...somebody finally said it out loud.**********FROM THE COMMENTS:
"But... it looked so easy on "West Wing"!"
3/25/2009 10:45:00 a.m.
the big o
"All we can do is pray"?
That's right Neo, just keep praying to the great sky faeries for Obama to fail.
*"josephine asks... 'All we can do is pray'?"well... you've gotta admit this whole obama deal is very much like a religion. it'd be a little more reassuring though, if "the one" wasn't some newbie who came up through the shady ranks of the infamous "chicago machine."but it looks like that's good enough for the sheeple, right nonny-mouse?i mean, a freshman senator who voted "present" a couple of hundred times... is suddenly the most powerful man in the world?if i wasn't an atheist... i'd be prayin' my ass off right now.*
But...it looked so easy on "West Wing"!
Neo-mouse, don't worry dude. We have the Great Economist Harper, who, in Jim Flaherty's own words, "Never saw this coming" Comforting no?
*"nonny-mouse says... the Great Economist"oh yes, yes nonny... that's who is responsible for the sub-prime lending crisis and lack of regulation that slammed financial systems worldwide... that evil stephen harper.do you guys ever stop and listen to yourselves.*
Actually Harper did think that something was going to hit the US more than a year before it did. You simply have to look at his speech to the nation in Dec 2007, where he gives what CTV called "a sober warning". Immediately after this speech all the big heads said he was an idiot.Which is why he made tax changes to increase the motivation of consumers to spend (GST) which was decried at the time as being uneccessary during an economic boom, but is now actually prudent policy, and if coupled with spending cuts would help greatly. What seems to have suprised him is that it did not happen sooner, and so when asked before the election he said that it should have happened by now if it were to happen.I happen to agree with the economists who speak of this being a reset. There has been a significant level of borrowing over the past few decades which has now come to a head. I remember doing stats work back in the 1990's where I showed that the savings levels of Canadians was at an all time low - which means that if there is a recession, consumer spending will be significantly hit as people divert any income to debt. There is nothing wrong with debt if there is a legitimate structure for repaying it and moreover that capital acquired through debt will be productive. The problem is that right now we have a transfer of corporate debt which had no concievable strategy of being repayed to the taxpayer through government instead of writing it off and restructuring.Which means that the US now has a deficit and debt similar to Japan before the so called lost 10 years. 10 years where I remind people that economists like Krugman recommended the Keyesian strategies that did not work, that are now being applied to the U.S.
*langmann... thx for that... though i wager nonny et al will still want to go with the stephen harper exorcism.*
Who's responsible? Well the initial deregulation happened in 1999, planned in 1998, under a Clinton Whitehouse and the Republican control Congress. Now the latest spin from Fox News is that Bush knew about these issues back in 2003, but Fox News seems to leave out the fact that Republicans didn't fix the problem either (weird that Fox News forgot that fact,... oh well), even though they controlled most of government. So the blame can be spread around to include Clinton, Bush and the Republicans,... we can probably find a few more Dems to tar too if you like.But what I can't help noticing is that you didn't disagree with me about Harper and Flaherty not seeing this coming, ah reality is such a beotch (best ignore reality Neo, life is easier that way). Can't say if the Iggiot saw it coming either, he's a moron too (the Iggiot is more concerned with election positioning, just like Harper), and Jacko-ff has his head up the union's butts holes, so he never saw it either.Amazing how our Political leaders are all completely useless, they are more concerned with blame and politics than fixing the problem). We have one CPC Minister of State saying he takes his orders from Civil Servants and another who thinks that change his footware is proof of evolution. We have a Finance Minister who thinks that tax cuts fix everything and PM Economist who never saw this coming. Makes me cry for Canada, we deserve far better.What is really surprising is you seem ok with all that.Oh and just to point out one small error of yours Neo (among many), I never claimed Harper was responsible for the deregulation mess in the USA, I don't know if anyone could since Harper never held any office in the USA, but you should have know this very obvious fact (nice little strawman holding a red herring though). We can thank Cretien for not allowing Canadian Banks to try to follow suit like the US counterparts. Not sure if Harper can claim credit for that one though, but I certainly don't blame him, Harper, for this Made in America fubar. It does raise an interesting point about what Harper's position was on bank and insurance company mergers back in the under the Cretien Liberals. Oh, I might have to look into that one. (thanks for the idea Neo) do you guys ever stop and listen to yourselves.Do you ever stop and think? You do remember that before Harper prorogued government he had the economic update that said everything was more or less ok, Canada was in an excellent position, wouldn't be running a deficit, small surpluses. The Libs, NDP and Bloc all called BS and Harper ran away and came back after his vacation and the economic poop had hit the fan and says "My Bad, oops, never saw it coming"So Neo, why do you support Harper? Sound Economic Leadership? Strong Fiscal Conservative Values? Smaller Government? Accountability? Transparency? Or is because of the three F's now?
There was no global crisis nor recession when the liberals decided to cut funding to infastructure, health, education, military, provinces; then to have the audacity to raise taxes.Had they not taken the money from the fundings for themselves, we would not be in this mess today.So let me see, since the liberals did what they as I mention above, when there was no global crisis etc. why then are the MSM and the liberals all over the conservatives for.Can you imagine the liberals at a time like this in government. Taxes will go through the roof.Liberals don't give; they take and take big time.
*"nonny's not just a professor, he's a pretty cool dude too... 'ah reality is such a beotch'"yeah... another anonymous troll genius with accusations like... "Harper and Flaherty not seeing this coming".are you serious?because, milli-vanilli... just like the weather, the economy is always in flux and there are thousands of variables at play... witness purported financial wizard warren buffet admitting he got caught with his pants down.you wanna make an ass of yourself trying to lay this at the feet of your favorite conservative villain... be my guest.you're simply doing all the work for me.and in essay format too.*
so that's you final answer Neo-nonny? The Economy is in flux?So what was Harper's position on the Banker Mergers back in 1998 when Cretien and Martini blocked them. Hint, Harper was leading the NCC at the time ~evil grin~Have fun Neo-mouse, you have been so pwnd, but you're just not smart enough to know it,... yet ~very evil grin~Luv,Nonny-Mouse
The bank mergers had absolutely nothing to do with protecting Canadian banks.It is because we don't allow our banks to become as leveraged as the ones in the US. However even with legislation, Canadian banks were still not as massively leveraged, even with the conservative changes the Conservatives made to the system prior to the collapse in the U.S. And as I said before, Harper did predict a big recession in the U.S. in Dec. 2007. Obviously he had no idea how big it would be or that it would take a lot longer to strike than he thought, hence his statements later.There was a lot of government manipulation in the banking system in the US that has led to this, along with bailouts in the SML crisis during the Clinton era that led to a moral hazard.What I would like to know is what nonny would recommend to fix this mess? More government bailouts of corporations? More Liberals?
Langman,Guess you missed Harper's big hardon for deregulation at the WTC, and Harper didn't predict jack-poop. Oh and Flaherty said "No economist saw this coming" Is Jim Flaherty calling Harper a "Nobody" or is Flaherty of the opinion that Harper isn't an Economist? Suz either way you spin it, LOLNow guess what harper was doing in 1997 to 2000,.... NCC??? Guess what his position was on the Bank Mergers and Deregulation,... go on guess,... ~evil grin~ come on guess,.... Guess what political party Harper belong to back then,... Guesses? Care to guess what their position was on bank mergers and deregulation,....This is so much fun,...Oh in other news, Fiscal Conservative Stephen Harper will have deficits that are 9 billion dollars greater than what they announced for the next two years,.... Stephen Harper Spends like LieberalAnd the hits just keep on coming.Have fun guys and remember voters tend to vote their pocketbooks,... karma is such a beotchLuv,Nonny-Mouse
*"a-nonny-bot crows... you have been so pwnd"yes... of course, troll-boy... because you say so.i tremble before your extensive knowledge of teenage slang. hey... in the interest of saving time, please feel free to list all your other notable blogosphere triumphs below.sorry we cut into your precious xbox time, dude.*
Neo-mouse, if you have a problem Anonymous commenters, maybe you should,... you know configure your blog not to allow them. It's really easy to do that in Blogger. Wow, people have threaten you? Can't image why,... you are just so likable and kind and sweet, and honest, and brave.Anyways I like the handle Nonny-Mouse.XBox, LOL, sorry never even played on one, let alone owned one. in the interest of saving time, please feel free to list all your other notable blogosphere triumphs below.Nah, I rather have you answer the questions about Harper's past position on Bank Mergers and De-Regulating the Banks, much more fun watching you avoid answering the question,... But don't worry, I sure someone might be asking Harper those questions soon,... real soon,... Iggy and the Liberals most like will not ask the questions, no ballz,... Maybe the Bloc or NDP? What do you think?
*"nonny-mouse taunts... if you have a problem Anonymous commenters"hey, knock yourself out troll. i get tired of your nonsense... i can simply delete you.all you dumbsticks act like i owe you something.but that's not the way it works in the real world, is it?*
Poor Neo-Mouse,...No answers to the tough questions then?Why am a troll? Because I ask questions you are afraid to answer honestly?Luv,Nonny Mouse
*"nonny-mouse squeaks... No answers to the tough questions then?"oh, puh-leese... what happened to... "pwning people, beotch'?"you're not interested in discussing things, libby... this is simply about disrupting a conversation.sorry... not interested. at all.you take it over to liblogs, you self-imagined revolutionaries can groom each others butts... all night long.*
Oh, you're so mean and nasty Neo-mouse ~sniff~So discussing the causes of bank meltdown in the USA and why we didn't have the same thing happen here in Canada is off topic? Discussing the position of our current leader's position(s) on these matters is off topic.Ok, Neo-mouse, you da man! Ditto! Ra-Ra-RaIs that better? Is that more to your liking?Now I am off, maybe I'll stop in again. I'll remember your rules about fitting in here so I don't upset you and your fine sensibilities in the future.LuvNeo-Mouse
I answered your question already. You are simply repeating yourself.Preventing bank mergers did nothing to contribute to the strength of Canadian banks. It is leverage issues and the lack of sub-primes in Canada. In reality Canadian Banks would probably be better contenders on the world stage if allowed to merge.In fact "deregulation" is not the issue either (in fact Canadian banks are more deregulated than American ones were in reference to the limitations of the Glass-Steagal Act, part of the reason BMO exists in the US). It was regulation that allowed the existence of sub-prime mortgages, something that doesn't exist in Canada, which directly lead to the downfall of the banks in the U.S., and secondarily to that, the fact that Canadian banks are not as leveraged (simply because we are much more conservative investors than the Americans and have less oportunities).The existance of sub-prime mortgages can directly be linked to government interference in the free market. In Canada obtaining a mortgage has always been much more difficult than in the US, and we have less defaults.Finally the bailouts during the S&L crisis has led to a moral hazard where lenders believed the government would not allow failure and thus were inclined to lean towards risky ventures.Anyway that is my last word to you nonny. You're either a big troll or you really are stupid. Frankly it is hard to tell.As an aside this whole "deregulation" thing seems to be coming from one economist in the US and has been taken up by the media. It is a shaky theory at best and is unproven. People are throwing this word around like it is the holy grail when in fact the whole situation is extremely complicated by legislation. To make it all simple, like any bubble in history, it is usually perpetuated by speculation and borrowing, and when there are no more buyer's, or creditors cannot be repaid, the market collapses. There is nothing new about this situation. Ironically the famous 17th century tulip crisis may have been caused by legislation.
*"langmann says... Anyway that is my last word to you nonny. You're either a big troll or you really are stupid. Frankly it is hard to tell."well, between the "pwning people" and the "beotch"... i'd say nonny is just way too cool to hang with the grownups.maybe when he matures a little and learns some manners... people will consider letting him eat at the big boy table.*
Obama hasn't done anything right yet so it's doubtful his grand plan is going to work either.
Langmann,I ignored your answer because it was wrong,1) You don't understand the Glass-Steagal Act2) You don't know the difference between Regulation and Deregulation.3) As an aside this whole "deregulation" thing seems to be coming from one economist,... ROTFLMAL4) As to #3, stop getting your news from Fox then, ABC, CBC, MSNBC, CNN, CTV, BBC, Global have all had Economist on that are pointing to mistakes made in 1998.Neo-mouse. I have been rude? Wow, might I suggest you review your own conduct here, you have hardly been polite. But don't worry, rudeness and vitriol are commonly found in people who can't debate. You must be a laugh at family get-to-gethers though, you must be the uncle everyone wish would leave earlyLuv,Nonny Mouse
*"nonny-mouse screeches... rudeness and vitriol are commonly found in people who can't debate."does that include, say... "pwning people, beotch'?"sorry, troll... you're just a waste of time.keep workin' on those little essays, though. i'm sure it'll impress all the boys back at "canadian cynic".*
@ Nonny,I don't watch Fox TV or any of the others really. They're useless sources of information.I get information from reading economics journals and articles, while I am not functioning as an economist now, it is what I trained in several years ago and still has interest to me now, and may again become applicable for the future.The GSA that you think is the main fault of this whole mess, was shown in numerous economic articles to simply not account for anything that was going on in the 1990's. Moreover most economists agree that the securities market participated in by banks had little to do with the Great Depression. You can read some of those articles by going to a university and seeking them out. Reading some of the works of Kroszner may be a good start for you.If you could actually provide better evidence rather than "CTV says so" or even construct a real argument, you might turn into a welcome contributor here.Instead what you really do is come here to insult everyone. You're pretty much what they call a "buffoon".
*"langmann says... you might turn into a welcome contributor here."hmmm, i'm not sure that's very likely... looks like nonny has already loudly and unequivocally declared his intentions.*
Post a Comment