previous lemmy acct: @[email protected] see also: @[email protected]
you do realize that he would still be rich, this isn’t a vow of poverty, it’s just selling off stocks and stock options etc so that he doesn’t stand to directly gain (he’s been installing friends to high-paying positions BTW)
anti-success prejudice
lol
At the extreme end, forcing him to abandon all non-vested options wouldn’t be the end of the world.
Honestly this is what I think should happen.
I mentioned this elsewhere, but Carney’s own book champions the idea of company managers/executives getting bonuses paid in things like future stock options, because he notes that it creates an incentive for that person to make decisions that are good for the company (or, I guess, for its stock price) on a longer time scale than “this quarter” or “this year”.
Well, turns out that same system also creates incentives for that person if they suddenly hop over into government. Carney only has himself to blame for this ending up as a conflict of interest.
So you’re saying that Carney doesn’t care enough about the future of Canada that he’d be willing to make sure he’s not in a position to personally profit from holding office?
Just FYI it wasn’t me who downvoted you - but for one thing, Carney will obviously know the vesting schedule. Secondly, I almost don’t even want to entertain this claim because it’s just not how things work, but, if they aren’t worth anything, then why did Carney agree to be paid in stock options? And why is he holding onto them now, despite the criticisms?
In his book, Carney himself champions the idea of paying out things like executive bonuses in future options, because he says it incentivizes making decisions that will benefit the company over longer periods than just the next quarter or year.
The fact that it also creates a clear conflict of interest when that person suddenly jumps into government, well, that’s his own damn problem brought about by his own lack of forethought, and he should waive his right to exercise (or have the “blind” trust exercise) those stock options.
That’s very much not the case for his stock options, he will still know exactly what those are
I don’t see any reason why he couldn’t have signed away any claim on those stock options, or asked Brookfield to renegotiate things so he could cash out.
Some people might think it’s somehow unfair, but I mean, he wanted to be PM, no one made him do it.
a complete dereliction of duty smdh
This is straying from the point of the example, which was to demonstrate that a so-called “centre”, by virtue of the fact that it can not only compromise but can also even run counter to one’s values, is not by definition a winning strategy.
People on the left don’t owe a capitalist centrist party their vote simply because there’s no other major party advancing a socialist platform. Because socialism is opposed to capitalism on principle. Does that make sense?
In addition to the other responses, a blind trust is especially insufficient in this case, since his remaining Brookfield stock options are only be able to be exercised in the future, meaning the operator of the blind trust cannot buy and sell them as they would with any other asset.
In other words, Carney knows the schedule of those options becoming available for him to exercise (or for the blind trust to exercise, depending on the schedule and whether or not he’s still in public office at that point), and the blind trust operator has no control over that schedule.
Brookfield, incidentally, has a lot of money invested in places like Qatar and the UAE, as well as tens of billions invested in AI and data centres worldwide. The value of his stock options, therefore, is tied to the value of those investments.
“Obviously, it’s not a centre any of us approve of”
exactly - so what kind of “average” is that?
omg I thought your quote was parody and then I read the article
Exactly, which is why it pains me so much to see people cheering Carney for not being Poilievre, a bar he isn’t even clearing, other than aesthetically
Oh wow yeah I forgot, he shook several hands. My mistake, completely balances out the laundry list of heinous stuff
You’re right, he has been doing a TON of things:
Wow! So efficient!
You’re presenting a false choice.
Not only is diplomacy better for the people who live in countries on both sides - mostly just people trying to get by like you and me - but it’s also far better environmentally and economically to not pour 1/20th of our entire economic output into murder machines.
Putting aside the fact that it wasn’t true, Iran was (ostensibly!) attacked for trying to develop nuclear weapons capabilities. Why would our adversaries not see our rapid militarization as a reason to put themselves on a “war footing” too, rather than a diplomatic one?
Let’s try an example, because it’s one thing to speak in the abstract, but quite another thing to look at specifics.
What is the “centre” between the statements “white people are a superior race” and “race is a social construct and racism must be opposed”?
My position is that there is no “middle ground” on this issue. One either supports racism or supports anti-racism.
Lol jfc did no one think to also ask about the water usage of the gas plants that power these things?
Gas power generation consumes more water than the data centres themselves, even if the DC is cooled with an evaporative system rather than a closed loop:
That’s neither true in a political sense (ideologies are based in values, not metrics; this isn’t something that can be mapped to a bell curve or even quantified) nor in a mathematical sense (distributions can be anything).
Fair enough, point taken, however I also provided a perfectly good explanation of why the notion that the NDP would gain by moving rightward has not borne out historically. So sure, the earlier commenter had a perspective, but it’s a perspective that is clearly shared by many potential voters.
His stock options alone are worth around $6 million, IIRC, so i’m not sure where you’re getting your numbers from.
Anyway, he would only pay tax on the gains from the sale of his stocks (that’s why it’s called, get this, a “capital gains tax”) and those gains are only taxed at around 50% of the rate people pay when they earn the same amount of money from a real job. But surely you knew all that already.
Here you go:
https://rabble.ca/politics/canadian-politics/on-a-wartime-footing-carneys-new-defence-initiatives-risks-corruption-and-global-conflict/
From the piece: