A conservative vs. a socialist (NDP) government

M.Dancer · March 28, 2008

Then those "unsophisticated people" should stick to financial instruments they do understand, like rent, instead of mortgages. If I did not understand how derivatives work and I speculated on derivatives and lost everything on financial instruments I did not understand, should I expect sympathy and perhaps a bail-out? Caveat Emptor. (BTW, that goes both for the home-owner, the lender, and the buyers of ABCP)
So what? Some people think the only payment they need to make on their credit cards until they lose their jobs then they too end up left only with debt. The only difference is the scale.

Ignorance is not an excuse and by accepting it as one, you are simply encouraging them to repeat the behaviour by absolving them of their true responsibility.

I'm not presenting it as an excuse, but how the below prime crisis started. But there should be regulation in place so that unscupulous mortgage brokers don't sell unsophisticated buyers a bill of goods...which in the end not only deprives the buyer of theri life savings....but has brought the near collapse of 12s of financial institutions and jeopodized the livlihoods of 10s of 1000s.

In canada we have those regulations. In the US they don't. Here it was the financial institutuions that bought debt that got bit, there is was ordinary folks and the institutions.

jbg · March 28, 2008

So what? Some people think the only payment they need to make on their credit cards until they lose their jobs then they too end up left only with debt. The only difference is the scale.
Ignorance is not an excuse and by accepting it as one, you are simply encouraging them to repeat the behaviour by absolving them of their true responsibility.

I think that people understand more than they let on, personally. The possible place for assistance are situations where the effect of the end of "teaser" rates is not explained. In that case, the mortgage broker should be treated as the agent of the lender, and teh loss should be split.

M.Dancer · March 28, 2008

I think that people understand more than they let on, personally. The possible place for assistance are situations where the effect of the end of "teaser" rates is not explained. In that case, the mortgage broker should be treated as the agent of the lender, and teh loss should be split.

Indeed. It should even be criminal fraud. Especially when the rate starts out below prime then triples in 18 months.

...like the credit card application I got last week. 3.5% for the first 12 months.....in fine print below...

18.5% afterwards

Renegade · March 28, 2008

I'm not presenting it as an excuse, but how the below prime crisis started. But there should be regulation in place so that unscupulous mortgage brokers don't sell unsophisticated buyers a bill of goods...which in the end not only deprives the buyer of theri life savings....but has brought the near collapse of 12s of financial institutions and jeopodized the livlihoods of 10s of 1000s.

I agree that full disclosure should be required from both sides. Buyers should not be allowed to misrepresent their income, assets, and history and all parties in the mortgage should not be allowed to misrepresent the terms of the mortgage.

However, it is common knowledge that it is not what is said that counts, it is what is written on the paper which is signed. I suspect that terms written on paper do specifiy exactly when rates get reset. The home-owner has simply not bothered to read it. As far as the institutions are concerned, they too, didn't put in the diigence into making their purchases, and they too deserve their fate.

In canada we have those regulations. In the US they don't. Here it was the financial institutuions that bought debt that got bit, there is was ordinary folks and the institutions.

Yes for the most part Canadian home-owners have fared far-better than the US, I still don't support regulation which forces risk-adversion. In Canada we have regulation which limits the mortgage risks which home-owners and institutions can expose themselves to. The crisis was not broght on because institutions and individuals took on too much risk, it was because they didnt KNOW how much risk they were taking on.

I woudl support regulation which called for full-disclosure rather than limiting the risk that individuals or institutions can undertake.

Renegade · March 28, 2008

The possible place for assistance are situations where the effect of the end of "teaser" rates is not explained. In that case, the mortgage broker should be treated as the agent of the lender, and teh loss should be split.

That will very much vary according to the individual situation. If the mortgage-broker misrepresented the mortgage while knowing full well the terms, then they alone should be responsible for the loss. If the teaser rates and their expiry were documented and signed off by the customer, they probably have much less recourse for redress.

Renegade · March 28, 2008

Indeed. It should even be criminal fraud. Especially when the rate starts out below prime then triples in 18 months.
...like the credit card application I got last week. 3.5% for the first 12 months.....in fine print below...

18.5% afterwards

No, it woudl only be criminal fraud if the fine print didn't tell you that the rate was going up. If you don't read the fine print then you in essence are agreeing that you don't care about the terms.

M.Dancer · March 28, 2008

I woudl support regulation which called for full-disclosure rather than limiting the risk that individuals or institutions can undertake.

I agree with you but in many cases the brokers were preying on blue collar types who were all but functionally illiterate. All they wanted was a piece of the american dream.

I'm not sure if you are required to have a lawyer expain things to you in the US...

My gut feeling is (in other words I'm guessing....) this was sold like back in the days when the Vancouver Exchange was filled with stick promoters who always claimed the stock was just about to rise....that interest rates would always be low ....

But at very least people should be required to put up the 5% down....

Renegade · March 28, 2008

I agree with you but in many cases the brokers were preying on blue collar types who were all but functionally illiterate. All they wanted was a piece of the american dream.

I'd like to understand what specificly "preying" means. My expectation is that legislation such as this is appropriate to address the behaviour of mortgage brokers: Draft regulation - Standards of practice - Mortgage Brokerages

normanchateau · March 28, 2008

Extreme right and left wings are both totalitarian. They have different social concepts but some are similar. Who cares when totalitarianism is running things? What difference does it make if the citizen is ordered to perform his duties by a right wing dictator or a left wing politburo? It is the same oppression under a different name. It helps if you have friends but that is true of any political or organizational structure.
A good policy might be, and one that may keep government from becoming oppressive, is to intentionally do no harm unless force is intitiated against you.

Exactly, both right wing and left wing totalitarianism have similar policies. For example, both the Bush/Harper and Cuban drug policies are draconian. Remarkably, Harper has now stepped up his right wing authoritarianism by putting forth legislation making it mandatory for judges to impose six month sentences for a single marijuana plant.

Today, more than 1 out of every 100 Americans is in jail, largely for drug offenses. The per capita incarceration rate in the US is the highest in the world, surpassing even China, Cuba and Russia:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...ernational/home

Despite the Greens and NDP proposing legalization of marijuana, and the Liberals introducing legislation in a previous parliament proposing decriminalization for possession of small quantities, socon Harper is satisfied with young people having lifetime criminal records and potential jail time for possession.

Does Harper seriously believe that Bush and Castro should be our role models on how to deal with marijuana possession?

M.Dancer · March 28, 2008

I'd like to understand what specificly "preying" means. My expectation is that legislation such as this is appropriate to address the behaviour of mortgage brokers: Draft regulation - Standards of practice - Mortgage Brokerages

I'm refering to the US where mortgage brokers set up shop in poorer neighbourhoods.

Renegade · March 28, 2008

I'm refering to the US where mortgage brokers set up shop in poorer neighbourhoods.

Why is that preying? Aren't poorer people entitled to mortgages?

normanchateau · March 28, 2008

It is a moot point anyways because we already allow synthetic PATENTED opiates to be sold legally. Tylenol with codiene, is available as an over the counter medicine while morphine, another synthetic opiate, requires a prescription.

Actually there are now synthetic patented cannabinoids as well and these have been shown to be effective in preventing the brain damage caused by Alzheimer's:

http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/abstract/25/8/1904

The US and Canada have no problem with patented cannabinoids and opiates as long as they're sold by pharmaceutical companies. Yet patented cannabinoids and marijuana act on exactly the same cannabinoid receptors in the brain! Similarly, synthetic opiates and heroin act on exactly the same opiate receptors in the brain. Of course the synthetics belong to respectable multibillion dollar corporations. The natural plants, which can't be patented, do not.

Why should a synthetic cannabinoid with effects like marijuana be legal and not the natural plant which produces it? This makes about as much sense as only permitting synthetic sweeteners to be sold while making sugar illegal.

Pliny · March 29, 2008

Exactly, both right wing and left wing totalitarianism have similar policies. For example, both the Bush/Harper and Cuban drug policies are draconian. Remarkably, Harper has now stepped up his right wing authoritarianism by putting forth legislation making it mandatory for judges to impose six month sentences for a single marijuana plant.
Today, more than 1 out of every 100 Americans is in jail, largely for drug offenses. The per capita incarceration rate in the US is the highest in the world, surpassing even China, Cuba and Russia:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...ernational/home

Despite the Greens and NDP proposing legalization of marijuana, and the Liberals introducing legislation in a previous parliament proposing decriminalization for possession of small quantities, socon Harper is satisfied with young people having lifetime criminal records and potential jail time for possession.

Does Harper seriously believe that Bush and Castro should be our role models on how to deal with marijuana possession?

There is a difference between Cuba and Bush/Harper. Cubans do not have input to the laws of the country they are dictated. Bush/Harper are only upholding legislation that the people supported at the time of their enactment.

The differentiation must be made but it is an excellent example of how societal concepts are better left to the evolution of society than to be ensconced in rigid law.

I would never say or even hint that China, Cuba and Russia are freer than the West in any respect.

Rovik · March 29, 2008

Several things here:

Many people, in an attempt to scare others from considering the NDP, will often villify or monsterize the NDP by either overly exaggerating the truth or in some cases outright lying.

- First, many will call the NDP a socialist party to scare people about the party but the NDP are not a socialist party, they are a social democrat party (big difference.) A purely socialist party tends more to the extreme left while a social democrat party is more centre-left. People skew this but saying that since the NDP are to the left and socialists are to the the left. then the NDP is a socialist party. With that same logic, I could say the Conservatives are to the right but so is fascism, therefore Conservatives = Fascists. This is not true of course but you see the pont.

- Second, people always point to the scary Ontario NDP govt. of the 80s like they were the only bad Provinical govt. that Canada ever had. And they also use this govt. as why you shouldn't vote for the Federal NDP. Yet, no one ever mentions former Grant Devine's Sask.'s Conservative govt or former Smallwood's Newfoundland Liberal govt. as a reason not to vote for either the Federal Conservatives or the Liberals.

- Third, many attack Jack Layton as a looney, not understanding the way things are. Unfortunately, or fortunately depending on the way one looks at it, he tends to be very passionate about what the NDP believes in and people tend to use this against him. It's too bad Harper and Dion don't have this same type of passion, perhaps the House of Commons wouldn't be in the shape it's in and people within look at the whole system with such cynism.

- Fourth, the NDP has been the de facto opposition NDP since the Liberals have wimped out and become buddies with the Conservatives. It's too bad the media hasn't reported on this (especially the issues that the NDP has brought up in the House of Commons.) It's funny, the NDP could have 6 members bringing up an issue and the Liberals have one member bring up the same issue; yet, the media will report on the one Liberal member's comments and not on what the 6 NDPers said.

In regards to the recent by-elections:

- The Greens took votes from all the parties, not just the NDP.

- With just over 10% of eligible voters voting, it's hard to make a judgement on such a low number.

- There have been 8 by-elections since the last general election and the NDP weren't favoured in any, yet they did win one. Overall, I think that bodes well for the NDP.

Pliny · March 29, 2008

Several things here:
Many people, in an attempt to scare others from considering the NDP, will often villify or monsterize the NDP by either overly exaggerating the truth or in some cases outright lying.

Could you answer the following questions for me:

Who here is villifying or monsterizing the NDP?

Who here is overly exaggerating?

Who here is outright lying?

- First, many will call the NDP a socialist party to scare people about the party but the NDP are not a socialist party, they are a social democrat party (big difference.) A purely socialist party tends more to the extreme left while a social democrat party is more centre-left. People skew this but saying that since the NDP are to the left and socialists are to the the left. then the NDP is a socialist party. With that same logic, I could say the Conservatives are to the right but so is fascism, therefore Conservatives = Fascists. This is not true of course but you see the pont.

Are there socialists in Canada, and if so, what party represents this extreme left element in Canada?

Are there fascists in Canada and if so which party represents the fascists?

Now if I may make comment;

It seems by saying the NDP is not a socialist party but a social democrat party you are attempting to persuade me that there are no socialists in the NDP. They are all social democrats and Canada itself is not a socialist country but a social democrat country.

Socialism, sir is an evolutionary process toward totalitarianism. If people accepted that definition they would not entertain any of the concepts of socialism. Political parties in democracies tend to want to distance themselves from any identification with totalitarianism. Although a monopolistic government funded healthcare system is socialist in it's concept and public education, redistributive taxation and welfare are just as socialist we do not make the association we are heading toward totalitarianism. We cannot say, OK, that's it. We are not doing anymore socialism. Therefore we are not socialist." Good argument but doesn't wash with me- these programs all require a growing demand on resources and the economy of the nation. So as long as we hold these socialist ideals as prerequisite we are heading toward totalitarianism. It is an evolutionary process. I understand from what you say that you think of socialism as a static already achieved State.

- Second, people always point to the scary Ontario NDP govt. of the 80s like they were the only bad Provinical govt. that Canada ever had. And they also use this govt. as why you shouldn't vote for the Federal NDP. Yet, no one ever mentions former Grant Devine's Sask.'s Conservative govt or former Smallwood's Newfoundland Liberal govt. as a reason not to vote for either the Federal Conservatives or the Liberals.

You must be from Ontario? Out here in BC people point to the scary BC NDP govt. but it is admittedly harder a label to stickout here as most people have politically socialistic tendencies and are just waiting until either the current govt. screws up and/or people forget about the previous NDP fiasco.

- Third, many attack Jack Layton as a looney, not understanding the way things are. Unfortunately, or fortunately depending on the way one looks at it, he tends to be very passionate about what the NDP believes in and people tend to use this against him. It's too bad Harper and Dion don't have this same type of passion, perhaps the House of Commons wouldn't be in the shape it's in and people within look at the whole system with such cynism.

Passionate is such a warm and endearing term isn't it? We could say Hitler was passionate but we prefer not to attach that adjective to him makes him seem human.

Believe me if Harper and Dion worked passionately I don't think you would show them the same appreciation.

- Fourth, the NDP has been the de facto opposition NDP since the Liberals have wimped out and become buddies with the Conservatives. It's too bad the media hasn't reported on this (especially the issues that the NDP has brought up in the House of Commons.) It's funny, the NDP could have 6 members bringing up an issue and the Liberals have one member bring up the same issue; yet, the media will report on the one Liberal member's comments and not on what the 6 NDPers said.

Is this indicative of Hillary Clinton's right-wing media conspiracy?

In regards to the recent by-elections:
- The Greens took votes from all the parties, not just the NDP.

- With just over 10% of eligible voters voting, it's hard to make a judgement on such a low number.

- There have been 8 by-elections since the last general election and the NDP weren't favoured in any, yet they did win one. Overall, I think that bodes well for the NDP.

With only 10% of eligible voters voting I would go with your original conclusion. It is hard to make a judgement.

Thank you for your contribution to this thread by the way. You present your position well.

eyeball · March 31, 2008

The Conservatives are in a strange position where they have to be socialist in order to make the country more non-socialist.
By the way people, in case you haven't heard, socialism does NOT work. I repeat, socialism does NOT work. This is the reason why the Soviet Bloc went to ratshit and the good ole USA reigned supreme. If you do not believe this then I suggest you take a trip to a former socialist country in Eastern Europe to open your eyes. Canada is absolutely foolish to take it's policies from such a completely failed system.

Reigned supreme, as in past tense? The US appears to be rapidly going the way the Soviet superpower did and for much the same reason. Imperial (military and economic) over-reach, corruption, blind faith. As for Canada I'd say we have plenty of corruption and blind faith to go around, especially in America's military and economic policies. Socialism on the other hand seems to be working just fine for China. Mind you, China can't become a super-power fast enough so...its only a matter of time before they drive off the same cliff.

I think the world will be a better place without a bunch of super-powers and empires fighting over it. Hopefully we're seeing the very beginning of the end of what will one day be called the Age of Empires.

Of course there will never be a shortage of stodgy old conservatives, socialist or otherwise, meaning life will still be a fairly dreary grind for most humans. Maybe another 250,000 years of evolution will help, but I doubt it.

bush_cheney2004 · March 31, 2008

As for Canada I'd say we have plenty of corruption and blind faith to go around, especially in America's military and economic policies....

Ya think? Well, Canada would certainly have experience with fallen empires, and it was the Americans that started it.

HistoryBuff44 · March 31, 2008

Reigned supreme, as in past tense? The US appears to be rapidly going the way the Soviet superpower did and for much the same reason. Imperial (military and economic) over-reach, corruption, blind faith. As for Canada I'd say we have plenty of corruption and blind faith to go around, especially in America's military and economic policies. Socialism on the other hand seems to be working just fine for China. Mind you, China can't become a super-power fast enough so...its only a matter of time before they drive off the same cliff.
I think the world will be a better place without a bunch of super-powers and empires fighting over it. Hopefully we're seeing the very beginning of the end of what will one day be called the Age of Empires.

Of course there will never be a shortage of stodgy old conservatives, socialist or otherwise, meaning life will still be a fairly dreary grind for most humans. Maybe another 250,000 years of evolution will help, but I doubt it.

Socialism is working just fine for china?? really? Seems to me there has been a lot of unrest (not talking about recent Tibet issues). In 2005 there were 87,000 recorded "public order disturbances", a 50% increase from 2003. as for their economics, it wasnt until they started letting private capitalism occur that their economy took off. the Chinese government tries to paint a pretty picture but they have plenty of issues there.

I do agree that their rediculous growth rate is going to cause them more issues, right now they bring online 1 new coal power plant each week. they simply take land from farmers without compensation and tell them to move to the city and look for work.

I especially got a laugh out of your last paragraph.... cause im sure life was just so much better under the liberals, did you not work when they were in power? did you suddenly switch from the job of a life time to the worst thing imaginable when they came to power? as for the country as a whole it seems to be roughly the same ol same ol; the economy goes up and down again.

M.Dancer · March 31, 2008

Socialism works for china, just not for the Chinese....

Well, if you call living in toxic cities cheek to jowl with your neighbour, or in farms that employ the latest in 19th century technology that allows you to save up enough to buy new running shoes....

normanchateau · April 4, 2008

Bush/Harper are only upholding legislation that the people supported at the time of their enactment.

Harper introduced legislation a few months ago requiring judges to impose six month mandatory jail sentences for one marijuana plant:

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/st...5ed&k=72082

However, a majority of Canadians support the legalization of marijuana (Angus-Reid, 2007):

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/16300

MontyBurns · April 4, 2008

Harper introduced legislation a few months ago requiring judges to impose six month mandatory jail sentences for one marijuana plant:

We need to put these dope smoking hippies away.

madmax · April 4, 2008

We need to put these dope smoking hippies away.

And the dope smoking corporate businessmen who build 35 to 40 skyscrapers a year and make a fortune. The have more then one plant growing

normanchateau · April 4, 2008

We need to put these dope smoking hippies away.

That does seem to reflect the moralistic position of Evangelicals like Stephen Harper but apparently most Canadians feel otherwise:

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/16300

eyeball · April 4, 2008

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/16300

How is anyone to make sense of an opinion that smoking pot should be legal but selling or growing it should be a crime?

Monty is on the right track, if you're really serious about stamping out marijuana use you have to stop the demand by rounding up all the dope smokers. All you'd need to do is make drug testing mandatory and throw everyone who fails into prison.

End of problem. Focus only on the supply however and the problem will never go away...ever.

normanchateau · April 5, 2008

How is anyone to make sense of an opinion that smoking pot should be legal but selling or growing it should be a crime?

That merely demonstrates inconsistency and rationalization, not unusual traits. For example, drug dealers are viewed as bad yet marijuana users, since they're likely to be one's peers, are good.

It's the same sort of rationalization and inconsistency we see in people who see no problem with governments selling and taxing dangerous drugs like alcohol and cigarettes while outraged at the thought of government

selling and taxing marijuana.