Resource swoon hammers dollar

[maldon_road]

Sure shows what our economy is made of. Commodities go south, so does the dollar. Down another cent this morning.

Resource swoon hammers dollar

OTTAWA — Wall Street's anxiety poured into global commodity markets yesterday, rattling oil, gold and the Canadian dollar, which took its biggest plunge since John Diefenbaker was prime minister.

As the long-running commodity rally turned south yesterday, oil and gold prices fell 5 per cent and 6 per cent respectively, sparking a major Canadian selloff that sent the Toronto stock market and the loonie into sharp retreat.

"The financial markets have been a little crazy the past few days and it just shows the U.S. economy is getting deeper and deeper," said Dina Cover, economist with Toronto-Dominion Bank.

Traders were increasingly unnerved this week by the turmoil in financial markets, including the collapse of Wall Street investment bank Bear Stearns Cos. Inc., and reacted yesterday with growing fear that the U.S. slowdown could undermine worldwide demand.

"And when [traders] see that happen, they see there is no recovery in sight and perhaps it is finally kicking in that demand will fall," Ms. Cover said, with regard to the commodity market selloff.

Canada — which had been buoyed somewhat by the commodity boom — was hit hard by yesterday's large declines.

DOLLAR

[Sean Hayward]

I don't think it's a secret that the strength of the Canadian economy is somewhat dependent on natural resources.

[rover1]

A lot more volatility can be expected until the liquidity problem is worked out.

[Vancouver King]

Politically, a declining dollar along with the arrival of tough times later this summer will do what the Cadman affair, the Mulroney affair and Naftagate failed to do - make a significant, perhaps fatal dent in Tory popularity.

[Sean Hayward]

Politically, a declining dollar along with the arrival of tough times later this summer will do what the Cadman affair, the Mulroney affair and Naftagate failed to do - make a significant, perhaps fatal dent in Tory popularity.

That's why they need to somehow get an election this spring, before these problems begin to mature.

[M.Dancer]

Politically, a declining dollar along with the arrival of tough times later this summer will do what the Cadman affair, the Mulroney affair and Naftagate failed to do - make a significant, perhaps fatal dent in Tory popularity.

Not according to the polling which shows that the populace believes the conservatives are the best to handle an economic downturn.

[maldon_road]

Not according to the polling which shows that the populace believes the conservatives are the best to handle an economic downturn.

Steve is somewhat bulletproof - it was the Libs who got us in Afghanistan and it was Steph who screwed by Kyoto. The sponsorship scandal was another doing of the grits. The public won't blame Harper for an economic downturn and wouldn't trust Dion to handle it.

[normanchateau]

Politically, a declining dollar along with the arrival of tough times later this summer will do what the Cadman affair, the Mulroney affair and Naftagate failed to do - make a significant, perhaps fatal dent in Tory popularity.

I doubt that there's anything that will make the Conservatives drop much below 30% or so in the polls...not even difficult economic times or an admission by Harper that he ordered the attempted bribing of Cadman. On the other hand, as long as they're saddled with a socially conservative leader like Harper, a Quebec breakthrough, key to a Conservative majority, remains permanently out of sight.

[fellowtraveller]

Politically, a declining dollar along with the arrival of tough times later this summer will do what the Cadman affair, the Mulroney affair and Naftagate failed to do - make a significant, perhaps fatal dent in Tory popularity.

They'll be doing handsprings in the manufacturing heartland of Ontario with a declining dollar.

None of the artifices you mention: Cadman, Mulroney or Nafta- will have any impact on the electorate.

[normanchateau]

None of the artifices you mention: Cadman, Mulroney or Nafta- will have any impact on the electorate.

Exactly. The Conservatives will move neither up nor down. They'll remain stuck in minority territory as long as they're lead by the social and religious conservative, Stephen Harper.

[M.Dancer]

Exactly. The Conservatives will move neither up nor down. They'll remain stuck in minority territory as long as they're lead by the social and religious conservative, Stephen Harper.

What religious or social conservative policies has Harper ever put before the house?

[fellowtraveller]

Exactly. The Conservatives will move neither up nor down. They'll remain stuck in minority territory as long as they're lead by the social and religious conservative, Stephen Harper.

'Remaining stuck' is a position they will happily take again: remaining a minority government while governing as if they had a majority while the Opposition sits on their thumbs and fumes impotently for 4 more years. It is better than being Dion, by any measure.

What religious or social conservative policies has Harper ever put before the house?

Excellent question, and one that I predict normie will not address.

[M.Dancer]

To be perfectly honest I had my worries about Harper and the social conservative element of the Reform party.

But to date I have not seen any hint of that element having much influence.

[maldon_road]

What religious or social conservative policies has Harper ever put before the house?

More generally conservative than socon or religious. Cutting back SOW funding, ending the charter challenge program, resolution to re-visit SSM, and no funding of "objectionable" films.

Now, that being said, it all amounts to two-fifths of SFA. It's a sop to the right. In actual fact he governs as a middle of the roader.

[M.Dancer]

More generally conservative than socon or religious. Cutting back SOW funding, ending the charter challenge program, resolution to re-visit SSM, and no funding of "objectionable" films.

Now, that being said, it all amounts to two-fifths of SFA. It's a sop to the right. In actual fact he governs as a middle of the roader.

When exactly did they revisit SSM...and what is SOW? SFA?

Funding films with tax payer money is something that is questionable whether or not the film is called "Fucker" or not.

[maldon_road]

When exactly did they revisit SSM...and what is SOW? SFA?

Funding films with tax payer money is something that is questionable whether or not the film is called "Fucker" or not.

If you recall, in December, 2006 he introduced a resolution to reopen the question of gay marriage (SSM). It was a sham. Preordained to fail. The last thing Harper wants is support from a bunch of religious nutters.

SOW- Office of the Status of Women.

SFA is a well-known acronym - Sweet F*** All.

Your point about tax-payer funded moves is well taken.

[M.Dancer]

If you recall, in December, 2006 he introduced a resolution to reopen the question of gay marriage (SSM). It was a sham. Preordained to fail. The last thing Harper wants is support from a bunch of religious nutters.

SOW- Office of the Status of Women.

SFA is a well-known acronym - Sweet F*** All.

Your point about tax-payer funded moves is well taken.

It might be semantics then, calling a resolution designed to fail and therefore finally to put to rest the SSM debate, revisiting....

The Status of Women is another pork barrel that no one gives a damn about...

[margrace]

Dancer

The Status of Women is another pork barrel that no one gives a damn about...

Yes I truly believe that the people advising Harper, if there are any, believe that, when he tests it at an election we will see.

[normanchateau]

What religious or social conservative policies has Harper ever put before the house?

Would you say that introducing legislation requiring judges to impose a mandatory sentence of six months in jail for one marijuana plant is a socially conservative policy?

Re-visiting same sex marriage in December, 2006 failed only because there were not enough MPs to support it. Similarly, when Harper voted against SSM when it was introduced by the previous government, his opposition was ineffective because he didn't have the numbers. But he opposed it both times. Is that not socially conservative? Or would you claim that because he didn't have the numbers, he can't be accused of social conservatism?

One of the best examples of his religious and social conservatism is his vote on Bill C-250 when the Liberals were in power. Bill C-250 passed because the Liberals, NDP and BQ voted for it. Harper and his party voted against it. Bill C-250 made it a hate crime to advocate or promote the killing of homosexuals and lesbians. Harper is not opposed to hate crime legislation per se, e.g., he has no problem with hate crime legislation based on religion or race, but he has made it clear that he opposes hate crime legislation based on sexual orientation.

So far Harper's social conservatism has had a minimal impact on Canada because he doesn't have a majority of the MPs. But his past votes in the house certainly reveal where he stands. Some Harper supporters would have us believe that if he had a majority, his social conservatism would suddenly not be an issue despite the fact that his previous votes suggest otherwise.

[M.Dancer]

Would you say that introducing legislation requiring judges to impose a mandatory sentence of six months in jail for one marijuana plant is a socially conservative policy?

No I wouldn't.

[normanchateau]

No I wouldn't.

I would.

The Liberals previously proposed legislation to decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana, i.e., 15 grams or less. The NDP and Greens have both produced legalization. Harper opposes even decriminalization.

Would you call Harper's position socially conservative? Libertarian?

What about his opposition to C-250? Would you call that socially conservative?

What about his opposition to SSM? Would you call that socially conservative?

[M.Dancer]

What about his opposition to SSM? Would you call that socially conservative?

From what I see he doesn't have any opposition to SSM. The motion to re-open the debate was a sop designed to fail. IF he really wanted to do something about it, he wouldn't have laiunched a "False Flag" motion.

[normanchateau]

What about his opposition to SSM? Would you call that socially conservative?

From what I see he doesn't have any opposition to SSM.

Here's Harper on video passionately and emotionally voicing his opposition to SSM at a religious rally:

http://trailervision.com/trailer.php?id=167

Would you call his opposition to SSM socially conservative? Do you think the fact that he has twice now lead the fight in parliament to oppose SSM, first as Opposition Leader and next as Prime Minister, means that he is no longer opposed to SSM? Or does it mean that he acknowledges that he does not have the votes in parliament to win this particular fight and doesn't want to fight an election on this issue? Harper knows that the religious nuts and homophobes will vote for him anyway. He needs to win middle-of-the-road votes.

What about Harper's parliamentary vote against making it a hate crime to advocate or promote the killing of homosexuals, i.e. C-250? Was that socially or religiously conservative? Or do you think it was libertarian?

What about his opposition to decriminalization of small quantities of marijuana? Most Canadians do not believe that there should be permanent criminal records and potential jail sentences for possession of trace quantities of marijuana. Stephen Harper does. Does that make him socially conservative? Or libertarian?

[M.Dancer]

Back to what I wrote earlier, how many bills have they tabled about SSM?

And further, there are plenty of people including a sizable gay community who oppose SSM who aren't social conservatives.

Edited March 26, 2008 by M.Dancer

[M.Dancer]

What about Harper's parliamentary vote against making it a hate crime to advocate or promote the killing of homosexuals, i.e. C-250? Was that socially or religiously conservative? Or do you think it was libertarian?

My understanding of C-250 was that it was unneccesary as all the crimes it listed were currently already on the books. The law doesn't specifically say Homosexuals, but sexual orientation. It could theoreticall y be used by a spouce who kills their partner over a sexual affair.

Murder is already illegal, adding a new law doesn't make murder any more illegal.

There were alos concerns that the bill could limit free speech (which is still legal). While I don't support the views of those who say gays are sick depraved immoral people, I do support their right to be wrong.