NP: Justin Trudeau's Hidden Agenda

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Yes! Because.... communism? No wait, tyranny!

Yeah, that one.

Sexy Tyranny.

[Frequitude]

I hate Trudeau as much as the next conservative, but that's just terrible reporting. Pension funds invest in infrastructure all the time (toll bridges, toll roads, etc). They provide a fairly stable low risk long term return. Heck, doesn't AIMCO (our own provincial investment manager) own a toll road in Columbia or something?

The article makes it sound like he'd loot the CPP bank accounts to pay for infrastructure with no return.

Now, if he pushed the CPP to invest in Canadian infrastructure at the expense of higher or less risky returns elsewhere that would be a big problem.

[Jacks]

I'd prefer if the politicians just stayed the hell away from CPP. If they have a project that would be beneficial to the CPP then let them make a proposal and let the board of CPP decide if they want to invest. The last thing I want is a politician announcing that they are going to build a bridge using CPP money, does anyone honestly believe it is possible for that to be free of political influence and corruption?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Jacks

I'd prefer if the politicians just stayed the hell away from CPP. If they have a project that would be beneficial to the CPP then let them make a proposal and let the board of CPP decide if they want to invest. The last thing I want is a politician announcing that they are going to build a bridge using CPP money, does anyone honestly believe it is possible for that to be free of political influence and corruption?

According to the investment board website, they have safeguards against government influence. I have no idea how safe they are in practice. I am sure the government can use persuasion to get them to invest in certain ways, but I doubt Trudeau will have the power to outright dip into it. It sounds like federal and provincial finance ministers have a say, but they are audited by 3rd parties and are subject to public reviews.

http://www.cppib.com/en/who-we-are/g...-overview.html

http://www.cppib.com/en/who-we-are/g...ntability.html

[Hugh Jahrmes]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Sexy Tyranny.

That's a top 3 form of tyranny right there.

Honestly, my generation is fairly jaded when it comes to CPP- many feel that we are dumping a few grand a year into something that will be bled dry about 18 months before any of us are actually in a position to draw from it.

If those managing it are able to make decisions and set goals & rules independent of the government, why not? Worst case Ontario, the conspiracy nuts are right and we get nothing (except, you know, infrastructure that no one else wants to pay for). Things go well, and we get that infrastructure, PLUS I get my highly reduced CPP rate when I begin pulling it as early as possible.

[Minnie]

Originally Posted by fulham

I'm a conservative, who is sick of harper. But there is no alternative for me.

Its impossible to be fan of JT. He literally has said nothing about how he will govern, other than spout off about how evil harper is. He has also given no interviews where he does not have the questions days in advance. He could not possibly be more vague. Their platform since he became leader is essentially

1. This guy is not harper
2. Look at how young and progressive he looks

He is the federal Danielle Smith/Wildrose party.

[SebC]

I think you guys are missing the point:

Either the government would get a good deal from CPP, in which case CPP gets a bad deal from the the government.

OR

The CPP would get a good deal from the government, in which case the government gets a bad deal from the CPP.

OR

The government wouldn't tell the CPP what to do at all, in which case this isn't a real policy.

-------------------------

In order for the government to get both low interest rates for its capital investments, and CPP to get high rates of return, it is mathematically necessary that their business is not with each other. It seems that the Liberals may be selling this as the financial equivalent of a perpetual motion machine.

And I still prefer them to Harper.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by SebC

I think you guys are missing the point:

Either the government would get a good deal from CPP, in which case CPP gets a bad deal from the the government.

OR

The CPP would get a good deal from the government, in which case the government gets a bad deal from the CPP.

OR

The government wouldn't tell the CPP what to do at all, in which case this isn't a real policy.

-------------------------

In order for the government to get both low interest rates for its capital investments, and CPP to get high rates of return, it is mathematically necessary that their business is not with each other. It seems that the Liberals may be selling this as the financial equivalent of a perpetual motion machine.

And I still prefer them to Harper.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. Lets say the project was the 407 in Ontario, so basically CPP pays and builds this, and then operates it for the return. The citizens get the infrastructure piece, the CPP gets the profits. Seems to make sense and no one is losing much because presently these projects are run by corporations anyway.

[Azure]

You would have to think that CPP is actively looking to invest into Canadian infrastructure projects as is if the return is there. Why wouldn't they?

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

An article in the National Post discusses "leaked" information from the Liberal's caucus retreat. It is alleged that the Federal Liberals intend to use the CPP to fund the planned federal infrastructure projects.

This deserves its own thread. Are you willing to have the CPP fund infrastructure projects?

http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/01...hidden-agenda/

Some tidbits:

"Pension plans exist for the benefit of the pensioners, not for governments in search of cheap and easy capital pools."

"Canadians considering a vote for Mr. Trudeau may want to consider whether they’re willing to bet their retirement income on him."

killer_carlson's one man mission: to find every negative article about Justin Trudeau on the interwebz.

Your fair and balanced approach on political matters is inspiring.

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by Slava

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. Lets say the project was the 407 in Ontario, so basically CPP pays and builds this, and then operates it for the return. The citizens get the infrastructure piece, the CPP gets the profits. Seems to make sense and no one is losing much because presently these projects are run by corporations anyway.

If run properly, it looks like this:

1. CPP fronts the cost, but gets a reliable return on investment via tolls;
2. Citizens get much needed infrastructure improvements, which are paid for by the users over time, rather than from the common purse; and
3. The gov't gets tax revenue from the economic boost of the infrastructure without having to borrow to front the costs

The author of the "article" tries to undermine the idea by saying that: "The Liberals have promised to be hands off as to management, but the Liberals are proven liars, so it's clearly a veiled scam."

[vanisleflamesfan]

Holy sweet Moses... the National Post is campaigning for the Conservatives? Stop the presses and call the... ummm... National Post..?

National arm of the Sun chain *The CCP OFFICAL NEWSPAPER*.

[killer_carlson]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

killer_carlson's one man mission: to find every negative article about Justin Trudeau on the interwebz.

Your fair and balanced approach on political matters is inspiring.

Sorry if one of our 2 national newspapers does a piece on JT and you don't like it.

It isn't as if i'm scouring the web. It's the National Post. Like a few million other Canadians I like to read the national newspaper.

Good try though.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

Sorry if one of our 2 national newspapers does a piece on JT and you don't like it.

It isn't as if i'm scouring the web. It's the National Post. Like a few million other Canadians I like to read the national newspaper.

Good try though.

Alright and thats understandable. You post it like you agree with the opinions presented though. After reading a number of posts here, what are your thoughts on this idea?

[Senator Clay Davis]

The comments section of the article reads strikingly like a Sun News comments section. I mean I know the NP is biased towards the CPC but I thought it had smarter readers than the low IQ bunch who read the Sun. Or maybe the Sun commenters just go from Trudeau article to Trudeau article and go wild in the comment section.

I think the only thing this article showed me is the CPC approach to Trudeau will be non-stop fear mongering, but I suppose they need to get in front now because once the Senate fun comes back it obviously could doom the CPC.

[killer_carlson]

Originally Posted by Slava

Alright and thats understandable. You post it like you agree with the opinions presented though. After reading a number of posts here, what are your thoughts on this idea?

Thanks for noticing. I intentionally didn't say my thoughts on the article.

The biggest surprise I have from reading this thread is the sense that the CPP means nothing and it's essentially another "general" tax and can be used for whatever. Ok, I get that it might not be worth much and that people do not include it in their retirement plans, but I think it's a real concern to think treat it as tax to be used for whatever (and not a specific purpose).

I don't think it should be used as a tax for general revenue. If it is, then let's open up the entire debate and abolish it completely or have the discussion for provinces to opt out and make their own plans (the discussion sans Firewall hysteria).

I also think that people get more risk adverse as they age and that a lot of people who paid 40+ years into it will be quite concerned with investments they perceive to be less secure as in the past. These people paid into it for years with an understood result and outcome. For them it isn't a tax - it's a pension. This will be a lead balloon politically for seniors or those on the cusp of retirement.

[Slava]

^ of course it shouldn't be considered general revenue, but the fact is that investment in infrastructure where CPP earns a return isn't general revenue. It's still going to cost the government money under this plan either through interest or not realizing revenues from tolls or other fees. Basically what is happening is that CPP is taking the place of the 'usual' private entity here. It's common for pension funds around the world to invest in infrastructure projects, and generally they like to own the assets so that they have full control. In some of these cases the asset doesn't mean a highway, it means the stream of interest payments from the building of the asset, just to be clear.

As far as peoples perceived risk, the unfortunate reality is that they have no idea what the risks are in the grand scheme. While I'm personally not big on investing into infrastructure projects, the attraction for a pension is that they are largely more predictable and less volatile than the stock market. They provide relatively steady streams of inflation-adjusted income. CPP and other pensions aren't aggressively managed at all, so as much as it sounds bad to say, just because some guy (not you) with rudimentary knowledge of capital markets thinks it's too risky or there are political issues potentially, is irrelevant. If the people running CPP and making investment decisions think it's a good idea based on their mandates then they should go ahead and invest.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

Sorry if one of our 2 national newspapers does a piece on JT and you don't like it.

It isn't as if i'm scouring the web. It's the National Post. Like a few million other Canadians I like to read the national newspaper.

Good try though.

So you're going to go with feigned outrage at the suggestion you take every opportunity to spew an anti-Trudeau agenda.

Really?

Your a Harper cheerleader. Own it.

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

Lol

And are any of you suggesting that the muppet has anywhere near the business or academic accomplishments of his dad, Harper or Mulroney?

The quips that you will hear about Trudeau's age are related with the fact that he comes across as a guy spending the trust money while he is "finding himself". As Bob Rae said, leader of the liberal party (and by extension prime minister) isn't an entry level position.

But he does look great for 43 though, doesn't he?

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

you can criticize Harper for a lot of things, but when it comes to the economy he Flaherty, And Oliver have handled the economy better than any other g20 country over the last 5 years

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

Given Trudeau's complete lack of interest in talking about the economy, the longer he waits to read what the brains of the Liberals have written out for him (in small words) the more likely it will come across as lacking credibility and not being thought out.

Is Trudeau falling into the Ignatief trap of filling his inner circle with yes-men/women and not adjusting to the economy?

Or are people so focused on filling up the gas tank this week and saving a few bucks that they won't notice growing job losses because of the price of oil?

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

Complain, critique and howl about Harper all you want. Quite frankly it's important that people do that. There are things in the record that deserve to be critiqued.

Trudeau doesn't have to explain why Harper didn't balance the budget, but he does have to explain how he will manage the economy. He has to do it with more than platitudes.

He hasn't done anything on the economy, and the longer he waits the more likely it is that:

a) he has no idea;
b) his team has an idea but he doesn't understand it;
c) he thinks Canadians care more about other issues; or
d) (most likely) he thinks he can win the election without getting into details or strategies on how to manage the economy.


I think that the longer he waits the more nervous voters will get and will look to the CPC who managed to get the country through the last recession on its feet.

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

and I think not talking about the economy when the wealthiest provinces either directly rely upon oil, or upon manufacturing jobs arising out of the oil industry would be a big mistake.

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

you're spinning this back as against the Conservatives. I suspect it is because they and the NDP are the only parties with details about how they would manage the economy.

The problem you need to be addressing is why the Libs haven't put out their own plan.

(and whether they are scrambling because that plan had been to tax the ___ out of the oil industry under an "environmental effort" but now realizing they have to be more transparent about the intended wealth transfer to central canada)

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

Trudeau reacts but presents nothing original and no comprehensive plan.

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

Different columnist at National Post gives a take on Trudeau's unknown economic abyss. As stated a few days ago, the longer the Libs actual brainpower let Trudeau go without handing him some substance to talk about, the more critique he's going to get that he has no clue:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/01...eau-who-knows/

some quotes:

We’re now in an election year and nobody has the foggiest idea what the Liberals would do to steady the economy when things get as rocky as they are now

or this tidbit showing Trudeau talking out of both sides of his mouth

Mr. Trudeau has sounded far from convincing in his role as prime minister-in-waiting. He accused Mr. Harper of “putting all his eggs in one basket, counting on the oil price to remain high,” but what does that mean? The Conservatives tried to facilitate resource development (to no great success), so would Mr. Trudeau erect barriers?

His statement suggests diversification of the economy, but in what sectors and how?

Manufacturing? Earlier this week in London, Ont., he talked of “transitioning away from manufacturing-based employment as a driver of the economy.” Yet by the time he got to auto-manufacturing-rich Windsor the following day, he talked about “the need for the federal government to step up on manufacturing.”

[calumniate]

But pension plans exist for the benefit of pensioners!

Love the use of italics there. Then she repeats it word for word in the next paragraph. Did I just read a bunch of fear propaganda? CPP has an investment portfolio just like any other fund..

[transplant99]

Killer...i think you have a cyber stalker^^^^

Creepy.