Canadian companies overseas

guyser · November 28, 2014

This is what I posted. "It s up to the countries to catch a prosecute them. Canada should do nothing."

FOr the most part true, unless its particularly egregious. If we heara bout it, we prosecute if it is a criminal act in this country as well.

Where in that sentence I am saying that Canada does nothing now? Answer is no where.

Canada does, and more importantly Canada should prosecute their own .

Moonbox · November 29, 2014

You don't think it would be terrifying to live under a dictator that was being supported by powerful countries and interests located half way around the other side of the planet, you can't encompass that within the definition of terrorism, given all the other things the term is applied to?

Sure, if that's what's specifically happening. Unfortunately, the leaps in logic you make to suggest that a company investing in a foreign country's economy makes all of its shareholders complicit in any crimes its dictator may or may not commit are 100% irrational.

Really. So what do you think Jesus would do?

He would probably tell you to take off your tinfoil hat.

And yes if you really wanted to you could follow the data in the bar-code and find answers to all the other little details you asked about.

Again, I'll ask you, would this be a reasonable thing to do, given the effort required and the size of the purchase?

The certification is something consumers are increasingly demanding and in which many markets it is becoming difficult to sell without. The process can be intrusive and expensive including monitoring cameras, human observers, validators and auditors.

Sure, but in the end all the consumer has is the certificate. He just has to trust that it's legitimate and hope that food inspection agencies are doing their job.

Well, as you probably know, I think citizens in democracies are complicit in the crimes committed by dictators they support so why should I regard shareholders of similarly complicit corporations any differently?

I'm well aware of your nutty thoughts and paranoid beliefs. In discussing this with you I'm merely trying to see if they are the product of colossal ignorance or a purely irrational mind.

Your tepid regard for accountability is about on par with what I'd expect from a shareholder. I remember when fishermen were told to take it or stay tied up.

Oooh! Shareholder! There's that big scary word that eyeball doesn't understand again. Careful everyone! A shareholder might get you while you're sleeping!

eyeball · November 30, 2014

I'm well aware of your nutty thoughts and paranoid beliefs. In discussing this with you I'm merely trying to see if they are the product of colossal ignorance or a purely irrational mind.

Yep, I regard your's as being the result of some sort of deficit too. Oh well, par for course these days.

Moonbox · December 1, 2014

Yep, I regard your's as being the result of some sort of deficit too. Oh well, par for course these days.

Sure, okay. Given your demented world views, I have to take that as a compliment.

You still have answered me though. Is it reasonable to expect a consumer to track a fish purchased at the supermarket all the way back down the supply chain to the catch itself prior to serving it for dinner? Would a $10 purchase justify that sort of effort?

eyeball · December 1, 2014

No, but it would be entirely possible because the means to do so exists.

Can you account for where all your profits came from, assuming you even wanted to know? Were they derived ethically and in a manner that is ecologically sustainable? Is it reasonable to expect people would rather plead ignorance than give up those profits?

Moonbox · December 1, 2014

No, but it would be entirely possible because the means to do so exists.

That's the remarkable part of our system of law. It's not based on what's possible in the literal sense, it's based on what's reasonable. It's not reasonable/feasible for the end consumer to know who caught the fish, who cut the fish up, who packaged it, delivered it and whether it was kept refrigerated at the proper temperature. It doesn't matter that it's possible in the most literal sense, if a consumer wanted to do that the fish would spoil before it was ever served. The Law, therefore, would never hold this consumer liable for serving fish that was contaminated somewhere from catch to grocery store.

Can you account for where all your profits came from, assuming you even wanted to know? Were they derived ethically and in a manner that is ecologically sustainable? Is it reasonable to expect people would rather plead ignorance than give up those profits?

As a shareholder, I have only the faintest notion of where my profits are coming from, much like a grocery store customer has only the faintest of notion of where their food comes from. The reasons for both are virtually identical. The information is not readily available to the average consumer/shareholder and the effort required to get it would be unreasonable. Also, for large corporations with thousands of employees, the information would be so vast and complex that the average shareholder couldn't hope to understand it. Even CEOs need teams of people to keep track of all the goings-on. How is a shareholder with $10,000 invested going to be able to? He's not.

Edited December 1, 2014 by Moonbox

eyeball · December 1, 2014

That's the remarkable part of our system of law. It's not based on what's possible in the literal sense, it's based on what's reasonable. It's not reasonable/feasible for the end consumer to know who caught the fish, who cut the fish up, who packaged it, delivered it and whether it was kept refrigerated at the proper temperature.

Except it is feasible. It may not be practical but it's not impossible. The only remarkable thing is that you still don't/won't/can/t get that.

Don't try to tell me a process that accounts for an investment that leaves both a paper and a digital trail is unattainable.

As a shareholder, I have only the faintest notion of where my profits are coming from, much like a grocery store customer has only the faintest of notion of where their food comes from. The reasons for both are virtually identical. The information is not readily available to the average consumer/shareholder and the effort required to get it would be unreasonable. Also, for large corporations with thousands of employees, the information would be so vast and complex that the average shareholder couldn't hope to understand it. Even CEOs need teams of people to keep track of all the goings-on. How is a shareholder with $10,000 invested going to be able to? He's not.

Yes, you keep trying to reiterate that you're a poor ignorant shareholder that doesn't have a clue, I get that. The point is you can go get a clue if you really want or need too. If it's not feasible or practical to determine which of your investments support dictatorships then we shouldn't allow those investments to be made in the first place.

If my fishing activities can't be accounted for I'm not allowed to fish it's that simple. Too bad so sad? Well that's how I feel about people who want to profit from investments that are only profitable because they can be made on the backs of oppressed people and degraded environments. I mean, the fact you're in here defending and extolling the virtues of remaining ignorant of these things rather then just outright denying them kinda suggests you do know these sorts of things happen but that you just don't give a damn.

Edited December 1, 2014 by eyeball

Moonbox · December 1, 2014

Except it is feasible. It may not be practical but it's not impossible.

Look up the definition of 'feasible'. Obviously you don't understand it, along with a great many other things.

Don't try to tell me a process that accounts for an investment that leaves both a paper and a digital trail is unattainable.

I didn't say that. I said for practical purposes (as in actually doing it, rather than talking about whether it's possible), it would be so onerous and time-consuming that it might as well be impossible. Assuming you even had the education to understand a large corporation's books, the quantity of information would be so overwhelming that you'd never get through it on your own. That's why it usually takes a team of professional accountants to audit big corporate reports. Also, things like, "Bribed local official" or "Slush fund for foreign exploitation" are not usually items you'd find in this material.

Yes, you keep trying to reiterate that you're a poor ignorant shareholder that doesn't have a clue, I get that. The point is you can go get a clue if you really want or need too. If it's not feasible or practical to determine which of your investments support dictatorships then we shouldn't allow those investments to be made in the first place.

It's not feasible for the average shareholder. It is feasible for government and large auditing firms. Only they have the immense resources required to investigate this sort of thing. Even then, it's not certain that they'd always catch it. Regardless, individual shareholders invest with the (hopeful) assurances that auditors and lawmakers are doing their jobs.

If my fishing activities can't be accounted for I'm not allowed to fish it's that simple. Too bad so sad? Well that's how I feel about people who want to profit from investments...

1) You can account for your fishing activities. The consumer at the grocery store buying your fish cannot be expected to.

2) A corporation and it's accountants/executives can account for its activities. The minor investors buying the stock cannot be expected to.

You've already admitted the validity of statement 1. Statement 2 follows the exact same logic and is no less valid. The only difference is that in your simple/goofy fishing world, words like corporation, shareholder and profit have some level of mystical villainy attached to them.

I mean, the fact you're in here defending and extolling the virtues of remaining ignorant of these things rather then just outright denying them kinda suggests you do know these sorts of things happen but that you just don't give a damn.

Another insane leap in logic. I wasn't defending the virtue of remaining ignorant. I was explaining what a shareholder can reasonably be expected to know based on a financial education and actual experience investing. Explaining this to someone whose panties are twisted in resentment for people who do have some money to invest was probably a waste of time. Dragging a net around in the water must not earn a great living. I'm sorry for that.

Edited December 1, 2014 by Moonbox

eyeball · December 2, 2014

Look up the definition of 'feasible'. Obviously you don't understand it, along with a great many other things.

fea·si·ble

ˈfēzəb(ə)l/

adjective

possible to do easily or conveniently.

"it is not feasible to put most finds from excavations on public display"

synonyms: practicable, practical, workable, achievable, attainable, realizable, viable, realistic, sensible, reasonable, within reason; More

antonyms: impractical

informal

likely; probable.

"the most feasible explanation"

Link

Do you see the word impossible? Are you blind to the words achievable, attainable and realizable?

I didn't say that. I said for practical purposes (as in actually doing it, rather than talking about whether it's possible), it would be so onerous and time-consuming that it might as well be impossible.

Exactly, you've done everything you can to imply how impossible it is without actually coming out and definitively stating that and then asking for me to get the definition straight. :lol:

$#!% &$$

Assuming you even had the education to understand a large corporation's books, the quantity of information would be so overwhelming that you'd never get through it on your own. That's why it usually takes a team of professional accountants to audit big corporate reports. Also, things like, "Bribed local official" or "Slush fund for foreign exploitation" are not usually items you'd find in this material.

Yeah, fishermen also said it couldn't done...so they told fishermen, "Okay, stay tied to the dock until it can be". So....a team of professionals, accountants and auditors were employed to help figure out how to do it. And lo and behold, it was attainable after all.

It's not feasible for the average shareholder. It is feasible for government and large auditing firms. Only they have the immense resources required to investigate this sort of thing. Even then, it's not certain that they'd always catch it. Regardless, individual shareholders invest with the (hopeful) assurances that auditors and lawmakers are doing their jobs.

Exactly. Just like I pointed out in the certification process that regulates my opportunity to make a profit.

1) You can account for your fishing activities. The consumer at the grocery store buying your fish cannot be expected to.

2) A corporation and it's accountants/executives can account for its activities. The minor investors buying the stock cannot be expected to.

Half correct on both counts. Consumers and investors are perfectly capable of finding out more should they choose to apply themselves along with some due diligence.

You've already admitted the validity of statement 1. Statement 2 follows the exact same logic and is no less valid. The only difference is that in your simple/goofy fishing world, words like corporation, shareholder and profit have some level of mystical villainy attached to them.

No, the difference is that when I can't account for my activities, when there are holes in the data that can't be explained, I can be stopped in my tracks. In your amoral/unethical investing world you just party on like it was 1999.

Another insane leap in logic. I wasn't defending the virtue of remaining ignorant. I was explaining what a shareholder can reasonably be expected to know based on a financial education and actual experience investing.

What shareholders can be reasonably expected to do is pay attention to the decades long persistence of news reports about the unethical wheeling and dealing going on between some of the companies they invest in and some of the nastiest dictatorships in the world. Instead it looks like they're still partying, saying meh, la la la and more or less talking down their snooty little noses like they had a clue to anyone who calls them on their bullshit.

Case in point...

Explaining this to someone whose panties are twisted in resentment for people who do have some money to invest was probably a waste of time.

Dragging a net around in the water must not earn a great living. I'm sorry for that.

It's a great living for the people, mostly corporations, who now own the quota but it's a much harder living now for the human beings actually doing the fishing. As I've pointed out before, perhaps you were singing la la la at the time, the most secretive least transparent process in my goofy fishing world is the one in which the quotas of a public resource are privatized, allocated and doled out.

You're sorry for that turn of events? I call bullshit. Everything I've seen of your character, or lack thereof, suggests to me you're probably pumping a fist or two.

Edited December 2, 2014 by eyeball

Moonbox · December 2, 2014

Do you see the word impossible? Are you blind to the words achievable, attainable and realizable?

Literally the FIRST definition given in your own freaking quote tells you exactly what the word means. You're so clueless you didn't even see that. Un-freaking-believable.

Exactly. Just like I pointed out in the certification process that regulates my opportunity to make a profit.

Okay, well what about the restaurant manager who buys the fish? Is he expected to research each fish he buys all the way back to the original catch? He's making a profit too, right!?

Half correct on both counts. Consumers and investors are perfectly capable of finding out more should they choose to apply themselves along with some due diligence.

Find out more? Sure. Enough to have a detailed and full understanding? No. They're perhaps capable in the very strictest and most literal sense. The idea is completely insane, however, in a practical and realistic sense.

No, the difference is that when I can't account for my activities, when there are holes in the data that can't be explained, I can be stopped in my tracks. In your amoral/unethical investing world you just party on like it was 1999.

Except my investments aren't my activities, or my livelihood. They are simply places I put money that I've earned and would like to save and see grow for my retirement.

What shareholders can be reasonably expected to do is pay attention to the decades long persistence of news reports about the unethical wheeling and dealing going on between some of the companies they invest in and some of the nastiest dictatorships in the world.

No, that's what the regulators and the government are expected to do. They have the resources to actually investigate it. The average shareholder has a full-time job and a life and doesn't spend his time on websites like rabble.ca like you do.

Instead it looks like they're still partying, saying meh, la la la and more or less talking down their snooty little noses like they had a clue to anyone who calls them on their bullshit.

You get talked down to because you've made it painfully obvious that you have no idea what you're talking about and a lot of the stuff that you write is raving lunacy. Ignoring the fact that your suggestion to "arrest the shareholders" of Canadian mining companies is ridiculous based on pure justification alone, it would also require you arrest probably 10-20% of the population of Canada. Yeah.... :blink:

You're sorry for that turn of events? I call bullshit. Everything I've seen of your character, or lack thereof, suggests to me you're probably pumping a fist or two.

I thought my mockery was pretty obvious. Let me be more clear then. I think you are an angry person and are upset about how your life has turned out. Vague ideas like shareholders, corporations and profits are just vaguely defined bogeymen you've decided to blame it all on.

Edited December 2, 2014 by Moonbox

eyeball · December 2, 2014

Oh don't worry about your mockery it's as transparent as glass.

It's certainly not just water under the bridge but I'm pretty much over my own anger at how things turned out. I'm probably more astonished at how swiftly the process is unfolding across the rest of the economy and frustrated at how little resistance there is. I do have one grandchild and another on the way so...go figure.

Edited December 2, 2014 by eyeball

Moonbox · December 3, 2014

You're clearly not over it. You've suggested that 20-50% of the North American population needs to be arrested simply for the contents of their retirement savings plans. Such a statement doesn't just suggest you're angry/resentful. It shows you're hysterical.

Do your grandchildren a favor and encourage them to get an education and to save. Spare them your ignorance.

eyeball · December 4, 2014

I simply said that people who support dictators should be treated no differently than people who support terrorists and the same reason. From where I'm sitting you're the bigger threat to my grandchildren. Especially if your's are being raised up to think like you.

Bonam · December 4, 2014

From where I'm sitting you're the bigger threat to my grandchildren. Especially if your's are being raised up to think like you.

Anyone who doesn't agree that most of the population of North America should be arrested for saving for retirement is a threat to your grandchildren?

Moonbox · December 4, 2014

I simply said that people who support dictators should be treated no differently than people who support terrorists and the same reason.

You said, specifically:

You must have missed where I said we should arrest Canadian shareholders of these companies. A corporation is just a thing and it's the human beings directing them that matter.

Like I said, this would probably require arresting half the population of Canada, so the suggestion is literally insane from the start. What's even more insane is how you're trying to say the plumber going to an investment advisor to set up an RSP is essentially the same thing as a wiring money to Al-Quaeda.

From where I'm sitting you're the bigger threat to my grandchildren. Especially if your's are being raised up to think like you.

From where you're sitting 2 + 2 = 5 and mixing red paint with blue makes yellow. I'm sure you see threats everywhere, including under your bed.

Edited December 9, 2014 by Moonbox

jacee · January 3, 2015

World Bank's Corrupt Companies Blacklist Dominated By Canada

Of the more than 600 companies now listed as barred from doing business with the World Bank over corruption, 117 are Canadian, the most of any one country. And of those, 115 represent SNC-Lavalin and its subsidiaries, the Financial Post reports.

...

After Canadas 117 listed companies, the U.S. is in second place, with 46 listed. Thats followed by Indonesia (43 firms) and Britain (40 firms).

Not so lily-white Canada.

Investigations and charges now in process.

Here at home ...

snc-lavalin-staff-donated-15k-to-conservative-nominee-

SNC-Lavalin is defending $15,000 in political donations made during the 2011 federal election to a Conservative candidate by at least 12 company executives and two family members even though at least one alleged donor says he was unaware any contribution was made in his name.

Edited January 3, 2015 by jacee

GostHacked · January 3, 2015

It's not up to us to police the world.

Yeah we leave that to the people south of the 49th.

GostHacked · January 3, 2015

Irrelevant. We don't admonish people for acting badly during spring break in other countries. So the same should be with companies. Bottom line is that it's up to the countries to police things that occur within their own borders. Canada cannot control what goes on within other sovereign nations. That's colonialism.

I believe that term has evolved into what we know as globalization. Through NGOs the will of a nation can be used as pressure on another nation.

GostHacked · January 3, 2015

Of course it does, because it can have business implications within Canada. That doesn't mean that it's our responsibility to clean up corruption in other systems. In many places, that's simply the cost of doing business.

The cost of doing business in Bangladesh is awesome. Cheap labor, lax laws, building collapses killing factory workers. Just the cost of doing business I guess.

eyeball · January 3, 2015

I suppose it should be encouraging that someone is at least trying to blow a whistle here, even if it is the World Bank.

Maybe an outsider snuck inside.

GostHacked · January 3, 2015

You cannot have an agreement of this type between a democratic state with a free judiciary, and a dictatorship. It's not workable. Period. Chinese companies will be able to use the Canadian courts to get their way, for Canadian courts will base decision on the agreement on law. Chinese courts will do whatever their government tells them to do. Canadian companies would have to get Ottawa to appeal to an international panel - after the Chinese courts, after much long delay, refuse them, then the Chinese will delay an international tribunal hearing as long as possible, then appeal the decision if they don't like it. By the time any final decision is handed down many years will have passed, and then the Chinese will make noises like they respect it but fail to carry out the requirements. In the meantime, the company involved which dares to make noise will have been shut out of anything in China which requires government agreement, licenses, cooperation, etc. Which basically means anything. So such companies will largely remain silent. The Chinese government signs international agreements all the time and then blatantly ignores them.

These are good points. And it was something brought up in another thread regarding China. They cannot reciprocate because they have a different judicial system. Gov tells the corps what to do, here we have the corps telling our gov what to do.

GostHacked · January 3, 2015

I suppose it should be encouraging that someone is at least trying to blow a whistle here, even if it is the World Bank.

Maybe an outsider snuck inside.

Or they are trying to distract us from their wrongdoings. Nice to see bankers and corps going after each other.

eyeball · January 3, 2015

I guess so, it seems a little like watching priests and churches going after each other though.

GostHacked · January 3, 2015

I guess so, it seems a little like watching priests and churches going after each other though.

If it exposes some of the crap that has systematically kept hidden by all parties involved, I can only see it as a good thing they are calling each other out, at the risk of themselves. Seems desperate though.