Is Microsoft listening to the ING guy?
I’m not naïve. I understand we live in a capitalist society. But if the National Football League can put a cap on player salaries, why can’t the government put a cap on corporate earnings? (an aside: perhaps Ralph Goodale should put a cap on secret budget surpluses, as witnessed today, but I digress.)
First off, let me start this off with a disclaimer: No, I am not a commie. All I’m saying is isn’t there some cut-off point when exorbitant profit figures just fade away into oblivion? Does any of it go into someone’s pocket? Sure, Billy Gates rakes in millions from the Windows empire, but that’s peanuts compared to the company’s yearly profit numbers (FYI Microsoft posted a US$2.9B profit in Q1 alone as of October 21).
So where does the money go? Back into the company? Some of it, of course. But all of it? I couldn’t tell you. I have no clue. And I bet even those tall white guys in suits don’t know either, otherwise they’d want a piece of the pie.
Granted, I am by no means an expert in business. The only business fact I know for sure is that Canadians have much prettier bills than the Yanks. But as a student trying to piece together some sort of savings for the rest of my life, I’m proud to say I have at least rudimentary skills in the art of finance. Yet I remain baffled – where do profits go?
In my case, when I earn more than I spend, I put my money towards good use by saving (that Dutch/German/Swedish ING spokesman was hard to say no to). Is that what Microsoft does? Is Microsoft, the person (remember that in the eyes of the law, a corporation is considered a person—credit to the documentary
The Corporation), saving up for retirement, dreaming of a nice little cottage by the lake to settle down in?
Just think of the fabulous retirement Mr. Walmart – oh wait, there’s already a few rich Mr. Walmart’s out there – could plan for with his US$2.29B 3rd quarter profits (as of October 31). And let’s not forget our friend Bell Canada Enterprises. BCE could probably nail down a nice lot beside Kurt and Goldie with its C$484M 4th quarter profit (as of November 3).
All of which makes me wonder: would I be better off if I changed my name to Gabe Corp.?
When did hard time turn into game time?
Apologies for the lack of material this past week. Don’t worry, you’ll get your fill of U.S. election talk, media bashing, and general cynicism in due course.
You can chalk up my absence to nothing more than, er, research. I wasn’t here online because I was somewhere a bit scarier: jail. No, no, no…don’t worry about me. Everything is ok. I was only VISITING jail. I wasn’t there to visit any friends or family. Honest. It was strictly for business (I know what you’re thinking, and no, I’m not talking about Monopoly here. I really did have some business at a jail).
Details aside, my experience has got me thinking about a few things. First, how scary jail really is. I can’t imagine such a life of confinement and solitude... and violence, forgot to mention violence. These men are no strangers to violence and aggression – my Holmesian skills tipped me off to this -- and the thought of living life in constant fear for one’s safety, which I’m quite certain is a relentless threat while incarcerated, no doubt exceeds the physical punishment of confinement.
That led me to think about what society deems acceptable punishment. Clearly, I’m scared shitless of jail, but I’m your typical white, middle-class geek, so that should come as no surprise. I’m not the one supposed to be scared. Criminals are the ones supposed to be scared.
So is it a good message to send to the dark underworld of society if some convicted criminals serving time own a Sony Playstation? That’s right, you heard me, I said Playstation. Don’t believe me? Well, it’s true. TV’s, stereos, video game systems…they’re all in our jails. What’s more, they’re in our jail cells.
How can this be? Why should, for argument’s sake, a convicted auto thief be entitled to test his occupational skills playing Grand Theft Auto? Aren’t we simply reinforcing criminal behaviour? Even worse, could we be rewarding injustice?
Valid questions, no doubt. But let me first explain the circumstances behind this rhetorical enquiry, after which, please, feel free to have your say (I’m not just asking Adam to think about this, I want you to join the discussion by clicking on the comments link at the end of this post).
Here’s a quick backgrounder: According to
Canadian law, prisoner’s have the right to keep certain personal belongings with them during their time in jail, and in particular cases, in their cells. In addition, you should know that inmates are allowed to earn income during incarceration. Depending on the type of work performed and various other considerations, an inmate earns a daily wage of roughly $5 a day or higher. These wages are intended to help prisoners land on their feet if and when they return to civilized society.
So, technically, there's nothing stopping an inmate from buying a personal video game system to help kill the time. And why not? Does time in jail invariably mean time without anything from normal society? Should we really take everything away from the convicted? What about lifers who have no “liberation day” to save for? On the other hand, can it not be argued that some of these criminals have taken so much from society -- and I can't help but think of murderers -- that they deserve to live life without anything?
I can see that you are shaking in anticipation of my take on this issue. But I’d rather switch things up a bit. In the wake of the democratic (or republican, you choose) events of the past few days, I give you, our loyal audience, the floor. I'll check back in later to finish my thoughts, but for the time being, the conch is now yours.
