Unfortunately, during the 1980s most of labor unions forgot who they represented. They abandoned their traditional oppositionalism to management due to the fact that their fates and the fates of the people from the management were interlinked: if the plant closed, union members would lose their jobs. With schemes like “quality circles” and the “team concept,” in which workers labored side-by-side with bosses, unions increased efficiency at the expense of the people they were supposed to represent. Unions took seats on the boards of companies they were supposed to be pressuring for higher wages and benefits .
The results of this mingle with corporate executives were highly predictable: givebacks and concessions to companies so they can pay their executives more and more. In 2009, for example, the United Auto Workers agreed to freeze their salaries to help save the big three Detroit automakers. They also slashed employee benefits, including healthcare.
Did the Big Three use those savings to invest in new plants? Not really. They continued to outsource jobs overseas. Meanwhile, as UAW members got laid off and struggled through pay freezes, Ford gave president and CEO Alan Mulally a raise in his annual salary, to $17.9 million. GM forked over $9 million to CEO Daniel Akerson. Despite having no apparent God-like superpowers—at this pay scale the dude ought to be able to shoot flames out of his mouth—Chysler-Fiat felt it appropriate to pay $7.7 million to its CEO, Sergio Marchionne.

Hard to believe, indeed, that US and Europe views the issue of the stopping the increase in greenhouse gas emissions as a priority. But the figures are certainly encouragin: US carbon dioxide has certainly decreased in the last 3 years, now I don´t have the figures, but I see that in 2009 it´s 9%. Money from taxes could be used for people to invest in these kinds of researches about gas emissions and for building more fuel-efficient cars or hybrid cars: http://www.financialcrisisforum.org/forum/Taxes/W... . In some UE countries, the road tax system is designed to comply with EU emissions legislation. One is taxed on the cars emissions and the fuel he uses. There are, of course, also voices who disagree with these tax, saying that the governments stopped using the money raised on road maintenance a very long time ago and thats why many roads are crumbling to bits. But maybe the future of our children worths that price.

Can't real honest Americans see that their money is being re-distributed all the time anyway???? http://www.financialcrisisblog.org/forum/Investin...
Would you rather have it spent on making your town/city better, or would you prefer that your money be given to already-rich people such as the CEOs of banks, oil companies and mercenary armies?
I'd prefer the former

It's true, governments, organizations, companies and people must become more conscious that they have to cooperate, setting their rights and responsibilities and having in mind the resources' scarcity.

UN is over 60 years old and it no longer works as effectively as once did. Some countries have become more important (India), some have become less significant (France). The organization, once can state, doesn'tt reflect the needs of today’s world. There are too many organizations within the UN, each with different budgets, different status, governance, and mandates. There is competition among agencies, old business practices, and unclear missions. The UN cannot successfully deliver results with these issues.

Well, they are at work....You aren't....

Unfortunately enough, the young people were indeed the ones who lost the most in the housing market and, indeed, there was an unfortunate redistribution of wealth.

I think that indeed, governments must act together, exploring potential frameworks that manage risk.

The main problem is Quebecers, who like the Greeks, are now heavily in debt, willing to go away from the "Quebec model" of huge bureaucracy and unions eating the lion's share of budgets.

Calculating P/E ratios is straightforward. If a company's stock sells for $10 with $5 earnings per common share, the P/E ratio is 2. There's a hitch, though: Not everyone uses the same definition of earnings.

"It's profits, but it's not so easy to define profits," says Robert J. Shiller, an economics professor at Yale University in New Haven, Conn., and the author of Irrational Exuberance (Princeton University Press, 2000). "Accountants have been debating that for 100 years."