4 ms·

People are driven to play one side of the fence or the other. As an example, many had fought to deregulate our banks. Now, after the recession, where are all th

by tomlin 15y ago

People are driven to play one side of the fence or the other. As an example, many had fought to deregulate our banks. Now, after the recession, where are all these people? crickets Our banks in Canada were one of the only in the world to not suffer serious hardship coupled with millions of dollars lost in foreclosures, lost benefits and savings. This was, without question, due to regulation. Canada would not be in the position it is today had it deregulated the banks. This is a fact served by many, many examples throughout the world. Admittingly, not all regulation is good. Matters like these should be investigated on a individual basis with due process. It isn't a matter of deregulation vs. regulation. Or Canada vs. USA. These mindsets are dangerous as they rubberstamp behaviour without consideration to the influences these actions may or may not have. The CRTC needs good reform, but full deregulation is not my preference. The CRTC must encourage (require?) innovation for Canadians. That's the problem. We're unhappy because we don't have the innovations we should - and we pay top dollar for archaic services. Deregulated media only means Bell/Rogers/Shaw will eventually be in the hands of conglomerates. There are financial advantages to this, but a boat-load of disadvantages not seen immediately. Do you think Comcast or AT&T would continue to employ 50,000+ people in Canada to uphold their Canadian operations had they the opportunity to purchase our telcos? Doubtful. What about our programming? What about censorship in the media - would we eventually adopt the American model if it's less work for them to uphold our model with theirs? With SOPA, we'd essentially inherit American policies without force. Not something I'd consider an improvement.

gyardley 15y ago
Yep, this is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about. A few decent regulations around underwriting mortgages, and most Canadians will conflate that into 'the banking industry shouldn't be touched' -- even though there's only six banks and they charge more in fees than American banks. (Which is saying a lot.) And god forbid anyone say anything against the CMHC, which is a secretive time-bomb more leveraged than Fannie Mae ever was. Canada might have better underwriting rules for mortgages, but the mortgages themselves are 100% guaranteed by the Canadian taxpayer - for all we know, our housing crisis might still be ahead of us. But hey, at least it's not America!
- tomlin 15y ago
  > Canadians will conflate that into 'the banking industry shouldn't be touched' -- even though there's only six banks and they charge more in fees than American banks. (Which is saying a lot.) There is a bigger picture here. Our fees may be more (I have no idea), but our interest rates are higher for deposits most of the time. You're not considering any other factors for the higher prices. Personally, if our banks are making a lot of money, not putting everyone in the poor house and offering some of the best financing rates and deposit interest rates in the world, why do they need to be touched? I don't understand the motivation to make changes to something that isn't broken. The banking industry will never be perfect. If you're hoping for this utopian world of low/no bank fee, open market, low interest, high deposit interest, I think you're going to be disappointed to find out that it doesn't exist. Proof of such is in abundance. > And god forbid anyone say anything against the CMHC, which is a secretive time-bomb more leveraged than Fannie Mae ever was. CMHC also needs restructuring, but again, not deregulation. Why do we have it in our heads that corporations are less evil than the government? The government and corporations should exist with a set of regulations so that decisions made are for the benefit of the world, not just investors. The government and corporations both fail miserably without intervention and debate. It's not okay for the CMHC to be in secrecy, but it's also not right for Fannie Mae, either. > for all we know, our housing crisis might still be ahead of us. > But hey, at least it's not America! Come on, really?

by tomlin 15y ago

gyardley 15y ago

Yep, this is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about. A few decent regulations around underwriting mortgages, and most Canadians will conflate that into 'the banking industry shouldn't be touched' -- even though there's only six banks and they charge more in fees than American banks. (Which is saying a lot.) And god forbid anyone say anything against the CMHC, which is a secretive time-bomb more leveraged than Fannie Mae ever was. Canada might have better underwriting rules for mortgages, but the mortgages themselves are 100% guaranteed by the Canadian taxpayer - for all we know, our housing crisis might still be ahead of us. But hey, at least it's not America!

tomlin 15y ago
> Canadians will conflate that into 'the banking industry shouldn't be touched' -- even though there's only six banks and they charge more in fees than American banks. (Which is saying a lot.) There is a bigger picture here. Our fees may be more (I have no idea), but our interest rates are higher for deposits most of the time. You're not considering any other factors for the higher prices. Personally, if our banks are making a lot of money, not putting everyone in the poor house and offering some of the best financing rates and deposit interest rates in the world, why do they need to be touched? I don't understand the motivation to make changes to something that isn't broken. The banking industry will never be perfect. If you're hoping for this utopian world of low/no bank fee, open market, low interest, high deposit interest, I think you're going to be disappointed to find out that it doesn't exist. Proof of such is in abundance. > And god forbid anyone say anything against the CMHC, which is a secretive time-bomb more leveraged than Fannie Mae ever was. CMHC also needs restructuring, but again, not deregulation. Why do we have it in our heads that corporations are less evil than the government? The government and corporations should exist with a set of regulations so that decisions made are for the benefit of the world, not just investors. The government and corporations both fail miserably without intervention and debate. It's not okay for the CMHC to be in secrecy, but it's also not right for Fannie Mae, either. > for all we know, our housing crisis might still be ahead of us. > But hey, at least it's not America! Come on, really?