HHAYD Posted July 7, 2011 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 (edited) In a meeting room, deep inside an unknown business's office building with two dozens of anonymous various CEOs/presidents/board of directors: 1: "Are you !@#$@#$ serious? Turning the government into a puppet again?" 2: "Yes. The benefits would be massive." 3: "Did you live under a rock during the war and crackdowns? What makes you think we won't crash and burn?" 2: "The previous folks were too ambitious and noisy. They kept the pressure up even when the public was well aware of their intentions and were already rioting. We're not going to make ourselves obvious. We're going to plant some friends into the government and sprinkle money strategically without hiring an army of lawyers to make our plans obvious. Should crap hit the ceiling, we deny everything and jump off the sinking ship instead of stupidly sinking with it." 4: "But where to start?" 2: "That, I don't know." 5: "Should we use Sri Lanka as an example?" 6: "Uh, I'm not so sure if it's recent government shift was caused by a conspiracy, and it involves assassinating people. That is something I wouldn't use as it makes too much noise, especially if lots of people dropped dead or disappeared suspiciously." 7: "If we aren't going to silence enemies, how do we keep them quiet?" 1: "Stomp them during reelections. Fund friendly candidates with massive amount of money. You can't win an election if your opponents have lots more money to burn through. And if you can't get reelected, you don't have as much power to stop something. Unless if you're extremely popular." 3: "Regarding our strategy, we need to focus on the Legislative. Election is coming up next year and we need to prepare our agents for it. President Natas is simply too popular to be knocked out of the presidential election, but he can't do much if the majority of the Legislative is opposing him." 5: "And then we will proceed to destroy Natas's reputation shortly before the presidential election so we can implant a president that's more business friendly. With the Legislative and Executive branch under our control, all we have to do is patiently wait and replace dead/retiring Judicial branch's judges with ones that are friendly to us. Might even take decades, but it's worth the wait." 6: "[i]Decades[/i]?" 4: "That, or we get to fall the same way the previous group fell by being too aggressive. Which is the lesser evil?" 6: "But the longer this takes, the higher the chance we'll get caught." 1: "Good point. I think we should actively turn the judges into friends while packing the Legislative with our friends." 2: "Ugh, I'm not so sure about this. I don't think this plan is worth it." 1: "I don't understand. Deregulation always helps." 2: "But what if other businesses that are more aggressive ends up crashing the economy because of their actions?" 1: "The economy will crash first with the heavy regulation. It's costing all of us billions, and another few dozen billions in potential profits that would've never existed under the regulation." 2: "Enron." 3: "The one that marked a $8 million annual profit as half a billion in the 90's, actively hide its debts through, and inflated its income to the point where it defied the laws of gravity through accounting fraud before crashing and burning? Highly unlikely that will occur again." 2: "What I meant wasn't one company going down, what I meant was numerous companies becoming reckless in an unregulated economy and bringing everyone down with them when they crash hard." 3: "Still, that's impossible for a repeated reckless crash to occur." Edited July 8, 2011 by HHAYD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.