KinAlberta Posted January 28, 2017 Share Posted January 28, 2017 "For those that are unfamiliar with Canada and see it as heavily left leaning..." Your post highlights that even Alberta is heading towards heavily left leaning... Cardboard Or like the anti-free trade (anti-capitalism) shift Trump represents, maybe the world is just getting less ideological and more pragmatic or practical. Alberta's experiment only survived the good economic times and as soon as the the downside of economic markets hit, so did the realization that markets can create not only a whole lot of winners, but also a whole lot of losers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffmori7 Posted January 28, 2017 Share Posted January 28, 2017 O'Leary had not the decency to present itself at the french debate for the Conservatives leadership in Quebec. He decided to enter in the race the day after, because he doesn't speak French, even though he is from Montreal. As a Quebecois, I think it should be the minimum to speak both languages if you want to be PM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
augustabound Posted January 29, 2017 Share Posted January 29, 2017 O'Leary had not the decency to present itself at the french debate for the Conservatives leadership in Quebec. He decided to enter in the race the day after, because he doesn't speak French, even though he is from Montreal. As a Quebecois, I think it should be the minimum to speak both languages if you want to be PM. I heard a radio show talking about that. He is taking French lessons. It was probably a smart decision for the time being to avoid that situation. He'll take a beating eventually like Harper did at first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SharperDingaan Posted January 29, 2017 Share Posted January 29, 2017 If you want to be PM - you will speak French, & do it fluently. If you've never lived in Quebec, it's acceptable to learn French & demonstrate that you are actively tying to learn the thinking, nuance, and culture. Show genuine openness, and the willingness to mix with all Quebecers, & Quebec will adopt you. But if you've lived in Quebec for some time, & chosen not to learn French - you've made a decision, & will be held to it. Use Trump methods, & you are a Trump; whether you like it or not. The label will be hung on you, & wriggling will make it worse; there is no Trump Light, it is Trump or No Trump. Your television brand will be used against you, and your unpopularity will be used against your businesses - to strangle your cash flow. Politics is a dirty game, & it doesn't take much to deliberately start a run on a mutual fund business. To really make real change, focus on implementing the Trump like radical & real changes needed to bring Canada's various native populations into Canadian society. Take a cabinet post, use the aggressiveness to make it happen; and apply a tamer version of the Shawinigan handshake. Show that you can walk. Disruption is not a bad thing, but in Canada it happens within guard rails. SD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregmal Posted January 29, 2017 Share Posted January 29, 2017 If you want to be PM - you will speak French, & do it fluently. If you've never lived in Quebec, it's acceptable to learn French & demonstrate that you are actively tying to learn the thinking, nuance, and culture. Show genuine openness, and the willingness to mix with all Quebecers, & Quebec will adopt you. But if you've lived in Quebec for some time, & chosen not to learn French - you've made a decision, & will be held to it. Use Trump methods, & you are a Trump; whether you like it or not. The label will be hung on you, & wriggling will make it worse; there is no Trump Light, it is Trump or No Trump. Your television brand will be used against you, and your unpopularity will be used against your businesses - to strangle your cash flow. Politics is a dirty game, & it doesn't take much to deliberately start a run on a mutual fund business. To really make real change, focus on implementing the Trump like radical & real changes needed to bring Canada's various native populations into Canadian society. Take a cabinet post, use the aggressiveness to make it happen; and apply a tamer version of the Shawinigan handshake. Show that you can walk. Disruption is not a bad thing, but in Canada it happens within guard rails. SD Funny, but deriving from the same topic, I remember when there was some uproar over American Brian Gionta being named captain of the Canadians specifically because he didnt speak French. So I'd imagine the bar is a wee bit higher for PM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SharperDingaan Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 And now with the Quebec attack, if you want to be Trump Light ... you will be branded both incompetent, anti-immigration, and anti Muslim. But hey, we can still win this! SD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwericb Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 Make Canada Great Again! YES! And Donald Trump will do that as he drives skilled people out of the U.S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doc75 Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 I'm sorry, but it ain't gonna happen as long there is 'Turdeau' in charge! Wow. Nice contribution. Perfectly rational. And the "Turdeau" thing is a tour-de-force. Your own? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 Wow. Nice contribution. Perfectly rational. And the "Turdeau" thing is a tour-de-force. Your own? It's probably best to ignore posts like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwericb Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 Value^2 is the pet board troll. Sometimes we humour him so he thinks we appreciate his 'brilliant' comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DooDiligence Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 Restraining the impulse to dash off poorly thought out & reactive posts. Paying attention to intelligent authors (pro & contra my own thoughts) in order to mold & shape myelf. Resisting the impulse to think I'm always right. A set of challenges that I pass & fail constantly... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SharperDingaan Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 Value^2 is the pet board troll. Sometimes we humour him so he thinks we appreciate his 'brilliant' comments. More inclined to entrust him into the gentle care of the men in red serge. People are dead, & one of the gunmen turned him/her self in right after the shooting; implying that he/she was coerced. Perhaps a conversation that needs to happen. SD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parsad Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 Value^2 is the pet board troll. Sometimes we humour him so he thinks we appreciate his 'brilliant' comments. More inclined to entrust him into the gentle care of the men in red serge. People are dead, & one of the gunmen turned him/her self in right after the shooting; implying that he/she was coerced. Perhaps a conversation that needs to happen. SD This wasn't a terrorist attack, but a hate crime. The shooter is French-Canadian and killed six innocent Muslim mosque parishioners. But of course, Spicer jumped on this before this came to light and used it to support Trump's policies. Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KinAlberta Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 You say it wasn't a terrorist attack but a hate crime. I always get so confused on the semantics of all this. Sounds to me like the guy tried to kill a whole lot more than the six he did kill. According to this article terrorism now has to be aimed at an entire nation. Recognize the Difference Between Terrorism and Hate Crimes By Frederick M. Lawrence • 06/14/16 http://observer.com/2016/06/recognize-the-difference-between-terrorism-and-hate-crimes/ However, the Oxford dictionarydoesn't set that broad of a standard: "The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims: ‘the fight against terrorism’ ‘international terrorism’ " https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/terrorism Definitions of terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism When is a Hate Crime not a Hate Crime? When it’s a Terrorist Act… 18TH JUNE 2015 BY JOEL DAVIDGE https://www.scenesofreason.com/hate-crime-vs-terrorism/ It always seems like splitting hairs to me but I know the intent really does matter, though, if a hate crime strikes terror into a group, I'd probably label it it terrorism. On Hate Crime and Terrorism On 22nd December 2015 by David Brax ... The terroristic aspects of hate crime Hate crimes, like acts of terrorism, targets not only the immediate individual victims, but also the groups to which they are connected. The typical and often intended effect of both types of crimes is to strike fear in the group, and to remind them of their heightened risk of further victimization. The “secondary harm” of hate crimes is frequently recognized as the justification for penalty enhancements. Both are also typically expressive of certain attitudes and/or political ideals. http://www.internationalhatestudies.com/on-hate-crime-and-terrorism/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parsad Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 You say it wasn't a terrorist attack but a hate crime. I always get so confused on the semantics of all this. Sounds to me like the guy tried to kill a whole lot more than the six he did kill. According to this article terrorism now has to be aimed at an entire nation. Recognize the Difference Between Terrorism and Hate Crimes By Frederick M. Lawrence • 06/14/16 http://observer.com/2016/06/recognize-the-difference-between-terrorism-and-hate-crimes/ However, the Oxford dictionarydoesn't set that broad of a standard: "The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims: ‘the fight against terrorism’ ‘international terrorism’ " https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/terrorism Definitions of terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism When is a Hate Crime not a Hate Crime? When it’s a Terrorist Act… 18TH JUNE 2015 BY JOEL DAVIDGE https://www.scenesofreason.com/hate-crime-vs-terrorism/ It always seems like splitting hairs to me but I know the intent really does matter, though, if a hate crime strikes terror into a group, I'd probably label it it terrorism. On Hate Crime and Terrorism On 22nd December 2015 by David Brax ... The terroristic aspects of hate crime Hate crimes, like acts of terrorism, targets not only the immediate individual victims, but also the groups to which they are connected. The typical and often intended effect of both types of crimes is to strike fear in the group, and to remind them of their heightened risk of further victimization. The “secondary harm” of hate crimes is frequently recognized as the justification for penalty enhancements. Both are also typically expressive of certain attitudes and/or political ideals. http://www.internationalhatestudies.com/on-hate-crime-and-terrorism/ The way I distinguish between the two is that a "terrorist" attack is a broad attack against a country's entire population and ideology...not a specific group. A "hate" crime is a narrow attack against a very specific subsection/group of a country's population. Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SharperDingaan Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 It was a terrorist attack; why, we don't know ..... Terrorist act, motive unclear Couillard, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Quebec provincial police have all called the attack a terrorist act. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/mosque-shooting-witness-reactions-1.3958037 SD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alekbaylee Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 It was a terrorist attack; why, we don't know ..... Terrorist act, motive unclear Couillard, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Quebec provincial police have all called the attack a terrorist act. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/mosque-shooting-witness-reactions-1.3958037 SD I agree. It's a terrorist attack motivated by hatred against a specific segment of the population. It was meant to terrorise people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KinAlberta Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 Interesting I'd say, in light of the earlier Imprimis article I posted about the lack of mobility in the US compared to Canada. GMO’s Grantham Goes Buffett on Taxes, Trump, & Inequality | Institutional Investor ...Over the past 10 years, co-founder Jeremy Grantham has come to believe that corporations are choosing short-term profits over the financial health of their employees. “Nowhere was this better demonstrated than in their dispensing with the jewel in the crown of the old social contract, the defined benefit plan,” Grantham wrote to clients. Many of them, it’s worth noting, are defined benefit plans. “This was done on the stated grounds of unaffordability” even as corporate profits hit highs. Workers had been surprisingly inured to the increasing power of big corporations until, he continued, the election in which they chose Trump over Hillary Clinton. ... http://m.institutionalinvestor.com/Article.aspx?ArticleId=3657117 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rb Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 I don't know whether DB are that big of a contributor of social mobility. In any case DB plans aren't faring much better in Canada compared to the US. There is also so much BS around the DB issue that's become a pet peeve of mine. There's nothing wrong with DB plans. A lot of companies looted pension plans and now blame the employees for the loot. Some of these companies will end up being owned by the employees in the future and for good reason. For finance geeks out there that want to learn more I'd recommend BRK's ARs circa late 90s and mortality tables. Sigh. :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KinAlberta Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 No not at all. That's not the point though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SharperDingaan Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 When a workforce is young, a firm uses a DB plan because it costs cents on the dollar to what it would otherwise cost if it funded a DC plan. The compounding works to the firms benefit, & the more years to retirement - the greater that benefit is. It's why firms went with them through the 70's and 80's. A firm gets a very strong wake-up call every time DB costs > DC costs. It means your in-house workforce isn't young enough, and that your management usually needs replacing; because when they outsourced production they got rid of the younger folk, & kept the experienced folk for quality control; they didn't include the additional DB costs in the cost-benefit analysis - a firing offense. As soon as you bring that outsourced young workforce back in house (Trump), DB costs fall like a brick. Someone trying to tell you otherwise - is simply lying to you. When you're on your game, DB plans cost materially less, & the future payouts both reduce a firms future taxes, & build the firms future customers. They &/or their families have the $ to buy the firms product, & upon retirement - will frequently choose to move as well - further boosting the firms sales. Fund a portion of the employers contribution with company stock, & let the plan write puts on that stock; the cost of the plan radically falls even further. All the C Suite is incentivised to move the share price as high as possible, & every time management screws up - the puts on the plan ensure that the plan benefits. Screw up big & there are NO DB contribution costs this year - because the put profits were so large, it's no longer needed. Happy shareholders. As a contributor, DB & DC plans, affect your mobility equally. Leave your employer, it doesn't matter what type of plan you had - you aren't contributing anymore. The terms of the plans themselves are specific to the plan, & have nothing to do with the sponsor; you and your sponsor just pay the agreed amounts into it. SD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardGibbons Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 Fund a portion of the employers contribution with company stock, & let the plan write puts on that stock; the cost of the plan radically falls even further. All the C Suite is incentivised to move the share price as high as possible, & every time management screws up - the puts on the plan ensure that the plan benefits. Screw up big & there are NO DB contribution costs this year - because the put profits were so large, it's no longer needed. Happy shareholders. Am I missing something? Write puts means go short puts, which increase in value when the stock falls. So, you're saying if management screws up, the share price plummets, and the short puts skyrocket. Wouldn't the loss on the short puts cause severe losses in the plan rather than large profits? Or do you mean write calls? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SharperDingaan Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 Fund a portion of the employers contribution with company stock, & let the plan write puts on that stock; the cost of the plan radically falls even further. All the C Suite is incentivised to move the share price as high as possible, & every time management screws up - the puts on the plan ensure that the plan benefits. Screw up big & there are NO DB contribution costs this year - because the put profits were so large, it's no longer needed. Happy shareholders. Am I missing something? Write puts means go short puts, which increase in value when the stock falls. So, you're saying if management screws up, the share price plummets, and the short puts skyrocket. Wouldn't the loss on the short puts cause severe losses in the plan rather than large profits? Or do you mean write calls? Agreed, I used the wrong terminology. The sponsor contributes shares with the intent that the value of the shares rises over time; and at the money puts to cover all the sponsor shares the plan owns. Ideally over time the value of the sponsors shares rise to the point where the plans assets exceeds the present value of its future obligations. ie: the plan becomes over-funded, and the sponsor becomes permitted to take a contribution holiday. Everyone benefits from growth; but if the sponsor tanks - employees lose their jobs, shareholders lose money and avoid additional pension cost, but the value of the sponsors shares in the plan remains the same. The short and long term horizons are kept separate, & the short term costs are distributed equitably. ... and we have an option market on every DB plan sponsor, allowing shareholders a vehicle by which to manage their risks. But apparently DB plans are terrible things ... SD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aberhound Posted February 14, 2017 Share Posted February 14, 2017 I add a further comment to Parsad's comment about his family. It was Family Day today in BC and my Wife and I went for a walk on the beach in Vancouver on a beautiful sunny day. The water was clear with over 40 feet visibility to the bottom thanks to years of effort redirecting sewage and placing rules on ships and pleasure craft. The air was particularly fresh and had that wonderful smell of the ocean and waves. There were numerous families with young children playing on the beach. To the north and west you see forest and snow capped mountains. To the east you see the beautiful downtown Vancouver with hundreds of new tall attractive buildings. My wife and discussed how fortunate we were that our children received such a great public education. We especially appreciate how they were taught critical thinking and that our son, of Dutch/Scot descent had an opportunity through school to become fluent in Mandarin. Make Canada great again? Who says it is not? I would prefer it if politicians simply did less as I suspect that success is mainly avoiding mistakes as Buffett and Munger have taught us all. Our motto Peace, Order and good government tells exactly how is was achieved. I am not saying it is perfect. Societies cease advancing when they are unwilling to examine and to talk freely about their own faults. There is a serious problem of secrecy and seeking advice from outsiders who did not enjoy the experience of living here for an extended period of time. We have a population with some of the best minds and training who come from all over the world. Take advantage of it and take off the muzzles. I would love to hear from the countless local experts who are not allowed to publish their work due to non-disclosure agreements or because of fear of having their career opportunities destroyed. This is the wedge issue that the Conservatives could ride to victory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wachtwoord Posted February 14, 2017 Share Posted February 14, 2017 Make Canada great again? Who says it is not? Have you seen their last chosen government? ::) I guess it could be worse. Poor Indians :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now