High Ho it's off to the polls we go.
- Thread starter Trex
- Start date
He does? I didn’t know that. Currently I am heavily invested in Canadian bank stock. If Harper gets a majority and he deregulates Canadian banks along the lines of American banks, I am pulling my money out of banks, fast.
Alberta? Now you talk about PROVINCIAL politics where the people of Alberta can choose instead of having ON & QC decide for them? hhmmm I have to look at that one. Liberal Party 1905–1921, United Farmers 1921–1935, Social Credit 1935–1971, Progressive Conservative 1971–present. Looks to me like AB has had 4 different parties running it. Now, let's see what Canada has had (note that ON & QC have always had more say over what the rest of the country has for a federal government than anyone else): starting with MacDonald; Liberal-Conservative (the original name of the Conservative party), Liberal, and it kept seesawing back and forth for a while till Borden, who was Unionist and following him was Meighen, an N.L.C.er (both of those occupied the PMO for a whole 3 or 4 years), then from King till now has been the Conservative Liberal seesawing again. Wow, that's a lot of seesawing between 2 parties. Canada was born in 1867 and Alberta in 1905. Canada has basically had the same two governing it, except for a hiccup between 1917 and 1920, for 142 years; Alberta has had 4 different parties in 104 years. Each of those 4 parties has governed for a minimum of 14 years.
But, my point was that Alberta, BC, the territories, don't elect the federal government. ON & Qc do so the rest of Canada has to put up with what ON & Qc decides on. It's simply stupid.
My MPs have been indie for as long as I can remember except one time I voted Socred waaaaay back. I never voted NDP and likely never will. We have Liberal now and that's turning out to be just as much a disaster as the NDP were.
It's not difficult to imagine, our provincial gov't is nothing like the federal Liberals. Same can be said for our conservative party here and the federal party. They're the same in name only. That's not a toughie to figure out.
Here is some interesting information on how the NWT government is formed from their web site. It sounds kinda neat - but I don't think that it would work well for Ontario or Quebec... but that is just my opinion.
MIT, the last I heard NWT was thinking of switching to a system similar to other provinces, with political parties. Some thing is not working in NWT, I don’t know what.
MIT, the last I heard NWT was thinking of switching to a system similar to other provinces, with political parties. Some thing is not working in NWT, I don’t know what.
If its just a flip back and forth between Liberal and Conservative minorities, then fundamentally nothing has changed. The stock market analysts know their is little difference between these parties and what's going on right now is more about egos and lust for power.
However if the NDP held the balance of power with a Liberal minority or became the minority government themselves, I think the market would react negatively in the short term. Layton would have to reassure the bay street capitalists that he push for any abrupt changes. Many people have misperceptions regarding the NDP and their policies.
However if the NDP held the balance of power with a Liberal minority or became the minority government themselves, I think the market would react negatively in the short term. Layton would have to reassure the bay street capitalists that he push for any abrupt changes. Many people have misperceptions regarding the NDP and their policies.
I think the best solution would involve Canada becoming less federal and allowing the provinces to run their own affairs, leaving the Feds with the military, foreign affairs etc.
Anna G - come on. Ontario and Quebec elect MPs from just about all parties. Look that the Map. There are Conservatives, Liberals, NDP, Independants and BQs in there. There is only Province that consistantly votes Blue. You guess where that is.
I get your point that Ontario and Quebec bear most of the "blame" for the parties that end up controlling parliament - but to say that Ontario and Quebec only vote for certain parties is a bit pot calling the kettle black. Every region does that.
As to Quebec and Ontario controlling who gets in power - that's what happens when the majority of people live in a certain area. Should my vote now count less than yours because I live in Ontario? (It already does, BTW) How is that democractic. It's not my fault more people live in the "golden horseshoe" than in Manitoba, Saskatchewn and Alberta combined....
I get your point that Ontario and Quebec bear most of the "blame" for the parties that end up controlling parliament - but to say that Ontario and Quebec only vote for certain parties is a bit pot calling the kettle black. Every region does that.
As to Quebec and Ontario controlling who gets in power - that's what happens when the majority of people live in a certain area. Should my vote now count less than yours because I live in Ontario? (It already does, BTW) How is that democractic. It's not my fault more people live in the "golden horseshoe" than in Manitoba, Saskatchewn and Alberta combined....
It's not my fault more people live in the "golden horseshoe" than in Manitoba, Saskatchewn and Alberta combined
Indeed, pegger. Or that city of Toronto has more MPs than the province of Alberta.
Indeed, pegger. Or that city of Toronto has more MPs than the province of Alberta.
Hold it. Ontario has 95 seats in the HoC and a population of about 12 million. The quotient is about 126,300 per seat. Nunavut has 1 seat and about 26,000 people. The quotient is obviously 26,000. That's quite a difference considering your version of rep. by pop.
The amalgamation of seats the 4 provinces would add to is 77 but the the territories might join in, too. 77 + 3 = 80. They'd also have a hell of an economic engine. Alberta usually being the powerhouse of Canada. Things between central Canada and western Canada would level out and be a bit more fair then, I would think.
Last edited by a moderator:
Not only did Iggy support Harpy, but I'd defy Iggy not to run up a deficit, also. The economy is the economy. It sucked for Harpy, it'd suck for Iggy, too.
And I see your point, but the fact remains that ON & QC still vote in nothing but Glibs and Cons at the expense of the ROC.
No, it isn't your fault, but it could be remedied and that regions of Canada would also count rather than just population. What does a Torontonian like Sir Pompass have in common with Joe Farmer from PEI or Fred Rancher from BC? Not a bloody thing. Yet Sir Pompass controls more of what goes on in either of the others lives than they do (federally speaking). IMO, it's straight out moronic.
I would not sell your Canadian bank stocks so fast. In fact I would buy.
In the short term bank de-regulation can lead to quick profits or at least percieved profits. Banks can charge higher interest rates to high risk borrowers. As long as these high risk borrowers can make their interest payments all is well for the banks and the banks remain highly profitable.
What happened in the US was that a small downturn in the economy, combined with a small increase in interest rates triggered a chain reaction. People on the margin couldn't make their mortgage payments and the bank seized their homes. That led to a housing market flooded with foreclosured homes driving down prices and as a result huge losses for banks that assumed the most risk. That led to a general loss of confidence in banks which set off a huge selling spree on the stock market, causing a crash.
But rewind back to the late 1990's. Bank deregulation under Clinton led to huge profits initially. The banks that took the biggest risks made the biggest profits. If house prices had kept going up indefinitely, everything would have been fine. But sooner or later the economy always takes a dive and when it does, bank deregulation tends to exaggerate the losses, just like they tend to exaggerate the profits during good times. Most banks that took the big risks back then are now bankrupt, with the exception of those that were bailed out by the American government.
Over the last year, we've had some house cleaning. Canadian banks didn't make the big profits like the American ones, but they also only sustained minimum losses when the bottom fell out. House prices have been stable in Canada. Canadian bank de-regulation would likely lead to increased bank profits... at least in the short term. But banks shouldn't be in the high risk loan shark market. That's best left to organized crime.
The bank's purpose is to provide longterm stability and growth. Greedy people tend to forget that in pursuit of short term profit. Conservatives tend to obey their greedy masters and that's why they favor bank de-regulation.
Cut to the chase. If I thought Harper was going to introduce bank de-regulation, I'd buy more bank stocks in anticipation of increased short term profits. But as soon as I made money, I'd start looking to get out before the bottom falls out by watching the rate of home foreclosures. Any increase in foreclosures combined with a down turn in the economy would spell the beginning of the end. Covert stock to cash, wait for the crash and then buy in again at the bottom of the cycle.
If you had bought US banks back in the late 1990's when they were deregulated, cashed out in August 2008 before the bottom fell out and then bought back in again in March 2009, you would have made a huge return on your initial investment. If your timing was exactly right, you could have made 5-10x's return on your initial investment. Hindsight... Also, that's not how you are supposed to play banks. They shouldn't be high risk, high gain/loss but a safe place to keep your wealth.
BTW, I saw a problem coming related to the US debt, but I never thought it would hit so hard or so fast. I also never realized that the American banks were so vulnerable to a modest downturn. That US debt problem still exists and in fact its only gotten bigger. You can't just keep printing money without consequences. Sooner or later the American dollar will experience some serious inflation which will lead to an American dollar confidence crisis. I believe this event is inevitable... its just a question of when. When the US dollar plunges in value, its going to take Canada's dollar with it and many other world currencies. It will be disasterous for the world economy. I'd definitely be cautious about holding American dollars or stock in American companies.
I suspect that's why gold is trending up right now. If the American dollar falls, and drags down the other world currencies, gold will retain its value as currency gets coverted to precious metals. But there will be no absolute safe haven for your wealth.
Also another factor is the Chinese government/banks. If they wanted, they could cause a confidence crisis in the American dollar right now. They hold over $700 billion US. All they would have to do is dump their American dollars all at once. They'd take a hit too, but when the dust settled, the US would be ruined. Luckily the Chinese aren't interested in hurting the US. They want longterm stable growth and the ability to threaten the US if they try to interfere in Chinese interests. I don't think they will play that card, but I also don't think they are interested in holding more US debt.
Right now I hold gold, Canadian oil and gas, Canadian Banks, growing Canadian companies like RIM and an assortment of Chinese based stocks like Baidu. I lost a lot when the bottom fell out a year ago and I've since recovered back to where I was. But I'm not greedy. Right now, I'm slowly selling to increase my cash position in anticipation of another downturn. I expect that to happen when world governments start phasing out their stimulus packages. Stock analysts may be greedy, but they are also usually pretty good at predicting the short term future. The stock market will start to trend downwards about 6 months ahead of government announcements regarding the end of stimulus packages, which is why I'm starting to get out now. I could be a little early, but that's better than being too late.
Last edited:
Perhaps my judgement is clouded. But it isn't hatred and it isn't dislike of ONLY the Glibs. As long as I have been a voter and a little before, Canada's feds have failed Canadians in many ways. Canada has huge potential and it's held back from reaching it by those morons that invade the parliament buildings in Ottawa.
When Canada's healthcare slides from among the top 5 to 30th in the WHO's list, it's a disaster, IMO.
Anna people vote in those morons. The biggest problem with Canada's health care system is that we let each province run their own. The result is that we have a bunch of different systems and I can't go from province to province without a lot of bureaucratic pi-ssing around.
If people vote in those morons it doesn't make them any less moronic. The feds caused that bit by constantly decreasing funding for healthcare. As far as the provinces are concerned, you don't ante up, you sit out of the game. As for what the feds did with the money they kept rather than sharing goes, .....
http://communities.canada.com/shareit/forums/post/163066aspx
Well, how does Chrétien and Martin 'nightmare' compare with Mulroney 'paradise'? I looked up some statistics. I took 1993 as the base, since that was the first full year of Liberal rule (I think).
1. Budget deficit - 40 billion $ deficit to 10 billion $ surplus. Economy went from being on life support to roaring ahead.
2. Per capita income. Per capita income grew at the rate of 2.1% annually between 1993 - 1998 and 2.8% annually between 1999 and 2005.
Table 3b Personal income per capita, Canada1 and the Northwest Territories, 1993 to 1998 and 1999 to 2004
I did some calculations, and it represents an increase of 33% in per capita income between 1993 and 2004.
3. Life expectancy
1993 - 77.7
2005 - 80.1
230,132 people died in Canada in 2005, up 1.6% from 2004 - Digital Forum
It is self explanatory, need no explanation.
4. Infant morality.
Infant morality : 5.4 per 1000 births in 2005.
6.3 per 1000 births in 1993.
5. Child poverty
As I recall, you claimed that poverty (and child poverty) has got much worse under Liberals. It was a bit ironic. I don't question your motives, maybe you are really interested in the plight of the poor. But many conservatives couldn't care less about the poor, they are more concerned with the rich. Hence their adamant opposition to any measure intended to help the poor (such as increasing minimum wage, subsidized child care, social assistance programs etc.).
Well, what exactly did happen under those heartless, child hating liberals?
% of children living below poverty line.
1993 - 22%
2005 - 17.6%
http://www.campaign2000.ca/rc/rc05/05NationalReportCard.pdf
I should mention that during the last years of the benign, saintly rule of Messiah Mulroney, child poverty had got much worse (No! Surely not under a conservative!). So even with this progress, child poverty was not down to the level of 1989. Mulroney did so much damage in three years that Liberals could not set right in 13 years. Of course it is the fault of the Liberals, who could blame the saintly, Messiah Mulroney?
6. Crime rate: Of course, crime rate never goes in a straight line. Some types of crime decreases, while some other type increases. However, there was a substantial decrease in the overall crime between 1993 and 2005.
1993: overall crime rate - more than 10,000 per 100,000 population.
2003 : overall crime rate: 8132 per 100,000 population.
The Daily, Wednesday, July 28, 2004. Crime statistics
Let us recap. After 13 years of Liberal rule, Canadians are richer, safer and live longer. The prosperity is shared by the poor as well as by the middle class, child poverty is down (though not down to the same level it was before Mulroney caused serious damage, caused a serious increase in child poverty). Now, if you look hard enough, you probably will find one or two criteria where things may have got worse, it is quite possible. Again, nothing moves straight up or straight down. But taken all together, at least in my opinion it is quite an impressive record.
So Liberal rule of 13 years has been an unmitigated disaster, has it? I only hope we have another 'unmitigated disaster' next time Liberals are in power for 13 years.
Incidentally, let me make an educated guess. During the reign of Messiah Harper, child poverty is probably on the increase again, it is well known that when conservatives are in power, rich become richer and poor become poorer.
Well, how does Chrétien and Martin 'nightmare' compare with Mulroney 'paradise'? I looked up some statistics. I took 1993 as the base, since that was the first full year of Liberal rule (I think).
1. Budget deficit - 40 billion $ deficit to 10 billion $ surplus. Economy went from being on life support to roaring ahead.
2. Per capita income. Per capita income grew at the rate of 2.1% annually between 1993 - 1998 and 2.8% annually between 1999 and 2005.
Table 3b Personal income per capita, Canada1 and the Northwest Territories, 1993 to 1998 and 1999 to 2004
I did some calculations, and it represents an increase of 33% in per capita income between 1993 and 2004.
3. Life expectancy
1993 - 77.7
2005 - 80.1
230,132 people died in Canada in 2005, up 1.6% from 2004 - Digital Forum
It is self explanatory, need no explanation.
4. Infant morality.
Infant morality : 5.4 per 1000 births in 2005.
6.3 per 1000 births in 1993.
5. Child poverty
As I recall, you claimed that poverty (and child poverty) has got much worse under Liberals. It was a bit ironic. I don't question your motives, maybe you are really interested in the plight of the poor. But many conservatives couldn't care less about the poor, they are more concerned with the rich. Hence their adamant opposition to any measure intended to help the poor (such as increasing minimum wage, subsidized child care, social assistance programs etc.).
Well, what exactly did happen under those heartless, child hating liberals?
% of children living below poverty line.
1993 - 22%
2005 - 17.6%
http://www.campaign2000.ca/rc/rc05/05NationalReportCard.pdf
I should mention that during the last years of the benign, saintly rule of Messiah Mulroney, child poverty had got much worse (No! Surely not under a conservative!). So even with this progress, child poverty was not down to the level of 1989. Mulroney did so much damage in three years that Liberals could not set right in 13 years. Of course it is the fault of the Liberals, who could blame the saintly, Messiah Mulroney?
6. Crime rate: Of course, crime rate never goes in a straight line. Some types of crime decreases, while some other type increases. However, there was a substantial decrease in the overall crime between 1993 and 2005.
1993: overall crime rate - more than 10,000 per 100,000 population.
2003 : overall crime rate: 8132 per 100,000 population.
The Daily, Wednesday, July 28, 2004. Crime statistics
Let us recap. After 13 years of Liberal rule, Canadians are richer, safer and live longer. The prosperity is shared by the poor as well as by the middle class, child poverty is down (though not down to the same level it was before Mulroney caused serious damage, caused a serious increase in child poverty). Now, if you look hard enough, you probably will find one or two criteria where things may have got worse, it is quite possible. Again, nothing moves straight up or straight down. But taken all together, at least in my opinion it is quite an impressive record.
So Liberal rule of 13 years has been an unmitigated disaster, has it? I only hope we have another 'unmitigated disaster' next time Liberals are in power for 13 years.
Incidentally, let me make an educated guess. During the reign of Messiah Harper, child poverty is probably on the increase again, it is well known that when conservatives are in power, rich become richer and poor become poorer.
You don't say, juan. anyway, I just posted a detail analysis of how the country performed under 13 years of Liberal rule, how there was improvement across the board, in every area of life.
Truly it was the Golden Age.
Cut to the chase. If I thought Harper was going to introduce bank de-regulation, I'd buy more bank stocks in anticipation of increased short term profits. But as soon as I made money, I'd start looking to get out before the bottom falls out by watching the rate of home foreclosures. Any increase in foreclosures combined with a down turn in the economy would spell the beginning of the end. Covert stock to cash, wait for the crash and then buy in again at the bottom of the cycle.
Quite right, earth_as_one. I remember in the 90s the American banks were making profits from risky, questionable deals, Canadian profits were lagging behind by comparison. So after deregulation, stock prices may well go up initially.
However, the trick would be to know when to get out. Currently Canadian banks are a solid, long term investment, once you buy them, you hold them for years, or even a generation or more. That will end, the bottom will inevitable fall out at some stage, like it did with American banks. Currently Canadian banks are considered safe, solid, investments, they will become high risk investment if Harper restructures them along the lines of American banks.
Personally I don’t go in for risky investments. So if banks are totally deregulated, I would look for an opportunity to get out.
If you had bought US banks back in the late 1990's when they were deregulated, cashed out in August 2008 before the bottom fell out and then bought back in again in March 2009, you would have made a huge return on your initial investment. If your timing was exactly right, you could have made 5-10x's return on your initial investment. Hindsight... Also, that's not how you are supposed to play banks.
It looks so easy in the hindsight, doesn’t it? :like looking up the answer at the back of the book. But as you say, that is not how banks are supposed to work. Banks are the engine that drive the free market, and having speculative, risky banks is not good for the economy, as USA is finding out.
No, that kind of investment isn’t for me. If Harper deregulates Canadian banks along the lines of American banks, I am out of banks. If not right away, then in a short while.
Quite right, earth_as_one. I remember in the 90s the American banks were making profits from risky, questionable deals, Canadian profits were lagging behind by comparison. So after deregulation, stock prices may well go up initially.
However, the trick would be to know when to get out. Currently Canadian banks are a solid, long term investment, once you buy them, you hold them for years, or even a generation or more. That will end, the bottom will inevitable fall out at some stage, like it did with American banks. Currently Canadian banks are considered safe, solid, investments, they will become high risk investment if Harper restructures them along the lines of American banks.
Personally I don’t go in for risky investments. So if banks are totally deregulated, I would look for an opportunity to get out.
If you had bought US banks back in the late 1990's when they were deregulated, cashed out in August 2008 before the bottom fell out and then bought back in again in March 2009, you would have made a huge return on your initial investment. If your timing was exactly right, you could have made 5-10x's return on your initial investment. Hindsight... Also, that's not how you are supposed to play banks.
It looks so easy in the hindsight, doesn’t it? :like looking up the answer at the back of the book. But as you say, that is not how banks are supposed to work. Banks are the engine that drive the free market, and having speculative, risky banks is not good for the economy, as USA is finding out.
No, that kind of investment isn’t for me. If Harper deregulates Canadian banks along the lines of American banks, I am out of banks. If not right away, then in a short while.
I don't care how ChRETIeN and aPAULing Martin compare to Bullroney. I can villify all of them. I can villify every single one of them back to Turdeau.
If you want to compare stuff compare John Turner to Diefenbaker, too. Or Kim Campbull to Pearson.
Eco-Economy Indicators - Global Economy | EPI
Notice the rapid rise between about 1994 and 2005? Seems to me that the Lieberals would have to be exceptionally incompetent for Canada NOT to have had a good economy.
That's pretty easy to see. It also pretty easy to remember there were medical advances during that period and that the world's population's life expectancy rose also. Want to attribute the world's people's life expectancies to the Lieberals, too?
So? It's been low since Harpy came in, too.
Infant Mortality / Health / Indicators of Well-being in Canada
Quit recalling, I am not the one that said that and I don't really care what conservatives are concerned with nor what you think about them.
Well, what exactly did happen under those heartless, child hating liberals?
% of children living below poverty line.
1993 - 22%
2005 - 17.6%
http://www.campaign2000.ca/rc/rc05/05NationalReportCard.pdf
I should mention that during the last years of the benign, saintly rule of Messiah Mulroney, child poverty had got much worse (No! Surely not under a conservative!). So even with this progress, child poverty was not down to the level of 1989. Mulroney did so much damage in three years that Liberals could not set right in 13 years. Of course it is the fault of the Liberals, who could blame the saintly, Messiah Mulroney?[/quote]Big deal. As I said the Lieberals would have to be exceptionally bad if things hadn't improved while they were in.
Crime drops during the good years. So?The entire planet was having a run of good years economically and health-wise. That was due to the Lieberals? lmao
Not that impressive. They just were fortunate enough to get in during a good period globally.
Quit putting spin on what I say.
Really?
http://www.urbancentre.utoronto.ca/pdfs/curp/Myles_Neigh-Inequality-Cana.pdf
Why the poor aren’t poorer after all - Canada - Macleans.ca
Last edited by a moderator:
It's not profound. Simply observational.
Yes. One can only find so many facts to post. Unfortunately for you, although you did post facts, there are bigger facts that overshadow them.