21–30 of 120 posts
I believe wealth taxes (really, wealth restitution) should go into sovereign wealth funds - not least as then the public can see how that money is working for them, and so support the continuance and expansion of such taxes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is HN so pessimistic?
Is setting expectations based on track record considered pessimism?
And Canada is unrecognizable these days. Why should I think past performance is indicative of future success?
Usually a sovereign wealth fund is funded by excess profits, like Norway for example. In this case, it's being seeded by $25 billion dollars of debt. Can anyone more financially gifted explain how this is any different from, well, regular government spending and money printing?
Yea really. Feels like a bit of a communications exercise and effort to create arms length distance from the Federal government and spending on major projects. Now it's not the Federal government and taxpayers propping up the oil industry by buying yet another oil pipeline, but rather a "sovereign wealth fund" (funded by Canadian taxpayers).
To me it sounds less like a "sovereign wealth fund" and more like a domestic infrastructure bank wrapped in populist messaging. I expect plenty of boomers to invest to "stick it to Trump", elbows up!
If this is run anything like the CPP, it will underperform both the market and their own benchmarks yet lead to executives awarding themselves huge bonuses.
That seems fine as long as they can show lower volatility than market while still being close in return? Did they?
Future payments in the short term are covered by inflows.
You might as well maximize the returns now so that in the future when it's not covered by inflows you've acrewed a larger return.
laudable goal. I suspect it will end up like most other Canadian procurement projects. also why all the love for Canadian Pacific rail?
Why is HN so pessimistic?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is setting expectations based on track record considered pessimism?
Incessant nit picking, negativity and doubt casting is my issue. And Canada is unrecognizable these days. Why should I think past performance is indicative of future success?
Sorry, not optimistic enough I suppose :(
Usually a sovereign wealth fund is funded by excess profits, like Norway for example. In this case, it's being seeded by $25 billion dollars of debt. Can anyone more financially gifted explain how this is any different from, well, regular government spending and money printing?
If Canada ran resources like Norway does, it would have an enormous "excess profit". Norway's royalty rates and "profits" are dramatically higher than Canada where decades of American psyops fooled a bunch of very foolish people that the primary purpose of Canada is to ensure maximum profits for US orgs.
But really, international economics is just mostly made up, and if enough people go along with it then it's as real as real can be.
If this is run anything like the CPP, it will underperform both the market and their own benchmarks yet lead to executives awarding themselves huge bonuses.
Thanks to CPPIB, Canada does not have have a giant unfunded pension liability (unlike our neighbors to the south). It has been an enormous success story.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That seems fine as long as they can show lower volatility than market while still being close in return? Did they?
Why does it matter if volatility is lower than the market? Future payments in the short term are covered by inflows. You might as well maximize the returns now so that in the future when it's not covered by inflows you've acrewed a larger return.
is that similar to the Ponzi scheme pattern, though?