Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Canadian Political Free-for-All -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cogito Ergo Sum who wrote (14002)	2/28/2010 4:55:29 AM
From: axial	Respond to of 37549

Yup. We've been in agreement on those issues for a long time. But what you're saying, and what I've been saying here and on other threads means that we must change our ways - not only in Canada, not only in the US, not only in trade, broadband, energy or finance - but in many ways. The voices for constructive change are out there. But status quo forces fight them every step of the way - and that includes many with legitimate fears of what change will do to their entrenched interest. Unions, for instance; as you know, I recognize their legitimacy but I also recognize that historically, they always resist change. Unlike Mish and those with an anti-union agenda, I know that mostly they will change: Vander Doelen: Deal key to plant's survival "But the ranking American executive at Friday's announcement, Jim Tetreault, vice-president of North American manufacturing, referred obliquely to the revolution which has taken place in the big white factory, which very nearly ended up with the word "elephant" appended to its description. Tetreault said no other "senior workforce" in the Ford Motor Company has ever agreed to such a radical reworking of its contract rules. "You've made extraordinary changes to the way you work in this plant." And he didn't say, but everybody in the company is watching to see how it pans out. The concessions were controversial, but they saved what's left of the workforce, Lewenza said. "The members who voted for the changes, I thank you. You respected your union, you respected what we had to do." windsorstar.com --- You'll note my approval of Martin's move here: "... reducing government expenditures by more than $25 billion (spread over three years) and eliminating 45,000 public service jobs." Message 26349375 Many readers on Mish's thread (and Mish himself) simply didn't have the horsepower to understand I was completely in favor of such a move when union opposition became contrary to reason. But that doesn't mean banning unions, and their lawful right to negotiate. --- Another place we see huge resistance to change is in power and energy. In Canada, the hydro companies: entrenched monopolies. Ditto telecomms: persistent incumbency. Ditto their regulators and captured legislators, just as corrupt as their US counterparts. --- When is government interfering, and when is it acting beneficially? Example: recent moves to limit compensation at banks. Dumb. Compensation at banks didn't go stratospheric until they got into the investing and speculation business. The answer to the compensation problem is not to impose some silly law, but *to get them out of investing and speculating.* Glass-Steagall should be reinstated. Current "reforms" are insufficient half-measures, and promote the continuation of tremendous systemic risk. That's true in the US, and globally. --- I argue the defeat of what could be, by what is. That doesn't have to be the outcome, but it will. We need leadership, and the ability to think clearly. We must get "out of the box." We're not doing what needs to be done, and we won't. We're simply not capable enough and therefore, we'll deserve what we get. Jim