Dog Killers Example of Conservative Economics

[polaris]

A truly regrettable event in the Canadian West as Dog Sled Adventure Co. kills 100+ dogs to maintain profit margin. How many times have we heard company CEO's claim the same rationale to justify their actions or lack of responsibility? They did it for the money! Some how in our twisted scale of what is right and what is wrong this little company and event sticks in our moral craw....because of the fuzzy puppies and the iconic nature to the Canadian psyche.

Make no mistake about it, the decision to cull the dogs was simple modern world economic practices, just ask one of their economists.

Just as that company sacrificed the puppies for profit we should be getting out tails in a tither over much larger and more important sacrifices all of us are making to maintain corporate "Profits".

Our water, food fish and ecosystem, a changing climate and depleting resources, peace and privacy, our future and our integrity...

It's just business as usual...either swallow and get over this phlemmy bit of distaste or better yet...demand a brand new equitable paradigm of how we run this planet.

The one we've got is killing us.

 

[petros]

Plenty of room on the moon.

 

[Walter]

I heard that Harper gave the go ahead to kill the dogs.

 

[damngrumpy]

Here we are associating business with wealth and wealth with greed which leads to a lack
of ethics. Well I have a problem with that. I have conservative friends, even though I am not
what one would consider a conservative. I also have many social democratic friends some
are a hell of a lot richer than some of my Tory friends, in fact I know a number of very and I
mean wealthy Social Democrats. Does that mean that the Social Democrats who are wealthy
are not greedy while the Conservative wealthy people are greedy?
Follow the bouncing ball here, not everyone who is wealthy is greedy and I know some folks
who are in fact average to poor that are very greedy and some have no ethics either.
The reason is, greedy does not come with a political stripe, and lack of ethics does not come
with a political label either. Conservative economics would suggest one downsize the business,
but it does not mean you destroy the plant. In the case of the dogs the owner could have sold
them or dealt with putting them down in a acceptable fashion.
For those who are angry about the animals being put down, and support the position of the SPCA
to stop all dog sled operations, I ask you ponder this. All over the Province of BC and indeed all
over Canada itself, the SPCA puts down hundreds of dogs and other creatures every single day.
Does this mean the SPCA should be condemned for such acts? No its done properly.
The real problem here is that this particular person was uncaring and may have broken the law.
The person in question did it for economic reasons and a selfish penchant for greed. Not because
the person was conservative or because Harper told him to. What if it turned out the dog owner was
a Liberal or a New Democrat and that we don't know.

 

[Colpy]

I heard that Harper watched.

 

[damngrumpy]

But did he dig the hole?

 

[JLM]

Here we are associating business with wealth and wealth with greed which leads to a lack
of ethics. Well I have a problem with that. I have conservative friends, even though I am not
what one would consider a conservative. I also have many social democratic friends some
are a hell of a lot richer than some of my Tory friends, in fact I know a number of very and I
mean wealthy Social Democrats. Does that mean that the Social Democrats who are wealthy
are not greedy while the Conservative wealthy people are greedy?
Follow the bouncing ball here, not everyone who is wealthy is greedy and I know some folks
who are in fact average to poor that are very greedy and some have no ethics either.
The reason is, greedy does not come with a political stripe, and lack of ethics does not come
with a political label either. Conservative economics would suggest one downsize the business,
but it does not mean you destroy the plant. In the case of the dogs the owner could have sold
them or dealt with putting them down in a acceptable fashion.
For those who are angry about the animals being put down, and support the position of the SPCA
to stop all dog sled operations, I ask you ponder this. All over the Province of BC and indeed all
over Canada itself, the SPCA puts down hundreds of dogs and other creatures every single day.
Does this mean the SPCA should be condemned for such acts? No its done properly.
The real problem here is that this particular person was uncaring and may have broken the law.
The person in question did it for economic reasons and a selfish penchant for greed. Not because
the person was conservative or because Harper told him to. What if it turned out the dog owner was
a Liberal or a New Democrat and that we don't know.

I'm not quite sure what to think about the S.P.C.A. but before I go further they are bound by pretty Spartan fiscal restraints. In my search for a dog recently, I've visited the S.P.C.A. shelter a few times and I would say they meet the dogs' physical requirements but not much more. I finally did get a nice pup through a private sale and the last thing the woman asked me when I picked up the pup was "if for some reason you ever find you are unable to keep her would you please give me the first option of taking her back as I'd hate to see her go to the S.P.C.A." and I can understand that. Having said that I think the S.P.C.A. would probably do much better if they had more donors.

 

[talloola]

I'm not quite sure what to think about the S.P.C.A. but before I go further they are bound by pretty Spartan fiscal restraints. In my search for a dog recently, I've visited the S.P.C.A. shelter a few times and I would say they meet the dogs' physical requirements but not much more. I finally did get a nice pup through a private sale and the last thing the woman asked me when I picked up the pup was "if for some reason you ever find you are unable to keep her would you please give me the first option of taking her back as I'd hate to see her go to the S.P.C.A." and I can understand that. Having said that I think the S.P.C.A. would probably do much better if they had more donors.

yes JLM, the S P C A, do the best they can under the circumsances, they are not rich by any means.

I purchased 2 of my 4 cats from them, very clean, very concerned about their animals, and the kittens
were spotless clean, free from any parasites, had first shots, and had been altered.

one of the litters had been taken from a home that was not caring for them properly, they rescue
animals all the time and save them from suffering lives, and if they do have to put them down
eventually, at least it is done humanly, and without any suffering.

 

[bill barilko]

For once Gordon Campbell has done the right thing-plus he owns a female yellow lab.

 

[Bar Sinister]

One of the uglier facts of the market economy is that every now and then costs have to be cut. We tend not to notice much when employees are laid off or have their wages cut. After all, they are not killed. It is only when the downsizing involves animals we regard as pets that anyone notices. If a farmer had decided to sell off his livestock because he could no longer afford to feed his animals no one would notice. I can't say that I am at all happy about what happened, but it is something that happens and will continue to happen in a market economy.

 

[damngrumpy]

Ethics are and should be in place even in a market economy. People are sometimes laid off,
it is a fact of life. The problem we have in our market economy is we are going through a real
time market revolution, those who are laying people off may soon face the chopping block
themselves. Look at the tech revolution in the last four decades. Many of you remember the
old 8 tracks? Then cassette, competing with records, then the CD appearance and now
going the way of the MP3 and others. People don't have land phone lines like they used to,
televisions are completely different than they were even five years ago; Cell Phones you can't
even keep up. Who know what the next big thing is.
The new ways are effecting the marketplace, they have an impact on the civil society and the
world of policing, the military and the news itself. Some are suggesting the 6pm news cast will
soon be a thing of the past. Virtual news is slowly bringing an end to serious hard news formats
and this is not good but it is real.
In all of this, people are people, some will maintain their ethics and adherence to their moral
conscience and others will adopt what some now call the new morality or global morality.
I myself believe this had nothing to do with a market economy, it had to do with an a**hole who
wanted to reduce his inventory for selling the company. We must keep in mind that even in a
market economy there are honest people doing their job every day. There are also those who
will cheat their own mother or steal their grandma's eye teeth for a few bucks.
This is not conservative, Liberal or Socialist Economics it is individual greed and really has
little or nothing to do with the reality of economics, just greed

 

[DaSleeper]

http://forums.canadiancontent.net/hot-topics/98387-tourism-lull-led-execution-style.html

 

[JLM]

It's probably a little off topic as far as this thread is concerned but it seems to have steered to ethics and greed, so I'll mention one more thing and that is the ridiculous notion these days that everyone is entitled to their job, while nothing is farther from the truth. At the other end I don't believe an employer should lay off (fire) a conscientious, competent employee because his brother (cousin, friend) needs a job.