Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Why not buy up WallStreet?

Posted 2 years ago on Oct. 11, 2011, 7 p.m. EST by MaerF0x0 (15)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

The way I figure it, people have been protesting for all sorts of "free" fixes to society. Things that they feel they are owed or deserve... Why not work to own and earn these fixes?

Here is what I am assuming: 1) the 99% represent about 300 million Americans. 2) Most everyone has a cell phone, TV(cable) or some form of cost that amounts to about $80 per month. 3) Everyone has the opportunity to own part of the american economy by purchasing shares of public companies

If the 99% started to spend a mere $500 a year to buy up the shares of public companies (you only need 51% to control it), you could quickly own every company in America. When you own or control a company, you can enforce rules like Fair/equitable profit sharing, environmentalism etc. The 99% could buy their purchases from said company to help keep the revolution going.

Why do the 99% demand to be given (via political means) instead of to work (ie a job and ownership) for the change?

Would this work the way I am assuming?

13 Comments

13 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by DirtyHippie (200) 2 years ago

First let's figure out what it would cost to buy just one company. I picked Apple Inc. just because.

There are 916 million shares outstanding (available to be bought and sold at the market) so we would need 467.16 million to equal 51%. The price per share fluctuates with the market and closed today at $402.19 per share. If we were somehow able to lock in that price for all the shares we need, it would cost $187.887 Billion.

Let's say we spread that cost around to all Americans of adult age, 18 years and older. The 2010 census says that there were 234.5 million Americans over 18. We're including 99% so the number of adult Americans would be 232.155 million.

When we divide the total cost of $187.887 Billion by the number of buyers 232.155 million, each person would have to kick in $809.32.

I don't know the computer, cell phone, electronic gadget business of Apple. But I do know the financial business of Wall Street. Let's say we bought one of the large investment banking firms. JP Morgan would only cost each person $281 and Goldman Sachs would cost $109.

Now comes the fun part. Enforcing rules. These companies are required by law to have extensive 'rulebooks' that conform to the industry regulations. But the business is competitive, internally and with the other firms on the street. No one wants to break the rules because there are consequences. (JP Morgan paid a $550 million fine in 2010.) So they look for ways to do things that will give them an edge, without being technically illegal. It's called Gaming the System.

There's no reward on Wall Street for keeping a clean record by doing business with a high ethical standard. Maybe there should be.

Of course there's more to the picture than what I described. With 49% of the shares owned by other interests, there could be pressure from them to regain control.

What would happen if the company wasn't profitable?

[-] 1 points by atki4564 (1259) from Lake Placid, FL 2 years ago

Exactly, and although I'm all in favor of taking down today's ineffective and inefficient Top 10% Management Group of Business & Government, there's only one way to do it – by fighting bankers as bankers ourselves, and thus creating our own shares, and to hell with their shares. Consequently, I have posted a 1-page Summary of the Strategic Legal Policies, Organizational Operating Structures, and Tactical Investment Procedures necessary to do this at:

http://getsatisfaction.com/americanselect/topics/on_strategic_legal_policy_organizational_operational_structures_tactical_investment_procedures

Join

http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/StrategicInternationalSystems/

if you want to be 1 of 100,000 people needed to support a Presidential Candidate – myself – at AmericansElect.org in support of the above bank-focused platform.

[-] 1 points by patriot4change (818) 2 years ago

I have participated in both IPOs and Hostile Take-overs. The company has to make 51% of it's shares available for what you are saying to take place. And you usually have to "orchestrate" a division among the Board of Directors. If a company perceives that it is being bought out by a 99% Consortium, believe me, they will NOT issue the controlling shares to be available. If anything, they will secretly solicit a 2nd party to jump in before you have the chance. I think this is what 'gawdoftruth' is referring to in his Post below.

[-] 1 points by JeffBlock2012 (272) 2 years ago

actually for most public corporations it only takes about 5% ownership to get a seat on the Board of Directors - not a controlling voice, but at least a voice.

a move towards more and more employee owned corporations would be another good idea.

[-] 1 points by MaerF0x0 (15) 2 years ago

Yeah i am very much pro worker cooperatives . I belive it was "capitalism a love story" movie that showed the bread company that paid its people amazing wages and was democratic in the work place. More of us need to leave our employers and have the balls to start these kinds of businesses. And more of us need to support these kinds of business models. I hate how I protest all day about unfair models, yet buy my clothes from old navy... Gonna start another thread on that topic..

[-] 1 points by Esposito (173) 2 years ago

Now this is a practical idea and gives people equity.

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

no, it can't work, they have all the money.


http://www.oligarchyusa.com/

http://www.istockanalyst.com/finance/story/5390832/some-fascinating-stats-about-our-corporate-oligarchy

http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/category/21st-century-challenges/ethicsandeconomics/

According to a 2008 article by David Rothkopf, the world’s 1,100 richest people have almost twice the assets of the poorest 2.5 billion (Rothkopf, 2008). Aside from the obvious problem – that this global elite has their hands in everything from politics to financial institutions – …

http://theprogressiveplaybook.com/2011/09/occupywallstreet-an-american-tahrir/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ght22PnCXy0

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/wisconsin-is-ground-zero_b_825321.html

http://last-lost-empire.com/blog/?tag=global-corporate-oligarchy

To the extent that we, the people, are removed from control over our lands, marketplaces, central banks, and media we are no longer empowered. In practice, those few who do control the land, central bank, media and "free market" are the real rulers of our corrupt and declining "democracy."

Due to propaganda from a corporate-owned and edited media we are kept from knowing, much less debating, the nature of our system. Due to a central bank owned by bankers, media owned by a few global concerns, and trade regime controlled by global corporations (i.e., one designed to remove the people from control over their markets and environments) the vast majority have become little more than latter-day serfs and neo-slaves upon a corporate latifundia.

To restore a semblance of effective democracy and true freedom Americans, and people around the world, need to re-educate themselves as to the true nature of their political and economic systems. Toward this end, OligarchyUSA.com is dedicated to providing old and new information, books, links, reform ideas and debates not easily found or accessed today in establishment media.

OligarchyUSA.com is but one more site and sign of the times as ground-up counter-revolutions arise around the world... all in response to a forced and freedomless globalization courtesy of a ruling global elite perfecting their top-down plutocracy and revolutions of the rich against the poor. In short, democracy is no longer effective today. For this reason, it is toward a restoration of truly effective and representative democracies, and natural freedom, that this site is dedicated.

[-] 1 points by MaerF0x0 (15) 2 years ago

Jeez man why such a big signature, its kinda rude to thread jack with such a big sig.

anyways.. They dont have all the money, remember that they pay to "us" a significant sum, literally billions per hour. the top only make that amount per week or month.. Because we out pace/produce them they cannot win in the end. (its like a game of starcraft!) So, we can buy up the stocks as they pay us our incomes, as we control companies we can help those in need more, or use DRIP systems to further increase our owner ship of said companies. Yes they will make billions on the rise of their stock prices, but they will also shortly find that they're losing control of the company's decisions. Their avarice (they will sell at high prices) will be their downfall.

So the real question is how to collectivize/organize this? How do we have 349million disparate stock holders organize to say at the next shareholders meeting "No, I want a raise for the workers and for you to close down the 2 most polluting operations in our company"?

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

jeez man its the only way to get the point across and get organization happening. You have completely missed the ten different reasons in game theory why this can't work, including the simple fact that they own it all and control it all and etc.

The casino is rigged. what part of this do you not understand? Only having enormous amounts of money allows you to stay at the top. trying to play their game your way is just stepping into a rigged casino.

Everyone will just loose everything.

[-] 1 points by MaerF0x0 (15) 2 years ago

Fixing some of my logic.. $40 per month would be $500 per year. 51% of walmart costs a mere 100 Billion, which is about $333 per person in the 99% ... So the 99% could control one of the "biggest" and "evilest" companies on wall street. And in turn make it a equitable democractic boon to the whole of society no?

[-] 1 points by schnitzlefritz (225) 2 years ago

The simple answer is yes it could work. However, in practice it would be more difficult. The more that buy the stock, the higher the price will go, requiring more money to buy the shares. If everyone does not follow through, it fails. So you have a couple options. Collect all of the money required in a trust fund and do a single transaction once enough funds have been set aside.

Failing that, and assuming that you fail to acquire a sufficient volume of shares, you could impart damage by instituting a massive sell-off. That doesn't achieve the goal, but could send a heck of a message.

[-] 1 points by MaerF0x0 (15) 2 years ago

How would you suggest we organize this? Is there some way we can help organize and educate existing share holders? Many people own a tonne of stock in their Retirement plans, and just dont know how to exercise their rights and voice over the companies they control.

[-] 1 points by schnitzlefritz (225) 2 years ago

Honestly, I really have no clue. If I could organize an effort that big, I elect myself president and fix this whole mess :)