Rime posted:

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, but if not you should probably do a cursory fact check before tossing out stupidity like that. China was aligned with the Soviet Union, it is considered Second World in the context of those terms.

The USSR not having existed for twenty-five years is the only reason I'm assuming you made a bad joke.

Ceciltron posted:

The Sino-Soviet split was a thing that happened and it was a very, very real enmity that existed.

Brannock posted:

Median income per province

quote:

Canadian taxpayers will fall about $3.5-billion short of breaking even on the money the federal and Ontario governments invested in the bailouts of Chrysler Group LLC and General Motors Co. in 2009.

The federal government’s sale of the remaining 73.389 million common shares it held in GM will close the book on the investment and the auto maker’s period of being derided as “Government Motors.”

Ottawa will raise about $3.2-billion from the sale, based on a report from Bloomberg Tuesday that the stake it sold to Goldman Sachs & Co. was priced at $35.90 (U.S.) a share.

A report on the auto rescue done by the Auditor-General last year said the two governments had received $5.4-billion (Canadian) of the $13.7-billion they contributed to the bailouts of the two auto giants.

Since then, GM bought back about $400-million (U.S.) in preferred shares and the Ontario government sold its remaining shares for $1.1-billion (Canadian), before the final sale by the federal government this week. That brings the total proceeds to the governments to around $10.2-billion.

The share sale by Ottawa will help federal Finance Minister Joe Oliver balance the federal budget.

But Jerry Dias, president of Unifor, which represents workers at GM plants in Oshawa, Ont., St. Catharines, Ont., and Ingersoll, Ont., said the government should have kept its shares and used the ownership as leverage to force GM to re-invest in Oshawa and St. Catharines.

“It is remarkably short-sighted of the federal government to sell off its shares in GM at a time when there has been widespread agreement that securing GM’s future in Canada is critical,” Mr. Dias said in a statement.

Unifor has been meeting with GM officials both in Detroit and the Canadian head office in Oshawa to lobby for new investment in St. Catharines and Oshawa. General Motors of Canada Ltd. announced earlier this year that the auto maker and suppliers will invest about $540-million at the plant in Ingersoll to make the next generation of the Chevrolet Equinox crossover utility vehicle.

“The federal government is selling off its shares for short-term political gain, as it prepares its last budget before the next federal election. We need leaders with more vision, strategy and savvy than this,” Mr. Dias said. “At some point very soon, the federal and provincial governments are going to have to take decisive action to secure the future of GM.”

Federal and provincial cabinet ministers have also met with senior GM officials to urge the company to find new vehicles for two Oshawa assembly plants and invest in St. Catharines, where the auto maker operates an engine and transmission plant.

One of the two Oshawa factories is scheduled to close next year, while the plant known as the flex plant has no new products allocated to it. Production of the Chevrolet Camaro will be shifted out of the flex plant to a factory in Lansing, Mich., later this year.

GM Canada president Stephen Carlisle has said that no decisions on new vehicles for the Oshawa plants will be made before 2016 and negotiations with Unifor on a new contract.

Unifor issued an economic impact study on the Oshawa plants last week that showed the two governments stand to lose $1-billion in tax revenue if they are permanently closed.

Rime posted:

Yeeessss, but that doesn't change...you know what, screw it.

I'm just going to leave this here and you chucklefucks can educate yourselves for a change, I'm not in the mood to play history teacher tonight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_World

Rime posted:

Yeeessss, but that doesn't change...you know what, screw it.

I'm just going to leave this here and you chucklefucks can educate yourselves for a change, I'm not in the mood to play history teacher tonight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_World

Throatwarbler posted:

For a guy who has literally never met a Chinese person before you sure complain about them a lot. Thanks for the wikipedia link to a thing that most living Chinese people actually still remember, I'm sure they'll be fascinated to learn about how China was an ally of the Soviet Union.

Cultural Imperial posted:

Congratulations assholes.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/canadian-taxpayers-lose-35-billion-on-2009-bailout-of-auto-firms/article23828543/


Awesome job steve.

Rime posted:

I don't think China ever counted as the "third world" since it was allied with the USSR, but yes, yes it does.

How is a foreign national even taking out mortgages in Canada I don't even. This is loving stupid.

shrike82 posted:

What's Hal_2005's gimmick?
I've seen him post about running a hedge fund as well being a leading conservative MP but the way he posts strikes me as someone needing mental help.

ocrumsprug posted:

Yes, China was second world due to being a communist hellhole instead of a regular hellhole. Congrats.

Doesn't make this here post any less wrong and you should probably stop trying to make everyone feel bad about calling you on it.

Rime posted:

ASDUHBASIDBASUIDBASIDBSADBASIDBASUIRFG(QWE*EDRBQWASJC ASZDXICFVHAWSKDCFBAWSUFGVASDBVC ASDUHCVB !@#$*&!@(*#&!@()#&!@*(#&!@*)#!@&)#!)@*#&!@*&#*!@()

THE THREE WORLD MODEL AND ITS ALIGNMENTS PREDATE THE IDEOLOGICAL SPLIT BETWEEN THE TWO NATIONS BY A DECADE, YOU INSUFFERABLE loving STUCK-UP IGNORAMUSES.

CHINA WAS LUMPED IN WITH THE USSR AS A "SECOND WORLD" NATION BECAUSE FROM THE END OF WWII TO 1960, THEY WERE loving ALLIES.

CRUISE CONTROL.

OUTTIE.

Rime posted:

ASDUHBASIDBASUIDBASIDBSADBASIDBASUIRFG(QWE*EDRBQWASJC ASZDXICFVHAWSKDCFBAWSUFGVASDBVC ASDUHCVB !@#$*&!@(*#&!@()#&!@*(#&!@*)#!@&)#!)@*#&!@*&#*!@()

THE THREE WORLD MODEL AND ITS ALIGNMENTS PREDATE THE IDEOLOGICAL SPLIT BETWEEN THE TWO NATIONS BY A DECADE, YOU INSUFFERABLE loving STUCK-UP IGNORAMUSES.

CHINA WAS LUMPED IN WITH THE USSR AS A "SECOND WORLD" NATION BECAUSE FROM THE END OF WWII TO 1960, THEY WERE loving ALLIES.

CRUISE CONTROL.

OUTTIE.

Brannock posted:

Median income per province

AVeryLargeRadish posted:

Nice meltdown.

Hal_2005 posted:

Or the alternative is I know what I'm talking about, and you lack both the wit to know when you're being made fun at and how to parse facts sprinkled with inside baseball. D&D is fun, and as the Syria and crude explanation proved my gimmick is to offer both quick explanations of complex issues when the argument is important to Canadians, like say understanding why crude exports are accelerating despite market prices falling or why geopolitical law matters. And sometimes I make it fun for my own posting. And most of the time I'd rather get the facts out, and let someone else worry about the punctuation. Lifes little priorities, sue me.

I do manage a large fund, and I do alot of work in Canadian Politics on the fiscal & monetary side at both the Provincial, Federal and International level. And no, I'm not Rob Anders, and if you honestly believe that, you need a few more bong rips for my sake. I'm also a goon. And no, I'm not Kevin O'Leary (of Borderbund fame).

To help you out:

I unironically gave the oral history of why Vancouver and the Kelowna corridor went from an 1950's mining and pacific rim depot to an overcrowded and very indebited copy of Los Angles. Take it or leave it, but every word of that is true.

Sure it had a bit of weak spelling, but I'm sure if you can read 20 pages of the East European thread, you could appreciate how I broke each decade worth of insider baseball and politicking down into a set of small paragraphs which any sperg could read and passably comprehend. Since you failed, I guess you're well below the bell curve of a normal CanadaGoon, sad for you.

The urbanization of Vancouver can basically be explained as a slow drunken lurch on bad debt advisory and BC Treasury servicing to paper over growing entitlements as both BC primary industries and financial programs failed over the prior 30 years of populism. I think that's the point of this 10 month old circle jerk on excessive malinvestment. I will bet before October 2015 we will have at least 4 more posts in the Canada or Canada bubble thread asking the question "what happened to Vancouver?" or lamenting on how clearly US or North European credit origination could have saved Canadians from the bubble. At that time, you can reference what I said and clean it up into a more vibrant post.

In reality, the Canadian credit boom was fueled by excessive cash laundering much like the NY, London and Australia/NZ credit booms. Thread over.

Make sense?

As for my other post:

CI pointed out how Trivest tweeted on the recent TSX Energy sector 18% rally off the lows. Since Peter of ARC's explanation is now unavilable on Globe & Mail.com to repost, I explained a dumbed down soundbite of why fracklog is a more eloquent method of CI's rant on excessive supply, but Trivest said it better.
To preface that post I started by suggesting two quick media shows that could help the most autistic mincome CanadaGoon (you) learn both when crude will "bottom" and how it will feedback into the rate hike cycle which goons have spent all this time expecting/hoping to profit from. Since you clearly missed this, and jumped straight to I'll bet you missed all the main points of that post, much like this one.

I hear that's your gimmick, and likely why you lack attention to details in life.

shrike82 posted:

Lmao.

Hal_2005 posted:

I do manage a large fund, and I do alot of work in Canadian Politics on the fiscal & monetary side at both the Provincial, Federal and International level.

shrike82 posted:

Nah, I don't feel the need to debate with you. I think it's hilarious that you don't have the wherewithal to understand that no one believes you.
Although the notion of a Canadian that believes he runs a hedge fund and is a politician is in some ways peak Canada.

Rime posted:

ASDUHBASIDBASUIDBASIDBSADBASIDBASUIRFG(QWE*EDRBQWASJC ASZDXICFVHAWSKDCFBAWSUFGVASDBVC ASDUHCVB !@#$*&!@(*#&!@()#&!@*(#&!@*)#!@&)#!)@*#&!@*&#*!@()

THE THREE WORLD MODEL AND ITS ALIGNMENTS PREDATE THE IDEOLOGICAL SPLIT BETWEEN THE TWO NATIONS BY A DECADE, YOU INSUFFERABLE loving STUCK-UP IGNORAMUSES.

CHINA WAS LUMPED IN WITH THE USSR AS A "SECOND WORLD" NATION BECAUSE FROM THE END OF WWII TO 1960, THEY WERE loving ALLIES.

CRUISE CONTROL.

OUTTIE.

Hal_2005 posted:

Thanks for proving your red text and being called Peak Canada. Can you make that my red text ? We can use that as the "Hal" safe harbor clause going forward.

EvilJoven posted:

How do you convince the people with money to spend it expanding their business in an environment with shrinking demand?

LemonDrizzle posted:

You take it off them through the tax system (either directly or by borrowing with a plan to raise their taxes later on) and have the government spend it on alternative investments.

EvilJoven posted:

loving commie.

quote:

The file formerly known as "Oil price recovery hashtag drink" is now live: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/inside-the-market/divining-oil-prices-keep-focus-on-demand-not-output/article23827188/ http://twitter.com/LJKawa/status/585783716691124224/photo/1

https://twitter.com/LJKawa/status/585783716691124224

Cultural Imperial posted:

lol

SpannerX posted:

Paywalled, drat. Oh well.

quote:

After months of weakness in oil prices, a number of recent events provide cause for cautious optimism that a rebound is in the works.

For the week ended March 27, U.S. domestic oil production fell by 36,000 barrels per day, snapping an eight-week streak of increases. Since 2010, U.S. production has increased by 70 per cent, but fallen on a weekly basis 37 per cent of the time. As such, it is far too early to assert that U.S. shale companies, the proximate cause of the global supply glut, are in the midst of curtailing production to bring the market back into balance.

quote:

The path to a new equilibrium in oil prices will no doubt have its fair share of casualties. Some smaller producers are being forced to drill unprofitable wells to generate cash to meet current obligations, and a few countries, including Venezuela and Russia, are also in “forced production” mode.

The recent round of weakness in the U.S. dollar, however, offers far more reason to expect a near-term support for commodity prices. A prolonged stretch of soft economic data has prompted the Federal Reserve to signal that it is in no hurry to lift rates from zero, and financial markets to push back their expectations for the first hike into the fourth quarter of 2015. The strength of the greenback accentuated the downside for oil prices as the supply glut became evident in 2014, and this headwind looks to have ebbed, at least for the time being.

“If you can tell me where the dollar’s going, I’ll tell you where crude oil’s going – the other way,” said Stephen Schork, editor of The Schork Report.

Nonetheless, the West Texas intermediate futures curve is currently pricing in a “low for longer” oil environment, with crude envisaged around $65 (U.S.) per barrel in five years.

“I think we’ll be in the $75 per barrel territory within 18 to 36 months, and a lot of people aren’t prepared for that,” said Andrew Barber, chief market strategist at Eagleview Capital. “The perception of slack demand is overblown; there’s healthy demand in the U.S. and Europe, as well as the developing world – albeit, not as great as it was two years ago.”

Credit Suisse research analysts Jan Stuart and Johannes Van Der Tuin also gave a nod to the underappreciated pickup in demand in a recent note to clients.

“This year is starting off with accelerating oil demand growth – in contrast to last year,” they wrote. “Data for the quarter are evidently not complete, but for a string of large consumers, including China, Japan, South Korea, India, February numbers are in, and exceed our forecasts (as well as those of the consensus).”

The precipitous decline in rig counts in the United States, as seen in weekly figures provided by Baker Hughes, has been somewhat of a mirage. Fewer rigs have not engendered a corresponding decline in production. This scenario has been, thus far, similar to what transpired for natural gas since 2008: Rig counts have been decimated, but production has risen by more than 30 per cent.

“Rapid technological improvements, including drillers now starting to re-frack already fracked oil wells, are reasons to believe that growth in global demand for crude must be a key driver of a meaningful rebound in prices, not sharply lower US supply,” writes CIBC World Markets economist Nick Exarhos.

However, the focus on storage builds at Cushing, Okla., may also prove to be a head-fake for the markets. The United States is entering a period in which refinery demand picks up steam and inventories typically get drawn down in anticipation of the summer driving season.

The crack spread, that is, the difference between the price of crude oil and refined products like gasoline and heating oil, increased significantly in February and remained above its five-year average at the end of March. As such, refiners have additional incentive to boost output.

In recognition of the margin expansion for refiners and firming global demand, state-owned Saudi Arabian Oil Co. raised its selling prices to Asian customers for the second straight month.

However, in the event that storage capacity does evaporate and refiners have supplied enough product to the market, the two biggest reasons for buying spot crude will have faded and another round of pressure on oil prices looms.

“I would expect to see another flush in prices, potentially even a break of $40 per barrel in the summer months,” Mr. Schork said.

Cultural Imperial posted:

Cultural Imperial posted:

Hal_2005,

If oil prices rise to $80 or whatever in 18-36 months, is it relevant at all that oil prices may sink to $40 this summer?

etalian posted:

Most places think the new market price for oil will be in in the $40-$50 range.

Basically OPEC sucks at being a effective price control cartel and everything in the system has the incentive to create even more supply.

Franks Happy Place posted:

I don't imagine anything about the current situation in Saudi Arabia/Yemen would make the Saudis produce LESS oil, too.

etalian posted:

As shown by Saudi Arabia, the lower price means they have a incentive to produce even more oil to balance the books. Also lolling how experts think Saudis bombing some poorly armed Shias will magically increase the price of oil.

Saudi Arabia can get away with the above since they can produce oil at a very low cost given all the massive investment in the company and also the relative ease of production compared to other methods like tar sands.

On a random note this is a pretty good quick intro to commodity concepts such as contango:
http://oil-price.net/en/articles/how-markets-influence-oil-price.php

quote:

New developments in the Quebec Immigrant Investor Programme (QIIP) - long one of the world’s most popular wealth migration vehicles - suggest rich Chinese are deserting the scheme which has brought thousands of mainland millionaires to Canada, most of whom end up to living instead in faraway Vancouver via an immigration loophole.

An Asia-based immigration industry source said that the scheme, which had a 2014 quota of 1,750 applications (including up to 1,200 from China), had failed to hit that target - and by a wide margin.

This was despite the application window having been repeatedly extended and pushed back three times, before ultimately closing on March 20 this year. Initially slated to open only for 12 days last September, the traditional annual rush of Chinese millionaires who have dominated the scheme never happened, the source said. That was even after the application window was widened to two months.

In 2013, the window was open for only two weeks, and was flooded with 5,389 valid applications, including 4,676 from China, Hong Kong or Taiwan (nearly all were mainland Chinese); a lucky draw was held to extract 1,750 applications for processing. In 2012, the cap of 2,700 was hit in under a month.

A new, strict set of regulations and documentation benchmarks, and intensified scrutiny of applicants' finances, are being blamed for the apparent slump, along with high application fees. Quebec’s authorities “might have to adjust their selection process”, the source said.

Although there is a huge pool of wealthy would-be emigrants in the mainland “my colleagues do not think that China currently has 1,200 cases of the quality that the Quebec government expects,” the source said. “Of course, there may be millions of rich people in China who wish to move to Quebec, but it seems that Quebec has raised the bar too high.”

The Quebec immigration department has yet to respond to questions about the scheme.

However, the source’s assessment is lent credence byQuebec’s announcement last month that the 2015 application window for the QIIP would last for five months, from August 31 to  January 31, 2016. This strongly suggests Quebec has been forced to adjust its expectations about the popularity of the program.

And the QIIP has previously been very popular indeed. Quebec had recently been approving more investor migrants than Ottawa had for all other Canadian provinces combined. From 2008-2012, certificates of permanent residency were issued to 27,490 QIIP immigrants, compared to 24,555 issued by Ottawa under the now-defunct federal Immigrant Investor Program. By comparison, there were 8,524 applications approved for the entire United States under the famous EB-5 scheme in the same period, likely representing 25,000-30,000 individuals.

Quebec runs an independent immigration policy under the Canada-Quebec Accord governing relations between Ottawa and the French-speaking province. For years, the QIIP was run in parallel to the federal IIP. Both schemes most recently required applicants worth a minimum of C$1.6 million to loan the respective governments C$800,000 for five years, in return for permanent residency visas. The federal IIP was shut down last year, but the lucrative QIIP continues.

The QIIP is of major significance for the distant west coast city of Vancouver, since federal data shows 89 per cent of Quebec investor migrants have actually ended up living elsewhere in Canada; if these are dispersed in the same manner that federal investor migrants distributed themselves, then about 60 per cent of all Quebec investor immigrants likely ended up in British Columbia.  It is an act of deception that has cost BC billions in IIP loans, that have instead gone to Quebec.

The SCMP estimates QIIP arrivals in BC at 25,000-26,000in the eight years to 2012, representing more than half of all likely investor migrant arrivals in Vancouver – where nearly all rich immigrants to the province settle. Housing affordability in Vancouver is now the second worst in the world, behind Hong Kong, with the average detached house price now C$1.4 million.  

Maxime Lapointe, head of the legal department for Hong Kong-based immigration consultants Yelo Consulting, said in February that the QIIP was in trouble. He cited a new15-page list of documents required from applicants as a major deterrent.

“The list of documents is huge for this programme,” he said. “The QIIP list is way more intrusive [than other schemes] with personal and corporate credit reports as well as detailed audit reports for companies.”

Lapointe said three Quebec-based financing companies - which earn their cut from the industry by loaning immigrants their C$800,000 “investment” -  had approached him to ask  if he could refer them to any non-Chinese clients to fill their quotas issued by the Quebec government, since the Chinese market had apparently dried up.

An increased processing fee of C$10,106 may also have deterred some, Lapointe said. “Quebec is now not so competitive,” compared to other popular schemes, such as the EB-5 or Portugal’s “golden visa”, he said.

“Maybe Quebec has forgotten that there is now a global competition for immigration.”

quote:

Two major liquefied natural gas export projects on British Columbia’s coast face a more uncertain future with Royal Dutch Shell’s proposed $70-billion (U.S.) acquisition of BG Group.

A key issue if the deal, announced Wednesday, goes ahead is whether the merged company will proceed with its own B.C. LNG project as well as that of BG or cancel one or perhaps both.

In the current context of the looming global glut of LNG and slumping prices for oil and gas, many observers say it’s unlikely most of the 19 LNG projects on the West Coast will get built.

Moody’s Investors Service Inc. said on Tuesday that the “vast majority” of North American LNG projects face cancellation.

The energy sector is also under pressure to rein in spending in an environment of low oil and gas prices and overcapacity, and companies have been delaying or abandoning explorations and development projects.

Shell has estimated the cost of its proposed LNG export terminal in Kitimat at up to $40-billion (Canadian). It owns 50 per cent of LNG Canada through its subsidiary Shell Canada Energy.

BG said late last year it was slowing work on its Prince Rupert LNG project, with an investment decision not in the cards until 2017 at the earliest.

Other major LNG players on the West Coast include Chevron Corp.-led Kitimat LNG and Petronas-led Pacific NorthWest LNG.

Shell said on Wednesday the BG deal would give it enhanced prospects for new projects, particularly in Australia and Brazil.

It also said it wants to boost asset sales to $30-billion (U.S.) from about $6-billion between 2016 and 2018.

Shell is also active in Canada’s oil sands and is the major owner and operator of the Carolina gas complex in southern Alberta as well as other gas fields, wells and processing plants.

Last month, the head of BG’s Canadian operations, Madeline Whitaker, left to take on another position elsewhere in the British company’s operations and was not replaced.

That move added to the uncertainty over B.C.’s fledgling LNG industry.