Political Bing

2 minutes ago, ScanIAm wrote

Publicly traded companies are never governed by the majority of shareholders, they are governed by the shareholders with a majority of shares.  And those folks don't have the same interests as you do.

Wait,.... What?

The people that own the biggest part of the bank, have the largest influence?

And that's bad?

What do you propose?

14 minutes ago, ScanIAm wrote

*snip*

Yes, I can.

Causation does not equal correlation.

A lot has changed since 1999, by that logic I could blame any number of new or discontinued regulation as the cause.

Again, it's a red herring. The crisis would have happened regardless of it.

And you say you can, let's get concrete then, how much percent less crisis would we have if the Glass-Steagall would be in place?

Sorry, can't talk right now, very busy. Anyway, here's some fun and relevant facts I thought I would share: (if pic doesn't work, go here  http://twitter.com/SheilaGunnReid/status/265218281001086976/photo/1/large

11 minutes ago, Proton2 wrote

http://twitter.com/SheilaGunnReid/status/265218281001086976/photo/1/large

 

comparing  Canada's economy to any other makes no sense. Canada get a tremendous amount of revenue from selling its ( or should we say the Eskimo's ? ) natural resources to foreign countries.

1 hour ago, ScanIAm wrote

Publicly traded companies are never governed by the majority of shareholders, they are governed by the shareholders with a majority of shares.  And those folks don't have the same interests as you do.

 

Companies are governed by their share price. If the government repealed too big to fail the share price of large banks would fall, which would cause those companies to break themselves into more manageable pieces. Even Microsoft will be forced by its investors to change it ways if it does not start earning Apple sized money soon.

12 minutes ago, SteveRichter wrote

comparing  Canada's economy to any other makes no sense. Canada get a tremendous amount of revenue from selling its ( or should we say the Eskimo's ? ) natural resources to foreign countries.

And the US for some reason cannot sell it's own natural resources?

Curious,...

6 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

*snip*

And the US for some reason cannot sell it's own natural resources?

Curious,...

I do not know the numbers, but Canada's government spending budget is likely 20% of the US. But what it gets for selling its timber and hydro, minerals and oil is likely equal to what the US receives. Just guessing, but it makes sense that Canada gets a much higher percentage of its government revenue from its sale of natural resources than the US does.

5 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

*snip*

Causation does not equal correlation.

From you, that's hilarious.

A lot has changed since 1999, by that logic I could blame any number of new or discontinued regulation as the cause.

The period from about 2003 to 2008 was when these problems occurred; we just saw the meltdown in 2008.  If you wish to put your fingers in your ears and sing 'la la la la la', that's your business, but anyone with a brain would notice that the first economic downturn that could have resulted was:

1) a result of many, many banks merging their savings & loan functions with their speculation functions which is specifically blocked by G-S

2) this VERY FIRST DOWNTURN was damn near as large as the economic downturn that G-S was designed to prevent.

Again, it's a red herring. The crisis would have happened regardless of it.

And you say you can, let's get concrete then, how much percent less crisis would we have if the Glass-Steagall would be in place?

How exactly do you measure crisis percentage?  That's a stupid query on your part.

I do know that every bank that a) failed and b) mixed their S&L with their speculation wouldn't have had those losses to worry about.

4 hours ago, SteveRichter wrote

*snip*

Companies are governed by their share price.

Nope.  The fact that you think this means that you've likely never owned an actual stock.  Or at least never paid attention to the shareholder meeting info that comes out every year.

If the government repealed too big to fail the share price of large banks would fall, which would cause those companies to break themselves into more manageable pieces.

...or fail.  Kind of a bad thing during a recession.

Even Microsoft will be forced by its investors to change it ways if it does not start earning Apple sized money soon.

Yes, I know, MSFT is struggling under the weight of not making any money, year after year after year.

If only they had a viable business model.

Resources in Canada belong to the provinces and not to the federal government. The federal government does not get its revenue from resources. It gets its revenue from:

Federal Government Finances

Each year, the federal government collects and spends hundreds of billions of dollars. In the fiscal year 2007/2008, federal revenue totaled over $250 billion (Statistics Canada, June 25). By far, the largest portion stems from income taxes, which accounted for approximately 67 percent of federal revenues. Other important sources of income include consumption taxes (such as the Goods and Services Tax), contributions to social security plans and investment income. The following table provides an overview of key sources of federal government revenue.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/federal-government-canada-organization-institutions-issues

15 hours ago, SteveRichter wrote

I do not know the numbers, but Canada's government spending budget is likely 20% of the US. But what it gets for selling its timber and hydro, minerals and oil is likely equal to what the US receives. Just guessing, but it makes sense that Canada gets a much higher percentage of its government revenue from its sale of natural resources than the US does.

Since when is Canadian government selling timber, hydro, minerals or oil? Private companies do that.

12 hours ago, ScanIAm wrote

From you, that's hilarious.

Sticks and stones, you can't seem to post without them,.. pity,..

The period from about 2003 to 2008 was when these problems occurred; we just saw the meltdown in 2008.  If you wish to put your fingers in your ears and sing 'la la la la la', that's your business, but anyone with a brain would notice that the first economic downturn that could have resulted was:

1) a result of many, many banks merging their savings & loan functions with their speculation functions which is specifically blocked by G-S

2) this VERY FIRST DOWNTURN was damn near as large as the economic downturn that G-S was designed to prevent.

Problems started long before 2003-2008. Nothing wrong with economic downturn, stuff happens, markets fail,. It's a part of life. What the problem is, is that everyone put their money on growth. When that didn't happen, people lost. Now, in a grownup world people take their losses. But people like yourself, who believe that government should protect it's citizens from any harm, feel the government should step in. So they did, making problems even more worse. It's the same old story we've seen in many crisis, the cure is worse then the pain. We should go back to a less regulated world, where people can make a buck the honest way. Instead of doing this dance with government and it's regulations. 

How exactly do you measure crisis percentage?  That's a stupid query on your part.

Oh that's the easy part. You just look at the stock prices. You can easily see how much money the economy has lost. You can also look at GDP, but that is a very grey number, since government can manipulate it.

You said you knew for certain that Glass-Steagall would have made the crisis less, I just asked the simple question by how much. My point is, you can't answer that question, no one can. So it's a fallacy to conclude that Glass-Steagall would have prevented the deep crisis.

We do know that nearly half of all mortgages in the US were junk. And that the US government actively sought to loan money to lesser incomes. Driving the net worth for these non credit worthy people up, while they had no real net worth. When this bubble burst, the crisis began and the dominos began to fall. The fuse was the economic downturn, the barrel was the CRA, everything else is just small potatoes.

I do know that every bank that a) failed and b) mixed their S&L with their speculation wouldn't have had those losses to worry about.

S&L and all other banks were compelled to buy up sub prime due to the CRA. So they would have failed regardless. It's the CRA that created the bubble, not a repeal of Glass-Steagall.

9 hours ago, Proton2 wrote

Resources in Canada belong to the provinces and not to the federal government. The federal government does not get its revenue from resources. It gets its revenue from:

I can't see a government passing on taxing the sale of the natural resources of the country. Royalties, special tax rates on the companies, property taxes.  Austrailia is another country that does not appear to have a big industrial private sector yet is still wealthy.  Just my opinion. I don't have any facts.

7 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

You said you knew for certain that Glass-Steagall would have made the crisis less, I just asked the simple question by how much. My point is, you can't answer that question, no one can. So it's a fallacy to conclude that Glass-Steagall would have prevented the deep crisis.

I think we should cut all of the police and military because you never know if people will just start being good and moral citizens all of a sudden. You know it's like the Republican's say over here "We Americans take care of each other."

90% chance for Obama reelection today...

14 minutes ago, DeathBy​VisualStudio wrote

I think we should cut all of the police and military because you never know if people will just start being good and moral citizens all of a sudden. You know it's like the Republican's say over here "We Americans take care of each other."

I'm fully in favor of a police, military and a court system.

Like I've stated a gazillion times.

U.S. slips out of top 10 most prosperous countries, while Canada stays at No. 6 natpo.st/SPL5DF

6 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

Problems started long before 2003-2008. Nothing wrong with economic downturn, stuff happens, markets fail,. It's a part of life. What the problem is, is that everyone put their money on growth. When that didn't happen, people lost. Now, in a grownup world people take their losses. But people like yourself, who believe that government should protect it's citizens from any harm, feel the government should step in. So they did, making problems even more worse. It's the same old story we've seen in many crisis, the cure is worse then the pain. We should go back to a less regulated world, where people can make a buck the honest way. Instead of doing this dance with government and it's regulations. 

You are arguing that we should return to the policies and practices that resulted in an economic downturn. 

Perhaps we should return to unregulated healthcare, food production, and get rid of traffic laws while we are at it.

I'm sorry, but you are just wrong, here.  The banking industry has proven repeatedly that it cannot function ethically without regulations and oversight.

Oh that's the easy part. You just look at the stock prices. You can easily see how much money the economy has lost. You can also look at GDP, but that is a very grey number, since government can manipulate it.

Well, there you go.  You point out how to do it and then immediately start wiggling out of the definition.  I'm not going to do busywork for you because you've proven repeatedly that you don't listen to anything anyone says and you are a troll.

You said you knew for certain that Glass-Steagall would have made the crisis less, I just asked the simple question by how much. My point is, you can't answer that question, no one can. So it's a fallacy to conclude that Glass-Steagall would have prevented the deep crisis.

And you've proven my previous point.  I told you exactly how I knew G-S would have made the crisis less damaging and you ignored it.

We do know that nearly half of all mortgages in the US were junk. And that the US government actively sought to loan money to lesser incomes. Driving the net worth for these non credit worthy people up, while they had no real net worth. When this bubble burst, the crisis began and the dominos began to fall. The fuse was the economic downturn, the barrel was the CRA, everything else is just small potatoes.

S&L and all other banks were compelled to buy up sub prime due to the CRA. So they would have failed regardless. It's the CRA that created the bubble, not a repeal of Glass-Steagall.

No bank out there was forced to loan money to people who weren't qualified.  They did so because they knew they could sell the loan off and keep the fees involved in processing those loans. 

There is no, I repeat NO evidence that banks were forced to give loans to people who weren't qualified.

Repeating that myth doesn't make it true.