rookiepilot wrote: ↑Fri Mar 01, 2019 9:43 am
CANADA:
"The country's economy grew by just 0.1 per cent in the fourth quarter, for an annualized pace of 0.4 per cent, Statistics Canada said Friday from Ottawa. That's the worst quarterly performance in two and a half years."
USA:
"The 2.6 percent annualized rate of gains in gross domestic product from October to December compared with the 2.2 percent median estimate of economists surveyed by Bloomberg".
"The report shows how Republican-backed tax cuts may have continued to aid growth and help bring the full-year figure to 3.1 percent, just above President Donald Trump’s 3 percent goal."
MAGA!
----
People here think Trudeau chasing away foreign investment is somehow a good thing. Don't believe me, look at the figures. International investors have given this country the big middle finger, which is fine in a socialist paradise I guess.
The economy expanded at an annualized pace of 0.4 per cent over the final three months of 2018 as the country posted its weakest quarterly growth since the middle of 2016, Statistics Canada said Friday. The agency’s latest figures for real gross domestic product show that for all of last year the economy grew 1.8 per cent, compared with the three per cent expansion in 2017.
YYZSaabGuy wrote: ↑Sat Mar 02, 2019 8:39 am
I'm happy to let other countries enforce their own laws, including those applicable to Canadian companies operating in their jurisdictions. I don't see any need for the Canadian government to competitively disadvantage Canadian businesses by enforcing the laws of another country, any more than I expect other governments to enforce Canadian laws. That's not unethical, it's just common sense.
So a Canadian peodiphile goes to Thailand and has sex with underage girls and you think they shouldn't be held accountable in Canada?
As someone who grew up in Africa, no bribery is not that common and is certainly not out in the open. Most of the time. Foreign companies coming in with large pockets only makes the issue worse.
Yes it is unethical and only pushes back valid efforts to rid these countries of this issue. It is absolutely unethical.
It is also illegal under Canadian law under the Canadian Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act (CFPOA). The fact you are sitting here on a public professional pilots forum advocating for a.canadian company to break both Canadian and international law because it is 'common sense' makes me question your suitability as a pilot.
despicable.
Look, I understand that intellectual rigor isn't your strong point, but try and keep up..
. I say assume, because I've never had occasion to look into it - maybe you have?
Go back and read, carefully this time, what I wrote (sound the words out loud, if it helps you).
And finally, don't worry your pretty little head.
You got defensive quick didn't you? Watch your blood pressure princess.
Bribery is against Canadian law in Canada. Hence the comparison. These companies are breaking Canadian law. If you defend corruption, you can expect to be called out for it.
Insult all you want, but you've made your character quite transparent and continue to do so bud.
YYZSaabGuy wrote: ↑Sat Mar 02, 2019 10:02 am
Your definition of what is and isn't "absolutely unethical" isn't always going to synch up with everyone else's definition: it's a complicated world out there, and shockingly, your personal ethics aren't always going to be universally accepted
Yyzsaabguy, it wasn't his personal ethics. It is the law. So technically everyone's personal ethics under penalty.
flyzam wrote: ↑Sat Mar 02, 2019 11:23 am
You got defensive quick didn't you? Watch your blood pressure princess.
Bribery is against Canadian law in Canada. Hence the comparison. These companies are breaking Canadian law. If you defend corruption, you can expect to be called out for it.
Insult all you want, but you've made your character quite transparent and continue to do so bud.
Have your last word, I'm done with you.
Nope, not defensive at all - simply responding to the offensiveness in your post. And your leaving is probably a good idea: you've no doubt met your quota of character assassination, mischaracterization, and trolling for the day. Bravo.
Now run along and find something useful to do, and perhaps leave discussions like this to the grownups in the room, thanks.
YYZSaabGuy wrote: ↑Sat Mar 02, 2019 10:02 am
Your definition of what is and isn't "absolutely unethical" isn't always going to synch up with everyone else's definition: it's a complicated world out there, and shockingly, your personal ethics aren't always going to be universally accepted
Yyzsaabguy, it wasn't his personal ethics. It is the law. So technically everyone's personal ethics under penalty.
Except yours as you have made apparent.
Ethics and law are not the same thing, Eyebrow, "technically" or otherwise. But hey, thanks for that gratuitous ad hominem attack, and welcome to the thread.
YYZSaabGuy wrote: ↑Sat Mar 02, 2019 10:02 am
Your definition of what is and isn't "absolutely unethical" isn't always going to synch up with everyone else's definition: it's a complicated world out there, and shockingly, your personal ethics aren't always going to be universally accepted
Yyzsaabguy, it wasn't his personal ethics. It is the law. So technically everyone's personal ethics under penalty.
Except yours as you have made apparent.
Ethics and law are not the same thing, Eyebrow, "technically" or otherwise. But hey, thanks for that gratuitous ad hominem attack, and welcome to the thread.
The point is corruption overseas is the against Canadian law. So we are all beholden to that ethics aside.
Correct me if I'm wrong you seem to be saying that it is ok for Canadian companies to bribe officials overseas? Because others do it?
Good discussion gentlemen... what were we taking about again?
Seriously... SNC weren't getting a pass. They woud enter into an agreement of guilt in the DPA, pay fines, and could also be compelled to do/reveal other things in a DPA that a judge couldn't compel even if found guilty in a trial.
Your boss arguing to you to look at alternatives isn't nefarious.
The AG is appointed by the PM and isn't on an island, there is nothing wrong with presenting +/- of their choices and alternatives. Even other cabinet members/staff arguing and pushing for alternatives - even vehemently -to the AG - that's the job.
This isn't the little leagues... we vote for these people because they can face big decisions under immense pressure... and they are there to represent our interests. No doubt Trudeau is representing his riding's interest. No doubt it's Canada's greater interest to finish this off, avoid the uncertain outcome of a trial, while keeping SNC viable and in Canada.
Again. Not suggesting a pass for the offenders. But that wasn't the deal anyway.
Some ridiculous faulty parallels in this thread too... letting off sex tourists? Hardly. But I guarantee a criminal has charges brought up and is willing to plead guilty the crown would look at an appropriate deal. Not let him off, do a deal, punish the offender, save the cost and uncertainty of a trial.
Anyone who doesn't think kickbacks and bribes are the cost of doing business in parts of this wide world is naive. Not saying it right... but you have to pay for the Beyonce and Mariah concerts somehow... besides they kicked back a bit to Canada... Didn't Nelly Furtado play at Gaddafi's place too?
Whatever... Topple SNC, topple a chunk of the QPP, cut out some GDP, and 1000's of jobs, ... where's the positive in that? Does that teach some unknown guys that were part of the scheme a lesson? Of course not...
Weed them out, replace them, the company moves on...
This isn't some partisan Liberal idea, I'm far from what Liberal has become and I don't support most of the direction of this government...
I mean even Conrad Black thinks this is ridiculous and has written some good perspective on the affair... hardly a Liberal supporter.
I can't help but wonder if the equality of outcome in JT's cabinet appointment choices have come back on him here... maybe that's the biggest lesson in all this.
eyebrow737 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 02, 2019 12:12 pm
Correct me if I'm wrong you seem to be saying that it is ok for Canadian companies to bribe officials overseas? Because others do it?
If I was mistaken, I apologize.
Look, it's illegal (obviously) for Canadian companies to bribe government officials either domestically or in other jurisdictions. Most governments around the world have similar restrictions on companies domiciled in their jurisdictions. And not that anybody should particularly care what I think, but in fact I happen to be fully in favour of preventing commercial interests from bribing government officials - I thought I had made that clear in my previous posts about the whole SNC debacle. My point here was that the Canadian government should busy itself by upholding the legislation by which it is bound, including the various OECD, OAS, UN, TPP and USMCA (once ratified) conventions to which it has subscribed. It doesn't pretend to try to enforce the laws of other jurisdictions, nor should it - that's just wrong-headed.
As far as the ethics of the matter: so long as governments respect their treaty obligations, then obviously we're all better off with laws that prohibit corruption and bribery. I just don't like it when Canadian companies are competitively disadvantaged because"ethical" concerns (which cast a pretty wide net) can sometimes trump common sense: witness the Canadian government's desire to cancel LAV sales to the Saudis, regardless of the economic impact and completely ignoring the fact that several other countries would quickly step up and benefit from taking over that procurement. I'm not sure why Canadian companies should be forced to throw themselves on that particular ethical sword. And I happen to think it's wrong that Canadian companies may be competitively disadvantaged because other countries decide not to play by the rules, whether corruption-related or otherwise: see, for example, the Trumpian view that vehicle and parts imports should bear punitive tariffs because they constitute a national security threat. Seriously?
eyebrow737 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 02, 2019 12:12 pm
Correct me if I'm wrong you seem to be saying that it is ok for Canadian companies to bribe officials overseas? Because others do it?
If I was mistaken, I apologize.
Look, it's illegal (obviously) for Canadian companies to bribe government officials either domestically or in other jurisdictions. Most governments around the world have similar restrictions on companies domiciled in their jurisdictions. And not that anybody should particularly care what I think, but in fact I happen to be fully in favour of preventing commercial interests from bribing government officials - I thought I had made that clear in my previous posts about the whole SNC debacle. My point here was that the Canadian government should busy itself by upholding the legislation by which it is bound, including the various OECD, OAS, UN, TPP and USMCA (once ratified) conventions to which it has subscribed. It doesn't pretend to try to enforce the laws of other jurisdictions, nor should it - that's just wrong-headed.
As far as the ethics of the matter: so long as governments respect their treaty obligations, then obviously we're all better off with laws that prohibit corruption and bribery. I just don't like it when Canadian companies are competitively disadvantaged because"ethical" concerns (which cast a pretty wide net) can sometimes trump common sense: witness the Canadian government's desire to cancel LAV sales to the Saudis, regardless of the economic impact and completely ignoring the fact that several other countries would quickly step up and benefit from taking over that procurement. I'm not sure why Canadian companies should be forced to throw themselves on that particular ethical sword. And I happen to think it's wrong that Canadian companies may be competitively disadvantaged because other countries decide not to play by the rules, whether corruption-related or otherwise: see, for example, the Trumpian view that vehicle and parts imports should bear punitive tariffs because they constitute a national security threat. Seriously?
As you say, it is a complicated world. I agree with your sentiments. Sometimes the most unscrupulous win.
Needless to say, Canada is not the only western country struggling with this.. especially with the rise of China.
Anyone who screams about Harper's deficits is being extremely disingenuous as they fail to mention that the deficits were temporary stimulus spending during a global financial crisis AND not only supported by the Liberals BUT criticized for NOT SPENDING MORE!
Trudeau's deficits are structural and permanent which means the next global recession will be even more painful than the last (budget deficit wise)
Anyone who screams about Harper's deficits is being extremely disingenuous as they fail to mention that the deficits were temporary stimulus spending during a global financial crisis AND not only supported by the Liberals BUT criticized for NOT SPENDING MORE!
Trudeau's deficits are structural and permanent which means the next global recession will be even more painful than the last (budget deficit wise)
You don't understand clearly.
As long as QUEBEC gets bailed out at any price, it's all good. We're Liberals! We must be re elected or the ghost of Stephen Harpers hidden agenda will rise again!
We're liberals. We stand for minorities and women. Unless they dare stand up to our leader, and then we mock them mercilessly.
rookiepilot wrote: ↑Fri Mar 01, 2019 9:43 am
CANADA:
"The country's economy grew by just 0.1 per cent in the fourth quarter, for an annualized pace of 0.4 per cent, Statistics Canada said Friday from Ottawa. That's the worst quarterly performance in two and a half years."
The economy expanded at an annualized pace of 0.4 per cent over the final three months of 2018 as the country posted its weakest quarterly growth since the middle of 2016, Statistics Canada said Friday. The agency’s latest figures for real gross domestic product show that for all of last year the economy grew 1.8 per cent, compared with the three per cent expansion in 2017.
Hint:
Quarterly,
Annualized,
And the last year. All different time periods.
teacher wrote: ↑Sat Mar 02, 2019 2:26 pm
Trudeau's deficits are structural and permanent which means the next global recession will be even more painful than the last (budget deficit wise)
Yes, Trudeau's deficits are bad. However, on the subject of a recessions, you should be much more worried about Trump's deficits. Canada's federal deficit is roughly 0.6% GDP, whereas the USA's federal deficit is projected to be 4.7% this year, and with their corporate tax reductions and increasing interest rates it will be more difficult for them to pay it off. So Canada is going to have a tiny bit more pain, but the US is digging themselves into a massive hole, which will then affect us.
teacher wrote: ↑Sat Mar 02, 2019 2:26 pm
Trudeau's deficits are structural and permanent which means the next global recession will be even more painful than the last (budget deficit wise)
Yes, Trudeau's deficits are bad. However, on the subject of a recessions, you should be much more worried about Trump's deficits. Canada's federal deficit is roughly 0.6% GDP, whereas the USA's federal deficit is projected to be 4.7% this year, and with their corporate tax reductions and increasing interest rates it will be more difficult for them to pay it off. So Canada is going to have a tiny bit more pain, but the US is digging themselves into a massive hole, which will then affect us.
Which country has the greater ability to service their debt?
Which country would the bond vigilantes revolt against first?
Bond vigilantes? Aren’t bonds where you go to hide your wealth from coming uncertainty? Isnt that why bond markets strengthen when signs of recession start looming? So if bonds aren’t doing good, usually you have a good economy and vice versa?
iflyforpie wrote: ↑Sat Mar 02, 2019 8:33 pm
Bond vigilantes? Aren’t bonds where you go to hide your wealth from coming uncertainty? Isnt that why bond markets strengthen when signs of recession start looming? So if bonds aren’t doing good, usually you have a good economy and vice versa?
Yes, but.....It's not that simple, and it's happened before:
A thread about a recession is started and now we are talking pedophilia and SNC corruption.
Sounds like a bar argument in the smallest village you can find.
No wonder canadastan is going nowhere.
---------- ADS -----------
Attempting to understand the world. I have not succeeded.
