Why the country will never get better.

[punked]

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.

BULLS%#$ we both know that is a lie. In Canada we have a mixed system where the government can compete and often does, potash in Sask, or Atomic Energy of Canada Limited there are plenty of government organizations and corporations which GENERATE and give the government money. Stop living on talking points please it makes you look dumber than you are.

Farm Credit Canada does for farmers just what mapleleaf would want the Bank of Canada to do for all citizens. It would be a model to start off of.

[M.Dancer]

*

Farm Credit Canada does for farmers just what mapleleaf would want the Bank of Canada to do for all citizens. It would be a model to start off of.

So modelling on FCC, anyone with a few miullion dollars in real estate should be able to get a loan...yeah, I don 't see a big problem with that.

[punked]

So modelling on FCC, anyone with a few miullion dollars in real estate should be able to get a loan...yeah, I don 't see a big problem with that.

I am saying the FCC has been doing the jobs traditional banks could be doing for years. I honestly don't think the bank of Canada becoming some sort of central bank competing with the other big banks is a solution. I do know for sure the government getting out of banking is a bad thing (ICELAND I am looking at you).

[blueblood]

I am saying the FCC has been doing the jobs traditional banks could be doing for years. I honestly don't think the bank of Canada becoming some sort of central bank competing with the other big banks is a solution. I do know for sure the government getting out of banking is a bad thing (ICELAND I am looking at you).

The FCC is just like a regular bank. They used to be a "bank of last resort" until they needed an exorbinate one time cash injection to right the ship. Now they are just like any other bank. They have been given marching orders to maintain a profit or get "blown up". The FCC in Trudeau's era was just as bad if not worse for giving bad loans than banks today, what was worse was that it was a crown corporation running at a massive loss costing taxpayers a fortune.

Now, their restrictions/loans are comparable with major banks and at times the major banks can offer more attractive loans.

Edited February 4, 2010 by blueblood

[punked]

The FCC is just like a regular bank. They used to be a "bank of last resort" until they needed an exorbinate one time cash injection to right the ship. Now they are just like any other bank. They have been given marching orders to maintain a profit or get "blown up". The FCC in Trudeau's era was just as bad if not worse for giving bad loans than banks today, what was worse was that it was a crown corporation running at a massive loss costing taxpayers a fortune.

Now, their restrictions/loans are comparable with major banks and at times the major banks can offer more attractive loans.

I agree.

[M.Dancer]

I am saying the FCC has been doing the jobs traditional banks could be doing for years. I honestly don't think the bank of Canada becoming some sort of central bank competing with the other big banks is a solution. I do know for sure the government getting out of banking is a bad thing (ICELAND I am looking at you).

Iceland is more complicated than that. There is also a large measure of persoanl unsecured debt that grew because people used credit cards that were calculated in foreign currencies (which was great when their currency was higher than the cards....when the Ewuro and dollar started to rise...people who had compiled $10,000 in unsecured debt now had $30K

[punked]

Iceland is more complicated than that. There is also a large measure of persoanl unsecured debt that grew because people used credit cards that were calculated in foreign currencies (which was great when their currency was higher than the cards....when the Ewuro and dollar started to rise...people who had compiled $10,000 in unsecured debt now had $30K

Iceland isn't more complicated than that. The people of Iceland are each on the hook for 300,000 dollars their banks lent to foreign business period. Those banks owed 50 billion dollars when they went under and were nationalized all of it was lent to business outside Iceland. Don't try to spin that.

Iceland also the only model in the world of unregulated banks. Shocker.

Edited February 4, 2010 by punked

[M.Dancer]

Iceland also the only model in the world of unregulated banks. Shocker.

That of course is not true in the least. Icelands banks are and were regulated, just not very well.

Here are some interesting stories about Iceland...

http://www.sedlabanki.is/?PageID=287&NewsID=1920

Bank of iceland steps in regarding consumer dredit card debt...

The Icelanders decided a few years ago that their economic future lay in banking. They privatised and deregulated their banking system, and with strong government support, the banks grew to 10 times the size of the economy.

The bankers and government effectively turned Iceland into a gigantic hedge fund sitting in the middle of the North Atlantic.

The role models were easy to find - other small countries, such as Luxembourg and Switzerland, do quite well out of banking.

What the Icelanders forgot was that those countries have centuries worth of experience running banks and the associated infrastructure, while Iceland has less than a decade.

The Icelanders had all the banking regulations of the European Union because of their European Economic Area membership.

What they failed to implement was the necessary supervision or enforcement of banking regulations.

The government, the Central Bank and the financial regulator at times seemed to act as cheerleaders for the banks, not as responsible authorities

.

As I said, not only it not as simple as you made it out to be, you are also wrong.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7852275.stm

[punked]

That of course is not true in the least. Icelands banks are and were regulated, just not very well.

Here are some interesting stories about Iceland...

http://www.sedlabanki.is/?PageID=287&NewsID=1920

Bank of iceland steps in regarding consumer dredit card debt...

.

As I said, not only it not as simple as you made it out to be, you are also wrong.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7852275.stm

Please tell us more about these EU banking regulations M.Dancer. How were they enforced in Iceland or any member state? What is that you say they weren't and all Regulation of Iceland banks were removed in 2001. Ohhhhh ok good I thought the collapse of all banking in Iceland and each person in Iceland owing 300,000 dollars each was a problem with regulation but it was one of deregulation. Glade to know that. Seriously

[M.Dancer]

Please tell us more about these EU banking regulations M.Dancer. How were they enforced in Iceland or any member state? What is that you say they weren't and all Regulation of Iceland banks were removed in 2001. Ohhhhh ok good I thought the collapse of all banking in Iceland and each person in Iceland owing 300,000 dollars each was a problem with regulation but it was one of deregulation. Glade to know that. Seriously

I'm sorry if you don't like your bumper sticker slogans corrected...oh well, live with it.

You said they had no regulation, that is false. What you seem to agree with is the oversight was lacking. The most regulated system in the world ain't worth diddly without oversight.

Clearly lack of regulation was not the issue as other nations took the same route as Iceland and didn't fail.

High Personal Debt

Personal Debt in Iceland reached 213% of personal disposable income. In Britain this figure is 164%. In the US, it is 140%. In Germany about 100%. The high levels of personal debt were reflected in the balance sheets of the Icelandic banks who were willing to lend with few questions asked.

http://www.economicshelp.org/2008/10/problem-with-iceland-economy.html

One of the many reasons why Iceland failed.

Edited February 4, 2010 by M.Dancer

[Shady]

BULLS%#$ we both know that is a lie. In Canada we have a mixed system where the government can compete and often does, potash in Sask, or Atomic Energy of Canada Limited there are plenty of government organizations and corporations which GENERATE and give the government money. Stop living on talking points please it makes you look dumber than you are.

Ok, how about we compare how much revenue government gains from the private sector vs the revenue it gains from it's organizations? Probably like 99% to 1%.

[Michael Hardner]

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

I don't know exactly what you mean here but it sounds like you're bemoaning human nature. People are motivated by many factors, including money, challenge and doing their part. The civil service generally doesn't do as good a job as private industry but does provide security. This leads to a conservative and inflexible mindset, compounded by a leadership that is motivated by political factors.

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.

Again, MapleLeaf, you're lamenting, poetically, and pointing out things that are wrong. But even you must admit that you don't have real answers as to how to fix things.

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

That's a pretty meaningless statement right there. If I'm choosing between politics or business, I wouldn't say to myself "I'll just make money and buy myself a politician". You still have to be pretty rich to do that, you see.

Really, though, you should respond to segnosaur's excellent dissection of your post.

[Michael Hardner]

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.

The private sector pays better for some things, and worse for others. Really, it's about the private sector being able to manage a business better than the government, owing to the prime directive they have: profit. This objective drives enterprise, and helps the general population through what Adam Smith called "The Invisible Hand".

There certainly are situations where the model needs to be modified, and I would love to discuss those someday but we have our hands full on MLW debating pure Marxism vs pure libertarianism. Once we solve those problems of the 19th century, we can move on to the 20th, then the 21st.

[M.Dancer]

The civil service generally doesn't do as good a job as private industry but does provide security. This leads to a conservative and inflexible mindset, compounded by a leadership that is motivated by political factors.

A little off topic but....one of the issues floating these days about boards is, 2what style of board does the company have. The two most common are compliance orientated and the risk takers.

The compliance orientated are the creatures borne out of Sarbaned Oxley and they are focused on regulations, governance and transaprency. They are adverse to risk or jeapordizing shareholder value. The down side is, with all their attention focused on governance issues, the leading issue of running a succesful enterprise gets shifted to the operational management who may lead the company into areas without the board's knowledge or approval.

The other kind of board are the risk takers, the ones who are leading the company with an eye on growth. They may not dot all the "i"s and they may make mistakes but they will not stagnate.

A few weeks ago on Power Politics they had this fellow for the canadian centre for policy alternatives. The fellow was talking about executive compensation as if it was a subject that had any bearing on the lives of non stock holders (if you don't know who the CCPA are, they are a think tank for plastic shamans, tree huggers and other fruitbars who don't know squat about business and rather not know anyway)

So this chap says that directors should not have their compensation tied to share value because "directors, board members have no influence on stock price"

At that point I laughed. What a moron...and shame on the CBC for letting such drivel ride without a clarification.

[segnosaur]

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.

Unfortunately, it would not be 'the people' who control a central government-owned bank directly. It would be the government (not to mention mid-level government officials) who would be running/controlling the bank on a day-to-day basis. And it is those people who often "lack the incentive".

Not only that, any politician who is involved in making decisions regarding such a bank may not necessarily make decisions you agree with, depending on what he feels is the best chance at getting reelected.

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.

As I have already explained... the bank 'wealth' (i.e. profits) is already being redistributed to the people, in the form of dividends to shareholders, many of whom are average citizens who happen to hold bank stock in their retirement plans, mutual funds, etc. So, it already does "increase the standard of living".

Not to mention the fact that even when the bank spends money 'friviously', such spending does help provide jobs in various sectors of the economy.

One again... do you think bankers just burn the profits they collect? Do you think all this money sits under a giant mattress somewhere?

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

Never mind the fact that it would be pretty much impossible to 'stop electing corrupt officials'... After all, nobody is a mind reader, and we have no way to tell before hand whether a particular politician is honest/uncorruptable....

The problem is, as I've mentioned before, politicians play to their particular voter-base. If you are not a member of that voter base, there is no guarantee that any politician is going to listen to your concerns/ideas about how the bank is run.

[eyeball]

The private sector pays better for some things, and worse for others. Really, it's about the private sector being able to manage a business better than the government, owing to the prime directive they have: profit. This objective drives enterprise, and helps the general population through what Adam Smith called "The Invisible Hand".

I understand the theory I just don't think Smith accounted for the effect of so many invisible and greedy little fingers and hands constantly cocking things up.

There certainly are situations where the model needs to be modified, and I would love to discuss those someday but we have our hands full on MLW debating pure Marxism vs pure libertarianism. Once we solve those problems of the 19th century, we can move on to the 20th, then the 21st.

By the time the 22nd or 23rd roll around, maybe.

[blueblood]

A little off topic but....one of the issues floating these days about boards is, 2what style of board does the company have. The two most common are compliance orientated and the risk takers.

The compliance orientated are the creatures borne out of Sarbaned Oxley and they are focused on regulations, governance and transaprency. They are adverse to risk or jeapordizing shareholder value. The down side is, with all their attention focused on governance issues, the leading issue of running a succesful enterprise gets shifted to the operational management who may lead the company into areas without the board's knowledge or approval.

The other kind of board are the risk takers, the ones who are leading the company with an eye on growth. They may not dot all the "i"s and they may make mistakes but they will not stagnate.

A few weeks ago on Power Politics they had this fellow for the canadian centre for policy alternatives. The fellow was talking about executive compensation as if it was a subject that had any bearing on the lives of non stock holders (if you don't know who the CCPA are, they are a think tank for plastic shamans, tree huggers and other fruitbars who don't know squat about business and rather not know anyway)

So this chap says that directors should not have their compensation tied to share value because "directors, board members have no influence on stock price"

At that point I laughed. What a moron...and shame on the CBC for letting such drivel ride without a clarification.

you can always email the other CBC show starring Kevin O'Leary and Amanda Lang with reference to that and watch the fireworks display.

[blueblood]

I understand the theory I just don't think Smith accounted for the effect of so many invisible and greedy little fingers and hands constantly cocking things up.

Cocking things up according to who? you?

Adam Smith's theory is a classic two way street. Just because you don't like the direction of traffic sometimes doesn't mean its "cocked up".

[maple_leafs182]

I don't know exactly what you mean here but it sounds like you're bemoaning human nature. People are motivated by many factors, including money, challenge and doing their part. The civil service generally doesn't do as good a job as private industry but does provide security. This leads to a conservative and inflexible mindset, compounded by a leadership that is motivated by political factors.

Again, MapleLeaf, you're lamenting, poetically, and pointing out things that are wrong. But even you must admit that you don't have real answers as to how to fix things.

I don't have all the answer nor am I always correct, this is why we have democracy, to learn and come to a higher understanding.

Privatizing public debt is a problem. When you put all that power into few hands, it will corrupt.

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."

If you don't see the danger of private banks, you will shortly. Private banks will bring America and many nations to their knees.

That's a pretty meaningless statement right there. If I'm choosing between politics or business, I wouldn't say to myself "I'll just make money and buy myself a politician". You still have to be pretty rich to do that, you see.

He said

Because exemplary professionals to not gravitate to government jobs.

Sorry man, you don't get to choose in this situation, your already an exemplary professional.

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

What caused the entire financial crisis was America was over consuming. They were borrowing money they didn't have to buy stuff they couldn't afford.

The government now is encouraging people to go into more debt and consume more to try and stimulate the economy.

The problem was they were over consuming and in too much debt, how does consuming more and going into more debt solve the problem of over consumer and being in debt. They didn't solve any problem.

The bailout bubble will kill the country.

The country needs to start saving money and start producing more.

The stimulus is producing practically nothing and it will all go away once the stimulus is done.

The stimulus is whats propping up the economy, but it can't last forever.

I don't know what else you need to know. What kind of evidence you want, you can see for your self that is exactly what is happening.

Unfortunately, it would not be 'the people' who control a central government-owned bank directly. It would be the government (not to mention mid-level government officials) who would be running/controlling the bank on a day-to-day basis. And it is those people who often "lack the incentive".

From the Bank of Canada Website

Ultimately, the Bank is owned by the people of Canada.

We people control the government, or at least the people should control the government. By extension we control the bank.

Not only that, any politician who is involved in making decisions regarding such a bank may not necessarily make decisions you agree with, depending on what he feels is the best chance at getting reelected.

I don't like our democracy.

We should vote on ideas not politicians, so the overall idea is thought up by the people to benefit the people, the politicians would then only be the administrators of the peoples idea.

That sounds more like a democracy to me.

I think the whole system needs to be redesigned, what we have now doesn't work.

[Guest TrueMetis]

I don't have all the answer nor am I always correct, this is why we have democracy, to learn and come to a higher understanding.

No that's why we have science democracy does not lead to learning or understanding.

[Michael Hardner]

I don't have all the answer nor am I always correct, this is why we have democracy, to learn and come to a higher understanding.

Privatizing public debt is a problem. When you put all that power into few hands, it will corrupt.

So replacing half-a-dozen or so private banks with one public bank will exacerbate the problem then.

If you don't see the danger of private banks, you will shortly. Private banks will bring America and many nations to their knees.

This comes up from time to time, the theory that the private banks are parasites that are about to kill the host.

1) If they're so powerful, then why would they bring America to its knees when they're the ones in power ?

2) As parasites, why would they hurt the host ? If they're so diabolical don't they know that they need to keep it alive to keep sucking blood from it ?

3) Why would they do this now ? Has this been the plan for 80 or 100 years ?

I don't like our democracy.

We should vote on ideas not politicians, so the overall idea is thought up by the people to benefit the people, the politicians would then only be the administrators of the peoples idea.

That sounds more like a democracy to me.

I think the whole system needs to be redesigned, what we have now doesn't work.

You're a good example of the problem with that idea. High-minded ideas are great, but how do they get implemented ?

Again, you need to be specific my friend. It's all moaning, and the grinding of teeth with you. Submit some small evolutionary changes that can better channel human nature into the public good. THAT is tough, and that is what you need to do here. Anybody can say "Look at that problem, let's throw money at it." but there is an economic reaction to every such decision.

[segnosaur]

I don't have all the answer nor am I always correct,

Quite true. In fact, here you're pretty much dead wrong.

By the way, I seem to notice you glossed over a few rather important mistakes of yours that were pointed out, such as:

- Bank profits already get returned 'to the people', through dividend payouts to average citizens who happen to have bank stock in RRSPs, retirement plans, etc. So the money is already "helping our standard of living", even without having the Bank of Canada issue loans directly

- Canada's debt is not "held by the private banks". Much of it is held by Canadian citizens (e.g. through Canada savings bonds), or internationally. So when Canada pays interest on the debt, it doesn't really do much to benefit those private banks

Why haven't you addressed those issues? Or at least admitted you're wrong.

...this is why we have democracy, to learn and come to a higher understanding.

Democracy has nothing to do with 'learning'. You learn through education and experience.

Privatizing public debt is a problem. When you put all that power into few hands, it will corrupt.

Except that's not what's happening here. Canada's debt is spread amongst thousands of people, both nationally and internationally. No single person or company has significant power over our public debt.

If you don't see the danger of private banks, you will shortly. Private banks will bring America and many nations to their knees.

Those 'private banks' have been a part of the U.S. (and Canada) having decades of an increasing standard of living. Yes, we get occasional boom-bust cycles, but we always end up better off.

And as someone else has suggested... what would be the point of some 'evil bank' trying to 'bring America to its knees'? They benefit from a strong economy too.

What caused the entire financial crisis was America was over consuming. They were borrowing money they didn't have to buy stuff they couldn't afford.

Which of course has absolutely nothing to do with whether Americans were borrowing from private banks to fund their purchases, or borrowing from a central government bank.

The bailout bubble will kill the country.

The country needs to start saving money and start producing more.

The stimulus is producing practically nothing and it will all go away once the stimulus is done.

The stimulus is whats propping up the economy, but it can't last forever.

Again that has nothing to do with who owns the banks.

I could also point out that the stimulus is not supposed to last forever. The concept is that the government goes into debt now to cover an economic downturn. Once the major crisis is done, people start being productive and regain consumer confidence and the Stimulus can end. When the economy gets too hot the government can slow things down by further cutting its own spending to repay its debt.

Unfortunately, it would not be 'the people' who control a central government-owned bank directly. It would be the government (not to mention mid-level government officials) who would be running/controlling the bank on a day-to-day basis. And it is those people who often "lack the incentive".

From the Bank of Canada Website

Ultimately, the Bank is owned by the people of Canada.

Which of course is irrelevant. Go back and read what I wrote... I pointed out that we the people would not be running/controlling the bank on a day to day basis.

In fact, I have more control right now over our privately run banking system than I would over any central government bank. If I don't like the services that my current bank offers, I can take my business elsewhere. I have personal choices. With a single government-run bank, I'd have no such choice.

Not only that, any politician who is involved in making decisions regarding such a bank may not necessarily make decisions you agree with, depending on what he feels is the best chance at getting reelected.

I don't like our democracy.

We should vote on ideas not politicians, so the overall idea is thought up by the people to benefit the people, the politicians would then only be the administrators of the peoples idea.

First of all, its a totally idiotic idea. Given the number of issues (many of which have complex interrelationships) it would be impossible to vote for "ideas".

Secondly, you seem to ignore the key point I was making... Whatever is voted on by the majority may not be what you as an individual want. If 51% of people vote for a politician (or an 'idea'), and you are stuck in the 49% who are opposed, you ended up getting your 'wishes' ignored/trampled on.

(edited to fix tags)

Edited February 5, 2010 by segnosaur

[eyeball]

Cocking things up according to who? you?

According to millions of people's investment portfolios this last year or so.

Adam Smith's theory is a classic two way street. Just because you don't like the direction of traffic sometimes doesn't mean its "cocked up".

The direction isn't the problem so much as the directors or more to the point the regulators and lack thereof..

Edited February 5, 2010 by eyeball

[blueblood]

According to millions of people's investment portfolios this last year or so.

When the PM goes on national TV and says that the economy is in for a rough road ahead while the TSX is at record highs, that is a cue for me to have a firesale on my investments.

What's going on is typical supply and demand, it's a two way street and some people don't like the flow of traffic; doesn't mean the system is "cocked up", just means the people "cocked up" themselves. Keep playing the blame game.

The direction isn't the problem so much as the directors or more to the point the regulators and lack thereof..

The American economy was regulated to give mortgages to broke ass losers, how did that work out?

[eyeball]

The American economy was regulated to give mortgages to broke ass losers, how did that work out?

Swimmingly, according to millions of people's investment portfolios this last year or so.

Like I said, the problem is the regulators.

You're right about one thing though, people cocked themselves up - in this case by investing to much trust in the regulators. When I said lack thereof I meant in the sense of their being AWOL.