Minimum Security by Stephanie McMillan

Minimum Security

Recommended

Comments (20) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. jdwigman

    jdwigman said, 6 months ago

    stephaine why are you not there to advocate for them them

  2. timrinaldo

    timrinaldo said, 6 months ago

    Watch it, if you try to debate or question her premises, you’re a troll…

  3. Night-Gaunt49

    Night-Gaunt49 said, 6 months ago

    @jdwigman

    Because she is here advocating for workers here. Bangladesh has advocates.

  4. Night-Gaunt49

    Night-Gaunt49 said, 6 months ago

    @Debt Free

    Vulture Capitalists by any color can still be bastards.

  5. Lenin Out of the Box

    Lenin Out of the Box said, 6 months ago

    @jdwigman

    Actually, she was. But sticking to matters of actual importance, what would you advocate on their behalf? Are their demands so outrageous? Should they be belittled for trying as they do, and risking bullets, blood, and bludgeoning in pursuit of what might be a hopeless goal?
    .
    Is it courage? Foolishness?
    .

    Would you risk as much? or surrender, preordained to fate?

  6. Lenin Out of the Box

    Lenin Out of the Box said, 6 months ago

    Companies act destructively because most are autocratic in nature. The leader (CEO) acts to serve the vested interests of the elite (the board, major shareholders). No one else counts. The CEO takes from the others to feed the elite and buy their support – the only support that matters.
    .
    To overturn this arrangement, you must convert the governing power structure to a democratic one. To push democracy, you must attack the support that enables the autocracy – the system of segregated shares.

  7. Lenin Out of the Box

    Lenin Out of the Box said, 6 months ago

    Corporate shares come in two flavors – regular and super. Regular shares entitle the owner to one vote per share. Supers entitle the owner to dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of votes per share. Both shares cost the same.
    .
    But supers are NOT available to the general public. Only the board approves those sales. These are the shares Warren Buffet buys when he invests, because he has the ‘pull’ to make it happen. The shares ‘you’ buy on the ‘Street are chump shares equal to precisely nothing but a bucket of empty hopes and dreams.
    .
    This is how the elite retain control of companies despite ostensibly “selling” them to the public.
    .
    Google goes public – Yea! The Google boys spend $1 million to buy a set of super shares. The public spends $100 billion buying chump shares. The Google boys retain majority control on a $1 million investment while the public drinks from a $100 billion bottle of suck. The Google boys are then free to do as they please and ignore everyone else.
    .
    Buy a regular share and you’re essentially donating money to the company, nothing more. Wanna be a player? Wanna be a real boy after all? Get your hands on some super shares – they’re the only ones that count.

  8. Lenin Out of the Box

    Lenin Out of the Box said, 6 months ago

    This is how a small cabal of owners – with a modest cash investment – can exert near-total control over a corporate behemoth. They risk next to nothing and yet have the power to direct corporate affairs as they please, to their benefit at the expense of others.

  9. Lenin Out of the Box

    Lenin Out of the Box said, 6 months ago

    How to defeat the system? Outlaw the existence of supershares.
    .
    They are fundamentally autocratic in nature. Put everyone on a level field by mandating a rule of one vote per share in all public offerings. A cabal can still form, and anyone rich enough to buy a majority of company shares is still allowed to do so. The difference is that doing so would require an EQUAL INVESTMENT in cash. No more “somethin’ for nothin’” – if they want to buy a controlling stake, then they have to pay for one. Full price.
    .
    This would limit their reach and increase their relative risk. And that would tie their fortunes much more closely to the overall health of the company. It would also – inevitably – increase their exposure to the power of the masses, who might only clutch a few shares each but, in the collective, control a significant stake. It puts the masses in a position of greater bargaining strength, whereas now, in the presence of super shares, they aren’t considered at all.

  10. Lenin Out of the Box

    Lenin Out of the Box said, 6 months ago

    Of course, this is just step one. Step two – The Board – comes in next installment.

  11. Night-Gaunt49

    Night-Gaunt49 said, 6 months ago

    @Debt Free

    Unions gave you the days off you take, the amount you earn, 40 hour work week. And no they do not. Vulture capitalists don’t give a damn about you or me just their profit motive.

  12. Lenin Out of the Box

    Lenin Out of the Box said, 6 months ago

    @Debt Free

    ?
    .
    Chasing windmills, Don, and calling them dragons yet again? Have you grown so accustomed to projecting your own issues on others that you no longer realize this is what you do?
    .
    Has the fantasy grown so real that all the walls have fallen far away, and all has merged to one?
    .
    Open the eyes that have slept and actually read what I wrote. We’re stepping through the looking glass Alice, to address the larger issues of the bigger world – to fundamental disfunctions within conventional corporate structures. Ones that harm the corporation and all who benefit from their existence –employees, shareholders (real and pretended), customers, and the environments in which they operate.

  13. Lenin Out of the Box

    Lenin Out of the Box said, 6 months ago

    Is Hewlett Packard unique? Is GM? Have you ever wondered why – or HOW – board members can oversee disaster after disaster, yet remain unmoved, secure in their position? Or why they sign-off on horrible ideas that seem almost deliberately engineered to destroy the company they run?
    .
    Did you even realize that the shares you buy are effectively powerless, even if you had the money to own them all? Where you aware of super-shares, and how they act to shut presumed “owners” (chumps like you) out?
    .
    Did you know that when a corporation holds a “vote” that the timing of submissions is not fixed? That if a vote is adding up against management’s wishes, that they can hold off on a release of final results to lobby major shareholders for a ‘change of heart’? Essentially re-casting votes after the election has closed?

  14. Lenin Out of the Box

    Lenin Out of the Box said, 6 months ago

    Corporations can come up with a whole bag of crazy. The key to change is first understanding how the existing system runs, what leads it to self-destructive behavior, and how those levers of power are manipulated. With that knowledge, you can then draft a plan to address those issues and redirect the enterprise from suicide to success.
    .
    P.S. Will a fox speak truth on matters of security when your chickens are the prize?

  15. Lenin Out of the Box

    Lenin Out of the Box said, 6 months ago

    @Debt Free

    You keep jumping to conclusions based on your own preconceived notions – and landing flat on your face each time. You only ‘see’ the wall you’ve created.
    .
    If you paid attention, you’d notice that I’m not condemning the concept of corporate enterprise, but critiquing governance.
    .
    WHEN a corporation acts in a negative or non-productive manner that you wish to change, you must assess the why and how, which may led to discovery and a process for improvement.
    .

    Generally speaking, the weakness is in the internal power structure. Most (if not all) are autocratic, which encourages destructive behavior: ruining your own house, s###ing where you eat, etc. – in order to satisfy the needs of a few.
    .
    And it’s a mistake to assume that the “few” are the stereotypical executive ‘bad guys.’ Plenty of business owners and creators have lived to see their life’s work taken from them and overturned, often to devastating consequence.
    .
    Case in point: Apple overthrowing Steve Jobs. But that is one among thousands.
    .
    And despite the rhetoric, you yourself do not surrender to the defeatism you pretend to advocate. Or why your presence here, Pasha? Da?

  16. Load the rest of the comments (5).