tleb comments on Poilievre wants Carney to cash out blind trust, says ethics screens insufficient

Rather than having a fire sale (selling all investments, which implies in the short term), the trustee sells and buys investments as he sees fit without consulting the owner. It's just Poilievre adding a step that seems obvious to the ignorant and harms the person he's attacking.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[+] teppa@piefed.ca 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

[deleted]

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

I don't know how Carney was managing his investments previously, and switching to a different fund has the same issues I raised before, but ask yourself this question. How is this more relevant for Carney than all the other politicians, and why are these demands being made of only him? I'm don't have a problem with limits on how politicians invest, but I expect the investment advantages are similar for most politicians at a given level of politics, especially for the senior politicians. So why is Poilievre banging on this drum, and not broader anti-corruption measures?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[+] teppa@piefed.ca 1 point 1 year ago* (3 children)

[deleted]

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

So we should stop having politicians from having investments in housing, right?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[+] teppa@piefed.ca 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

[deleted]

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 1 point 1 year ago

Well, there's nothing stopping Poilievre and his wife from selling the rental properties they own, which should help remove some conflict of interest they may have in this issue which is so important to many Canadians, and he doesn't even have to get the approval of anyone but his wife to make it happen (and that only for one of them).

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] Ulrich_the_Old@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago

google is free.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] patatas@sh.itjust.works -3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

I don't like that I agree with Poilievre here.

But it's unclear what the vesting schedule for Carney's Brookfield stock options is. Meaning that whoever is administering the 'blind' trust may not even have the ability to decide whether to exercise those options while Carney is in office.

I can't see how that's not a problem tbh

Edit: if you're gonna downvote this, then go ahead and tell everyone what a vesting schedule is, and what the vesting schedule for Carney's stock options is. I'll wait.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[+] NSAbot@lemmy.ca 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

[deleted]

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] patatas@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago*

Carney could, for instance, sign away any future claim to them.

At the very least, Canadians deserve to know what the vesting schedule is. But he's a rich man already. If he was really in politics for the greater good (doubtful!), and if he cared about not having conflicts of interest or even appearing not to (also doubtful!), then he'd have zero qualms about giving up these Brookfield options.

Instead, he gets mad at anyone who questions the arrangement, and continues to push projects in sectors that Brookfield is heavily invested in.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent