Analysis of McClearns Closed for Business Essay

Analysis of McClearns Closed for Business - Essay ExampleThe core ancestry or the thesis is that the Canadian governance has been causing confusing amongst investors by blocking some bids from foreign investors without clear explanations. The power concludes that Canada could be closed for foreign business. The author has supported the argument using evidence of various companies that excite been prevented from investing in Canada without any explanations from the government. Moreover, the author argues that Prime Minister Visit to china to encourage investors from china to invest in Canada has been received as a little terror by American investors. Additionally, the Canadian government appears to be neutralizeing the prime ministers statement by rejecting bids from foreign companies wanting to invest in Canada. Another argument to support the thesis statement is that the Canadian government under Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau introduced irrelevant Investment Review Act (FIR A) in 1973 and the Investment Canada Act (ICA) in 1985. The two acts were supposed to tutelage in setting up guidelines to be followed by foreign investors. However, there were no changes in the activity and endorsement process. This has added to the confusion since the Canadian government is not clear on the requirements that foreign companies should meet in order to be allowed to invest in Canada. Although the author argues that Canada has been blocking investors, some parts of the article, arguments, and examples appear to contradict the mainargument fleck others do not contribute to the argument. For example, the author argues that foreign investors are beingness blocked from investing but still claims that 90% of foreign applications for takeover were rubberstamped. This is considerably high and does not show presence of any obstacle. On the contrary, the argument depict that Canada is still open for foreign investments (McClearn 34-36) thick According to McClearn Canada w as built using money obtained through the foreign investors. British investors financed the building of railways, buildings, canals and near of the infrastructures while American Industrialist was responsible of building most industries and manufacturing plants. Over the past, Canada has always been open and allowed foreign companies to invest. Around February, the Canadian prime minister personally visited China to inform the Chinese government that Canada was open for foreign investment. However, things take changed rapidly, Canada has been vetting foreign company, and a considerable number of foreign companies set out been prevented from Investing in Canada. Such companies implicate Malaysia Petroliam Nasional Berhad (Petronas) and Lowes. Furthermore, there is fear that the Canadian government will reject the offer for Nexen by China subject field Offshore Oil Corp. Moreover, the Canadian Government has been showing mixed signals. McClearn views such moves as a threat to for eign investors since it appears like the Prime minister, Stephen Harper is contradicting himself (McClearn 34-38). Although Canada argues that it is open for investors from various countries including the upcoming China and Malaysia, investors from the two countries have been treated coldly through rejection of their bids. Moreover, the Canadian government has not given any explanations for the rejections which has created a shroud amongst the investors (McClearn 35-36) Analysis of the Arguments The statements and the evidence are sufficient to persuade the reader that the argument is sound. Almost all the arguments and statements make are followed by examples. For example, the argument that Canadian government is not giving enough explanations for rejection of investments by most companies has been supported by examples of several companies. Such