78% of Cdns against ceding control of resources to foreign Govts.

[captain morgan]

That might not be a bad idea. It would slow down exploitation and thus push the cost of gas up on the world market owing to a reduced rate of exploitation.

.. And when the cost of gas gets higher (not to mention that Canadians will be importing the stuff at a high cost), where do we get the money to drill/develop?

Offshore is out of the question, so what next?

Telling any corporation they cannot profit is ludicrous.

But you are suggesting that 'society' determine how much profit is reasonable?... That isn't just as ludicrous?

It costs a lot of money to build a truck or drill a well and bring it on line. Not all wells are successes.... The message is that the risk is high. If you want someone (anyone) to risk their money, then you had better have a return on capital that is attractive enough to justify the risk

I always come back to the same point, the corporations are not going to walk away from a market of 34 million consumers as long as they can profit, they will be happy with $4 billion and happier with $8 billion but the citizens will be happier with the $4 billion and that is what should count.

I see that you haven't recognized that it may cost many billions in advance to get the ball rolling on this... Plants, materials, distribution, etc... These things cost money up front and may take decades to pay-off.

That said, rather than legislate to the corporations - why not legislate that the 'citizens' be forced to equally participate in the development of the resource base?.. take the money right from each citizen directly.... Think how happy they would be with a $4 billion profit?

 

[Machjo]

.. And when the cost of gas gets higher (not to mention that Canadians will be importing the stuff at a high cost), where do we get the money to drill/develop?

Offshore is out of the question, so what next?

Well, if we reduced exploitation to the point where we had to import it, you could imagine the Canadian dollar definitely dropping in value, thus benefitting our manufacturing and service sectors. We'd be poorer no doubt, but at the same time it would mean we'd be getting a better price for the resources we do sell. The trade off is that our grandchildren and great grandchildren won't have to suffer an oil crash in the long run.

 

[PoliticalNick]

DOn't bet your house on that nonsensical statement. Here is how big companies view your little world.
Several years back A friend who owned part of a welding supply business with several branches was after the supplier of auto darkening helmets to make some with Canadian flags etc instead of just black and US themed ones. The response he got was"There are a little over 30 million people in Canada. There are over 8o million blacks in America. If we wanted to do niche marketing we would target that market first"

It is not a 'niche' market we are talking about or a product for a small segment of society. We are talking about our natural resources. The entire globe wants what we have, not just a few welders, that means we can dictate the terms.

But Political Nick. If you just force them to lower the cost of gas for Canadians, are we not then subsidizing suburbia, traffic, inner city air polution, suburban sprawl, etc.?

I view it more as subsidizing Canadians at the expense of corporations and that is what our govt should care about, not subsidizing corporations at the expense of Canadians

If provinces just sell their Crown resources at a higher price, this becomes a new source of revenue for the government which could then allow it to lower income taxes, assuming of course that these companies are willing to pay the price. And if they're not, no worries, the oil will just sit in the ground till the price does go up a little more.

First I would suggest we should nationalize our resources. I agree we should be selling them to the world at premium prices not the bargain basement deals going on today (if anyone is getting a deal it should be the Canadian citizens who own the resources) and that should be used to lower taxes or fully fund education & healthcare for all Canadians. We can find many essential services to fund with increased revenue and fund many govt controlled things ourselves if we have twice as much money in our pockets. The difference there is govt control is funded by all whereas private sector services are user pay.

Also, requiring companies with more than 500 employees to have 50% of the board of directors be elected by the workers themselves, with the tie-breaking vote going to the board president who by default would be elected by the investors, this would insure that while the investors still have a final say, they cannot do anything without consulting with workers first. But I'd apply this to domestic companies too. No doble standards.

Why start at 500? Why not 100, or 50? The idea of some worker control is great but the workers have to be realistic also, not asking for outrageous wages and benefits that cannot be afforded. A true recognition and understanding of the symbiotic relationship between a company and its workers would be beneficial to all.

 

[Machjo]

First I would suggest we should nationalize our resources.

They're already nationalized. That's why we call them Crown resources.

As for woekers asking for too much, that's why I'd propose giving the tie-breaking vote to the investor side as they do in Sweden and germany. Consider too that eliminating the minimum wage could help since in bad economic times it could allow workers and management to take wage cuts together as necessary.

 

[captain morgan]

Well, if we reduced exploitation to the point where we had to import it, you could imagine the Canadian dollar definitely dropping in value, thus benefitting our manufacturing and service sectors. We'd be poorer no doubt, but at the same time it would mean we'd be getting a better price for the resources we do sell. The trade off is that our grandchildren and great grandchildren won't have to suffer an oil crash in the long run.

A weaker CAD will also artificially increase the cost of the resource to consumers in Canada. Further, mfgrs will benefit on the export side, but will get hammered on the cost side for any materials they need to import and the cost of energy.

We would be poorer AND the valuable resources would remain in the ground providing no wealth or taxes to anyone. With the reduced average wealth in the nation, you would now rely more heavily in foreign direct investment to exploit the resource which brings us back full circle to the question of relying on foreign investment to develop the resources for market

They're already nationalized. That's why we call them Crown resources.

As for woekers asking for too much, that's why I'd propose giving the tie-breaking vote to the investor side as they do in Sweden and germany. Consider too that eliminating the minimum wage could help since in bad economic times it could allow workers and management to take wage cuts together as necessary.

How about the workers 'invest' in the company and earn their seat on the Board via nominating an individual?

Is that too much to ask?

 

[PoliticalNick]

They're already nationalized. That's why we call them Crown resources.

Unfortunately our false constitution gives resources to the provinces. They are not national and certainly not belonging to the queen and her ilk.

As for woekers asking for too much, that's why I'd propose giving the tie-breaking vote to the investor side as they do in Sweden and germany. Consider too that eliminating the minimum wage could help since in bad economic times it could allow workers and management to take wage cuts together as necessary.

As long as those cuts are taken together by workers, management, and investors.

 

[JamesBondo]

so they needed a poll to figure this out? why don't we start another poll to see how many canadians are against hitting themselves in the head with a meat tenderizer?

 

[Nuggler]

so they needed a poll to figure this out? why don't we start another poll to see how many canadians are against hitting themselves in the head with a meat tenderizer?

Just as long as it wasn't used at XL.;-)

 

[petros]

Ask yourself.....

Do I like all the new highways and bridges being built?

Do I like my almost free health care?

Am i happy taxes haven't shot through the roof?

Do I enjoy ****ting in the same quality of water i drink?

Am I glad i can give my child a 4 year university or trade school education for the same cost s 1 year in the US?

etc

etc

etc

How about the workers 'invest' in the company and earn their seat on the Board via nominating an individual?

Is that too much to ask?

Instead of Govt buying and selling shares in your name for your benefit?

 

[captain morgan]

Instead of Govt buying and selling shares in your name for your benefit?

I have no big problems with gvt (ie via funds) investing in these corps... My point was that if the labour component of those companies want a seat on the Board, they ought to buy shares en mass and nominate the individual that they want.... None of this appointment to the BOD just for sh*ts and giggles by the gvt nonsense.

 

[petros]

I have no big problems with gvt (ie via funds) investing in these corps... My point was that if the labour component of those companies want a seat on the Board, they ought to buy shares en mass and nominate the individual that they want.... None of this appointment to the BOD just for sh*ts and giggles by the gvt nonsense.

Research has shown that companies with share options or are employee owned are happier, safer and more profitable companies.

I'm all for it.

 

[captain morgan]

Research has shown that companies with share options or are employee owned are happier, safer and more profitable companies.

I'm all for it.

I have zero problem with that either, just look at Westjet.

The bottom line is that the employees ARE investing in their company (and in themselves). They should make sure that they take an active interest in the management of the company and where applicable, vote at the AGMs and/or nominate the people to the BOD that they feel are the best candidates to secure and grow the company (and themselves).

 

[petros]

I have zero problem with that either, just look at Westjet.

The bottom line is that the employees ARE investing in their company (and in themselves). They should make sure that they take an active interest in the management of the company and where applicable, vote at the AGMs and/or nominate the people to the BOD that they feel are the best candidates to secure and grow the company (and themselves).

Westjet maybe well run but it's not that great of an airline.

 

[captain morgan]

Westjet maybe well run but it's not that great of an airline.

They don't offer all the frills, but the employees are happier, the fares are the most reasonable and the company has been expanding since day 1.

 

[petros]

I go to Vancouver 4 - 6 times a year. All my work is based out of the Bentall Towers, Canada's mining Mecca.

Flying from Vancouver to Regina should not be 25% of the drive time.

I fly WJ to Vancouver but take Air Canada home.

WJ has only a direct to Vancouver but none back home.

Price wise it's about the same.

 

[captain morgan]

I go to Vancouver 4 - 6 times a year. All my work is based out of the Bentall Towers, Canada's mining Mecca.

Flying from Vancouver to Regina should not be 25% of the drive time.

I fly WJ to Vancouver but take Air Canada home.

WJ has only a direct to Vancouver but none back home.

Price wise it's about the same.

I fly WJ to California a few times a year, it costs (return with taxes) about $450.

For me to take that trip with AC would be like getting a 3 hour prostate exam from Dr. Jolly Green Giant

 

[PoliticalNick]

I have no big problems with gvt (ie via funds) investing in these corps... My point was that if the labour component of those companies want a seat on the Board, they ought to buy shares en mass and nominate the individual that they want.... None of this appointment to the BOD just for sh*ts and giggles by the gvt nonsense.

Labor does invest in their company. They invest with their time and energy and effort. It may not be hard cash but it is just as important if not more so than capital investment. If you do not recognize this you will perpetuate the Mgmt/labor dispute cycle.

The idea of a BOD made 50% of investors 50% labor is quite attractive to me. It creates a position where neither side can really take advantage of the other and that can only be a good thing.

 

[captain morgan]

Labor does invest in their company. They invest with their time and energy and effort. It may not be hard cash but it is just as important if not more so than capital investment. If you do not recognize this you will perpetuate the Mgmt/labor dispute cycle.

Their time, energy and efforts are recognized in return by a payment of hard cash to the employee... This isn't sweat equity that they are putting in, they are working for tangible compensation.

The idea of a BOD made 50% of investors 50% labor is quite attractive to me. It creates a position where neither side can really take advantage of the other and that can only be a good thing.

Problem is; the investor is the one with their balls on the line here. Without the money to start the company or drive the company forward, there is no opportunity for labour to be employed in the first place.

 

[petros]

I fly WJ to California a few times a year, it costs (return with taxes) about $450.

For me to take that trip with AC would be like getting a 3 hour prostate exam from Dr. Jolly Green Giant

Same price as Regina to Vancouver or Regina to San Diego. When I visit my sis in TX I fly American Airlines and it's around the same too.

 

[PoliticalNick]

Their time, energy and efforts are recognized in return by a payment of hard cash to the employee... This isn't sweat equity that they are putting in, they are working for tangible compensation.

This isn't an idea where they get dividends as well as a paycheck, it is not a request for an equity stake in the company. It simply allows the labour side a voice and some control over the direction of their livelihood.

Problem is; the investor is the one with their balls on the line here. Without the money to start the company or drive the company forward, there is no opportunity for labour to be employed in the first place.

Do you really think the workers aren't up against it too? Where do they get a paycheck if the company folds, or as usual these days sold off and parted out so the investors get most of their dough back while the workers get a pink slip. Also consider that without a labour force you can have all the capital investment in the world and will make nothing with it. It really is a symbiotic relationship and should be treated as such.