Why the country will never get better.

[blueblood]

I think Bush's promise of a home for every American and the policies coming from that led too it more then lending the poor was what led to the housing bubble. With Bush lowering the central interest rate to almost nothing, and banks grabbing onto that to lend to anyone and everyone regardless of credit rating (this BTW was not a force policy) it build debt to those who couldn't afford it. Honestly blaming the government intervention is just crazy when you look at what actually happened banks played a game of hot potato on purpose because it made them look good at the time.

That's Clinton's baby as much as anyones. If the gov't hadn't of intervened, the banks would have told the poor people to f*** off like they do in Canada. In Canada banks are regulated to tell poor people to f*** off, in the states they were regulated to lend to them.

All the experts say that it is a crazy right wing talking point. The poor didn't create the problem greed did. Almost all the losses came from loans made to middle class and upper middle class Americans. Do some research.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/12/09/myth-fannie-freddie/

Your right greed created this problem, the poor people were greedy and wanted things they couldn't afford, and the dems were greedy by wanting votes from those broke ass losers.

Pretending like a bill passed in 1977 created this problem is silly guys. The same deregulation that has each and every citizen of Iceland on the hook for 300000 is to blame here. We should just thank god they didn't listen to Shady and kept many of the Regulations, we should thank God that the Canadian government had the foresight to stay even more involved in our banking system and it is healthy.

The American gov't was heavily involved with the US banking system by forcing banks to loan with its "regulations" - a fat lot of good that did. Iceland was just a domino, banking regulations would have done nothing for that country.

[bush_cheney2004]

...The American gov't was heavily involved with the US banking system by forcing banks to loan with its "regulations" - a fat lot of good that did. Iceland was just a domino, banking regulations would have done nothing for that country.

Moreover, the American government dismantled key firewalls (e.g. certain provisions of the Glass-Steagall Act) designed to prevent banks from owning and leveraging financial companies.

[ToadBrother]

Henry Paulson, George W. Bush's Secretary of the Treasury, former CEO of Goldman Sachs.

Timothy Geithner, Barrack Obama's Secretary of the Treasury, former President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York

Wall Street hijacked Washington.

BS. It was Washington that hijacked Wall Street. The United States government was the creator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and all the misery that flowed from that. Yes, bankers are greedy bastards, but generally, throughout the history of modern banking, they've been sufficiently cautious greedy bastards not to so massively overextend themselves. But the United States government created a massive credit bubble. I'd say what happened was as classic an example of a positive feedback loop as one could find in a modern economic system.

I know the problem was they were giving loans to people who couldn't afford to pay it back. Too much debt was the problem and now the government is encouraging people to go into more debt with government incentives and putting interest rates near zero. The government is just making the problem worse.

The government wasn't just encouraging it, it spent a decade deliberately tampering with mechanisms meant to keep banks in check. When Congress and the Executive are giving you a big thumbs up for playing the economic version of Girls Gone Wild, what the hell do you expect?

They should of let GM, Chrysler, AIG and whoever else fail and let capitalism work.

I'm sorry. One one hand you essentially think nationalizing banks is a good idea, and on the other, you think capitalism is a good idea. I'm not sure how large-scale capitalism works when the government is the bank. Perhaps you can explain this wonderful new economic theory to me.

The only thing propping up the economy is central banks world wide flooded the market with trillions of dollars, once that money stops flowing, reality will kick in.

Hopefully we will stabilize. I still think we dodged a major bullet, and as much as I despise pot hole projects like the various stimulus programs the industrialized countries enacted, it may have been enough to prop the system up.

The tragic thing is that there is little sign of meaningful reforms. Beating up bankers, which seems to be the direction guys like Barack Obama and Gordon Brown are going, is not reform, it's just populist pandering.

Money has to be in control of the people or crap like this happens.

What is it with guys like you and myata and your t-shirt slogans? What the $#@! does what you wrote even mean?

Edited February 3, 2010 by ToadBrother

[William Ashley]

News flash! Something IS wrong and has been for generations! Anyone who works closely with a government "service" soon learns that it can be as crazy as a soup sandwich!

Really! When we search for examples of cost savings and efficiencies, who ever points to a government service? How can you be so naive as to assume that having the government do it will SAVE us money??!!

Tell us the truth! If you had to ship a family gift across the country, would you feel more secure about it with the Post Office or a private courier service?

If you have no experience to give a qualified answer then please say so!

Even if you DO believe in the Post Office, the sheer change in the levels of parcels over the past few decades shows you to be virtually alone in your belief. Any business that ships parcels long since abandoned the Post Office. The only thing customers want them to use the mails for is to send the bill!

That's a fact, Jack! Don't believe me, go ahead and try it! See how many customers you keep!

Nothing is wrong with the post office, from my experience both post offices and private couriers offer roughly the same services. The benefit of courier is that they appear to have more expedited delivery streams while the post office handles excessive amounts of junk and letter mail.

Eg. you can send your MP a letter for free via Canada Post, but you cannot do this via a courier.

If harpers public service sell off keeps up then there wont be a public post office anyway.

It is all about needs and gosts.. paying 60 cents for a letter to be mailed is still way cheaper than paying 10$ for a courier to deliver it. Couriers tend to excel at parcel mail while Canada Post is predominantly a Postal Service.

Lettermail is cheaper via canada post, package delivery is approximately the same.

I'd be more concerned about using national post services in countries that have very slow delivery rates - eg. I have been told mexico can take for instance 30 days to route mail, which is perhaps why DHL is in most major mexican cities.

I have full confidence in Canada post for domestic delivery - I have only had issues with them based on foreign deliveries, that have passed through customs.

Edited February 3, 2010 by William Ashley

[M.Dancer]

I'm surprised nobody has commented on the fact that this guy has absolutely no clue as to how government borrowing works.

trust me, I did.

[maple_leafs182]

BS. It was Washington that hijacked Wall Street. The United States government was the creator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and all the misery that flowed from that. Yes, bankers are greedy bastards, but generally, throughout the history of modern banking, they've been sufficiently cautious greedy bastards not to so massively overextend themselves. But the United States government created a massive credit bubble. I'd say what happened was as classic an example of a positive feedback loop as one could find in a modern economic system.

The government wasn't just encouraging it, it spent a decade deliberately tampering with mechanisms meant to keep banks in check. When Congress and the Executive are giving you a big thumbs up for playing the economic version of Girls Gone Wild, what the hell do you expect?

The Banks loved giving loans to low income families because house prices were on the rise. Even if the family couldn't afford the mortgage, the bank would get the house which was worth more then the mortgage. That was fine and dandy for them till house prices dropped because of too many defaults and too many houses on the market. I know the government is to blame too, there was the Community Reinvestment Act passed by Carter 1977, it was then enforced on the banks by Clinton thanks to groups like Acorn(Barrack Obama was a lawyer of Acorn), and thus leading to the bubble.

It is both of their faults, I'm gonna say this again, America is Fascist. Wall street and the government work together, and not to benefit the people, to benefit the rich, they are getting richer and more powerful.

I'm sorry. One one hand you essentially think nationalizing banks is a good idea, and on the other, you think capitalism is a good idea. I'm not sure how large-scale capitalism works when the government is the bank. Perhaps you can explain this wonderful new economic theory to me.

Simple, instead of people and companies going to private banks to get loans, they go to the Bank of Canada, since we own the Bank of Canada, all the billions of dollars of interest that these private bankers would of received go to the people instead

That is it.

Hey, if we wanna start fresh, transfer the loans from the private banks to the Bank of Canada, pay it off with Bank of Canada notes, then cancel the debt. It's our bank, we could do stuff like that.

P.S. Private banks loan us money they don't have, then we pay them back with real money we get from our labor, we also pay back interest on the fake money they loan us. That is how new money is created in Canada. They just loan us bank receipts which are considered as good as money. Don't believe me, look it up. They create the money out of thin air they loan us, the Bank of Canada does the same, but at least if we loaned from the Bank of Canada, we would be loaning from ourselves.

Hopefully we will stabilize. I still think we dodged a major bullet, and as much as I despise pot hole projects like the various stimulus programs the industrialized countries enacted, it may have been enough to prop the system up.

I don't think you really understand the problem.

The problem was the people were buying stuff they couldn't afford with borrowed money. The problem was over consumption, now the government is encouraging them to go into more debt and consume more. They need to do the opposite, they need to start saving their money, stop consuming and start producing. What got them out of the depression in the 30's, World War 2, a productive capacity.

They don't have that now.

It is going to get a lot worse before it gets better.

The tragic thing is that there is little sign of meaningful reforms. Beating up bankers, which seems to be the direction guys like Barack Obama and Gordon Brown are going, is not reform, it's just populist pandering.

They need to abolish the Federal Reserve, that would solve many problems.

Their government owes 13 trillion dollars to a private bank, how will they ever be able to pay that off?

But you have yet to articulate a position that encompasses "all the people of the world", choosing to obsess on Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and The Matrix instead.

I don't like your thought process, your reasoning for attacking me are stupid, they don't attack what I'm saying they attack me personally.

The "people" were never in control of "money", and that is not why the Revolutionary War was fought.

Yes the money was, and yes that was the reason.

So what? The US (and the world) already has experience with Great Depressions.

You don't get it, Depressions don't have to happen. Why do we self inflict wounds.

We don't have to be banks/moneys bitches forever.

What do you propose instead? Revolution?

I was thinking about that, but what's the point of a revolution if the people learn nothing, we need a revelation first.

How does privatizing our debt make sense to anyone, I don't get it.

Fundamentally, you are not credible more than just plain wrong. Your references are myopic (Amerika! Amerika!) and lack historical context, namely that the very "wealth" you bemoan as threatened was generated with central banking, among other things. Your expressed fear of a "depression" signals that you really want the trappings of the status quo to continue (investment, credit, production, jobs, consumption, etc.).

Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.

It's not a fear of a depression, the depression is inevitable at this point.

We are going to witness the greatest depression ever.

I'm not trying to fear monger, but this will happen.

It will all happen because of private banks and the governments that support them.

Many will suffer and for what?

It doesn't make any sense.

[ZenOps]

A chicken in every pot - worked.

A house for everyone to put their chicken and pot in - might have worked, but was too big a leap.

[Michael Hardner]

Simple, instead of people and companies going to private banks to get loans, they go to the Bank of Canada, since we own the Bank of Canada, all the billions of dollars of interest that these private bankers would of received go to the people instead

That is it.

One problem with your idea is that the government doesn't have enough incentive to run a bank efficiently.

[M.Dancer]

One problem with your idea is that the government doesn't have enough incentive to run a bank efficiently.

And a lot of incentive not to compete with the banks in the consumer loans sector. Even if they did, they would either operate with competitive rates or risk upsetting the marketplace.

The governement of Ontario at one time did have a bank that consumers could use for saving but did not offer consumer loans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Province_of_Ontario_Savings_Office

[Michael Hardner]

And a lot of incentive not to compete with the banks in the consumer loans sector. Even if they did, they would either operate with competitive rates or risk upsetting the marketplace.

The governement of Ontario at one time did have a bank that consumers could use for saving but did not offer consumer loans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Province_of_Ontario_Savings_Office

Yes, I remember that endeavor. They had a branch downtown somewhere - near University and Adelaide.

The banks have a hard enough keeping on top of fraud and mismanagement. Government would be a disaster.

[M.Dancer]

Yes, I remember that endeavor. They had a branch downtown somewhere - near University and Adelaide.

The banks have a hard enough keeping on top of fraud and mismanagement. Government would be a disaster.

There was also a branch close to us....St Clair and Avenue.

No ATMS

Old fashioned bankers hours...

On the plus side, the rates and terms they offered for savings were almost as good as you can get at ING

[Michael Hardner]

There was also a branch close to us....St Clair and Avenue.

No ATMS

Old fashioned bankers hours...

On the plus side, the rates and terms they offered for savings were almost as good as you can get at ING

That's right - I remember now. My libertarian girlfriend of the time banked there, which confused me at the time but eventually I found out how frugal, i.e. cheap she was so that makes sense.

[Moonbox]

trust me, I did.

Oh okay good. Carry on then.

[eyeball]

What do you propose instead? Revolution?

Why not? The last time you had one it turned out pretty good.

Note how a people born out of revolution now fear it. It's a reflection of life...and death, something that everything trembles in the face of.

Nothing lasts forever.

[bush_cheney2004]

Why not? The last time you had one it turned out pretty good.

Not for me it didn't.

Note how a people born out of revolution now fear it. It's a reflection of life...and death, something that everything trembles in the face of.

I don't fear revolution...bring it on.

Nothing lasts forever.

True..."nothing" does last forever.

[eyeball]

The banks have a hard enough keeping on top of fraud and mismanagement. Government would be a disaster.

No doubt but why should government incompetence and corruption automatically mean we can trust banks anymore than we would a government?

In any case the real problem is not the banks but inadequately regulated governments. More honesty and integrity in the latter should trickle down to and through the former, in theory at least.

We all know that more than just water flows downhill...it's a simple matter of gravity.

[M.Dancer]

No doubt but why should government incompetence and corruption automatically mean we can trust banks anymore than we would a government?

Because exemplary professionals to not gravitate to government jobs.

[segnosaur]

Right now if you want a loan you go to a bank, RBC, TD, BMO, Scotia, CIBC or maybe a credit Union.

These are all Private corporations.

We then pay a certain percent of interest on those loans, usually compounded.

Right now, Our Federal and Provincial debts interest adds up to 160 million dollars a day.

All this money goes to these private banks

Nope, there's your first big mistake right there.

You see, Much of Canada's debt (at all levels of government) is actually in the form of Government bonds and similar securities, often held by individual citizens. (Some debt is also held by foreign countries.)

So, you don't even know the basics of how our economy works.

Banks reap in billions of dollars annually from profits.

Actually, if you want to split hairs... they earn billions from service fees and interest charges, which result in profits.

Why do we loan from private banks.

Why are we not loaning directly from the Bank of Canada so all those profits go to The Bank of Canada.

Well, for one, the 'Bank of Canada' is not a bank in the traditional sense, in that it has tellers and other services available to the public. If the Bank of Canada were to set up such services, it would require significant overhead.

Secondly, most people would favor at least some competition. Banks often offer similar services, but there sometimes are differences (in interest rates, fees, details, etc.) Were we to have a single monolithic 'Bank of Canada' you would loose the ability to go to a competing bank because you happen to like their hours of operation, their interest rates, etc.

Since the Bank of Canada is owned by the People, all that profit from the interest would be going back to the people instead of the hands of bankers.

Actually, profit from the private banks does go back to the people. Much bank stock is held by private citizens, either directly, or more often through retirement plans/mutual funds. I myself hold some bank stock in my RRSP mutual funds. Those profits are going to help people when (for example) they reach retirement age.

What exactly do you think was happening to money earned by the banks? Think it was just disappearing? Being stuck under a giant matress? Burned by the executives of the bank?

Why does the Bank of Canada contract its services to Private Banks who then reap the benefits.

Simple... it doesn't

The Bank of Canada has never been in the business of handling individual financial transactions.

The role of the Bank of Canada is to issue money, buy/sell currency (if they need to change the value of the Canadian dollar) and to hold a certain portion of money for banks to guarantee stability. (Actually, not even sure if they do that last one anymore.)

William Lyon Mackenzie King, 10th Prime Minister of Canada

"Once a nation parts with the control of its currency and credit, it matters not who makes the nations laws. Usury, once in control, will wreck any nation. Until the control of the issue of currency and credit is restored to government and recognized as its most sacred responsibility, all talk of the sovereignty of parliament and of democracy is idle and futile."

Bank of Canada already controls the issuing of currency. There are also regulations regarding the issuance of credit.

We don't have to live in a debt based economy like we do now.

The fact that we are in a 'debt based' economy has nothing to do with the banks.

Government debt is a result of politicians spending more than is collected.

Consumer debt is the result of individuals spending more than they earn.

Both debts would still occur regardless of who actually served as 'banker'.

There is a reason why we don't learn the monetary/banking system in school, people would realize we are getting screwed over and take the power back.

Just out of curiosity, are you someone who claims to know the monetary/banking system? Because if so, your education really is lacking. (Right from the start, when you claimed that 'all this money (government debt interest) goes to the banks', you've had significant errors.)

If we can't trust our government, something is wrong.

Do you automatically assume that everything the government does is correct?

I trust the government enough to know they're not going to, for example, kidnap me and harvest my organs. However, that does not mean I will trust them to always act in my best interest.

How does having private banks collect billions of dollars from us help us?

IT DOESN'T.

Yes it does....

- Much of those billions ends up going back to the people, through dividend payments to shareholders. Those shareholders include millions of Canadians who have retirement plans/mutual funds. (It wouldn't surprise me if you yourself received some of those 'billions'.)

- It gives us choice, options on where we want to bank

Why shouldn't the Canadian government collect that money and use it on goods and services to help the people.

Why are we paying for peoples private jets.

Well, lets see:

- That 'private jet' you are complaining about may actually have been assembled here in Canada, thus helping our manufacturing sector. The sale of aviation fuel helps our petrochemical industries. Plus, you also have to employ pilots, ground crew, etc. So, the private jet isn't just some 'dead end' for money

- That private jet may also allow bank executives to function more efficiently (instead of them sitting in an airport departure lounge for 2 hours, they can be flying to their meetings)

- Why exactly are you assuming that a government-run bank would be any better? Granted, none of our government executives use their own plane, but how often have we heard of government waste? (Spending huge amounts on food/wine/entertainment, buying equipment and not using it, etc.)

See why money must be controlled by the people.

Money is considered wealth to us, the more money you have the more power and freedoms you have. If you control the wealth of the population you control the population.

This is why it must always be in the hands of the people, not private bank(er)s.

Money already is controlled by the people...

- We (as citizens) have the financial freedom to invest in banks if we so choose, lend to the government, buy savings bonds, or even store it under the mattress. Not everyone will make the same decision, but you still have the control

- The federal government still controls the M1 money supply, and they still set banking regulations

Hey, if we wanna start fresh, transfer the loans from the private banks to the Bank of Canada, pay it off with Bank of Canada notes, then cancel the debt. It's our bank, we could do stuff like that.

Problems with that plan:

- Bank of Canada is not set up to deal with individual loans

- Where do you think they will get those 'bank of Canada' notes? Freshly printed? That would drive down the dollar and increase inflation.

P.S. Private banks loan us money they don't have, then we pay them back with real money we get from our labor, we also pay back interest on the fake money they loan us. That is how new money is created in Canada.

Although there is a kernel of truth to this particular sentence, you seem to have omitted the fact that there are limits to the amount a bank can loan out.

Frankly, its pretty much irrelevent. The government knows how much money is 'created' based on such loans. (Its part of the M1 money supply.) Its already been factored into the economy. And frankly, the U.S. (and Canada) went many many decades with no major melt-downs.

[maple_leafs182]

One problem with your idea is that the government doesn't have enough incentive to run a bank efficiently.

It should not be like this, fuck government incentive, it should be the peoples incentive.

Billions of more dollars would flow into the governments hand thus leading to improved goods and services for the citizens, this would increase the standard of living for us all.

It would redistribute a lot of the wealth to the people. Is that not a good enough incentive.

If we feel government is corrupt, lets stop electing corrupt officials. Stop electing the people who don't care about us.

Or maybe our form of democracy isn't the best, lets tweak it, make some changes. Get something that works.

We've made mistakes, lets correct them.

Because exemplary professionals to not gravitate to government jobs.

There is more money in business, why go into politics when you can simply buy politicians.

[Shady]

It would redistribute a lot of the wealth to the people.

Um, that's already been tried, many times, in many different countries. Move to them, if that's what you like.

Taking money out of the private sector, and handing it over to government, doesn't mean our standard of living will be better. Government doesn't produce wealth. All government's money comes from the private sector. Government couldn't exist without the private sector. And your "plan" would only hinder economic growth, which would end up leading to less government revenue in the form of tax dollars, not more.

[eyeball]

Because exemplary professionals to not gravitate to government jobs.

The only argument against nationalizing our lending institutions is that the private sector pays better?

Judging by the profits that owning the money supply can generate the public should have no problem attracting talented people.

[M.Dancer]

It should not be like this, fuck government incentive, it should be the peoples incentive.

The people who have incentive to do this are already doing it...we call them bankers.

Billions of more dollars would flow into the governments hand thus leading to improved goods and services for the citizens, this would increase the standard of living for us all.

There is no reason to believe that the governement having more money will lead to a higher standard of living. There is lots of evidence to suggest that if I have more money I will have a higher standard of living.

It would redistribute a lot of the wealth to the people. Is that not a good enough incentive.

An incentive to walk away.

If we feel government is corrupt, lets stop electing corrupt officials. Stop electing the people who don't care about us.

Good lucjk with that. Maybe we should ask them a question at the Town Hall..."Are you corrupt?" Only vote for the ones who say no...

There is more money in business, why go into politics when you can simply buy politicians.

First off there is a big difference between going into politics and having a government job.

Secondly, I pity the constituent whose representive stood for election 'cause they needed the money...

[maple_leafs182]

Um, that's already been tried, many times, in many different countries. Move to them, if that's what you like.

Taking money out of the private sector, and handing it over to government, doesn't mean our standard of living will be better. Government doesn't produce wealth. All government's money comes from the private sector. Government couldn't exist without the private sector. And your "plan" would only hinder economic growth, which would end up leading to less government revenue in the form of tax dollars, not more.

The economy isn't growing, I mean it's a false recovery.

Everything is going to come crashing down. It's just a matter of time.

The standard of living for a lot of people will go down.

DEPRESSIONS and RECESSIONS don't have to happen, do you guys not understand that.

We make the game and the rules

"Tell me why are we so blind to see that the ones we hurt are you and me?"

This game sucks, too many people suffer, lets play something else.

[eyeball]

All government's money comes from the private sector. Government couldn't exist without the private sector.

The thing I can't figure out is who these idiots are in the private sector and why they keep lending money to the government. They must be completely

Oh well, you know what they say about a fool and their money.

[M.Dancer]

The economy isn't growing, I mean it's a false recovery.

What evidence do you have to put forward, leaving aside whacky youtube videos