How About a Campaign that Takes the Mask off of the Individuals Behind these Corporations?
- Thread starter Meta Reign
- Start date
NZA
LOL
i did not mean to imply that
when you factor in retierment accounts and managed funds, large numbers of people own a stake in lots of companies. those people collect money from these investments, so im assessing how much responsibility do we all have to look into these portfolios and be accountable. for instance, should we divest even if it was something that helps us retire but is doing something objectionable?
Futuristic Eskimo
All Star
I don't even know what the bolded means.
For obvious security reasons, giving out the addresses of these people is a terrible idea. Anyway, most of the biggest shareholders of large, publicly traded firms are money managers such as Vanguard or Fidelity. You can find their addresses easily if you have concerns you would like to share with them.
Meta Reign
I walk the streets like, ''say something, n!gga!''
Yes, yes I know I've visited Morningstar plenty of times.I don't even know what the bolded means.
For obvious security reasons, giving out the addresses of these people is a terrible idea. Anyway, most of the biggest shareholders of large, publicly traded firms are money managers such as Vanguard or Fidelity. You can find their addresses easily if you have concerns you would like to share with them.
The bolded means, lets not call JP Morgan Chase, by that name. Let's call it the bank ran by Jamie Dimon, Blythe Masters etc. Whatever.
We need a journalistic culture that's more willing call out names. We should have zero respect for an article that's written by "Associated Press", and starts off by saying "a spokesperson for JP Morgan Chase stated".
All that does is have people talking as if there are no people behind these actions. "JP Morgan is doing this now, that's what this article written by the Associated Press says, breh."
That kind of shyt should not be respected by the public. . . We want names. I guess I'm saying the rules of Journalistic "integrity" needs so e updating.
But see what you said about not finding out where these people live? Nah, son that's all fair game. Give me all that.
Futuristic Eskimo
All Star
Calling out people's names shouldn't be the focus because, as someone previously mentioned, they are interchangeable cogs in the entire machine. When you want to affect the everyday operations of a company, you have to go at them directly and call it out as a corporation. The market will have more power in changing its business model than any prosecution of single employees, word to @DEAD7. That's not to say that employees committing crimes shouldn't be punished, but what your plan would do would create a situation where these corporations could simply throw these employees under the bus and continue on doing what they were doing already. Like I said, you have the names and their compensation packages already. Don't get your hopes up on getting their addresses, though.
:zfg:What if I told you that this information already exists, is a part of standard corporate governance and is widely available to the public due to SEC disclosure laws?
negged for being lazy
hey man be kind to friends, he at least starting a conversation
And I will try to continue it
There is money you can't follow: Dark money
Full interview
Futuristic Eskimo
All Star
if black ppl don't watch out this is the way we'll be wiped off the face of the earth by caucasians hiding behind "corporations".
it's already happening with the prison industrial complex.
when black ppl are pushed into the lower class and you got ppl saying politicians only care about the 1%, "the ppl that make up the lower class" need to get concerned.
edit: ethnic cleansing doesn't happen instantly. we already saw how these corporations went to the middle east and wiped them off the face of the earth in the name of freeing them/resources.
Last edited:
I think removing corporate benefits would go a long way.
Mainly, Legal liability.
Mainly, Legal liability.
Futuristic Eskimo
All Star
Who is the liability extending to under your proposed system? Only management or the shareholders as well?
Both. Accountability is the name of the game.
edit: or at least should be.
Futuristic Eskimo
All Star
This defeats the purpose of becoming a corporation in the first place, though. You trade off double-taxation and other negatives for protection from the firms liabilities. You are basically calling for the death of corporations all together. I would argument better regulation combined with pressure from the market will be a more effective way to fix what's broken right now.
Yes it does.This defeats the purpose of becoming a corporation in the first place, though. You trade off double-taxation and other negatives for protection from the firms liabilities. You are basically calling for the death of corporations all together. I would argument better regulation combined with pressure from the market will be a more effective way to fix what's broken right now.
Yes I am.
I view regulation like many here view capitalism. It ultimately leads to corruption and becomes a tool for the 1%.
First we need "more regulation", now we need "good regulation"...
as long as people are involved it all ends the same. Complete accountability seems to be the only way to go imo.
What downsides do you see to the removal of corporations, as we know them?