Wish this was retroactive. One last puff in the real estate bubble gas-bag, engineered by mr flaherty. Easy money and lax lending allowing any fool with a pulse to bid up housing while having no skin in the game. But, it helped everyone feel rich with equity and borrow against these over valued homes. False prosperity and a majority government. So now we have the worlds highest level of home ownership and personal debt. Nice job boys!

Spot on govsux!

spot off govsux.

Spot ON govsux! Though I think Flaherty is just the front-man for a banking system and its monopoly of credit that calls the shots.

If any of the other current Parties were in office the only thing that would’ve been different would be a different front-man.

The POLICY of ALL of them is exactly the SAME when it come to anything to do with finance.

And it’s that POLICY that’s the problem with the whole financial system ~ it’s not set up to allow ‘money’ to serve us in the way that it should always be capable of serving us, i.e., as a correct numerical ‘reflection’ of the REAL CREDIT of society, (our actual overall capacity to produce and deliver goods and services to the public, as, when, and where required). Where the ‘figures’ with the dollar’s signs in front of them properly REFLECT the ‘facts’ of what actually is.

Rather than as it is now ~ where money, and those who monopolise the control of it, also have a monopoly to use it as the ‘determinant’ of what THEY think works best for THEM in maintaining this monopoly ~ and if that isn’t in sync with what works best for the rest of us, too bloody bad, Finance RULES. And we obey, or else they can make it extremely unpleasant for us to live, if not outrightly impossible.

Until this pernicious monopoly is broken, (NOT, be it noted, simply transferred into the hands of government itself ~ which would only make it more impregnable and absolute), and control of credit issue and withdrawal is made to SERVE Consumer needs and desires FIRST ~ for the ONLY sane reason for the ‘production’ of anything is ‘consumption’ of it by those needing or wanting whatever has been produced ~ we’ll continue to have increasing poverty alongside a plenty that is increasing even faster, but can never be fully ‘financially’ accessed.

you 2 sound like a tea party republican christian homo phobic southern alabama anti government gun loving unemployed trailer living good old boys or gals. understand how the econemy works and then you should comment. we have the best banking system in the world and if you do not like credit system then dont borrow money. free will.

Canadian banks have recently been downgraded by credit rating agencies. Canadian banks are solid due to regulations. Oh and also the fact that CMHC took tens of billions of dollars off the banks shoulders by buying up all their high ratio mortgages and placing the risk on the taxpayers. The gov did this under the guise of freeing up credit so the banks could lend more, during the credit crunch of 08. But I guess you already knew that with your extensive knowledge of the Canadian “ECONEMY”
Nice rant though.

It will be interesting to see if CMHC does in fact net a profit of 2.5billion in 2015

http://business.financialpost.com/2012/04/30/did-canadian-banks-receive-a-secret-bailout/

as well as being so misinformed I did not know how that you were also a spellin nazi. is that the best you can do. go after my spelling. if you real want to have fun. read your kids texed messages. that is if the government let you bread. y the way. most everything in your post is incorrect. when people say “not everything on the nternet is true” your post is a glowing example of that. and the saddest thing is you have junco and socred drinking your kool-aid. take it from some one that has way more knowledge on this subject than you. I do not mined you having an opinion but stating incorrect fact is another thing.

[url]http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/04/30/canada-bank-bailout_n_1466219.html[url]
Mmmmmm who wants kool-aid

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/04/30/canada-bank-bailout_n_1466219.html

the huffingtonpost? The Huffingtonpost? realy? thats what you come back with? You read one article from a usa rehash news paper and this is your fact based knowledge. A she said he said article that is what you read. it states a maybe could be opinion of what may or may not could have happened. Once again “you can not beleive everything you read on the internet”. your one artical rendition converting it to fact clearly demonstrates that you are grasping at straws because the real problem you have is with the government. not lending or cmhc. if this was an artilce about the government saying everyone should turn left, you would argue right. if they said right you would cry out about the injustice of not turning left. I laugh at your comment and informational tools. Take it from me as one who was in the lending industry for 20 years. I have met with the head of cmhc for B.C. in a one on one meeting. in january of this year I meet and talked at length with the X head of genworth. also in January I had a 1hour meeting with the ceo of one of the largest non bank mortgge fund lenders in canada. Just yesterday (friday0 I was on a conference call with the head of the largest non banking mortgage lender in canada. I dont just Read one artical and sell that to the people as the new truth. I live this stuff every day. But thank thank you thank you for entertaing me on this beautiful day. this was fun. learn it know it study it then form your opinion rather than mixing the kool-aid and sellng on the internet for free

Oh And I for got to mention that I have been interviewed by a nation magazine for 3 articals that were published, interviewed by ckpg on several occations, also by the citizen news paper and the radio more time than i care to count for their new articals. on money matters mortgages and lending in the canadian market place.

Oh, so your a mortgage broker?

You’re

just I guy that reads a lot of bs on the internet and no I am not a mortgage broker

just I guy that reads a lot of bs on the internet and no I am not a mortgage broker

The only ‘real’ problem we have with the government is that it prostrates itself, and the taxpayers that elect it, to a financial policy that is determined by bankers who claim ‘ownership’ of the community’s credit they have been allowed to ‘administrate’. This puts the banker in the bus driver’s seat, and rather than the passengers telling him where they want to go, (for after all, it is they, not he, that pay for the ticket), he determines just how far, and where, he wants to take them.

So far as mortgage lending is concerned, govsux has it just about right.

The current system of finance depends on there being a constant flow of new credit coming into the economy for existing credit to be fully amortised as originally agreed to when issued.

Since the end of World War Two the favorite vehicle for introducing new credit is the new home mortgage. And while it has enabled the highest levels of home ownership in recorded history, it also has several downside which are showing up now more than in times past.

One of which is, that with continual labor displacement in the economy as a whole through automation and outsourcing abroad, the number of ‘jobs’ that provide incomes sufficient enough to qualify for a regular mortgage is declining. Ergo, the move towards trying to lower the qualifications normally required.

This comes up against two immediate difficulties. The perceived need for house prices to keep rising to maintain good security for the banks in the issuance of mortgages, yet if house prices DO keep rising those who only marginally qualify for a mortgage now are priced out of the market completely. And the favorite vehicle for needed new credit no longer functions. What are you going to replace it with, rattyboy?

I have personally spoken with a former Federal Minister of Finance regarding these matters, and we are in agreement.
Can you present any information counter to any of my claims? :-)

a woman once said to me that she did not believe in abortion. my responce was “dont have one then” if you dont like our lending system, dont borrow money. and contrary to your beliefs. lawyers make the rules not the banks. and the one issue I have with banks are the credit card lending policies and interest rates. the government should be addressing that. that being said, free will. know one is forcing you to get a mortgage or putting a gun to your head to get a credit card. make you decissions and life and live with the consequences, whether they be good or bad. but take ownership of those decissions and stop blaming some one else. man up. you borrowed it you pay it. ps have wrote 2 posts on this thread but the site keeps flippng me out before it is finish. ex minister of finance hey. well god was over for supper on tuesday. he likes baked ham. Yes and that was a joke.

In the overall scheme of things, whether one likes our lending system or not, money has to be ‘borrowed’. Since the banking system has a monopoly on its creation, governments everywhere now having assigned this power to the private banks and the central bank, (Bank of Canada, in our case).

So for anyone to say “don’t borrow”, while it may seem like prudent advice to any individual, is simply ridiculous in an overall sense in any modern economy where an accounting-demand system called ‘money’ is necessary to facilitate production and consumption.

And especially any one in which the actual exchange through ‘barter’ of so many products that would be of no use whatsoever to anyone other than subsequent manufacturers involved in multi-stage production processes would prove extremely difficult if not impossible.

The ‘problem’ is NOT with ‘borrowing’. Not in an overall sense. It IS in that the banking system, by its periodic refusal to maintain a sufficient amount of new credit entering the economy equal to at least the amount of existing loans it has made, can, and does, prevent the repayment of those existing loans.

By doing this the financial sector is in a privileged position of being both the deal maker and the terms breaker.

For it can, and does, simply by a general contraction of credit at will, claim ‘ownership’ of real Assets that the borrowers have acquired through the use of this credit, often for a small fraction of their actual worth. The banks then act to consolidate and rationalise these Assets, to the sole end of putting them in a position of exacting a higher price for their use from the general public. Which is further disadvantaged by then having to borrow to obtain the necessities of life no longer affordable to more and more of them otherwise. So long as they can.

Which can be a verrrry long time, when what can’t be paid personally, or in the case of businesses, corporately, can be exacted as increases in taxation to pay the permanent tribute demanded in interest on loans which will never be repayable.

[url]http://mises.ca/posts/blog/the-canadian-bank-bailout/[url]

http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/corp/nero/nere/2008/2008-10-10-1700.cfm

This was the beginning of the CMHC program

http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/01/28/read-why-moodys-just-downgraded-six-canadian-banks/

Didn’t hurt my bank shares though.

No, that won’t have any immediate effect on your bank shares. Their price will still reflect what they’re able to make in profits, and their friends in government will do their best to help them out in that regard.

Moody’s are only reporting on those banks greater exposure to risk in the current economy, which COULD be a concern if the banks in general were to constrict the money supply, there were substantially increased delinquencies in loan repayments as a result, and the foreclosed upon Assets that form the present collateral security for loans couldn’t be sold for an amount equal to the bank debt still outstanding on them.

Banks take a lot of criticism, (except from their shareholders!), for the size of their profits. But like all business in general, those profits are actually DECLINING as a percentage of their overall ‘sales’. The dollar amount reported may seem absolutely obscene, but in terms of what EACH one of those dollars will actually BUY, they, and other businesses, and we ourselves, are all steadily losing ground.