Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Canada's first sovereign wealth fund

cbc.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 120 posts

Re: Canada's first sovereign wealth fund

#111

Post by lbrito »

unixhero wrote: post #105
kreyenborgi wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, why doesn't Norway spend the oil money on soccer teams and golden airplanes like a respectable and proper oil nation, instead of squandering it on reprobate socialist pension funds? Those lefse-eaters will just waste it on EV's and sensible woolen sweaters.

Don't worry you're not missing out. The country is infatuated with the idea of destroying the entrepreneurial and business running class which creates tax income and jobs. And also the middle class is being eviscerated by inflation and insane levels of government costs and taxes.[0] 0, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKn1FrthKwU

Sounds terrible. I bet the poor businessmen are moving in droves to more pro-market places like Argentina and Paraguay, right?

Re: Canada's first sovereign wealth fund

#112

Post by lbrito »

maxglute wrote: post #103
pyrolistical wrote: post #41

A sovereign wealth fund makes sense if fund with profits from exploiting our natural resources. That is how Norway did it

Norway extracts 1/2 oil as Canada but has 1/8 the population. Canada too big to be petro state. Canada has lots of other resource endowments, but not enough to sustain norway tier of per capita sovereign fund returns even if it massively increased extraction game. Only hope for Canada is US being really friendly, or even more friendly and force Canada to retool internal trade / reduce braindrain and build and capture…

Norway's oil is also sweet and light, whereas Canadian oil is sour and heavy. The former is more valuable than the latter, from what I gather.

Re: Canada's first sovereign wealth fund

#113

Post by unixhero »

lbrito wrote: post #111
unixhero wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't worry you're not missing out. The country is infatuated with the idea of destroying the entrepreneurial and business running class which creates tax income and jobs. And also the middle class is being eviscerated by inflation and insane levels of government costs and taxes.[0] 0, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKn1FrthKwU

Sounds terrible. I bet the poor businessmen are moving in droves to more pro-market places like Argentina and Paraguay, right?

Nope. To Switzerland, Sweden and wherever else with saner taxation policies.

Re: Canada's first sovereign wealth fund

#114

Post by akamaka »

caminante wrote: post #110
akamaka wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

During the Great Depression, the stock market stayed below 50% of its peak value for about 20 years. Imagine that the $600 billion turns into $300 billion overnight. It will only last 5-10 years without inflows, but the GDP has also dropped by 40% and inflows have plummeted.

I saw you say this in another comment. It's still going back to the same assumptions that you're not only timing a depression but also (a) don't have pre-funding (i.e., millions for an individual at the start of the depression), (b) don't have CPPIB guardrails and auto-adjustment mechanisms, (c) and it's not a partial income replacement scheme. > It will only last 5-10 years without inflows Without inflows? That's no…

I have no idea what you’re talking about at this point. Do you have any interest in understanding why CPPIB invests the way they do and doesn’t seek the highest returns?

Re: Canada's first sovereign wealth fund

#115

Post by givemeethekeys »

petermcneeley wrote: post #83
givemeethekeys wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, considering everyone else was either utterly incompetent, didn't want the job, or screwed the pooch under pressure.

Look, I checked my email everyday and didnt see anything.

Might've gotten lost during a Canada Post strike.

Re: Canada's first sovereign wealth fund

#116

Post by caminante »

akamaka wrote: post #114
caminante wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I saw you say this in another comment. It's still going back to the same assumptions that you're not only timing a depression but also (a) don't have pre-funding (i.e., millions for an individual at the start of the depression), (b) don't have CPPIB guardrails and auto-adjustment mechanisms, (c) and it's not a partial income replacement scheme. > It will only last 5-10 years without inflows Without inflows? That's no…

I have no idea what you’re talking about at this point. Do you have any interest in understanding why CPPIB invests the way they do and doesn’t seek the highest returns?

You know you're not being fair with that take.

Clearly, I am aware of the CPPIB's structure even citing the Office of Chief Actuary's report regarding downside scenarios and health scores. [0]

[0] https://www.osfi-bsif.gc.ca/en/oca/actuarial-reports/actuari...

edit:

> if a retirement fund had put all their money into a stock index in 1926, it wouldn’t have been able to pay out pensions throughout the 1930s and 1940s

Point was that this/your rationale doesn't apply to CPPIB's situation.

Re: Canada's first sovereign wealth fund

#117

Post by lovich »

petermcneeley wrote: post #102
lovich wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>So now you see why Carney's career path matters. This is just the tip of the iceberg. If you want to know more I can link you to many facets that you might find interesting. Nah I don't. So far I'm batting 11/12 for going down the rabbit hole with anti Carney Canadians before i find out they were in support of the trucker convoy. Benefit of the doubt is gone if you don't open up with actual thought out critique.

Come now, that's just the cognitive dissonance talking. I'm your huckleberry.

There is no cognitive dissonance.

You agree with a group of people that I generally disagree with.

There is the possibility that you are the rare mark that has consistent principles backing these thoughts, but the fact that you are aligned with a group that has consistently shown no consistent principles means I give you zero benefit of the doubt, and you opened the thread with an argument not backed by your later comment about wanting someone else to represent your country.

If you want to convince the other side of your beliefs then you need to start with a solid argument instead of doing a motte and bailey.

Re: Canada's first sovereign wealth fund

#118

Post by petermcneeley »

lovich wrote: post #117
petermcneeley wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Come now, that's just the cognitive dissonance talking. I'm your huckleberry.

There is no cognitive dissonance. You agree with a group of people that I generally disagree with. There is the possibility that you are the rare mark that has consistent principles backing these thoughts, but the fact that you are aligned with a group that has consistently shown no consistent principles means I give you zero benefit of the doubt, and you opened the thread with an argument not backed by your later co…

I dont know who this Group is but it all sounds very schmittian.

It is not my role to convince someone of anything. I have to much respect for the human for that.

You, as human, should seek out the truth in your time and not turn away from it.

So you mentioned the 'truckers'. Here [0] is the truth in your time. I will make no attempt trick you into holding position.

Finally to complete the picture you should understand that the Carney government was recently formed in opposition to the democratic voice of the people. It was formed by nullifying the votes of the electorate. Everyone on all sides know this was a deeply immoral act. One has to ask what kind of leader is this?

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47307892

Re: Canada's first sovereign wealth fund

#119

Post by maxglute »

lbrito wrote: post #112
maxglute wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Norway extracts 1/2 oil as Canada but has 1/8 the population. Canada too big to be petro state. Canada has lots of other resource endowments, but not enough to sustain norway tier of per capita sovereign fund returns even if it massively increased extraction game. Only hope for Canada is US being really friendly, or even more friendly and force Canada to retool internal trade / reduce braindrain and build and capture…

Norway's oil is also sweet and light, whereas Canadian oil is sour and heavy. The former is more valuable than the latter, from what I gather.

~30% price difference, but the main point is Canada cannot pump enough to make up per capita difference even if equivalent. Canada has too much people and too few petro endowments to be a petro state, wood/minerals/agri simply doesn't pay as well as energy

Re: Canada's first sovereign wealth fund

#120

Post by red-iron-pine »

brailsafe wrote: post #90
1over137 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>also why all the love for Canadian Pacific rail? The Canadian Pacific rail connected the country east to west, was a major milestone in the country's history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Canadian_Pacifi... >

While that's true, it does seem to be a strange thing to glamorize now, since as much as it was an engineering accomplishment, it was also arguably a genocidal pursuit, and it's doubtful the sort of projects the government has in mind now will be as "nation building" as expropriating the entirety of Western Canada and letting a single private entity have as much power as CPR does.

yeah that ^ was kinda my point.

Amazing accomplishment, but now CP is CPKC and is just another giant megacorp that answers to the US FRA or Mexican rail authorities as much as it does the Canadian government.

Carney is a bankster and he's not going to be throwing stuff out there to help the common man first.

Post reply on HN