The Vancouver Business Thread

[retro_orange]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

.

...so Mr. moderator, Business?

[csbvan]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

Interesting timing. Petronas 36 billion lng project dead.

https://www.biv.com/article/2017/7/petronas-pulls-plug-pacific-northwest-lng-project/

Realistically, this project (and most of the other LNG proposals) have been dead for a while.

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by csbvan

Realistically, this project (and most of the other LNG proposals) have been dead for a while.

Why

[retro_orange]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

Why

The LNG projects were being merely strung along by paid news articles saying they were on track until election time when they gave up on that. Now they can (and likely will) pay for articles blaming the NDP for it's collapse.

Same old, same old.

[Caliplanner1]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

No, you literally said incoming capital inflows increase a country's money supply:



Not even once, but twice:



So yes, you did say that. You've been trying to spin it ever since, but that's what you said.

You then went on to say that you can buy a home in Canada without Canadian funds... Not sure where you fit that into your doctrine of Central banks controlling monetary policy? Needless to say you can't.



Bottom line is you were arrogant in your posting and flat out wrong yet still somehow refuse to admit it. Shouldn't you be more mature than this? weren't you a part time professor or something like that?

Also, I put the 'LOL' with a question mark because you keep using it. I don't understand what is so funny. It's really just kind of sad.

LOL...you're wasting my time. You must be very young and naive. When central banks need increased capital they do welcome foreign investment (money) inflows (whether in local or foreign currencies). You tell me why local banks can't/don't receive (foreign and local) monies that they eventually surrender to central bank coffers (to augment the national money supply). Also consider that foreign capital investment can take the form of GOVERNMENT SELLING BONDS ON THE INTERNATIONAL MONEY MARKET TO RAISE INVESTMENT CAPITAL (which also INCREASES the LOCAL MONEY SUPPLY)!

I'm "arrogant" because I have worked in the finance/planning sector (in-conjunction with central banks in a number of international jurisdictions). With that said, let me take the time to explain my point succinctly using the following analogy.

Think of the central bank as the gardener/poolman with his hand on the spigot (of a garden hose) to regulate/control the flow of water (re: money) into the pool (re: the economy)....with the ultimate capacity level of spigot's water flow being ultimately determined by how much water there is flowing into the reservoir/economy (as a function of rainfall levels/rates of desalinating the sea/the amount of subterranean ground-water to be had etc.) thus being the equivalent functions of: 1) government printing money, 2) expanding bank loans-both domestic ones and foreign based inflows, 3) international (money) capital/investment inflows.

Go read up on the role of central banks interacting with the IMF and World Bank when third world economies exhaust domestic foreign exchange reserves to see how and why they (re: the IMF/World Bank etc.) encourage increased foreign investment (money) inflows (over say government trying to print more money-which is deemed hyper inflationary if not stagflationary-which I argue can also happen even via foreign investment if local production doesn't keep pace etc.) before you open your mouth to confirm ignorance!

Enjoy the read: http://www.constitution.org/pd/gunning/issues/ipe/asfncris/shtmcpfl.htm

[Caliplanner1]

By-the-way.....for anyone with an interest in the ongoing discussion and the business of international finance, keep in mind that central banks can/do use local reserves of foreign currencies (as garnered from foreign money investment) to facilitate the buying of their own money currency (that is circulating on the international money market) if ever they seek to boost/strengthen the international (trading) value of their own national currencies (a move that invariably serves to increase the domestic money supply).

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by Caliplanner1

LOL...you're wasting my time. You must be very young and naive. When central banks need increased capital they do welcome foreign investment (money) inflows (whether in local or foreign currencies). You tell me why local banks can't/don't receive (foreign and local) monies that they eventually surrender to central bank coffers (to augment the national money supply). Also consider that foreign capital investment can take the form of GOVERNMENT SELLING BONDS ON THE INTERNATIONAL MONEY MARKET TO RAISE INVESTMENT CAPITAL (which also INCREASES the LOCAL MONEY SUPPLY)!

I'm "arrogant" because I have worked in the finance/planning sector (in-conjunction with central banks in a number of international jurisdictions). With that said, let me take the time to explain my point succinctly using the following analogy.

Think of the central bank as the gardener/poolman with his hand on the spigot (of a garden hose) to regulate/control the flow of water (re: money) into the pool (re: the economy)....with the ultimate capacity level of spigot's water flow being ultimately determined by how much water there is flowing into the reservoir/economy (as a function of rainfall levels/rates of desalinating the sea/the amount of subterranean ground-water to be had etc.) thus being the equivalent functions of: 1) government printing money, 2) expanding bank loans-both domestic ones and foreign based inflows, 3) international (money) capital/investment inflows.

Go read up on the role of central banks interacting with the IMF and World Bank when third world economies exhaust domestic foreign exchange reserves to see how and why they (re: the IMF/World Bank etc.) encourage increased foreign investment (money) inflows (over say government trying to print more money-which is deemed hyper inflationary if not stagflationary-which I argue can also happen even via foreign investment if local production doesn't keep pace etc.) before you open your mouth to confirm ignorance!

Enjoy the read: http://www.constitution.org/pd/gunning/issues/ipe/asfncris/shtmcpfl.htm

You just don't get it do you? There is no reservoir. There is no need for foreign capital to increase the money supply domestically. I don't know how old you are but the gold standard died a long time ago and money is now FIAT. The central bank raises or decreases the money supply as it sees fit. it doesn't need a stockpile of Yuan or Euros to print money. Jesus.

That article you quoted DIRECTLY PROVES MY POINT!

he Malaysian money supply, in its most basic form, consists of the face value of the paper and metal ringgits in circulation plus the deposits at banks that are available to depositors to be withdrawn or used to purchase goods on demand. When the American buys ringgits from a Malaysian, he does not increase the amount of ringgits in circulation. He merely causes ringgits to be transferred from some Malaysian's account to his own. And when he buys the stock from a Malaysian, he causes his ringgit to be transferred to the seller. This in no way causes the amount of ringgits in circulation to rise. Thus, his transaction does not directly effect the Malaysian money supply.

This is exactly what I have been saying and proves my point.

Now let's go back to what you said:

Originally Posted by Caliplanner1

Massive inflows of foreign investment funds serves to further increase the amount of available investment funds (re: supply of money) available within the Canadian banking system

See why you're wrong yet? It's tough not to since it's there in black and white, but I doubt you'll admit it.

Did you even read the whole article? the conclusion at the end literally says word for word that you are wrong:

There could have been no bubble if Malaysian bankers had not expanded the money supply. It may be true that the bankers were inexperienced and made a mistake in granting the new credit based on what they believed was a larger increase in Asian ownership of assets than in fact occurred. It is evident, however, that flows of short-term capital as between countries cannot, by themselves, cause a financial crisis. The proposition that they can is simplistic and incomplete.

And this was the article you supplied. You can't make this stuff up!

[Caliplanner1]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

You just don't get it do you? There is no reservoir. There is no need for foreign capital to increase the money supply domestically. I don't know how old you are but the gold standard died a long time ago and money is now FIAT. The central bank raises or decreases the money supply as it sees fit. it doesn't need a stockpile of Yuan or Euros to print money. Jesus.

That article you quoted DIRECTLY PROVES MY POINT!



This is exactly what I have been saying and proves my point.

Now let's go back to what you said:



See why you're wrong yet? It's tough not to since it's there in black and white, but I doubt you'll admit it.

Did you even read the whole article? the conclusion at the end literally says word for word that you are wrong:



And this was the article you supplied. You can't make this stuff up!

If you noticed the article said that foreign investment had an INDIRECT IMPACT on domestic money supply....I however explained the contrary....that central banks do use foreign reserves to buy up their own currencies world wide so as to prop the value of their respective money...the result being a potential increase in the domestic money supply (which is held by the bank). Whether or not that (money supply) increase is released into the economy is the decision of the respective government policy makers/finance minister etc. in conjunction with the central bank governor.

You are so right wing in your opposition to my arguments that you become blind by the simple logic. You CANNOT have economic growth without an increase in the money supply (e.g. via direct foreign investment- FDI). I'm sure other forumites see your silliness! Keep reading....this time from Harvard Business School: http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%2...dc85d0a4-4964-4c2f-8d8b-2bc3b2b79e0d.pdf

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by Caliplanner1

If you noticed the article said that foreign investment had an INDIRECT IMPACT on domestic money supply....I however explained the contrary....that central banks do use foreign reserves to buy up their own currencies world wide so as to prop the value of their respective money...the result being a potential increase in the domestic money supply (which is held by the bank). Whether or not that (money supply) increase is released into the economy is the decision of the respective government policy makers/finance minister etc. in conjunction with the central bank governor.

No, it postulated that it may, but concluded by saying it didn't. Clearly you couldn't be bothered to read to the end of the article YOU POSTED.

And you didn't explain anything. You gave an incorrect analogy of needing foreign reserves to back increases in the money supply when that is not at all how quantitative easing works. QE or an increase in the money supply happens when the central bank buys up bonds with domestic currency to increase the money supply. I literally CAN'T do that with foreign currency.

Using foreign reserves to buy up domestic reserves abroad merely debits a liability on the central banks balance sheets and is not needed to increase money supply. It does help negate the exchange rate effects of QE, but that is not the same as what you are saying at all.

Originally Posted by Caliplanner1

You are so right wing in your opposition to my arguments that you become blind by the simple logic. I'm sure other forumites see your silliness!

Right wing?

What in the world does this have to do with politics? This is basic economic theory. Don't drag your US partisan nonsense into this.

Geez, talk about grasping at straws, I'm not even right leaning.

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by Caliplanner1

I'm sure other forumites see your silliness! Keep reading....this time from Harvard Business School: http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%2...dc85d0a4-4964-4c2f-8d8b-2bc3b2b79e0d.pdf

I see you edited your post.

Why do I need to keep reading when you can't even be bothered to read the articles you post to supposedly help your argument.

I'm done with this. You posted an article that literally black and white said you were wrong, then you ignore it keep trying to shift the narrative. Your original point was that foreign inflows of capital directly affect the money supply, then it was that it indirectly affects the money supply, now your linking to how FDI affects the economy.

At this juncture I've made my point, you have no idea what you are talking about.

But keep thinking your bought your house in Canada directly with USD then claim to be an economics expert....

[Caliplanner1]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

I see you edited your post.

Why do I need to keep reading when you can't even be bothered to read the articles you post to supposedly help your argument.

I'm done with this. You posted an article that literally black and white said you were wrong, then you ignore it keep trying to shift the narrative.

At this juncture I've made my point, you have no idea what you are talking about.

But keep thinking your bought your house in Canada directly with USD then claim to be an economics expert....

I read the article, understood its weakness, explain in the following post conditions whereby foreign monies can be used to increase domestic money supply...all because as a scholar of development planning I'm not sending you articles with which to learn but rather with which to EDUCATE YOU! Don't get it twisted,...we are not on the same plain/level here!

By-the-way son,...how do you know that I didn't directly pay a local friend (U.S. cash) for my dwelling (in return for a title)?? You assume a lot!

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by Caliplanner1

Don't get it twisted,...we are not on the same plain/level here!

I can tell tings have run their course here as you're starting to resort to some petty discourse.

I have been posting on this site for many many years and will let the others of this site form their own opinions of who was correct and who continually tried to manipulate what was being discussed.

Oh and by the way, it's "the same plane", but I'm sure as the most educated person on this forum you already knew that...

Originally Posted by Caliplanner1

By-the-way son,...how do you know that I didn't pay a local friend (cash) for my dwelling?? You assume a lot!

because you said this:

Originally Posted by Caliplanner1

because foreign investors may not necessarily buy a home with Canadian funds. I for one as an American invested American dollars here in Canada (not Canadian dollars).

Why would your entire point rest on a one off example where someone buys a home off their friend in pure foreign cash?

You clearly thought foreign reserves entered the money supply directly and you've spent the better part of 30 posts to try and spin it otherwise.

Honestly, you can't hide from what you said so I don't know why you bother.

Like I said this has run its course and I'm done here.

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by retro_orange

The LNG projects were being merely strung along by paid news articles saying they were on track until election time when they gave up on that. Now they can (and likely will) pay for articles blaming the NDP for it's collapse.

Same old, same old.

That doesn't make any sense. Seems more likely that the lng companies don't want to deal with the headache of the ndp and would rather go elsewhere

[Caliplanner1]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

I can tell tings have run their course here as you're starting to resort to some petty discourse.

I have been posting on this site for many many years and will let the others of this site form their own opinions of who was correct and who continually tried to manipulate what was being discussed.

Oh and by the way, it's "the same plane", but I'm sure as teh most educated person on this forum you already knew that...



because you said this:

Why would your entire point rest on a one off example where someone buys a home off their friend in pure foreign cash?

Honestly, you can't hide from what you said so I don't know why you bother.

Like I said this has run its course and I'm done here.

My entire post didn't rest on my acquisition of property using U.S. dollars. I simply explained using an example of how the domestic money supply can be increased via foreign induced/international trade. I know of instances whereby business folks have actually bought Canadian dollars cheaply abroad so as to inject/invest (such local money) more profitably in Canada.

However, you're correct...this discourse has run its course. Good luck with your narrow understanding of the topic!

[csbvan]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

That doesn't make any sense. Seems more likely that the lng companies don't want to deal with the headache of the ndp and would rather go elsewhere

No, that doesn't make any sense.

You wouldn't invest that much money into a project with multi-decadal revenue aspirations and then throw it all away because a new government is brought into power who has not even proposed changing anything the regulatory environment, and may not even last 4 years. Christ people believe the most naive things.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by csbvan

No, that doesn't make any sense.

You wouldn't invest that much money into a project with multi-decadal revenue aspirations and then throw it all away because a new government is brought into power who has not even proposed changing anything the regulatory environment, and may not even last 4 years. Christ people believe the most naive things.

We call them "low information voters".

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by Caliplanner1

My entire post didn't rest on my acquisition of property using U.S. dollars. I simply explained using an example of how the domestic money supply can be increased via foreign induced/international trade.

So the entire domestic money supply is being increased via guys buying houses in cash from their friends. That was your example as to how this could happen?

Right.

Best of all in your example the money that traded hands is still foreign denominated so it hasn't affected the money supply!

Originally Posted by Caliplanner1

However, you're correct...this discourse has run its course. Good luck with your narrow understanding of the topic!

And best of luck to you in having meaningful interactions with others when you can't prove your point so resort to childish discourse.

You come off really well here....

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

We call them "low information voters".

Yea much less plausible with what retro orange said

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by csbvan

No, that doesn't make any sense.

You wouldn't invest that much money into a project with multi-decadal revenue aspirations and then throw it all away because a new government is brought into power who has not even proposed changing anything the regulatory environment, and may not even last 4 years. Christ people believe the most naive things.

"Multi-decadal"?

Ugh. I was echoing what was brought up in the article. And responding to retro orange comment

And back to your original comment. Why do you say this and other lng projects have been dead for awhile?

[Caliplanner1]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

So the entire domestic money supply is being increased via guys buying houses in cash from their friends. That was your example as to how this could happen?

Right.

Best of all in your example the money that traded hands is still foreign denominated so it hasn't affected the money supply!



And best of luck to you in having meaningful interactions with others when you can't prove your point so resort to childish discourse.

You come off really well here....

By-the-way...since you have not challenged the rational argument that bank loans do expand the domestic money supply,...do you realize that Canadian banks do extend loans to (many) dual citizens (many of whom,...like myself/family/friends) are granted such loans on the strength of our foreign income/foreign based assets and foreign earned assets brought into Canada as collateral (re: foreign investment inflows) etc.???