To our European posters

[Paul Bruening]

Remember that scene in Casualties of War where Eriksson and Clark are walking along through a Vietnamese village and Clark is explaining what you're supposed to say when you burn down their hooch?

 

 

 

You know, this thing where America is pulling down and drowning the banks and economies of Europe?

 

Well, "Sorry 'bout that."

[Saul Rodgar]

Well, "Sorry 'bout that."

 

Not often does one see anyone, American or not, apologize personally for deeds committed collectively to, well, anyone else. Way to go. Certainly puts things in perspective since, historically speaking, this could be -if it isn't already- the greatest economic crisis since the 29' crash.

 

However, until very recently, the US put immense pressure on other countries to open up their markets to free trade. These usually smaller, third world and therefore shaky economies, could be at serious risk of collapsing completely if conditions worsen, given the interconnectedness of the global economy.

 

Unfortunately, these are the people who could end up paying the highest price of all -being that Western economies usually recover faster and less painfully to recessions than non-developed ones. To those people I would like to apologize as well.

 

Not all who live in the US support wild economic and military adventurism.

Edited October 7, 2008 by Saul Rodgar

[Guest]

Sorry to burst your apology Paul but I don't think the USA has much to do with problems in Europe.

 

Canada is tied to the USA 100 times more than Europe is and Canada's banks are rock SOLID. No sub-prime mortgage meltdown north of the border, no one lining up for money outside their bank, no foreclosure signs any where that I can see.

 

In fact in Canada if you don't have 25% to put down on a house you have to get mortgage insurance, it's the law. Many people in Canada thought this was too strict, guess what, after what happened in the USA no one here thinks it was too strict now ;)

 

If Canada can insulate its tiny economy from the USA then certainly a powerhouse like Germany can.

 

R,

[Paul Bruening]

Hey Richard,

 

I was just surfing Google Earth. I went to check out Greenland. Where the heck is the Arctic? Did you Canadians misplace it or something? How many continents does that make, now?

[Guest]

Hey Richard,

 

I was just surfing Google Earth. I went to check out Greenland. Where the heck is the Arctic? Did you Canadians misplace it or something? How many continents does that make, now?

 

I don't think the Googlians mapped that far north. My house isn't in Google earth.

 

R,

[Guest]

CTV.ca News Staff

 

In the midst of a global market crisis, a survey by the World Economic Forum has proclaimed Canada to have the world's soundest banking system.

 

Placing just behind were Sweden, Luxembourg, Australia and Denmark in the World Economic Forum's Global Competitiveness Report, released on Wednesday in Switzerland.

 

Corporate executives around the world were interviewed on a number of questions and ranked banks around the world on a scale of one to seven -- one being insolvent and possibly in need of government assistance and seven being entirely healthy.

 

Canada was given a rating of 6.8, the best ranking of any banking system in the world.

 

The top 10 soundest banking countries are as follows:

 

* Canada (6.8)

* Sweden (6.7)

* Luxembourg (6.7)

* Australia (6.7)

* Denmark (6.7)

* Netherlands (6.7)

* Belgium (6.6)

* New Zealand (6.6)

* Ireland (6.6)

* Malta (6.6)

 

The report was cited by Prime Minister Stephen Harper on Thursday as proof that Canada's banks are the strongest in the world and need no government help.

 

Harper and Finance Minister Jim Flaherty have ruled out any form of bailout package for Canadian banks.

 

The BNN's Michael Kane told CTV Newsnet that the results were remarkable in light of the fact that the United States (4.0) and Germany (3.9) fell to the level that banks in very depressed parts of the world sit.

 

"This is a real feather in the cap of Canadian banks and this sort of buttresses what the government and also what the Bank of Canada has been saying about our system here," Kane said. "We are in relatively good shape."

 

Kane said Canadian banks are well capitalized and there has never been any threat to the dividend.

 

"People have not felt bad about putting their money into bank accounts on the retail side or dealing with banks on the small business side. It's very positive."

 

The report also placed Canada tenth in overall global competitiveness; a list which was topped by the United States.

[Walter Graff]

And I apologize for Paul's comments. He knows not what he speaks of. Your problems are your own, it just took the US stock crash to show your weakness and like us, your economy is run on debt, trying to spread risk to thin, and Europeans buy more than they can afford too. Unlike Canada, most of the world has little sense of reality and simply buys all it wants, regardless of whether it can afford it or not and banks are guilty of allowing it.

[Keith Mottram]

I think all you yanks should learn how to apologise, not apologize, then we'll get round to the fact that the subprime mortgage crisis which started this mess originated in the states and does indeed **(obscenity removed)** europe in the ass- which is indisputable, but the blame falls to the corrupt banking system rather than american individuals...

[Walter Graff]

It's very easy to blame someone for the problems that are the result of everyone. From the legislators who allowed banks to spread credit like jam, to banks that cared little that folks couldn't pay back debt, to consumers who have for the last forty years been buying things they can't afford. No one is at fault, everyone is at fault. The UKs problems are not a result of the US, they are a result of the same consequences of being ignorant to the fact that people live beyond their means and no one seems to say no to that. That is called greed. The countries (like Iceland) got what they deserved. The average American has $9000 credit card debt. That is absurb. We need this to teach people that the game of spending money because you want something without any consiquence that you can't afford it is over. Bring on hard times. Teach the world a lesson.

[Paul Bruening]

Can you use camera machine oil to saute film in? I've got a few cans of short ends kicking around and am feeling a bit peckish.

[Paul Bruening]

CTV.ca News Staff

 

In the midst of a global market crisis, a survey by the World Economic Forum has proclaimed Canada to have the world's soundest banking system.

 

Placing just behind were Sweden, Luxembourg, Australia and Denmark in the World Economic Forum's Global Competitiveness Report, released on Wednesday in Switzerland.

 

Corporate executives around the world were interviewed on a number of questions and ranked banks around the world on a scale of one to seven -- one being insolvent and possibly in need of government assistance and seven being entirely healthy.

 

Canada was given a rating of 6.8, the best ranking of any banking system in the world.

 

The top 10 soundest banking countries are as follows:

 

* Canada (6.8)

* Sweden (6.7)

* Luxembourg (6.7)

* Australia (6.7)

* Denmark (6.7)

* Netherlands (6.7)

* Belgium (6.6)

* New Zealand (6.6)

* Ireland (6.6)

* Malta (6.6)

 

The report was cited by Prime Minister Stephen Harper on Thursday as proof that Canada's banks are the strongest in the world and need no government help.

 

Harper and Finance Minister Jim Flaherty have ruled out any form of bailout package for Canadian banks.

 

The BNN's Michael Kane told CTV Newsnet that the results were remarkable in light of the fact that the United States (4.0) and Germany (3.9) fell to the level that banks in very depressed parts of the world sit.

 

"This is a real feather in the cap of Canadian banks and this sort of buttresses what the government and also what the Bank of Canada has been saying about our system here," Kane said. "We are in relatively good shape."

 

Kane said Canadian banks are well capitalized and there has never been any threat to the dividend.

 

"People have not felt bad about putting their money into bank accounts on the retail side or dealing with banks on the small business side. It's very positive."

 

The report also placed Canada tenth in overall global competitiveness; a list which was topped by the United States.

 

 

That's really great news, Richard. I must say, thanks for telling us Americans about how much wealth you Canadians are holding. Ya'll are really a fine people and, obviously, very senseble and honorable.

 

By the way, how big is your army? Do you have the addresses of your banks handy? Just asking.

[Guest]

That's really great news, Richard. I must say, thanks for telling us Americans about how much wealth you Canadians are holding. Ya'll are really a fine people and, obviously, very senseble and honorable.

 

By the way, how big is your army? Do you have the addresses of your banks handy? Just asking.

 

Americans of all stripes are running around right now trying to figure out how to save the US banks and stabilize the economy. When all you have to do is to look at your Northern neighbour for an example of how to run the best banking system in the world. Not the third or fourth best, the BEST!! But of course being an American Paul you are loathed to even consider that Canada is surpassing the USA in any way shape or form. Fine then, lose your home and your job, maybe then you'll see some sense?

 

As for your crack about the Canadian army. Maybe you are not aware that the USA has 10 times the population that Canada does? How big is your army compared to China's?

 

Secondly, the USA is 13 trillion dollars in debt and it's growing fast with the huge budget deficits you continue to post each month. So in reality the vast bulk of America's mighty military machine is financed on a giant credit card, it may be big, but you can't afford it.

 

That credit card bill is going to come due at some stage.

 

 

R,

[Paul Bruening]

I was going for laughs. I didn't intend anything retaliatory. I kinda' thought a totally absurd remark would pass as just that. You know I hold you in high regard, Richard. Oh, Canadian, Richard. Oh, wealthy, Richard. Tastes like chicken.

[Guest]

I was going for laughs. I didn't intend anything retaliatory. I kinda' thought a totally absurd remark would pass as just that. You know I hold you in high regard, Richard. Oh, Canadian, Richard. Oh, wealthy, Richard. Tastes like chicken.

 

Ok fine, I've re-edited my post as you will see to make it more accurately reflect your latest response.

 

R,

[Paul Bruening]

Dude. You are the hero of all us indie and wanna-be's. It's just for s**ts and giggles. Of course, we Americans would never invade Canada and take all it's money.

 

 

The cannibalism? Well... that might happen.

 

WE'RE COMIN' AND WE'RE BRINGIN' THE CHARCOAL BRIQUETS!

[Mark Williams]

Thing is this bad lending has been known about for years and yet right at the end of Bush's time in office suddenly he needs nearly a trillion dollars for wall street.. After seeing how he awards contracts to his friends I would be a little concerned... ;)

[Walter Graff]

Thing is this bad lending has been known about for years and yet right at the end of Bush's time in office suddenly he needs nearly a trillion dollars for wall street.. After seeing how he awards contracts to his friends I would be a little concerned... ;)

 

 

I'll just say something once:

 

Bush has nothing to do with what happened in the bank and investment fields.

 

I'll say it again, Bush has nothing to do with what happened in the bank and investment fields.

 

Let me say that one more time in case it didn't get through, Bush has nothing to do with what happened in the bank and investment fields. <_<

[Mark Williams]

I'll just say something once:

 

Bush has nothing to do with what happened in the bank and investment fields.

 

I'll say it again, Bush has nothing to do with what happened in the bank and investment fields.

 

Let me say that one more time in case it didn't get through, Bush has nothing to do with what happened in the bank and investment fields. <_<

 

So the err the economy has nothing to do with him then? How convenient.

[Guest]

I'll just say something once:

 

Bush has nothing to do with what happened in the bank and investment fields.

 

I'll say it again, Bush has nothing to do with what happened in the bank and investment fields.

 

Let me say that one more time in case it didn't get through, Bush has nothing to do with what happened in the bank and investment fields. <_<

 

Maybe not Walter but he'll go down in history having to take the fall for it. Just like he would take the credit if the US economy was on a high note when he left office. He'll have to take the blame for the mess in Iraq, and the lack of response to Katrina as well.

 

I'm not so sure you can say he had nothing to do with it any way. Lack of regulation was a big part of what caused this mess, could he not have passed a bill making sub-prime mortgages illegal? Sub-prime mortgages have long been illegal in Canada and obviously that was a smart move.

 

R,

[Walter Graff]

So the err the economy has nothing to do with him then? How convenient.

 

That is correct Mark. Since you do not live in the US I would not expect you'd completely understand how economics work here just as I try and sometimes don't get why your system works the way it does at times. But then again most Americans don't understand anything about our government, economics or politics. Most Americans can't tell you what the first article of the constitution says. Most Americans do not know what the bill of rights is and most Americans have no idea how the stock market works. Heck, most Americans can't tell you where the state of Arkansas is on a map let alone where the UK is on the globe. Come to think of it, they can't tell you what UK stands for as an acronym. I'm not a fan of Bush but a the fact is that a sitting president has little direct effect on the economy. While Bush has been blamed for pretty much everything there is including some sports teams loosing championships, when it comes to the economy in America, a president has pretty much no direct effect on it, and even less on Wall Street and lenders habits. The causes of what is really an interbank lending problem is multifaceted. It started with a number of past presidents who enacted bills years ago that made it easier for the banks to give more money without worrying about the consequences. And it was lending institutions faults for creating bad debt situations, and then betting on these bad debts. It was investors who also decided that junk was good enough to invest in and that the goal of investing was not to be rational but merely to reach unqualified goals. And it was especially credit rating agencies like Moody's who valued assets of lending institutions as AAA when in fact they were junk. And most of all it was the American people who bought what they knew they could not afford but since no one told them to stop (government later turned a blind eye which was also a problem) they kept on borrowing and borrowing without any concern for the payback. And now that it's over, it's fear and ignorance that is making it worse as investors continue to pull their assets from markets. That will stop shortly and the rush to make money will begin again. Let's hope that people learned something... I take that back, they won't.

[Walter Graff]

Maybe not Walter but he'll go down in history having to take the fall for it. Just like he would take the credit if the US economy was on a high note when he left office. He'll have to take the blame for the mess in Iraq, and the lack of response to Katrina as well.

 

I'm not so sure you can say he had nothing to do with it any way. Lack of regulation was a big part of what caused this mess, could he not have passed a bill making sub-prime mortgages illegal? Sub-prime mortgages have long been illegal in Canada and obviously that was a smart move.

 

R,

 

 

He will go down in history as such just as every sitting president takes the blame for the bad and tells everyone it was he who made things good when they were during his presidency. It is an advantage in an election year when a candidates party is not that of the sitting president. Obama has a great advantage here due to the current economy and can blame the current administration and anyone who is republican and folks believe him. Truth is that is was both democrats and republicans who helped create this mess equally. Wait till folks find out Obama will raise taxes, as much as he says he will not. And truth is for the most part a president either lucks into a good economy during his tenure or falls into a bad one. Sure he can influence it, but it's mostly past presidents actions that either help or sink him during his term. Clinton saw success mainly because of his predecessors (Bush1) pay/go agreement where entitlement increases had to be funded directly or they could not move forward. But make no mistake about it, a president like Bush 2 in the current situation can't do much of anything alone to fix it when it's broken. No he can't pass a bill. That is not the executive branches job. He can urge Congress to pass a bill which he can then sign into law but he can't pass any bills. Not his job. And this president has no friends in congress and the senate so even if he proposed something no one would listen. Since you are Canadian I have a link that might give you insight to a presidents effect on the economy from a historic perspective.

 

http://seekingalpha.com/article/63451-the-...han-you-d-think

[Guest]

Wait till folks find out Obama will raise taxes,

 

If America is lucky Obama will raise taxes. I have seen dozens of US economists on TV repeating the mantra that the US gov't must raise taxes or the country will be in serious trouble.

 

How on earth can the USA cut taxes when it is running a multi-billion dollar deficit each month? That makes no sense.

 

What the USA needs is a simple national sales tax paid directly to Washington. A sales tax of only 4% would raise un-told billions and people would hardly feel it.

 

I hate to say it but now that the USA is turning "socialist" by nationalizing major insurance, bank, and mortgage institutions. It's time to adopt some other Canadian and European ideas, raise the taxes needed to pay ones bills.

 

Geez pretty soon you'll all have health care as well :D

 

R,

[Walter Graff]

If America is lucky Obama will raise taxes. I have seen dozens of US economists on TV repeating the mantra that the US gov't must raise taxes or the country will be in serious trouble.

 

How on earth can the USA cut taxes when it is running a multi-billion dollar deficit each month? That makes no sense.

 

What the USA needs is a simple national sales tax paid directly to Washington. A sales tax of only 4% would raise un-told billions and people would hardly feel it.

 

I hate to say it but now that the USA is turning "socialist" by nationalizing major insurance, bank, and mortgage institutions. It's time to adopt some other Canadian and European ideas, raise the taxes needed to pay ones bills.

 

Geez pretty soon you'll all have health care as well :D

 

R,

 

Well first Obama would have to get into office. That has yet to be decided. I have a funny feeling the Bradley effect is showing it's ugly head right now, or at least will. But as it goes the canidate who says the best things about lowering taxes always wins. So far Obama is doing a good job of telling that fantasy. As for health care, as much as they talk about a new ssytem, I doubt Americans will see much fo anything change. The health care system in this country is a for-profit system and asking million doallr publiclly traded companies to stop making money is impossible. Both canidates plans are far from perfect and neither is universal health care. And both have hidden costs and problems that most Americans don't see. It doesn't matter really, they vote less from knowledge and more from the gut. I don't belive the US is socializing any of what you mention. It's still and will be a market driven system.

[Guest]

I don't belive the US is socializing any of what you mention. It's still and will be a market driven system.

 

Doesn't the US gov't now own the lion's share of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and AIG Insurance?

 

That is called "nationalization", sorry there is no way around that. It's a concept that Americans typically revile as being socialist and European. It's certainly bizarre to see these free market Republicans engaging in such activities.

 

I thought you said it was a market driven system? If it was then Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and AIG Insurance would have been allowed to collapse. Because that's what the free market decided should happen to them.

 

After all it's what happens to small businesses when they make bad decisions. It's called bankruptcy.

 

R,

[Walter Graff]

"Doesn't the US gov't now own the lion's share of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and AIG Insurance?"

 

Had the government not done what they did, even your country would be in trouble. Sorry I'm not into political adgendas and associations so claiming it a socialist move, or any other term means little to me. Lots of things in my country are socialist, but no one uses the term as it reminds them of communism and Americans can't seem to face that. It was necessary and only the US government had the resources needed to do it. Both had become mamoths and it took this to see that they had to be reduced for the sake of not only the markets, and the housing situation in the US but the world economy.

 

"I thought you said it was a market driven system? If it was then Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and AIG Insurance would have been allowed to collapse. Because that's what the free market decided should happen to them."

 

Techically they were allowed to go out of business, or cease as they were, without a collapse. They are in conservatorship. Basically it's the equivalent of filing for bankruptcy and having someone come in to help you through it. New management was put in and the governemnt will garuntee monies to keep them going while eventally reducing them to being part of the game and not "the" game. They simply got to big and no one noticed. And since they were government chartered from the beginning, nothing really changed other than the charter was revoked. They should have been monitored better over the years, but were not.

 

 

"After all it's what happens to small businesses when they make bad decisions. It's called bankruptcy.

 

 

It wasn't that they made bad decsions just that the American public took advantage of the system and they were a major part of that fallout. The governemnt over reacted fearing the worst. Rather than having that load spread over a few circuits, it all fell on them, and some tried to blame them for it, so the plug needed to be pulled.