← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Conservative
Thread ID: 7873 | Posts: 12 | Started: 2003-07-05
2003-07-05 09:45 | User Profile
Hello all,
I think that we need to re-define the purpose of big companies. I am not talking about mom and pop businesses, but rather the massive ones, like Boeing, MacDonalds, Wal-Mart, and the like. Currently, the purpose of big companies is: to make as much money as possible off of Gentiles for the Jewish CEOs and Jewish board of directors by any means that can be used without being legally prosecuted. Now, I would create legal regulations in which the purpose of big companies would be:
1.) to create the best product possible 2.) to provide the best price possible 3.) to provide good jobs for the public with fair pay and benefits.
I would make laws to prevent big companies from being used as political tools: in other words, big companies would not be allowed to make financial donations to anything. Excess profits would either go back into the company, or be taken as taxes. This way, the excess profits don't go to the CEOs and Board of Directors, thus preventing them from getting greedy and serving their own financial interests, instead of the interests of the public. I would also create regulations to ensure that the purpose of CEO decisions is not to increase stock prices, but rather to carry out the 3 points I made above.
Regards,
Ares
2003-07-05 15:40 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Ares@Jul 5 2003, 09:45 * ** Hello all,
legal regulations in which the purpose of big companies would be:
1.) to create the best product possible 2.) to provide the best price possible 3.) to provide good jobs for the public with fair pay and benefits. **
Ares, what kind of wording for these laws do you envision?
Can you imagine a company being taken to court because it's accused of being able to make a better product but choosing not to?
Competition is the primary way to achieve your goals. Businesses need to compete for workers and for customers.
For example, the government drives down wages with "free [international] trade", uncontrolled immigration, and by tweaking economic policy to maintain a significant unemployment level. So, to raise wages, have trade taxes, limit immigration, and have ecnomic policy aimed at lower unemployment.
2003-07-05 16:51 | User Profile
Ares,
From time to time they do try such things as "corporate code of ethics" which is not law but in line with the spirit of your post. It rarely worked in the past and probably wouldn't work at all now, thanks to the fact that corporate officers buy laws and politicians too easily. In fact, the revolving door is so absurd that a "public official" might be a few hours away from sitting in an executive boardroom and collecting benefits on laws he just made. The system needs an overhaul; politicians need to either work for the public interest or private corporations and stop confusing themselves about which is which. Too many of them seem to think that what's good for the corporations is also good for the public interest which is unlikely to be true very often.
2003-07-05 20:30 | User Profile
Can you imagine a company being taken to court because it's accused of being able to make a better product but choosing not to?
It would actually be the CEO being taken to court for if he intentionally sacraficed quality for the purpose of increasing stock shares.
Competition is the primary way to achieve your goals.
I would say, competition for who gets to be the CEO and Board of Directors. Those that have the best background gets to top positions.
**and by tweaking economic policy to maintain a significant unemployment level. **
What do you mean here? Do politicians actually do this?
I am more of a communitarian when it comes to the economy: I think multi-billion dollar companies need to be regulated to serve the absolute best interest of the public, and not the CEO, Board of Directors, politicians, or the elite. But as I said, when it comes to mom and pop businesses, then I believe the owners should have the right to set whatever policy it wants, such as wages, benefits, what race/gender it chooses to hire, etc.
Consider the media, like CNN/Fox News. These businesses function to serve the interest of Jewish Zionists and the currupt section of the White elite. But, with my suggested regulations, they would be required to be honest in their reporting. Now again, I am not talking about a local radio stations, but rather, the massive media companies.
Regards,
Ares
2003-07-06 20:24 | User Profile
Ares, lowering product quality is not necessarily going to make a business more money because they'll also have to lower the price, if there's any competition. I'm satisfied with the quality of most of the stuff I buy. And, when I buy something that I know is low quality, it's only because I'm being a cheapskate. Can you give me an example of what you have in mind?
CEOs make a lot of money and their salaries and bonuses have been skyrocketing for the last decade-or-so. In some cases, they might be worth it if they actually help the company with big revenue increases (I'd pay a guy 500 million if he could get me a billion). But, in most cases, they're just over-paid. I don't worry about it -- it's merelya symptom of other problems.
And, yes, our goverment openly and deliberately creates unemployment. They tell the public that they must do this to control inflation. But, the truth is they do this so that big companies don't have to pay competative wages (yes, help the CEOs get a fat paychecks and investors get fat returns). When unemployment is high, people are happy to have a job regardless of what they're paid. When unemployment is low people demand a "fair" salary or they'll go work for someone else.
The goverment appears to aim for 5% unemployment (1 in 20 people looking for a job, if you give up looking or want to raise children at home, you don't count as unemployed). When unemployment falls under 5%, the feds tighten the money supply and increase immigration (more IT visas, more Mexicans, etc.).
If you're in a room with 20 people, all wanting and needing to work, the goverment wants one of them to be unemployed so that you can't demand a pay raise because that unemployed guy is willing to take your job at your current pay. Unemployed people also benefit big government in other ways (government loves the needy as the needy are the best excuse for even bigger goverment).
2003-07-06 20:53 | User Profile
Socialist regulations inevitably serve the interests of anti-white forces, as white achievement is to a large extent tied to the embrace of Christian liberty. Regulating US and European corporations in the way Ares recommends would hamper economics growth in the West, create more un-employment, and give Asian economies a competitive advatange over us.
Further, increasing government regulation opens up the door to more power for the coming Latino-Black-Jewish coalition interested in confiscating white property. Also, hampering of the economy, and tacit support for welfare state ideas, will further dampen the white birthrate; and allow more non-white economic parasites to live off the white man's labor. (For one: what kind of regulations about hiring do you think would be put in place? Race and gender neutral ones? haha.)
2003-07-06 21:14 | User Profile
**CEOs make a lot of money and their salaries and bonuses have been skyrocketing for the last decade-or-so. In some cases, they might be worth it if they actually help the company with big revenue increases (I'd pay a guy 500 million if he could get me a billion). But, in most cases, they're just over-paid. **
I knew we were down the rabbit hole around 7-8 years ago when the newspaper listed exec salaries in one edition. The CEO of a local HMO was pulling down $29 mill. Right behind him was the CEO of a telephone company at something nearly as insane, like $21 mill. Of course, there was a phalanx of would-be CEOs surrounding these folks accusing anyone expressing horror at such salaries for glorified administrators as 'socialists'. And that sort of fed a bizarre new wrinkle in the 'madness of crowds' department in which people who worked their asses off for 20, 30, 50, 100 grand a year began mouthing platitudes like "God bless em, they deserve to make as much as they can get. They wouldn't be making that money if they weren't earning it." (Natch, they'd had years of practice at it by defending their favorite ballplayers' salaries.)
But nothing and no one exists in a vacuum. Pebbles thrown in ponds create ripples, no matter how slowly the concentric circles travel outward. And so within a few years many of these pennant-wavers for The System Works! were themselves out of work, replaced by half-price Indians, or three Mexicans, or having their jobs farmed out to China - or to prisons! Thus the ex-systems analyst-cum-Wendy's manager was born.
Wonder if they're still vigorously defending the millions earned by the CEO of Wendy's.
2003-07-07 03:42 | User Profile
Socialist regulations inevitably serve the interests of anti-white forces, as white achievement is to a large extent tied to the embrace of Christian liberty.ÃÂ Regulating US and European corporations in the way Ares recommends would hamper economics growth in the West, create more un-employment, and give Asian economies a competitive advatange over us.
Hello,
I would argue that Libertarian capitalism serves the anti-White forces because it leaves the White masses at the economic mercy of the financial elite, most being Jews.
Second, if we had a flat population, we would be able to create enough jobs so that there would be no unemployment. And with a flat population, there would be no need for economic growth, just a flad GDP. The purpose of economic growth is to meet the job requirements of an increasing population, and to cause stock prices to grow.
Further, increasing government regulation opens up the door to more power for the coming Latino-Black-Jewish coalition interested in confiscating white property.
Well, in my ideal nation, no more non-White immigration would be allowed, and with respect to those non-Whites that already live here, I would give them two option:
1.) leave the country 2.) stay in the country, but only if the following conditions are met:
a. get permanently sterilized
b.) give up your right to vote
c.) Obey the laws
d.) refrain from antagonizing White Nationalist ideals.
Also, hampering of the economy, and tacit support for welfare state ideas, will further dampen the white birthrate; and allow more non-white economic parasites to live off the white man's labor.
Well, in my ideal nation, the welfare recipients and criminals would be sterilized, but then given welfare for as long as they need it. This way, we take care of the current needy, but at the same time, we stop them from perpetuating the welfare/parasite class by sterilizing them. Along with this, I would put into effect an across the board flat tax rate, perhaps at about 10% And by controlling the power of the elite, we can concentrate money in the average White man, as opposed to the tiny percentage of the "Bill Gates" crowd. Thus, Whites would have more money to pay for having more offspring.
Ya, I know my ideas sound wacky, but what can I say, I'm an idealist.
Regards,
Ares
2003-07-07 08:54 | User Profile
I remember from law school there was this big historical debate about whether corporations were good for society overall. Adam Smith didn't like the joint stock company form, as it separated management of property from ownership and thus vitiated all the good stuff we like about private property; including keeping people interested in investing their time to keep it up, making new property, and so forth.
I dismissed all of that at the time as silly, but now I'm not so sure. In fact, I think we need to re-examine the whole thing.
It used to be really hard to incorporate, requiring an act of the state legislature. But now it can be done for $100 over the internet. Now everybody can limit their liability and screw potential creditors, and there are no effective limits on the amount of property one of these artificial constructs can manage. There are so many stockholders in one of the big publicly traded comanies that a simple cost-benefit analysis shows that a stockholder would be foolish to invest a lot of time an resources in managing the coporation. We have, in effect, the very thing that Adam Smith feared: a complete rupture between title and control, and everybody hiding assets from legitimate claims. We now have guys like Eisner managing nearly unimaginable assets and weilding vast power over every aspect of our lives. This rupture between title and control allowed unspecified ethnic interests to infiltrate the big board rooms. And the list goes onl.
Anyway, leaving all that aside, and short of flushing the whole capitalist system down the toilet, if we want to save the thing a few things have to happen.
First, we ABSOLUTELY MUST have independent audits. That means in particular separating the audit function from the consulting function. The Big Four (they were the Big Five unitl last year's collapse of Andersen from the Enron debacle) set up deals, collect huge fees, and then audit the deals and collect huge fees. There is a clear conflict of interest here, and its rotting the system from the inside. I've personally seen lots of these sorts of shenanigans, where one of the Big Four set up deals and then glossed over some of their problems in an audit that they conducted for public consumption. This has to stop. The fact that we can have an Enron and a Tyco and a Waste Management where this conflict of interest ruined big companies and creamed millions of investors and it STILL GOES ON speaks loudly of the tremendous power of the Big Four and the vested interests corporate boardrooms have in the cozy relationship.
Second, we need to make Boards truly independent, by forcing big companies to pay market rates and disallowing the CEO's to hand out benefits to them. GM board members get a new car every year or so, and I've seen CEO's hand out the goodies to board members including use of company facilities for private uses, use of the company jet for junkets, board meetings held in exotic locations, and so forth. That has to stop, and now. As it is, the CEO is an emporer without any real checks on his power, look at Tyco and Enron.
Walter
2003-07-07 19:05 | User Profile
Ares, you're a frickin' nut. I hope someone sterilizes you, and soon.
2003-07-07 19:29 | User Profile
*Originally posted by iwannabeanarchy@Jul 6 2003, 13:53 * ** Further, increasing government regulation opens up the door to more power for the coming Latino-Black-Jewish coalition interested in confiscating white property **
There is no way you can prevent that from happening if THEY get into full control anyway. Hence, whites must fight to stay in control, while libertarians nurture the silly idea they can live on a fantasy island and stay immune to the marauding underclasses and zhid parasites working in tandem.
2003-07-07 21:06 | User Profile
Originally posted by iwannabeanarchy@Jul 7 2003, 13:05 * ** Ares, you're a frickin' nut. I hope someone sterilizes you,* and soon. **
Hello Anarchy,
Actually, we can create different types of nations and/or States, each with their own unique policies. I will choose to live in the nation or State that supports eugenics/sterilization laws, while you can live in the one(s) that support anarchism. This way, both you and I are happy.
Best wishes,
Ares