So this is why I'll be voting Conservative

[jacee]

CEO's don't 'take' a share of anything. They are paid it, by the boards representing the shareholders of companies. It is not your money. Whether those boards want to pay them $1 or $100M, it makes absolutely no difference to you, me or any poor or rich person. The only people it affects, are the company shareholders.

And the people who got laid off to put that money in the CEO'S pockets.

And their families ... children ... elders.

And the pensioners who got shafted by strategic 'bankruptcies'.

You didn't even think of them did you?

I guess my point is made:

Large corporations and the people who run them become ruthless monsters without a shred of humanity, destroying the earth and people ... and then not even mentioning the damage they've done:

Only CEO'S and shareholders matter? :/

The reason you dislike massive CEO pay is not because it takes anything from you or anyone else, it is simply because you don't have it, and that bothers you.

I don't need it, thanks.

Nobody 'needs' that kind of money.

And to take it out of the mouthes of workers ' children and pensioners is revolting.

Why don't you complain to the IMF?

It's their report that's saying that the years of attacks on workers have achieved NOTHING.

Workers and their families suffered - lost jobs, homes - so CEO'S could pad their pockets, and no economic growth resulted from those attacks on workers either.

That's just what the IMF data says.

Grouching at me won't change that reality.

80% of jobs are created by small business.

Yet under Harper, we each pay $100/month to subsidize the tar sands. For what?!?!?!

The sooner we get the corporate bootlickers out of Ottawa the better, and the mega corporations out of Canada too.

Corporate control is fascism.

.

.

Edited August 9, 2015 by jacee

[WIP]

I think the long-time Con dream has been that, with a weakened Liberal Party, in a CPC/NDP two-party system, many 'blue' Liberal voters would prefer the CPC to the NDP.

I don't think that's likely! Every time the NDP has dreams of deep-sixing the Liberal Party, they try to finish them off by sliding to the middle and taking away the centrist issues. The Conservatives today have brought in so many nutbar teaparty types in Ontario and out West, that they don't have the same option of moving back to the center like past PC governments.

[WIP]

Obviously the number people on a dollar per day is increasing, the number of people is rapidly increasing period. However the standard of living of huge chunks of the world, in particular in China and India, is vastly improved compared to generations past. The hard data, shows that more people in more places have better lives as a percentage of the world, than ever before. Because Detroit is falling apart, does not mean the rest of the world is having the same problem.

I didn't even get to the part that the destruction of the commons has never been incorporated into GDP and per capita GDP stats that are used as the measures of wealth and poverty. Put it simply: if an itinerate peasant is growing food for his own consumption primarily, and selling any excess to trade for needed products, his per capita GDP is going to be much lower than the 30c an hour labourer working in a sweatshop and forced to buy food with his meagre earnings! Growing your own food...whether as a farmer or even a gardener, doesn't show up as economic activity in a capitalist system....just as a forest has no value until every tree is cut down and harvested for lumber!

A few years ago, when the Dickensian virtual slavery conditions that had been deliberately kept out of western consciousness by MSM refusal to acknowledge them, we started getting a glimpse of how bad things actually are for the people who make our cheap clothing when the "if it bleeds, it leads" principle briefly overrode the prevailing directive of "out of sight, out of mind," when Bangladeshi fires at textile mills were killing hundreds, culminating with a factory collapse that killed over 1000. Disasters that were beyond the scale of the worst sweatshop negligence-created disasters in the West....like the infamous Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire that marked it's 100th anniversary a couple of years ago. That disaster occurred in the Textile District of New York City, making it too close to be ignored. But when it happens on the other side of the world to darker people, there has to be 100 killed to make the news cycle, and over 1000 to make it a major story that will have followup stories.

Shortly after the factory collapse disaster, the Guardian and the BBC and maybe a few other national public broadcasters, invested the resources to send correspondents to Bangladesh and actually talk to some locals who were neither businessmen nor politicians. One story that really leaped out at me was from a 30 year old man widowed when his wife was killed in the disaster, leaving him alone to care for their 3 or 4 young children. His story was that both he and his wife came from a small rural settlement northwest of Dacca, and like many young people in the area, felt forced off the land and moving to the cities looking for work because the state deemed that his family and other relatives didn't have legal right to the land that had been farmed for generations. Just like every expulsion from the commons that has provided the desperate cheap labour for a series of industrial revolutions since the first one, peasants can always be forced off lands because there was no such thing as legal titles to land until recent history.

So, in the case of this 30 year old widowed emigre to an urban slum, like millions of others forced down this track, his actual quality of life has certainly NOT improved by his move to the city, even though that's what our bullshit economic numbers try to tell us!

[jacee]

?

Edited August 9, 2015 by jacee

[Argus]

No he just is/has tried to muzzle science.

Well, that's the spin you're trying to put on it anyway.

[Argus]

Maybe stop playing with your crickets ad check the price of a bbl of oil in the last year or so.

I'm sorry. The price of a barrel of oil would be related to Harper and his love of oil in what way, exactly?

[-1=e^ipi]

We funded ISIS? I managed to miss seeing that in any of the budget papers. You will, of course, show evidence of this, right?

We funded the 'moderate' rebels in an effort to engage in a proxy war with Russia and overthrow Assad.

[Argus]

I don't think that's likely! Every time the NDP has dreams of deep-sixing the Liberal Party, they try to finish them off by sliding to the middle and taking away the centrist issues. The Conservatives today have brought in so many nutbar teaparty types in Ontario and out West, that they don't have the same option of moving back to the center like past PC governments.

There are precisely -NO- nutbar tea party types in the Conservatives, or if there are they're sure keeping their heads low. Equating the Conservatives with the Tea Party is absurd. Politially speaking, the Conservatives are mostly on the Left of the Democratic party, never mind the Republicans.

[Argus]

We funded the 'moderate' rebels in an effort to engage in a proxy war with Russia and overthrow Assad.

Citation? And how does trying to help the moderates equate to funding ISIS?

[On Guard for Thee]

Well, that's the spin you're trying to put on it anyway.

Firing thousands of them and then telling the others they can't discuss their research except with the government isn't spin, it's reality I'm afraid.

[-1=e^ipi]

Citation? And how does trying to help the moderates equate to funding ISIS?

http://www.ottawasun.com/2013/08/31/canada-sent-millions-to-syrian-rebels

How does it equate? Because the vast majority of these rebels are Sunni Islamists that want to take over the world. But Obama, Harper, Cameron and others did not take the threat of fanatical Islamists seriously enough.

[On Guard for Thee]

I'm sorry. The price of a barrel of oil would be related to Harper and his love of oil in what way, exactly?

The way that when you rely so heavily on that price and then it goes in the dumper, and probably long term.

[TimG]

Firing thousands of them and then telling the others they can't discuss their research except with the government isn't spin, it's reality I'm afraid.

It is nothing but spin. Government budgets were cut in all departments. Some of those cuts affected scientists. You seem to think that once a government hires a scientist it can never change its mind and stop funding them. It is absurd.

As for "muzzling" scientists. It is most ridiculous spin. Scientists were free to publish their findings in peer reviewed journals. What they could not do is meet with media and make statements as employees of the government without advance approval. No science was suppressed - only the ability of scientists to exploit their position in order to get their name in the press.

Edited August 9, 2015 by TimG

[bush_cheney2004]

...As for "muzzling" scientists. It is most ridiculous spin. Scientists were free to publish their findings in peer reviewed journals. What they could not do is meet with media and make statements as employees of the government without advance approval. No science was suppressed - only the ability of scientists to exploit their position in order to get their name in the press.

Very true....government funded Canadian scientists and researchers were still free to attend international symposia and deliver presentations.

[On Guard for Thee]

It is nothing but spin. Government budgets were cut in all departments. Some of those cuts affected scientists. You seem to think that once a government hires a scientist it can never change its mind and stop funding them. It is absurd.

As for "muzzling" scientists. It is most ridiculous spin. Scientists were free to publish their findings in peer reviewed journals. What they could not do is meet with media and make statements as employees of the government without advance approval. No science was suppressed - only the ability of scientists to exploit their position in order to get their name in the press.

We'll see what Suzanne Legault's investigation reveals. If you ask scientist's at the PIPSC they will tell you you're wrong.

[cybercoma]

the other 90% of the economy continues to grow

You didn't look at the market numbers that were just released, did you?

90% of the economy is growing? Try 90% is shrinking.

[Smallc]

To be honest, no I didn't, and I actually find that surprise given how mild the recession (if it turns out to be one) has been thus far.

[eyeball]

The premise that governments decide what sectors should grow and what should not is delusional nonsense.

Again...look at coastal communities dependant on fish for their livelihoods, everywhere around the planet there is evidence that irrefutably proves you either live in abject denial of reality or you simply just don't know what you're talking about.

I've said it before and I'll keep saying it as long as it needs to be said small fishing communities are or should be to policy-makers as canaries are to coal miners. Fishing communities, even the tiniest one's are composed of sectoral interests; gill-netters, trollers, trawlers, and industries that impact the habitat and environment that the fish live in and that fishermen depend on. When you can see all these competing fishing sectors are able to co-exist and remain healthy you can be almost certain that the natural environment, the economy it supports and the management regime regulating it all is working to the benefit of everyone, especially the fish.

Again...open your eyes and look around you and you will find in the case of almost every collapsed fishery on the planet a chain of events that can be traced back to where a government decided what sectors should grow and what should not.

What's happening in most cases is that as a fishery winds down the biggest most influential fishing sectors displace the smallest least influential one's - which is pretty much what's happening in industries across the spectrum around the planet too. Deciding what sectors live and what sectors die is exactly what governments do, all the time, all around the world.

[hitops]

I didn't even get to the part that the destruction of the commons has never been incorporated into GDP and per capita GDP stats that are used as the measures of wealth and poverty. Put it simply: if an itinerate peasant is growing food for his own consumption primarily, and selling any excess to trade for needed products, his per capita GDP is going to be much lower than the 30c an hour labourer working in a sweatshop and forced to buy food with his meagre earnings! Growing your own food...whether as a farmer or even a gardener, doesn't show up as economic activity in a capitalist system....just as a forest has no value until every tree is cut down and harvested for lumber!

A few years ago, when the Dickensian virtual slavery conditions that had been deliberately kept out of western consciousness by MSM refusal to acknowledge them, we started getting a glimpse of how bad things actually are for the people who make our cheap clothing when the "if it bleeds, it leads" principle briefly overrode the prevailing directive of "out of sight, out of mind," when Bangladeshi fires at textile mills were killing hundreds, culminating with a factory collapse that killed over 1000. Disasters that were beyond the scale of the worst sweatshop negligence-created disasters in the West....like the infamous Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire that marked it's 100th anniversary a couple of years ago. That disaster occurred in the Textile District of New York City, making it too close to be ignored. But when it happens on the other side of the world to darker people, there has to be 100 killed to make the news cycle, and over 1000 to make it a major story that will have followup stories.

Shortly after the factory collapse disaster, the Guardian and the BBC and maybe a few other national public broadcasters, invested the resources to send correspondents to Bangladesh and actually talk to some locals who were neither businessmen nor politicians. One story that really leaped out at me was from a 30 year old man widowed when his wife was killed in the disaster, leaving him alone to care for their 3 or 4 young children. His story was that both he and his wife came from a small rural settlement northwest of Dacca, and like many young people in the area, felt forced off the land and moving to the cities looking for work because the state deemed that his family and other relatives didn't have legal right to the land that had been farmed for generations. Just like every expulsion from the commons that has provided the desperate cheap labour for a series of industrial revolutions since the first one, peasants can always be forced off lands because there was no such thing as legal titles to land until recent history.

So, in the case of this 30 year old widowed emigre to an urban slum, like millions of others forced down this track, his actual quality of life has certainly NOT improved by his move to the city, even though that's what our bullshit economic numbers try to tell us!

Except they are not forced at all. The whole premise of your argument is that the alternative is better. What you don't understand or refuse to understand is that it is not. They choose these jobs because they are better than the alternative. Removing those factories or those industries does not mean things get better for the poor there, it means they get worse.

The 'sweat shop' like jobs that we love to criticize in the west, are so prized that workers will bribe local bosses with months worth of wages just to get them. On average, they pay double the local earnings for a similar person.

The problem is that we are completely sucked into a void of evidence where stories of sadness determine what we think about international commerce. Before that commerce, lives of the poor were far more brutal and shorter than they are today. Yes they look bad. And yes the alternative is worse. Forcing companies to pay x amount does not mean workers will get x amount. It just means the factories and the jobs leave. This is what you don't compute when making your judgements.

The reason peasants get forced off their land, is because they do not have robust property rights. That is a completely separate issue which was always a problem there, and did not start just because a factory started up.

Edited August 10, 2015 by hitops

[hitops]

And the people who got laid off to put that money in the CEO'S pockets.

And their families ... children ... elders.

And the pensioners who got shafted by strategic 'bankruptcies'.

You didn't even think of them did you?

I guess my point is made:

Large corporations and the people who run them become ruthless monsters without a shred of humanity, destroying the earth and people ... and then not even mentioning the damage they've done:

Only CEO'S and shareholders matter? :/

No, you just hear about the ones laying people off. When a new one starts, or hires a bunch of people, it is 100% certain you don't congratulate them. You just like hating companies. Companies starting and stopping, growing and shrinking, is a normal part of business. It is a normal part of the areas of the world where anybody wants to live

There is a place where everybody is provided for and nobody is ever fired, it is North Korea. Working great eh?

People don't get laid off to pay CEO's money. CEO's are paid based on the value they bring to shareholders. If they bring value by expanding and hiring, or by contracting and firing, it can be either. There is no necessary connection between CEO pay and worker layoffs. You don't understand this.

There is however a necessary connection between taxation and layoffs. Notely just boost taxes in Alberta, making several large employers go from profitable to taking a loss. Directly as a result they announced layoffs.

But of course, we will never ever hear you say that she doesn't care about people, will we? We will not, because you are a hypocrite. Those poor, families and their kids who lost jobs. You will be out there protesting that won't you?

Of course you won't. Because for you, the more important thing is companies made less money. Never mind that this affects regular people far more profoundly than any CEO.

I don't need it, thanks.

Nobody 'needs' that kind of money.

And to take it out of the mouthes of workers ' children and pensioners is revolting.

It doesn't come from them. As your political identify is tied to the idea that it does, I'm sure you will continue to believe it regardless.

Workers and their families suffered - lost jobs, homes - so CEO'S could pad their pockets, and no economic growth resulted from those attacks on workers either.

No, workers and families suffered here. Many, MANY more workers and families gained overseas. The standard of living in the third world is dramatically better than a generation ago.

80% of jobs are created by small business.

Yet under Harper, we each pay $100/month to subsidize the tar sands. For what?!?!?!

Oh goodness me, not $100!

Of course that's not true at all, and the royalties paid by big oil far exceed any government outlays. What we do actually hand out $100 a month for (now $160), is every single kid in the country under 6. You know, all those kids that we held guns to people heads and force them to have? Well I guess we better pay for it right?

Edited August 10, 2015 by hitops

[hitops]

Actually I think the converse is true.....that $10M CEO would have no clue how to run a KFC shop (watch those undercover boss things). I've directly observed the last 4 CEO's at my company.......know their trick......continue on with the botched policies of the retired CEO til it gets them their severence package or just doing the exact opposite of the turfed CEO until the board doesn't like that.......and we still make 100's millions in profit..........that MBA degree is working overtime I tell's ya. I bet those yahoos couldn't organize a long weekend schedule for KFC.

For sure there are bad CEO's, but if they are all morons, then boards would just start hiring random dudes and paying $50,000 for their services. Obviously if there were as good, that would happen instantly.

PS something doesn't make sense about you claiming that the companies is profiting 100's of millions, and that the polices are 'botched'. Those don't go together.

Regardless, if you think the MBA degree is like magical fairy dust that makes you rich - then you are more than free to go get one.

Edited August 10, 2015 by hitops

[jacee]

No, you just hear about the ones laying people off. When a new one starts, or hires a bunch of people, it is 100% certain you don't congratulate them. You just like hating companies. Companies starting and stopping, growing and shrinking, is a normal part of business. It is a normal part of the areas of the world where anybody wants to live

There is a place where everybody is provided for and nobody is ever fired, it is North Korea. Working great eh?

People don't get laid off to pay CEO's money. CEO's are paid based on the value they bring to shareholders. If they bring value by expanding and hiring, or by contracting and firing, it can be either. There is no necessary connection between CEO pay and worker layoffs. You don't understand this.

There is however a necessary connection between taxation and layoffs. Notely just boost taxes in Alberta, making several large employers go from profitable to taking a loss. Directly as a result they announced layoffs.

But of course, we will never ever hear you say that she doesn't care about people, will we? We will not, because you are a hypocrite. Those poor, families and their kids who lost jobs. You will be out there protesting that won't you?

Of course you won't. Because for you, the more important thing is companies made less money. Never mind that this affects regular people far more profoundly than any CEO.

It doesn't come from them. As your political identify is tied to the idea that it does, I'm sure you will continue to believe it regardless.

No, workers and families suffered here. Many, MANY more workers and families gained overseas. The standard of living in the third world is dramatically better than a generation ago.

$10m you have said?

How many workers could remain employed and feed their families if the CEO gave up just 1 of his unnecessary millions?

Oh goodness me, not $100!

Ya $100/no doesn't mean much to rich CEO's. :/

But it does mean a lot to workers trying to feed families. That's how disconnected and contemptuous you are of working people.

Of course that's not true at all,

Yes it is true: Every Canadian taxpayer pays over $1,200/year on average to subsidize fossil fuels.

How much energy subsidies were made for each person? According to StatsCan the Canadian population was 33,476,688 in 2011. That works out to be a whopping $787 of energy subsidies for each Canadian for the year. This is a far higher number than I expected. On average each Canadian paid $787, mostly through our income tax and GST, for our energy in 2011 and probably a similar amount year after year. Remember, this is on top of the payments we make at the gas pumps and through our hydro bills. For a family of four, this amounts to over three thousand dollars per year spent invisibly on energy.http://www.desmog.ca/2013/05/10/just-how-much-exactly-are-you-paying-subsidize-fossil-fuels

and the royalties paid by big oil far exceed any government outlays.

I should certainly hope so! But the CEO's and stockholders still have our money too, boosting their profits.

What we do actually hand out $100 a month for (now $160), is every single kid in the country under 6. You know, all those kids that we held guns to people heads and force them to have? Well I guess we better pay for it right?

That's what taxation is for: To provide services for all Canadians to level the playing field so kids all have opportunities to succeed.

Working Canadians do not pay taxes to inflate CEO pay to obscene levels.

And you have once again demonstrated the contempt toward working people that characterizes the inhumane, monstrous pathology of corporate control - fascism - that chews up and spits out working people and their families and snickers in glee at their power to destroy lives.

You don't exactly garner sympathy for your cause displaying such blatant contempt for the people you employ.

That will change when we kick the bums out.

Who's snickering now?!!

Edited August 10, 2015 by jacee

[jacee]

The 'sweat shop' like jobs that we love to criticize in the west, are so prized that workers will bribe local bosses with months worth of wages just to get them. On average, they pay double the local earnings for a similar person.

The workers are so desperate, you mean.

God you have no clue, no conscience.

I've heard sociopathy is rampant among the corporate set.

Can't wait to kick the bums out!

[blueblood]

The workers are so desperate, you mean.

God you have no clue, no conscience.

I've heard sociopathy is rampant among the corporate set.

Can't wait to kick the bums out!

Venezuela kicked the bums out too!! Now theyre the biggest joke on the planet. Those socialists over there could screw up a 2 car parade Lmao!!

Those venezuelans dont have a conscience. They think like you do and their country is a shithole because if it. Hell the columbians got their act together with no oil and used to being run by drug cartels!

Have a computer thank a rich person!

Have a car, thank a rich person!

Edited August 10, 2015 by blueblood

[jacee]

Venezuela kicked the bums out too!! Now theyre the biggest joke on the planet. Those socialists over there could screw up a 2 car parade Lmao!!

Those venezuelans dont have a conscience. They think like you do and their country is a shithole because if it. Hell the columbians got their act together with no oil and used to being run by drug cartels!

Have a computer thank a rich person!

Have a car, thank a rich person!

Canada will always be a mixed economy.

It's just too mega corporate under Harper, and was under the Libs too.

The balance is off.

We need governments that represent the people, working people and small-medium business people, free enterprise ... not corporate control by mega corps and banks.

.