Crackpot Canada-haters Lambourn, Canuck 57: choke on THIS...
David Deilley
countries this year and next, the International Monetary Fund said
yesterday, leading analysts to declare the country does not need
additional stimuli as advocated by some world leaders at this week's
Group of Eight summit.
Sanity
"David Deilley" <david.de...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:02fbcf90-710d-4acc...@d36g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
.........and you can thank Harper and his crew for reigning in sub prime
mortgages BEFORE they affected our economy. Had we had Barney Frank, Chris
Dodd and others advocating to extend credit to the unworthy, we would be in
much the same state as the yanks. Be sure and reward the Conservatives at
the next election with your vote.
Brainiac
> .........and you can thank Harper and his crew for reigning in sub prime
> mortgages BEFORE they affected our economy.
>
Subprime was never a problem in Canada in the first place (in Canada) you
moron. And that goes back way before Harper came into government.
Just what do you think that Harper did to regualate our banking industry?
Pray tell.
In fact, he was in favour of deregulating our banking industry.
This may be from a "left wing" site, but there is plenty more from where this
came from. You can't revise history, idiot.
How Harper Gov't Pushed Financial Deregulation Here, Abroad
Way cleared for US mortgage firms and easy credit, insured by Canadian
taxpayers.
http://thetyee.ca/Views/2008/10/08/HarperEcon/
By Ellen Gould
Published: October 8, 2008
TheTyee.ca
Listen to Stephen Harper and you might think Canada plays to our national
stereotype when it comes to the world of finance. We might be boring but at
least we don't stand for the risky policies adopted by our American cousins.
In response to a pessimistic Merrill Lynch report on Canada's housing market,
for example, Harper said "We don't have the same situation here with the
mortgages as was the case in the U.S. with the subprime mortgages there. So,
therefore, I think that our market is in a much stronger position."
There are differences in the Canadian and U.S. housing markets, differences
that can generate sharply contrasting points of view on whether Canada will
experience a housing meltdown comparable to the one in the U.S.
The thing is, the Harper government is responsible for pushing the envelope on
deregulation both domestically and internationally despite cautionary events
in the U.S. clearly indicating what could go wrong.
Promoting mortgage 'innovation'
In his first budget as Harper's finance minister, Jim Flaherty invited "new
players" -- that is, U.S financial corporations -- into Canada's mortgage
insurance market and doubled the amount of government money available to back
up private insurers from $100 billion to $200 billion. Flaherty's 2006 budget
states that "These changes will result in greater choice and innovation in the
market for mortgage insurance, benefiting consumers and promoting home
ownership."
New York Times columnist Paul Krugman has observed that "financial
innovation" are two words that should henceforth strike terror into the hearts
of investors. With the entrance of new private mortgage insurers into Canada
after the Flaherty budget, Canada saw a dramatic weakening in the standards
for mortgage insurance. This enabled Canadians to get into homes they
otherwise couldn't have -- and in many cases shouldn't have. It also kept
house prices rising. In fact, Canadian median house prices peaked this year at
levels higher than median prices at the top of the market in the U.S.
In November 2006, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation responded to the
competition from private insurers by starting to insure no-down-payment,
interest only, and 40-year amortization mortgages. A CMHC spokesperson was
quoted in the National Post as saying: "We're the third guys coming up to the
plate with these products. AIG has done it, GE has done it. We're just doing
something that's in the marketplace."
Competition from U.S.-based mortgage insurers meant risky products rapidly
took over the Canadian mortgage sector. Forty percent of new mortgages
approved in 2007 were amortized over 40 years, and in overheated markets like
Alberta's, the percentage was even higher. By 2007, there was clear evidence
from the U.S. on the hazards of loose mortgage standards, but the Harper
government did not step in to tighten regulations here.
If the Tories had really wanted to make houses more affordable for low income
Canadians, one thing they could have done was to reinstate CMHC's social
housing programs. Innovative mortgage products do not do cash-strapped
families any favours. Rather than being considered a break for low income
people, mortgages with lengthy amortizations should be regarded as an
extremely expensive way to buy a home. An analysis in the Toronto Star pointed
out: "A 40-year mortgage [on a $350,000 home] will save you $73 a week on
payments but cost an extra $254,000 in interest than if you had opted for 25
years. It's a trade-off that works way better for the bank than your personal
finances."
As the Canadian economy turns sour, what will be the cost of Canada's
experiment with mortgage innovation? In what may turn out to be a too-little,
too-late intervention, this summer Flaherty limited CMHC to ensuring mortgages
of homebuyers who can make at least a five per cent down payment and who
amortize their mortgages over a maximum of 35 years. The new restrictions will
only take effect as of October 15, 2008, essentially closing the barn door
after the horse has bolted.
Selling financial liberalization to the world
On the international stage, Canada is a major proponent of financial
liberalization.
At the WTO, Canada heads a group of delegations pressing developing countries
to open their economies to the supposedly superior services of foreign
financial institutions. The world's major financial conglomerates are claimed
to have sophisticated risk management capabilities that can stabilize
economies. You might think these days such a claim would not pass the laugh
test, but that did not stop financial liberalization from being pushed at the
WTO ministerial meeting held in July 2008.
The enormity of what's at stake in the WTO financial sector negotiations is
revealed in a February 2006 bargaining request sent from Canada's Department
of Finance to developing countries. Canada asked that foreign financial
institutions be guaranteed rights to "establish new and acquire existing
companies" in all financial sectors. This would mean among other things that
countries would have to allow 100 per cent foreign ownership of their banks
and insurance companies.
Canada has also asked that companies be given WTO enforceable rights to trade
in derivatives, which has been described as a high-octane form of financial
speculation similar to gambling. Warren Buffett famously called derivatives
"financial weapons of mass destruction," destruction that is being witnessed
on a daily basis on the world's stock exchanges.
While successive Canadian governments have been strong advocates of financial
liberalization, the unfolding financial crisis might have suggested now is the
time to show a little caution and back off these WTO negotiating demands. Yet
a WTO submission from Canada dated Dec. 5, 2007, berates other WTO members for
their lack of "ambition" in the financial services negotiations. On behalf of
the co-sponsors of the submission, Canada claimed: "further liberalization of
financial services will help promote economic growth and improved standards of
living for all WTO Members?"
It makes one wonder. Just how bad would things have to get before the Harper
government realizes further liberalizing the world's financial markets is not
such a great idea?
Related Tyee stories:
US Meltdown Puts Heat on Canada
Decades of fusing the two economies exposes us to grave risk.
Inside the WTO's Collapsed Deal
World's poor dodged disastrous policies when world trade talks failed.
Time to Tame Corporate Power
Global CEOs are unclear on the concept of government. They think it's their
support staff.
Ellen Gould is a Vancouver-based consultant who has advised local governments,
consumer groups and other organizations on the potential impacts of trade
agreements.
Brainiac
>
> Sanity wrote
> > .........and you can thank Harper and his crew for reigning in sub prime
> > mortgages BEFORE they affected our economy.
> >
>
> Subprime was never a problem in Canada in the first place (in Canada) you
> moron. And that goes back way before Harper came into government.
>
You can start by telling us when Subprime mortgages were ever legal in Canada.
That's going to be tough. The answer is "never".
How could Harper possibly be "reigning in sub prime mortages BEFORE they
affected our economy", when they have never been legal in the first place?
You are some kind of fool. Just admit it.
But, if Harper had his way. American-style banking practices would have been
in Canada. As the previous article explains in detail.
Chom Noamsky
The problem with trying to pull-off revisionism on Usenet is something
called "the search engine."
Go stand in the corner, bonehead.
David Deilley
> Brainiac wrote
>
>
>
> > Sanity wrote
> > > .........and you can thank Harper and his crew for reigning in sub prime
> > > mortgages BEFORE they affected our economy.
>
> > Subprime was never a problem in Canada in the first place (in Canada) you
> > moron. And that goes back way before Harper came into government.
>
> You can start by telling us when Subprime mortgages were ever legal in Canada.
>
> That's going to be tough. The answer is "never".
>
> How could Harper possibly be "reigning in sub prime mortages BEFORE they
> affected our economy", when they have never been legal in the first place?
>
> You are some kind of fool. Just admit it.
"Sanity" is a simple-minded partisan.
Brainiac
Who obviously is like our "friend John L". A complete and utter know
nothing, claiming to be a 'capitalist', but only because of political vanity
and certainly not due to experience or education.
So many clowns, so little time.
wheels
Sanity may be thinking of how the Bank of Canada decided to cease
supporting the funding of mortgages that were 45 years with 5% down
payment. An initiatve brought forth by the banking industry.
That was not because of Harper. It was because of a civil servant,
the head of the Bank of Canada who does not report to the Prime
Minister or the Gov. Gen. He said that it was an unsound practice.
Meanwhile in America........
A good move, if you ask me.
Sanity
"Chom Noamsky" <po...@bbq.yum> wrote in message
news:4rw5m.35634$PH1.21390@edtnps82...
...........a simple google search of "canadian sub prime mortgages" will
bring the fools to the fore.
mastermind
> > mortgages BEFORE they affected our economy. Had we had Barney Frank, Chris
> > Dodd and others advocating to extend credit to the unworthy, we would be
> > in much the same state as the yanks. Be sure and reward the Conservatives
> > at the next election with your vote.
Harper had nothing to do with "reigning in sub prime mortgages". Those were strictly
the purview of the Banks themselves, and we've always had the most restrained and
overly-cautious banking lending system in any country.
The Conservatives just decided to use our taxpayer dollars to protect them with a
bailout that wasn't even necessary. You should remember the Conservatives at the
next election with that.
"Chom Noamsky" <po...@bbq.yum> wrote in message news:4rw5m.35634$PH1.21390@edtnps82...
Sanity
"mastermind" <maste...@work.now> wrote in message
news:x566m.895$lE6...@newsfe05.iad...
>
>> "Sanity" <newsgrou...@getalife.ca> wrote in message:
>> > .........and you can thank Harper and his crew for reigning in sub
>> > prime
>> > mortgages BEFORE they affected our economy. Had we had Barney Frank,
>> > Chris
>> > Dodd and others advocating to extend credit to the unworthy, we would
>> > be
>> > in much the same state as the yanks. Be sure and reward the
>> > Conservatives
>> > at the next election with your vote.
>
> Harper had nothing to do with "reigning in sub prime mortgages". Those
> were strictly
> the purview of the Banks themselves, and we've always had the most
> restrained and
> overly-cautious banking lending system in any country.
>
> The Conservatives just decided to use our taxpayer dollars to protect them
> with a
> bailout that wasn't even necessary. You should remember the Conservatives
> at the
> next election with that.
......... the Bank of Canada dictates policy to the charter banks as
indicated here....
http://www.usatoday.com/money/world/2009-07-01-canada-bank-regulation_N.htm.
and who controls the Bank of Canada? ( The governing party perhaps?)
.....fellow Conservative haters on this thread indicated that Canada's
chartered banks NEVER offered sub prime instruments....patently false. Sub
prime offerings in the Canadian market only lasted about six months.
However, i'll grant a pass to most fuzzy headed idealogues who have'nt a
clue when it comes to finances.