Re: Defeating The Top 1%; Request For Criticism

From: Eric Atkinson (atki4564_at_iwon.com)
Date: 06/11/04 

Date: 10 Jun 2004 17:44:01 -0700

>
> > temporarily robbing Peter (of customers, at his own customer's
> > consent and self-organization) to pay Paul, his competitor, as long as
> > Paul provides incremental equity to this "organized" customer group
> > relative to that customer group's size within his particular market,
> > and then only buying that customer-relative-equity-share over a 20-30
> > year period (similar to a rent-to-own mortage transaction).
>
> Create co-ops. OK. So you'll create a co-op farm to put Del Monte
> out of business.

I'm not putting Del Monte out of business, I'm extorting shares of
ownership from Del Monte; they'll still exist but a change in
ownership will occur over a 20-30 year period.

> Go right ahead. Let's see if you can get the
> requisite people to play.

The only requisite players I'll need is the customer group, who will
then economically and politically support their related employee group
by transferring a 50% share to them. In that regard, the invention of
the internet now makes this prviously impossible organizational task a
possibility. As to whether or not people will recognize that internet
power is another issue, and a good point on your part.

>
> > From
> > there, assuming this "organized" customer group grew in size due to
> > popular political inertia, then Paul would eventually receive a very
> > valuable pair of golden handcuffs from which he could not escape
> > because the customer group ultimately provides all factors.
>
> Actually, Peter would be out of business and wouldn't really give a
> damm.

The point is that Paul would be under the customer group's control
(who cares about whether Peter is dead or not; or perhaps Peter will
be wise enough to start competeing for Paul's increased short-term
profits once he starts taking a hit).

>
> > Of course,
> > to fully control all such factors across an industry, the customer
> > group would eventually to form Paul's entire customer base and
> > continue growing, but provided the initial customer group had enough
> > economic and political lure to Paul in the first place, this process
> > would be self-feeding and irrevocable once started, continuously
> > robbing Peter to pay Paul.
>
> Peter no longer exists. Now what? Paul is owned by his customers.
> Peter was owned by his customers as well. Nothing has changed except
> the nameplate - imagine that.

What has changed is what you just said; they are now owned by their
customer groups (and what you didn't say, owned 50% by their employee
groups as well). The objectve here is to create a bottom-up management
system (to elimiate the current top-down management system) by
replacing it with a democratic management system where employees elect
their own managers. If you can't see this as a significant change then
you're being verbal, not logical.

>
> >
> > I guess what I am banking on is that Paul's greed for more profit over
> > 20-30 years will outweigh his desire to hand-down power to his hiers.
> > In effect, Paul is being asked to end his own royal family line (his
> > particular top 1% line) because (1) he and his family will be paid
> > handsomely for selling their business to their customers (and
> > employees) in a rent-to-own transaction and (2) if he doesn't sell
> > then one of the his royal family competitors will, for greed is a very
> > powerful ally.
>
> Where do you come up with the idea that it's the top 1% that owns all
> the factors of production?

I never said that the top 1% "own" the factors, I said they "control"
the factors. Discipline - control - will always be necessary, and
some CEO, President, etc, MUST have it; the difference is whether that
executive is WIDELY AND BROADLY elected or not by their customers and
employees. Today, that executive is usually elected by the top 1%
royal families, not by the other 99% (who have no say whatsoever
because they're an unorganized mob).

>
> >
> > > Good luck coming up with the capital to actually do this
> >
> > Actually, getting the capital is the really simple part. For example,
> > telephone companies regularly offer $50 per new customer referral via
> > their independent sales programs. Assuming 65,000 local customers
> > organize themselves via the internet for the purpose of receiving this
> > referral fee, then that's $3.2 million, per year, which can be used to
> > fund and further organize their new 50-50 economic and political
> > system as I have described.
>
> Huh? Where do you think the $50 comes from that AT&T is paying for
> referrals?

You are assuming that AT&T can raise it's prices to cover the cost of
the referral fee; competition won't allow this because I can easily
say to AT&T that if they raise prices, I'll take my business
elsewhere, for greed is a powerful ally. In fact, given the volume of
sales I'm offering them via a sufficiently large customer group, I can
easily demand EVEN LOWER PRICES (assuming they still have some profit
left to give); all of which (the referral fee, the lower prices, and
the small incremental shares of ownership over 20-30 years) will come
directly out of their top 1% royal pockets; not one dime of it will
come out of my customer group's pocket - imagine that.

>
>
> So it now is a federal loan program.
>
> Sorry - if you want to do this, wouldn't it just be easier to
> nationalize all industries?

Nationalize, God no! The goal of this system is the extreme opposite
of nationalization: to increase LOCAL control, to DE-CONSOLIDATE
global corporations into infinitely SMALLER and more SPECIALIZED
employee groups in search of greater specialized profits for
themselves (by infinitely splitting their functions of marketing,
administration, engineering, and science into ever finer levels of
expertise and operation, and to therefore drive profit where profit is
due, to ever-more-discreetly-educated people).

For example, which do you think is easier to manage as an sole
individual: a small, modest, and comfortable home (a small business)
or a gigantic palace (a global business). Most people (who've managed
businesses) would qucikly say that the small business is much easier
to manage than the global business for obvious reasons. Even so, small
businesses can still form large confederate and global business
entities if a large-scale global investment is required, such as the
upcoming switch to a hydrogen-based economy from an oil-based economy.

Furthermore, all these finely-grained, but globally networkable (if
needed), businesses, under this system, are to be contained within
SELF-GOVERNING CITY-STATES, and all these SMALL city-states would have
much more autonomy than today's too-big, too-clumsy, and
too-subservient-to-the-fed state governments.

Thus the goal of this system is small to smaller to smallest possible
again and again, never nationalization. Why? Because nationalization
always results in illogical and unmanageable big government programs
like social security which, for example, only earns a paltry 2%
return, as opposed to a blue chip stock that averages 7% AFTER
inflation and taxes (according to a book called Contrarian Investment
Strategies).

In short, there are numerous examples of government's complete and
total lack of economic competence. As I said before (in a branch
elsewhere), politicians are LOUSY economic decisions makers. In fact,
they're so bad they should be BANNED from making ANY economic
decisions at all; as such, their only role should be to audit contract
performances contained within agreements between the employee groups
and the customer groups. In effect, the government's only role, IMO,
should be to stand as a VITAL independent 3rd party who's only
allegiance is to the law, to contract performances, and absolutely NOT
to ANY special interest group be they employees or customers or
otherwise. In effect, this would reduce government's role to nothing
but accounting and legal services for everyone (which includes the
military), with absolutely NO "social" role whatsoever.

>
> Didn't someone try this about 100 years or so ago?

As far as I know, a 50-50 system as I have described here has not been
tried yet.

>
> Do you realize that there already is a mechanism to do what you
> propose? It's called the stock market. Individuals can organize, buy
> lots of shares and leverage that into seats on the board and voting
> rights.

I'm not PURCHASING stock shares, I'm EXTORTING them directly from the
pockets of the top 1% royal families by threatening their sales via
the organization of their customer groups. In short, they are being
forced, under threat, to GIVE me these shares by their own customer
group's organizational abilities, but I'm not buying them.

As to whether or not this is legal, I'm still working on that; it
appears perfectly legal to me, but I'm not a lawyer. It's a
threatening, damn-near one-sided, in-your-face negotiation, but still
a negotiation and therefore legal (I think). If you know a lawyer, I'd
appreciate his opinion.

Additionally, I would also need other conditions during this extortion
transaction which I believe are not as easily negotiated during a
simple stock market transaction. These conditions would be more along
the lines of what a venture capitalist would demand, such as a
non-dilution clause. Of course, this asserton is debatable, but bottom
line, it's not a purchase, it's a theft, and therefore not a stock
market transaction. In effect, I'm diluting the shares of others
without paying for them by virtue of our continued customer group
loyalty.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: What problems are people in the MV world trying to solve
    ... This is a combination of business and technical. ... system is centered around a customer account and the ID assigned to it so ... contact files by account ID. ... The sales analysis system only ...
    (comp.databases.pick)
  • Re: My Frustrations
    ... Again, this is not an issue of communication, or geeks versus business men. ... This is not an issue of proving or demonstrating the quality of ones self or service. ... This is an issue of enabling the customer to make the right decision. ... landing the customer in a very poor security state, ...
    (Pen-Test)
  • Re: Ms Access 2003
    ... "I'd like to pay less than $150 for this project." ... One would expect that for such a low price as ... though there's no add-ons to increase profits, increase the customer base, ... a small business which employs five consultants. ...
    (comp.databases.ms-access)
  • Re: business fixing insecure wifi?
    ... You have to fix everything, or get the customer to sign ... you may need to expand your business plan. ... contracts when I was in the commercial 2-way radio business. ...
    (alt.internet.wireless)
  • Re: Need example binding UI to BL to DL
    ... It uses classes to represent the various business objects. ... collection" classes that would be like "orders for this customer" or "items ... The UI isn't binding either. ... What I have to do is rewrite the app so that the UI can bind to the business ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.vb)