It's going to once those pay cuts kick in. Welcome to something closer to reality....
Likely. And consumerism is the fuel.What is being practiced by many of these companies is not capitalism. Under capitalism these outfits would succeed or fail by their own volition. CEO's and top execs would be loyal and have a vested interest in the success of their companies. Instead, they are run by robber barons, hired guns with a track record of short term successes, who skim off the gravy and leave before the course of action they put into play sinks the ship. Their record is intact, along with their assets, while the poor buggers left behind to plug the holes are left holding the bag.
Unfortunately for some, they didn't abandon ship soon enough. Granted, there are those who realy do care about the welfare of the corporation and its employees, (I'm sure someone will find a couple). But government bailouts are not part of capitalism, (something virtually non existant in Canada). With the government as a stakeholder you move closer to statism. I see the Obama administration is moving toward capping the salaries and bonuses of bailed out companies. The cause and effect of creeping statism should be the lesson learned by capitalists. Fascism and/or socialism isn't far behind.
But government bailouts are not part of capitalism, (something virtually non existant in Canada). With the government as a stakeholder you move closer to statism. I see the Obama administration is moving toward capping the salaries and bonuses of bailed out companies. The cause and effect of creeping statism should be the lesson learned by capitalists. Fascism and/or socialism isn't far behind.
World Goverment
Some opponents of the Convention argue that the split between Annex I and developing countries is unfair, and that both developing countries and developed countries need to reduce their emissions unilaterally. Some countries claim that their costs of following the Convention requirements will stress their economy. This was one reason given by George W. Bush, then President of the United States, for not forwarding the Kyoto Protocol to the United States Senate for ratification. Other countries point to research, such as the Stern Report, that calculates the cost of compliance to be less than the cost of the consequences of doing nothing.
President Bush signed the instrument of ratification October 13, 1992, and deposited it with the U.N. Secretary General.