Socialist Canada's Economy the Envy of the World

[JB3]

Droid, perhaps you did note in the article the emphasis on regulation.

I believe deregulation in the business arena works about as well as deregulation in the criminal justice system. Canadian banks didn't take those kinds of risks because they were heavily regulated, Droid. I beg you to please reread the section concerning this point, Droid.

By contrast, US banks, which were heavily deregulated, took foolish, even reckless risks because they got greedy.

To be fair, there was also a nod to the right wing, that I acknowledge. I'm sure you noticed the emphasis on the fact that spending was dramatically slashed. (The Tea Partiers would be proud to read this.)

US banks were NOT heavily deregulated. There were a few specific areas where regulation was relaxed that ultimately led to the banks downfall.

But regulation had little to do with it. Canada's banking system is completely different than the US'. Because of that, they're more conservative with how they run their companies. Regulation had little to do with it, and there's no argument you could make that could say that it did.

And, btw, nothing you've mentioned has anything whatsoever to do with socialism.

 

[JB3]

Canadians by and large are nice people too. Polite, friendly and somewhat reserved. There isn't the "bring 'em on" and "we're the leader of the free world" mentality when you visit Canada.

You also notice there isn't an extreme gap between rich and poor in the large cities. In Chicago you see monolithic suburban homes and ravaged inner cities. In Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Winnipeg, Calgary you don't see sprawling slums and this huge gap between rich and poor as you do in the USA. Canada takes care of their people.

There are price controls on medications in Canada. One medication I need to survive (I've had a kidney transplant) I drive to Canada to buy. At home it's $600 for a supply while I take the one hour drive to a pharmacy in Canada the exact same thing is $80.... a no brainer to go there.

A little bit of "socialism" isn't such a bad thing to take care of your citizens. Safety nets are necessary.

Droid880, the Royal Bank of Canada has $655.0 billion that's with a "B" in assets. That's half a trillion for a country with a population only 11% of the USA. Not too bad.

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


USA est. population: 307,006,550

Canada est population: 33,311,400

Right wing conservatives have become a greedy, mean spirited bunch. It's all about ME. It's what I want and to Hell with the rest of you. The Republicans don't care about the country as a whole, they only care about what they can get for themselves. They're not Americans anymore. They're Republicans.

I misplaced the B when I was looking up those numbers. And, btw, I should hope the Royal Bank of Canada had assets that high; considering the nation only has 5 banks, they SHOULD have assets that considerable.

As for the last part of your post; you'd do well to knock it off with the sweeping generalizations. It undermines what was actually quite a reasonable and informative post. [Text: Removed by Moderator]

 

[CowboyBob]

I misplaced the B when I was looking up those numbers. And, btw, I should hope the Royal Bank of Canada had assets that high; considering the nation only has 5 banks, they SHOULD have assets that considerable.

As for the last part of your post; you'd do well to knock it off with the sweeping generalizations. It undermines what was actually quite a reasonable and informative post. [Text: Removed by Moderator]

[Text: Removed by Moderator] Sorry, didn't mean to embarrass you by correcting your mistake.

And I don't know where you got this "5 banks" notion from. Take the time out and do a simple search before you post. You'll find a heck of a lot more than five banks. There are the "Big Five" which is what you mean.

 

[Zu-Mendel]

So...............it seems that the general consensus is that Canada's economy is highly fiscally conservative (in the real sense of the world, not American borrow-and-spend). Also that this fiscal conservatism is both what by-and-large saved them from the global financial crisis, and the reason the Right-leaning members of this board are criticizing Canada's economy.


.............er, right............

 

[Callum]

So...............it seems that the general consensus is that Canada's economy is highly fiscally conservative (in the real sense of the world, not American borrow-and-spend). Also that this fiscal conservatism is both what by-and-large saved them from the global financial crisis, and the reason the Right-leaning members of this board are criticizing Canada's economy.


.............er, right............

Yep...that's about it.

 

[Gomaki]

I guess I should be proud to be Canadian?

Well, in reality, they better make top spot for all those ridiculous amounts of taxes we are now forced to put up with

 

[KrisHawkXXX]

I hope massive purges, gulags, concentration camps and firing squads and gas chambers aren't the future.

There are enough of them in the recent past.

I think you thinking of Fascism and "National Socialism" which are both far different from a true socialist society which has never been seen by man.

 

[KrisHawkXXX]

Silly goose, that was communism, not socialism. ^

That being said, I can think of several Republican politicians who might do very well in a gulag or in front of a firing squad...

Communism has never been truly lived. Imitations of "Communism" in history was implemented and forced through a quick rushed process that created a very Capitalist Extreme and oppressive society. Socialism is the half-way point between True communism and today's Capitalism.

Concentration camps and forced labor was done under national socialism and far right Fascism.

The difference between ideal socialism and National socialism are the ideas and structures which lead to both political structures to be very opposite of each other. National socialism is where the whole world is equal as one nation for mass genocide with a dangerous mix of Fascism where the government takes full control of your life and can kill you for what ever reason they seem fit. Quite different then communism which lets the people control the government and regulate those that gain too much power to keep the economy well balanced. Because under Fascism many aspects of Capitalism exists only the government is the one main Capitalist and they own everything of yours.


Do some research on Socialism and you will discover that it is FAR different then National Socialism which was carried out by the Nazi Party. There are different forms of ideal Socialism.

Do research of Communism and realize how complex it is and how much human psychology is involved in the subject. The Soviet Union's lousy imitation of communism fell to pieces because people had no idea what they fuck they were doing. It's like a kid opening up the box to a model car and just keeps building without reading the instructions. Pick up an American History book with stated facts and no sources. You will realize just how much of our society is built on a broken system through propaganda and power control.

Fascism takes power away from the people and the government is allowed to own everything and control everything.

NOW this is an important topic because it leads to how truths can be twisted today.

There ARE enough resources for all of humanity.
There is NOT enough WEALTH to be circulated throughout the globe.

Because we live in a class system of Capitalism, we do not distribute enough resources to the people of the world. We are wasteful, selfish, and egoistical. We have a rare standard of living and shit on everything we should be more appreciative of.

Now seeing that we have limited wealth in the USA, don't you think its crazy when the GOP wants to take away business regulation so that many can keep getting richer while the limited wealth vanishes from the economy and leaves others broke and homeless? People wish for bigger houses with more rooms, but it results in someone else being affected.

 

[KrisHawkXXX]

^^^

It's remarkable the ignorance which circulates around economic discussions.

Half of what was said in that post was in reference to fascism, a right-wing ideology, which has nothing to do with the left-wing societal model called communism.

Strictly speaking, socialism refers to an economic model, not a societal one. In a socialist economy, there can be a class structure of people, such as can be found in China, unlike that in a true Marxist society. I'd say an economy in which more than 50% of commerce is commonly and publicly owned (typically by the government) is a socialist economy.

I wish more people knew that before opening their mouths. I find the most guilty culprit to be right-wing news outlets which misuse and abuse the terms, leading to a general ignorance and confusion among the American public.

We live in a Capitalist Economy, but it in turn creates its own society and how we interact with people. In A Capitalist Economy, we are raised in a SOCIETY which affects how we process certain goals, social ques, and life as we see it.

Sure Socialism still involves a class system but its a step up in our society of people because its a positive move forward.

I know how you feel about confusion in our country. Many people are subject to incorrect propaganda, info, environment, etc.

 

[opinterph]

There ARE enough resources for all of humanity.
There is NOT enough WEALTH to be circulated throughout the globe.

How are you defining wealth in this statement?

 

[rotary]

Careful careful- all is not well. The only reason Canada avoided the financial crash is because the banks have no exposure to all the risky mortgages that were handed out when the government loosened requirements and gave out 40 year, 0% down mortgages.

Our government is the proud owner of all those high risk 'securities' (which were also sold on exchanges, just like in the US) through the CMHC. Those flooded the market in 2008 to keep the housing sector propped up when affordability dropped. The government said lend, and since banks had no risk in doing so, they lent. The government now secures roughly $500 billion in mortgages, so let's hope many of those high risk mortgages taken out don't default when we raise interest rates.

We could have our own housing bubble bursting within the next couple years.

 

[JB3]

Hmm.

Well, the article seems to suggest that regulation was the main reason the banks didn't fail. You deny this.

Which one should I believe?

The article suggests no such thing. Again, if you'll read it carefully, you'll understand that the reason they're okay is because they didn't take any big risks because canadian institutions are a fair bit more conservative than their american counterparts. They weren't exposed to risky mortgages, and weren't exposed to the risks that American banks were. That has less to do with regulation and more to do with how the companies decided to run themselves.

 

[JB3]

[Text: Removed by Moderator] Sorry, didn't mean to embarrass you by correcting your mistake.

And I don't know where you got this "5 banks" notion from. Take the time out and do a simple search before you post. You'll find a heck of a lot more than five banks. There are the "Big Five" which is what you mean.

[Text: Removed by Moderator] As I said, your post above offered up some good information. [Text: Removed by Moderator]

Canada has five large banking institutions and several smaller ones that are not in a position to do anything risky or notable. Contrast that with the US, which has 23 large banks and hundreds and hundreds of smaller ones. So my statement still stands.

 

[rotary]

Canada has five large banking institutions and several smaller ones that are not in a position to do anything risky or notable. Contrast that with the US, which has 23 large banks and hundreds and hundreds of smaller ones. So my statement still stands.

I disagree. You've stated if Canadian banks were larger, they would have been in positions to take risk just like the large American banks. The big five banks wanted to merge to become larger and more competitive, Canadian regulation forbid it.

So yes, regulation played a huge role. You just supported that argument.

 

[Corny]

this was my most entertaining read of the day.

explain me socialism again please

then remind me which country you are again ..

 

[Corny]

i feel with you. but some posts ins this thread here really remind me of the first pic, and some attitudes here remind me of the second

 

[laikaNYC]

Let's not get started with posting signs by protestors. Because a lot of protestors on the left are some real winners...

 

[JB3]

I disagree. You've stated if Canadian banks were larger, they would have been in positions to take risk just like the large American banks. The big five banks wanted to merge to become larger and more competitive, Canadian regulation forbid it.

So yes, regulation played a huge role. You just supported that argument.

No I didn't. And I never said that canadian banks being larger would have taken more risks. As a matter of fact, I specifically said that it wouldn't have mattered, because Canadian banks are expected to be run more conservatively because they don't have to take the same sort of risks that American banks do, and the corporate culture is quite a bit different. Regulation has very little to do with corporate culture in the way that that article spoke of it.

 

[rotary]

No I didn't. And I never said that canadian banks being larger would have taken more risks. As a matter of fact, I specifically said that it wouldn't have mattered, because Canadian banks are expected to be run more conservatively because they don't have to take the same sort of risks that American banks do, and the corporate culture is quite a bit different. Regulation has very little to do with corporate culture in the way that that article spoke of it.

Yes, you did. Regulation stopped the banks from merging and becoming two "mega" banks, which would have assets above $1 trillion. On two separate posts in this thread, you stated their limited size in comparison with American banks played a role in their inability to take the same risks. I'll re-quote your emphasis on size regarding ability to take risk:

You also need to contrast the size of their banks; Canada's largest, The Royal Bank of Canada has assets somewhere in the neighborhood of $655 million. The US' largest, Bank of America, has assets well over $2 trillion dollars. Canada only has 5 major banks; the US has 23 banks worth over $100 million.

Canada has five large banking institutions and several smaller ones that are not in a position to do anything risky or notable. Contrast that with the US, which has 23 large banks and hundreds and hundreds of smaller ones. So my statement still stands.

If size and assets aren't factors in participating in mortgage backed security trading, why post them? Regulation most certainly stopped them from becoming large like JP-morgan and Citigroup who, and I quote, had "far reach" and were somehow expected to tolerate more risk, as you yourself put it. Don't back peddle.

 

[JB3]

Yes, you did. Regulation stopped the banks from merging and becoming two "mega" banks, which would have assets above $1 trillion. On two separate posts in this thread, you stated their limited size in comparison with American banks played a role in their inability to take the same risks. I'll re-quote your emphasis on size regarding ability to take risk:




If size and assets aren't factors in participating in mortgage backed security trading, why post them? Regulation most certainly stopped them from becoming large like JP-morgan and Citigroup who, and I quote, had "far reach" and were somehow expected to tolerate more risk, as you yourself put it. Don't back peddle.

I'm not backpedaling. Go read my first post in this thread, which states exactly what I did above. Their size has nothing to do with it; how they're managed does.