whoisyourpaddy:

well, now I know what I’m doing every time a car alarm goes off

(Source: merakiandmelaninblooms)

xsista:

I was helping my little brother

Where the fuck does jack come from

The most accurate representation of math I’ve seen yet.

S(jack) ε [0,∞)

(Source: spoopypoops)

Not wanting to do the readings + not wanting to fall behind = listening to the audio book

I look alright today

reblog if you want anonymous opinions of you

(Source: deathology)

Anonymous asked:
Thanks for clearing that up! I was just asking honestly. I don't have time to verify it but at least that's hopeful seeing as this FIPA thing is a done deal. Reminds me of Mulrooney and the NAFTA though.

Fair enough, sorry to come off as snarky I’m just so used to people coming on anon and being dicks (pesky vegans some number of months ago). Plus, tone is hard to read on the internet.

And yeah, FIPA is not necessarily a GREAT thing, but the fact is it’s gone through and we just have to hope the benefits outweigh the negatives of the situation.

But the fact that people are freaking out about “China can SUE CANADA FOR ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES” or any “loss of sovereignty” are almost entirely unfounded. 

I’m not going to claim to be an expert on foreign affairs or legal documents but it just sounds to me that FIPA is a document saying that Canada promises to treat Chinese businesses operating in Canada the exact same as Canadian businesses.

And I guess from here, it’s time to see what kind of 30 year investments China has in store.

From a Maclean’s article;

"So the first point I want to make here is that capital flows are the obverse side of trade flows. It makes no sense to claim to be in favour of international trade but against international flows of capital. You can’t have trade flows without corresponding flows of capital.

As it happens, Canada runs a fairly large trade deficit with China: roughly $30 billion per year. This means that as far as China is concerned, trade with Canada is essentially a matter of them accumulating large amounts of Canadian assets.

Once you realise that capital flows are essentially the same thing as trade flows, the logic behind FIPAs become clear. Countries that are exporting goods in return for assets can reasonably expect to ask that these assets won’t be effectively expropriated by governments pandering to anti-foreign bias.

It’s not enough to simply promise to treat foreign-owned firms the same as domestically owned firms. Even if discriminatory regulations and/or fees are subsequently overturned, the lost revenues—not to mention the legal costs—still amount to an effective expropriation. What FIPAs do is ensure that governments can’t expropriate foreign-owned assets without compensation. (Domestic laws already ensure that governments cannot expropriate domestically owned assets without compensation.)

Anonymous asked:
I saw you mentioning "actual facts". Do you have any links to "actual facts" about FIPA? Can you show me a source for this information?

Taken from the NAFTA:
6. Provided that such measures are not applied in an arbitrary or unjustifiable manner, or do not constitute a disguised restriction on international trade or investment, nothing in paragraph 1(b) or (c) or 3(a) or (b) shall be construed to prevent any Party from adopting or maintaining measures, including environmental measures:

(a) necessary to secure compliance with laws and regulations that are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Agreement;

(b) necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health; or

(c) necessary for the conservation of living or non-living exhaustible natural resources.

And taken from the Canada-China FIPA:

  • 2. Provided that such measures are not applied in an arbitrary or unjustifiable manner, or do not constitute a disguised restriction on international trade or investment, nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to prevent a Contracting Party from adopting or maintaining measures, including environmental measures:
    • (a) necessary to ensure compliance with laws and regulations that are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Agreement;
    • (b) necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health; or
    • (c) relating to the conservation of living or non-living exhaustible natural resources if such measures are made effective in conjunction with restrictions on domestic production or consumption.