[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[crazy canuck]

Why do conservatives keep trying to rehabilitate Mulroney's image?


*edit* also, am I misremembering or wasn't Harper shilling for Mr. P not that long ago?

Conservatives are trying to rehabilitate Mulroney's image?

[Jacob]

Conservatives are trying to rehabilitate Mulroney's image?

Well, Soudas characterized him like this:

the bold ambition of Brian Mulroney

I have no strong opinion on Mulroney's legacy and any hypothetical rehabilitation scenario. But if someone thinks Mulroney was terrible, that could be seen as an attempt at rehabilitation.

[viper37]

*edit* also, am I misremembering or wasn't Harper shilling for Mr. P not that long ago?

You are not.

One could say he was the party's leader, and Harper was trying to score a win for the party's leader against the old enemy.

And he still wants his party to win against the old enemy...

[crazy canuck]

Conservatives are trying to rehabilitate Mulroney's image?

Well, Soudas characterized him like this:

the bold ambition of Brian Mulroney

I have no strong opinion on Mulroney's legacy and any hypothetical rehabilitation scenario. But if someone thinks Mulroney was terrible, that could be seen as an attempt at rehabilitation.

Mulroney brought in Free Trade.  That was bold. 

People can think he was terrible all they weren't, but can we at least please limit ourselves to factual correct arguments rather than hyperbole.

[viper37]

Conservatives are trying to rehabilitate Mulroney's image?

Well, Soudas characterized him like this:

the bold ambition of Brian Mulroney

I have no strong opinion on Mulroney's legacy and any hypothetical rehabilitation scenario. But if someone thinks Mulroney was terrible, that could be seen as an attempt at rehabilitation.

Mulroney brought in Free Trade.  That was bold. 

People can think he was terrible all they weren't, but can we at least please limit ourselves to factual correct arguments rather than hyperbole.

Free trade, GST, acid rain treaty with a Republican administration.
Despite him, the end of criminal abortions.

[crazy canuck]

You're completing two things. You have to admit his policy initiatives were bold.  As Jacob pointed out, you may also think his policies were terrible.

Those are not inconsistent points of view.

[Admiral Yi]

And it's close cousin gluttony leads to great food, what's your point?

Eliminating gluttony will eliminate good food.  Which we enjoy.

[HVC]

And it's close cousin gluttony leads to great food, what's your point?

Eliminating gluttony will eliminate good food.  Which we enjoy.

You can't eliminate it, but you should control it unless you want a coronary same with greed. Laying people off for a few points higher EPS and the CEO bonus* that comes with it hardly seems equitable.

*and that's the real reason. Shareholder value be damned. If CEOs got rich by nose diving stocks and didn't face prosecution they'd be all over that too

[Admiral Yi]

Laying people off for a few points higher EPS and the CEO bonus* that comes with it hardly seems equitable.

It seems equitable to me.  I am a shareholder (I think almost all of us are at this point).  Market conditions change and a segment of the company I own is no longer profitable.  Why should I continue to employ those people that are losing me money?  We saw the effect of no fire legislation during the PIIGs crisis.  Companies don't want to hire more staff because they'll be stuck with them in a downturn.

[HVC]

You're assuming a segment wasn't profitable. Theres no evidence of that (though to be fair there no evidence it's false). The scenario we have is profitable quarter, 25% increase year over year. People laid off. In this scenario is greed good?

*edit* and originally I left open the question of difference possibilities, you're the one that latched onto the greed is good ethos, so now I'm curious as to whether you think greed is always good hence the more narrow scenario above

[Admiral Yi]

You're assuming a segment wasn't profitable. Theres no evidence of that (though to be fair there no evidence it's false). The scenario we have is profitable quarter, 25% increase year over year. People laid off. In this scenario is greed good?

*edit* and originally I left open the question of difference possibilities, you're the one that latched onto the greed is good ethos, so now I'm curious as to whether you think greed is always good hence the more narrow scenario above

The evidence lies in the fact that people were laid off.  There is no economic or financial rationale for laying off profitable employees.  It doesn't boost share price, it doesn't help the CEO's options package.  It's perfectly plausible that a company's overall profit can increase while one division loses money.

Greed can also lead to cheating, to fraud.  I am opposed to fraud.

[HVC]

The evidence lies in the fact that people were laid off.  There is no economic or financial rationale for laying off profitable employees.  It doesn't boost share price, it doesn't help the CEO's options package.

Sure there is. Pay one person to do 2 peoples work load, call it efficiency gains and call it a day . Short term thinking as your turnover will spike, and if done especially poorly leads to lost knowledge, but that's the next CEOs problem.

It's perfectly plausible that a company's overall profit can increase while one division loses money.

that's why I tried to squeeze the parameters of the scenario, for simplicities sake for the question at hand

Greed can also lead to cheating, to fraud.  I am opposed to fraud.

Fair enough.