We won’t act fast until a percentage of deniers, capitalists, oligarchs, shareholders are personally affected by climate change. Could be just a significant dip in the markets or a globally catastrophic famine. But until they directly feel the pain they will fight with all their resources against making any changes at all.

The press makes bank on reporting her stupidity; the financial incentives are too great. As long as the press is more motivated by their owners/shareholders ROI than civic duty she will keep showing up.

My god, we still hear from Alaska’s queen of the dunces every time she opens her mouth. Unfettered capitalism will always go where the money is, even if it means the dismantling of a society that favours everyone instead of the few. I wish it was different but that’s the way it is.

And poor, and not white, and not heterosexual, and not a fascist, and not born, and…

There is nowhere to begin. I agree with your point. Fundamentally, business should be able to make those decisions about who it employs and who it doesn’t.

But maybe, and hear me out here, they shouldn’t be telling us how fucked we are while they are fucking us - the consumer, the taxpayer and a portion of their own employees.

Good luck with yours too.

How is it in bad faith? I agreed with your response at the beginning of my comment.

The rest was context that I added, in what I felt, would be similar to an argument that any business would posit as to why they should be allowed to reap record profits while laying people off and at the same time telling us how we’re all fucked.

My original point was that RBC is telling us that we’re fucked. Meanwhile they are contributing to the fucking of us while they take in astounding profits from their businesses practices which are designed to fuck us and to top it off they fuck over some of their own employees in the same breath. There is an overall cognitive dissonance here that I was focused on, not the minutiae of whether or not a business should be able to hire and fire who they please.

You are correct. Businesses should have the autonomy to hire/fire people as they see fit. Glad we could make sure that point of the argument is settled.

No, you’re right. Business should be allowed to adjust accordingly to their needs and no one is guaranteed a job.

And I’ll add to that: executives earn every single cent of their bonuses based on record profits they make and shareholders earn their dividends for supporting executive’s decisions, let’s say in this instance to fire 1500 people. And when those folks are off the payroll the profits will increase and bonuses and dividends will reflect that.

And when the Canadian government steps in to help banks, as they did after 2008 to the tune of 114 billion, the taxpayer gets to help banks maintain their profit margins so shareholders and executives can keep their well deserved rewards for their forecasting mistakes.

Just always seems to me like the dollars and cents matter to the banks (and big business) when we’re talking about a $40,000 salary but a few extra billion to executives and shareholders, well now, why should we question any of that when it’s obviously well deserved and integral to the banks ability to function.

But hey, it’s the free market. And that means some people are free to earn millions of dollars just as some people are free to all of a sudden earn nothing.

Edit: read the linked article and yes, some of this move is lateral (selling a division) but some of it is not.

My original point stands (IMO) as the RBC is saying how the younger generation is fucked while they continue to fuck us in the ass and add a service charge for the fucking.

Nothing better than RBC saying how fucked we all are while having another record breaking profit quarter while laying off 1% of their staff.

The information may be correct but it’s as if an oil company started saying how fucked we are with climate change while they continue to pump it out of the ground.

🎵 Everybody Hates Marineland! 🎵

You’d have to be an idiot to not demand some cash up front for defending Trump.

You should also know that Saskatchewan is also doing this too.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/new-education-policies-sex-education-pronoun-use-1.6943641

It was either this or an open window.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha (breathes in) ha ha ha ha ha ha…

I sincerely hope Canada’s king of the douchebags pushes back during his training and is forced by the courts to take it again and again. Not that he’ll ever learn from this (sunken cost fallacy) but for every hour he spends doing this is one hour less he can tweet or continue to spread misinformation.

One of several reasons is they can’t make obscene amounts of money from socialized healthcare. Another would be their aversion to helping the less fortunate who they see as simply moral failures in life who don’t deserve handouts. And maybe a final point is that they know and trust the corruption of free market solutions instead of the “obviously inept and corrupt, gravy-train of welfare cheating governments” that they’ve been taught to hate (until the handout money comes to them during an emergency).

I guess the concerns of one parent who’s child had unintended access to “unsuitable” sex ed. reading material outweighs the actual life of anyone in the LGTBQ2S community who’s being bullied or abused because of their orientation or gender. Nice to know that a fucking prude get to keep their children safely ignorant while others have to suffer to the point of killings themselves. Nothing breeds faster than ignorance.

And your post is lazy at analysis and facts. As the old programmer saying goes: garbage in = garbage out.

In my opinion, as a 54 year old dude, probably the best rock and roll album out there.

Jesus would be crucified in a matter of days if he showed up in the Bible Belt saying the same things he spoke in the Gospels.

Conservatives only ever offer tax cuts to offset higher prices as a solution because the “invisible hand of the free market” should never be interfered with while its jerking off the insanely wealthy.

In theory both sides will help reduce overall costs but one will be at the expense of people who rely on government services vs. the the other that will will try to curb landlords from blatantly gouging.