I couldn't tell ya about if he cares or not, but, I find it a little peculiar that teh State dept would issue public statements that they are looking to Cdn oil (tar sands) as a long-term, secure supply for the USA.
Is Obama a bully?
- Thread starter Trex
- Start date
From what I'v read recently he's not even included in the discussions, apparently he's not informed and completely inarticulate when not tele-prompted, but he does have TV presence. Ya get whet you cultivate.
Ironsides, Bush let us make a profit? Where have you been, toots? Stock market performed miserably during the eight years of Bush. I remember Dow reached 10,000 in 1999 (or was it 1998?). currently it is languishing around 8500.
During Clinton years investors made money by the barrelful, stock market soared during the period 1992 to 2000. During bush years stock market tanked big time, twice (dot com meltdown and the current meltdown).
I personally did manage to make money during Bush years (though nowhere near what I made during Clinton years). However, by and large investors did miserably during Bush years. Bush did not let anybody make a profit.
Ironsides, I decided to look up some numbers as to how markets performed during Clinton and Bush years. The comparison is fascinating.
In 2000, the annualized return for the last ten years (which encompasses Clinton rule) was 17.46% per year.
In 2008 (which encompasses most of Bush years), the annualized return was -1.38% annually, over the last ten years.
Considering that 1998 and 1999 were not Bush years but Clinton years and gave returns of 28.58% and 21.54% respectively, the picture is grim indeed for the period 2000 to 2008.
The same table goes on to say that if you had 6.55$ invested at the beginning of 2001, you would end up with 5.88 $ at the beginning of 2008.
And you say Bush let us make profit? Are you for real? I assume most investors are cursing Bush.
S&P 500 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In 2000, the annualized return for the last ten years (which encompasses Clinton rule) was 17.46% per year.
In 2008 (which encompasses most of Bush years), the annualized return was -1.38% annually, over the last ten years.
Considering that 1998 and 1999 were not Bush years but Clinton years and gave returns of 28.58% and 21.54% respectively, the picture is grim indeed for the period 2000 to 2008.
The same table goes on to say that if you had 6.55$ invested at the beginning of 2001, you would end up with 5.88 $ at the beginning of 2008.
And you say Bush let us make profit? Are you for real? I assume most investors are cursing Bush.
S&P 500 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I've heard rumors that Manitoba & B.C. export Hydro-Electricity to the USA too,
and not on a small scale either. Saskatchewan (currently) is a larger exporter of
conventional oil (not heavy oil) than Alberta to the USA.
NAFTA has some strange kinks in it that Canada accepted (and Mexico didn't)
that state that Canada can NOT reduce the volume of oil exports to the USA
without decreasing its own domestic consumption by the same percentage,
or something along those lines. Strangely enough (look at a map), Mexico isn't
as geographically isolated as Canada, and was in a better position to negotiate
in entering into the NAFTA agreement.
I wonder how both a pipeline to the West Coast, and a Cap&Trade program
would tie into NAFTA? I can see that, as far as we do not increase our own
domestic consumption or decrease export to the USA (with respect to oil),
then any increase in production can be exported elsewhere without penalty.
But Cap&Trade vs. NAFTA I'm not clear on....
Amazing isn't it?
In terms of the current crop of politicians we have today, I guess that you get what you deserve... A frightening prospect indeed.
Time to get some help on the investment side of things SJP.. If you didn't make money hand-over-fist in the last 6-7 years, then you really f*cked-up.
Ron,
On the hydro side of things, the beef that the Cdn gvt has is that hydro should qualify as a carbon 'credit'. Couple this possibility with the notion that the US State dept is purposely being fuzzy when it comes to coal-fired energy in the USA... Apparently, there will be vast 'free' credits issued to these big emitters (mind you, that is currently speculation).
On the NAFTA issue, well, we've seen how well that has been working with softwood, cattle and wheat in the last 10 years. Ultimately, I have a suspicion that the energy/NAFTA issue may unfold this way: The Cdn gvt will insist that cap/trade is in violtion of NAFTA and therefore not applicable or that cap/trade changes NAFTA enough such that NAFTA is not applicable.
In teh end, from the perspcetive of the oil/gas producer; the industry will sell to the customer that represents the biggest profit... If cap/trade incorporate a cost that exceeds the trans-Pacific costs then the oil will go overseas. Again, my personal ideas on the matter but essentially follows basic economic principles.
And if anyone hasn't made ten fold on that pile in the last 6-7 months they are an even bigger **** up. This stock garage sale couldn't come at a better time.
Wow.. You've seen a 10X return on the investments that you've purchased in the last 6-7 months?
Quote captain morgan:
Apparently, there will be vast 'free' credits issued to these big emitters (mind you, that is currently speculation).
unquote
Rumor has it that 85 % of the credits have been allocated by the party to American heavy industry and energy (mainly coal fired generating plants).
This basically gives all American polluting industries a free ride under the plan.
Unfortunately for Obama it also scuttles his plans to raise billions of dollars to fund his proposed health care initiatives.
The Republican party has no intention of cap and trade impacting American jobs.
It has every intention of taxing Canada as much as is possible simply because it feels that it can under the guise of an environmentally friendly initiative.
Trex
Apparently, there will be vast 'free' credits issued to these big emitters (mind you, that is currently speculation).
unquote
Rumor has it that 85 % of the credits have been allocated by the party to American heavy industry and energy (mainly coal fired generating plants).
This basically gives all American polluting industries a free ride under the plan.
Unfortunately for Obama it also scuttles his plans to raise billions of dollars to fund his proposed health care initiatives.
The Republican party has no intention of cap and trade impacting American jobs.
It has every intention of taxing Canada as much as is possible simply because it feels that it can under the guise of an environmentally friendly initiative.
Trex
You may have made money hand over fist, Captain, but the average investor hasn’t, as is evident from the various indices.
As I mentioned, all the US indices were lower when Bush left office, compared to when he came to office. That means most Americans lost money in the eight years that Bush was in office, no matter how you slice it (that is the definition of the index). No doubt a few investors manage to beat the index, but most don’t.
Situation was slightly different in Canada. Liberals were in power until 2005 and economy was doing quite well in Canada when they were incurring huge deficits in USA (under Bush). Canadian market performed quite well up until a year or two ago, when TSE peaked at 15,000.
And I did make money in Canada, especially in banks. That is why overall I did make money. However, I made very little in USA.
In USA the average investor was royally screwed by Bush. During Clinton years yearly return of 15% was considered on the low side. During many Bush years, investors got negative returns, they actually lost money.
Anyway, if you are saying that you made money hand over fist during the dot com meltdown, and during the recent meltdown (both the meltdowns thanks to Bush), you must be a financial wizard indeed.
That post is a real hoot SJP... Really, establishing that the indicies were lower at the end of Bush's tenure as the 'evidence' that the markets were poor.
Here's a wee hint for ya - lots happened in those 8 years and the only folks that I know that lost money (overall) fit into one of 2 categories:
1 - Greedy or didn't diversify and/or didn't take profit along the way.
2 - High risk investments that didn't pan-out.
All exchanges in North America (and I suspect the Nikkei, Hang Seng and London) all hit their record highs during Bush's reign... But let's be perfectly clear - this event had to do with a vast # of global variables and not just US or Cdn policy.
That said, it appears that your investment practices are entirely influenced as to 'when' the liberals are in power, it must be the time to invest.
It's clear why your returns were sub-par.
Here's a wee hint for ya - lots happened in those 8 years and the only folks that I know that lost money (overall) fit into one of 2 categories:
1 - Greedy or didn't diversify and/or didn't take profit along the way.
2 - High risk investments that didn't pan-out.
All exchanges in North America (and I suspect the Nikkei, Hang Seng and London) all hit their record highs during Bush's reign... But let's be perfectly clear - this event had to do with a vast # of global variables and not just US or Cdn policy.
That said, it appears that your investment practices are entirely influenced as to 'when' the liberals are in power, it must be the time to invest.
It's clear why your returns were sub-par.
wonder if the global market is not unlike a whip. For years the New York Stock Exchange pretty much led the world, what happened there eventually was reflected on the other exchanges. If you saw and interpreted correctly or just by dumb luck what was happening on the U.S. exchanges, you probably could have headed off any major personal loss. Unfortunately many kept hoping that it was all a bad dream that turned into a nightmare.
quoting Ron in Regina:
NAFTA has some strange kinks in it that Canada accepted (and Mexico didn't)
that state that Canada can NOT reduce the volume of oil exports to the USA
without decreasing its own domestic consumption by the same percentage,
or something along those lines. Strangely enough (look at a map), Mexico isn't
as geographically isolated as Canada, and was in a better position to negotiate
in entering into the NAFTA agreement.
Unquote.
And right there in Ron's statement lies the big difference between Canadians and Americans.
Just like Ron says Canadians feel they have to live up to the agreements they have signed.
Canadians believe that if they sign an agreement with the Americans that states we must provide equivalent and proportional volumes of oil under NAFTA then we simply must honor it.
Americans on the other hand will sign promises and agreements until the cows come home and then at first hint that they could loose a nickel on the deal will simply refuse to honor it.
"See ya in court", is the typical refrain.
Look at softwood lumber, we went to settlement about six times and 5 times we won and once was a draw.
Every time we won in court the Americans refused to abide by that ruling and went back to court again.
They never did give all the illegal(under NAFTA not criminally speaking) duties back.
Its high time we took a page out of the American rule-book on agreements and treaties.
We need to build oil and maybe LPG terminals on the West Coast.
The second we can make a nickel more on our resources selling to the Indians or the Chinese we just walk away from NAFTA and sell our resources to the highest bidder.
If the Americans squawk, "see ya in court for the next 20 years" should be the Canadian response.
Trex
NAFTA has some strange kinks in it that Canada accepted (and Mexico didn't)
that state that Canada can NOT reduce the volume of oil exports to the USA
without decreasing its own domestic consumption by the same percentage,
or something along those lines. Strangely enough (look at a map), Mexico isn't
as geographically isolated as Canada, and was in a better position to negotiate
in entering into the NAFTA agreement.
Unquote.
And right there in Ron's statement lies the big difference between Canadians and Americans.
Just like Ron says Canadians feel they have to live up to the agreements they have signed.
Canadians believe that if they sign an agreement with the Americans that states we must provide equivalent and proportional volumes of oil under NAFTA then we simply must honor it.
Americans on the other hand will sign promises and agreements until the cows come home and then at first hint that they could loose a nickel on the deal will simply refuse to honor it.
"See ya in court", is the typical refrain.
Look at softwood lumber, we went to settlement about six times and 5 times we won and once was a draw.
Every time we won in court the Americans refused to abide by that ruling and went back to court again.
They never did give all the illegal(under NAFTA not criminally speaking) duties back.
Its high time we took a page out of the American rule-book on agreements and treaties.
We need to build oil and maybe LPG terminals on the West Coast.
The second we can make a nickel more on our resources selling to the Indians or the Chinese we just walk away from NAFTA and sell our resources to the highest bidder.
If the Americans squawk, "see ya in court for the next 20 years" should be the Canadian response.
Trex
I agree with your commentary Trex... Funny thing is that teh EU attempted exactly what Obama is doing and it morphed into a massive fiasco that has been abandoned by many of the (former) participating nations.