Canada: Socialism FTW

[kendoiwan]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Canadas-economy-is-suddenly-apf-807130582.html?x=0

The banks are stable because, in part, they're more regulated. As the U.S. and Europe loosened regulations on their financial industries over the last 15 years, Canada refused to do so. The banks also aren't as leveraged as their U.S. or European peers.

There was no mortgage meltdown or subprime crisis in Canada. Banks don't package mortgages and sell them to the private market, so they need to be sure their borrowers can pay back the loans.

In Canada's concentrated banking system, five major banks dominate the market and regulators know each of the top bank executives personally.

"Our banks were just better managed and we had better regulation," says former Prime Minister Paul Martin, the man credited with killing off a massive government deficit in the 1990s when he was finance minister, leading to 12 straight years of budget surpluses.

"I was absolutely amazed at senior bankers in the United States and Europe who didn't know the extent of the problem or they didn't know that people in some far-flung division were doing these kinds of things. It's just beyond belief," he told the AP.

The Conservative Party government of Stephen Harper that took over from Martin's Liberals in 2006 broadly stuck to his predecessor's approach, though he cut taxes and, when recession struck, pumped stimulus money into the economy, with the result that Canada again has a large deficit.

But it is recovering from the recession faster than others, and although its deficit is currently at a record high, the International Monetary Fund expects Canada to be the only one of the seven major industrialized democracies to return to surplus by 2015.

[Anonymous]

That's not socialism, it's appeasement. No matter how many air fresheners you put in a sewer, it's still full of shit.

[Stryfe]

People are greedy so there needs to be rules. This doesn't seem like a tough concept to me.

[Madrigal]

That's not socialism, it's appeasement. No matter how many air fresheners you put in a sewer, it's still full of shit.

I'm perpetually amazed at what Americans consider socialism. The extent of the word's redefinition is astounding. And revolting, because it's completely related to the redefinition of what is left wing on the political spectrum. Americans walk around not knowing what the left is like a colorblind person who can't see red.

[edge walker]

I'm perpetually amazed at what Americans consider socialism. The extent of the word's redefinition is astounding.
Isn't it funny (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window)?


Americans walk around not knowing what the left is like a colorblind person who can't see red.
The conservative right from any number of countries in the rest of the world would be considered loonie leftists WRT to many issues in the US media political "discourse".

[Flatchett]

People are greedy so there needs to be rules. This doesn't seem like a tough concept to me.

It's not, but the way this concept is applied frequently baffles me.

[JollyBard]

Right now, Quebec is neck-deep in debt. Fuck Canada.

[Stryfe]

Right now, Quebec is neck-deep in debt. Fuck Canada.If they took their heads out of their asses they'd only be waist deep in debt.


jk!

[JollyBard]

If they took their heads out of their asses they'd only be waist deep in debt.


jk!

Hehe, good one.

[Anonymous]

I'm perpetually amazed at what Americans consider socialism. The extent of the word's redefinition is astounding. And revolting, because it's completely related to the redefinition of what is left wing on the political spectrum. Americans walk around not knowing what the left is like a colorblind person who can't see red.

What's worse is the total contradictions that American liberalism espouses. They claim to have the backs of the impoverished, and then they limit themselves to pushing for things like welfare, or the recent health care "reform", which don't even begin to address the financial problems of the people who need them. They refuse to push for meaningful changes, either because they are afraid to, or because they're just guilty conservatives. They think that it's the thought that counts, and content themselves with tiny attempts at reform every decade or so in specific areas.

Meanwhile, the conservatives are at least honest with their ideology, even if it is blatantly hateful and self-destructive. And because of their honesty, they're far more effective. Even when they don't have power, they're able to get their political desires addressed far more efficiently than liberals.


Right now, Quebec is neck-deep in debt. Fuck Canada.

Not sure if you've heard, but we don't exactly have much of a surplus ourselves, these days.

[kendoiwan]

But it is recovering from the recession faster than others, and although its deficit is currently at a record high, the International Monetary Fund expects Canada to be the only one of the seven major industrialized democracies to return to surplus by 2015.

...

[mgb]

What's worse is the total contradictions that American liberalism espouses. They claim to have the backs of the impoverished, and then they limit themselves to pushing for things like welfare, or the recent health care "reform", which don't even begin to address the financial problems of the people who need them. They refuse to push for meaningful changes, either because they are afraid to, or because they're just guilty conservatives. They think that it's the thought that counts, and content themselves with tiny attempts at reform every decade or so in specific areas.

Meanwhile, the conservatives are at least honest with their ideology, even if it is blatantly hateful and self-destructive. And because of their honesty, they're far more effective. Even when they don't have power, they're able to get their political desires addressed far more efficiently than liberals.

I hope at least one of you is getting off talking about differential political spectrums.




Not sure if you've heard, but we don't exactly have much of a surplus ourselves, these days.

You are Jollybard are talking about two different things. You're talking about annual budgets and he's talking about total debt.

Quebec hasn't had a surplus, maybe ever. In fact, in doing so, their debt to GDP is approaching 1:1. So, it's not so much that, say, California is running deficits for a few years, even big ones, it's that Quebec is proper fucked.

California's GSP is $1.812 Trillion with a $26 Billion deficit this year for a population of 37 million. That's a deficit of about $700 per person. California also has maybe $75 to 100 Billion in debt (I couldn't find an exact figure in a timely manner, my estimate is pretty generous though).

Compared to Quebec:

The GDP of Quebec is $284 Billion with an expected deficit of $8 Billion for a population of close to 8 million. That's about $1000 per person this year. Their total debt is $220 Billion, which means they are well on their way to owing more than they make a year, compared to California which isn't even close to that.

[Madrigal]

I hope at least one of you is getting off talking about differential political spectrums.

Not really, I think it's depressing.

[SensEye]

I'm perpetually amazed at what Americans consider socialism. I'm more appalled at what they don't consider socialism.

E.G.

1) Having laws to prevent what basically amounts to fraudulent acts by corporations is considered intolerable socialism.
2) Paying billions in taxpayer bailouts to corporations who have engaged in fraudulent (or possibly just plain stupid) acts to the point they have bankrupted themselves - not considered socialism, and certainly no call to revisit point #1

[JollyBard]

I'm more appalled at what they don't consider socialism.

E.G.

1) Having laws to prevent what basically amounts to fraudulent acts by corporations is considered intolerable socialism.
2) Paying billions in taxpayer bailouts to corporations who have engaged in fraudulent (or possibly just plain stupid) acts to the point they have bankrupted themselves - not considered socialism, and certainly no call to revisit point #1

Teehee.

I hate it when people think China is communist.

[kendoiwan]

I'm more appalled at what they don't consider socialism.

E.G.

1) Having laws to prevent what basically amounts to fraudulent acts by corporations is considered intolerable socialism.
2) Paying billions in taxpayer bailouts to corporations who have engaged in fraudulent (or possibly just plain stupid) acts to the point they have bankrupted themselves - not considered socialism, and certainly no call to revisit point #1


Teehee.

I hate it when people think China is communist.

While your points are correct, you have to admit as a strategy, it is very successful in preventing actual socialism and communism from even being discussed.

[edge walker]

While your points are correct, you have to admit as a strategy, it is very successful in preventing actual socialism and communism from even being discussed.

Isn't it funny (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window)?
As I said.

[sorabji_66]

[QUOTE=Anonymous;1388523]What's worse is the total contradictions that American liberalism espouses. They claim to have the backs of the impoverished, and then they limit themselves to pushing for things like welfare, or the recent health care "reform", which don't even begin to address the financial problems of the people who need them. They refuse to push for meaningful changes, either because they are afraid to, or because they're just guilty conservatives. They think that it's the thought that counts, and content themselves with tiny attempts at reform every decade or so in specific areas.

Meanwhile, the conservatives are at least honest with their ideology, even if it is blatantly hateful and self-destructive. And because of their honesty, they're far more effective. Even when they don't have power, they're able to get their political desires addressed far more efficiently than liberals.



The Dems have pushed since the mid 1960s that to even ask a minority how they plan to pay back their mortgage loan is racism.

so Barny Frank got his wish and let the gov't underwrite this prevention of racism on how someone can get a $650,000 loan without a job, education or prospects.

and then they default on the first payment all over the country.

Canada doesn't have this type of problem, fortunately.

[Anonymous]

I'm more appalled at what they don't consider socialism.

E.G.

1) Having laws to prevent what basically amounts to fraudulent acts by corporations is considered intolerable socialism.
2) Paying billions in taxpayer bailouts to corporations who have engaged in fraudulent (or possibly just plain stupid) acts to the point they have bankrupted themselves - not considered socialism, and certainly no call to revisit point #1

Yeah, because #2 is basically the opposite of socialism. Socialism is all about the dictatorship of the proletariat - e.g., rather than paying those corporations all that money, socialism would hand the control of those corporations over to the workers, regardless of the current economic state of capitalism.

A top-down system of government funding to private corporations (with the added bonus of that government using the funding to coerce the said corporation) is closer to fascism, where basically everything is sacrificed for the sake of keeping capitalism the dominant system. The difference from the actual action and the ideology of fascism is that fascism is a petty bourgeois movement financed by the powerful, such as what you have with the Tea Party. But again, it's only top-down, and they didn't even make a pretense of getting the middle class to support the decision, so it's not quite fascism.

[SensEye]

Yeah, because #2 is basically the opposite of socialism. Socialism is all about the dictatorship of the proletariat - e.g., rather than paying those corporations all that money, socialism would hand the control of those corporations over to the workers, regardless of the current economic state of capitalism. True. But it has the angle of wealth re-distribution via the state, which is often considered an aspect of socialism. Corporate welfare is still welfare so to speak, just a slightly more reprehensible flavor.