A new report from the Canadian Center For Policy Alternatives on CEO compensation.

Canadians may have been hit hard by a worldwide economic recession, but it appears Canada’s 100 highest paid CEOs are enjoying a soft landing.

The total average compensation for Canada’s 100 highest paid CEOs was $7,352,895 in 2008—a stark contrast from the total average Canadian income of $42,305. They pocketed what takes Canadians earning an average income an entire year to make by 1:01 pm January 4—the first working day of the year.

During the worst of economic years, the average earnings of Canada’s highest paid 100 CEOs were 174 times greater than Canadians earning an average income.

Find out how quickly a top CEO will make your salary with our CEO pay calculator.

Get a full copy of the report, click here

Manuel Pérez-Rocha | October 29, 2009

A bizarre meeting on the “Future of North America” was scheduled to take place on November 2 and 3. Members of the newly created, self-appointed “Commission on North American Prosperity” would have gathered in Toronto. Amazingly, the meeting was considered a “summit,” even though none of the presidents slated to lead it are sitting presidents. There was George H.W. Bush representing the United States, Vicente Fox standing in for Mexico, Jean Chretien for Canada, and Ricardo Lagos from Chile. All of a sudden this “summit” has been cancelled.

The cancellation remains unexplained. And the intention to carry on with this type of business-led forums, along the lines of the North American Forum that recently concluded in Ottawa, raises many questions: Are we going back to the future? Why are these former leaders “representing” countries they don’t run any more? Is their purpose to dictate to our actual presidents what to do to build North America? Why was ex president Lagos from Chile invited at all?

Since presidents George W. Bush and Vicente Fox, as well as Prime Minister Paul Martin, created the obscure Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America in 2005 (only to be silently dismissed by President Barack Obama), efforts to boost North American corporate integration have eluded public and legislative scrutiny.

In the meantime, Obama has backpedaled from his campaign commitments to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) so that it would emphasize fair trade, workers’ rights, and limits to investors’ privileges. Instead, the government is still expanding the accord to remove even more checks and balances on the exchange of capital, services, and goods.

Dallas Meeting

In Dallas, on October 19, top trade officials from Canada, the United States, and Mexico affirmed that “the benefits of expanding trade have flowed to businesses, farmers, workers, and consumers.” They based this on the assertion that trade among the countries has tripled in the last 15 years.

The officials also stated that “our economies have become more competitive.” But Mexico is sunk in a deep economic crisis precisely because of its dependence on the United States, which was created by NAFTA — it’s now being harder hit than any other Latin American nation.

Although rhetorically officials say they’ll help small businesses benefit from NAFTA, it’s contradictory that they are slashing “unnecessary regulatory differences” like rules of origin. These rules guarantee national content in exports, and would help small and medium companies benefit from trade. On the contrary, NAFTA has caused thousands of small and medium companies to go bankrupt. These companies failed because they were unable to compete with larger international corporations that benefit from NAFTA and, as a result, millions of workers are now on the streets. Removing rules of origin further only deprives small and medium companies from instruments for creating productive chains that would help them participate in trade.

Furthermore, the removal of the rules of origin and other regulatory legislation has been renegotiated by the three governments at their discretion, without consulting business owners, workers, or legislators. In their statement, the ministers say that their “forward-looking plan” will be “developed in consultation with all relevant stakeholders.” Haven’t we heard this before?

More about the SPP and the ‘NAFTA FLU” otherwise known as N1H1 and it’s true origins, click here

Sources:
Alternet, November 26, 2008
Title: “As Crisis Mounts, Ecuador Declares Foreign Debt Illegitimate and Illegal”
Author: Daniel Denvir

Utube, Fall 2008
Title: “Invalid Loans to Ecuador: Who Owes Who”
Producer: Committee for the Integral Audit of Public Credit

Foreign Policy in Focus, December 15, 2008
Title: “Ecuador’s Debt Default”
Authors: Neil Watkins and Sarah Anders

Student Researcher: Rosemary Scott
Community Evaluator: Tim Ogburn
Sonoma State University

In November 2008, Ecuador became the first country to undertake an examination of the legitimacy and structure of its foreign debt. An independent debt audit commissioned by the government of Ecuador documented hundreds of allegations of irregularity, illegality, and illegitimacy in contracts of debt to predatory international lenders. The loans, according to the report, violated Ecuador’s domestic laws, US Securities and Exchange Commission regulations, and general principles of international law. Ecuador’s use of legitimacy as a legal argument for defaulting set a major precedent; indeed, the formation of a debt auditing commission sets a precedent.

In the 1970s Ecuador fell victim to unscrupulous international lending, which encouraged borrowing at low interest rates. But in over thirty years the country’s debt rose from $1.174 billion in 1970, to over $14.250 billion in 2006, a twelve fold increase, due in large part to interest rates that rose at the discretion of US banks and Federal Reserve from six percent in 1979 to twenty-one percent in 1981.

The commission revealed that Salomon Smith Barney, now part of Citigroup Inc., issued unauthorized restructuring of Ecuador’s debt in 2000 that lead to exorbitant interest rates, which, combined with illegal borrowing by former dictators, has turned the country, along with many of its Southern neighbors, into a major capitol exporter to its Northern “benefactors.” Over the years, the country has made debt payments that far exceed the principal it borrowed.

Of all loans made between 1989 and 2006, fourteen percent was used for social development projects. The remaining 86 percent was used to pay for previously accumulated debt. Continuously from 1982 and 2006, the country paid foreign debt creditors $119.826 billion for capital and interest, while receiving over the same period $106.268 billion in new loans, which amounts to a total negative transfer of $13.558 billion.
The human costs are staggering. Every dollar spent on illegitimate international credit means less is available for fighting poverty. In 2007 the Ecuadorian government paid $1.75 billion in debt service alone, more than it spent on health care, social services, the environment, and housing and urban development combined.

While the risks of default are high, Ecuador had only two options: keep paying a dubious and illegal debt at the risk of social unrest, or default and face the wrath of the international market.

Under the World Bank system, which oversees investment treaties, there is no public accountability, no standard judicial ethics rules, and no appeals process. Ecuador has thus exposed a major problem in the international financial system: the lack of an international, independent mechanism for countries to resolve disputes over potentially illegitimate and/or illegal debt. Ecuador’s findings could set a precedent for the poorest of indebted countries, whose debt burden has long been criticized as predatory and inhumane.

Read the rest of the article, click here

James Travers has a very good article.  Here’s a quote:

"There’s no such thing as free trade"

In theory, American states are bound by international treaties negotiated through Washington. But in practice? Would U.S. President Barack Obama dare to let a NAFTA trade dispute panel penalize a state government acting to protect American jobs?

Recall that even in the best of times, the U.S. refuses to accept elements of trade treaties that it finds inconvenient, the most obvious example being the long-running softwood lumber saga, wherein Washington – in violation of NAFTA – continued to discriminate against Canadian producers until Ottawa agreed to even more concessions.

Read the full article, click here

October 5, 2009

Canadian and American trade officials are right now discussing a bilateral trade deal that puts local communities at risk. It’s not even really about trade – it’s about curbing the powers of local and provincial governments to spend public money on public priorities: jobs, environmental protection, public health and public services.

On the surface, the Canadian proposal would exempt Canadian companies from temporary “Buy American” rules attached to U.S. stimulus cash. These rules state that to get any of the $787 billion USD allotted for state and local infrastructure projects, all the steel, iron and manufactured goods used in the project should be made in the United States.

But to get this temporary access to U.S. stimulus money, the Harper government is offering to open, perhaps permanently, provincial and municipal tendering to U.S. companies on an equal basis to Canadian companies. This would make it impossible for local governments to ever prioritize local, regional or national companies when spending public money.

Why make an offer like this when there is no way to guarantee that any U.S. contracts will go to Canadian companies – even with the “Buy American” waiver?

It’s not about protectionism versus ‘free trade’. It’s about having a choice where and how public money is spent. Sometimes, especially during tough economic times like these, it just makes more sense to spend that money locally. Why give up that right?

Right now, Prime Minister Harper has the support of the premiers for his “Buy American” proposal. That’s not the same as having the support of the provinces, the cities or the public. We need to let our provincial legislators know that Canadians are skeptical about Harper’s “Buy American” proposal, and that the premiers do not have the right to make decisions that will affect local communities without the consent of those communities.

Maybe Federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty is just trying to make the many thousands of people who have lost their jobs feel better.  Comparing the current global collaspe to recessions in the past is a bit of a stretch.  The economic policies implemented by previous US governments over the past 8 years, based on the phoney "Chicago" school of economics theory, to which Mr. Flahety and Harper subscribe cannot be compared to any historical recession.

…

"Liberal finance critic John McCallum, a former Royal Bank chief economist, said the comparison has little utility.

"I don’t see the point … we’re lucky because we’re not starving?" Mr. McCallum said. "Next he will be telling us that Canadians are fortunate because they are better off than during the 19th-century Irish potato famine."

Read the full article at the Globe and Mail

Looks like a lot more smoke and mirrors from Mr. Harper and Mr. Flaherty, at least for the average middle-class homeowner.

Home renovations
Purchases of new appliances, furniture and home electronics don’t qualify for tax credits. Nor do routine repairs and maintenance.

Spend the money in 2008.  You won’t get any tax relief until after filing your 2009 tax return.

Personal Income Tax
The budget also delivers personal income tax relief by increasing the basic personal amount to $10,320. However, The basic personal amount was set to go up to $10,100 in 2009, even before the budget boost.
This means a 2.2 % increase – not 7.5 % from the 2008 level, as the government says.

Similar story with personal income tax brackets.

The 15% tax bracket is topped at $40,726 in 2009.  But, because of inflation indexing this upper limit would have been $38,832 in 2009 anyway.

The second personal income tax bracket will max at $81,452 in 2009, allowing more income to be taxed at the 22 per cent rate (rather than the 26 per cent rate).

But this limit would have gone to $77,664 through inflation indexing. The benefit is overstated, since it’s calculated from 2008 levels, not the scheduled 2009 levels.

There’s $317 in tax savings, at most, with changes to the basic personal amount and income tax brackets. And only taxpayers earning $81,452 or more can take full advantage of them

For more details on the budget as it affects seniors, first time home buyers, EI deductions, click here.

Probably not.  Here’s some of his comments regarding the proposed EFCA bill in the USA, which he is vehemently against.

Not much of a guy for ordinary American citizens.

Bernie Marcus, the charismatic co-founder of Home Depot, led the call along with Rick Berman, an aggressive EFCA opponent and founder of the Center for Union Facts. Over the course of an hour, the two framed the legislation as an existential threat to American capitalism, or worse.

"This is the demise of a civilization," said Marcus. "This is how a civilization disappears. I am sitting here as an elder statesman and I’m watching this happen and I don’t believe it."

Allowing people a fair way to chose to form a union, or not, will cause the "demise of civilization"?  Really?

Read the entire article, and listen to the audio of the telephone conference call.

It does seem that the demise of American capitalism has been very well orchastrated by some of their very largest corporations and financial institutions, not the working people in them who may, or may not, want to form a union.

Jay Leno may have a ton of old cars that probably get four or five miles to the gallon, but at least he’s talking about wind power on television! Or. Hang on. At least he talks about wind power on NBC.com!

In the video , he’s staring at a MagLev wind turbine — that’s a turbine that works well because it’s levitating on a magnetic field. Less resistance means more conserved energy and less mechanical wear. Very cool stuff, and it’s the kind of toy that a mechanical geek like Leno can get into.

This baby’s going on Ed Begley’s house, but Leno brags that the one he’ll buy is bigger.

These wind turbines are manufactured by EnviroEnergy of Grimsby, ON!