Petronas and everything after -

Petronas and everything after


The Globe explains what precipitated Christian Paradis’ 11:57pm announcement on Friday night.

After a long stretch when the deal seemed to be on track, the transaction “came unglued” quite suddenly Friday after the federal government unexpectedly sought to extend talks, said one of the people. Behind the scenes, Petronas had made offers of concessions but was getting little feedback on what it would take to get the deal done, the person said, and was out of patience.

The government had already used up its chance to unilaterally extend talks, and by law could only continue the negotiations with Petronas beyond the deadline with the agreement of the Malaysian company. Petronas did not want to continue talking “indefinitely,” so it took the risk of demanding the federal government make a call, said a second person with knowledge of the situation.

The New Democrats are unimpressed.

“The lack of transparency is starting to reach new heights. Who releases such an important decision at midnight on a Friday? Someone who has something to hide and no way to explain,” Mulcair said.

All eyes now turn to the stock market.


Petronas and everything after

  1. And they call themselves “Conservatives”

    • Merriam-Webster – Conservative: tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions : traditional: marked by moderation or caution

    • Yep, and not a clue about how to do business. This is more the kind of stuff that makes you facepalm. Even a double facepalm

  2. Bastiat ~ That Which Is Seen ….

    In the department of economy, an act, a habit, an institution, a law, gives birth not only to an effect, but to a series of effects. Of these effects, the first only is immediate; it manifests itself simultaneously with its cause – it is seen. The others unfold in succession – they are not seen: it is well for us, if they are foreseen. Between a good and a bad economist this constitutes the whole difference – the one takes account of the visible effect; the other takes account both of the effects which are seen, and also of those which it is necessary to foresee.

    Now this difference is enormous, for it almost always happens that when the immediate consequence is favourable, the ultimate consequences are fatal, and the converse. Hence it follows that the bad economist pursues a small present good, which will be followed by a great evil to come, while the true economist pursues a great good to come, – at the risk of a small present evil.

    • So to follow your blog. I will buy Gold and silver, averaging down, however remove the metal (physical) away from the market.
      Storage isn’t a problem but having an asset that is based on value and not on Debt, would give a transportable trade-able known value and as the $US., the Worlds’ currency, loses value, propped up by the Government, at the expense of Mainstreet. Who profited from the collapse? Follow the money trail. People in positions of trust, when abusing this trust should become accountable to this trust, should go to jail..if found profiting from decisions they controlled, this illegal Act should be firm, to send not only a message but a start to making accountability the norm in peoples savings accounts that others control.

  3. Reason ~ The 4 Boneheaded Biases Of Stupid Voters:

    1) This was one of my first memorable encounters with anti-market bias, a tendency to underestimate the economic benefits of the market mechanism. The public has severe doubts about how much it can count on profit-seeking business to produce socially beneficial outcomes. People focus on the motives of business and neglect the discipline imposed by competition. While economists admit that profit maximization plus market imperfections can yield bad results, noneconomists tend to view successful greed as socially harmful per se.

    2) A shrewd businessman I know has long thought that everything wrong in the American economy could be solved with two expedients: 1) a naval blockade of Japan, and 2) a Berlin Wall at the Mexican border.

    Like most noneconomists, he suffers from anti-foreign bias, a tendency to underestimate the economic benefits of interaction with foreigners. Popular metaphors equate international trade with racing and warfare, so you might say that anti-foreign views are embedded in our language. Perhaps foreigners are sneakier, craftier, or greedier. Whatever the reason, they supposedly have a special power to exploit us.

  4. John Stuart Mill ~ I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.

    • Don’t hold back, lets hear what you really feel.