Lang and O'Leary Exchange, CBC Newsworld

Are those two questions mutually exclusive? 

Yep,that show sucks and i resent the public'smoney being used to pay his wage and give us such stupid right wing rhetoric...

he actually says the following thought terminating cliche to guy on the new show, as indicated by the trailers...

"don't cry for money, it never cries for you".

WTH?  it doesn't even make sense

And yet they think it is worthy trailer material.

Excellent observation, but I would add "most" to  business people, as I have met business people, who do think like O'Leary, sadly.

Most of his activity revolves around vulture (ahem, "venture") capitalism.

Pogo wrote:

He sure seems to be modelled on Don Cherry.  Sad that CBC is reducing its business coverage to a clown playing to the far right.

Yeah, except Don Cherry was the Don Cherry of hockey, so I can see why that kind of tough guy character in a hockey context might be popular with sports fans (not that I'm a fan)

On the other hand, no one likes watching some bald asshole in a suit act like scrooge, the Monopoly Man, Bernie Madoff, and a 19th century industrialist thrown into a blender, especially after assholes like this guy are the reason why they lost their jobs, their houses, or their retirement savings.

Shouldn't there be a show called "Dragon Slayers" where people take these types out...metaphorically speaking that is

Tommy_Paine wrote:

But what irked me was that CBC is publically owned, and they are subsidizing this bloviator a podium that he can well afford to buy on his own.  With, amoung other people's, my money.

I find that loathesome.

Yeah well get used to it. That's how public programming works. Just because we pay your taxes doesn't give us veto power over CBC's programming decisions.  The CBC isn't mandated to showcase just the opinions of people who can't otherwise afford to do it, or people whose opinions you don't like.

Can't stand him most of all from that brit rip off Dragons Dunce. More drivel from cbc. Lang is a right winger anyway. She is all business as well. It's a complete farce and a waste of half an hour. Complaint going in.

O'Leary puts a face on the ugly Canadian, he celebrates greed, ignorance and arrogance, all in all extemely offensive but then not surprising given that money is the measure of success in our society. The fact that CBC would promote him is a clear indication that their priorities have changed.  This is just one of the reasons I have no respect for the CBC.

Edit:  Well that was harsh, it would be more accurate to say my respect and support for the CBC has greatly diminished in the part few years.

Well hypocracy has always been rightwingers strong suit. As long as the government is helping them it is OK. Like bailing out companies such as banks, allow them to go into defict(something any left government would be hung for in the media), subsidising oil. you know priorities.

"But O'Leary isn't a business person, per se.  He's an entrepenuer, which is spin for speculator, which is spin for parasite."

I agree with you about O'Leary being a parasite, but dispute your definition of entrepenuership.  Someone running a pizza parlor is a business owner, whereas an entrepenuer is someone more willing/able to apply innovation and higher risk in order to create for example, a chain of pizza stores. For me, entrepenuership is just taking the practice of self employment to a higher level, and requires 3 key criteria, namely creativity, risk exposure, and heightened energy expenditure (financial, physical & emotional). 

"There is a bigger issue here than just whether you like what they are saying.  If you agree with the precept that we need to move to a more society oriented, equality-based system, one which also needs to be sustainable, then the Chicago School economic ideas being promoted by O'learey are about the worst thing possible for a society that needs to move forwared into a more socially responsible, greener world."

IMO, what you seem to be suggesting is a socialist system in Canada. If so, I would counter that this country is already one of the most socialist countries on this planet, and becoming even more so, would be counter productive. Canadian society is one that subscribes to the concept of "Forced Egalitarianism", i.e everyone is equal, and where averageness seems to be the ultimate goal.

What this country needs is "more" inhabitants with passion, drive, and personal initiative. More people not afraid to stand out, and who in fact relish it. If "more" Canadians placed a higher priority on excellence for themselves, and lived less vicariously through the success or failure of our hockey team's, we might someday have a nation of people as great as the country itself.

While I am most certainly right wing with regard to business matters, left of center is best for social issues. Afterall a country is only as great as its ability to take care of those people less fortunate.

Splitting Hairs wrote:

IMO, what you seem to be suggesting is a socialist system in Canada. If so, I would counter that this country is already one of the most socialist countries on this planet, and becoming even more so, would be counter productive. Canadian society is one that subscribes to the concept of "Forced Egalitarianism", i.e everyone is equal, and where averageness seems to be the ultimate goal.

That's a myth used to rile western Canadians who are told to believe that being born on third base(with the oil and gas) is the same as hitting a home run in terms of economic competitiveness. And western conservatives tend to believe whatever it is corporate lackies feed them. Afterall when theyre being robbed blind on oil royalties and profits siphoned off from under their feet at a frenzied pace, they have to tell them something.

Canada used to be an aspiring social democracy in the 1960's and 70's. That all changed beginning about the time that Milton Friedman praised Bank of Canada governor Gerald Buoey for his speech on monetarist monetarism in 1975. Since neoliberal ideology became the way in Canada, the country's gross national debt has skyrocketed and foreign ownership and control has become a significant feature of the Canadian economy.

I would say that Canada more resembles a rightwing Libertarian's dream come true. That is, Canada has become a group of loosely affiliated provinces governed by weak and  ineffective central government Ottawa. Supranational corporations love dealing with weaker territorial governments than strong central ones. And this is essentially what successive colonial administrativeships in Ottawa have created on the advice of neoliberal ideologues in the US and Canadian rightwing think tanks and as favours to Bay Street and marauding international capital. If there is socialism in Canada today, it is socialism for the rich. And it's time to get the rich off welfare.

ME too if this is socialism I have no idea what a libertarian dream would be. Though I do think we are now heading into a totalitarian government. At least for an industrialized nation. Obviously this posters knows nothing of any eurpoean countries if he/she thinks canada is socialist. The only thing they can point to these days is healthcare...go figure the one thing all canadians love and it socialism given the chance to flourish.

I agree Boom Boom, Kory the Tory gets on my nerves almost as much as Evan. Evan letting him say what he wants without question and always allowed the last word makes Evan worse in my books. An enabler as it were. I thought Tim Powers was POS but this guy makes him look moderate. The right plays down and dirty without respect or worrying about lying. We have to concern ourselves about appearances because our people expect us to hold a standard while theirs support them even when facts tell them how corrupt they are. Stunning.

I don't like O'Leary either, but he said something the other night that I think some of us would agree with. O'Leary said he is critical of this government's decision to subsidize Bombardier to the tune of so many billion dollars. As for myself, I like the idea of subsidizing a Canadian company, and they should have supported Nortel with strings attached. A Bombardier spokesperson said that Bombardier receives certain defence contracts, and that governments around the world subsidize defence research and development anyway. But I think that most economists would say that funnelling too much money into one basket is not good in terms of diversified economy and that concentrating investment in one most likely hurts job creation in other sectors. I can understant that as well as the moral issue of funding guns as opposed to butter end of the economy.

And then O'Leary said something startling. He said that most multi-billion dollar earnings corporations are looking to get out of North America and mainly due to the financial crises. That doesn't sound very promising. Or, perhaps it's an indication that there will be, has to be, significant change to the financial system and even western world monetary system driven by Friedmanite monetarist-monetarism itself. Michael Hudson says that this will have to happen within the next ten years, no doubt about it.

I agree with Scott P, Amanda Lang has got something convincing going on in that I am more interested in business news when she is delivering it on The National, or subbing in on the main. No airs of a jerky Bay Street suit who argues for the hell of it.

She has a classic 1940's air about her like Kathrine Hepburn or Babe Bennett (!)

Strong sisters reading the news, about time!!!

Peter makes me all sleepy like. He only perks up when Claire Martin shows up and even then its tepid. "ha ha here's claire..."

I like all of the subs actually, specifically Mesley, the dapper "Ben" that appears every once in a while and of course - Hanomansing!

Now if they would only draft Hebert...

Thinkin on the high speed rail line benefits for the west......

what do you think tommy?

TP:

"Trouble is, our entire economy in the last twenty years has been fantasy based.   I'm not sure how or why those tough old bastards in manufacturing allowed control of the economy out of their hands and into the hands of speculators, but they did."

They really had no say in it, TP. People went from investing in trusted stocks to equity ventures that paid the most. Suddenly there was no allegiance. It became a competion among money managers to see who could provide their clients with the best returns...and devil take the hindmost. Unfortunately, our pension funds, yours and mine, also became part of this game, so we've been doing it to ourselves for some time now (the Chicago School's thinking blessed it all) and we don't know how to get off. You will see some attempts to solve the riddle in thanks's offerings in other threads. We will have to (painfully) dump the global perspective and regain sovereignty over the use of our investment (retirement) funds. It will mean coming to terms with the historical processes that got us here...and with Pogo's famous declaration about the location of the enemy camp.

We sure as shucks aren't gong to shake that "parasitic fantasy based economy" without understanding the extent of our dependencies and the precariousness of the welfare state as a whole.

biggest open  jackass at the CBC...I am sure there are more like him just not on air or putting their views forth. He makes cherry seem almost normal.

It's a strange show. O'Leary tells Amanda Lang that he's worried she doesn't have enough of her portfolio invested in China. KO says China is where it's at financially. Lang says, "Oh, no the US economy will miraculously climb out of the doldrums. O'Leary just laughs that comment off and points to a dead snail's pace economic growth in the US and affecting Canada for years to come.

I hate to say it but Kevin O'Leary does speak the truth from time to time. It's obvious from Amanda Lang's facial expressions that she is gauled by what KO says half the time. I wish she would speak up in those moments and say what's on her mind. I think she knows her stuff but should let us know that she does at the same time. She's making KO look good for some reason imo. She's too damn polite. She should unload on him. Ratings would soar.

Einstein already said something about the unsustainability of "predatory capitalism",  but I like my formulation. "Competition is for losers." 

You should see the interview Buckner did with this marshmellow. He got all cry baby because he remember the ONE SINGLE DAY in his life he worked for someone else. He was in a shop and at the end of the day the shop keeper told him to clean the gum off the floor. Well kev-o up and quit.

This from the same guy who argues to use people however you can. He sure didn't like it.

...Aaaaand that's BobbyB done. Thanks for dropping by.

You never let us have a troll to play with.

Exactly peejay(china) lang is a lightweight who loves the states, not very objective just a Continentalist, and certainly isn't leftwing. Has she ever advocated nationalizing anything even nessesities. So its like Colmes and Hannity. Or our very own Dumbass Trump to stink up the joint at the CBC. Bobby B would be the first one of these idiots crying(as he does in his post) about the leftwing bias on the CBC. If it was then how does O'Leary, Evan Soloman, Cherry, Rex Murphy, Andrew Coyne etc etc etc  have their jobs. Can't fix stupid I guess.