[Are CPP funds at risk?]

There is no getting around the fact that spending was way over what Harper promised and what was promised every budget. The Tories pretty much ruled with a majority.

The tories did not in any way shape or form rule with a majority. The tories ruled with a minority that was only sustained by extremely low approval ratings for Dion's Liberals. Dion made it very clear he was intent on bringing down the government...when it looked good for him. Given this fact it's impossible to argue that the CPC had free reign to do whatever they wanted. This is was the longest lasting minority ever and history has shown they pretty much never last.

The record during the Chretien years was to cut spending. They campaigned on cutting spending and they won on cutting spending. The provinces indeed did have troubles but many started their own cuts on bloated budgets. Many provinces also cut taxes so the idea that only the Feds starved healthcare rings a little hollow. Every department was cut to end the terrible deficit.

The record of the Chretien years is not really what I'm concerned about. I'm concerned about what Dion's PLANS are. His PLANS are to raise taxes for the average household and spend heavily. In the absense of data showing Harper's spending has been as high as Dion's plans are to be, Dion naturally looks like he's going to have the looser wallet. Given that Harper HAS reduced taxes and Dion plans to RAISE them, it's a tough sell convincing anyone that Dion is going to leave more money in our wallets.

Harper is now spending at a rate that will be hard to sustain in a declining market. He has so far shown no indication of making meaningful cuts. You blame the Liberals for this but as I said, who on Earth was putting pressure on them to restore the military school in Quebec? Not the Liberals. And so it goes.

Paul Martin was spending at an almost identical rate to Harper. You act like the 1% difference between them is meaningful.

The record is that Harper had two very good years of economic growth. That was a snapshot of what was behind us. There is very little room in the budget now for declines in revenue.

Harper had 1 year of good economic growth. 2007 started off well but the current credit crisis and Harper was warning people of impending economic decline back THEN. The Liberals had literally 13 of the best growth Canada's almost ever seen with hardly a hiccup the whole time.

The Liberals were elected because the Mulroney government took the country to the brink not once but twice.

Mulroney was elected because Trudeau left the country in heavier debt (relative to inflation and GDP etc) than he did. Not that Mulroney was a good PM, but he at least had 2 recessions to deal with during his term, whereas Trudeau just dived into debt with no reason. The point I'm trying to make here is that if we go far enough back we can both find examples of horrible governing. The last conservative government was a full 15 years ago. We saw the difference between Chretien and Trudeau Liberals, and we're seeing the difference between Mulroney and Harper Conservatives. The comparisons are pathetically weak at best.

Still, if you want to ask when the cutting started, you have to have to have a reference point. That reference point in the 1990s.

This is the problem that a lot of people have with the Liberals, including myself. The fact that they balanced the budget something like 10 years ago and then rode the prosperity train does not magically make Dion the best choice for PM. He's a different man with a different group of people working for him. Just like Chretien wasn't Trudeau, Dion doesn't appear to be Chretien. Bob Rae is one of the Liberal's most prominent figures. He was the worst premier Ontario ever had. The Liberal party right now is full of bozos like Rae.

The economists who have looked at Dion's plan have disagreed with your view of what will happen.

No, they don't. Please provide me a citation, as you like to say, where any reputable economist explains how the Liberals are planning to to provide $4.5 Billion in tax credits to the poor without the average business and family in Canada paying the difference. The math is very, very, very simple. $15 Billion in extra taxes. $4.5 of that too the poor. $1B for Green research. Since the poor receiving the $4.5 Billion pay almost NO tax relative to the rest of us, the MATH indicates that the people who are actually PAYING the $15 Billion in taxes are only getting $9.5 billion back in tax credits. Are you following me? For every dollar we spend in carbon taxes and its trickle costs, we get less than $0.66 back. The economists ARE saying this. Your citation from the CTF the other day confirmed this.

Such an analysis of the Tory plan has not yet been concluded because it doesn't figure how large a bill will be pass on by the cap.

I haven't said anything of the sort. I'm saying I think the Tory campaign is even more expensive given the fact that some of the promises have not been costed out.

That's really not a compelling argument. Harper's spending announcements were largely costed and budgeted prior to the election and as far as I could tell they were over 4 years. Dion has promised over $80 billion over 10 years. Do the math. What spending promises has Harper come up with that fill in the spread? Really?

[Are CPP funds at risk?]

I am absolutely against the ethanol program that all the parties support. Look it up. I don't think you will find anyone arguing more strongly against it in these forums.

Well there's one thing you and I agree on 100%

I still support the Dion environmental program but think that it should have been introduced with income tax cuts that were twice as large as what was introduced. I think revenue neutral for the government was simply not good enough.

I agree with that again. I don't mind the idea of a Green Shift. If everyone benefited equally from it I wouldn't complain about it. The Green Shift as it stands to me is a blatent equalization strategy pandering to the poor. I'm ALWAYS against that sort of thing.

I am against income splitting. It is unfair to individuals.

I agree again.

Dion should have kept the spending announcements down and the tax decreases should have been the centerpiece to the platform.

Having said that, I think all the parties have made wildly inflated spending promises.

I want Harper to keep his promise on spending. What is so difficult about that? He had his way for the entire time in Parliament and could have kept a tighter rein on program spending.

Harper ran a minority government where the Liberals were watching public opinion with their fingers on the election trigger. It's extremely difficult to push forward an economic platform when the majority of parliament is totally against you. With that said, our budget remained balanced and your claims have been wildly exaggerated.

To argue that the Liberals would spend more is not good enough. The record is clear in the last 15 years and that is that the Liberals will cut spending and cut deep when needed. That didn't happen under Mulroney and it hasn't happened under Harper.

The record of the Chretien Liberals isn't really good enough to prove your point either. The debt compared to GDP was highest under the Trudeau Liberals. Liberals are EVERY bit as guilty for our current debt load as Mulroney PC's are and just because they cleaned up the mess they began doesn't mean they deserve our admiration. We all know how they DID balance the budget too. It was by hoarding wealth in Ottawa and leaving the provinces broke.

The record I have to follow for Harper is that he lowered my taxes and he never ran a deficit. Dion is PROMISING higher taxes and higher spending. Regardless of whether or not Harper went over his own budgets, it's EXTREMELY loopy logic to claim that Dion is going to be spending less and lowering taxes when he is PROMISING to do the opposite.

The problem as you can see is that it is not an overall winning strategy. I understand why the banks did it but do you think the market picked the best way to get past this crisis?

Absolutely. The very last thing we need right now is to have the banks get themselves in trouble. We are better off than the rest of the world right now because they have relatively speaking kept themselves out of the mess.

August has long argued that the government workers don't know how to pick winners. He wants a private pension system and the end of the CPP. He says the CPP or any government operation does a poor job and can't pick winners better than the private sector. I tend to agree that the government should leave most mechanisms of the market to the market but complete faith in the principles of Friedman will not end the crisis. It is why Bush and others have turned to Keynes.

Some of the posters here have right wing views well beyond my own. I think CPP is necessary but only because the majority of Canadians are too stupid to save for themselves. They're stupid with their money and they will depend on the government in their old age to support them.

You keep saying the Liberals would do worse as some sort of mantra. The fact of the matter is that the Liberals are the only party to have reduced spending in the last 15 years. That is their record.

I have given you a comparison. In government Liberals cut spending. In power, the Tories have not.

The alternative is the record the Liberals have on spending.

What you've done is pick a favorable reference point. On this logic the Liberals should never have been elected in 1993 because of Trudeau spending. Balancing the budget during pretty much the most prosperous time in the economy for the last 40 years is not a remarkable accomplishment for Chretien especially considering how he did it. Brian Mulroney was a lousy PM but you can't compare his spending to Harper's for the same reason you can't compare Chretien's to Trudeau's. They weren't even in the same league.

And the alternative that Harper proposes is the cap and trade that is just as costly with no major tax decreases. Your defence is that it won't be implemented. You are basically saying that Harper is being dishonest and you are okay with it.

Harper is being about as dishonest with this as Dion is about not increasing taxes. There are glaring omissions in both. For Harper, he omits that he hasn't set really much of ANY priority or time table for his plan. For Dion, he omits that his Green Shift is an income equalization formula and business and average taxpapayers WILL be taxed more. You pick your poison, but one of these plans is the focus of an entire election platform and the other is a side note. Which one do you think is less likely to be turned into legislation???

Somehow is your mind Dion will do as he promises and Harper won't. How many other Harper promises will be broken?

This is one of those fuzzy contradictions that you confuse the issues with. I've acknowledged this with you on dozens of occassions that Harper has broken numerous election promises. I look at the campaign pragmatically, however, and see that despite Harper's falling short of election promises, what he has done and proposes to do are MUCH better than what Dion has PROMISED to do. Your rebuttal is then to say that perhaps Dion is a liar and the Liberals central focus in the campaign may end up as a broken promise as well?????

[Are CPP funds at risk?]

You do personalize and do insult. I don't know why you do it. I have seen quite a few people get banned because they can't control the urge to do so.

You're a little sensitive I think.

I'm afraid you are wrong again. I have been critical of Dion's spending announcements.

I've really not seen this.

It is not a technicality that he went over his promise on budgets. It is a fact.

It's a fact you're right. It's also a technicality. When you're being highly critical of Harper's spending budget it's almost implied that there's a better alternative. If you're not arguing there's an alternative, then you're really just complaining. When it's suggested that Dion would be spending even more you automatically revert to the fact/technicality that Harper went over his own budget.

You could not be more wrong. I was arguing against dismantling the CPP in favour of private pensions. August and I have had this argument before.

You misunderstood the first part of the argument I was having about dismantling CPP. I was arguing that privatizing CPP in favour of the market because it picks better winners is putting a lot of faith in the market. By way of example, I said the market was hoarding cash to protect itself even though the liquidity was hurting them all. The market was paralyzed.

It wasn't a good example.

You said:

"Given that the market's solution in the last weeks was to stop lending and let the whole economy crash, you place a lot of faith in the market to pick winners."

Your statement's implication was that the banks were somehow making a bad decision and were screwing the rest of the economy over. You tried to argue the danger of free market economics with an example of the free market acting responsibly and cautiously. Again, it was either a contradiction or an example of you not understanding what you were talking about.

You should ask some of your Tory friends on the forum how I have opposed a lot of Dion's spending announcements. Please do. I have been arguing for tax cuts and spending reductions since joining this forum.

I've not seen a single example of this. Please remember politics are all about comparisons. It's one alternative over another. Why are you going on and on about Harper's spending when Dion's promised worse? Why would you complain about his tax cuts when Dion will end up taxing the average Canadian more in the end? It doesn't make sense.

If you keep downplaying the broke Harper promise on spending with "but the Liberals", I will stop pointing it out to you.

Political discussion is pointless without side by side comparisons. That's what it's all about. You don't look at one politician in a vacuum. "But the Liberals" is a rational response. Because I can't argue that Harper hasn't been over budget, when you bring this up as a reason he should not be re-elected you have to compare the alternative.

The revenue neutral means the government won't be taking in more than in it was previously.

I know what it means. Dion has failed to mention that it is NOT revenue neutral for the vast majority of Canadian families or businesses. It means more taxes for the people who are actually paying decent taxes and it means less taxes for the people who are hardly paying any taxes already. This is not good for the economy in any way shape or form.

The Harper plan on cap and trade according to many who have looked at it is just as expensive in the end but there are no corresponding tax cuts.

and this is pretty much a moot point considering the priority Harper has placed on the environment. His cap and trade plan will likely never be implemented. You and I both know this. Dion is the only person standing to be elected her who's going to increase taxes on productive members of the country.

[No Bailouts! No New Spending!]

The National Post editorial two days in a row blamed them even though no one on Bay Street was. The financial sector said the market dynamic was far above what was happening in Canada and barely registered barely any notice of what government or Opposition said or did in regards to it.

I didn't see those articles but it would be a stupid newspaper to suggest that Dion affects the financial system itself. I imagine what was really being said was that Dion was fanning the flames of panic, which he is most certainly doing.

[Elizabeth May's mixed messages]

Yep, pretty much. I think I called it a month ago when I said Elizabeth May was going to totally bork the party.

[No Bailouts! No New Spending!]

I think the big thing that Flaherty is hoping is that this will pump prime the market in Canada.

I think it ignores the fact that are market is not operating in a vacuum. The blame Harper attributes to Dion for the market fall is rather amusing. Is he responsible for the fall around the world too?

I don't think anyone is blaming him. He's not in charge of anything. People ARE blaming Layton and Dion for being alarmists and worrying people though, that's all.

[Are CPP funds at risk?]

And you seem to personalize. Why do it?

I personalize how silly you sound. Regardless of what Harper does, it's automatically the wrong thing to do. It's wrong for Harper to increase spending but you've never a critical word for Dion's planned spending increases which dwarf Harper's. Your response to this argument has consistently been the technicality that Harper went over-budget. That's fine, point acknowledged, but the alternatives are promising bigger spending increases, so unless you're abstaining from voting, you're contradicting yourself.

When did I argue against lending guidelines?

You said:

Given that the market's solution in the last weeks was to stop lending and let the whole economy crash, you place a lot of faith in the market to pick winners.

You are implying that the banks are doing the wrong things by protecting themselves. Right here is a perfect example of you either not having any clue what you're talking about or you contradicting yourself. I would assume you are against a Canadian bank collapse right? So then why are you criticizing them for making sure they're not losing money on mortgages like they have been since the spring??? I'll cite it if you absolutely need me to. I won't be surprised either because that's generally your defence mechanism when your argument has been stumped.

The Tories promised to cut their spending. They promise it every budget. I think you should direct your anger at them, not me. You have tried to justify and say it is transfer payments. Well, Harper was against increasing those in 2006 as well.

I've already agreed with you that I'd prefer Harper tightened the wallet. Your contradiction here is that you're completely against Harper spending but you're generally supportive of Dion who is promising spending way above and beyond Harper's. What this looks like is a huge double standard.

What exactly did I say about the banks?

Until you can specifically point out what I said on guidelines and what I said on banks, I have to assume that you are just personalizing for no reason.

Please see above. I quoted you from this very thread. I am not personalizing out of dislike for you or anything silly like that. I'm personalizing your arguments because I'd like to present them to you how they appear to everyone else. Your double standards and loopy logic are totally confounding.

If you'll stop dodging the arguments I present to you I'll stop hounding you.

There are three things I'd like you to acknowledge or at least respond to:

1) How can you argue against Harper's spending when the other candidates are promising spending BEYOND his? Regardless of his not following his own budgets, how does electing a Prime Minister promising even HIGHER spending present a better alternative??

2) The Green Shift was confirmed by a citation YOU provided from the CTF to be a tax grab equalization formula. It said the Green Shift was NOT revenue neutral for the average family and business. It confirmed that the average family and business would be out a good deal of money and that this would NOT be good for the economy. You've argued extensively against GST cuts and I agree with you that Income Tax cuts are better. With your criticism of this, however, how do you support a Liberal government who is offering INCREASED taxes to everyone but the very poor and NO alternative tax relief to anyone else??????

3) What has Harper done to endanger the Canadian economy at large? You're a huge Harpernomic critic, so what is it that he's doing to hurt us?

[Immigration being made easier]

My my ... what ever happened to 'turn the other cheek'. Tsk tsk. Such unattractive ranting ... and proselytizing too! Oh gmab! 'Canada is the land of the devils' eh? And it's all the fault on non-white immigrants?

Well .... I guess you see what you want to see when you look through racist glasses!

Haha that made me laugh.

Tango it actually feels nice to agree with you on this when I normally disagree with you on everything else.

Whowhere just put a bed sheet on your head and cut eye-slits already. Get it over with. While you're at it move to Texas. We don't need people like you here. I'd prefer to work with the immigrants you hate over yourself.

[Elizabeth May's mixed messages]

The party system is no longer democratic nor useful, imo. I am glad to see some people who are willing to work across party lines for the good of the country. It's only politicos who see a problem with this, but they don't understand Canadians anyway and they don't know how little we care about 'the party'.

I'm not really angry about this. I couldn't care less really. You can't deny that the Green Party is probably done after this though. At least the NDP has an independent platform and takes shots at everyone. It truly is a real political party. The Green Party under May, however, has so completely aligned herself with another party that it can hardly even be looked upon as such anymore. By basically agreeing with everything the Liberals have said, May has reversed ANY accomplishments she made by getting in the Leadership debate and put the party enormously backwards on top of this.

I doubt it will even continue to exist.

[Newspaper Endorsements]

The Toronto Star is and always had been my very least newspaper in all of Canada. It's so unobjective about virtually EVERYTHING I hold it in utter contempt. At least there are anti-Harper stories in the Globe and the Sun etc. The Toronto Star is pro liberals on EVERYTHING and always has been.

It's a pandering newspaper and it's a complete joke.

[Are CPP funds at risk?]

...so the Canadian government is borrowing $25 billion dollars to buy up mortgages held by the banks...and the government is doing so because the Canadian banks are the most solid banks in the world!

Why not just lend the banks 25 billion dollars at cost? They are certainly good for it arn't they? Whats the need for the transaction of mortgages for money?

I wrote a post explaining the 25 billion dollar deal. You don't have a clue how it works and I don't expect you to, but don't go around pulling your hair out at something you don't even begin to understand.

It's not a bailout in any way, shape or form. I cannot even stress how much it is not a bailout.

[Dion and Clarity]

A company's taxes stay the same, but are shifted from a tax on its profits to a tax on the energy it uses.

No this is a bald-faced lie. There is not an economist in Canada or the world who is supporting this. This is 100% total and complete bullshit.

The Green Shift IS going to tax companies' on carbon emissions. That's right. They WILL get tax reductions on profit. That's right as well.

The plan is revenue neutral in terms of money going to the GOVERNMENT. What the Liberals fail to tell you is that a VASTLY unfair amount of the tax dollars collected from carbon taxes will be going to the poor. Economists generally agree that business and anything but the very poorest households will only get 66% of every dollar extra they pay from the plan back in income tax cuts. The remaining 33% is income redistribution towards the poor.

So ... what's Harper's plan again? He has no plan that he will tell the public in advance - he'll just spring it on us. We have no friggen idea what the man will do in office - knit sweaters?

I think Harper has been pretty clear in that he's not making the environment a priority over the economy.

I think it's time to give Dion a chance. He hasn't had time to get addicted to power like Harper is, so he may tell us the truth for a while.

Dion can't even speak without a teleprompter in front of him. His economic 'plan' is that he will start the 30-50 plan. That's the plan that the Liberals have for the economy, that's for 30 days. The 30-50 plan is for the economy, because it's 30-50.....Wait can I start again?

[Explaining the $25B mortgage deal....]

Just a slight correction, CMHC is for financing when one doesn't not have sufficient downpayment for a conventional mortgage which means 75% financing.

No what I said was right. CMHC doesn't finance mortgages at all. The banks do that. Selling mortgages is part of my job but I won't begrudge you that. You're sort of right in that CMHC provides default insurance for people who don't have enough downpayment for a conventional mortgage. Conventional nowadays is also 80% or below now. It used to be 75%.

Anyways over 80% financing is considered a risky mortgage and the banks are basically required by law banks to purchase default insurance on any mortgage financing over 80%. The client pays a default insurance premium for every % point they finance over 80% and if the mortgage goes bad CMHC pays the money back to the bank. There are private companies that do the same thing but most high-ratio mortgages in Canada are insured by CMHC

I also thought that Flaherty said it was not a cash purchase of the paper, but an exchange for bonds, which of course would be significantly more liquid for the banks to deal with on an as cash basis.

This part is a little fuzzy for me. What I understood from the deal was that Flaherty is selling bonds and the proceeds of the bonds will purchase the mortgage deals. The proceeds from the mortgage deals will pay off the bond amounts owing so unless all of these mortgages go bad then the government will make good money from this. CMHC has cash on hand to pay off any of these bad mortgages anyways as that's it's purpose in the first place.

[Elizabeth May's mixed messages]

Elizabeth May has effectively killed the Green Party. Her party members are furious with her and Green supporters will never feel it's worth it again to throw their vote away at a party that's just going to give up and encourage voters to vote for another party.

What the heck was the point? We all knew Green's wouldn't win the election.

[Explaining the $25B mortgage deal....]

From what I've read 90% or more of you have no idea what they're talking about with the $25B CMHC deal that just took place and you somehow think that it's a bailout akin to what happened in the US.

Somehow a lot of you think that the deal proves that this proves the IMF etc are full of crap when they said Canada's banks are the strongest in then world.

Let me briefly explain how this deal works to you.

CMHC, first, is a crown corporation that provides the vast majority of mortgage default insurance to Canadian banks for people with high-ratio (over 80% financed) mortgages. If a high-ratio mortgage defaults, CMHC pays the amount owing.

CMHC has purchased $25 Billion worth of the lowest risk, best performing mortgages in Canada, in order to free up cash for the banks so they can continue to lend cheaply without having to jack interest rates way up and make loans harder to get.

Why did they have to do that? Because there is not enough liquidity in worldwide financial markets for the banks to finance their lending operations as cheaply as they have previously been able to.

Without this plan, banks would have to get stingey with their lending and make mortgages, loans and lines of credit harder and more expensive to get. This would have caused the economy to slow.

This was an infusion of cash that will ultimately cost the tax payers nothing and will likely end up making the government money. The banks were willing to take the deal because they'll be able to make more profit on the new money they will be lending out than they would have with the mortgages they sold with low interest rate spreads. The banks have all raised their rates recently despite the central bank lowering interest rates. You can't get a below-prime mortgage ANYWHERE in Canada anymore and new secured lines of credit will cost people a full 1% more in interest than they did a week ago. If CMHC hadn't purchased the mortgages, the rates would be even higher.

The difference between this deal and the 'bailout' in the US is that first it was not a straight out purchase or 'nationalization' of our banking industry. Rather than basically take over the banks, CMHC bought out some of the banks' well-performing investments.

Not only that, this deal was meant to be an infusion of cash to help nudge the economy forward and soften a slowdown. In the US it was a full-on bailout to prevent the collapse of the banking industry at large, which isn't even conceivable right now in Canada

[No Bailouts! No New Spending!]

CMHC bought the mortgage deals. It's a lot different than a government bailout.

This will not cost tax payers anything.

I won't expect or ask you to understand how it works, but feel free to form an opinion without doing so.

[Are CPP funds at risk?]

I just want to add Jdobbin that I'm not arguing that the markets don't blow themselves up once or twice a decade, but some of your points sometimes are just way out there.

[Are CPP funds at risk?]

Given that the market's solution in the last weeks was to stop lending and let the whole economy crash, you place a lot of faith in the market to pick winners.

Jdobbin you argue like a child. You contradict yourself so much it's not even funny. You complain and complain about the financial crisis and you whine about how Harper is somehow magically the cause of it, yet Canadian federal monetary policy has PROVEN itself the best in the world. Given that the natural caution of the Canadian Banks has almost entirely sheltered us from a collapse of banking systems seen almost EVERYWHERE else in the world, I find it hilarious that now you're trying to argue against their tightening up of lending guidelines.

You're so completely and totally ignorant of both how the economy works and how foolish you make yourself look with arguments that contradict each other, I don't even know what to say to you anymore.

There are some really blind posters out there but at least you can understand how and why they feel the way they do. I understand a low wage union member voting NDP because it's in their best interest to. I understand Greenthumb's hate for the Tories given his position on legalizing drugs. You on the other hand, I can't even begin to understand.

You criticize Harper on spending yet the Martin Liberals spent 95% as much AND the Dion Liberals are proposing to increase spending by a GREAT DEAL MORE.

You criticize Harper for the financial crisis yet you cannot come up with a SINGLE specific criticism of what he's done to make it worse and you ignore the fact that we're better off right now than everyone else. You then go ahead and criticize the banks for exhibiting the natural caution that has SAVED them from a banking collapse!

Plugging your ears, closing your eyes and humming loudly does NOT make you right! Try for a change to allow what some of us are writing to actually sink in!

[Liberalism And Conservatism Defined]

None of you conservatives on this forum are REAL conservatives!!! You're a bunch of phonies!!! Check out this forum to see what real conservatives are all about!!!

http://www.conservativesforum.com/

Just joking... I think anyone would be scared if these people were in the majority! (They're not in the majority in the U.S.... are they???)

I know exactly what you're talking about. I'm a Canadian conservative, but an American conservative would make me look like Jack Layton. In fact, I've tried to argue a few generally accepted Canadian idealogies on American forums and been met with basically frothing americans telling me I'm a dirty evil communist.

[Canada = World's Best Banking System]

Jdobbin just to throw your own tactics right back in your face, please cite specifically where the National Post says this is all Dion's fault. I have an inkling that you're distorting what they wrote but if you can prove it to me then I'll agree they're full of BS.

You just deconstructed my post where I specifically said it was NOT all Dion's fault. I said he was making it worse by being an alarmist.

Once again, way to ignore everything I said and take the argument in a completely different and ill-conceived direction.

I know that there is a TON of mom and pop's selling off. My father liquidated his equity in September for over $200,000. He's not a particularly wealthy guy. He's just been saving a long time. Yes, I know that's testimonial and you can take that for what you want but if even if a TINY fraction of the population is doing this the sell offs amount to the tens of billions. 10,000 people in a population of 30 something million selling off the same amount as my father accounts for about 2 billion dollars. 0.0003% of the population can cause a 2 billion dollar drop in invested equity.

Most people don't have that kind of equity but what if 0.003% sell off 20,000? Same result. We're probably look at something out of decimals for the percentage of small investors selling off so you do the math. The money out there is HUGE.

[Economics]

This is not exactly true, the republicans tried to fix the system on three seperate occasions over the last 8 years, and all three times they were blocked by Barney Frank and the Democrats.

The current mess in the US was created over a long period of different adminstrations, but the tipping point and lack of foresight rests squarely on the shoulders of the House Democrats and Barney Frank.

Well that mistake rests squarely on my poor understanding of the American political system. Either way it was poor regulation, I just don't know which squabbly group of old Americans to blame.

[Another Dion quote]

The banks have all been losing money on variable rate mortgages for at least a year now. This is because credit has been getting tight. It's not made up stuff, but we're in a way better position than the rest of the world.

[Canada = World's Best Banking System]

I would tend to agree. I disagree that it is mom and pop selling like crazy as a result of what Dion said. No one actually at the markets were blaming Dion like the National Post was.

What you agree or disagree with Jdobbin is based entirely on your partisan view and your almost deliberate effort to remain ignorant about how the markets actually work.

I work in a bank advising clients about investments on an every day basis.

Yes, the institutional investors have sold a lot, but the advantage they had was that they were paying attention to what was going on and they'd already sold a lot of what they had. They contributed to the market plummeting but now the 'mom and pop' type people are jumping on the bandwagon and panicking which is pushing the sell off even further. I know this because I've been dealing with it on a daily basis for about 2.5 months. I have to constantly reassure clients that the Canadian Banks are not going to go belly up and I have to constantly reassure them that their actual deposit balances are insured.

I wouldn't go as far as saying this is Dion's fault, but he and Jack Layton are being alarmists and it is definetly making things worse. They're trying to get people scared because it's politically advantageous for them to do so.

[Economics]

An economic meltdown will put economics above the arrogant sense of entitlements that prosperity brings.

Social issues will take aback seat to just trying to sustain life. I suppose that is as it should be because basically that is all we are trying to do and economic hardship will restores some reality to that.

As far as the subject of Economics goes, we will not make any headway unless it is realized that some of the current foundational premises of the subject are fallacious. So teaching a theory based upon government or banking intervention to counter natural market corrections exacerbates long term economic conditions by introducing artificial distortions until intervention totally fails.

I must point out that it is the essence of capitalism to "capitalize" and it will take advantage, once again, "capitalize" on any opportunity. When goverenmnt gives it opportunity to capitalize it cannot be expected to refuse. The current US crisis is an example of a government policy to "help" people "own" their own home (read mortgage) and capitalism taking that cue to it's fullest extent. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and loose banking policies of the US government, particularly those of Democrats, such as Barney Frank, CEO of tose entities and and Chris Dodd, Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, are particularly responsible.

If we realize that capitalism is about capitalizing and government is about force combining the two should make us realize that government intervention in the economy, such as monopolization over currency, will result in abuses in the form of favour and privilege to capitalist interests enforced by government. Capitalism should never have the power of force and government should never have control over the economy.

I've read arguments very similar to this but usually from American political forums. I believe in free markets and capitalism but a 100% free market like you're suggesting is as bad as a central communist economy.

There are a few simple reasons for this. First, smarter, wealthier and more educated people will by their very nature end up taking over the entire system and control all factors of production. A very small number of people, through guile and ruthlessness, would end up owning EVERYTHING. Rockefeller proved this without a shred of doubt.

Second, monetary policy is absolutely necessary to help shelter the economy from short term shocks and fluctuations. A volatile economy is harmful to the vast majority of people as heavy cyclical fluctuations are more likely to cause job loss and displacement. Raising and lowering interest rates helps to smoothe these out.

The current crisis in the US is not due to too much regulation. It's due to POOR regulation. This is not entirely Bush's fault but a large amount of blame can be laid on his administration as well as Clinton's. George W had AMPLE opportunity to fix the system before this happened.

Canada is in good shape because of a heavily regulated and protected banking system. 3 of the top 10 biggest banks in North America are now Canadian banks. There is substantial talk about RBC and others acquiring banks that used to dwarf them.

Relatively speaking, Canada has come away laughing.

[Dion's 3 strikes interview]

Yeah really I think asking for proof he has a hearing problem is a pretty silly thing to do. I'll believe it because I have no real reason not to.

This interview however was never a question of hearing. They were both wearing mics and Dion didn't say he couldn't hear anyone. He made an attempt at answering the question, bunged it all up, and then after that decided that he didn't understand the time period they were talking about after the anchor said specifically:

"What would you have ALREADY done if you were Prime Minister?"

There could have been no clearer language and rest assured Dion understood the question. He just didn't understand how he would answer it.