This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Today, we talked mostly about provincial revenues from natural resources. I’ll be back with Ian next week to talk about BC Ferries. You can listen at the CFAX 1070 website or here:
Categories: CFAX 1070 - Jessop & Farrell
 | Dan Schubart on Hollow words, and deep down we… |
 | porterg02 on Hollow words, and deep down we… |
 | e.a.f. on Woke is not a slur |
 | randyhadland on Woke is not a slur |
 | Erik on Overtaxed or underserved? |
 | Evil Eye on Overtaxed or underserved? |
| Erik on Overtaxed or underserved? |
 | Tim on Overtaxed or underserved? |
| e.a.f. on Trans Mountain: A $35+ billion… |
| e.a.f. on Overtaxed or underserved? |
| e.a.f. on Overtaxed or underserved? |
| Erik on Overtaxed or underserved? |
IN-SIGHTS 
Fascinating to hear about the BC investment portfolio. I don’t agree with your comments about marijuana and sex trade (if legal corporate investment) but regardless, how can you invest in a corporate product that you are currently suing? Ethics should be a central point of such a provincial government organization. The weapons trade is another example. Depressing that funds managers are such amoral individuals. I am reminded of a quote by a 1960s advertising executive who was Jewish. The gist of which was, “if the money was right, I would devise campaigns to sell you on the idea that NAZI Airlines were a great airline to fly”.
LikeLike
You're right. My comment about drugs and sex trade was tortured. I was trying to say that, just because something is legally possible and capable of offering a high return, doesn''t mean it is appropriate for investment of public funds. Your example of the advertising agent is better.
LikeLike