The case for Canada

[msj]

I read this a couple of days ago as a subscriber to David Rosenberg's email list.

It's such good reading it made the Globe and Mail today.

Interesting about the relationship between Canadian and US markets and the role of commodities.

Even more interesting is the look at commodities prices.

I have seen people misunderstand "peak oil" on these forums in the past and I think Rosenberg gives a good visual of what it really means: that prices stay relatively elevated even in a world recession thanks to supply and demand shifts.

Of course, given the deflation that Rosenberg says we're in, we will have to see to what extent this pattern holds.

We have heard "it's different this time" before - in fact, many were exuberantly cheering this mantra through both the tech bubble and the housing bubble from the mid-90's right through to the beginning of 2008.

For Canada's sake, let's hope the floor in commodities prices has been set.

[eyeball]

On the supply side, we have a much more concentrated sector, with fewer players than in past cycles following the wave of global consolidation over the past decade, in particular.

I don't mean to pee on anyone's pancakes here but before we start concentrating all this wealth into even fewer hands we need to factor in the environment. I think we're going to find there are a lot more players than meet the eye. Our common property and the natural capital from which commodities are taken need greater consideration than before including the greater value being placed on things like preserving, mitigating, restoring these etc.

I think it is guranteed more people will be insisting that all the environmental costs of profiting from this next cycle be accounted for like never before.

[M.Dancer]

Or you can just take some of your own money and become a shareholder and party to the profits (or loses) ..and even better...as a shareholder you can vote like any other shareholder in the greatest democratic model there is, one vote per share.

[ReeferMadness]

Or you can just take some of your own money and become a shareholder and party to the profits (or loses) ..and even better...as a shareholder you can vote like any other shareholder in the greatest democratic model there is, one vote per share.

ah yes. 1$ - 1 vote. Truly democratic.

[eyeball]

Or you can just take some of your own money and become a shareholder and party to the profits (or loses) ..and even better...as a shareholder you can vote like any other shareholder in the greatest democratic model there is, one vote per share.

I'll pass thanks. I'd prefer to see the firms you have shares in be subject to environmental audits and full cost accounting to ensure the ecosystems you operate in can be adequately protected and properly restored.

There should be no reason whatsoever for the environment to take a loss and if it looks like it will then the operation should be shut down.

Edited October 7, 2009 by eyeball

[Riverwind]

I'll pass thanks. I'd prefer to see the firms you have shares in be subject to environmental audits and full cost accounting to ensure the ecosystems you operate in can be adequately protected and properly restored.

The trouble with your hobby horse is there is no way to quantify the intangibles which you care so much about. Obviously, some bureaucrat could pick some numbers out of the air and that would create the illusion of factoring into the intangibles but will not actually address the problem that you seek to solve - especially since other countries would have their own opinion on the cost of these intangibles and would pick different numbers that better suit their industries.

Environmental issues must be addressed specifically. For example, if a mine creates a tailings pond the cost of operation of the mine must include the cost of permanent safe disposal of the tailings. That is a cost that can be quantified and factored into business plans. The cost of the hypothetical impact of CO2 emssions 100 years from now is not quantifiable and not something that can be factored into business plans.

Edited October 7, 2009 by Riverwind

[eyeball]

The trouble with your hobby horse is there is no way to quantify the intangibles which you care so much about

.

Sure there is. Of course if you don't want to quantify them to start with you're only a step away from saying it can't be done.

Most economists still regard the Earth's environment as being external to our economy. I'd say that would probably be more accurate if we all lived on the Moon but c'mon, who do these people think they're fooling, besides themselves?

[JerrySeinfeld]

.

Sure there is. Of course if you don't want to quantify them to start with you're only a step away from saying it can't be done.

Most economists still regard the Earth's environment as being external to our economy. I'd say that would probably be more accurate if we all lived on the Moon but c'mon, who do these people think they're fooling, besides themselves?

|The fact that you believe the earth's resrouces are finite is enough reason to invest in commodities, don't you think?

[eyeball]

Well sure but wouldn't you like to know things like how much its going to cost to pay for things like restoring or waiting for the sink resources that absorb the waste from exploiting commodities?