CanPol Megathread: Big Changus

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > CanPol Megathread: Big Changus

T.C.: Feb 10, 2004; Believe.

CLAM DOWN posted:

I cannot see that going over well

It is not a thing that will happen, because an NDP or Green MLA will be speaker if they don't come up with some sort of magical way to trick a Liberal into doing it against the wishes of the rest of their party.

# ? Jun 6, 2017 05:54

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 13, 2024 21:30

Femtosecond: Aug 2, 2003

I heard on the radio this morning that all the Liberal MLAs had signed a document saying they wouldn't put their name forward for Speaker? That seems remarkable but I haven't seen any reporting of this.

If that is true then the BC Liberals must be willing to let the government collapse and have an election.

It would be pretty crazy if it's just stuck and no one willing to put their name forward. Is this thing going to be live broadcast?

An MLA already gets ~$50k extra for being a speaker. Maybe there should just be a rule where the pay goes up $5000 every 10 minutes until someone takes the job. Surely that'd get someone to take it eventually.

Or maybe the pay of everyone else in the chamber decreases every 10 minutes...

quote:

Why British Columbia should hold another election�right away

In May, not even a month ago, British Columbians took to the polls to elect 43 Liberals, 41 New Democrats, and three Greens. The governing Liberals managed a slight seat plurality with 40.36 per cent of the vote, while the NDP took in 40.28 per cent. Weeks after the vote, we�re still unsure who will govern the province after the legislature meets, most likely, this month. What fun!

To govern in the Westminster system, a premier or prime minister must command the confidence of the legislature�that is, they must have enough members onside to support their agenda and supply them with money to run the government, pay for programs, and so forth. While Premier Christy Clark currently has the most seats, the NDP and the Greens have struck a deal that would, in theory, allow NDP leader John Horgan to have enough support in the legislature to govern. First, though, he and Green Party leader Andrew Weaver need to bring down the government, since Clark refuses to resign. As the sitting premier, Clark gets a chance to test the confidence of the legislature, and she continues to govern until she resigns or loses a confidence vote in that legislature.

Here�s where things get tricky.

Someone needs to serve as Speaker of the legislature. Indeed, the body cannot function without a Speaker. And while the governing party typically provides a name, the Liberals have indicated they won�t put one forward this time around, and they don�t have to. That means that it�s up to the NDP and Greens to do so. However, if they do, they would have to instruct their Speaker to break with centuries of practice and vote to bring down the government when Clark presents her throne speech.

That means we are now in a situation where one of the following must happen: the Liberals decide to bite the bullet and put forward a Speaker, the government falls, and the NDP and Greens have a go at governing (doubt it); the NDP and Greens put forward a Speaker to break tradition and turf the government, they go on to turn the Speaker into a partisan tool for months (could happen, but really shouldn�t); no one puts forward a Speaker, and we head back to an election (fun fact: this happened in Newfoundland in 1908).

So, as much as I love the summer�the beach reads, the patio drinks, the endless sunburns�British Columbians deserve another election, right away, in order to sort out the mess that they and the parties have made.

This may be an unpopular argument, but after all, as Andrew Coyne has pointed out, the Liberals are under no obligation to support their opponents by offering a Speaker and facilitating an NDP government supported by the Greens. And he�s right. In an adversarial, partisan system, while parties may agree to cooperate, they certainly don�t have to, and plenty of their supporters don�t want them to. The Liberals get nothing from helping the NDP, other than the satisfaction of doing what some see to be the �right� and �reasonable� thing�but that doesn�t warm the benches on the opposition side. For their part, the NDP may go full-metal partisan themselves. �Getting strong feeling BC NDP intend to resolve impasse by turning Speaker into a partisan,� Coyne said on Twitter. �There should be hell to pay if they try.�

The role of the Speaker is to impartially manage proceedings in the legislature and, if necessary, to vote in the case of a tie (typically to continue to debate, or preserve the status quo, though Speakers do vote with the government on confidence matters). Given the deadlock, political scientist Emmett Macfarlane concluded on Twitter, �If the BC legislature can�t resolve itself, a [second] election is preferable to a lot of alternatives, like damaging the institution itself.�

So, our options right now seem to boil down to a partisan Speaker who may damage the credibility of the legislature while setting a questionable precedent in political hackery, or an inconvenient election.

On top of that, if the NDP and Greens do have a chance to govern and put forward an MLA from their side for Speaker, the legislature would be split 43-43 between them and the Liberals, with the Speaker breaking ties on the regular. That means that each day could by the government�s last�so the province would be in for months of instability (not necessarily because it would be a minority government, but because it would be such a razor-thin one). As the National Post�s Tristin Hopper put it: �An MLA with diarrhea could topple the government.�

His may be an ever-so-slightly too fine a point, but he�s right�and the same is true of one who misses a plane, sleeps in, decides to see their kid play hockey instead of attend a vote, dies, etc., etc. In short: this legislature is doomed to fail, either by tainting an ancient institution or by collapsing in on itself like a dying star. And, in the meantime, we�re all stuck in limbo, waiting, guessing, wondering�the instability and unpredictability is unhelpful, to say the least. So, rather than risk the deleterious consequences of either, let�s skip ahead and get right to the election That�s likely coming in a year and a half or so, anyway. What�s a few weeks of democratically valuable hassle against months or years of uncertainty and potential damage to a central democratic institution?

In our democracy, the people are the ultimate arbiters of who gets to govern insofar as they elect the members of the legislature who get to determine who the premier will be. But it�s unclear where the popular will lies. In the current situation, the Liberals have tried to argue that the popular will is for them to govern (�We won the most seats, we won the most votes�); meanwhile, the NDP and the Greens have done the same (�Well, no, when you add us together, we won the most seats and the most votes; also, we can command confidence! We think. For a bit, anyway�).

Besides, the popular will is hard to discern, anyway. We like to imagine that the people speak as one, but they almost never do. Folks vote for all kinds of different reasons, and there�s no guarantee that an election held on a Tuesday instead of the following Thursday wouldn�t produce difference results; we�re a fickle and funny bunch. When votes are particularly close, like in the current situation in B.C., the popular will is even harder to know. Of course, we must respect the results of the election (as we should respect the NDP/Green deal, if they can make it work without damaging the reputation of the speakership), but we shouldn�t try to conclude too much from them, other than the fact that the province, on May 9, was deeply divided.

And yet, here we are. A deeply divided province, an election that was nearly a tie, a B.C. Liberal Party that has no reason to support its opponents, an NDP and Green Party that has little hope of much of a tenure in office, a legislature that may quickly become unworkable, a Speaker�s chair that risks being tarnished as a partisan seat, and a beautiful summer ahead of us that could be partially sacrificed so that British Columbia can enjoy a coherent, stable, and effective legislature and government for the moment and for the future.

So, let�s have an election. Then we can all go to the beach.

An alternative view:

Why the B.C. Liberals should suck it up and offer a Speaker

Femtosecond fucked around with this message at 06:05 on Jun 6, 2017

# ? Jun 6, 2017 06:03

CLAM DOWN: Feb 13, 2007

This is honestly a pretty fascinating position for our province to be in for a politics nerd, I studied the Westminster system in my poli sci electives and I think this is just awesome. However, that said, gently caress Christy Clark off a cliff

# ? Jun 6, 2017 06:18

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

Tossing myself right now to vote liberal again

Because you motherfuckers deserve Christy

# ? Jun 6, 2017 06:36

Furnaceface: Oct 21, 2004

namaste faggots posted:

Tossing myself right now to vote liberal again

Because you motherfuckers deserve Christy

You voted libertarian, dont lie.

Also FPTP continues to gently caress everything up.

# ? Jun 6, 2017 06:40

AegisP: Oct 5, 2008

And then there's the problem one-stepped removed, where, okay you have an NDP Speaker. Now what do you do about Deputy Speaker? Do you have an NDP deputy speaker too? Does this mean the Liberals have a 43-42 majority for the purposes of amending bills?

# ? Jun 6, 2017 06:41

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

I posted my ballot gently caress head

# ? Jun 6, 2017 06:42

MikeSevigny: Aug 6, 2002; Habs 2006: Cristobal Persuasion

I don't think Christy's playing 12-dimensional chess here or anything, but it looks like her strategy is "delay things a couple weeks and hope I/the media/Alberta can erode confidence in the NDP/Green alliance". Expect a lot more second election talk until she's forced to give her throne speech, then leak the speech early and the papers can say "since those babies in BC don't want to run consecutive elections, why not support this reasonable and thrifty Liberal government that has clearly learned its lesson?" And THEN start bribing backbenchers.

It still probably won't work but it's her best shot. If Kevin Falcon weren't lurking in the shadows I think she'd be willing to be opposition leader for a while.

# ? Jun 6, 2017 06:44

Juul-Whip: Mar 10, 2008

yeah I'm sorry but who gives a gently caress what Andrew Coyne thinks or how improper he would find it

# ? Jun 6, 2017 06:45

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

Burn this motherfucking province down

# ? Jun 6, 2017 06:47

Argas: Jan 13, 2008; SRW Fanatic

namaste faggots posted:

I posted my ballot gently caress head

you can't prove you didn't spoil it afterwards, or ask for another one after spoiling it

# ? Jun 6, 2017 06:47

James Baud: May 24, 2015; by LITERALLY AN ADMIN

James Baud fucked around with this message at 12:47 on Aug 26, 2018

# ? Jun 6, 2017 06:53

MikeSevigny: Aug 6, 2002; Habs 2006: Cristobal Persuasion

James Baud posted:

In addition to all the speaker fun, she could also give a throne speech where she throws the Greens a bigger bone than the NDP re: proportional representation and Kinder Morgan saying "people have spoken" (just like on HST) and have a blast with that.

I don't think swaying the Greens is going to work. There've been plenty of indications that Weaver was leaning towards the Liberals and they probably had a better deal in place, but the idea of backing them was too repulsive for the rest of the party to bear. Either she flips someone, gets a new election, or she just wastes everyone's time and pisses everyone off, which is fine because she'll get fired and take all the heat anyway.

# ? Jun 6, 2017 06:57

T.C.: Feb 10, 2004; Believe.

New Brunswick had a one member majority in 2003. There was some screwing around later on with people crossing the floor for unrelated reasons, but the start of the government had the opposition agreeing to do what is done when a member is unable to attend due to disability. You pair them off. So basically, since the speaker wasn't going to vote the opposition held back one of their votes to match. That gives you the same result as endless tiebreaks without the speaker having to be a partisan.

Later, that fell apart due to other reasons and there were just a shitload of tiebreaks. The argument being that passing the government's agenda is the status quo, so the speaker was not being controversial.

I would say that there's no real precedent for how a speaker should act in this case, and that there's no reason they can't just do what they want. You can quite easily argue that the convention is that the parties controlling most seats form government, so the speaker supporting that is in line with convention and supports the status quo.

# ? Jun 6, 2017 07:16

Juul-Whip: Mar 10, 2008

but socialists

# ? Jun 6, 2017 07:19

Femtosecond: Aug 2, 2003

It was clear from the outcome of the election that the Liberals had really turned off urbanites. I think what we could likely see in the throne speech is a swing back toward the urban voter, with heaps of spending toward urban priorities such as transit and housing. Clark will be humble and the Liberals will act as if they learned their lesson. They'll probably announce a ban on corporate and union donations and take that issue off the table for the next election.

# ? Jun 6, 2017 07:32

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU JOE BIDEN

namaste faggots posted:

Tossing myself right now

This little freudian slip might be the perfect metaphor for your posting :v:

(welcome back, this thread isn't the same without your raw contempt for Canada)

# ? Jun 6, 2017 12:18

Jimbozig: Sep 30, 2003; I like sharing and ice cream and animals.

littleorv posted:

I don't read the news. Who should I support for the NDP leadership?

Guy Caron seemed to have the best policies by far.

Of course that means nobody wants to talk about him. Instead they'd rather talk about the old experienced establishment guy vs the young hot guy vs the leftest leftist.

Guy Caron would probably win a lot of Quebec seats, which is good, because it's not like the NDP stand any chance in the 905. Quebec is probably the place with the most potential NDP seats that aren't already held by the NDP.

# ? Jun 6, 2017 14:01

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

http://business.financialpost.com/executive/how-canadas-horrible-anti-spam-law-is-about-to-get-a-lot-worse-for-companies

quote:

�I take no pleasure in this, and I am no defender of this law,� I tell our law firm�s clients. �I am about to describe to you what you need to do in order to comply with CASL.� CASL is the acronym for what has colloquially become known as Canada�s Anti-Spam Law, which is easily one of the country�s worst, most impractical, most unfriendly-to-business pieces of legislation and undoubtedly the strictest anti-spam laws of anywhere in the developed world. Pakistan�s anti-spam legislation is less burdensome.

As many Canadians (and foreign companies doing business in Canada) now know, the cornerstone of CASL is a general prohibition against sending any �commercial electronic message� without the prior express or implied consent of the recipient. A commercial electronic message (CEM) is broadly understood to be any electronic message that encourages participation in a commercial activity. That�s a big deal, because one of the fundamental elements of CASL that makes it so onerous for businesses is that it is an opt-in regime. Every other anti-spam law in the world provides for an opt-out framework, meaning that senders have to implement an Unsubscribe option that is identifiable, accessible and functional. But CASL requires senders to have permission before anything can be sent, and obtaining that consent can be a big wall to climb.

While express consent ought to be intuitive enough to be able to identify, CASL contains a number of instances of implied consent, any of which may be relied upon when sending a CEM. The most common is probably the permission granted for the two-year period after a customer purchases a product or service from you, but there are several others. In all cases, your business must keep careful track of the categories of consent into which your recipients fall to ensure they are removed from distribution lists should one of the eligible criteria expire or become unavailable.

And CASL has teeth. From its enactment date in July 2014, the statutory damages available have been significant � up to $10 million for corporations and $1 million for individuals. And the Canadian Radio Television Commission (which oversees and enforces CASL) has not shied away from imposing significant fines in the tens and even hundreds of thousands of dollars � including against Rogers, Porter Airlines, Kellogg�s and the dating website PlentyofFish. Meanwhile, you may have noticed you still receive as many unsolicited emails about Viagra, inheritances from relatives you�ve never heard of, bespoke tailors and so on as you did before CASL existed.

Oh, and there�s the personal liability. Companies� directors and officers can be found personally liable under certain provisions of CASL if they directed, authorized, assented to, acquiesced in or participated in the commission of a contravention of CASL.

And it gets worse. By now, much of this is likely known to varying degrees by most Canadian businesses. However, as of July 1, 2017, the remedies available under CASL will not be limited to what the CRTC decides after it has investigated a complaint of unsolicited spam. As of Canada Day, a new private right of action under CASL will come into force, meaning individuals and corporations can also sue alleged infringers of this law.

In addition to statutory damages, courts will be able to order people liable under CASL to also pay to the complainants an amount equal to their actual loss or damage (if any), plus up to $200 for each violation of sending unsolicited messages, totalling up to $1 million for each day on which a violation occurred.

And those damages can be per violation per person. This should raise alarm bells for businesses about the inevitability of a new breed of class action litigation (and, sadly, it must be said, class action lawyers) that will permit groups of people (tens, hundreds, thousands?) to pursue a collective court-ordered award against alleged violators of CASL, with awards that could be potentially in the millions of dollars.

I hate getting unwanted emails as much as the next Canadian, but come on.

Businesses around the world who have Canadians on their email distribution lists should take a deep dive into the composition of those lists, the nature of the electronic communications being sent and internal recording-keeping and audit practices to ensure that one mistakenly sent mass email does not snowball into a catastrophe.

Chad Finkelstein is a franchise lawyer and registered trademark agent at Dale & Lessmann LLP (https://www.dalelessmann.com) in Toronto.

cfinkelstein@dalelessmann.com

so much loving :qq:

in this article

of course this dumb gently caress got an llb at a glorified high school

# ? Jun 6, 2017 14:45

MA-Horus: Dec 3, 2006; I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of how awesome I am.

namaste faggots posted:

http://business.financialpost.com/executive/how-canadas-horrible-anti-spam-law-is-about-to-get-a-lot-worse-for-companies

so much loving in this article

of course this dumb gently caress got an llb at a glorified high school

don't be jelly because lakehead wouldn't take you

# ? Jun 6, 2017 14:51

DariusLikewise: Oct 4, 2008; You wore that on Halloween?

Won't some please think of the Businesses!~

# ? Jun 6, 2017 14:53

cowofwar: Jul 30, 2002; by Athanatos

namaste faggots posted:

http://business.financialpost.com/executive/how-canadas-horrible-anti-spam-law-is-about-to-get-a-lot-worse-for-companies

so much loving in this article

of course this dumb gently caress got an llb at a glorified high school

Hahhahahaha consent is so burdensome. My profits!

How many girls do you think this guy has raped?

# ? Jun 6, 2017 14:53

flakeloaf: Feb 26, 2003; Still better than android clock

So Bizarro Diedrich Bader's problem is that the law punishes spammers, and asking for permission to send email is hard and sometimes people still get spam?

# ? Jun 6, 2017 14:55

cowofwar: Jul 30, 2002; by Athanatos

flakeloaf posted:

So Bizarro Diedrich Bader's problem is that the law punishes spammers, and asking for permission to send email is hard and sometimes people still get spam?

No, you see a developing nation has weak regulations therefore we should be more like Pakistan? Who the gently caress has ever even made that argument before? This guy is a really lovely lawyer.

# ? Jun 6, 2017 14:57

DariusLikewise: Oct 4, 2008; You wore that on Halloween?

cowofwar posted:

Hahhahahaha consent is so burdensome. My profits!

How many girls do you think this guy has raped?

He looks more like a guy that would ask a girl out 1000x times and then post on the red pill afterwards that he is now reverse-woke

# ? Jun 6, 2017 15:00

Vintersorg: Mar 3, 2004; President of
the Brendan Fraser
Fan Club

namaste faggots posted:

Oh I cared at one point. But now I know there's no point because Canadians are loving worthless

Then gently caress off and stew in your room.

# ? Jun 6, 2017 15:01

infernal machines: Oct 11, 2012; we monitor many frequencies. we listen always. came a voice, out of the babel of tongues, speaking to us. it played us a mighty dub.

flakeloaf posted:

So Bizarro Diedrich Bader's problem is that the law punishes spammers, and asking for permission to send email is hard and sometimes people still get spam?

Well that and if you didn't directly ask for permission, e.g. you sold them something (which gives you a two-year window to spam them unless they unsubscribe), you might not be doing your diligence and making sure that period had not expired, and then you might accidentally be in violation of this terrible law that will put you out of business like that ~*snaps fingers*~

Which is why everyone with at least half a brain sent out explicit opt-in messages to their existing lists in 2014 and rely on explicit opt-in messages at time of sale going forward.

# ? Jun 6, 2017 15:07

Newfie: Oct 8, 2013; 10 years of oil boom and 20 billion dollars cash, all I got was a case of beer, a pack of smokes, and 14% unemployment.
Thanks, Danny.

Maclean's is getting us all ready for the incoming houspocalypse.

" It's not a bail out, it's a bail in! posted:

Why Ottawa should bail out homebuyers if house prices tank

If you don�t know them personally, you�ve read about them: the woebegone residents of Vancouver, Toronto, and the surrounding areas of those two cities who bought too much house. Some of you pity them; so unfair their time to buy arrived at the frothiest stages of a property bubble. But I bet just as many of you are disdainful. You ask: Why the hell don�t these people rent?

Hold onto those competing impressions. We will be coming back to them.

The economy just survived a scare. For a few weeks in May, Home Capital Group Inc. looked like it would become the first Canadian financial institution to collapse since the 1990s. But HomeCap still is with us, and the chatter that its troubles herald a housing meltdown has subsided. �From the very beginning, we have seen this as a Home Capital issue as opposed to a broader issue,� Finance Minister Bill Morneau told the Globe and Mail on May 12.

Home Capital, a subprime lender, is too small to cause much trouble on its own. (Its mortgages account for about one per cent of the total market.) Most of its customers would be covered by government insurance, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions would ensure an orderly death, and vultures would swoop in quickly to grab the valuable assets.

That doesn�t mean the episode should be dismissed. Speculative bets against the Canadian dollar and the country�s banks spiked, suggesting confidence in the country�s financial system was rattled. That matters. As Joe Castaldo of Maclean�s described in excellent detail, psychology is the difference between boom and bust. Goldman Sachs, the New York-based investment bank, put the odds of a Canadian financial crisis in the near future at 30 per cent. Carson Block, a muckraking American investor known for exposing companies with dodgy financials, told Bloomberg News on May 31 that he was �starting to believe that there could be some real problems with Canada.�

Short sellers such as Block can�t always be trusted. But academic research also offers reason for concern. Atif Mian of Princeton University and Amir Sufi of the University of Chicago have teamed up to do some of the best work on the origins of the financial crisis. Their newest paper uses historical data from multiple countries to show that an increase in the ratio of household debt to gross domestic product over a three-to-four-year period predicts a decline in economic growth. Canada fits the description. The past isn�t prologue; however, we ignore its lessons at our peril. It is time to start preparing for the worst.

And that brings us back to those suffering new homeowners in Vancouver and Toronto.

If things go bad, they will deserve a lot of the blame. Governments, the central bank, and lenders tempted them with numerous incentives to buy, but no one forced them to take out mortgages they couldn�t afford. But what if I told you the only way to end the recession they might trigger would be to use your tax contributions to bail them out? Don�t like the sound of rescuing your profligate neighbours? Sorry, a crisis is no time for schadenfreude.

David Dodge, the former Bank of Canada governor, told me earlier this year in an interview about housing policy that he would nationalize the mortgage insurance industry; not because he is a Communist, but because it always will be taxpayers who clean up the messes of bankers, especially when it involves houses. �History tells us, and political analysis tells us, that no government can stand aside while the financial market is being brought down by the collapse of the mortgage market,� he said.

Ottawa�s instinct likely would be to save the banks. That�s just how these things go. The received wisdom is that you fix a financial crisis by making sure the lenders are solvent. That way, they can keep the economy going by lending to businesses and households.

Mian and Sufi want policy makers to update their crisis playbooks. The banks got most of the money when the U.S. financial system imploded in 2008 and it didn�t work that well. The biggest banks survived, but they stashed most of their rescue funds. The Great Recession was followed by an epically slow recovery.

In retrospect, the flaw in the U.S. rescue efforts is obvious. In their 2014 book House of Debt, Mian and Sufi argue the recession was caused by a decline in consumer spending. Low interest rates, a willingness among creditors to lend to just about anyone, and widespread fraud eventually led to a wave of defaults in 2006 and 2007. The poorest households were wiped out first. As home prices crashed, many were left with assets worth less than the mortgages. That was critical because those are the people who have the highest propensity to spend. The U.S.�s post-millennium credit binge ended up flooding its main economic engine.

If those ruined households would have received as much attention as Wall Street, the world would be a different place today. Washington�s priority should have been organizing a mass rewriting of home loans to align the principals with the reduced value of the assets. That would have supported demand by allowing homeowners to get above water. By reducing the number of defaults, such a program also would have buoyed housing prices. Creditors make little effort to get the best price for the assets they obtain in foreclosures. Fire sales kill property values.

Former president Barack Obama wanted to help homeowners. His attempts floundered, mostly because when the time came, there was too little political support to make the programs work. American taxpayers, via their elected representatives, loathed saving millionaires and billionaires on Wall Street. But they essentially refused to help their neighbours and fellow citizens. That decision probably felt right; anything else would reward stupidity. But I wonder how it felt living through double-digit unemployment rates? Stupidity was widespread.

The argument against rescuing homeowners is moral hazard. That�s the notion that those who know they will be saved will inevitably engage in risky behaviour. It�s endemic in finance. The biggest banks borrow at lower rates than smaller rivals because creditors assume�like Dodge said�that governments always will rescue any institution that is �too big to fail.� Canada�s banks drove down mortgage rates in a fight for market share because the federal government insures most of the risk. Some economists reckon the same principle applies to individuals. So if the government bailed out homeowners, it only would be encouraging future buyers to take out big loans. Maybe. But Mian and Sufi argue that households think differently than big institutions. They say moral hazard assumes a level of sophistication that most individuals simply lack. Banks and other big companies employ lots of smart people to figure out ways to game the system. Some individuals might take a similar approach; Mian and Sufi say most couldn�t be bothered.

I�m not predicting an economic catastrophe in Canada. The country�s banks likely have enough capital in reserve to withstand a wave of defaults if prices in Vancouver, Toronto and elsewhere correct dramatically. There would be little reason to worry about a big lender going bankrupt. But there are good reasons to take seriously the possibility that Canada�s credit binge could end in a recession. Probably, we would just muddle through it. Another contribution of Mian and Sufi is evidence that financial crises divide the political process, making timely action difficult. Politicians would be scared to rescue the same homeowners who caused the recession. But it would be the right thing to do.

# ? Jun 6, 2017 15:07

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

Canada literally subsidises everything else to prop up it's economy. Bombardier, the movie industry, the ~*tech startup*~ industry, dairy, lumber

Why not Canada's biggest and most important industry, housing?

# ? Jun 6, 2017 15:10

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

Brad lamb and Bob Rennie are systemically important job creators

# ? Jun 6, 2017 15:11

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

Vintersorg posted:

Then gently caress off and stew in your room.

OK I'll get right on that Tyler brule

# ? Jun 6, 2017 15:11

Postess with the Mostest: Apr 4, 2007; Arabian nights
'neath Arabian moons
A fool off his guard
could fall and fall hard
out there on the dunes

Newfie posted:

Maclean's is getting us all ready for the incoming houspocalypse.

You should check out this thread's ~~sister~~ retarded cousin thread, https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3533827&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=965

namaste faggots posted:

Canada literally subsidises everything else to prop up it's economy. Bombardier, the movie industry, the ~*tech startup*~ industry, dairy, lumber

Why not Canada's biggest and most important industry, housing?

That's stupid. Between CMHC and no capital gains, housing is the thing we already subsidize the most.

# ? Jun 6, 2017 15:12

cowofwar: Jul 30, 2002; by Athanatos

Nothing wrong with a bail out so long as the government insures that it profits handsomely and that regulations are put in place to remove government backstopping of speculation by lenders and banks.

But we all know that the government will just give its Bay street buds an unconditional cheque with no attached regulatory changes.

Having Morneau in position when the bubble pops would be a dream come true for the banks. They get their cake and get to eat it too.

# ? Jun 6, 2017 15:34

mashed: Jul 27, 2004

namaste faggots posted:

I posted my ballot gently caress head

You really need to move out of a safe NDP riding if you want to help Christy.

Or perhaps for once first past the post is working as intended.

# ? Jun 6, 2017 15:49

MA-Horus: Dec 3, 2006; I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of how awesome I am.

Oh financial gurus of CanPol, tell me how I can get a sweet sweet 2006-era CountryWide NINJA Sub-Prime mortgage in Canada again?

You can't.

And Canadian banks aren't swapping CDOs built on AAA-Rated Tranches of utterly sub-prime garbage. And the KICKER is, yeah we have a market for sub-prime mortgages but the interest rates are like 6% max and usually fixed-rate.

MA-Horus fucked around with this message at 16:13 on Jun 6, 2017

# ? Jun 6, 2017 16:08

cowofwar: Jul 30, 2002; by Athanatos

MA-Horus posted:

Oh financial gurus of CanPol, tell me how I can get a sweet sweet 2006-era CountryWide NINJA Sub-Prime mortgage in Canada again?

You can't.

And Canadian banks aren't swapping CDOs built on AAA-Rated Tranches of utterly sub-prime garbage. And the KICKER is, yeah we have a market for sub-prime mortgages but the interest rates are like 6% max and usually fixed-rate.

We just bought a place and are getting a TD 2.4% mortgage.

Not prime I guess. I hear it's hard to get a mortgage from the previous smaller lenders now that there's more attention on them.

# ? Jun 6, 2017 16:22

CLAM DOWN: Feb 13, 2007

gently caress homeowners, I don't want to bail them out. No one forced them to take out a hyperinflated mortgage after mommy and daddy paid your down payment.

# ? Jun 6, 2017 16:23

infernal machines: Oct 11, 2012; we monitor many frequencies. we listen always. came a voice, out of the babel of tongues, speaking to us. it played us a mighty dub.

The only moral hazard is someone else's hazard.

# ? Jun 6, 2017 16:24

MA-Horus: Dec 3, 2006; I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of how awesome I am.

cowofwar posted:

We just bought a place and are getting a 2.4% mortgage.

Did they ask if you had a job?

Did they ask if you had a down payment?

Did they perform any sort of income verification?

These are things that were NOT done in the sub-prime crash of '08. Big US banks would literally give a Mexican fruit picker a 750K loan. They were called NINJA (No Income, No Job) loans.

20% of people applying for mortgages in Canada with the big banks are rejected due to factors such as insufficient income or down payment. You can go to a shittier lender but those loans are NOT covered under CMHC

# ? Jun 6, 2017 16:26

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 13, 2024 21:30

Postess with the Mostest: Apr 4, 2007; Arabian nights
'neath Arabian moons
A fool off his guard
could fall and fall hard
out there on the dunes

MA-Horus posted:

Oh financial gurus of CanPol, tell me how I can get a sweet sweet 2006-era CountryWide NINJA Sub-Prime mortgage in Canada again?

You can't.

And Canadian banks aren't swapping CDOs built on AAA-Rated Tranches of utterly sub-prime garbage. And the KICKER is, yeah we have a market for sub-prime mortgages but the interest rates are like 6% max and usually fixed-rate.

I mean, there's room to be worried between October 2008 and Everything's Fine.

Outside of HCG and the ontario teacher's pension private mortgage company, I guess the closest you can get is CIBC

with a teaser rate

https://twitter.com/cibc/status/709379552993148928

but w/e it's still 35% down and the market won't drop more than that. I know this because I am a wizard.

# ? Jun 6, 2017 16:26

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > CanPol Megathread: Big Changus

«‹›2341 »