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: 7
28
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 03:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Edumakated

That's only the case because that is how it currently works. Nothing you are saying though suggests that it can't work this way going forward.


No company is going to give 40% of their board seats to employees

This bill isn't doing that either. It's letting employees have a say on 40% of the directors of the company.


Now you are being willfully obtuse.

If the employees are deciding who 40% of the Directors are, who do you think 40% of the Directors will be? They will be speaking for the employees/will be the employees.

That's like saying PP doesn't use tax money for abortions because the money doesn't go to abortions directly ... no it only frees up money to be used for them.




posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 03:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Edumakated

That's only the case because that is how it currently works. Nothing you are saying though suggests that it can't work this way going forward.


No company is going to give 40% of their board seats to employees

This bill isn't doing that either. It's letting employees have a say on 40% of the directors of the company.


Now you are being willfully obtuse.

If the employees are deciding who 40% of the Directors are, who do you think 40% of the Directors will be? They will be speaking for the employees/will be the employees.

Maybe so, but that is making an assumption. They may approve someone outside the company too, though I do imagine most will urge to promote from within the company. However, that isn't necessarily a given just because the employees are making the choice.


That's like saying PP doesn't use tax money for abortions because the money doesn't go to abortions directly ... no it only frees up money to be used for them.

PP doesn't use tax money for abortions. Saying it does is willfully dishonest.



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I agree with some of what you're saying. I think having employees elect 40% of the board is a total non-starter. I wouldn't say that those running the company and the company's employees have an adversarial relationship but they do represent their respective interests.

There are of course employee owned corporations (I think Publix is the largest) and lots of companies offer ESOP which is both a benefit/form of compensation and a way of further investing a employee in the success of the company.

It's also wrong to think that employees by and large don't have any loyalty to the companies they work for. In fact, in my experience most longtime employees are more loyal to their employers than the other way around. One of my grandfathers worked for Ford for 30+ years. My own father worked for the same tech company for 30+ years until he and a bunch of other senior people were laid off — not because the company was failing, not because they weren't doing good jobs — but because it saved money to can people who had spent the bulk of their productive years at a company and were at the top of the pay and PTO scales.

Also, I need to take issue with this:


I will say this: back during the era of "you didn't build that" I would not have even considered starting a business in the USA, for any reason. I am not going to waste a ton of money that I would have to borrow to start up a venture when I wasn't even going to get credit for doing so and would likely not have been able to clear the financial hurdles to success put in place by an anti-business government. Wasn't gonna happen, and nobody could force me to do it. Recently, I had begun toying with the idea again... but if ideas like this gather any traction whatsoever, I'm back to "no how, no way" status. And I believe my feelings are reminiscent of others who have the ability to create new businesses.


There's nothing new about "you didn't build that." I'll drag out one of my favorite Thomas Paine excerpts from Agrarian Justice:


Personal property is the effect of society; and it is as impossible for an individual to acquire personal property without the aid of society, as it is for him to make land originally.

Separate an individual from society, and give him an island or a continent to possess, and he cannot acquire personal property. He cannot be rich. So inseparably are the means connected with the end, in all cases, that where the former do not exist the latter cannot be obtained. All accumulation, therefore, of personal property, beyond what a man's own hands produce, is derived to him by living in society; and he owes on every principle of justice, of gratitude, and of civilization, a part of that accumulation back again to society from whence the whole came.


Or as Ben Franklin once wrote:


All the Property that is necessary to a man, for the conservation of the individual and the propagation of the species, is his natural right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all property superfluous to such purposes is the property of the publick, who, by their laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the welfare of the publick shall demand such disposition. He that does not like civil society on these terms, let him retire and live among savages.


You might build a business but you surely didn't do everything it took to make it possible. You didn't tame the wilderness, establish a economic system, build roads, etc. You were only able to build a business because you were part of a society and you can only operate that business because you are part of a society.


But, then again, what else would I suspect form someone who has already openly insulted my heritage by claiming to be someone she is not without any evidence?


I'm going to need to see a DNA test.
edit on 2018-8-17 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 03:16 PM
link   
I will say it's still an absolute IDIOTIC plan.

They can give themselves subsidies anytime they feel froggie.

They can ban any business they don't like.

EFFING BAD IDEA.

Six ways from Sunday.



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Hey! Don't be picking on pudding and Jell-O....they have their uses



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Hmmm 🤔

black.house.gov...



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 03:57 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian


I agree with some of what you're saying. I think having employees elect 40% of the board is a total non-starter.

Date duly marked on the calendar for perpetuity.
That's a good thing.



I wouldn't say that those running the company and the company's employees have an adversarial relationship but they do represent their respective interests.

Same thing in the context I was using. An adversarial relationship does not mean the parties are having knock-down drag-out fist fights; it simply means they have competing interests. In civilized society that means they still work their differences out like adults.


There are of course employee owned corporations...

Yes, and I actually like that business model to a degree. It rewards employees for loyalty if those stock options are reserved for employees who have shown loyalty. A rewarded employee is a happy employee, and happy employees are the best employees.

The plan I prefer would award stock options as loyalty bonuses... a certain amount after one year of faithful service, more after three years, more after 5 years, etc., based on overall examination of performance reviews. It makes sense for both employer and employee. Employer benefit is gaining loyalty from good long-term employees and negating excessive training costs due to high turnover, at a lower up front cost than monetary bonuses, and employee benefits are that stocks are a great retirement plan and give a sense of being part of the company instead of just a cog in the machine.


It's also wrong to think that employees by and large don't have any loyalty to the companies they work for.

I was speaking generally, and to be honest in my mind I was thinking about the type of employee who gets a job, lays around doing only the bare minimum required until they get fired or bored enough to quit, and then moves on to another company. The employees who try to vest their experience and abilities in their company do not fall into that category, but my experience is that those are the minority.

There is one guy who used to work for me who comes to mind. I wound up having to shut that business down for personal reasons, but when I did I offered it to him, essentially a 50% stock offer and I would supply his starting tools as well as make myself available as a mentor while he settled in. Unfortunately he turned me down. I would still hire him in a heartbeat should I ever see his name on a resume.

I have also worked for employers who didn't care about employee loyalty. It is my experience that these places are never as profitable as they should be due to that one attitude.


Also, I need to take issue with this:

Yes, whatever I build is based on the work of those who came before me... but NOT on those who happened to be alive when I built it! That was the message Obama conveyed, that my efforts were not my efforts, but that everyone should share in any success I glean from them. I know full well that any failures I experience will not be shared by anyone else... never have been. Therefore, that is a no-gain, lose proposition for me, and I will not take such a proposition.

The work I do now, private research and development, builds on those before me, and I honor them greatly. I could not be building these kind of projects had others before me not invented the transistor, and later the integrated circuit. I would be working completely blind had not great mathematicians developed the methods and models I use daily. I stand on the shoulders of giants.

But that doesn't mean I need 300 million other people standing up there with me when they did nothing to help me except be alive (and in general irritate me). Yes, I built that! I may have built it using tools passed down, but I still did the work and dammit, no one gets to take that away from me because they happened to not be dead!

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 04:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: xuenchen

I'm not sure what this

The act will require corporations with more than $1 billion in annual revenue to procure a federal corporate charter, which mandates that directors consider “all major corporate stakeholders” in decisionmaking, according to a piece Warren wrote in The Wall Street Journal.

means for reality, but

Corporations would also be required to have at least 40 percent of their directors elected by employees and at least 75 percent of directors and stakeholders would have to approve any “political expenditures.”

sounds REALLY cool. I like that idea.


Ya that doesn't seem unreasonable.



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 04:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

Crazy nut U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren has apparently gone off her rocker completely.

Now it seems she has come up with a proposal that would end up Nationalizing big businesses !!

It's called the "Accountable Capitalism Act" of all things !!

Yup, the Democrats are exposing their true colors this election season 💥😃💥

Liz will really be waving her arms and bobbing her head with this one 🤓



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

Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts has one-upped socialists Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: She proposes to nationalize every major business in the United States of America. If successful, it would constitute the largest seizure of private property in human history.

Warren’s proposal is dishonestly called the “Accountable Capitalism Act.” Accountable to whom? you might ask. That’s a reasonable question. The answer is — as it always is — accountable to politicians, who desire to put the assets and productivity of private businesses under political discipline for their own selfish ends. It is remarkable that people who are most keenly attuned to the self-interest of CEOs and shareholders and the ways in which that self-interest influences their decisions apparently believe that members of the House, senators, presidents, regulators, Cabinet secretaries, and agency chiefs somehow are liberated from self-interest when they take office through some kind of miracle of transcendence.

extra source..
Warren introduces Accountable Capitalism Act




Being a bit sensational on this one...



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 04:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mandroid7
How about we un-molest the constitution and put taxes back to normal?

Small business' and normal employees are victims of a giant wealth redistribution racket put in place by lobbyists and a greedy pig of a gov.

Taxation, laws/regulations are choking us out.

More regulations won't fix this mess.

Why do leaders have to suck so bad, they are wrecking growth and quality of life for everyone.

Get rid of the irs, or get rid of the entire gd thing.

Let's put in an end the irs, audit the fed person.

We are not represented and should be taxed accordingly.



We could go back to the government being run off of tariff money.



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 04:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: neo96

Well if it becomes law, then it's because the law said so. But you still aren't telling me why it is an idiotic idea to implement a rule like this. It's not like the employees would be able to dictate all corporate policies and hirings. They'd just have some more power in the decision making process that they lacked before. Again. How is that so terrible?


Because its left open to implementing quasi unions into non union corporations.



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 04:40 PM
link   


Section 8 requires that any political spending (or "electioneering communication" under the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 §304(f)(3)) by a federal corporation over $10,000 has approval of both 75% of shareholders and directors before the spending is made.


I like that. Anything to reign in political spending from corporations but this isn’t enough.



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 04:55 PM
link   
So justa wacky post.... Surely on your other on your four previous page of responses You hou gotten lit up by your fellow trump supporters for posting daily #. Or you all are just a bunch of hyphocrtits.



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 04:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: tinner07
So justa wacky post.... Surely on your other on your four previous page of responses You hou gotten lit up by your fellow trump supporters for posting daily #. Or you all are just a bunch of hyphocrtits.




posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Section 8 requires that any political spending (or "electioneering communication" under the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 §304(f)(3)) by a federal corporation over $10,000 has approval of both 75% of shareholders and directors before the spending is made.


Do union members get any say in who their union gives money to?

NO.



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 05:22 PM
link   
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.

If the Management team of any endeavor particularly billion dollar businesses isn't all on the same page 13 months BEFORE an action is taken, you're just not going to turn that giant ship in the desired successful direction.



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 05:28 PM
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.

If the Management team of any endeavor particularly billion dollar businesses isn't all on the same page 13 months BEFORE an action is taken, you're just not going to turn that giant ship in the desired successful direction.


Anyone reading this forum should be able to quickly conclude that trying to reach a consensus of any sort on the correct course of action to take on any decision across a diverse and highly disparately knowledgeable worker base would be highly inefficient and unlikely to be ultimately successful long-term in any business venture.

AKA - Too many cooks ...
edit on 17-8-2018 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 06:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

How is that working out for the average Joe? I see medical costs the highest they've ever been despite the lobbying efforts of mega-corporations.



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 06:33 PM
link   
She went full retard years ago.... Why does anyone GAF what this loon has to say? Oh look free kool-aid....



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 08:56 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

well thx for distilling what I said



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join