It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


New plan for money

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 11:51 PM
could a person make a company for the people by the people that could make necessary items like
toilet paper, toothpaste ,socks, soap, ect
the people company would make a good quality product approved monitored and good in every way
but for no profit.

it would make a high quality product put it in a plain wrapper like noname products to save on all advertising
and would charge what it cost to make it and enough to cover future expansions and such

but would instead pump any profit it made back in to the product to only make it better or the cost cheaper
there would be no stocks to this company it would be owned by everyone and would benefit everyone by there lower cost of products

it would pay employees proper amounts like 25-35 dollars an hour all employees
it would always make the best product it could stuff with like 20 plus years use toasters that last a lifetime
you would never need a better product because it would be made to high standards

maybe it would be like a members card or something just so someone couldn't buy lots of your product and rebrand it
then again maybe it wouldn't matter because the more you sold the cheaper your product would get

it could keep growing and getting more items with any profit
keep sucking up necessity items like shampoo kitchen items that everyone needs spoons, fork, cups,
make the plants as automated as possible and people would just need to upkeep the machines
possible employee only people on welfare or social programs

with the ultimate goal of getting the items down to free and us living off royalty checks from the machines and only having to work a day or two a week to pay for stuff

all necessary items would be free and you would only work for extra stuff

the royalty check could maybe be like an option they would be divided by the whole country and any one could receive them but maybe more rich people would just leave them unused and that to could be reinvested to make the product cheaper and cheaper

posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 11:54 PM
reply to post by dean007

Who is going to buy 100$ toilet paper?

Cause with your plan, that's what the company would have to charge to just break even

Cooperatives are awesome, but they're still for profit.


posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 12:02 AM
reply to post by dean007

You have to think in more barter terms. You need wood pulp to make paper products, or recycled paper, you need mechanics and engeineers to design machines, you need energy to run the machines -- everyone uses paper products......

Keep thinking....
This is the way things used to work for everyone.

posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 12:05 AM
reply to post by dean007

That's a great idea though most people consider it socialism if you don't allow the masters to profit off the workers.

They also believe that if you take profit out of the equation, no one will work and things can't possibly be provided cheaper.

I think they are wrong on both counts. The truth is that there is nothing stopping just such cooperatives from existing and being successful except perception.

posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 12:22 AM
reply to post by dean007

Dear dean007,

Here is my question, why would I invest in the company if I could not get a return and what happens if enough people don't by the products? The problem is not making a profit, the problem is rewarding people for not making a profit as was done on Wall Street. We reward CEOs for the stock valuation and not the profitability of the company. I think we should reward good behavior and de-incentivize bad behavior. I tend to agree with Warren Buffets approach to running businesses.

On the other side of this discussion is the question of allowing people to profit by investing in companies hoping they will fail. I do not believe we should have so much option trading, they can buy real insurance rather than promoting gambling and working doing things to manipulate the stock value, day traders. We had a good system in place after the great depression and it was eliminated by de-regulation. I believe in a balance of interests and a prohibition on monopolies. I don't think one company should be allowed to buy another in the same industry. True competition means if one company dies off, you will get their market share anyways.

posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 12:23 AM
reply to post by dean007

I've suggested a very similar business model in the past (see equality link in my sig). It is possible to create a business with no stock/shares but it's very difficult in this business environment we already have. Getting the starting capital is the main problem if the business is to be entirely owned by employees, there can be no big investors who seek a large portion of company ownership.

As for the quality of the product, that's something which would depend on the business. Some businesses go for lower quality and lower prices, some businesses go for higher quality and higher prices. However by cutting out the stock system much more of the business profit can be spent on making the products higher in quality whilst remaining at a reasonable price.

There are also many industries which simply don't provide a high enough level of quality regardless of the manufacturer. There is a clear potential for new highly efficient businesses to come in and manufacturer extremely high quality products at a reasonable price. When your only options are a load of crap many people don't mind paying a little bit more for a vastly superior product.

I was watching a documentary the other day about planned obsolescence and the history of the light bulb. They talked about this old light bulb in a fire-station which had been burning for over 100 years without needing to be replaced... and the conspiracy to lower the bulb life to 1000 hours. You tell me, would you prefer a $2 light bulb which lasts 1000 hours or a $5 bulb which lasts 100 years?
edit on 7/3/2013 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 12:24 AM
you think paying employees properly would make your product cost that much in reality they would mostly be automated jobs and the money you would save from no big wig executives and no advertising
plus it would give people brands they could trust and always depend on

posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 12:27 AM
i think that wall street and banksters would have to be kept entirely from this company in fact banned
definitely no stocks stocks are the reason were all in this crap situation

posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 12:34 AM
The products you describe are cheap because of economies of scale.

We are lucky to have them. Don't rock the boat.

posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 12:46 AM
reply to post by ChaoticOrder

I have a strange light bulb in my linen closet in my bathroom - my house was built circa 1920 - I've been here 10 years - I turn that light on at least 3 times a week - it's the only light bulb I haven't replaced - It's small, as in it doesn't hang down about 2 inches - I keep thinking what kind of bulb I'm going to have to buy when it does burn out, because a cupboard door almost hits it. It has not burned out in 10 years I've been here.

posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 01:08 AM

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
They talked about this old light bulb in a fire-station which had been burning for over 100 years without needing to be replaced...

This bulb is the one you refer to, but at only 4 watts, you can keep it.

Actually, I think most modern bulbs would last 100 years if you ran them at a low voltage such that they barely glowed at all and ran them continuously never heat cycling them.

edit on 7-3-2013 by alfa1 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 01:13 AM
One way could be to have a 'buying co-operative'... find 100 or 1000 people, and all buy your essentials together. You won't achieve your goals of creating employment, but will still save money.. .1000 boxes of toilet paper will be cheaper than 1... but then someone still has to work to receive the order and administer the operation.

You can incorporate without share capital.. you can incorporate limited by guarantee or as an association.. there is no issue here. You would just need to put something in the corp constitution setting out the powers etc..

What you're thinking could also be done with an employee-share program.. so that employees have a share in the company and thus a share in the profits.. then also let the employees buy products at cost price..

You won't be able to make many things cheaper than the Chinese can and get it to the consumer faster than wal-mart / cost-co..

One is also is the efficient and equitable allocation of rents.. does the manager get paid more than the factory guy? if not how are you going to attract capable management staff ?
edit on 7-3-2013 by bigdohbeatdown because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 01:29 AM
i was told by a teacher in high school which would have been 1985 and he said when he was a kid so like 1960 -1965
anyways he said him and his buddies would hang out by the rail lines in town and one day the train guys asked them if they wanted to work for the day and make some good money
they were bored and just playing around anyways and agreed to help
the train guys told them to take all the boxes out of the train car and throw them in the garbage so no problem they start emptying the train car and throwing them out

so after a couple hours they got curious what was in the boxes they had been throwing out for the last couple hours they looked inside and it was brand new light bubs in the packs unopened
they seemed to look okay but figured something was wrong with them and continued to throw them out well my school teacher takes a couple boxes of them and puts them off to the side

anyways they finish unloading the train car and get paid everything all good he takes the bulbs home and his father is an electrician so he has access to meter and voltage supplies ect

so they take a bulbs and see if it works works just fine try a couple more from different boxes and they all seem to working just fine so there sitting there and kinda wondering why anyone would throw out so many seemingly good bulbs
anyways the father says lets take them to the garage and really test them hooks them up to a variable voltage to over stress them and see how much they could take
it worked out that under regular conditions these bulbs were made so well it would basically be a lifetime bulb it came out a 40 years before failure

the little sticker on the bulb said G.E.

G.E had the ability to make light bulbs that lasted for 40 years and that was 45 years ago what could they do now ?

the company would rather throw a whole rail cart out then let people get bulbs that would have lasted 40 years before failure

posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 02:48 AM
reply to post by alfa1

There are LED bulbs which last 25 to 30 years now anyway, I was just using it as a rather generic example of planned obsolescence. The fact still remains, many things are intentionally built to fail after a certain time. And there is a huge untapped market for any business who is willing to have faith in the fact buyers want something which is built to last rather than fail. At this point we've moved so far away from quality products that bringing back A grade quality would be an instant hit, assuming you could do it for cheap enough. And it could only be done cheap enough using some type of business model free of majority shareholders.

posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 06:01 AM
i find it odd that there really isn't any company's that make really good quality products

an example i keep having to buy the same things over and over example electric can openers
in the last 20 years i have had to buy at least 6-7 can openers it seems crazy every time i buy one its usually mid ranged price every time i buy one i think lets get a good quality one and i wont have to waste my time and money buying another one this baby should last 10 - 20 years

2-3 years im in the store buying another crappy can opener
supposedly we can send a man to the moon but no one on earth can make a can opener that lasts for 20 years

posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 06:07 AM
led light are a good idea and can save tons of money and energy we really have to change entire city light systems over to them and quickly then by doing that would bring there over all cost down to the public

plus in all honesty they brag about 20 -30 year life but in my experience with leds thats just not true
they are good and the best we have but there quite short of that 20 year span they say they have

again no reason to not replace street lamps with them there a more direct light and people in cities could see alot more of the night sky and stars something that all cities rob us of and 70 percent savings in electric consumption

posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 05:37 PM
i wonder why they have kept the price of leds so expensive

posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 07:15 PM
I think there is a possibility...would need to figure out your expense for your goods,
the hardiness & life time of the product in comparison to how cheap China can
produce it & deliver to the Wallyworlds. Then you can make your product more
attractive not just due to quality build & longer yrs of use but also
Bloody Made in America!

Sorry me mind slips me...but I saw something maybe even on ATS in regards
to a person receiving so many work credits & then goods were available on so
called credits...ex. work 8 hrs get 8 credits, bag of corn meal cost 15 min or 1/4
hr credit & etc... I cannot remember the system it's old & there was no currency
exchange. If I'm remembering part of the story right I think it was currently used in
Ithaca NY.
I found this to be a very interesting way to get around all the major corporations
as well as taxes.


posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 06:34 PM
is it possible to have a company that people would own without having shares
would that be a foundation or organization is there a business term for it already

could it be successfully run with little to no management and the management would only get 3x the amount of the lowest paid employee so if the manager wanted a raise he would have to give the lowest paid employee one first

new topics

top topics


log in