Forum Post: What if the USA were a company?
Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 18, 2011, 10:18 a.m. EST by notentitled
(125)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Just out of curiosity I would like to pose a question. If you were looking at the US as if it were a company you were considering buying stock in, would you invest in it?
Sure, just as soon as they got rid of the costly, unnecessary redundancy of 50 state governments.
Cut out that overhead and increase efficiency.
Don't forget all the city, county, town and village governments. Totally redundant. All decrees will be handed down by the central authority. Cut expenses to the bone and maximize profits.
It's what Snyder is doing in Michigan anyway.
Teabagger/libertarians are such a confused and confusing lot.
A lot of companies buy up little firms all the time, but keep the old brand names and some of their corporate structure. Attempts to merge their workforces often bother not only the workers laid off, but also the customers who find that they don't get the support or quality they expected.
Keep the customer confused, for fun and profit.
That would be more like a company with only one department. IMHO we need the states to be more powerful not less.
Much too costly. Plus 50 of them lack a focused business plan.
Confusing even. The constitution was designed for fewer states.
So perhaps a consolidation?
It's not the number of states that's the problem. It's the fact that they no longer have a voice. Repeal the 17th amendment and that will all change. The framers understood two things very well when they designed our government. The first is that you don't want power too centralized. The second is that the majority is not always correct. That's why they wanted the state legislatures to elect Senators. They wanted a branch of the government that could give the states representation and also one that was not subject to the whims of the people. The 17Th amendment effectively destroyed that very important aspect of our government.
That's far too costly, and very un-business like.
I thought you were serious. I was wrong.
You just want as weak a government as possible.
Last time that happened we had a very costly civil war. Is that what you want?
No. I want things to be handled more on a local level like they should be. There is no way one central authority can know what is best for everyone in every part of the country. That is why we need state and local government.
Local governments are weak and more easily corrupted. They are also unable to provide for defense, in a world corrupted by libertarian neoliberalism.
Local governments can not afford the kinds of research and investigation it takes to protect the population from coercion.
What you are asking for is civil war, as happened before.
Strength in business comes from consolidation of resources not fracturing.
This thread is a ruse for what?
It's not a ruse at all. It was a very simple question I asked. I thought it might be nice to lighten things up a bit. Chill, there is no conspiracy going on here.
Oh, but there is.
Like most who post these kinds of threads, you avoid answering the simplest of questions.
You dismiss the obvious solutions, with gobbledegook.
Consolidate the states to reduce costs, across the board. It would reduce costs to both state and federal governments, and keep defense strong at the same time.
This was just another in a long line of libertarian BS.
At least come clean.
Sorry replied wrong place. Carry on shooz. :o)
We are just going to have to agree to disagree. You want a more powerful central government and I want a weaker one. This point has already been argued to death long before you and I. Thx for your reply.
You can't answer and you can't come clean.
What does that say about your rhetoric?
It's just plain dishonest.
You want a central government that will more easily be coerced and co-opted.
You want weak local government for the same reason.
You really don't know what you are asking for.
Civil war.
What are you not getting about this? IMO the federal government is too big, too powerful, and evolved in way too much. I don't know how I can be more clear. I believe there has to be a balance between the public and private sectors. IMO it is too heavily weighted in one direction right now. Is there anything else you would like to know about me? If not can we move on?
I don't want civil war.
You do.
You asked the original question, yet refuse to admit the best answer.
50 costly state governments. Need to go, to increase efficiency at the federal level.
Reduced overhead. The first order of business.
True cost saving across the board. Isn't that what you wanted?
You haven't responded to anything I've stated @ the OP.
Just what is your agenda for asking the question in the first place?
C'mon. Come clean.
Costs? Then why not just eliminate the Federal government?
The states are redundant and cost even more.
That wouldn't suit his view of how it should be. Not enough government control.
Are you one of those conspiracy people or something? I have no agenda in this thread. I asked a simple question which most of the people who have replied had no problem answering. What in the hell is wrong with you anyway? The whole world is not out to get you. This thread was doing just fine until you got evolved. If you don't like it, bail. No one is forcing you to play along. If anyone has an agenda here it is you! Go away and let the rest of us enjoy the thread!
I answered your question in the best possible corporate way.
Reduce redundancy.
Reduce overhead.
Consolidate everything.
It's the only answer to the OP.
So what is your problem?
Do you want to spin off unprofitable States?
A weak federal government is just that, weak and nothing more.
It's weaker now then at any time in the last 40 years and you want it weaker?
You're not going to get rid of me that easily.
Until you admit the truth.
no because when the management of a company is based on collecting money for paying the top 1% of the employees at the expense of maintaining operations .. the company will eventually fail.
So if the board replaced the current management with people you think are better qualified to run the company would you invest then?
no.. that company has established a parameter to operate under and changing the people will not change that parameter. the new ones will also operate under that parameter. unless there were new parameters set by the board then no.
What kind of parameters would you need to see before you would invest?
understands that the maintaining operations come before profit.
Why would a company want to maintain operations if it isn't profitable?
profit is not the goal. staying in business is the goal.
The company would at least have to break even or it wouldn't be able to stay in business. There is nothing wrong with making a profit if you are responsible about it.
and only if you invest that profit back into the company in this scenario is after all the company is a country. so it is not as if the employees or management have any where else to go.
True but we are pretending it's not a country we are pretending it's a company. So we could invest a portion of the profit back into the company and use the rest to improve our standard of living. Or maybe we could pay out bonuses to the employees. Or even make some charitable contributions. The possibilities are endless.
no all profit goes back into the company for maintenance
But why would anyone want to make the effort to even start the company or take the risk without the chance to make a profit?
in order to have a business. this still supplies income profit is just icing. not worth anything if there is no cake.
People don't start a business just for the sake of starting a business. I don't need to start a business to make an income. I could just go work for someone else. It would be a lot easier and much less risky.
maybe so.. but in this case the business was already started before you were born and there are no other businesses ..you either make this work or you leave the country. there are no options. and yes many people start business just for the sake of not having to work for someone else. many people. you are saying you would not attempt to make 500 income because you could not increase this to 1000.. so you would settle for someone else making 500 and work for them for 100.. doesn't make sense.
In a sense we are a company. Rather, we have gone from the government, to the employees in an impending Corporate Republic. The government is run by the lobbyists and the lobbyists are run by corporate America. How else can they get tax breaks passed for themselves and environmental laws lifted or temporarily set aside? Didn't Obama ban offshore drilling around the time of the BP Disaster? Then why did he very quietly lift that ban an re-allow offshore drilling a few weeks ago? Because corporations run Washington.
You didn't answer the question. I was looking for something more along the lines of "yes I would because or no I wouldn't because".
Ha ha! I wouldn't invest in it because it's obviously on it's way into bankruptcy. If we fired the current CEO and managerial structure, like Apple when Steve Jobs took it back from the fools that almost drove it into the ground, THEN, I might consider small investments.
Fair enough.
It is. I'd invest in Soylent Green. Next Question.
Nice!
I try..
“The powers of financial capitalism had a far-reaching plan, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole… Their secret is that they have annexed from governments, monarchies, and republics the power to create the world’s money…” .- Prof. Carroll Quigley renowned, late Georgetown macro-historian (mentioned by former President Clinton in his first nomination acceptance speech), author of Tragedy and Hope. “He [Carroll Quigley] was one of the last great macro-historians who traced the development of civilization…with an awesome capability.” – Dr. Peter F. Krogh, Dean of the School of Foreign Service (Georgetown)
Why should I even consider it, this is a 'Society' you know a Social (uh-oh) organization (scary eh) that governs itself. At least that is until the current stock holders are the only ones that can vote. Lets turn back the emancipation, etch etc only white male landowners can vote. RIGHT. my butt.
It was a hypothetical question.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/1912_Lawrence_Textile_Strike_1.jpg
Nice picture but I think you are missing what I am trying to do here. I Appreciate the post.
Why don't you tell us?
I asked what you were trying to do yesterday.
I am trying to have a hypothetical discussion. Is there something wrong with that? Is it getting a little chilly down in the park or something ? Is that why you are being such a prick?
Because I gave you an answer to the OP and you refused to entertain it.
Told me to go away, because it wasn't the answer you were looking for.
Called me names even, like now.
Your answer was to shrink the government to a size that would ensure civil war.
I want to know why you want civil war.
That's all.
I did entertain your post and I did answer your question. You just don't like the fact that I disagree with you. Look Shoozs, don't you see we are at an impasse here? We are wasting each others time with this ridiculous argument. Let's face it, we have completely different philosophies and neither of us are going to change how the other thinks. If I insulted you I apologize. I assure you I have no hidden agenda here. So, can we agree to disagree or what?
Then tell me why you want civil war?
I don't want civil war. Never said I did. Why can't you let this go Shooz?
Yes, but only if I could throw out the Board of Directors. The company has a lot of potential with competent management.
I agree. I see tremendous up side if the right people were in place.
We'd been under and bankrupt long ago. But, that's just the pt. were NOT a Corp. yet. if the Corporatists PTB have their way though we will be such an entity soon.
Can someone please tell me what is so difficult about answering my question.
Because nobody accepts the premise. Nobody wants government for profit. Nobody wants maximum efficiency, but rather maximum general welfare.
When is your other sockpuppet progmarx going to come out and join the fun?
Please not another "I think I know what everybody wants" guy. Does everything on this damn forum have to be so f#$%&*- serious? For god sake lighten up!
Of course nobody would. Who would be stupid enough to buy stock in a company $15 trillion in debt? But, your question misses the pt. we aren't are not like a Company. Corps. cannot issue sovereign currency. We could inflate our way out of our debt of course. But that would wipe out everyone's savings as in the Infamous German and Brazilian hyper inflation s of the past century. We cannot get out the other way either, through austerity, unless were willing to go through a many decades long truly horrific Super Great Depression a 100X's worse then the one were presently traversing. That's what the 1% want to do. So what's your answer?
I was wondering when someone would ask me that. I would because I have great faith in the people of this country. We have gotten through difficult times before. We will do it again. Thx for your reply.
It doesn't need to be hyperinflation. The inlfation we underwent in 1947 was 2-3x the current and it helped wipe out our war debt and we had a long, prosperous, 30+ year boom.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/when-inflation-was-good/
I remember the one we had in the late 70's it was an ugly experience friend. I personally don't think its a smart move. We'd be better off figuring out a way to make shit again in a competitive manner. Lots of stuff needs repair ( bridges, roads , hi speed rail water systems etc.) for a start and we need a major energy conversion and upgrade , but the PTB are owned by the OILY gangs and their backers the $$ pirates on Wall st That segways right into the reason #OWS is happening isn't it?
Stagflation was very different though, and the type of full employment monetary policies that created it are not at play here, and are pretty well understood. We are on a deflationary track right now.
More from Krugman: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/18/stagflation-versus-hyperinflation/
Also check out Puff's thread: http://occupywallst.org/forum/inflation-is-the-only-answer/
Inflation is the progressive course for our troubles, austerity will be the regressive, and ineffectual, one.
We'll have to agree to disagree on inflation as an answer. Its like giving someone poison as a cure for a very bad case of acne.
Aren't we past the point of sharing random (useless) thoughts, that dont' even resonate in our own minds.
WE THE PEOPLE have far more important matters to concern ourselves with, SUBSTANTIVE REAL PROBLEMS.
Please, focus on what's REAL and important. Please try...
Look, you use the forum for what you want to use it for and I'll use it for what I want to use it for. No one is forcing you to participate in this disscusion.
The problem is, it's fast becoming that. A number of distopian novels are based on the premise that through a series of mergers one megacorporation comes to dominate all of US society becoming the defacto government.
Ok but you didn't answer the question.
Since I oppose corporatism, which is to say corporations and I am for the seizure of all corporate assets and reorganizing them in the interest of everyone as opposed to a few stock holders, I would never, under any circumstances buy stock in any company. If I have any money I give it to the movement.
Interesting. Sounds a lot like the way they did things in the former Soviet Union.
In a sense Stalinism was a form of corporatism. So theorists defined it as state capitalism though I think that was not an entirely correct formulation as under Stalinism there were virtually no markets of any kind which are, after all the essence of capitalism
Spoken like a true socialist!
Most labels have virtually no specific content today. They are basically nothing but curse words. Calling someone a socialist, or for that matter a fascist or a liberal today is really the equivalent of calling them a son of a bitch and it really doen't contribute to the political discussion.
I didn't call you a socialist. I said you spoke like one. As mother always use to say "If the shoe fits wear it"
My point is, what, exactly, did you mean by that? Simple labels are such contested terms that they lack any specific meaning.
I meant it sounded like a socialist statement period. Not trying to insult you, just making an observation.
Hum. We don't seem to be getting anywhere here, but I'd really like to. When I ask what is it, exactly, that you mean by socialism? What I get back is that I'm making socialist statements. You are not defining your terms. What do you mean by socialism? Socialism, like most abstractions, is a very contested term. As such it's not a very useful term. So I'd really like to know exactly what you mean when you use it.
Well let's see. We were discussing state capitalism and Stalin. You don't see any relationship there? BTW I was referring to your original statement. My mistake.
Are you suggesting that any reference to state capitalism and Stalin is per se socialist? I know of several political theorists who are not socialists but who characterize Stalinism as state capitalism. Lots of conservatives, from Churchill onwards talk about Stalin. Since when, or why is it socialist to talk about Stalin? I'm not trying to give you a hard time. I really find this an important discussion, but again if we are to rescue any abstract notion from glib meaninglessness, we need to define our terms.
Yes I am suggesting that there is a connection between state capitalism and socialism. Would you describe Stalin as a socialist?
I think Stalin probably started out as a socialist but he didn't end up that way, but you are begging the question. You seem to be asking (by implication) what my definition of socialism is. I haven't defined it, I just said that by my (unstated) definition of socialism Stalin was probably a socialist at one time and then not. You still haven't given me your definition and I asked first. I'll show you mine if you show me yours.
Henry Ford said, “It is well enough that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”
We are beginning to understand, and Occupy Wall Street looks like the beginning of the revolution.
We are beginning to understand that our money is created, not by the government, but by banks. Many authorities have confirmed this, including the Federal Reserve itself. The only money the government creates today are coins, which compose less than one ten-thousandth of the money supply. Federal Reserve Notes, or dollar bills, are issued by Federal Reserve Banks, all twelve of which are owned by the private banks in their district. Most of our money comes into circulation as bank loans, and it comes with an interest charge attached
Thank you for the post but you didn't answer the question.
I was attempting to point out the root cause of our many problems.
http://www.WebOfDebt.com
Some people think the Federal Reserve Banks are US government institutions. They are not... they are private credit monopolies which prey upon the people of the US for the benefit of themselves and their foreign and domestic swindlers, and rich and predatory money lenders. The sack of the United States by the Fed is the greatest crime in history. Every effort has been made by the Fed to conceal its powers, but the truth is the Fed has usurped the government. It controls everything here and it controls all our foreign relations. It makes and breaks governments at will. - Louis McFadden
McFadden was elected as a Republican Representative to the Sixty-fourth Congress and to the nine succeeding Congresses. He served as Chairman of the United States House Committee on Banking and Currency during the Sixty-sixth through Seventy-first Congresses, or 1920-31.
I appreciate you pointing all that out but it's not what I asked.
Why would anyone invest in a company so incompetent as to run itself deeply into the red within less than a year, and then borrow against it's very speculative proposed revenue/ income/ for the following year, in light of the fact that it has a long history of running itself into the black. By any sense of the word, America as corporate is not only bankrupt, it has enslaved its employees, and the children and grandchildren of those employees as well.
You have a point.
boycott Wal-Mart
Why would I want to do that?Though I suppose I already am in a sense since I don't shop there.
US Federal bonds are around 2% which means its a safe investment with low return.
There wouldn't be a whole lot of risk. Not like Italy or greece.
A good long term investment then?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w
Tried to watch it but it will not load.
My initial answer was no, I would not buy stock in this entity, as it is upside down and a poor investment choice, unless you like to lose money. It's balance sheet a shambles. Yet so rich in assets and resources. Let's rethink this investment.
It is ripe for a hostile take over, with numerous assets and resources. So yes, absolutely, I'd buy every stock option available. Then, take control of the board, fire and vote out the existing leadership. Realign it's mission, vision and goals. Unload debilitating liabilities, FDA, EPA, HUD, DOT, DOEd, ad infinitium. Then restructure it financially, align revenue with expenses. And lastly, eliminate the debt burden.
It would look the same but function effectively, efficiently, with justifiable and necessary expenditures. A not-for-profit organization, humanitarian in nature, with sound corporate governance - critical to it's success.
Great reply!
It is a company and people are just a resource or an expence.
So would you invest in it then?
The UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT is indeed Incorporated, just as you are.
Have you ever noticed your mail, driver's license, legal papers...
mail or documents coming from people desiring to sell you something, types "Your Name"
similar from corporate entities with which you are entangles type "YOUR NAME"
OK but you didn't answer the question.
Besides, you asked more than one. Your predicating and hypothetical "what if", is flawed as my original post to you illustrated.
If you don't want to play, don't play. There are plenty who seem to be enjoying the game.
Me personally, I invest in tangibles of which I retain 100% control therof and I have not trusted the money changers with anything, especially the fruits of my labors, in many years.
However, if you wanna play the stock ponies
Look here
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/11/top-favorite-stock-holdings-of-congress/
and I'm sure these guys may tell you the laws which make writing off your losses, completely legal. They may also tell you laws that make it legal for significant losses to bring about the citizens buying you a new yacht or airplane.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/senator-coburn-presents-subsidies-rich-and-famous
Do you like this answer? Do you consider it an answer?
So I guess the answer is no. I to like having some tangible assets to balance out my portfolio. Acts as a very effective inflation hedge.
Your disconnected syntax makes clear communication with you, tedious. Good luck.
Excuse the F#$% out of me!
no, learn snytax to enable you to communicate directly and concisely
there will be no excuse for those unable to when it is required to be able to do so in order to have a voice, or position, within The People's government
English, not ebonics, not Arabic, Spanish or any other language. English.
How about this for proper snytax. Kiss my ass!
I might if it weren't made up of butterflies already pinned to contrasting poster board.
Feel free to substitute "kick" for "kiss".
Your a real class act! I hope your wings will keep you from bumping your ass on your way back to your tent.
Tis why they are so.
Thanks for noticing the class.
My pleasure.
Also part of their design and architecture, ribbed for both of our pleasures!
xoxoxoxo
You have a very warped sense of humor there frog boy!
Hell no! $15 trillion in debt, diminishing sales and a disgracefully clueless management team. I'd short the hell out of a company like that.
Lol! Nice. I suppose shorting it would be a good strategy. So you see no potential for up side then?
Remove management across the board. Just management as the basics of the company, brick & mortar stuff, works well. Staunch the flow of red ink (painful short term unfortunately, would require job cuts / reorganization). Brand value has taken a hit over the last decade but could bounce back. There is potential upside long term definitely but the #1 problem with America as a "company" is management.
If I were on the board I would nominate you as one of the replacements. How does CFO sound?
Ha thanks I'm not great with numbers, I'd be better as an operations guy.
Yes I would! Here's the number 1 reason:While the basic foundations of our nation are sound and even though they are being twisted by the current FED, Banking and Wall Street Perps such as Goldman Sachs and folks like Bernie Madoff (how the founders of our great nation must surely be rolling in their graves)-the FREEDOMS that we have here are unmatched and through support that is available from PUBLIC and PRIVATE sources those with ideas or specialty levels of knowledge that enables them to create products or services that fill wants, needs or solve problems have a better chance. Although secondary to the US within the last 10 years or so the so called BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China) I might choose India and Brazil in that order since their cultural affinities lean more to those in the US vs. Russia and China.
OK. Thx for the reply.
they would need a bailout, too risky..
True but what if an influx of capital enabled them to reduce their debt and increase production? How would you feel then?
[Removed]
Why would anyone invest in a company so incompetent as to run itself deeply into the red within less than a year and then borrow against it's proposed revenue/ income/ for the following year, in light of the fact that it has a long history of running itself into the black. By any sense of the word, America as corporate is not only bankrupt, it has enslaved its employees for at least three lifetimes.
[Removed]
Not on your life with the way it run now.
What would you need to see change to get you to invest?
Hell no.
Why?
Because its insolvent and has way more debt coming down the tubes than it does revenue, and is all ready bankrupt.
If I made my own credit cards to keep paying for my porshe, I would be thrown in jail.
I like the way you think. Funny how the Fed never has to play by the same rules as we do isn't it.
Invest in it? sure, as soon as 0bama is replaced.
Agreed. Seems like a lot of people feel the same way.