Alberta Politics Thread

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Slava

I'm not reading the annual report at 10pm on a Saturday night but in 2015 Suncor lost money. Revenues were down by about $10bn and on a per share basis they were -0.73 as opposed to $2.28 in 2014. I also think its a little disingenuous to pick what is arguably the strongest company in the sector and say "everything is fine" based on their stability.

You asked for some facts so I provided some, someone else used Suncor as an example so that's why I chose to use their numbers. And I'm not saying everything is fine, far from it. My point was that there are more factors involved in the economic downturn than "everything the NDP are doing is wrong and ruining everything" which seems to be the opinion of most Albertans. No government is going to magically snap their fingers and fix things. I have no loyalty to any political party, and I get that it's human nature to want things fixed now, but people need to really try and have an open mind about changes. I'm willing to bet if the NDP were voted out tomorrow and things stayed the exact same or got worse, the people who are complaining now would say "well at least it's better than if the NDP were in charge" or "yeah it's taking some
time but it would be going worse if the NDP were running things" The reason politics become a gong show is because most people pick parties to support like they pick sports teams to cheer for, they make a choice and stick to it no matter how many times the oilers finish last.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

You asked for some facts so I provided some, someone else used Suncor as an example so that's why I chose to use their numbers. And I'm not saying everything is fine, far from it. My point was that there are more factors involved in the economic downturn than "everything the NDP are doing is wrong and ruining everything" which seems to be the opinion of most Albertans. No government is going to magically snap their fingers and fix things. I have no loyalty to any political party, and I get that it's human nature to want things fixed now, but people need to really try and have an open mind about changes. I'm willing to bet if the NDP were voted out tomorrow and things stayed the exact same or got worse, the people who are complaining now would say "well at least it's better than if the NDP were in charge" or "yeah it's taking some
time but it would be going worse if the NDP were running things" The reason politics become a gong show is because most people pick parties to support like they pick sports teams to cheer for, they make a choice and stick to it no matter how many times the oilers finish last.

I haven't heard a single person say that any party could fix this though. What I have heard a lot is that other parties wouldn't do more damage to an already troubled economy. Its not the same thing, and frankly difficult to disagree with.

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

You asked for some facts so I provided some, someone else used Suncor as an example so that's why I chose to use their numbers. And I'm not saying everything is fine, far from it. My point was that there are more factors involved in the economic downturn than "everything the NDP are doing is wrong and ruining everything" which seems to be the opinion of most Albertans. No government is going to magically snap their fingers and fix things. I have no loyalty to any political party, and I get that it's human nature to want things fixed now, but people need to really try and have an open mind about changes. I'm willing to bet if the NDP were voted out tomorrow and things stayed the exact same or got worse, the people who are complaining now would say "well at least it's better than if the NDP were in charge" or "yeah it's taking some
time but it woulds be going worse if the NDP were running things" The reason politics become a gong show is because most people pick parties to support like they pick sports teams to cheer for, they make a choice and stick to it no matter how many times the oilers finish last.

I asked for them, and you did NOT provide them. I cited 2 other potentially BN companies, but based upon Suncor's AR that Slava perused, I'd hazard none.

You said O&G companies, whilst making billions, are laying off employees, to paint a gloomy picture thereby pressuring the ruling political party.

You then corrected yourself in saying you worded it poorly.

"big oil companies will see that eliminating jobs to create political pressure to decrease their taxes with the aspiration of increasing profits"

So which political party is it being pressured? Federal? Not only inaccurate, but also confusing.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Nevermind it's not even saying that "everything is fine" and in fact saying that companies are actively laying people off with the specific intent of applying political pressure in some kind of conspiracy.

He lost me after that. Something about billions still being made and them leveraging over the common man and the middle class.

I was actually surprised that "big oil" wasn't capitalized in the post to be honest.

Are you suggesting that corporations do no try to use politicians for financial gains? It's not a conspiracy, it's a reality. Corporations use any means possible to keep the money rolling in. If it is to their benefit to have a different government in power, which is why they make financial contributions to different political campaigns, why would they not use other unethical means to their advantage?

And the reason for the absence of the term "big oil" in capital letters is likely due to the fact that I'm not trying to single out that industry, because they are certainly not the only corporations to make unethical decisions for financial gain

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Slava

I haven't heard a single person say that any party could fix this though. What I have heard a lot is that other parties wouldn't do more damage to an already troubled economy. Its not the same thing, and frankly difficult to disagree with.

If the steps being implemented(or damage as you put it) lead to a stronger and more stable economic structure in the long run is it not worth it in the long run?

[cam_wmh]

oh brother.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by cam_wmh

"big oil companies will see that eliminating jobs to create political pressure to decrease their taxes with the aspiration of increasing profits"

So which political party is it being pressured? Federal? Not only inaccurate, but also confusing.

Which party is being pressured? The one being blamed for everything that is wrong by both the opposition party and the companies who bankroll their campaigns that are claiming they will get out of work voters back to work.... if pipelines that will make companies money are approved, taxes are lowered for businesses to save them money and if the minimum wage stays down so that the companies can again save.

[Kjesse]

Some of iggy_oi's writing came as quite a surprise and I had to remember where I heard of such sort of argument before. The first that comes to mind is this (and I read the whole short book more than 2 decades ago but this is a pretty good summary of one part):

"The bourgeoisie constantly exploits the proletariat for its labour power, creating profit for themselves and accumulating capital. However, in doing so, the bourgeoisie serves as "its own grave-diggers"; the proletariat inevitably will become conscious of their own potential and rise to power through revolution, overthrowing the bourgeoisie."

Suncor, you have awakened the proletariat and he's now on CalgaryPuck posting openly. Beware. Your ruse of firing workers just to influence government has been unmasked.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I meant for it to be read as the industry itself, poorly worded on my part

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/04/conoc...-earnings.html

Conoco is pretty big and hasn't made money for years. The only reason people still work there is because they have made billions is the past. Do you think the last three hundred layoffs at this particular big oil company were done for political leverage?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Are you suggesting that corporations do no try to use politicians for financial gains? It's not a conspiracy, it's a reality. Corporations use any means possible to keep the money rolling in. If it is to their benefit to have a different government in power, which is why they make financial contributions to different political campaigns, why would they not use other unethical means to their advantage?

All sorts of organizations, including unions, lobby the government to implement policies that are favourable to them. As long as no laws are being broken, there's nothing unethical about it.

[GGG]

Most companies donate to all the parties with a chance of winning. The goal is influence regardless of who's elected not getting a party elected.

Take a look at who was in the room for the Carbon tax legislation and who was appointed for the royalty review. That's the purpose of donating. Influence regardless of who wins

Layoffs to create political pressure? That's a joke. I mean if they shut down their capital projects, you lay off the capital projects team. If exploration is cut by 90% then that team is laid off too.

Essentially everyone not related to the day to day extraction is gone. It wasn't done due to political pressure but because you don't carry extra staff

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/04/conoc...-earnings.html

Conoco is pretty big and hasn't made money for years. The only reason people still work there is because they have made billions is the past. Do you think the last three hundred layoffs at this particular big oil company were done for political leverage?

It is not the only reason, and not always the reason. But do you ever question why if these companies decide to lay off their middle class workers due to financial reasons they never choose to reduce wages across the board first? You never hear of a CEO who is making 150 times the amount of his workers taking a pay cut to save the jobs of their workers, who make their company money, it's always their workers jobs going away so they can continue to earn their already absurdly inflated salary. If it all came down to a company losing money, don't you think they would structure their cut back differently?

[nik-]

lots of those CEO's have already taken massive hits as a result of a huge part of compensation being stock based rewards.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

All sorts of organizations, including unions, lobby the government to implement policies that are favourable to them. As long as no laws are being broken, there's nothing unethical about it.

The intent is what I see as unethical, if a company is backing a party who's platforms will negatively impact more people and programs than it will help strictly so that company will be able to make more money I don't see that as ethical. Just because something isn't illegal doesn't make it ethical, the kkk can hold a peaceful rally but that doesn't make what they are doing ethical.

And yes unions do lobby politicians as well, with the intent to help workers, their are more workers than corporations, in my view helping people while not hurting others is not unethical. Despite how things are twisted by the anti labour movement, unions are not looking to hurt companies, they simply try to keep the middle class from falling further behind, if they were out to destroy companies where would their members work?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by nik-

lots of those CEO's have already taken massive hits as a result of a huge part of compensation being stock based rewards.

So all they had left was their multimillion dollar base salary?

[Mr.Coffee]

Iggy, respectfully, you're coming off enormously ignorant here. It's hard to know where to start with your arguments.

For example, CNRL did wage reductions across the entire organization but staggered it such that executives and management took a larger hit. When a company does layoffs, I guarantee the political landscape isn't what drives it in some kind of bizarre conspiracy. It's the business fundamentals.

Anyway, whatever man. You're wrong.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Delgar

Some of iggy_oi's writing came as quite a surprise and I had to remember where I heard of such sort of argument before. The first that comes to mind is this (and I read the whole short book more than 2 decades ago but this is a pretty good summary of one part):

"The bourgeoisie constantly exploits the proletariat for its labour power, creating profit for themselves and accumulating capital. However, in doing so, the bourgeoisie serves as "its own grave-diggers"; the proletariat inevitably will become conscious of their own potential and rise to power through revolution, overthrowing the bourgeoisie."

Suncor, you have awakened the proletariat and he's now on CalgaryPuck posting openly. Beware. Your ruse of firing workers just to influence government has been unmasked.

I actually think that Marx would probably have opposed the NDP. The O&G has given more wealth, equitable access to consumption, and leisure time to the working class than anything else in Canada.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

So all they had left was their multimillion dollar base salary?

I mean, I know it's a waste of time discussing with this you because you're set on your narrative, but not all CEO's have multimillion dollar salaries. Not every company is a massive one like Suncor or Shell. A lot of places the stock based compensation is like 80% of total comp. A lot of these guys have taken hits too and have skin in the game.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Iggy, respectfully, you're coming off enormously ignorant here. It's hard to know where to start with your arguments.

For example, CNRL did wage reductions across the entire organization but staggered it such that executives and management took a larger hit. When a company does layoffs, I guarantee the political landscape isn't what drives it in some kind of bizarre conspiracy. It's the business fundamentals.

Anyway, whatever man. You're wrong.

For the record, my initial post was a response to a sarcastic post, so I'll admit it was written in a manner that was maybe a little over the top. But I stand by my main point of businesses using any means necessary to boost profits, including cutting jobs to create political pressure. You see job losses used as leverage all the time in negotiations of business contracts or collective bargaining. When it comes to billion dollar business I would suggest that people not underestimate the power of greed. I'm not saying this is all one big giant conspiracy, I was simply pointing out another possible angle to look at thing from. We could debate it endlessly and I'm not here to change anyone's opinion on the matter, so I guess we can all simply agree to disagree.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by nik-

I mean, I know it's a waste of time discussing with this you because you're set on your narrative, but not all CEO's have multimillion dollar salaries. Not every company is a massive one like Suncor or Shell. A lot of places the stock based compensation is like 80% of total comp. A lot of these guys have taken hits too and have skin in the game.

No doubt that many have taken hits, it is not always the case though, and in the bigger corporations it is rarely the case that CEOs take an equal hit.