Economics

[Slim MacSquinty]

Since the debates I have been listening to Jack and Stephane talk about the economy and I'm convinced that neither of them have a clue what they are talking about;

Today Jack, thinking he was being whitty, said Harper doesn't know what he's doing on the economy, pull one thread and the whole thing will unravel. That is a very dangerous analogy to use, the stability of the economy is in no small part dependant on confidence in the economic system, a federal leader playing chicken little is irresponsible as it erodes public confidence.

Jacks plan is to punish business, how will that help the economy? he says he'll reward some businesses though, how will Jack decide, he hasn't really layed that out has he, will it be some democratic process or perhaps a lottery? What's he going to to about the stock market, the value of the dollar, the balance of trade? How will he pay for all the promises he made if business isn't doing so well during the impending hard times he keeps talking about?

Dion, says trust me, I'm going to have meetings with smart people. now that's a plan. He's also playing chicken little just like Jack, being a main stream party that has actually been in power he really should know better, but political opportunity trumps prudent thinking, that says alot about his motives and honesty.

The national post has an article today which talks about the possibilities, http://www.financialpost.com/news/story.html?id=864194 Seems they were able to consult some smart guys and boil it down in about a day. Maybe we should elect the editorial board at the Post.

At any rate, I think its important that people realize that our banks are a lot different than the US and some others, there exposure to asset backed paper was minimal compared to the US, further we didn't create any bad mortgages here and despite pressure, Harper closed the door on longer term low down payment mortgages some time ago. High leverage mortages in Canada are fully insured, therefore housing prices would theoretically have to drop at least 25% to put the weakest mortgage in a no equity position.

The only problem we are having thus far is the stock market meltdown, but as all things this too will pass, it will cause some trouble to those needing their money immediately, but that is likely relatively small in number. Other than some weakness in manufacturing, which the declining dollar will help, the rest of our economy doesn't seem to have taken much of a hit yet. Continuing our lower business tax regime will prevent marginal businesses from packing up and leaving and preventing the consequent job losses.

Stay the course is the best course of action for the short term, no point in talking about government intervention until absolutely necessary. yestereday the German Chansellor promised to guarantee all deposits then had to back off since money started to move from other countries.

If you are actually worried about the economy, then elect an economist for Prime Minister, not a socioligist or a crazy unionist.

[Kitch]

If you are actually worried about the economy, then elect an economist for Prime Minister, not a socioligist or a crazy unionist.

The problem with that is economists are trained using fundamental assumptions that are ridiculous. Unless he is a truly insightful man, an economist is the last person I'd want to be in charge of all that tax money.

Have a read about some of the beef with the text book that many universities use by Greg Mankiw. Apparently, resources are not finite, happiness increases proportionally with income, people are ALWAYS rational and will always make decisions that result in the lowest cost and greatest gain.

Now, I'm a science guy. My understanding of economics is... basic, and my exposure to this guy's book is second hand (through things I've read trashing it). So feel free to slam me if I've said something you dislike. Also, because I'm a science guy, I DO have an understanding of the way the natural world works that is most definitely not separated from our social (economic) systems... so I know I'm not way off.

[independent]

Since the debates I have been listening to Jack and Stephane talk about the economy and I'm convinced that neither of them have a clue what they are talking about;

Today Jack, thinking he was being whitty, said Harper doesn't know what he's doing on the economy, pull one thread and the whole thing will unravel. That is a very dangerous analogy to use, the stability of the economy is in no small part dependant on confidence in the economic system, a federal leader playing chicken little is irresponsible as it erodes public confidence.

Jacks plan is to punish business, how will that help the economy? he says he'll reward some businesses though, how will Jack decide, he hasn't really layed that out has he, will it be some democratic process or perhaps a lottery? What's he going to to about the stock market, the value of the dollar, the balance of trade? How will he pay for all the promises he made if business isn't doing so well during the impending hard times he keeps talking about?

Dion, says trust me, I'm going to have meetings with smart people. now that's a plan. He's also playing chicken little just like Jack, being a main stream party that has actually been in power he really should know better, but political opportunity trumps prudent thinking, that says alot about his motives and honesty.

The national post has an article today which talks about the possibilities, http://www.financialpost.com/news/story.html?id=864194 Seems they were able to consult some smart guys and boil it down in about a day. Maybe we should elect the editorial board at the Post.

At any rate, I think its important that people realize that our banks are a lot different than the US and some others, there exposure to asset backed paper was minimal compared to the US, further we didn't create any bad mortgages here and despite pressure, Harper closed the door on longer term low down payment mortgages some time ago. High leverage mortages in Canada are fully insured, therefore housing prices would theoretically have to drop at least 25% to put the weakest mortgage in a no equity position.

The only problem we are having thus far is the stock market meltdown, but as all things this too will pass, it will cause some trouble to those needing their money immediately, but that is likely relatively small in number. Other than some weakness in manufacturing, which the declining dollar will help, the rest of our economy doesn't seem to have taken much of a hit yet. Continuing our lower business tax regime will prevent marginal businesses from packing up and leaving and preventing the consequent job losses.

Stay the course is the best course of action for the short term, no point in talking about government intervention until absolutely necessary. yestereday the German Chansellor promised to guarantee all deposits then had to back off since money started to move from other countries.

If you are actually worried about the economy, then elect an economist for Prime Minister, not a socioligist or a crazy unionist.

Why do you give a link that counter-dicks everything you just said. It shows Harper backtracking on his previous statements about the economy. You say more things to make Harper look bad than the Liberal supporters.

[Moonbox]

The problem with that is economists are trained using fundamental assumptions that are ridiculous. Unless he is a truly insightful man, an economist is the last person I'd want to be in charge of all that tax money.

Have a read about some of the beef with the text book that many universities use by Greg Mankiw. Apparently, resources are not finite, happiness increases proportionally with income, people are ALWAYS rational and will always make decisions that result in the lowest cost and greatest gain.

Now, I'm a science guy. My understanding of economics is... basic, and my exposure to this guy's book is second hand (through things I've read trashing it). So feel free to slam me if I've said something you dislike. Also, because I'm a science guy, I DO have an understanding of the way the natural world works that is most definitely not separated from our social (economic) systems... so I know I'm not way off.

There are bad economists and good economists. One of the biggest problems with economic analysts is that they provide analysis which is often very politically tilted. Whatever your position or point of view you can usually find 'economists' who will agree with you for various reasons. Another problem with economists is that external events are often unpredictable and they can never account for that.

Having said that, at least an economist understands the driving forces of supply, demand, inflation, interest rates, currency exchange rates etc and can look at them objectively. The 70's and 80''s showed a disgusting ignorance of basic economic theory (under Trudeau and Mulroney) and we are paying for that now.

[Oleg Bach]

It just got to big and complex and the new rich who invest in the markets and expect something for nothing are getting what they deserve...nothing! Governments are controlled by those in control of free enterprise...what has happened is that what starts of as a type of privateerism or (legitimate mafia) PEAKS - power has no satisfying end - and now that these families have gained total control of the free and captive world....well they have reached the top and are not quite sure what to do with all the power and that acqusition of power that was their primary drive...It's like being king of the world - once you are king what do you do? Who said that the rich and powerful were the smartest anyway? Just the most consistantly driven - and now we see the results of too much blind ambition - it is history repeating it self...The old established rich are not to blame - it is the up coming that are thrilled and delluded with a nasty human trait called greed - which in the natural world is a mental illness - we have work to do and some must suffer punitive reprimand.

[Kitch]

There are bad economists and good economists. One of the biggest problems with economic analysts is that they provide analysis which is often very politically tilted. Whatever your position or point of view you can usually find 'economists' who will agree with you for various reasons. Another problem with economists is that external events are often unpredictable and they can never account for that.

Having said that, at least an economist understands the driving forces of supply, demand, inflation, interest rates, currency exchange rates etc and can look at them objectively. The 70's and 80''s showed a disgusting ignorance of basic economic theory (under Trudeau and Mulroney) and we are paying for that now.

Very good point. But does a person need to be an economist to understand those concepts? I would assume one could take a first year economics course and be informed enough... perhaps with a little bit of real world experience! (JUST A QUESTION/OPINION for the conservatives that will be all over me with illogical statements and attacks on my naivety!!).

[Moonbox]

Very good point. But does a person need to be an economist to understand those concepts? I would assume one could take a first year economics course and be informed enough... perhaps with a little bit of real world experience! (JUST A QUESTION/OPINION for the conservatives that will be all over me with illogical statements and attacks on my naivety!!).

I think to get VERY BASIC understanding of the concepts a first year university economics course would point you in the right direction. It doesn't take a genius to understand that higher inflation means higher interest rates and vice versa, or that higher interest rates can appreciate the value of the dollar, but the problem really is that all the factors are inter-linked and affect each other in different ways and in different directions.

What I mean here is that it's really complicated to understand how the various factors affect one another and by how much they will do so. Nobody can ever get it right all the time, but some people do a hell of a lot better than others.

Some of the candidates (Jack Layton particularly) shows such a fundamentally lacking understanding of economic theory that he's basically ensured he'll never be PM. This is what scares me. When economic policies like Trudeau's fail so miserably it shows just how dangerous it is to have a PM governing without a good understanding of how the markets work.

[Moonbox]

It just got to big and complex and the new rich who invest in the markets and expect something for nothing are getting what they deserve...nothing! Governments are controlled by those in control of free enterprise...what has happened is that what starts of as a type of privateerism or (legitimate mafia) PEAKS - power has no satisfying end - and now that these families have gained total control of the free and captive world....well they have reached the top and are not quite sure what to do with all the power and that acqusition of power that was their primary drive...It's like being king of the world - once you are king what do you do? Who said that the rich and powerful were the smartest anyway? Just the most consistantly driven - and now we see the results of too much blind ambition - it is history repeating it self...The old established rich are not to blame - it is the up coming that are thrilled and delluded with a nasty human trait called greed - which in the natural world is a mental illness - we have work to do and some must suffer punitive reprimand.

That's a little far out I think. I agree that corporations are inherently greedy and whatnot and should be regulated to an extent but you went a little too far there....

[Oleg Bach]

WAR - is the lazy mans wealth builder. It is rich people killing poor people for fun and profit...It was Iraq that enriched a few Americans and demolished the rest. Economics is Saudi Arabia - the sooner these creeps are put under control the better. Do you not remember how the Saudis put up the money for 911 and insulted the west by murdering 3000 people just to amuse them selves? That is ecomomics - you have a bunch of hand chopping boy banging jerks controling the energy supply - To bad Cheney was not more brave - He would have invaded Saudi Arabia and we would not be having this problem - simple - the rest is acedemic non-sense.

[Moonbox]

WAR - is the lazy mans wealth builder. It is rich people killing poor people for fun and profit...It was Iraq that enriched a few Americans and demolished the rest. Economics is Saudi Arabia - the sooner these creeps are put under control the better. Do you not remember how the Saudis put up the money for 911 and insulted the west by murdering 3000 people just to amuse them selves? That is ecomomics - you have a bunch of hand chopping boy banging jerks controling the energy supply - To bad Cheney was not more brave - He would have invaded Saudi Arabia and we would not be having this problem - simple - the rest is acedemic non-sense.

None of that even makes sense and ignores basically every function of logic possible.

[Topaz]

About a year ago I hear this woman predict that people in the US would lose their homes because of what was going to happen to the mortgages on these homes and she was right. I also heard these two guys say, on the first of Sept. that something terrible was going to happen around Oct.5th and it impact the whole world for at least 6 months. So you don't really have to be an genus in economics to know what is going to or has happen, just common sense. As I said else on this forumelsewhere, someone called this mess "economic terrorism"

[White Doors]

I think to get VERY BASIC understanding of the concepts a first year university economics course would point you in the right direction. It doesn't take a genius to understand that higher inflation means higher interest rates and vice versa, or that higher interest rates can appreciate the value of the dollar, but the problem really is that all the factors are inter-linked and affect each other in different ways and in different directions.

What I mean here is that it's really complicated to understand how the various factors affect one another and by how much they will do so. Nobody can ever get it right all the time, but some people do a hell of a lot better than others.

Some of the candidates (Jack Layton particularly) shows such a fundamentally lacking understanding of economic theory that he's basically ensured he'll never be PM. This is what scares me. When economic policies like Trudeau's fail so miserably it shows just how dangerous it is to have a PM governing without a good understanding of how the markets work.

They know how it works, he doesn't actually believe the crap he is saying he is just pandering to emotion.

[capricorn]

About a year ago I hear this woman predict that people in the US would lose their homes because of what was going to happen to the mortgages on these homes and she was right.

And you didn't think to warn our politicians? Where's your sense of civic duty?

[Moonbox]

About a year ago I hear this woman predict that people in the US would lose their homes because of what was going to happen to the mortgages on these homes and she was right. I also heard these two guys say, on the first of Sept. that something terrible was going to happen around Oct.5th and it impact the whole world for at least 6 months. So you don't really have to be an genus in economics to know what is going to or has happen, just common sense. As I said else on this forumelsewhere, someone called this mess "economic terrorism"

Regular people 'predict' where the economy is going all the time. Sometimes they're right and more often they're not.

What a woman predicted a year ago about the americans losing their homes is irrelevant considering that the bad stuff had ALREADY hit the fan by then and everyone already knew EXACTLY what was going on and banks were already posting multi-billion dollar losses.

Finally Topaz, what 'this woman' predicted and what you heard 'two guys' say about the economy sounds about as reliable as Russian car.

The case in point here is there are hundreds of millions of 'regular folk' wetting their beds these days about the economic crisis because they had no idea what was coming and had no clue what the various indicators and signals meant. They had NO idea.

[independent]

Regular people 'predict' where the economy is going all the time. Sometimes they're right and more often they're not.

What a woman predicted a year ago about the americans losing their homes is irrelevant considering that the bad stuff had ALREADY hit the fan by then and everyone already knew EXACTLY what was going on and banks were already posting multi-billion dollar losses.

Finally Topaz, what 'this woman' predicted and what you heard 'two guys' say about the economy sounds about as reliable as Russian car.

The case in point here is there are hundreds of millions of 'regular folk' wetting their beds these days about the economic crisis because they had no idea what was coming and had no clue what the various indicators and signals meant. They had NO idea.

If the average guy on the street decide the economy is about to collapse it will. People stop buying because they are worried about their jobs investments etc. . People lose jobs as a result of no one buying. That is why you need a government that is perceived to be willing to stabilize the economy.

[eyeball]

Economics, what does it really mean?

Not much unless you're willing to acknowledge that virtually all our economic growth comes at the expence of the drawdown of our planet's natural capital. Economists like Harper are schooled in the belief that the natural world around us is an externality, in other words its something that exists outside of our economy. This is just plain nuts. You can have a natural ecosystem without a human economy but you can't have it the other way around.

Harper clearly doesn't get this and Layton also doesn't appear to understand this but Dion and May do, tax-shifting is an important step towards recognizing that an ecosystem comes before an economy. It at least try's to account for the cost of economic growth at the expence of the drawdown of natural capital.

[OddSox]

Economics, what does it really mean?

Not much unless you're willing to acknowledge that virtually all our economic growth comes at the expence of the drawdown of our planet's natural capital. Economists like Harper are schooled in the belief that the natural world around us is an externality, in other words its something that exists outside of our economy. This is just plain nuts. You can have a natural ecosystem without a human economy but you can't have it the other way around.

Harper clearly doesn't get this and Layton also doesn't appear to understand this but Dion and May do, tax-shifting is an important step towards recognizing that an ecosystem comes before an economy. It at least try's to account for the cost of economic growth at the expence of the drawdown of natural capital.

Huh?

[Kitch]

Huh?

He... she? is saying that economists use the fundamental assumption that the economy is independent of... the Earth as they analyze the economy. That resources are not finite, that human actions do not affect nature which in turn affect humans and their actions. The problem is that this dissociation assumption leads to the assumption that markets can grow indefinitely. Which simply cannot be true.

[Moonbox]

I don't think environmental taxes and increased cost of living is going to help us out in our current economic situation.

If you really want to protect the environment, invest in tech development for clean energy etc. Don't tax the only affordable source of fuel Canadians have right now and make it more expensive for them to live during a recession.

[Pliny]

I don't think environmental taxes and increased cost of living is going to help us out in our current economic situation.

If you really want to protect the environment, invest in tech development for clean energy etc. Don't tax the only affordable source of fuel Canadians have right now and make it more expensive for them to live during a recession.

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.

[Kitch]

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'm a leftist... and pretty far to the left. But when an intelligent person speaks of true free market ... theories?... I can't help but be intrigued.

It's almost counterintuitive to our Western mindset... in a way that I am all over. We LOVE control. We believe that the Earth is ours to do with what we please... really, we believe it is our duty to protect it. That doesn't make sense, though, since the Earth did just fine before we developed that attitude. I really like the idea of 'letting go'... meaning, of the economy, like you just explained.

I can't help, being a leftist, to be skeptical though. I mean, a Marxist society would suffer from people who would take advantage by not contributing what they can and taking more than they need. But I feel that a true free market society would suffer because people who are more successful than others, whether it's for a reason or not (meaning, if they worked hard or got "lucky" by investing in the right stocks), inevitably gain influence and 'power' that people with less money don't have. (I'm on some heavy drugs after a day surgery right now, so I can't articulate that as well as I'd like... but I hope you get the gist).

[Slim MacSquinty]

I think he is obliquely speaking of the "invisible hand" theory. I'm sure you've heard about it, wherein the market forces of supply and demand naturally lead to a sort of equilibrium between those things in demand and the prices we will pay for them. So what he's saying is that by fiddling with the market forces (by government) the banking system got out of balance and now someone has to pay.

However one could argue that the reason Canada's banking system is in better shape than many others is simply because our fiddling was better than their fiddling, since our system is more regulated and others less so, then one could argue our system is fiddled with more.

What I find very interesting and more than a little scary about the current financial situation is what sort of leverage was the banking sector applying to these mortgages. Fisrt the mortages themselves were preditoty the way they set people up and lured them into using their biggest asset to finance their lifestyles, but in reality it is perhaps 20% of US mortages or less were in trouble, the real estate values underlying the paper still has at least 50% of its value, what leverage ratio has been applied to cause the financial melt down, I'm guessing it must be at least 20 to 1. And what the heck are the bankers doing seemingly knowingly setting up such a house of cards?

[August1991]

Have a read about some of the beef with the text book that many universities use by Greg Mankiw. Apparently, resources are not finite, happiness increases proportionally with income, people are ALWAYS rational and will always make decisions that result in the lowest cost and greatest gain.

I tend to think that income is a necessary but insufficient condition for happiness. Poor people may sometimes be happy but as Sophie Tucker said: "I been poor and I been rich. Rich is better."

As to rational people - here's a thought: Individuals are rational (and your definition is good, Kitch) but there's no reason to believe that a group of rational individuals is rational. IOW, this idea of rationality applies only to individual behaviour, not group behaviour.

Indeed, from reading various forums over the past few years, it seems to me that a tremendous problem for otherwise intelligent people is understanding how to generalize individual behaviour to group/collective behavioir.

A group of people does not behave as a single person. Group behaviour is often irrational even though each individual in the group is rational. In the past few days, the world stock markets are ample evidence of this idea.

Edited October 10, 2008 by August1991

[eyeball]

I tend to think that income is a necessary but insufficient condition for happiness. Poor people may sometimes be happy but as Sophie Tucker said: "I been poor and I been rich. Rich is better."

As to rational people - here's a thought: Individuals are rational (and your definition is good, Kitch) but there's no reason to believe that a group of rational individuals is rational. IOW, this idea of rationality applies only to individual behaviour, not group behaviour.

Indeed, from reading various forums over the past few years, it seems to me that a tremendous problem for otherwise intelligent people is understanding how to generalize individual behaviour to group/collective behavioir.

A group of people does not behave as a single person. Group behaviour is often irrational even though each individual in the group is rational. In the past few days, the world stock markets are ample evidence of this idea.

Surely there are times when group behaviour can also be rational, you seem to be saying there are never times when this is the case. How do you explain something like the development of human rights? This seems like a good example of rational collective behaviour so does the devolpment of the scientific method of figuring out the world - the anti-AGW crowd notwithstanding.

Your assertion seems a little negative and subjective. Perhaps because what it means be rich or happy seems more subjective then ever. There seems to be an awful lot more unhappy rich people then there used to be. OTOH a few people I know who have nothing to lose have never seemed happier.

[Moonbox]

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.