RichardGibbons

Conservatives are much more likely to build pipelines than the Liberals, though the Liberals might talk about it these days. It's somewhat unlikely to me that a major pipeline in Canada could be built. It's very unlikely to me that a major pipeline in Canada could be built in under a decade. (My over/under would be 15 years.)

The article is accurate, except this line is a mischaracterization: She didn't say that Trudeau was ill-prepared for a trade war. She said the actions that he was taking at that moment [giving $250 to most people in Canada and temporarily putting a federal sales tax on hold] were just a gimmick to win votes for the Liberals in the short term while hurting the country's long-term ability to respond to a trade war. It matters because the Liberals have more than doubled the Canadian debt, a lot of it while Freeland was Minister of Finance. A reasoned take would be that the $600B of debt the Trudeau government added is primarily responsible for Canada's limited ability to respond, not the $6B on top of that from the $250 and GST pause.

There has been a massive bounce for Trudeau's party--I can't remember such a big swing in polls in a short time. Before January 20, the more "pro-oil development" party, the Conservatives, was looking like it would get the largest win in decades. Now, there's been a massive resurgence of the incumbent Liberal party, to the extent that I now believe that there's a good chance the Conservatives won't win a majority. (And a weak minority Conservative win is likely a return to what Canada has now--a left-wing Liberal/NDP alliance that isn't supportive of oil development.)

The funny thing about this chart is that it seems to detract from your "overvalued market" thesis rather than supporting it. Like, it basically says the market's valuation is average, except for tech and financials. And tech, considering its size, is growing insanely quickly with super-high margins right when the world gets transformed by the creation of AI. In fact, it feels like it undersells the positive impact of AI on non-tech companies, if they're only trading at average valuations. So it suggest that the broader market is average to cheap.

For sure--it's pretty obvious that everyone loses from trade wars. Pity that we're in a trade war where everyone has to lose.

I think the other obvious one is potash. The USA mines 400 tonnes, and consumes about about 6000 tonnes, 77% of which is imported from Canada. Potash is quite important if you want to grow food. Farmers would be hit first, and many of them are in red states. Then I imagine there would be significant inflation in the cost of food.

Huh. You don't hear many people lauding Turner for his 79 days as Prime Minister. What did he do in those three months that so impressed you?

Yeah, if that happens, I feel sorry for us, too. We really gotta start taking leadership and the economy seriously, and stop with the left-wing racist stuff.

To me, this is a very strange interpretation of Canadian politics, an elegant combination of dunning kruger and "I have a hammer so everything must be a nail." In early November, Trudeau was polling for one of the worst electoral wipeouts in Canadian history, and the polls didn't move for a couple months after Trump was elected. There are two things recently giving the Liberals hope for the next election. One is Mark Carney. The other is Donald Trump. All said, I agree that Trump will likely have a bit influence things now. If the next Canadian government is socialist, I think Trump will deserve a lot of credit for that change. The left wing parties are going to try really hard to run against Trump rather than their actual Canadian opponents.

You find something unusual about a country's leader visiting the leader-elect of its most important ally and trading partner who is threatening to dissolve that co-operative relationship?

Freeland brought down Trudeau. Trump had nothing to do with it.

My theory is that the Trump simply wants tariffs as a way to raise money for the government without directly taxing Americans. However, presidential Executive orders are highly restricted--they can't be used for just any arbitrary action. But they can be used when the country's security is at risk. So, I think the complaints about fentanyl and illegal immigration are simply a legal way to justify Executive orders to implement tariffs. The actual state of border security is irrelevant, because they only thing needed is the legal "security is at risk" justification. The "influence the election" theory is an interesting one, because it's unclear to me whether that would mean Trump wants the Liberals to win the next Canadian election, or that he's not smart enough to realize that these actions are likely to improve the Liberals' chances in the next election.

Yep, I think you're largely right. Canada has plenty of uranium, and it feels like it's about time for Canada to build a nuclear arsenal. Just to protect our national interest of course, since Trump's made it clear that he doesn't really see any other countries as allies or worth defending.. Even better, it would increase Canada's military budget, just as Trump wants, making NATO far stronger.

FWIW, I find a fair amount of value from people just posting what they're buying, even with nothing else. Discussion is great as well, of course.

I retired about a decade ago, at about 20% over my minimum number. Since then, my net worth has increased at a faster rate than inflation, so the margin of safety has increased. I have more of a barbell risk strategy than I would have if I were still trying to get to the number--more conservative and more risky.