EGNP

[Grandpa]

It wouldn't be my first job but it might be my last...
WORLD EMPEROR

I'd only make one law.
Any company or corporation with combined net worth over $1mil must designate 1/4 of their company as "Emperor Grandpa's Non-Profit".

Here's how it would work:
EGNP portion of company would not spend any $$ on advertising.
All $$ that would normally go toward corporate profits must instead be used to:

1. Reduce cost to consumer
2. Increase wages paid to employees

We wouldn't presume to tell anybody how to reallocate the profits, they could experiment as they wanted. Some might make the cheapest burgers / cars / services / etc. on the planet. Others might want to have the highest paid, most talented employees. Doesn't matter. We wouldn't care about the policies of the other parts of the corporation, but only that one fourth of the entire company must utilize EGNP business models effective immediately.

[Xyzzzy]

So when do you assume this post?

[Grandpa]

So when do you assume this post?

It shouldn't really be me, but somebody who likes my idea? What's on your calendar for tomorrow, Xyzzzy? EXNP works too.

[Xyzzzy]

So when do you assume this post?

It shouldn't really be me, but somebody who likes my idea? What's on your calendar for tomorrow, Xyzzzy? EXNP works too.

I'm completely free. Should I block out the day as "World Domination"?

[Trice]

I'll do it.

when economic chaos breaks out, you 2 can be my scapegoats

[dom]

So when do you assume this post?

It shouldn't really be me, but somebody who likes my idea? What's on your calendar for tomorrow, Xyzzzy? EXNP works too.

In about 20 years i'm going to be running for prime minister, i'll give it some thought then.

[blackfalcon]

So when do you assume this post?

It shouldn't really be me, but somebody who likes my idea? What's on your calendar for tomorrow, Xyzzzy? EXNP works too.

I'm completely free. Should I block out the day as "World Domination"?

make it fast cuz mondays my day for domination. enjoy ur power while u can.

-falcon



lol

[Squirt]

So to my understanding grandpa killed someone and got his position as CEO and he wants to give them oney to the poor?

Robinhood theme ?

[dom]

So to my understanding grandpa killed someone and got his position as CEO and he wants to give them oney to the poor?

Robinhood theme ?

Atleast he wouldn't sag in tights

[Draquish]

Hopefully...

[woutR]

So when do you assume this post?

It shouldn't really be me, but somebody who likes my idea? What's on your calendar for tomorrow, Xyzzzy? EXNP works too.

In about 20 years i'm going to be running for prime minister, i'll give it some thought then.

I'll remember this and send you a letter when you run for president in Canada.
Note to self: Dominic van Ha, president of Canada, must write.

[Grandpa]

So to my understanding grandpa killed someone and got his position as CEO and he wants to give them oney to the poor?

Robinhood theme ?

Yes, Robinhood.
Being a good knowledge whore means it doesn't matter where an idea comes from.

Oooops... one sec...
Gotta check something...

Spoiler!

Okay, where was I?
Oh, yes... Robinhood .AND. let people get paid for their work.
Plus it would only be for ¼ of the company / corporation, I'm not greedy.


~Grandpa

[FlackBox]

Spoiler!

Spoiler!

[blackfalcon]

Spoiler!

Spoiler!

lol. hi blackfox

*edit* how i add spoilers?

[Squirt]

Spoiler!

Spoiler!

FlackBox
BlackFox
?!! Let the conspiracy begin

[giggle]

"Grandpa Robinhood EMPEROR" sounds good if you do it what you say.
Reduce cost to consumer
Increase wages paid to employees

Then I vote for you Grandpa

[FlackBox]

"Grandpa Robinhood EMPEROR" sounds good if you do it what you say.
Reduce cost to consumer
Increase wages paid to employees

Then I vote for you Grandpa

In principle it sounds good, but might encounter problems when trying to redistribute a company's worth when it has very poor cash flow or liquid capital. Add to that the fact that 1/4th of a company like microsoft seems too large a sum to just throw to workers.

[Grandpa]

"Grandpa Robinhood EMPEROR" sounds good if you do it what you say.
Reduce cost to consumer
Increase wages paid to employees

Then I vote for you Grandpa

Agreed.

In principle it sounds good, but might encounter problems when trying to redistribute a company's worth when it has very poor cash flow or liquid capital. Add to that the fact that 1/4th of a company like microsoft seems too large a sum to just throw to workers.

It's ok, they could reduce the cost of their products. Lower cost to consumer is fine... you're right though the Evil Empire (Microsoft) might be slow to catch on, especially if they could not advertise or put their "we are sooo good" spin on it.

OOPS. Edited double post (sry).

[giggle]

It's ok, they could reduce the cost of their products. Lower cost to consumer is fine... you're right though the Evil Empire (Microsoft) might be slow to catch on, especially if they could not advertise or put their "we are sooo good" spin on it.

OOPS. Edited double post (sry).

Yes there Granpa, the company who sell products they buy them cheap or make them alot cheaper, then they sell it to much high price, So like you said, they could reduce the cost for the consumer and the tax should be little less.

Edit: "Grandpa Robinhood EMPEROR" So Grandpa make it better !

[crazyskwrls]

neheheh your all too late i already have taken over the pentagon








btw gramps isn't ur idea just like what communism is about?

[Grandpa]

neheheh your all too late i already have taken over the pentagon
btw gramps isn't ur idea just like what communism is about?

Communism? Naw, it's not even Socialism, it just isn't rabid capitalism.
Also there would be a 1/4th reduction to advertising revenue.
Their brainwashing would be less effective and there could be hope for you yet!

I used to work for a $5 billion dollar corporation.
Their SIP (Savings Incentive Plan) included a 60% corporate match paid in company stock.
You should have seen us (me too, after about 10 years savings) when the stock started climbing in 1998.
Of course all stocks were going up then -- the company I worked for wasn't all that special. When the tide goes up it raises all the boats in the water.
My co-workers would come in to work and first thing to do was call for the current prices of the company stock... then they'd start sending voice-mails.

By 2002 the company was bankrupt. I do believe in profits and enjoy finance. My rose colored glasses are off now is all.

~Granps

[blackfalcon]

neheheh your all too late i already have taken over the pentagon

Image in quote is removed. - Milly


btw gramps isn't ur idea just like what communism is about?

idk if i should congratulate u on getting the blueprints for the pentagon, or turn on the news to see if its still there lol

[Xyzzzy]

FFS why do morons always quote pictures???? T_T

[blackfalcon]

FFS why do morons always quote pictures???? T_T

[Xyzzzy]

FFS why do morons always quote pictures???? T_T

Yay for image block <3

all better now

[Millenium]

It wouldn't be my first job but it might be my last...
WORLD EMPEROR

I'd only make one law.
Any company or corporation with combined net worth over $1mil must designate 1/4 of their company as "Emperor Grandpa's Non-Profit".

Here's how it would work:
EGNP portion of company would not spend any $$ on advertising.
All $$ that would normally go toward corporate profits must instead be used to:

1. Reduce cost to consumer
2. Increase wages paid to employees

We wouldn't presume to tell anybody how to reallocate the profits, they could experiment as they wanted. Some might make the cheapest burgers / cars / services / etc. on the planet. Others might want to have the highest paid, most talented employees. Doesn't matter. We wouldn't care about the policies of the other parts of the corporation, but only that one fourth of the entire company must utilize EGNP business models effective immediately.

If you've actually studied Economy at University level, you'll realize
1. Companies use $$ on many activities to maintain their productivity
2. Transforming all retained earnings to reduce cost to consumer or increase wage paid, then it will have a DEVASTATING impact on the global economy.

[Grandpa]

If you've actually studied Economy at University level, you'll realize
1. Companies use $$ on many activities to maintain their productivity
2. Transforming all retained earnings to reduce cost to consumer or increase wage paid, then it will have a DEVASTATING impact on the global economy.

If you actually read what you quoted you might realize the simplified proposal offered here on a game forum

1. Did NOT address quote, "Transforming all retained earnings"
2. The 'devastation' that you predict would by necessity be reduced by 3/4

Question: Should I assume, as you did of me, that you have not studied at the university level?
I don't know where you live and it wouldn't be right for me to assume that the average debt in your country will have as devastating effect as it will soon have in the US, but seriously, something must be done. With all due respect to you as a game forum moderator, it's staggering to think about. To pretend that all is well and nothing needs to be done is preposterous.

The policies of financial corporations aside, there are at least two sides to every argument, of course. It's the old Greenspan / Bernanke debate in the US - will increasing non-financial corporate profits and the effort to 'hold down' wages result in a recession? Greenspan puts the chances of recession at one in three this year (and he's a pretty smart guy).

Profit margins for non-financial corporations rose to 13.7 percent in the third quarter from 12.8 percent in the second, according to the Commerce Department. That's the highest level since the second quarter of 1969 and more than double the 6.2 percent in the fourth quarter of 2001, just as the current expansion began.

Holding Down Wages

Meanwhile, corporate profits increased to a record 12.4 percent of the economy in the third quarter from 7.1 percent five years earlier, as companies held down wage increases while their revenues rose.

Can an idea be defeated simply because it makes common sense? Seems so, doesn't it?


I'm certainly not advocating more governmental control or as another post suggested communism. But if I were to wake up tomorrow as Emperor of the World there would be changes. Do you seriously equate corporate health with world health? Seems I should have been empowered decades ago.

Cordially,
~Grandpa

[CrimsonNuker]

[Millenium]

If you've actually studied Economy at University level, you'll realize
1. Companies use $$ on many activities to maintain their productivity
2. Transforming all retained earnings to reduce cost to consumer or increase wage paid, then it will have a DEVASTATING impact on the global economy.

If you actually read what you quoted you might realize the simplified proposal offered here on a game forum

1. Did NOT address quote, "Transforming all retained earnings"
2. The 'devastation' that you predict would by necessity be reduced by 3/4

Question: Should I assume, as you did of me, that you have not studied at the university level?
I don't know where you live and it wouldn't be right for me to assume that the average debt in your country will have as devastating effect as it will soon have in the US, but seriously, something must be done. With all due respect to you as a game forum moderator, it's staggering to think about. To pretend that all is well and nothing needs to be done is preposterous.

We should do nothing about it - isn't exactly my point here. Also you don't have to pay any unnecessary "respect" for me as a moderator when I'm not even doing my modding job here. I'm merely discussion your proposal.

The company doens't even have to use ALL or even HALF of their retained earning to reduce the cost of goods/increase wage provided to employers.

Your proposal includes reducing the cost of goods (if the company's net worth is over 1 mil), so assuming mid-sized to large sized companies. This puts unnecessary pressure on smaller corporations and/or family business running in cities and rural areas because they, in turn, must lower THEIR prices to compete. They are having a hard time enough already competing with large retail stores like walmart. Just imagine walmart lowering their price again.

Now moving onto increased wage. Large companies increasing wage for people who already have a job doesn't help. They should, if they should designate any fund into salaries, would be to employ MORE people. Raising wage (as a result of government regulation) distorts the workers market, which will lead to unemployment.

Now these are some rather simple economy principles, yet you've came up with plans that disobey them, which is why I had to assumed you've never stuided economy, at least in a higher level, and giving wrong ideas is bad even on game forums because it'll educate people towards the wrong way.

Yes, the economy is starting to crumble in Canada as well, and we should do something but, the reality is nothing can be solved at this point since China and US are limiting their export of vital natural resources and oil prices are still shooting upwards. Its not the corporate's fault they have to raise price on things.

[Grandpa]

With all due respect to you as a game forum mod and college student I was being facetious. I thought about just resigning the discussion with a comment such as "I take it I don't get your vote for World Emperor then," but then reconsidered.

The company doens't even have to use ALL or even HALF of their retained earning to reduce the cost of goods/increase wage provided to employers.

I have no clue what you meant there. Again, you've cast what I've said into extremes, essentially creating your own version of what I said in order to better attempt to beat it down. Nobody (except for you) has said ALL corporate profits, nobody (except for you) has said HALF. What I had in mind when I spoke of the "EGNP portion of a company" didn't even specifically address the P&L bottom line. I was purposefully ambiguous about what would form that "portion".

After creating your several straw-man arguments, and predicting the destruction of the world, you choose to "discuss" the idea with me but you didn't address my subsequent questions. (Oops, did I say 'destruction'? I meant "DEVASTATION" in all caps) I specifically asked if you (or your learned professors) have given serious thought to private debt (owed to financial corporations). Your response? When I pointed to Alan Greenspan (who is a pretty smart guy) this also was not deemed worthy of a response.

In alternative you choose Wal-Mart as your 'hero' and to defend from their view. Do you honestly think that that particular corporation got rich by charging customers reasonable prices .AND. paying their labor fair wages??? Has ANY company or corporation become RICH by charging customers reasonable prices .AND. paying workers their due? But back to your example, Question: Has there ever been a successful attempt at Unionization at Wal-Mart? No? Do you know why? It's a serious question, do you know?

The so called savings found at Wal-Mart is exactly what my proposal addresses. I do appreciate your attempt at specifics though but consider Sam's Club (a division of Wal-Mart) vs. Costco Wholesale Incorporated. Costco pays they employees better (by far) and gets more work performed with FEWER employees. The turnover rate is reduced, the cost of training reduced, and in my opinion theirs is the better business model. Yet they have been criticized on Wall Street because they pay their employees well.

The idea of hiring more employees (and holding their wages down) isn't new either. But and again, THAT is not what I proposed. You suggest that "raising wage (as a result of government regulation) distorts the workers market, which will lead to unemployment." Do you have any sources to quote regarding what you state is simple economics and your view that raising wages .AND. lowering consumer prices will lead to unemployment? No? Didn't think so. Your statement that it will (under my proposal) is just a reiteration of your initial prophecy of DEVASTATION and GLOBAL DESTRUCTION.

You state, "giving wrong ideas is bad even on game forums [is bad] because it'll educate people towards the wrong way." I doubt that you've given serious thought to any of this. In point of fact, I doubt that any of this deserves serious thought.

All that I meant to say can be boiled down to the common complaint, "the rich get richer, the poor get poorer". It's nothing new. Neither is my observation that knocking down a supposed opponent's thought is easier than coming up with alternatives.