Why the country will never get better.

[ToadBrother]

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.

That explains some people, perhaps, but let's face it, there were a lot of Americans who must have known they were getting mortgages they couldn't afford.

My problem with what happened between 2000 and 2008 is that it's very easy to pick one group and say "These were the guys that did it!" In fact, Congress has spent a good deal of time blaming everybody but itself. There's no recognition that alteration and removal of regulations that loosened up banks ability to behave essentially as investment houses was creating a dangerous, even disastrous conflict of interest. Then there's Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which all by themselves were more than capable of creating a mortgage bubble, notwithstanding any of the other ill deeds on Wall Street.

[eyeball]

In fact, Congress has spent a good deal of time blaming everybody but itself. There's no recognition that alteration and removal of regulations that loosened up banks ability to behave essentially as investment houses was creating a dangerous, even disastrous conflict of interest. Then there's Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which all by themselves were more than capable of creating a mortgage bubble, notwithstanding any of the other ill deeds on Wall Street.

If we did recognize this it might lead to the recognition that it's the government that needs to be better regulated.

If a government can't be controlled better then it's safe to conclude the country it governs will likely get worse.

I think in a democracy that's ultimately got to be the people's fault.

[maple_leafs182]

Well I'm pretty sure we are headed into the greatest depression.

Google either of these guys and listen to what they have to say.

Peter Schiff, Marc Faber, Jim Rogers, Gerald Celente

Many will suffer, its not worth it, system failure, lets devise up a new system that caters to all the people instead of just a small percent.

Societal evolution. There is no time like the present.

What the hell is so attractive about the system we have now. We really don't got a lot going for us and is just going to get worse.

We haven't even solved poverty yet, poverty is the mother of crime.

We have patents, we restrict people from using other peoples ideas. Why?

I don't know what you guys see when you look at the world, all I see is oligarchs.

[bush_cheney2004]

Well I'm pretty sure we are headed into the greatest depression.

If you are so sure of this, you should be shorting the hell out of stocks.

Google either of these guys and listen to what they have to say.

Peter Schiff, Marc Faber, Jim Rogers, Gerald Celente

Oh great....more crystal balls, Ron Paul, and pending doom....none from Canada!

[blueblood]

Well I'm pretty sure we are headed into the greatest depression.

Google either of these guys and listen to what they have to say.

Peter Schiff, Marc Faber, Jim Rogers, Gerald Celente

Many will suffer, its not worth it, system failure, lets devise up a new system that caters to all the people instead of just a small percent.

Societal evolution. There is no time like the present.

What the hell is so attractive about the system we have now. We really don't got a lot going for us and is just going to get worse.

We haven't even solved poverty yet, poverty is the mother of crime.

We have patents, we restrict people from using other peoples ideas. Why?

I don't know what you guys see when you look at the world, all I see is oligarchs.

All I see is someone who needs to take some economics and commerce classes

[Michael Hardner]

I don't know what you guys see when you look at the world, all I see is oligarchs.

I noticed you seem to have walked away from the discussion with Segnosaur and his excellent dissection of your posts.

Are you going to respond ?

[segnosaur]

Well I'm pretty sure we are headed into the greatest depression.

And keep in mind that this 'analysis' comes from someone who doesn't even understand that Canadian banks are not the main holders of Canada's debt, and doesn't understand that bank profits already get distributed to the "people".

Google either of these guys and listen to what they have to say.

Peter Schiff, Marc Faber, Jim Rogers, Gerald Celente

Ummm... why? There are a lot of economists, with widely varying opinions. Why should we particularly care about these? (By the way, I did a quick search on Schiff... found out that he tends to be wrong more often than right.)

Many will suffer, its not worth it, system failure, lets devise up a new system that caters to all the people instead of just a small percent.

Even though there are inequities, we still have an extremely high standard of living.

What the hell is so attractive about the system we have now. We really don't got a lot going for us and is just going to get worse.

Well, how about the fact that we've had decades of relative economic stability (with minor boom/bust cycles that have not had lasting impacts), and an ever-increasing standard of living? Sounds like we do have a lot going for us.

We haven't even solved poverty yet, poverty is the mother of crime.

Yes, some people are in poverty. But the standard of living for the population has continued to increase. (In fact, I rather suspect that even the poorest Canadian/American has a better standard of living than a middle-class individual from a century ago.) Poor people today can usually afford food, get basic health care, and often get 'luxuries' (like TVs). Those sort of things were probably unheard of a hundred years ago.

We have patents, we restrict people from using other peoples ideas. Why?

Because, people need an incentive to create new things, and in our society we've decided that the work in coming up with a new 'idea' is just as valuable as the work needed to build a house, sew clothing, etc.

If there were no such things as patents, then why would an inventor bother trying to create something new? After all, your 'invention' would just get stolen and manufactured by others. As an inventor, you'd be better off not wasting your time trying to create something.

I don't know what you guys see when you look at the world, all I see is oligarchs.

Well, lets see... according to Wikipedia:

An oligarchy is a form of government in which power effectively rests with a small elite segment of society distinguished by royalty, wealth, intellect, family ties, military might, or religion hegemony.

That certainly doesn't apply to Canada/The U.S., nor most of europe. (We have democratic institutions, none have any sort of religious mandate, none are controlled by military, etc., and our politicians have been from across a wide band of the social strata.)

Yeah, there may be countries in other parts of the world who are "oligarchies", but guess what? They don't have the same banking/economic/political system that we have in Canada. So, you can't suggest Canada's system is 'bad' because events in the other systems don't apply here!

[maple_leafs182]

I was going to reply to your posts, I even copied half of what I wrote because I didn't have time to finish it all.

I think you aren't giving me any credit, I do understand how a lot of things work.

You are just missing my point.

Peter Schiff was actually on many main stream media networks telling us years before the recession started that there was going to be a recession and why the recession will happen. All the networks said he was wrong and some Fox news anchors actually laughed at him while he was warning us.

He is now running for senate.

We are currently relying on the same economists who didn't see the recession coming to tell us when we are going to be out.

Idiocracy

The game is rigged.

How have you guys not noticed,

A study by the World Institute for Development Economics Research at United Nations University reports that the richest 1% of adults alone owned 40% of global assets in the year 2000, and that the richest 10% of adults accounted for 85% of the world total.

You are trying to justify poverty, there is no justification, we are just a society based on greed.

We don't work together to try to make life better for all of us, we work against each other only looking out for ourselves.

The entire system is insane.

Just for Bush Chaney, we live in the matrix, and yes people do control it.

Blinded by propaganda.

Everything is going to come down, we don't even have to live with the threat of something like this happening ever.

Love should be our motivation for virtually everything, it's the only logical way.

I look at you all see the love there that's sleeping, while my guitar gently weeps

Lets open up our hearts with no fear of anything.

[Oleg Bach]

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

I have no idea either how the government borrowing works. The one idea I do have is that as far as interest mounting on huge loans that these monies are paid a group of persons..the money is not sent off to some machine - there are real men sitting in nice brown leather chairs counting the booty. Maybe they are the same guys who hold the debt over the heads of the poor and miserable Haitians? Real heros and men they must be.

[segnosaur]

I think you aren't giving me any credit, I do understand how a lot of things work.

Really? Then why were you claiming (quite incorrectly I might add) that all government debt payments go "to the banks"? And why were you claiming that it was necessary for the government to issue loans directly so profits go "to the people" when that is already happening?

Sorry, when you make huge blunders like that, its going to be assumed that you don't really know how the economy works.

Peter Schiff was actually on many main stream media networks telling us years before the recession started that there was going to be a recession and why the recession will happen.

Ummm... so?

First of all, we have a cyclical economy. We will always go through periods of hot-and-cold. I myself can guarantee that, even if the economy got really hot (GDP increased, unemployment fell, lots of fun throughout the land) that eventually we will run into another recession.

Secondly, I find it extremely ironic that you would refer to Schiff... From the looks of it, he's actually against government regulation and control. Your idea that banking should be run directly by the government would be something he would be strongly opposed to. (See: http://www.europac.net/externalframeset.asp?from=home&id=14566)

So, what is it... is Schiff some economic genius, in which case we should follow his advice and cut government regulations (and let the banks do whatever they want)?

You are trying to justify poverty...

Nope, only trying to put the situation into its proper context.

...we are just a society based on greed.

We don't work together to try to make life better for all of us, we work against each other only looking out for ourselves.

For better or worse, that's human nature. Unless you can reverse a few million years of evolution, you will never end up with a species where altruistic intentions are universal.

Given the fact that most people have a biological predisposition for improving improving their own situation in life, the capitalistic system is the best for harnessing that imperative.

[PIK]

I have no idea either how the government borrowing works. The one idea I do have is that as far as interest mounting on huge loans that these monies are paid a group of persons..the money is not sent off to some machine - there are real men sitting in nice brown leather chairs counting the booty. Maybe they are the same guys who hold the debt over the heads of the poor and miserable Haitians? Real heros and men they must be.

And harpers goverment is going to cancel what they owe us, I guess that makes harper a hero .

[eyeball]

The entire system is insane.

A study by the World Institute for Development Economics Research at United Nations University reports that the richest 1% of adults alone owned 40% of global assets in the year 2000, and that the richest 10% of adults accounted for 85% of the world total.

What's insane about this is the idea that the way to close this gap is to bring as many of the 85% up to the same standard of living. The planet simply can't sustain this.

For better or worse, that's human nature. Unless you can reverse a few million years of evolution, you will never end up with a species where altruistic intentions are universal.

Given the fact that most people have a biological predisposition for improving improving their own situation in life, the capitalistic system is the best for harnessing that imperative.

Unfortunately capitalism also causes our biological predisposition to go into hyper-drive which metastasizes into a malignancy that consumes without regard for others. We don't need to evolve altruistic intentions, but we could certainly apply some of the ethics we've developed over centuries.

Human beings have plenty of capacity for regulating their human nature, we do it all the time individually and collectively, often through our ethical treatment of a given situation.

[maple_leafs182]

What's insane about this is the idea that the way to close this gap is to bring as many of the 85% up to the same standard of living. The planet simply can't sustain this.

maybe it is just the people that are insane, most can't see passed dollar signs.

We have no sense of right or wrong.

Why not bring the rich down to the level of the poor.

Lets put our luxuries aside, can't take them with you when you die.

Unfortunately capitalism also causes our biological predisposition to go into hyper-drive which metastasizes into a malignancy that consumes without regard for others. We don't need to evolve altruistic intentions, but we could certainly apply some of the ethics we've developed over centuries.

Human beings have plenty of capacity for regulating their human nature, we do it all the time individually and collectively, often through our ethical treatment of a given situation.

In the Nature vs Nurture debate, I side with nurture.

Our passed may be responsible for who we are today, but we are responsible for who we become.

[segnosaur]

maybe it is just the people that are insane, most can't see passed dollar signs.

No, not insane.

We have no sense of right or wrong.

A desire to provide for yourself and your family is certainly not "wrong". It is only "wrong" if you choose to do so by illegally taking property/assets which are not yours.

Why not bring the rich down to the level of the poor.

Ummm... because, a desire to be 'rich' can be an incentive for people to work harder, invent, and create items that eventually enrich us all.

If you tell people "regardless of how hard you work you will never be better off" then why would many people bother starting a new business (which often involves considerable risks/long hours)? Why would I want to invent new things?

Lets put our luxuries aside, can't take them with you when you die.

Nope, but we can leave luxuries to our children. Many people like to know their children will have a good life.

In the Nature vs Nurture debate, I side with nurture.

Except of course the fact that those 2 cannot be separated. We will always be a product of both our generic and social histories.

Not to mention the rather naive idea that you could get everyone to agree to such a nonsensical "be generous to everyone" concept.

Ever hear of the "Prisoner's dilemma"?

[maple_leafs182]

No, not insane.

you're right, not insane, that was a harsh thing to say.

A desire to provide for yourself and your family is certainly not "wrong". It is only "wrong" if you choose to do so by illegally taking property/assets which are not yours.

Providing for your family isn't wrong, I never said it was.

I just think of all of us as one big family. We aren't taking care of our family.

Is it wrong if you take food from a store without paying because you can't afford to buy it. You then use that food to feed your family. Is it still wrong, its still breaking the law.

Ummm... because, a desire to be 'rich' can be an incentive for people to work harder, invent, and create items that eventually enrich us all.

Then why do we have the poor, to scare the hell out of the middle class so they will continue going to their jobs.

People will do some evil things to get a little more green in their pockets, why do you think gangs exist.

Not everyone is motivated by money, some people just love what they do, love is there motivation.

What was Tesla motivated by..

If you tell people "regardless of how hard you work you will never be better off" then why would many people bother starting a new business (which often involves considerable risks/long hours)? Why would I want to invent new things?

Why would life never get better off?

Do you invent things now and why would people stop inventing.

Nope, but we can leave luxuries to our children. Many people like to know their children will have a good life.

Whats considered a good life,

Owning a big house and owning lots of things?

Except of course the fact that those 2 cannot be separated. We will always be a product of both our generic and social histories.

Agreed, but our present will be our children's history.

We can manipulate what we become.

Not to mention the rather naive idea that you could get everyone to agree to such a nonsensical "be generous to everyone" concept.

I wouldn't say its nonsense, it is possible.

All we need is a little love.

Ever hear of the "Prisoner's dilemma"?

I just googled it, not to sure how it applies here.

[segnosaur]

A desire to provide for yourself and your family is certainly not "wrong". It is only "wrong" if you choose to do so by illegally taking property/assets which are not yours

Providing for your family isn't wrong, I never said it was.

Your statement was "we have no sense of right or wrong". That's a pretty broad statement.

Not only do I want to provide for my family, I want them to have the best possible life. I will do so with every legal means, even if it means my family may have things better than other families.

I just think of all of us as one big family. We aren't taking care of our family.

There are over 6 billion people on the planet. Trying to think of everyone as 'one big family' is just plain impractical.

Then why do we have the poor, to scare the hell out of the middle class so they will continue going to their jobs.

We have poor because society has flaws. Hopefully over time those flaws will be eliminated. But the concept of "screw the rich to help the poor" is not the best way to help them. Its counterproductive in the goal of trying to improve their standard of living.

People will do some evil things to get a little more green in their pockets...

Yes they will... that's why, earlier in the thread, I specifically condemned being greedy and acquiring things illegally

Ummm... because, a desire to be 'rich' can be an incentive for people to work harder, invent, and create items that eventually enrich us all.

Not everyone is motivated by money, some people just love what they do..

yes, there may be people who are not motivated by money but that is not universal. If you eliminate the incentive to get wealthy, you will still get some people who will continue to create or innovate, but those who were motivated by money will not do so. It is their contributions that will be lost, causing everyone to suffer.

And even if there were people who continued to invent and/or create, why bother sharing their inventions with the world, if their joy is in the creation process itself?

Nope, but we can leave luxuries to our children. Many people like to know their children will have a good life.

Whats considered a good life,

Owning a big house and owning lots of things?

If that happens to be what makes us happy then yes. Not everyone will want that, but for you to tell me "its wrong to want that" is an attempt to control my thoughts and desires.

Ever hear of the "Prisoner's dilemma"?

I just googled it, not to sure how it applies here.

The Prisoner's dilemma deals with whether people will benefit more by cooperating or being greedy, when they don't know what the other person will do.

If the entire world had "equality and love" as you're suggesting, then each person has 2 options:

- Contribute to society and share in an equal benefit

- Do not fully contribute, but still share in the same benefits

Now, society would work best if everyone continued to contribute. But I, as an individual (if there were no way for me to gain wealth), would be better off with the second option... do nothing, continue to get the full benefits of society, but have more time to be lazy. My optimum choice as an individual is different from my optimum choice as a member of society. And since I don't know what other people are going to do, I have even less incentive to contribute if others are likewise going to be lazy.

The more people that choose the second option, the more society breaks down.

[bush_cheney2004]

...There are over 6 billion people on the planet. Trying to think of everyone as 'one big family' is just plain impractical.

...and very incestuous....eeeeewwwww!

[bloodyminded]

...and very incestuous....eeeeewwwww!

That's the genealogical theory of the Bible. The human race begins in incest.

[Hydraboss]

That's the genealogical theory of the Bible. The human race begins in incest.

And don't forget the "body of Christ...blood of Christ" (Catholics will understand this)

I guess we can start calling them Roman Cannibals. And incestuous ones at that.

[KeyStone]

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

Banks reap in billions of dollars annually from profits.

See the problem.

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. 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.

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

It is exactly like the government putting a direct tax on the people and writing the cheque to the bankers.

Now see the problem?

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."

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

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.

Want to hear the funny thing, we are told we have one of the healthiest bankings systems in the world.

How so, we rob ourselves of billions and billions of dollars and give the money to bankers. Maybe healthy for the bankers.

"The promise of yesterday are the taxes of today."

The debt that the Federal government has, isn't generally owed to Canadian banks. It's often owed to the people of Canada (through Canada savings bonds), as well as to foreign governments who pick up the bonds that are issued.

However, the question that you raise is a good one. Why does the Federal government borrow money, when the Central bank of Canada lends money to the commercial banks at such low rates?

Well, let's look at alternatives. If the Central bank did not lend that money to the commercial banks, the effect would be that interest rates would skyrocket and people would lose their homes.

If, on the other hand, the central bank lent directly to the poeople, and cut out the commercial banks, then that could work. The profit of the banks would then belong to Canadians. It would be like a credit union owned by all Canadians. The rate of this Central Bank to borrow would be zero, which gives it a major advantage.

The problem with such a system, however, is that all the employees would then become government employees. This means they would all be unionized, which generally means inflated wages and benefits for unskilled labour, as well as having hands tied, for all manner of changes, and dynamic activity.

If however, you could find a way to make the change without the union destroying it, then it might work.