81–90 of 120 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What’s Trump got to do with this? If you invest anything in the Canadian market you probably hold some Brookfield. Carney’s investments are in a blind trust. What more could be done, in your view?
Perhaps I would have simply had someone different represent Canadians. Is this too much to ask?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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. What is not made up is that if you need to import things from other countries, then you need to export things from your country in proportional value, or else the country as a whole loses purchasing power (i.e. gets poorer). In this case, if Canada is increasing its money supply, then t…
>What is not made up is that if you need to import things from other countries, then you need to export things from your country in proportional value, or else the country as a whole loses purchasing power (i.e. gets poorer). So the US is the world's poorest nation, by far, right? Country has a two trillion dollar+ deficit, a one trillion dollar trade deficit, absolutely no end in sight of spiralling to bankruptcy (i…
Considering the USD still has decent purchasing power, no? The demand for US goods and services relative to other nations' might have dropped from its peak, but still considerably higher than other nations.
>There is no master book of records that dictates cause and effect
There is for simple stuff, like supply and demand. There is no way of getting around that executing a successful peaceful trade requires both parties to have something that the other wants.
On a nation state level, debt denominated in a nation's currency is more like a claim on the future productivity of a nation (since any nation can always print money or edit a digital database to satisfy its debts).
When you buy a US Treasury, you are betting that at some point in the future, the US is going to be be selling things worth having. You are not worried that your loan to the US will default, because it is trivial for the US government to repay you in USD. Your risk is that when it gets paid back, what will you be able to buy with it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps I would have simply had someone different represent Canadians. Is this too much to ask?
Yes, considering everyone else was either utterly incompetent, didn't want the job, or screwed the pooch under pressure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, far better than how the UK runs its state pension system. The Australians seem to have the best model overall though. Mandatory payments in to private investments has made them very wealthy. The UK system takes the national insurance contributions of workers but doesn’t invest them in anything on behalf of the individual. So despite decades of payments you technically have nothing at the end and survive on the g…
>The UK system takes the national insurance contributions of workers but doesn’t invest them in anything on behalf of the individual. So despite decades of payments you technically have nothing at the end and survive on the goodwill of the government and current taxpayers. That works right now because of the population pyramid. That's how Social Security works in the United States as well.
I also have a number of qualifying years in the UK when I didn’t work, and for decades you could buy a year contribution for about £150. The payout is £12,500 per year.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>What is not made up is that if you need to import things from other countries, then you need to export things from your country in proportional value, or else the country as a whole loses purchasing power (i.e. gets poorer). So the US is the world's poorest nation, by far, right? Country has a two trillion dollar+ deficit, a one trillion dollar trade deficit, absolutely no end in sight of spiralling to bankruptcy (i…
>So the US is the world's poorest nation, by far, right? Considering the USD still has decent purchasing power, no? The demand for US goods and services relative to other nations' might have dropped from its peak, but still considerably higher than other nations. >There is no master book of records that dictates cause and effect There is for simple stuff, like supply and demand. There is no way of getting around that…
You understand I was applying your logic, right? The US has the worst trade deficit on the planet, by a long shot. It buys far, far more than it sells. Its primary role on the planet is money printer.
>When you buy a US Treasury, you are betting that at some point in the future, the US is going to be be selling things worth having.
Again, this almost sounds sophomoric. When you buy US treasuries, you are betting that the US will still be printing money when it matures, or when you unload it earlier. It is not based on sound rational logic -- if so the country with the $40 trillion dollar debt and $2 trillion dollar deficit with the massive trade deficit -- would be already bankrupt.
I feel like I'm arguing with someone who is arguing rational economics when someone points out how farcical a stock like TSLA is. All of the hot air in the world doesn't change the fact that it relies upon a shared delusion, and everyone is playing a bit of a game of chicken.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>So the US is the world's poorest nation, by far, right? Considering the USD still has decent purchasing power, no? The demand for US goods and services relative to other nations' might have dropped from its peak, but still considerably higher than other nations. >There is no master book of records that dictates cause and effect There is for simple stuff, like supply and demand. There is no way of getting around that…
>Considering the USD still has decent purchasing power, no? You understand I was applying your logic, right? The US has the worst trade deficit on the planet, by a long shot. It buys far, far more than it sells. Its primary role on the planet is money printer. >When you buy a US Treasury, you are betting that at some point in the future, the US is going to be be selling things worth having. Again, this almost sounds…
I am not sure what logic you are referring to. My first reply was to point out that no matter what economics are "made up", when push comes to shove, there has to be delivery of real goods and services for the charade to continue. "Enough" people won't go along with someone that doesn't result in them getting what they want, and no one wants a currency if they don't think it will get them what they want.
My second post is responding to the claim that America is the poorest country, to which it obviously isn't, since it can still buy almost whatever it wants.
Regardless of the technical details, someone who can buy something is richer than someone who cannot buy something. Maybe that is due to a shared delusion, and maybe everyone is playing a bit of chicken. Obviously, that will only be revealed in the future, but in general, that's what all sovereign nations' debt is, a "delusion" (or assumption) that the fruit of the nation's productivity will be worth having in the future.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why does it matter if volatility is lower than the market? Because I can trivially beat the market by ~100% by going long on 3:1 margin. The volatility is why that's a bad idea. One time out of five, the consequence of that investment strategy is 'The market had a crash and I lose everything '. 'Lol, YOLO' is not a great investment strategy for a well-ran country.
> One time out of five, the consequence of that investment strategy is 'The market had a crash and I lose everything '. Which is why that strategy doesn't actually beat the market. Keep using it for 30 years and you're bankrupt. Whereas if you put your money in a major index 30 years ago and left it there, or even 50 or more years ago, what result? Are you even in a bad place if you put all your money into the market…
Going full index is a great strategy for an individual person aged 20-50, but not a strategy for a pension fund which needs to continuously pay out.
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.
That wouldn’t work in a major depression when there is high unemployment and inflows drop.
laudable goal. I suspect it will end up like most other Canadian procurement projects. also why all the love for Canadian Pacific rail?
>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... >