Comments by "Neolithic Transit Revolution" (@neolithictransitrevolution427) on "The Globe and Mail" channel.

@lstone3633 yes, I don't disagree, what I'm saying is when the CPP investment fund makes an investment, that investment should be determined not just by the direct return on capital, but should also take into account the CPP contribution payments that investment would create. Ie; and Investment in Canada with a 3% return but creating a thousand jobs that will max out CPP contributions per year should possibly be select over an investment in country X returning 4%. A pensioner's payments are made largely using current CPP contributions, those pensioners investments shouldn't be undermining Canadian employment opportunities unless the returns are considerably higher.
1
@lstone3633 I agree with it's independence and that it isn't a nation build tool. My point is that they currently aren't making the best returns for pensioners because pensioners are paid from both CPP contributions and CPP capital investment returns. They are only looking at the direct return on investment. I would still have the board be independent, I'm simply saying they should be required to consider how an investment in Canada would generate employment, and how that employment would generate CPP payments. At the moment I don't believe they are even allowed to consider this. I'm not suggesting they consider how that employment would fund things like income tax or lower transportation costs or raise employment generally within the country. Only how it would directly increase payments into the fund. The only other comment I would make on CPP independence is a mandate not to invest in certain countries the government lists as a strategic security concern, in part because those assets could be seized in the future..
1
@lstone3633 I certainly agree that our country is in a very bad position with trump. I'm not sure I understand your objection on the CPP point, I don't see how this would invite any more political interference than the current system. But in terms of what now I think we desperately need to create investment in export oriented infrastructure. Far more than we can afford capital flight by our own public investments.
1
@Butterflies-are-free New British Empire would be cool, First Global Indian Empire I'm not game.
1
@A__SB Russians overrunning Canada. How absurd. The only possible military threat to Canada is the US itself. Canada doesn't have a poor record of defense, the only way we've ever lost was following the American's to Afghanistan
1
The US doesn't have an air defense system for ICBMs either, and no adversary is close enough to hit Canada with anything else.
1
@A__SB defending from who? It's laughable to think someone is going to sail across the Atlantic or Pacific, into the Arctic, and try and land an armed force in the Tundra. Literally no one but the US has any capacity to invade or otherwise occupy Canada.
1
Ya, exactly. The only threat to Canada is the US. The only reason for Canada to build a Military is to fight the US. We don't need America protecting us from hoards of Russians. What a joke. We just need America not to invade its peaceful and Democratic neighbors. What's gone wrong in America that this is suddenly a big ask?
1
@potato, we are in violent agreement. I agree the US could invade us. The point is they are the only country capable of invading us. We don't need them protecting us from Russia, we just need them not to act like Russia.
1
Americans have F22s not Russian built trash. There is no Air Defense system that exists that would help.
1
Mr Potato Head, are you actually suggesting Canada, a country with the world's largest land border, which is with the US, and a population 10% of the US, should seriously develop a capability to combat the US military? Do you understand this is an impossible goal? And given that it's genuinely not plausible, there is no alternative military threat to justify a Canadian Military outside of long range power projection in support of NATO operations.
1
By this definition anyone but maybe China is a client state. But also I never disagreed with this statement. I think it's dumb to be upset about Canadian military spending. All our spending is to support NATO allies. And we do a very good job of it.
1
@joelscott5783 We need a wide scale militia. This is not an 1812 joke this is a comment on Ukraine's success points.
1
This conversation doesn't even account for the fact that Trump is likely going to force Ukraine to surrender and end Russian Sanctions, and Russia will then flood the market with stock piles of Minerals, lumber, oil, and fertilizers it has built up, all of which are our core exports..
1
@test40323 3. Great idea, I agree 2) also could be great play, I would love to see that 1) important to note the difference between oil and DilBit. Most of our exports are DilBit, which frankly is about as different from oil as oil is from Natural gas. That's Quebec's concern. And, European customers and eastern Canadian refineries can't use DilBit, TransCanada was always about getting it to Tidewater to sail it to the US Gulf. Obviously that would not be the objective in any currently discussed project. If Alberta built an Upgrader and sent SynCrude, I think a lot of these issues around pipelines would have been settled years ago..
1
@jeffDwyer1 I wish this were true and it may be so in the case of some Chinese consumers goods, but the rate at which Americans purchase new appliances, or specifically cars in the case of Canada, is slow infrequent that even if CPI figures increase, Americans won't feel it in their expenses even over the term of a Presidency. Some fancy fruit will increase in prices, but Republican voters won't notice that. Rents will decrease with immigration expulsions, most US food products are domestically produced, all the pain points of inflation will be largely mitigated.
1
@LelandWolf-zt4wz what is the question why oil meant to mean? Why am I talking about it? Why use it? Why sell it? I'm talking about how this will play out in the Canadian economy this has nothing to do with a preference for oil.
1
If car prices go up, fewer Americans will buy a new car. Inflation through car prices isn't going to be top of mind, it isn't rent or food or a regular expense, and the higher income individuals who buy new cars aren't going to be nearly as cash strapped. I suppose is a 25% tariff were triggered each time the car recrossed the border that would be extreme -but why would it be set up like that when even a 10% tariff would steal our manufacturering. I don't believe Canada has a monopoly on any part. But even if we did, 25% on a part is just a part, it doesn't mean a 25% price increase for the consumer, the mechanics labour isn't going up. The point is this is far more damaging to Canadians than Americans. The idea "Americans will just pay higher prices" is as ludicrous as saying that they will go ten years without buying a new car. They will scrap existing cars for parts, keep cars longer, and buy more American parts. Russia managed to survive about 2 years with sanctions on car parts from Europe before they starded to see increasing cat prices. A 25% tariff is far easier to navigate. There will be some short term price increase. And frankly, Trump may just slap on a subsidy to hide the impact. the plan is to steal our industry, it most certainly will work, and it won't take 10 years. any level of trade war will likely kill and rebuild on the American side most of our manufacturing before Trump's term ends.
1
Its mind numbing that Alberta is trying to restrict renewables while Texas is a leader. Why does Smith hate money.
1
Alberta has several relatively easy steps to move toward a cheaper lower carbon grid. Most importantly, Calgary and Edmonton, in particular, need to be connected to BC, particularly to Revelstoke (Calgary) and Site C (Edmonton). This allows access to not only BCs hydro surplus in the winter, but to Californias Solar surplus through BC, and allows Alberta to sell excess renewable capacity west and south. Secondly, we need to invest in solar with 2-4h storage. Overnight storage is a pipedream, but if storage can provide for the few hours into the evening, existing NG plants built around peaking can be uprated into co-generation facilities with slower load following that can support seasonally low renewables and overnight periods. Wind works with transmission, solar works with storage. And people don't realize how great the solar Resources in Alberta are. The sun still shines in the winter (you may have to clear some snow, but efficiency actually goes up with low temp and you actually get stronger sunlight in the winter, although hours go down), and the biggest thing with solar is cloud cover, where Alberta has clear prairie skys. Lastly, we need money going to Geothermal. We need to find a new market for all the drilling equipment and skilled labour. Geothermal takes care of the winter and lets you peak in in the evening.
1
Me as well. Although at the same time I am not looking forward to them getting big enough for the comment section to be nothing but First, Bots, insults, and eventually being closed
1
1. His climate care measures are the conservatives main running point. 2. Trump is actively ripping up USMCA/NAFTA and Trudeau may be leaving government under some of the highest tariffs in the world. 3. The child tax credit is credible, humane, and needed policy.
1
@sharonoddlyenough a whole lot less than other cars, it will be relatively good for it in the market.
1