|
|
Post by Cranky on May 5, 2009 10:06:59 GMT -5
The irksome point to me in this debate is "anyone can turn a wrench". Now I am a member of a union, and yes it sometimes is a little bothersome to see others in the union make so much. I fully agree that a person's education and skill level should be compensated on that basis ... BUT ... I also hold to a much higher standard the notion that EVERYONE should be paid more than the standard of living. Everyone. So either the janitors and the assembly line workers get paid more, or the engineers and CEOs get paid in exurberance. The latter means most companies could never exist. Canada is a socialist country, not a pure capitalist country .... thereby we try our best to ensure the "not so well off" can live a respectable life. Not just get by, but actually live .... I look at the arguement "There are not many CEOs of multinational companies" .... well thats true, there are only approx. 60,000 MNC worldwide. But is making a company 12 billion in profit worth $240 million? If it is, how much is making a country $12 billion worth? Jean Chretien pulled down $8-12 billion for this country every year in his last mandate ... he made, what?, $350,000? .... How many people can run a country? THIS country? Well technically, I guess the answer is 301. But only one PM every pulled in those numbers, the current PM certainly never .... so do we now cut Chretien a 240 million check? I mean there are less $12B surplus leaders in the world than there are $12B profit CEO's ... You are brining in politicians in a discussion? Why not eels? Or snakes? They are all equally slippery! Politicians main objective in life is social recognition and power. No poilitician worth his weight in lies would run for office just for the money. Politicians and charity workers are not the litmus for equitable compensation of abilities and talent. We are NOT a soclaiist country. We may have SOME socialist views and we may have SOME soclialist policies but we certainly are NOT a socialist country. The goivernment does NOT own the means of production. The day it does, is the day we are a silly frozen version of Cuba. Your economic egalitarianism is touching but has no place in a modern society. In reality, there is simply too much gap between those who can and those who can't. The day you stop compensating those who can is the day you hurt those who can't. Those who can, start companies, run companies, invest and create wealth...to employ and pay taxes for those who can't. Those who can become doctors and lawyers to work with and help those and be compensated by those who can't. Take away that economic compensation and our society will have the "progress" and economic strength of.....Cuba. If those who can are one in a million, then they should be compensated for their ability accordingly. Can YOU successfully run a multibillion dollar, multinational with 15,000 employees? And maybe another 50,000 direct dependants? With another 100,000 people depending on subcontracts? I can't. Can you? But the difference between us is that you expect them to be charitable with THEIR abilities and talents. Why are you charitable with your abilities and talents? Do you work for the poor in Africa? Have you build any free bridges in the Somalia? After all, if we want to be honest, if we jump on the economic egalaterianism wagon, then one must jump all the way. Last but not least.... Talk about egalitarian compensation on a hockey forum? Where man talk about other man earning tens of millions for play a kids game? |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 5, 2009 10:20:39 GMT -5
fwiw -- and I almost fell over -- Margaret Atwood was in town last night and suggested that the federal government did us all a disservice by propping up Chrysler . she said that if it were a mom-and-pop small business that did itself in by poor management decisions and by not meeting consumers needs it would have been hung out to dry long ago . . . but because of political expedience it will receive bucketloads of money.
I may have to rethink my thoughts of Margaret.
HA -- have you applied for any of that money? [my fee for helping you out will be a mere triffle of what we can get. just look --er, continue to look -- woeful].You met me, did I look like an entitler and "someone owes me a living" to you? I was poor and will choose to be poor again rather then demand others to give me their sweat. My father implanted these words in my genes...... ."work HARD and you will have everything you need". I wish they made a banner with those words and hung it on the Parliament building. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 5, 2009 13:05:46 GMT -5
HA -- have you applied for any of that money? [my fee for helping you out will be a mere triffle of what we can get. just look --er, continue to look -- woeful]. You met me, did I look like an entitler and "someone owes me a living" to you? I was poor and will choose to be poor again rather then demand others to give me their sweat. My father implanted these words in my genes...... ."work HARD and you will have everything you need". No, you don't . . . but you know, economic times and free money for doing nothing and all that . . . I figured I might be able to get my cut for doing nothing [hey, I deserve it] and take a trip to Greece . . . just looking for a little of the  So you've got the banks and the big lesser 2 now after as much money as they can get . . . others on the coattails . . . to bail "us" out . . . meanwhile, they offer platitudes but no solutions . . . is this your solution?  : |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on May 5, 2009 13:10:48 GMT -5
A timely article. www2.macleans.ca/2009/05/05/gluttons-at-the-gate/Nobody will deny that it takes a certain je ne sais quoi to be a successful CEO... but what about the ones that AREN'T successful? “No one else gets paid excessively when they fail,” he said pointedly. “They get fired.” ("he" being Ed Woolard, the former CEO of Dupont and past chair of the New York Stock Exchange’s compensation committee) |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on May 5, 2009 14:29:36 GMT -5
Well, I for one, was pleased to see the government attempting to prop up Chrysler. However, in the jigs and the reels of it I have to say I'm disappointed (not that I could get much more disappointed at Harper and his band of idiots, but hey). We had them over the barrel, begging for our cash. We had the ability to invest when the market was low, and make our like bandits if (a) the market rebounded or (b) if the company closed down. Instead I see none of that. I see a government that caved in, intimidated by a company that should've been no more intimidating then Plekanec in a tutu.
Blah - don't really have anything to contribute. Just wanted to vent.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 5, 2009 14:40:21 GMT -5
Well, I for one, was pleased to see the government attempting to prop up Chrysler. However, in the jigs and the reels of it I have to say I'm disappointed (not that I could get much more disappointed at Harper and his band of idiots, but hey). We had them over the barrel, begging for our cash. We had the ability to invest when the market was low, and make our like bandits if (a) the market rebounded or (b) if the company closed down. Instead I see none of that. I see a government that caved in, intimidated by a company that should've been no more intimidating then Plekanec in a tutu. I'm not sure if you wanted a prop-up or a buy-out/takeover. A prop-up is "here's some money -- let's see what you can do with it to find yourself again". A mistake, imo, as they couldn't find themselves when it counted with their own money -- can we really expect to do it with ours? A buy-out/take-over is "here's some money and our plan -- even though we have no clue what we are doing in the automobile industry [but we can't do any worse than what you've done". Another mistake . . . it would become a bureaucratic nightmare -- any decisions would have to go through 16 committees, any which of one could hold anything up before anything could possibly be done. I don't understand how (b) could have had "us" make out like bandits -- more likely we'd have been on the hook for all those guaranteed pensions, one of [but only one of] the causes of the monetary nightmare Chrysler finds itself in right now. |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on May 5, 2009 14:45:12 GMT -5
We're on the hook for them anyway, franko. Once Chrysler goes belly-up and the CAW can't pay the pensions we'll be paying them out, the Canadian gov't will be stepping in and handing money out anyway. The only difference is that nobody has admitted it and as such they aren't reacting to the situation with that very likely fact in mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 5, 2009 14:50:17 GMT -5
I think the current government is hoping that a miracle happens and it all works out, or that Mr. Iggy makes the election call before it you-know-what hits the fan and it winds up sticking to the Liberals and their minority-government to come.
fwiw, one of my buddies on the Hill suggests that Mr. Harper's interviews in the States lately have been posturing/job interviews. Take that as you wish, but he [the buddy] sees the Conservatives on the outs [of course, he hates the Conservatives, though he, of course, is unbiased ;D ]
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on May 5, 2009 14:58:27 GMT -5
Well, I for one, was pleased to see the government attempting to prop up Chrysler. However, in the jigs and the reels of it I have to say I'm disappointed (not that I could get much more disappointed at Harper and his band of idiots, but hey). We had them over the barrel, begging for our cash. We had the ability to invest when the market was low, and make our like bandits if (a) the market rebounded or (b) if the company closed down. Instead I see none of that. I see a government that caved in, intimidated by a company that should've been no more intimidating then Plekanec in a tutu. I'm not sure if you wanted a prop-up or a buy-out/takeover. A prop-up is "here's some money -- let's see what you can do with it to find yourself again". A mistake, imo, as they couldn't find themselves when it counted with their own money -- can we really expect to do it with ours? A buy-out/take-over is "here's some money and our plan -- even though we have no clue what we are doing in the automobile industry [but we can't do any worse than what you've done". Another mistake . . . it would become a bureaucratic nightmare -- any decisions would have to go through 16 committees, any which of one could hold anything up before anything could possibly be done. I don't understand how (b) could have had "us" make out like bandits -- more likely we'd have been on the hook for all those guaranteed pensions, one of [but only one of] the causes of the monetary nightmare Chrysler finds itself in right now. Well frankly I wanted a little of column (a) and a little of column (b). I'm not saying we get involved and take ownership. I'm saying we offer money, with conditions and with more money forthcoming if Chrysler reaches certain milestones. Lets say we give them x dollars. Of this they have to use x/4 to pay off their tax debt to us, and move x/2 of their tax debt to an out and out loan at prime plus 4% from the Canadian government, naming us first class creditors in the process (which essentially means we're among the first vultures that gets to pick over the assets of Chrysler should they go under while they owe us money). Their remaining tax debt is due to be repaid over the next ten years (in whatever fashion they like) and we give them a break on the general Revenue Canada interest rate for unpaid taxes - we'll charge them half the standard annual rate compounded every six months. The milestones are where things get sticky, because as you mention - quite correctly - the government has no business being in the automobile industry. But a couple consultations could put something together I'm sure. Maybe they get y dollars when they stabilize sales (no sales drop in a year to year comparison in five consecutive quarters), z dollars when they cut costs by 15%, q dollars when they do something else. Of course one quarter of all those awards must go to paying off their tax debt to Canada (not the loan - the tax debt - the loan is our key to ensuring our welfare should the company collapse) until there is no more tax debt, at which point they stop qualifying for the bonuses and can go on their merry way. Just a thought. We could've been a lot nastier about it. But we weren't. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 5, 2009 18:40:29 GMT -5
We could've been a lot nastier about it. But we weren't. We're Canadian. We acted Canadian. Where and with whom is the line drawn? Must you be a big business to qualify for help? What of a manufacturer who has only 500 employees but has struggled over the years with inept management and inferior product? Why should he not be bailed out? [OK -- enough -- I could go on but you get the drift. Just answer to what you think I would have said  ]. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on May 5, 2009 19:14:54 GMT -5
ANYBODY can spin a wrench. Very, very, very few people can run multibillion multinationals. If somone who can spin a wrench is worth $50 an hour with benefits, then CEO's are worth millions and tens of millions and hundreds of millions. No CEO is worth 248 million in one year .... I don't care how many people can do it. And this one year he made 248 million the Home Depot stock plummeted!!!! No CEO should ever be rewarded for incompetence. I fully agree with having a contract that clearly states that a CEO get a bonus (say a percentage of the profit he helped pull in) ... but conversely, he shouldn't be GAURANTEED the bonus even if the company's worth goes south. If the assembly worker is incompetent or gets fired without cause, at most, he will receive a severence of one year's salary ... AT MOST .... this guy left with a golden parachute that was worth 7 times his one year's earnings. A little google search gives us the following on Robert Nardelli: CNBC named Nardelli as one of the "Worst American CEOs of All Time".[1]Nardelli was credited with doubling the sales of the chain and improving its competitive position. Revenue increased from $40.57 billion in 2000 to $85.15 billion in 2005, while profit rose from $12.6 billion to $25.8 billion. While this was a slower rate of growth than Home Depot had previously experienced (the company doubled in size every 4 years from 1979 to 2001)Some have criticized him for not maintaining the growth that the company had previously experienced, pointing to his huge salary as a sign that he was actually supposed to bring innovation to the company in order to help it maintain its historical growth. During Nardelli's tenure, Home Depot stock was essentially steady while competitor Lowe's stock doubled, which along with his $240 million compensation eventually earned the ire of investorsCeline Dion isn't worth the money she was paid, except that she filled the Coluseum at Caesars Palace. Elton John is Liberace "2009" with a fair voice, but he fills stadiums around the world with paying fans. If a CEO can turn a car maker like Ford focus on "Quality is Job 1", come up with new products and turn a company around while those around him plunge into bankruptcy, he is worth whatever the board is willing to pay him. When "son-of-ford" couldn't do the job he brought in someone who did. I agree that there should be more focus on long term success of a company than high risk one year wonder bonus incentives. The autoworker tightening bolts on the line is like the stagehand at a Brittney Spears concert. No matter how well he installed the floor, Brittney is who they paid to see. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 5, 2009 23:06:20 GMT -5
I bet none of you rememebr when AMC went down. I was a car freak back then and I simply could not believe that the maker of Javelin and Jeep would bite the dust. It did.....and the sun still rose in the west...
Are any of you really into the car industry? If not, let me tell you a few things. One, they have no new platform and the closest one is YEARS away. The existing platform of the their 300 is based on Mercedes E class and it's EXPENSIVE to make. They have no new small engines. Amongst many, some of the reasons Benz dropped them because Chrysler simply count not get a handle on their poor service, quality issues and safety defects. Chrysler is the poster boy of fail...and we are pouring billions into them now....and in the future.
Now we are afraid of the earth shattering consequences of Chrysler going down? At worse, the finincial conseqences are no worse then the ones we already were forced to eat with the downside that the death will still happen and there will be MORE financial whacking of the taxpayers. The old..cut your loses NOW......is sound advice.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 6, 2009 9:14:25 GMT -5
This is why I spit hairballs..... ~~~~~~~~~~ Ontario to 'invest' up to $2B in business
Lee Greenberg, Canwest News Service
Ontario's Liberal government is looking to get into business, says Economic Development Minister Michael Bryant, who yesterday heralded the dawn of a new era of government intervention.
"The state has got to be strategic and if that's the case, then we need to act as an entrepreneur and invest directly in businesses," Mr. Bryant told a luncheon crowd in Toronto.
"This is government choosing winners and losers. This is supposed to be the thing that governments weren't supposed to do. But this is the business that we are in."
Mr. Bryant called the new philosophy "reverse Reaganism," in reference to the former U. S. president who once declared: "Government is not the solution to the problem. Government is the problem."
"It's preposterous to imagine that government in this century or last century is not the most impactful institution in our day-to-day lives outside of the family," he said, calling the new role "government as entrepreneur."
Ontario last week joined the federal Conservatives and the U. S. government to announce a $15-billion loan to help Chrysler survive bankruptcy. In return for its $3-billion, Ontario and the federal government will receive a two per cent ownership stake in the new company.
Mr. Bryant said the province will now move beyond bailouts and will invest in healthy companies with growth potential. The government will draw from a $2-billion "fund of funds" to make the loans and to direct grants, he said.
"Just as companies go to banks and apply for dollars, companies come to the government of Ontario and apply for dollars," he said, without specifying what -- if anything -- the government will demand in return.
"We have a situation particularly in Ontario and Canada, where the multinational subsidiaries are in competition with their brethren to avoid the guillotine," he said. "So will it be the office ... or the plant or the operation in Tennessee, or will it be the one in Ontario? And governments have to play a role in assisting those companies in consolidation battles to survive. It's critical to survive."
But one leading observer says Mr. Bryant and his colleagues should think twice before embarking on the type of program outlined yesterday.
"I have no faith in the Ontario government's ability to conduct this kind of industrial policy," says William Robson, CEO of the CD Howe Institute.
"It hasn't worked in the past, and the world has not gotten any simpler or easier to predict since then."
Mr. Bryant said the new tack is a response to the massive U. S. stimulus package.
"Next door, our No. 1 trading partner -- they're in this business in a Walmart kind of way," Mr. Bryant told the Canadian Club of Toronto. "They are in this business not just as partners, but as competitors in this entrepreneurial battle."
Mr. Robson called that perspective short-sighted. He said U. S. President Barack Obama is "breaking the bank" with current subsidies.www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1563739~~~~~~~~~~~~ In the late 80's, I was DIRECTLY involved in trying to set up a subsidiary in a small northern Ontario city (for the company I was working for). We bullied, bribed and bought our way to a decade of no municipal taxes, a new road to the plant, UI paid "training" and "retraining" that covered out labout costs for years, in short, whatever we can think off, we tried to screw willing government officials. In the end, the plant NEVER ran....  RIGHT THIS MINUTE, I can buy a plant up north that NOBODY in his right mind wants to buy and it will come with so many government perks, it will make your head spin. The plant was worth 150 million last time it changed hands, now I can buy it for a few million plus a "one time" provincial grant, extended UI "training", if I hire native I will also get BIG monies from Indian Affairs, in fact, silly amount of money, and the list goes on...and on...and on. In the end, the plant has no chance in hell of competing in the market, NONE. ZERO. But man-o-man, can it ever suck up tax dollars. If I didn't have a real business, I would do it to see how much I could steal.....just for fun. Simply put, politicians have put us in a path to blinding corruption and political nepotism. Third world....they have nothing to teach us..... |
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 6, 2009 10:19:13 GMT -5
Ontario to 'invest' up to $2B in business I wondered if you'd see this, so I held off posting . . . My favourite lines: “The state has got to be strategic,” Mr. Bryant declared, “and if that’s the case, then we need to act as an entrepreneur and invest directly in businesses.… This is government choosing winners and losers. This is supposed to be the thing that governments weren’t supposed to do. But this is the business that we are in.” it is? It thought you were in the business of . . . say . . . governing . . . making sure hospitals ran well and roads were paved . . . and collecting taxes from us suckers to pay for it all. oh, and of creating an environment for companies to succeed -- not to take over failing companies. because, you know, Governments have never had any problem picking, and supporting, losers, but picking winners is an entirely different proposition. Industrial strategy has been the longest-running failure in policy history best way for a company to start losing money? get the government involved [see: government-run insurance, for example]. if a company is doing well it wants the government as far away as possible -- there's a reason for that: once bureaucracy takes over, it's over, baby |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 6, 2009 14:16:16 GMT -5
Ontario to 'invest' up to $2B in business I wondered if you'd see this. . . Is my wife paying you to torture me? |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on May 6, 2009 15:05:57 GMT -5
One of the big differences between Canada and the US is the reverence for the constitution. Americans treat it as a devine document containing the wisdom of the founding fathers. It trumps all else.
Canadians interpret custom instead of the constitution and try to do the right thing, not necessarily follow the letter of the constitution.
I agree that the US constitution is an intelligent well written document. Although the founding fathers had no idea of electrical grids, internet, airplanes and nuclear dangers, they tried to develop a lasting code of conduct. THey assigned checks and balances to three branches of government, Executive, Legislative and Judicial.
Nowhere in the constitution does it encourage assignment of powers to the Executive branch that O'Bama has assumed.
The President can NOT make laws. He is not responsible for running industry, choosing presidents of corporations, dictating boards of directors, deciding automotive product mixes, banking reserves or blackmaling some companies while assisting others. In fact, the President has no jurisdiction on making any laws at all. In the US there are no Crown Corporations where the government assumes ownership and competes with private industry. (Well maybe Ratzenberger's Post Office)
I can see where in exceptional emergencies the President can take a leadership Bully Pulpit role, Invasion, War, Revolt, Rioting, Disaster or 9/11. A cyclical economic downturn does not rise to that standard.
The Canadian system of government makes more sense from a theoretical standpoint. Why be tied to ideas designed 200 years ago to solve todays problems? From a pragmatic orientation, having a clear set of rules to follow enables all parties to know where they stand and how to act accordingly.
I'm not getting into a which is better, US or Canada, but merely pointing out that President O'bama has overstepped his constitutional authority and has conducted himself in a manner worthy of impeachment.
|
|
:
].
