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: 5
28
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: jjkenobi
So now you want politicians to run campaigns and solicit votes to get "elected" to run a company??

GTFO. Seriously.


Oh come on.

Look at what they've done with the firearm industry for decades.

Totally decimated it.

They're the best people to run business's!




posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: JIMC5499

Actually he was proven right back then.



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I'll pose the same situation I posed to neo. If the QA department of a corporation needs a new director, would asking the QA department to review applications to fill that position be a bad idea?

A very, very bad idea.


Wouldn't they know what the QA department needs being QA and all?

They certainly know what it needs. They also know what would make their jobs easier, QC be damned.

You never ever let the people being monitored pick their own monitor. And, yes, I apply this rule to myself. I am not allowed, by corporate policy, to pick our 3rd party auditors.

Anything less and conflict of interest, collusion, complacency will be even more rampant then they already are.



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 02:24 PM
link   
So in short...

Trump wants to run our democracy like a business? Woo! Genius idea, get that man in office right now!

A Democrat says businesses should be run like our democracy? Boo! Horrible idea, get the house ready!


edit on 8/17/2018 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 02:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: ketsuko

I'll pose the same situation I posed to neo. If the QA department of a corporation needs a new director, would asking the QA department to review applications to fill that position be a bad idea? Wouldn't they know what the QA department needs being QA and all?


Perhaps you asked the wrong person being married to someone who has worked QA/QC for the 20 some years of his career and has been in all levels of that department, including in the hiring/firing seat.

There are people at all levels. Some only see a small part of the process, and some comprehend the whole. What you need in a person who works there depends on the job and the knowledge of the process required to understand it.

The people who work in the department are like the blind men and the elephant with QA/QC being the elephant. Most only see isolated parts: the trunk, the tail, a small patch of skin. Most don't see how the overall process comes together to make the whole elephant. Some have jobs so broken down that they only read lists of simple directions to make test media or sample water or something similar and that's it. They don't know or understand why they are doing those things.

In order to hire a person to work in the department, you need to know what's required of the job and understand why. That necessarily entails that you see the elephant, not just its isolated parts.



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

As long as the same rules apply to unions.



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


I think you are blowing things out of proportion there. The only power that the employees would be given in this situation would be access to deciding 40% of the directors that run the company.

What that does is reduce stockholder input from 100% to 60%. The Board of Directors run the company. That means the return on any investment (stock) is at a much higher risk. Say goodbye to any family-run companies (closed corporations) because it would literally be illegal to control the company. 40% of that control would be in the hands of those whose main goal is to get more from the company.

No, I'm not blowing anything out of proportion. I am stating what I believe this proposal would result in. I promise you one result: I would never open another company, never employ another individual, unless I could first afford to move out of the country to somewhere that would at least recognize my input into my company.

Period. That's a promise. I'd rather live on welfare.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 02:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I mean I'm all for ending Citizens United as well, but this idea won't restructure how corporations are ran. Which is what I wanted here.


It absolutely will. Sadly if you can't see how taking the fiscal portion of political negotiations will affect politics, there is nothing we can really discuss on this topic.



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian




- 40% of directors would be elected by employees. Clearly the idea here is to give employees some boardroom representation.


I don't see a problem with this, it's the same thing as unionizing but without being forced to pay a bunch of your money to some pension fantasy

it's working great for standard of living in Europe and companies that big often pay squat to their employee's and treat them like crap




At first blush, my thoughts are this isn't "nationalization"


well, you are going to poop on all the right wingers who repeat the same post 500 times a day with the same 5 tired lines who also only read the title and seen the name Elizabeth Warren

I am just going to create a notepad file and copy paste the standard 5 responses from all the political hacks in every thread as the first response to get it out of the way



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 02:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: peck420

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I'll pose the same situation I posed to neo. If the QA department of a corporation needs a new director, would asking the QA department to review applications to fill that position be a bad idea?

A very, very bad idea.


Wouldn't they know what the QA department needs being QA and all?

They certainly know what it needs. They also know what would make their jobs easier, QC be damned.

Now don't pretend like they'd have the full say in who is hired for that position now. If they made a decision that was illegal or against federal regulations I'm pretty sure the corporation would still be allowed to override their decision. Plus even language in the OP says the employees only get to decide 40% of the directors.


You never ever let the people being monitored pick their own monitor. And, yes, I apply this rule to myself. I am not allowed, by corporate policy, to pick our 3rd party auditors.

Anything less and conflict of interest, collusion, complacency will be even more rampant then they already are.

So you don't believe in democracy?
edit on 17-8-2018 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Yeah, good-bye Hobby Lobby, and I wonder how this would apply to foreign-run companies operating on US soil, private owned and otherwise.



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 02:27 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




What that does is reduce stockholder input from 100% to 60%. The Board of Directors run the company. That means the return on any investment (stock) is at a much higher risk. Say goodbye to any family-run companies (closed corporations) because it would literally be illegal to control the company. 40% of that control would be in the hands of those whose main goal is to get more from the company.


Sounds nice but I'm going to see where it says that in the legislation.



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 02:27 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




I promise you one result:


Public companies would go private.

Which would decimate pensions,ira's,401k,Koeghs.
edit on 17-8-2018 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 02:28 PM
link   
there isn't a change to the system that any of you would ever agree upon it seems more like the majority of you think things are great based on your ability to find common ground and compromise



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 02:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: peck420

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I mean I'm all for ending Citizens United as well, but this idea won't restructure how corporations are ran. Which is what I wanted here.


It absolutely will. Sadly if you can't see how taking the fiscal portion of political negotiations will affect politics, there is nothing we can really discuss on this topic.

That isn't what I said! I know that capping donations to politicians will change the landscape of our politics. You are changing the words I'm saying. I'm talking about corporation structure changing.



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




I know that capping donations to politicians will change the landscape of our politics.


No it would not.

Pipe Dream



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 02:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
So you don't believe in democracy?

So you don't believe in women's rights?

I have all the time in the world to play pedantic games.



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 02:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: toysforadults
there isn't a change to the system that any of you would ever agree upon it seems more like the majority of you think things are great based on your ability to find common ground and compromise


Who said we think things are great?

We do think this is a piss poor, dangerous idea.

For example, notice how the consequences of failure to comply with the charter aren't discussed? Wonder what happens if you are found to out of compliance. Do they shut you down or are you too big to fail and thus government must step in a nationalize you ... for the greater good, of course.

Nice business you have there ... sure would be a shame if we were to find something we don't like.



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 02:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: peck420

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
So you don't believe in democracy?

So you don't believe in women's rights?

I have all the time in the world to play pedantic games.

I kind of though my point was obvious. Guess not. I'll explain it a bit better then. You said:

You never ever let the people being monitored pick their own monitor. And, yes, I apply this rule to myself. I am not allowed, by corporate policy, to pick our 3rd party auditors.

Well Democracy is literally the process of the citizenry picking its monitors. If you are saying that you people should never pick their monitors then by extension you are also implying that Democracy won't work.



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1


Trump wants to run our democracy like a business? Woo! Genius idea, get that man in office right now!

A Democrat says businesses should be run like our democracy? Boo! Horrible idea, get the house ready!

The concept of "running the country like a business" refers to sound economic principles, not to a removal of democratically elected representation. Ironically, it seems the same people who want to remove democratically elected representation through impeachment of a sitting President without evidence or even criminal charges are the same ones who think a business should be run through democratically elected representatives from the workers, not those with the largest vested interest.

TheRedneck



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join