jeffmori7

To add to the discussion, let's not forget that the TFSA didn't exist 15 years ago. That gives an option to put some money to work without any capital gains.

That is a good question...nobody even tried answering though. I would like to have someone explaining it, with facts! Oh and as a reminder, healthcare cost are a higher % of GDP in the US than in most of the developed countries. Food for thought!

It's the lot that ultimately matters, not the dwelling itself. For example, there are plenty of shoddy looking homes in my area that have recently been sold for likely $million+ prices, but they are being taken down to build condos. Those shoddy-looking homes happen to sit right next to a main subway stop. Taking out a couple of shabby homes for a few million dollars each to build a 200 unit condo selling at average prices of $400-500K/unit is a slam dunk for developers - if they can get the requisite permitting. Sometimes that's the case, but prices for houses and condos across the whole region are crazy and it's not condo developers and chinese princelings buying everything. Many of the houses you see are in residential neighborhoods full of other tiny houses on tiny lots, nothing much above 1-2 stories on the horizon. I doubt the whole neighborhood is getting razed and massive towers are being built there in every case. At a smaller scale, where my parents live in Quebec city, they are taking down a lot of old bungalows that have been renovated in years and replacing them with townhouse, duplex, triplex, etc. Density at a more human scale, not a bad idea. I'm not saying it is justifying the prices across the board, but it can be the case in some specific markets.

So maybe it is not a banana republic after all...it is at least more modern... https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/26/robert-mercer-breitbart-war-on-media-steve-bannon-donald-trump-nigel-farage

Awesome thread. I can't add anything more than that I feel sorry for you people and your mindset of leaving things be, they've been great! MAGA and foremost, stop the PC shit that is ruining our world. That PC shit is all you have against the man. Sorry, what does PC shit mean?

I'm referring to everything that happened since the election, banning selected medias being the last stupid move of a long list!

Honestly, the Trump administration is transforming the US into a banana republic. It has nothing to do with left or right, they are a bunch of amateurs with 1st level thinking and I am really afraid of the damage they will do. I hope people will stop defend everything they do just because it could be good for investment in the really short term...Some actions are really leading to a dangerous path. Ok, let's have a totally useless conversation here, but I had to do it :P

O'Leary had not the decency to present itself at the french debate for the Conservatives leadership in Quebec. He decided to enter in the race the day after, because he doesn't speak French, even though he is from Montreal. As a Quebecois, I think it should be the minimum to speak both languages if you want to be PM.

From my dangerous center left political view, I must admit that I don't really get USA. It is a country showing all the greatness and the bad in the human beings. But what I find sad actually is how Trump doesn't understand how his action will continue to isolate your country on the international scene. I remember traveling while Bush was president and already the USA reputation was damaged abroad. For many people, you are no longer a place they want to visit. And I don't get how being so hostile and bully with everybody else will help the economy, which is the only thing that many here seems to care about, no matter how economical growth is achieved. Good luck guys, I sincerely hope that this guy won't stay there for 4 years, he could destroy what's left from the most powerful country in the world.

+1 Terrifying. Someone on this thread said well this is not as bad as Chinese censorship when I compared the two. Well, no, it's not. But is that the standard we have to live up to? And then you have Trump's attacks on the media. Personally, I am moderate to maybe even slightly right on the issue of the environment. I'm glad to see Keystone go through. Economically/Fiscally I'm conservative/libertarian. I own a whole bunch of Fannie and Freddie and have made a ton of money thanks to Trump. I hate CNN and MSNBC, and I get my news from newspapers. Nonetheless, I am disgusted by this sort of behavior. It is just madness and dangerous. Shame on anyone, left or right, who's willing to defend this or approve of it. Imagine if Obama attacked Fox News the way Trump attacks CNN? Or if he censored any government agency? Probably would have been impeached. Thanks! I think this has nothing to see with left or right.

I think that this is an idea that is fine in theory, but has to be implemented properly, something that's often not the case. Just as how voter education laws make sense (making sure that people have a clear understanding of who and what they are voting for), but have historically been used to discriminate against certain groups. See: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_vault/2013/06/28/voting_rights_and_the_supreme_court_the_impossible_literacy_test_louisiana.html The voter ID laws crafted by Republican state legislatures disproportionately affect poor and minority voters. https://www.thenation.com/article/wisconsin-is-systematically-failing-to-provide-the-photo-ids-required-to-vote-in-november/ In Canada, it is not complicated, you show a driver licence or something and they check your name on the list, that's it. Is it bulletproof? No, but is way better than nothing IMO.

From a leftist guy, I totally agree with Cardboard here! An ID should be an absolute requirement to vote, I don't see why there should be a debate about this!

For those who support Trump, as a scientist, I find that it is what is the most scary thing: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trump-administration-restricts-news-from-federal-scientists-at-usda-epa/ This is a dangerous path. Of course, a lot of you don't care about the subtle change and the erosion of your democracy, as long it is strengthening the economy in the sort term.

Cardboard as an example, take safety requirements in cars, they have probably advanced much more rapidly because of regulations. Market will optimize cashflow, not other externalities if they are not priced right. This is the same for greenhouse gas. I am not asking the governement to decide everything, but we can agree that there is a cost to carbon that is payed by the whole society or postponed in the future while some are piling cash now. There is a way to correct this to account for the failure in this blinded capitalism using a corrected cost. It is the same that we should do to protect biodiversity from which we all benefit, make sure that if you do damage, you take into account the cost. I just don't believe that a total free market optimize the good thing. This is my worry about pipeline owners, as well as the fact that in the end, greenhouse gas will have non-linear consequences where it is much more profitable to remove them faster. If you just look at the current expenses side, you could conclude that market will be right, but those doesn't take into account future expenses that could be larger in the free market scenario than in the corrected market scenario. And I still think that we are playing a dangerous experiment, because we have a tendency to let things go a little bit too far before we act (i.e. air pollution in China is a good example). Oh and once again, for the benefit of every readers, I don't want you to see it as a personal thing between Cardboard and me, I am sincerely worried about all this stuff and Cardboard enables me to have this interesting discussion on those topics that I think are fundamental in this century.

You could be right, but I still think that if you set the bar too low, people will just aim for that. Just ask them to reach some target and they will find a way to get there. Be flexible on the means, but more rigid on the target. And the more you invest in pipeline and oil extraction today, the less you have to invest elsewhere, so I am worried that the short term profit and after us the flood is driving the market more than anything else. Let's see what happens, but I will continue to advocate for a faster transition by igniting innovation and research based on science.

And climate change will remain a hoax...

I think this article should belong to this discussion: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/is-canada-setting-itself-up-for-a-pipeline-glut/article33603108/

No Cardboard, HQ lines at 735kV are AC. There is one DC line, but at 450kV. And as some have mentioned, Norway could be a big battery for Europe while Quebec will probably become one for NorthEast.

I think that the Pruitt nomination is worse, he will dismantle the EPA...http://insideevs.com/let-the-dismantling-begin-climate-change-denier-scott-pruitt-trumps-pick-for-new-epa-chief/

Alright, let's stop it here, instead of discussing the pros and cons of each provincial government policy over the years :) Really appreciate the fact that we can have a civilized discussion here even though we probably disagree on many things.

Thanks for you point of view. I still think Alberta, or Albertans should use the money they get from petrol to transition away from it while they have the money. It is what Trudeau is saying, but so far, what we have seen in Alberta is government sending back money to everyone, which will then burn it by buying new F150 for which they will need more oil, and so on...Meanwhile in Norway...

Well that's pretty condescending. I have a very deep science background, but I am also a pragmatist. Tell me Jeff, Do you have children? Do you drive any kind of car? Do you live in more than a one bedroom apartment? Do you fly? Do you drink coffee, eat food? In this world we need fossil fuels as we transition, and the need for fossil fuel based products will be with us a long time. Since Canada is uniquely suited as a provider of fossil fuels without the nasty social baggage of the mid east, and others, I think this is a good thing. And if you think turning over our energy security to someone else is a good thing then go live in the mideast, Nigeria, or Russia and see what life is like. And, we are reducing our footprint as we go, and rather rapidly. Ontario, like it or not has phased out coal power. The rest of the country is heading that way. Coal, if you read your science, Jeff, is the single largest contributor of greenhouse gases. Getting rid of this in favour of anything else is a step in the right direction. Oh, and then there is the issue of manufacturing, including steel, solar panels, and Teslas. It isn't solar that is providing the plastics, or energy, for these products. I dont know if you looked out the window today but there isn't alot of solar power going around right now, anywhere in Canada, and the Northern US. What works in southern climates is not necessarily the right thing for Canada, or the norhern US. Al, I'm sorry that it was perceived as condescending. English is not my first language and I can have some difficulties expressing strong ideas with the right tone. But I must admit that I am pretty tired to see some 1st degree analysis looking at really short term benefit on a value investing board where people should be able to think further than their little financial short terms benefit. People here are intelligent and it amazes me to see some weird view about climate change and environmental protection. And I must admit that Carboard doesn't show any tiny bit of understanding what is going on with climate change and it annoys me. When I hear about radical environmentalist and stuff like that, I always find that what is radical is to deny what is happening and keeping our head in the sand. Wanting a better world with less pollution and sustainable way of life dont appear radical to me! I must also admit Al that I really appreciate your contribution here and I do not challenge your background. To answer your question, we have one child, we live in a reasonably-sized townhouse in an urban area where we do shop locally most of the time, walking or biking. We commute by bus, metro and we have a car at home. It is a Chevrolet Volt, a plug-in hybrid which runs on both electricity and oil. Our electricity at home is provided by nearly 100% percent renewable energy. Yes we use energy, although I am always trying to increase our energy efficiency for our home and transportation, yes we do use some oil, and yes we travel by plane sometimes. I do offset all my transportation carbon footprint because of course, I still use some fossil fuels to live. I am not saying we don't use them and don't need them. They have been incredibly important and useful to humankind to get us where we are and I don't want to contest that. And I'm not saying the transition should be instantaneous. But I am trying to do the most I can to reduce my fossil fuel consumption and to accelerate the transition. The faster we will get out of fossil fuel, the better we will be. I just think that we should put a lot of energy as a specie to fight climate change and reduce our energy usage and transition to a post-fossil fuel world. I can not just accept that the transition will take time, I wish we could try altogether to accelerate it, because we don't have much time. The cost of inaction will be far greater than the cost of action, so why not put ou effort on this. I totally agree with you that it is not because a solution is good for a country or a region that is good for everyone. And of course we do not fossil fuels for plastic, but that is not the larger problem right now. In Canada, transportation is the largest contributor to our emissions, so I think that reducing our petrol consumption is a no-brainer. And concerning the pipelines, we do use less petroleum as a nation that what is produce already, so we don't need more. I am not asking to close the shop right now, but that is not possible to keep adding more and more production and emitting more and more greenhouse gas while we are also trying all we can to reduce our emissions. We will absolutely miss all the target and I am not really positive about staying under the already dangerous 2 degree Celsius limit. To quote Elon Musk, do we really want to do this big experiment, do we want to take that risk? Finally, concerning Canada and the Trudeau decision, a text in French for those who can read it that I mostly agree it and that summarize my thinking on this matter: http://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/1003083/trudeau-pipelines-extraction-avant-environnement-fillion And you know Al, and everyone, I would rather see Canadiens putting some effort to reduce the demand instead of cutting the supply. A consequent carbon tax, real objectives like really increasing the mass transportation and active transport share, a fast switch to EVs lie in Norway where the market share is over 30%, getting rid of coal like Ontario is doing, etc. If we were really showing leadership, I could be less critical of this Trudeau decision. But still I think that we a limited amount of capital, we should put our money elsewhere than in pipelines that will be there for 50 years when we have to be out of oil at this time. Hi Jeff, I get you now. English is my first language, and I have trouble expressing things without being a pr*ck sometimes. I dont disagree with most of what you have said. In fact in principle I disagree with the pipe to the coast. I am okay with US Canada internal pipe to secure our energy futures while we transition. Not only do I disagree with a pipe to the west coast, but I think it is a terrible business decision. It will take years to get permitted, and built, and we, or whoever finances it, is taking a huge risk of ending up with a stranded asset. Its going to get caught up in court anyway, just like Keystone will get caught up in Nebraska. Alberta has just pushed forward the mothballing of coal fired power plants and is going to be paying the companies to not produce. How stupid is that? We certainly dont want to end up on the hook to pay a Kinder Morgan for decades not to move oil. In my opinion Mr. Trudeau is sort of middling as a leader but that is what you get with dynastic politics. Essentially, cabinet approved this as a vote getting measure in Alberta. They can say they tried to get it done, but then not actively facilitate it. And frankly, Alberta knows they have to reduce reliance on fossil fuels to mitigate this boom and bust cycle. However, I have no problem owning stock in fossil fuel companies. It is a product we still need, and use in multiple ways. I also hold stock in two companies that are actively involved in renewables. I am quite happy to part with my oil stocks when the writing is on the wall. Chances are the companies will have transitioned in the meantime to energy companies. And finally, my families footprint is huge, relative to yours. Would I like to reduce it? Absolutely, but it is easier said then done. Having an electric car would help but were not quite there yet. Heating is problematic. Any alternative to nat. gas is very expensive. Flying is another problem, entirely. The near future is not showing me a lightweight way to power planes. I think getting the world off coal for power production is a biggie. And I mean everyone. The world is heading that way anyway, but it could be accelerated. I wouldnt buy stock in a coal company these days regardless of the idiot PEs intentions. Nuff said, for now. Cheers, Al Thanks for this great answer Al. I agree about the way you say it, there is a huge risk of ending up with a stranded asset. Well said. What I don't like is that there are too many individuals still which don't get all of this. Governments know this, but they don't know how to act, they want to please everybody and they are most of the times lacking courage. About your footprint, I think you live in Ontario, right? In this case, your footprint is already going down with the coal that has been phased out! And you now have great incentives for EVs. But your electricity is really more costly than here in Quebec and you pay your gas a little bit cheaper so it will take more time to make sense financially. Concerning heating, here we use clean electricity also while you are using nat gas. But adding insulation and caulking to reduce air leaks can offer really good return. The easiest is to insulate your attic. Look at this! Concerning investment, while I won't invest directly into oil and gas stocks, I still have some exposure through GM shares and warrants and ATD.B, a big oil retailer. But I don't like natural ressources and I am not confortable being invested directly in oil and gas. Oh and finally, Cardboard, I just want to say that I think you are a good investor and an intelligent guy, nothing against you personnaly. It just really annoys me that a guy like cannot even admit that climate change is a threat and that risk has to be considered. I don't want to take that risk, and I would like you to open your mind about this instead of rejecting your responsability about future generations. We can live with really good standard of living without putting all our eggs in the oil and gas basket, no? And about Game of Thrones, that wasn't the topic at all, but those books are a very good analogy with climate change. Everybody is fighting and not paying attention to the real danger, north of the wall, even if there are many warning signs. Food for thought!

Well that's pretty condescending. I have a very deep science background, but I am also a pragmatist. Tell me Jeff, Do you have children? Do you drive any kind of car? Do you live in more than a one bedroom apartment? Do you fly? Do you drink coffee, eat food? In this world we need fossil fuels as we transition, and the need for fossil fuel based products will be with us a long time. Since Canada is uniquely suited as a provider of fossil fuels without the nasty social baggage of the mid east, and others, I think this is a good thing. And if you think turning over our energy security to someone else is a good thing then go live in the mideast, Nigeria, or Russia and see what life is like. And, we are reducing our footprint as we go, and rather rapidly. Ontario, like it or not has phased out coal power. The rest of the country is heading that way. Coal, if you read your science, Jeff, is the single largest contributor of greenhouse gases. Getting rid of this in favour of anything else is a step in the right direction. Oh, and then there is the issue of manufacturing, including steel, solar panels, and Teslas. It isn't solar that is providing the plastics, or energy, for these products. I dont know if you looked out the window today but there isn't alot of solar power going around right now, anywhere in Canada, and the Northern US. What works in southern climates is not necessarily the right thing for Canada, or the norhern US. Al, I'm sorry that it was perceived as condescending. English is not my first language and I can have some difficulties expressing strong ideas with the right tone. But I must admit that I am pretty tired to see some 1st degree analysis looking at really short term benefit on a value investing board where people should be able to think further than their little financial short terms benefit. People here are intelligent and it amazes me to see some weird view about climate change and environmental protection. And I must admit that Carboard doesn't show any tiny bit of understanding what is going on with climate change and it annoys me. When I hear about radical environmentalist and stuff like that, I always find that what is radical is to deny what is happening and keeping our head in the sand. Wanting a better world with less pollution and sustainable way of life dont appear radical to me! I must also admit Al that I really appreciate your contribution here and I do not challenge your background. To answer your question, we have one child, we live in a reasonably-sized townhouse in an urban area where we do shop locally most of the time, walking or biking. We commute by bus, metro and we have a car at home. It is a Chevrolet Volt, a plug-in hybrid which runs on both electricity and oil. Our electricity at home is provided by nearly 100% percent renewable energy. Yes we use energy, although I am always trying to increase our energy efficiency for our home and transportation, yes we do use some oil, and yes we travel by plane sometimes. I do offset all my transportation carbon footprint because of course, I still use some fossil fuels to live. I am not saying we don't use them and don't need them. They have been incredibly important and useful to humankind to get us where we are and I don't want to contest that. And I'm not saying the transition should be instantaneous. But I am trying to do the most I can to reduce my fossil fuel consumption and to accelerate the transition. The faster we will get out of fossil fuel, the better we will be. I just think that we should put a lot of energy as a specie to fight climate change and reduce our energy usage and transition to a post-fossil fuel world. I can not just accept that the transition will take time, I wish we could try altogether to accelerate it, because we don't have much time. The cost of inaction will be far greater than the cost of action, so why not put ou effort on this. I totally agree with you that it is not because a solution is good for a country or a region that is good for everyone. And of course we do need fossil fuels for plastic, but that is not the larger problem right now. In Canada, transportation is the largest contributor to our emissions, so I think that reducing our petrol consumption is a no-brainer. And concerning the pipelines, we do use less petroleum as a nation that what is produce already, so we don't need more. I am not asking to close the shop right now, but that is not possible to keep adding more and more production and emitting more and more greenhouse gas while we are also trying all we can to reduce our emissions. We will absolutely miss all the target and I am not really positive about staying under the already dangerous 2 degree Celsius limit. To quote Elon Musk, do we really want to do this big experiment, do we want to take that risk? Finally, concerning Canada and the Trudeau decision, a text in French for those who can read it that I mostly agree it and that summarize my thinking on this matter: http://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/1003083/trudeau-pipelines-extraction-avant-environnement-fillion And you know Al, and everyone, I would rather see Canadiens putting some effort to reduce the demand instead of cutting the supply. A consequent carbon tax, real objectives like really increasing the mass transportation and active transport share, a fast switch to EVs like in Norway where the market share is over 30%, getting rid of coal like Ontario is doing, etc. If we were really showing leadership, I could be less critical of this Trudeau decision. But still I think that we a limited amount of capital, we should put our money elsewhere than in pipelines that will be there for 50 years when we have to be out of oil at this time.

Sad day for Canada and the planet...how can we reduce our GHG emission if we keep adding pipeline and increasing tar sands production? Honestly, you guys are really shortsighted..do you have any background in science at all? I agree to keep existing pipelines, but I must admit that I find it ridiculous to add any. It is so much capital invested in something that we need to get rid of. At least it is better than the Conservatives who would have approved Northern Gateway also... I once again invite some of you to do some reading: http://www.skepticalscience.com/big-picture.html

All those value investors who admire Buffett, including many on this board, praising his integrity, are completely out of their mind by supporting a guy like Trump. I must admit that I am still completely shocked that someone can want a guy like this as a President. His knowledge on so many subjects are so thin and he bahaves like an impulsive teenager so often. USA is looking like a banana republic from the outside.