times People, Planning and Programs, SMART: Specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time bound.

Well sometimes you have to try new things. You can't know it will fail it you've never tried it before, and nothing will ever get better if things stay the same.




posted on Aug, 20 2018 @ 08:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: PsychoEmperor
The problem for myself and the vast majority of my fellow Americans, is we live in reality. IN reality people are flawed and easily corrupted people. It's the reason Communism and Socialism has failed EVERY SINGLE TIME it's been tried through out the world. They always come back and say "well if someone else was running it" but sorry no Reality gets them every time.

You can repeat this lie til you are blue in the face but there are plenty of examples of countries that have implemented various forms of Socialism successfully.


Capitalism is great because it doesn't demand that people be pure, it doesn't demand that people be uncorrupted. It works regardless because it USES our human nature. It uses every individual American working for their own individual needs and desires and makes it better not worse. Capitalism, yes it often times may seem selfish, but the beauty is that it doesn't just reward that individual, like a rising tide, all boats are lifted.

Capitalism is flawed just like Socialism. Capitalism comes with its own slew of problems such as wealth disparity, consolidation of wealth, economic crashes, and the risk of negligent fiscal responsibility destroying the system.

This is why young people are more and more advocating for a mix of Capitalism and Socialism. Taking the best of both worlds while trying to use one to cover the other's flaws.
edit on 20-8-2018 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2018 @ 08:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You missed my point. The system describe in the OP is utterly without basis. It has no proven metrics for success, and it is a shot in the dark with potentially company / economy killing effects, much like you see in Venezuela etc...I work at an executive level, it is not easy to turn a large ship...the 3 P's need practiced at all times People, Planning and Programs, SMART: Specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time bound.

Well sometimes you have to try new things. You can't know it will fail it you've never tried it before, and nothing will ever get better if things stay the same.


The problem with that is when we "try new things" via legislation, it's next to impossible to get rid of when it doesn't work. I doubt very many people would think Obamacare is working out well, but now that it's law, we can't seem to scrap it to get something that might work.

They can't get rid of Obamacare because it's actually popular right now. For all the effort the right wing propaganda machine demonized the plan (sometimes rightfully so since it is FAR from perfect or even preferable), Obamacare is still turning out to be a reliable government program to provide affordable health insurance for the people in desperate need of it.

Obamacare Hits Highs In Popularity And Profits


And even the lesser argument of "fixing" legislative abortions once they've been passed seldom works either. Often the cures end up as bad as or worse than the disease.

I prefer fixes over breaking everything and starting over.



posted on Aug, 20 2018 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It's less that it is popular and more that the people did not trust the alternative.




top topics



 
28
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join