So what should we do, Mr. Ignatieff?

[bush_cheney2004]

....People will say it was the latter of course, but lets look at this example from the shareholder view. Some who are shareholders own say a few thousand shares of IBM, some more, some less. The exec's at IBM, at least the top ones (like Palmisano) own hundreds of thousands. Who profits, mightily I might add, to offshoring jobs and bringing in a few cents per share?

Small shareholders profit too, and they hold far more shares as a group. I know I did. So if moving jobs offshore keeps the company healthy and competitive, then whining about executives is just a diversion. How many American jobs went to Canada?

[Oleg Bach]

None of our business what the Taliban do in Afhganistan. It is none of our business what the warlords do in Iraq..It is none of my buisness if my neighbour beats his wife...and it is none of OUR business what goes on in China...We should learn to mind our own business and maybe we would have some - business!

[Saipan]

It's funny that you should blame the "Greedy Unions" for jobs being off shored, manufacturing or otherwise.

You produce some widgets and have choice of employees. Some will demand $28/hr. because they have union. Others will settle for $18/hr., and still others agree to just $2/hr. Who will YOU employ to stay competitive in world market or go out of business?

[Argus]

I'm saying that you're not quite as prone to generously recognizing (real enough, yes) political nuance in others as you are for Harper.

Let's just say I'm less cynical about someone who agrees to go along with something because to otherwise will cost him political support than I am about someone self-righteously attacking a program or policy he knows is the right thing to do in hopes of generating political support.

[Saipan]

None of our business what the Taliban do in Afhganistan. It is none of our business what the warlords do in Iraq..It is none of my buisness if my neighbour beats his wife...and it is none of OUR business what goes on in China...We should learn to mind our own business and maybe we would have some - business!

Say a thug is holding your family at gun point. Your neighbour is well armed but he's busy with his business. And your business is not his. How happy will that make you?

Similar thing happen on larger scale when Germans were taking over Czechoslovakia, but despite Defence Treaty Czechoslovakia's allies did nothing. They figured it would be bad business to fight with Hitler. So they befriended Hitler instead.

In short time those allies were bombed by Germans, because they were seen as weaklinks.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_VLoMSVL0ylA/SevBMDOA_uI/AAAAAAAAAS4/3hqEUfmcWdw/s400/chamberlain-hitler.jpg

Edited November 8, 2010 by Saipan

[Shakeyhands]

Small shareholders profit too, and they hold far more shares as a group. I know I did. So if moving jobs offshore keeps the company healthy and competitive, then whining about executives is just a diversion. How many American jobs went to Canada?

I said it in the original post:

"In fact I would say the 'in kind' numbers between the US and Canada were pretty even."

[Shakeyhands]

Small shareholders profit too, and they hold far more shares as a group. I know I did. So if moving jobs offshore keeps the company healthy and competitive, then whining about executives is just a diversion.

It's the large holders of shares, executive or otherwise.

Simple math tells us that the larger shareholders profits the most. The small shareholder making 6-7 cents on a couple thousand shares isn't profiting greatly, but 6-7 cents on hundreds of thousands shares does.

[bush_cheney2004]

I said it in the original post:

"In fact I would say the 'in kind' numbers between the US and Canada were pretty even."

Sure you would...that would be after Americans lost some of their Big Blue jobs to cheaper Canadian labor...i.e. "outsourcing". If it's India or China or Ireland that's outsourcing, but not Canada...right?

[Shakeyhands]

You produce some widgets and have choice of employees. Some will demand $28/hr. because they have union. Others will settle for $18/hr., and still others agree to just $2/hr. Who will YOU employ to stay competitive in world market or go out of business?

I guess I am naive, but I am certainly not greedy. I would hire the most skilled workers here and create a company that build a solid well backed product right here in Canada.

As I stated, I'd pay more for something made in NA by my neighbours. After all, more money invested and spent here stays here and build a better life for those around me.

[charter.rights]

I guess I am naive, but I am certainly not greedy. I would hire the most skilled workers here and create a company that build a solid well backed product right here in Canada.

As I stated, I'd pay more for something made in NA by my neighbours. After all, more money invested and spent here stays here and build a better life for those around me.

See if you can market that kind of ideology to Walmart customers.....

[bush_cheney2004]

It's the large holders of shares, executive or otherwise.

Simple math tells us that the larger shareholders profits the most. The small shareholder making 6-7 cents on a couple thousand shares isn't profiting greatly, but 6-7 cents on hundreds of thousands shares does.

I made a lot more than 6 - 7 cents...hell the dividends are worth more than that. There are lots of people holding IBM as a blue chip stock as individual shares or as part of a mutual fund. The "executives" must file transactions as part of financials reporting and it is not nearly as much as you think, bitter ex-employee or not.

[M.Dancer]

Small shareholders profit too, and they hold far more shares as a group.

In the US this is true. In Canada the retail shareholder as a group is smaller than the institutionals who control the mutual funds/pension funds and have the proxy rights come voting time...

I have talked to and encouraged issuers to reach out to the retail shareholder universe for the benefits that retail holders bring, but the IRO would rather communicate with 10 institutionals than 50,000 individuals.

[bush_cheney2004]

...I have talked to and encouraged issuers to reach out to the retail shareholder universe for the benefits that retail holders bring, but the IRO would rather communicate with 10 institutionals than 50,000 individuals.

OK...but the individual shareholder still has a stake in the game via mutual funds. As a class, they benefit much more than any "greedy, evil, scheming" executive. I am able to complete proxy votes for shares held....to the point of being a mailbox annoyance.

[Shakeyhands]

I made a lot more than 6 - 7 cents...hell the dividends are worth more than that. There are lots of people holding IBM as a blue chip stock as individual shares or as part of a mutual fund. The "executives" must file transactions as part of financials reporting and it is not nearly as much as you think, bitter ex-employee or not.

Not bitter at all if thats what you are refering to... Been much more successful since I left.

[William Ashley]

Liu Xiaobo won the Nobel peace prize not long ago. For those who don't know about him, he's a Chinese dissident imprisoned for expressing his belief that China ought to lighten up a little.

"activist who called for democratic reforms and the end of one-party rule in China"

That isn't exactly lightening up - it is a direct attack on the largest political party - the only major political party in that particular country for half a century.

China is mightily pissed, of course. They are demonstrating their displeasure in the way all dictatorships do, by throwing their weight around.

No they are lessening their weight, not throwing it around, understand there is a very very marked difference between the two.

The Norwegian government has felt the wrath of the Chinese, canceling various agreements nad meetings.

"Well why deal with someone you don't support, sorta backward ain't it? It is like me calling your mom ugly then dating her.

Or in actual - hey china is an undemocratic evil state - lets conduct our trade with them even more! That is a shcizoid personality trait to make that into logic."

China is the sane one in this case, regardless of what they stand for ( I hate partisanism) but China is remarkably multifaceted in having a one party system all politics are done through one organ - but the views within it differ along various lines. Unlike here the major parties all do almost all the same stuff - fact is parties are just a bluff, Canada excludes against individual democracy for that exact same "undemocratic" party rule - it just comes in two colours instead of one.

"China you are so bad, do you have change for a 5 billion?

There was a Norwegian minister actually in China for meetings, and they were abruptly canceled. That the Norwegian government has no say in who gets awarded the Nobel prizes is as irrelevent to the Chinese as the fact the Danish government didn't have a say in what cartoons newspapers choose to publish was to the Muslim wack jobs.

Being offensive to others isn't exactly a nobel trait. Look how much two party rule brought peace to the united states or most other NATO countries - when was the last time China invaded a country - like never - they took their assets by diplomacy and threat, not actual war. When things resulted in violence it was usually police actions that were potentially fully legal.

The Chinese are also putting pressure on foreign governments not to attend the awarding of the Nobel Prize. So how many will bow down and how many will go anyway?

And what exactly would Michael Ignatieff advise? I mean, given he's basically been hounding the Tories for years about not being on their knees before the Chinese Communist dictators. So far, of course, Ignatieff has chosen to say absolutely nothing about the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize. Which is rather curious since he likes to portray himself as a great internationalist and defender of human rights.

Perhaps wisdom can be found in silence.

So if Ignatieff was PM would we bob our heads to the Chinese, perhaps in exchange for a promise of some more tourists or a manufacturing contract or two, or would we attend the ceremony regardless?

Are you forgetting that Harper was China's best friend during his visit there before the Climate change sumit, and actively tried to get Chinese pandas for Canada.

-------

My 2 cents. China is entitled to its opinion - so is Liu, and both of them need to understand the repercussions of their opinions when they are expressed, much the same as anyone else in the world, including myself.

Does Liu deserve a nobel peace prize - for what? What work on peace has he done? He is a critic - criticism does not bring peace. But the US president who is at war with two countries also isn't exactly a strong nobel peace prize recipient either. But the nature of the nobel often has been conflicted and tends to concentrate on a specific trait or meritorious act - rather than a total package of exemplary behaviour. China might take that at what it is worth, rather than making it out to be more than it really is. If they'd like to really be constructive perhaps they can start their own "Chinese Nobel prize association" Or the Nobeler Prizes.

Edited November 8, 2010 by William Ashley

[William Ashley]

"activist who called for democratic reforms and the end of one-party rule in China"

That isn't exactly lightening up - it is a direct attack on the largest political party - the only major political party in that particular country for half a century.

No they are lessening their weight, not throwing it around, understand there is a very very marked difference between the two.

"Well why deal with someone you don't support, sorta backward ain't it? It is like me calling your mom ugly then dating her.

Or in actual - hey china is an undemocratic evil state - lets conduct our trade with them even more! That is a shcizoid personality trait to make that into logic."

China is the sane one in this case, regardless of what they stand for ( I hate partisanism) but China is remarkably multifaceted in having a one party system all politics are done through one organ - but the views within it differ along various lines. Unlike here the major parties all do almost all the same stuff - fact is parties are just a bluff, Canada excludes against individual democracy for that exact same "undemocratic" party rule - it just comes in two colours instead of one.

"China you are so bad, do you have change for a 5 billion?

Being offensive to others isn't exactly a nobel trait. Look how much two party rule brought peace to the united states or most other NATO countries - when was the last time China invaded a country - like never - they took their assets by diplomacy and threat, not actual war. When things resulted in violence it was usually police actions that were potentially fully legal.

Perhaps wisdom can be found in silence.

Are you forgetting that Harper was China's best friend during his visit there before the Climate change sumit, and actively tried to get Chinese pandas for Canada.

-------

My 2 cents. China is entitled to its opinion - so is Liu, and both of them need to understand the repercussions of their opinions when they are expressed, much the same as anyone else in the world, including myself.

Does Liu deserve a nobel peace prize - for what? What work on peace has he done? He is a critic - criticism does not bring peace. But the US president who is at war with two countries also isn't exactly a strong nobel peace prize recipient either. But the nature of the nobel often has been conflicted and tends to concentrate on a specific trait or meritorious act - rather than a total package of exemplary behaviour. China might take that at what it is worth, rather than making it out to be more than it really is. If they'd like to really be constructive perhaps they can start their own "Chinese Nobel prize association" Or the Nobeler Prizes.

Inciting subversion of state power is a crime under the law of the People's Republic of China. It is article 105, paragraph 2 of the 1997 revision of the People's Republic of China's legal code

People are attacked in Canada for their beliefs - for instance myself forced out of my schooling for "opposition to authority" over a conscious decision not to stand for the national anthem due to Canada's participation in undeclared acts of war in Afghanistan with support of the Canadian government - a disgrace to good values and honourable conduct. This was further compounded by multiple instances of war crimes by Canada and its allies in contravention of multiple international agreements such as the Geneva conventions. I am not pro qaeda or pro taliban - but regardless supporting one wrong group over another wrong group doesn't make a right cause, especially when it is a convoluted situation fueled by lies and misrepresentations.

Edited November 8, 2010 by William Ashley

[M.Dancer]

OK...but the individual shareholder still has a stake in the game via mutual funds. As a class, they benefit much more than any "greedy, evil, scheming" executive. I am able to complete proxy votes for shares held....to the point of being a mailbox annoyance.

Not as a mutual fund holder however, only in shares you hold directly...I don't dispute the power they have in the US...here, not as much.

[bush_cheney2004]

Not as a mutual fund holder however, only in shares you hold directly...I don't dispute the power they have in the US...here, not as much.

I'm not convinced...power isn't the issue so much as benefit...directly or indirectly. I am certain than public and private pension funds in Canada reap the benefits of a well managed IBM, even if that includes "outsourcing".

[Argus]

Inciting subversion of state power is a crime under the law of the People's Republic of China. It is article 105, paragraph 2 of the 1997 revision of the People's Republic of China's legal code

People are attacked in Canada for their beliefs - for instance myself forced out of my schooling for "opposition to authority" over a conscious decision not to stand for the national anthem due to Canada's participation in undeclared acts of war in Afghanistan with support of the Canadian government - a disgrace to good values and honourable conduct. This was further compounded by multiple instances of war crimes by Canada and its allies in contravention of multiple international agreements such as the Geneva conventions. I am not pro qaeda or pro taliban - but regardless supporting one wrong group over another wrong group doesn't make a right cause, especially when it is a convoluted situation fueled by lies and misrepresentations.

I'm sorry, but all I get from this that you appear to be something of a wack job.

[William Ashley]

I'm sorry, but all I get from this that you appear to be something of a wack job.

Ad Hominem - your comments have been reported.

BE POLITE AND RESPECT OTHERS

Mapleleafweb operates these forums in the hopes that they will promote intelligent, honest and responsible discussion. We encourage you to speak your mind on relevant issues in a thoughtful way. Please respect others using this board and treat them with respect and dignity.

NO TROLLING/FLAMING

Do not post inflammatory remarks just to annoy people. If you are not bringing anything new to the argument, then do not say anything at all.

Some messages are not so much offensive as simply nuisance value. An example would be a person who persistently creates conflict without contributing anything useful. In newsgroup circles, such a person is known as a "troll". We define "trolling" as a message that serves no constructive purpose and is likely to cause offence or arguments. We define "annoying" as any message that results in a complaint from a registered user -- we will then decide whether to take action.

NO PERSONAL ATTACKS

Please respect others using this board by refraining from personal attacks. There is a huge difference between disagreeing with a thought or idea and attacking an individual. We encourage lively debate and intelligent critiques of others viewpoints, not tirades against another poster.

INSULTS

Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).

People who have a history of antagonistic behaviour will be treated more harshly than those who do not.

Insults levelled at third-parties (companies, political parties, nationalities) are also forbidden in the forums.

Avoid using abbreviated terms such as "Cons" or "Libs" that may be offensive to the group to which they refer. Full names are best and official abbreviations are acceptable.

Do not use diminutives or character substitutions in proper names that are not recognized by the original person to whom the reference is being made. For example, Prime Minister Stephen Harper does not identify himself as Stevie therefore, it is unacceptable to identify him as Stevie. Likewise, Paul Martin does not identify himself as Mr. Dithers, therefore, it is unacceptable to identify him as Mr. Dithers.

In the discussion forums, such infractions will be considered as third-party insults

RESEARCH YOUR POST

If you are stating a fact, be prepared to back it up with some official sources (websites, links etc). It is also important to structure your post in a way that everyone can understand. That means writing complete sentences and paragraphs with the appropriate grammar. If for some reason, you enjoy writing long confusing sentences and paragraphs riddled with poor grammar and spelling mistakes, your post, and therefore your opinions, will likely be discarded. Therefore, it is in your best interest to make sure that your post includes sufficient sources and contains a well-researched and well-organized argument.

POSTING CONTENT

All posts must contain some aspect of an argument or attempt to stimulate discussion. Simply posting a URL to an outside source or posting statements that are only one or two sentences long will not be tolerated and the post will be deleted. In addition, use the search feature to ensure that the topic you are posting is not already being discussed somewhere else in the forums.

It is also important that you stay on topic and keep the discussion focused. If the thread begins to wonder off into a new topic area, start a new thread and continue the discussion under the new thread. If you feel a thread is being watered down with too many different topic areas and you do not want to start the new thread yourself, feel free to contact the Admin and request a new thread.

Edited November 8, 2010 by William Ashley

[M.Dancer]

I'm not convinced...power isn't the issue so much as benefit...directly or indirectly. I am certain than public and private pension funds in Canada reap the benefits of a well managed IBM, even if that includes "outsourcing".

We are arguing at cross purposes. I don't disagree with you.

[bush_cheney2004]

We are arguing at cross purposes. I don't disagree with you.

Understood....what is important is that we are arguing. So there!

[bloodyminded]

Let's just say I'm less cynical about someone who agrees to go along with something because to otherwise will cost him political support than I am about someone self-righteously attacking a program or policy he knows is the right thing to do in hopes of generating political support.

Okay then.

[bloodyminded]

No they are lessening their weight, not throwing it around, understand there is a very very marked difference between the two.

This may be true. But Argus presumably has a difficult time in praising China's repression and tyranny...on the grounds that it was once worse.

I thoroughly sympathize with him in his view, here.

For an analogy, I witnesed some people--here, on this forum--replying to criticisms of the G20 police catastrophe by saying "some countries' police forces are far worse!"

A basic truism, but not relevant to the critiques.

[PIK]

While it would be nice to bow to humanity issues, the stark reality is that we are in a bit of a quagmire. Getting tough with China could easily mean the further bankruptcy of many more Canadian farms. $25 billion feeds a whole lot of western Canadians, truckers and ship workers.

Would you bite off your nose to spite your face?

With harper getting tough on china means harper doubled the grain sales, and he also had canada put on the most favourite tourist destination, something chretien could not do with all his bowing. China is a funny place ,I can see them having more respect for someone that is not afraid to stand up to them then bow at every chance. I always wondered why chretien gave them 1 million a week in aid, coulkd that have been a bribe to set up his business with strong in china?