Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Beat them at their own game: The 99er Conglomerate

Posted 1 year ago on Dec. 9, 2012, 1:44 a.m. EST by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

It's time. If you have any kind of self-employment or hobby, reply here. Get on the list of subsidiaries, and read on to understand what that means.

This is a response to someone who said "...it's less about beating them at their own game and more about finding a better game to play.": ...I somewhat agree. We need to find a new game, quickly, with serious global impact. Corporations are tough, challenging opponents. The 99er conglomerate needs to become the most predatory corporation there ever will be (predatory against corporations, not people, for those who take that the wrong way). It needs to dominate capitalism. Nothing can be permitted to stand against it. Corporations command armed forces and pull the strings of governments, so how can anything change their game? One hell of a bloody protest might have an effect, but citizens won't choose to starve and bleed on a large enough scale. When the conglomerate has power, it can start commanding forces and governments. Then anything can be possible.

My replies to this post were copy-pasted from elsewhere because I don't feel like typing it out again. So far the only useless feedback was from this nut at another forum who ruins everyone's good times by replying to EVERYTHING with links to his shitty website... he wants to be the President. If you like this idea and know of a better way to get it out there, please reply.

ps, since the most recent post is at the top, you might want to start from the bottom.

Back to Topic References: http://occupywallst.org/forum/conglomerate-and-dgrc-topic-references/

53 Comments

53 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by elf3 (2671) 1 year ago

Silly- technically we do own the world's biggest corporation (Or Co-Operative) - America? Tax-dollars are shares in community resources. Like police, highways, libraries, schools, national defense, etc. We're just hiring the wrong people to take care of them (Also we have lost control of the company to the larger shareholders.)

[-] 2 points by LeoYo (5847) 1 year ago

Tax dollars are not shares as shares are not imposed upon the shareholders. Shares are an investment for the shareholders, not an obligatory payment for common services.

We don't do any hiring and we have never been in control http://occupywallst.org/forum/none-are-more-hopelessly-enslaved-than-those-who-f/ . In fact, we refuse to do any hiring by taking control http://occupywallst.org/forum/freeda-template/ and simply provide consent for those already hired by the wealthy. That's the way it has always been which is why there was a Whiskey Rebellion in 1791.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/free-democracy-amendment/#comment-749610

http://occupywallst.org/forum/free-democracy-amendment/#comment-748866

http://occupywallst.org/forum/free-democracy-amendment/#comment-756688

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

You could say that but it sure doesn't feel like I control anything. Five of the eight banks who own the |F|E|D| aren't even on this continent. I'm not getting wealthier day by day. Corporations get richer as they fill up prisons with the "owners" of this corporation called America. Also, people aren't the problem. It's obviously the system. Change the game, not the players.

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

Hey LeoYo, did you happen to read through the entire idea here, with the conglomerate and how it can change the world, and maximize the effectiveness of occupy?

[-] 2 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

Yes, and working with the constitution implements an authority they have to respect.

"it's less about beating them at their own game and more about finding a better game to play."

The corporations and elite have created a perceptional box of politics, and the medias do not share anything outside of what is designated for play in that box.

I've been posting here about Article V and how citizens can engage it by defining constitutional intent. They become the masters of the congress and courts by this method. Those authorities can only go along. It is literally image suicide for them not to.

However, citizens have to understand constitutional intent for real and be able to use it with unity against unconstitutional officials to take control of their government.

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

This is the worst idea I have heard of all year..... The 99er conglomerate needs to become the most predatory corporation there ever will be.

"We have met the enemy and it is us" .... think about it.

[-] -1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

Obviously you are missing something.

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

I'm missing nothing. There is nothing more oppressive than a corporation, even government isn't that oppressive. I've worked for them for over 8 years.... and you want to create a giant conglomerate? (but, but this one will be different!)...

You can't change the system by playing the same game by the same rules.... the end result will be ... the same.

[-] 0 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

Funny how some people believe they are missing nothing. Cool, well you keep doing what you're doing while everyone else jumps on board. It is inevitable, totally predictable that this argument will come up, I was waiting for it. I recommend giving it a fair chance, for the sake of the planet, at the risk of admitting you can be wrong sometimes.

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

For the sake of the planet I recommend a change to corporations charters, involving mandatory profit sharing, cradle to grave product environmental liability, and elimination of legal immunity for share holders resulting from corporate malfeasance.

Not more of the same. I'm glad everyone else is jumping on board... let them jump. There is nothing revolutionary that you are doing with this scheme.

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

turn on tune in drop out.

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

What?

[-] 1 points by dyck (10) from Raleigh, NC 1 year ago

Any grand or modest effort for radical change NEEDS compassion and care, not anger, deceptive, self-centered greed or ambition.

Your brief intro indicates you lack compassion and care.

When you are on the path of love, Kavats I will support you.

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

Ok, thanks for the contribution. It is valuable feedback and I linked back here from the FAQs section of Topic References in case someone else feels the same (I'm sure you are not the only one).

Please believe this is of purely benevolent intent, for the purpose of fixing the root issues. This is for nature and our children's future, not for personal gain. We cannot stand by fighting one small surface issue at a time, as two new issues will surface while you think you're doing something worthwhile.

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

I don't know how you got any of that. Maybe read it again and show me for each adjective you listed a reference from the intro. It's a little insulting to hear that actually, but maybe it's my fault for writing with that style.

Greed? I have nothing more to gain than any other citizen.

Anger, lack of compassion and care. Ok yes, I am angry at government and corporations. You aren't? I have no compassion for corporations like Monsanto or the FED. This is only for love of the people and the land. You can't stand by while everything you love is raped without getting a little enraged, unless you are blind, dumb and ignorant.

Deceptive? What??

Please back up your claims. Is it the word predatory that threw you off? Predatory corporations are called that because they prey on other corporations. It's not describing the relationship between corporations and people.

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

Looks like you're starting to see what I see! I'm curious about one point:

Profits from member entrpreneur business will go to the conglomerate and be redistributed to the community through job creation for members.

Do you mean revenues above fees should be managed by the conglomerate? I think subsidiaries should operate autonomously, aside from redundant departments like accounting, legal and such. Fees collected are needed for app development and advertizing, and eventually the strategic consumption of corporate prey.

I especially like your last point.

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

I don't think the masses will go for it. There is too much love for the free market and the American Dream.

The root cause of the problem is the relationship between certain corporations and government. The goal of the conglomerate is to take the corporation position in that relationship, to be the primary influencer of government. It's supposed to restore power to the people.

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

Agreed there's not enough love for the right stuff. But we have to sneak a curve ball past them. When enough power is on the right side, government will morph and evolve... and we might move away from a money-based system to where our primary motivations are derived from higher-order needs of Maslow's pyramid.

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

You are not going to impress enough people with that direction. Most Americans will reject a movement towards communism.

That is not the conglomerate.

I also disagree with your 1lb per person analogy, though I understand how you might jump to that conclusion.

Your suggestion is not undesirable in theory but it would take a century to take root and flourish.

The conglomerate needs to accumulate subsidiaries and supporters as fast as possible so it can weaken other certain corps and get a stranglehold on government. That is the vision of the conglomerate. That is when wealth can be distributed properly to all citizens... it is the job of government to save people from poverty and promote social/economic fairness.

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

Equating entrepreneurs with evil corporations is a serious perceptual error.

The conglomerate won't have a small group of owners, and shares won't be publicly traded.

The conglomerate will only be owned by the subsidiaries. A large number of owners have equal democratic power over the conglomerate... ownership/power can not determined by the success/size/contribution of any one subsidiary. Does this not change your perception of the idea?

You need to see that rules change a bit in subsequent phases. In the beginning there will only be small business subsidiaries, employing small numbers. In the third phase, "Consumption", the conglomerate starts to acquire businesses that employ many workers and don't operate as we see fit (evil capitalistic tendencies). Different rules apply to this category of subsidiaries.

The Phase 3 consumed subsidiaries have to totally change... you may have read about "Democracy at Work" ( http://occupywallst.org/forum/whats-next-for-the-movement-a-discussion-on-strate/#comment-872897 ), which puts a great deal of wealth and power in the hands of employees and removes high-paid executives.

Trust me, I know where you're coming from as I've been there, but I've been thinking about this for a really long time. I can explain how this idea compensates for potential issues, or why some perceived issues do not apply.

Reply if you want but I don't accept that your last post concludes the discussion.

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

I've decided I had better come up with the ultimate response to this because it's the most common conclusion new people come to when learning about this idea.

It's a challenge I had to overcome too. I couldn't think of a way to make the world discard of [this form of] capitalism, at least not in a reasonable time-frame.

Why get away from capitalism as it exists today? So workers can get paid much better and more fairly. So there is more respect for nature. So we can control our economy and government free from corporate influence.

We need to change from brutal capitalism to responsible capitalism. Responsible Capitalism (named for lack of a better term, and to contrast "irresponsible") can lead to even better systems if a nation desires, but with brutal capitalism, the state of a nation is deadlocked (Referenced http://occupywallst.org/forum/dgrc-manifestation-of-responsible-capitalism/ ).

The challenge is convincing the population. The nation was designed to be divided in two... or at least two, which makes it impossible to unite the nation for any cause (aside from cancer, etc.). The population has been brutally force-fed propaganda and many people still fear what they are told to. And they love what they are told to love.


So there are two points to your argument that are recognized and compensated for by design:

One. The conglomerate will become as influential, greedy and evil as any corporation.

Each and every subsidiary has equal democratic influence on, and ownership of, the conglomerate. They do not own shares or receive dividends; they own one share each.

Want to be a subsidiary? Sell pretty stones you found at the beach, or discarded bread, or advice! You get equal share in the conglomerate if you're on the subsidiary directory and have a 99% symbol on your logo. You decide how much you and your employees get paid.

So you see, there will be a great large number of decision-makers on the conglomerate's steering committee. ALL of these owners care a great deal about the movement and despise the imbalance between the elite and the 99%.

By contributing to the development of the Constitution of the Conglomerate, you will see and shape how we will never allow corruption in the organization.

-

Two. Workers will still be treated and paid the same low wages and there will still be poverty.

When you understand Phase 3 (Referenced http://occupywallst.org/forum/p3-consumption/#comment-893210 ; Referenced http://www.occupywallst.org/forum/conglomerate-and-democracy-at-work/ ; Referenced http://www.occupywallst.org/forum/constitution-of-the-conglomerate/ ), and the changes it brings, you'll see my point. In phases 1 and 2, subsidiaries will basically be mom and pop shops just employing a few people. This is not the part that worries you. In Phase 3, the types of corporations that employ large numbers of workers will be consumed by the conglomerate. These are the ones that harm employees, the economy, nature, etc.

Phase 3 consumed subsidiaries have separate rules which don't apply to Phase 1 and 2 subsidiaries (Referenced http://occupywallst.org/forum/constitution-of-the-conglomerate/#comment-901688 ). They are restructured to operate without high-paid executives and follow Democracy at Work. Another hypothetical rule which I like is "No employee gets paid more than 30% of the lowest earner's wage.", but stuff like that is to be decided in the constitution.

With Democracy at Work for P3 consumed subsidiaries, the workers you wish to protect will have influence and control over their employer. They take Fridays off to decide how much they should get paid, where the manufacturing should get done, what products are made of, and much more. Do you think they will choose to take home minimum wage while paying their CEO a fortune, then move their job overseas?

See, this idea seems to do what you were hoping, in a very uncomplicated way. The populace can accept it. The capitalists can accept it. We can roll it out with little resistance from anyone and it will put a new backbone of steel in the movement.

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

Not sure why I can't reply to your last post, so I'll answer your questions here.

  • The plumber, carpenter, school teacher, and janitor are just as eligible as anyone else is to join the conglomerate. If their only money comes from the public sector, they will just have to wait for changes in government. The conglomerate's influence on government will have the interests of the 99% in mind 100% of the time, because there will be zero 1% people involved. The conglomerate is everyone - not just entrepreneurs.

  • Large corporations' employees will make way more money ONLY IF they are consumed by the conglomerate. We should strive to make that happen now.

  • The ultimate goal of the conglomerate is to die, and take capitalism with it.

  • The conglomerate will not horde or even possess excess funds. All the money it gets to use will be to achieve it's long, longer-term, and ultimate goals.

  • I know you're not 1%. But if this works, people will be criticized for not buying 99% subsidiary products and services if it's an option.

  • It's not fair to discriminate against entrepreneurs. They are usually very clever people who only want to do good and want to be their own boss. Entrepreneurs enjoy risk, excitement and freedom, they are not bent on world domination.

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

Unfortunate you think that can happen, it's definitely not supposed to.

Subsidiaries don't become the government.

There may be thousands of subsidiaries in the conglomerate, and the conglomerate might become the most powerful corporation ever. Do you realize what that would mean? Instead of a small number of super powerful evil capitalists influencing government, thousands of occupiers decide how the conglomerate influences government. This is WAY better, yet you would side with the 1% and trade your soul to block equality. Nice.

Would you buy 99% products, or would you support other corporations?

If you don't intend to read more about the conglomerate, please don't bother replying to this. If you haven't changed your mind about the idea, you haven't read enough or you don't have the prerequisits to compregend it. If I'm unclear about something, I'll gladly try again.

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

I completely disagree, but that's fine. I appreciate your arguments and will consider them while developing the idea further. Thanks and good day to you too.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

i am partially self employed

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

Would it hurt your business if you were on the subsidiary directory? Would you have a problem designing a logo with the 99% drawn in a circle on it? What business are you involved in? What is your target market?

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

What is subsidiary directory?

I work in video as a partial side business. I'm pretty stuck with my logo. My friend designed it and he passed away a while back.

My target market is low budget simple video and graphics.

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

The directory, in the beginning, is a list of businesses pledging to become "acquired" by the conglomerate. Your business is advertized in the directory, which is distributed to supporters of the movement.

When consumers like us need to purchase something, we'll check the directory first to see if we can support the movement.

What if your logo was only shown with the 99% symbol when displayed in the subsidiary directory? What if the symbol on your logo was very small and hard to see from a distance?

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

Here are some ways you can be a successful entrepreneur with the conglomerate: http://www.occupywallst.org/forum/thinking-cooperative-become-a-success-with-the-con/ I'm sure I'll add to it over time, there are endless ways. You can too!

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

I will say this to those opposed:

New corporations are "born" all the time, so why not this?

This can cut the issue at its root. It is a solution not requiring conflict or extra effort by individuals. It gives Occupy permanence and pursuades consumers to become supporters.

It is the corporation to end all corporations.

Do not go into a sick forest and poison the one seedling which might hold the cure, when it is no threat to you. It is no greater threat than any other tree in the forest, yet it has the potential to restore nature's balance... and power to the people.

I don't see a lot of nonviolent options able to generate such a magnitude of change with such velocity.

[-] 1 points by bullfrogma (448) 1 year ago

Cool idea. And pervasive is a good word for revolution.

This's a good way we could actually strike, with ourselves to fall back on, a network of fuctionality. That's basically what it looks like, an organisation of our independent selves.

Here's a thought though, take food for example. To make enough food for everyone, the mass, you need land and production. We've grown into this and they have a monopoly on it. They're going to put up quite a fight to not let that landscape change, and maybe that's a war we just can't avoid.

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

Thanks! After thinking long and hard about it, I dont see that conflict coming to be. In the strategic consumption phase, the conglomerate will be acquiring other corporations with money. Every corporation has a price. In many cases, the conglomerate will devalue other entities with fair competition in their markets, making those entities easier to acquire. Some prey (larger, multifaceted corporations) will have to be dismantled and acquired one bite at a time.

[-] 1 points by bullfrogma (448) 1 year ago

It sort of reminds me of craigslist but with a specific intention of weaning people off the monopoly monster, a sort of yellow pages for independent community. Does it even need to cost money?

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

It would have some elements similar to craigslist. It's supposed to be free until phase 2. It starts as a simple text document directory and evolves into an advanced web application requiring expert development and maintenance. Fees are a percentage of revenue, and may increase more than once in phases 2 and 3, though will be very affordable considering the expected revenue increases to be realized by subsidiaries.

I'll soon be posting about the website separately and I'll let you know when it's done.

The intent of the conglomerate is to generate prosperity for entrepreneurs who support occupy, make consumers feel ashamed for not supporting occupy, weaken and consume capitalism, transfer wealth and power to the people worldwide, and lead the world to a united anti-capitalist reality.

Now, I do like the concept of capitalism. It's fun, at least that's what I was trained to believe. Unfortunately humans can't be trusted with the power it brings, so do not deserve to have it.

I much prefer the resource-based economy and everything else associated with the Venus Project. Anyone afraid to move in that general direction pretty much supports the death of humanity and the natural world, whether they know it or not.

I don't expect God, capitalists or some super magician to come and fix this nightmare.

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

This is what I have in mind so far for the phases:

P1: http://occupywallst.org/forum/p1-incorporation/

-campaign for subsidiaries

-develop business directory

-develop/implement ad strategy

-incorporate conglomerate

P2: http://occupywallst.org/forum/p2-presence/

-begin collecting fees

-develop web and mobile apps

-incorporate essential services

-low-budget public ads

P3: http://occupywallst.org/forum/p3-consumption/

-merge internal competitors

-initiate strategic consumption

-increase fees

-update apps

-massive public ads

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

I had a run through and captured most of the high-level tasks/objectives for each part of each phase. Please follow the links and contribute if you can.

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

What will conglomerate advertizing do? Here are a few I can think of off the top of my head:

-promote the movement When a business is acquired, support increases. All employees and customers of that business will be supporting Occupy. Every view of the company logo strengthens the movement.

-increase profits for members Consumers will have their reason for choosing your business over the competition. Purchasing 99er products and services will be considered ethical choices. Supporting the 1% will be frowned upon.

-create awareness that spending elsewhere is supporting the 1% People don't seem to realize it yet but buying little things like toothpaste and baby jar food is what's fueling the enemy. Conglomerate advertizing will focus on making this common knowledge.

What do you want to do for money? Bake cookies? Build houses? Clean houses? Babysit? Sell coffee? Make toothpaste or soaps? Whatever it is, joining with the conglomerate can be your key to success. As it gets rolling, more and more benefits will come available... Legal, accounting, staffing, benefits, insurance, financing, and more. But to help get it rolling, just say you support the idea.

Before the conglomerate exists, may as well still sign up. All it takes is adding the 99er logo to your own and getting on the free ad list.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

Very interesting. I need to think about it more but you may be onto something.

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

Hey therising, I know you're super busy (on vacation yet?), but let me know if you've had a chance to browse Topic References lately. Much has been done, though it's way far from complete.

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

Thanks! Read today to see the only opposing argument I've anticipated so far. If you can think of potential cons to this idea besides "I don't like corporations", I'd love to grow from them.

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

The 99er Business Directory:

When your company is acquired by the conglomerate, an ad/store page is dedicated to you, and your company's name, contact info, logo and slogan (slogo?) appear in the directory tree. It can work similar to Kijiji. Each ad is basically a tall row in a list based on the user's search results. The user clicks on your ad and is taken to your ad page.

I keep imagining this as a 3D world mall where your character can visit stores, libraries or whatever... interact with government one day?

Anyway, if I lay it all out, you would see that what I've described above are just a few ways people will interact with the site. A strategic objective is the entrepreneurial component, continually improved, to support business start-up and to manage your businesses online.

But to start, the Directory will just be a list of business names emailed or shared by whatever free means exist. When the website first appears and fees are paid by subsidiaries to finance the conglomerate, the intricacies of website business rules and design can be worked out.

All fees earned by the conglomerate for some time will go to operational costs, advertizing and website development. No person(s) or elite group will benefit from the organization other than what the conglomerate is designed to provide.

Everyone has equal opportunity in their industries, and yes, more than one subsidiary might be competing for the same market share. That can't be stopped, but there is always the option to merge and become more powerful. Merging of internal competition is always in the best interest of the conglomerate, but should never be forced.

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

I can't resist thinking about Phase Two and the website, maybe called FreeInfo? Starting as a simple directory with advertizing, it will evolve to something most people use every day for a variety of reasons. I've made sketches for a user interface in the past, and thought through scenarios and aspects of the user experience. Thinking, I can see it facilitating the manifestation of new economic and political frameworks - systems not yet invented or ever put into practice.


This is a bit off topic, but does anyone think government borders should NOT be geographical, but departmental rather? If I (a voter) know a lot about the environment and maybe transportation, why should I want to influence the governing of economics? Why would I want economists to have significant influence in the Environment Department? I am a constituent of the departments of Environment and Transportation. I do not worry about the Department of Economics as I trust its constituents care for it the way I care for mine. I understand my industries and know my leaders well.

Departmental Governance (DG) feels more responsible.

I could go into how the DG evaluation system replaces the voting system and how political parties go extinct. As they exist, political parties just separate nations in ridiculous political theater - theater as bad as fake wrestling soap opera. The DG political framework produces more responsible leaders in many more ways. It removes capitalism from government and will decimate the potential for corruption. It diversifies yet simplifies government and strengthens it holistically. Leaders replace politicians in this system - who could ask for more?

OK - done dreaming. Back to the conglomerate... ideas?


Why all that? Because it is exploring one of the possibilities if this is successful. I'll eventually cross-reference a few posts/topics to this one, one being DG&RC (Departmental Governance & Responsible Capitalism). Another will describe the web app (maybe called FreeInfo?), a vital tool for either the conglomerate or DG&RC to flourish, and an excellent way to bind them.

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

A lawyer reading this might see a great opportunity for him or her: helping draft the constitution of the conglomerate corporation. It might be worth providing legal advice to the conglomerate in the first phase. Then, by merging her own business with the conglomerate, she will be the first lawyer to advertize as a 99er (lack of a better term) subsidiary. Supporters of the movement will seek her services for any area of law she wishes to specialize in.

The Phase One rules would have to be such that though a business is "acquired" by the conglomerate, its operations will not be influenced by the conglomerate. The acquisition of your business does not interfere with the way you organize, produce or distribute. This rule would have to change in a later phase when larger mergers take place - takeovers, or the strategic "consuming" of capitalism by the conglomerate.

A lawyer would be handy for consolidating redundant departments, since one of the benefits for subsidiaries is lower costs for tax, legal and accounting responsibilities. Now the accountant is thinking about this rare opportunity, "Would it hurt my reputation if I was the first accounting subsidiary to advertize as a 99er?"

The few who choose to initiate this will certainly be known around the world in a few short years. Don't you think?

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

The 99% can beat them at their own game: capitalism.

Basically it's a conglomerate. A corporation composed of subsidiaries owned by individuals like you and me. The long-term goal is to return power to the people.

Do you own or want to start a lawn maintenance or painting business? Just associate it with the conglomerate, and call it a subsidiary. We can do this with any business of any size.

To start with there should be no fees for associating, but your business will get great advertizing. Basically, you include the 99% symbol with your company logo. We will find ways to share the list of businesses with the world (apps and emails, for example).

The conglomerate will become recognized and people around the world will begin to feel guilt for not purchasing Occupy products and services, given the choice. Society will begin to condemn those who prefer to support the 1%.

In time, subsidiaries will need to pay fees and so will be given the choice to separate. But say bye-bye to the benefits.

As subsidiaries grow large in numbers, they will be encouraged to merge to become stronger. And when the conglomerate acquires greater financial leverage, it will begin to consume existing corporate entities.

Wouldn't it be cool to see these "consumed" entities change the way they do business? I'd say stop trading their shares publicly and enforce "Democracy at Work". This means employees take half a day off each week and get together to democratically determine how/what/where to produce goods and how much each should get paid. This should ensure equity and keep jobs local... who would choose to pay CEOs shiploads then move their jobs overseas? (Remember I'm only talking about consumed entities here, not your business.) Do you think the conglomerate wouldn't eventually operate a non-profit financial institution for it's members?

I have ideas for a website too, to facilitate business start-ups and permanent support. I think it can revolutionize the entrepreneurial and consumer world, with an impact on society rivaling Facebook's. I won't go into that just yet.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

This is very interesting. Not sure if it's new or not but it seems new. I need to consider it further. Changing the game is an attractive option overall.

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

As far as I know, it's new, though I'd wager it's been brewing in other minds, as it usually happens with simple new ideas.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

Cool. Will spend some time thinking about this.

[-] 0 points by Coyote88 (-24) 1 year ago

So you become your enemy in order to defeat you enemy? What's wrong with this picture?

[-] 3 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

Oh you mean the concepts of 'Power Corrupts' and 'Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely'..... they think that they are immune from this.

[-] -1 points by Coyote88 (-24) 1 year ago

Yes. In other words immature delusion.

[-] 0 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

You can get involved when it's time to write the constitution of the conglomerate.

[-] -1 points by Coyote88 (-24) 1 year ago

You didn't answer the question.

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

Yea... that will be my default reply to people who equate this with existing corporations.