Yeggy
Active Member
^
10/10 for passion, maybe a 4/10 for accuracy
10/10 for passion, maybe a 4/10 for accuracy
|
|
|
- Thread starter TAS
- Start date
Whatup
Active Member
What about the TDS rhetoric? But of course that's okay on such a biased forum like this. I read many awful things on this forum about "redneck UCP voters" and "PP is MAGA" etc etc. But I guess that rhetoric is perfect fine - right "buddy"?
Whatup
Active Member
look up the last Canada election results by voting age demographic - its 10/10 accurate. The Boomers kept the Liberals in power.
Yeggy
Active Member
Let’s not exaggerate
If you are upset by a diversity of opinion maybe find an outlet that better suits your needs?
If you are upset by a diversity of opinion maybe find an outlet that better suits your needs?
Whatup
Active Member
Div
Diversity of opinion? You are joking right? There are probably less than 10 conservative voices on this forum.
Yeggy
Active Member
Yes voters elected him and he achieved power.
You seem overly upset. What I dont see on your part is the admission that PP ran a disastrous campaign. For years he denigrated Canada and then couldnt stop going on and on about Justin when he was no longer the party leader.
So its time to act like a conservative and take some personal responsibility for your emotions and calm the f down.
Yeggy
Active Member
This statement is all sorts of stupid. So you feel like the majority is taking from you? That you are the oppressed minority. I am sure you can now empathize with ACTUAL minorities who are actually oppressed and are having rights and choices taken from them.
kinda sucks hey.
I hope you work out whatever is going on with you.
blessings.
Whattagame
Active Member
Why did you quote me? The statement had nothing to do with MSM.
kcantor
Senior Member
This is not a short read but it is a worthwhile one:
policyenthusiast
Senior Member
For anyone looking for a shorter read, this bit summarizes decently:
If you are another country that wants to deal with the United States, you worry that it is too powerful for you, you might make some concession, and then the United States decides it wants a little bit more and wants a little bit more, and you find yourself in a situation of complete vassalage, of complete dependence.
Their argument is that the way that the U.S. has worked over the decades after World War II is to create something that amounts to an international quasi-constitution — that is, a set of relationships through which it binds itself, through which it effectively makes it more difficult for itself to abuse its allies and other countries that are dependent upon it.
From this perspective, the more that the Trump administration takes that role, the more that the Trump administration decides to use that leverage, the less other countries want to trust it. This is why I think many people like Deudney and Ikenberry — people who felt that the liberal international order was a wonderful thing, why they are extremely despondent about the world — they see, from their perspective, the United States as effectively having thrown away this massive advantage.
He's right though, it is worth the read. Very articulate, not stuffy, stays concise.
kcantor
Senior Member
For those interested in Warren Buffet's last letter to shareholders before turning things over to Greg Abel ( https://www.berkshirehathaway.com/news/nov1025.pdf ) :
"Berkshire has less chance of a devastating disaster than any business I know. And, Berkshire has a more shareholder-conscious management and board than almost any company with which I am familiar (and I've seen a lot). Finally Berkshire will always be managed in a manner that will make its existence an asset to the United States and eschew activities that would lead it to become a supplicant..."
"Our stock price will move capriciously, occasionally falling 50% or so as has happened three times in 60 years under present management: Don't despair; America will come back and so will Berkshire shares."
That philosophy is reflected in the geographical location of their investments, approximately 98% of which are in US firms. While that remaining 2% includes holdings such as China's BYD and a number of Japanese trading companies, Berkshire's philosophy regarding geographic diversification has typically been to invest in US firms like Coca Cola that provide global market exposure.
While continuing to invest in Canada - particularly in the resource sector - is likely "in the cards", those investments will continue to be financially market driven, not political.
"Berkshire has less chance of a devastating disaster than any business I know. And, Berkshire has a more shareholder-conscious management and board than almost any company with which I am familiar (and I've seen a lot). Finally Berkshire will always be managed in a manner that will make its existence an asset to the United States and eschew activities that would lead it to become a supplicant..."
"Our stock price will move capriciously, occasionally falling 50% or so as has happened three times in 60 years under present management: Don't despair; America will come back and so will Berkshire shares."
That philosophy is reflected in the geographical location of their investments, approximately 98% of which are in US firms. While that remaining 2% includes holdings such as China's BYD and a number of Japanese trading companies, Berkshire's philosophy regarding geographic diversification has typically been to invest in US firms like Coca Cola that provide global market exposure.
While continuing to invest in Canada - particularly in the resource sector - is likely "in the cards", those investments will continue to be financially market driven, not political.
Airboy
Senior Member
Meeting of the premiers and Ottawa today. Lets hope they have a frank talk with Danny about separation.
TAS
Senior Member
Yes, and get those trade barriers removed between provinces which would help the economy.
David A
Senior Member
Interesting. I suppose as a US company, it makes a lot of sense they focus mostly on the US. As they say, invest in what you know. They have a lot of cash now, so they will probably do very well whenever a downturn comes.
There is some relationship between politics and economics, but I feel not as much as some try to assert. With their leadership change, however I wouldn't be surprised at some point in the future they also look a bit more at Canada than they have in the past.
kcantor
Senior Member
I have no doubt Berkshire Hathaway will continue to invest and expand in Canada both through other companies in which they are shareholders and through some of their own subsidiary companies (including Alberta's own AltaLink) but my Canada caveat in regard to the total extent of that remaining a small minority of overall holdings was more a cautionary comment for those who might think Warren Buffet or Berkshire Hathaway might be "moving their investments to Canada" when doubling or even tripling their direct investments in Canada still wouldn't amount to much more than 1% of their overall portfolio holdings.
Last edited: