RichardGibbons

I think there's actually two levels to it. Winners often work hard, sacrifice, and take risks to end up ahead. So the first level is less successful people seeing the winners and envying their outcomes. They want to be prosperous too. Then the second level is the less successful creating narratives to justify pillaging from the winners to distribute more "equitably" to themselves.

I completely get where you're coming from. That's why we should be grateful that Trump isn't torturing our kids right now. And we should be equally happy that our doctors aren't torturing our kids, because whether they torture people is completely orthogonal to their job as a doctor. If you take your kid in there with a broken arm, and they come out flayed but with a cast on that arm, then everything's good--you took them in for the arm, and the doctor set it perfectly. Nothing to complain about because they did their job. The flaying thing is just their hobby, so it shouldn't impact your satisfaction with them as a doctor.

Yeah, but this is where Cubs, Reds, and Greg are proven right yet again. The damn liberals won't give Trump any credit at all for not torturing them before getting them killed. The liberals always skip over the good stuff like the lack of torture and just focus on the death stuff to try to make Trump look bad. Really, we should all be celebrating the lack of torture.

I can help you with that. It's because most people can care about multiple things at the same time. Like, suppose that Trump gave you everything that you wanted when you voted for him. But, he also decided to torture your child to death over the course of a few days. Though you might not agree, my position is that you're allowed to be annoyed with the torture, even though he did everything you wanted when you voted for him.

No, I'm not sure. I'm just going based on what's been discussed on this board in the past (which is typically reliable), and what Gemini says about it (which could conceivably be based on typical swaps.) I don't think I've heard anything directly about it from Fairfax, which would be sufficient for my confidence to pass a "sure" threshold. (But I just might not remember. If Fairfax had mentioned something, and what they said aligned with my beliefs, it might not be memorable.)

I have a dual strategy based on regrets from the dotcom bubble a quarter century ago--long term holds (LT) of companies that I think will do well, and speculations (S) where I think the odds of a quick double are high, but there's some chance of a big loss as well, and I'm quick to take gains. I also have a lot of names in my portfolio, so the speculations are typically just under 1%, while many of the long term holds are bigger, but because they've grown to be bigger. For the sake of the question, I'm going to assume that AI includes not just AI stocks directly, but those that make the infrastructure as well. GOOG (LT) NVDA (LT) PGY (LT) IREN (S) CRDO (S) Since the start of the year, I've also had positions the following companies at various times, often losing shares when selling high implied volatility covered calls, all the plays profitable, and all the speculations making at least 50% in a matter of a few months. UPST (LT) ALAB (S) BE (S) POET (S) My main screw ups were owning NBIS and LITE last year and being way too trigger-happy, roughly breaking-even on both. I also just started running an automated strategy that often owns a chunk of TQQQ. That's not a deliberate decision related to AI prognostications, but would likely benefit if AI does well without destroying the world.

It does impact cash flow. Periodically, they are marked-to-market, and the difference is paid in cash. i.e. If Fairfax stock goes down, when they're marked to market, Fairfax will have to pay out cash.

Cultures don't belong to anyone. Disrespecting a culture makes you an asshole, but we all benefit when cultures mix and synthesize. It's a good thing when an Indian opens a hamburger stand or her kid dresses up as Spider Man.

Yeah, I think the challeng Yeah, I think the challenge is that historically, Canada has been driven by resource development, and it's where we have some of the biggest competitive advantages. With the passage of UNDRIP, that's largely finished, but Canada hasn't found a new growth industry. It'll be interesting to see if the sovereign funds invests in things other than the industries crippled by our own regulations, and does venture capital investing as well.

Yep, I think it's likely to have poor absolute results, because they are leaning into the politics, not the business. The key line from the CBC article is: Carney said Indigenous peoples will be full partners in the projects through equity stakes; that the projects being financed will be built by Canadians in "high-paying union jobs"; When your plan involves giving gifts to special-interests right from the start, then it's a sign that your projects aren't likely to be economically compelling investments.

My understanding of this transaction is pretty simplistic, so I could easily be wrong. But I view the tax on the TRS as a big deal. However, I think one thing that the TRS provide that hasn't really been mentioned is optionality. As long as the TRS exists, they have the ability to close the TRS, effectively issuing shares without any of the complications associated with actually issuing shares. That optionality does have some value, but I think it probably has the less value than the additional tax paid because of the TRS.

Congratulations! Above all, be kind. When they get emotional, your job isn't to stop them from being upset, but rather to help them to process their emotions. The emotions can be scary to small people, and if your reaction is to do anything you can to stop them, then you're basically saying, "These emotions are scary, and they're so scary that even I, an adult, can't deal with them, so you're right to be scared." Instead, you need to help them walk their way through their emotions--acknowledging them and validating them rather than dismissing them. If they're upset because they can't get that candy, then you can agree with them that it's both upsetting and frustrating that they can't have it, even though they want it a lot. Also, kids don't become well-adjusted independent adults as a result of parents forcing them to be independent. They become independent as a result of a strong attachment to the parents that gives them the foundation and confidence to explore independence on their own--the knowledge that they can take the risks of independent exploration because their parents will be there to support them when things get scary.

Yep, this is the list. The main issue MAGA seems to miss is that even if you get what you want in the short term, you'll lose long term if in doing so you lose the bedrock principles.

These are some interesting points, including historical context. Thanks, Maverick.

I think there is a bonus limit, but I can't remember what it is. Certainly somewhere above a million. It might be $10M, but I'm only about 25% confident of that number. It doesn't have to be cash--securities are fine too. I've done it several ways--transferring cash through just bank transfer, transferring certain securities in an account (a subset of the account), and transferring an entire account. Some of the bonuses might only be for full account transfers. I think the 3% bonus was set up that way.

I'm on WS, and like it, particularly since they seem keen to add the pieces they were missing, like options trading. There are a couple major provisos--their reliability is clearly worse than TD's. I feel like there's been at least 3 or 4 times in the past year where they went down during the day, maybe more. It hasn't hurt me yet. But it's certainly a bigger risk than TD. Second, their currency exchange stuff sucks still. They don't even allow Norbert's Gambit generally, though there's been discussions about enabling it for frequent traders (and maybe they've already done it.) I'd imagine Norbert's Gambit will eventually be more broadly supported, but not so far. Also, if you do decide to move money there, you should try to get a bonus for moving. Historically, they've offered up to 2% bonuses for keeping assets there for a year, and 3% for five years. I think 1% for a year is pretty common. Those deals tend to show up over the summer. Finally, you should also get referred by someone because the referral bonuses can be sizable too, depending on the account size. Hopefully someone in your family has an account, but I'll refer you--and pocket some money--if you don't have anyone better.

Yeah, fair point. I didn't drill into the numbers at all, because the evidence for the underlying point is so overwhelming, that many ostensibly progressive programs over the long term actually hurt the outcomes for the most vulnerable.

Yeah, for sure, if you consider relative outcomes the key goal. Driving everyone into poverty is certainly much superior on such criteria than having different economic classes in society. Like, if we look at incomes and compare the horrible income inequality country from the chart--USA--to Canada, you find that the average after-tax income for those "bottom 50%" Canadians is about $17K, while the "bottom 50%" Americans is around $22K. So, you've certainly increased income equality, but you've also managed to get rid of about 30% of the income that Canadians otherwise would have, absolutely crushing their standard of living.

The thing is, you didn't actually ask me to back up my statement (which was actually more of a joke based on a hypothetical, but it kinda went over your head, I guess.) You instead asked for a bunch of evidence that Americans were leaving Canada. I helped you out with that, since you couldn't figure out how to find your data on your own, and you just ignored it. And I think you ignored it because you didn't like what it said, which was very disappointing to me! I was so confident that you'd reach the conclusion that if America were to build a northern wall, it would be to keep Americans in, and I was extremely surprised that you just doubled down. That's the last time I'll ever help you with your Google searches! Ohhhhhh! You're someone who actually believes that the USA has been an authoritarian state for 20 years. Say no more. I understand completely where you're coming from.

I gotta say, I'm a bit shocked that anyone on here isn't capable of doing basic Google and Gemini searches. I guess, you're like, super old, and are the type of person who finds anecdotal data really persuasive? It's seems quite odd to jump from talking about a hypothetical wall used to force people to remain in an authoritarian country to talking about 20 years of Canada/USA migration data--I'm amazed that any American thinks that the USA has been authoritarian for 20 years. That said, if you're finding this conversation challenging, I'd suggest that the most useful stats to understand hypothetical outcomes where walls are used to keep people around would be those related to the Soviet block, Nazi Germany, and other authoritarian states. That said, to the annual percentage of migration to the US from Canada, and the percentage of the population that has moved to Canada from the USA are actually identical to four significant figures, both at 0.00%. If you really care about as a ratio of the immigrant country's population, Canada gets more as a percentage of its population by about five times. Also, just for fun, here's some numbers from our third biggest province: https://vancouver.citynews.ca/2026/03/17/eby-osborne-boast-success-recruiting-hundreds-of-us-nurses-doctors/ That's a great result when BC is deliberately targeting healthcare professionals, and the result is getting 5% of the country's total immigration into a province making up only 13% of the population of Canada. It's shockingly high. I don't think BC could have got these immigration results without American assistance, so, if you're American, thanks for doing your part to improve healthcare in my province.

Yeah, if this one happens, it'll be for the same reason the Soviets erected the Berlin Wall!

Okay, thanks Sanjeev. That makes sense, and it's nice to know that I'm not insane. The irony is that the issue isn't actually which country is in a better position--It's which people are better at handling adversity. TACO exists for a reason.

So I'm confused. Many people on this board seem to buy into this narrative that it doesn't matter to America if the strait remains closed because most of the oil is going to Europe and Asia. But my understanding is that oil markets are global, so American consumers will suffer much higher oil prices if the Strait remains closed. Like, if prices in Europe are high, then America will ship oil there rather than keep it in the the USA, causing American energy prices to increase. Is this sudden lack of understanding that the oil market is global just the usual MAGA derangement thing? Or am I missing something? (Because the disconnect seems so blatantly stupid that I feel like I must be missing something, which is possible, because I'm not great at macroeconomics, particularly when it comes to global commodity markets.)

This is interesting analysis that seemed pretty plausible to me. It really makes me wonder what the optimal play for the USA is, at this point, because it's very unclear to me what I'd do if I were in charge. What are the major alternatives? Boots on the ground, give up while declaring victory, or just an indefinite holding pattern of comparatively minor violence from both sides?

I think you're under-representing the torture and rapes inflicted by the state. Those things seem kinda wrong to me too.