Liberal NDP Merger Possibility?

[troutman]

Two parties? Then all we need is FOX News Canada and MSNBC Canada, to really divide us.

[Leon Kennedy]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

wether you know it or not, this bubble was sparked by bad US debt and bad US bets, both personally, corporately and in the gov't. That instability is showing warts all over the world now, and manifesting in different ways including reduced housing values.

And maybe a small and unimportant datapoint in what is an excuse to bash the cons, but interest rates setting is not a political party policy. It's a tool to manage inflation, the same, exact tool used in the good old days of cretien ... the same, exact tool.

what you are doing to blame the bubble on harper is like if you trip and fall over a step, when you open your eyes and the first thing you see is grey carpet. You get up and blame the grey carpet. Yes that's the first thing you saw after the stimulus (the tripping) however you sometimes have to work a little harder to get to the source.

I would say that is the one, and large problem with a democracy. Many people don't need to be bogged down with facts, extensive educations or even understand interest rate policy in canada for the past generation. Then with all the insight that harper caused a housing bubble can fix the problems of the country by voting in the left.

I find there are few things worse to society than people who learned everything they need to know by watching the 6pm news and find ways to shape it in ways to support a belief system that they don't even fully understand. Left or right.

So you deny that the Conservative party are intentionally influencing the BoC to set low interest rates for political gain?

[Red Ice Player]

Originally Posted by Leon Kennedy

Canadians need to stop blaming the USA for their problems and start taking responsibility for their actions. There is NO EXCUSE for interest rates being kept so low over the past year, and you know it. The government are terrified of what is going to happen once people stop being able to afford to pay their zero down thirty five year mortgages. It will eventually lead to the collapse of the country's economy and any economist worth his salt will tell you the same. Instead of dealing with the problem now, when it is manageable to do so, the Conservative are going to pass it along to the next government.

I don't blame them for doing it, at least not from a purely political perspective. It is the smart play politically. The Liberals would do the same, make no mistake. That doesn't make it right.

Having extremely low interest rates leads to hyperinflation and will eventually bankrupt many people in this country once the cow comes home in two or three years when people begin to realize that Canada is not immune to the world economy's troubles.

Where in Canada can you, or could you, get a 35 year no down payment mortgage? If so, what percentage of mortgages are of that type? I'm thinking none.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Leon Kennedy

Canadians need to stop blaming the USA for their problems and start taking responsibility for their actions. There is NO EXCUSE for interest rates being kept so low over the past year, and you know it. The government are terrified of what is going to happen once people stop being able to afford to pay their zero down thirty five year mortgages. It will eventually lead to the collapse of the country's economy and any economist worth his salt will tell you the same. Instead of dealing with the problem now, when it is manageable to do so, the Conservative are going to pass it along to the next government.

I don't blame them for doing it, at least not from a purely political perspective. It is the smart play politically. The Liberals would do the same, make no mistake. That doesn't make it right.

Having extremely low interest rates leads to hyperinflation and will eventually bankrupt many people in this country once the cow comes home in two or three years when people begin to realize that Canada is not immune to the world economy's troubles.

The low rates in the last 2 years stopped a depression tsunami that you wouldn't begin to understand. I thought you meant the low rates in 06 and 07 ... saying low rates in 09 and 10 is bad is maybe the most ill informed thing I have heard all year.

Yes in normal times long lasting low rates would lead to high inflation but with this much slack in the economy (slack = unemployed people and assets) it just can't. Now if the slack is absorbed and rates stay low then yes, you could have hyperinflation but not with the current climate.

High rates would have mean nobody borrowed, which means nobody would invest in anything, businesses would not extend credit to anyone, banks would pull credit from everyone and everything would have shut down. I won't say where and who I work for but we were preparing for that very situation if governments didn't jump start the economy.

The way you precieve economics is the exact opposite of how the real world works.

[Leon Kennedy]

Originally Posted by Red Ice Player

Where in Canada can you, or could you, get a 35 year no down payment mortgage? If so, what percentage of mortgages are of that type? I'm thinking none.

A buddy of mine at work bought a house in Airdrie for zero down, forty years back in early 2008. Got the mortgage from Scotia bank.

Even a 5% down, thirty five year mortgage, which is easily attainable, far overextends people's ability to pay.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by troutman

Two parties? Then all we need is FOX News Canada and MSNBC Canada, to really divide us.

Or a CBC that just confuses us.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Leon Kennedy

So you deny that the Conservative party are intentionally influencing the BoC to set low interest rates for political gain?

Interest rates have simply been a tool to manage inflation for about a generation. in the 70's and early 80's they couldn't figure it out until they tripped over this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetar...tion_targeting

see 3.1.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Come on, peter--you're a lot smarter than the Western exceptionalists from whom you've borrowed this tired claim. The historical liberal base is central and eastern Canada. Other than the Stephane Dion debacle, you have to go back pretty far in history to find an election where the Liberals didn't get most of their seats from Ontario.

Thats currently a bit of misnomer, the Liberals did a terrific job of losing their Ontario powerbase in the last election. And if Bob Rae is pushing this hard because he envisions himself as the next great leader, then Ontario seats will be gone for a long time.

In the last election the Liberals may have gotten most of their seats in Ontario, but they lost a lot of their power base except in Toronto.

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

And I know that Western exceptionalists love to pretend that this fact means they're somehow persecuted by the east, but as a function of simple arithmetic, central Canada is a far more powerful "foundation for a national government" than the West could ever be.

Change the word persecuted to marginalized and you would be more accurate. Central Canada may be a more powerful foundation for a national government, however a national governments job should be to treat each region with equality and respect. Except for Quebec.

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

And we don't need to beat around the bush about this: it is part of the reason that Harper has been unable to form a majority. I will grant you that Harper lacks Preston Manning's vision and charisma, but it's clearly more important that he lacks the geographical base in Central Canada to push him over the top.

How can you say that when Harper won far more seats in Ontario. The Bloc will kill any chance for a majority government. A big part of that is any policy that you make or set up as a platform for the rest of the Canada is opposite of what Quebec wants. The only way that your ever going to win the majority of the seats in Quebec is to give them unequal power over the rest of Canada in terms of policy, and an unlimited checkbook with no pay basksies.

[Leon Kennedy]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

The low rates in the last 2 years stopped a depression tsunami

This is the fundamental flaw in your argument. It didn't stop the depression, it simply delayed it at enormous cost later on down the road. Governments need to stop thinking in terms of three or four year election cycles and start worrying about the long term viability of unregulated or light regulated capitalism as a whole.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Leon Kennedy

This is the fundamental flaw in your argument. It didn't stop the depression, it simply delayed it at enormous cost later on down the road. Governments need to stop thinking in terms of three or four year election cycles and start worrying about the long term viability of unregulated or light regulated capitalism as a whole.

it did delay some pain, like some entities that are over extended just deal with their problems later, but I can tell you with almost 100% certintly if governments didn't step in the way they did the world as we know it would look very different (read worse) than it does right now.

Yes in general budgets and some fiscal policy works in 4 year terms, but low rates in 09 and 10 is not one of them, that saved us from a climate that would make the dirty 30's look like a party.

and the arguement is not flawed, go look up definitions, buy its very definition it not only stopped a depression, it pulled us out of the recession.

Now we may have another recession in the next couple years, but what I said is not a 'fundamental flaw' it's widely accepted fact. Again, your reality and the reality appear to be very different things.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by Leon Kennedy

This is the fundamental flaw in your argument. It didn't stop the depression, it simply delayed it at enormous cost later on down the road. Governments need to stop thinking in terms of three or four year election cycles and start worrying about the long term viability of unregulated or light regulated capitalism as a whole.

That will never happen so long as people keep pissing their votes away on fringe parties. Every single day is just a fight to stay in power, and you're expecting them to think 10 years in the future? They do something that sucks now, but is good for the future... and the other guys call for a non-confidence vote and get them booted.

So... keep voting for the NDB, Bloc, Green, Mary Jane parties all you guys want. Just don't also bitch about how Governments don't think about the future.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Change the word persecuted to marginalized and you would be more accurate. Central Canada may be a more powerful foundation for a national government, however a national governments job should be to treat each region with equality and respect. Except for Quebec.

I don't disagree.

And for the record, I consider myself a lifelong Western Canadian, and I've never really felt disrespected by Canada's national government.

What's really killing us is the parochial regionalism that has fractured our political system. We need to get rid of these stupid notions of regional exceptionalism, (both in the West and in Quebec) and start working together to form national governments that serve all Canadians.

The fact is, we have more in common with people living in Toronto than we do with people living in Spokane. Trust me on that one--I lived in the U.S. for 11 years. Somewhere along the line we've forgotten that fact.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

The fact is, we have more in common with people living in Toronto than we do with people living in Spokane. Trust me on that one--I lived in the U.S. for 11 years. Somewhere along the line we've forgotten that fact.

I agree with your other comments but this is apples and oranges. We have more in common with Houston that we do Toronto ... trust me on that one as I lived there.

Many of the differences between Cgy and Spokane are because one place is a city and one place is a town (I know it fits the definition of a city ... but it's a town). IE Red Deer has more in common with Spokane that it does with Toronto.

[Leon Kennedy]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

That will never happen so long as people keep pissing their votes away on fringe parties. Every single day is just a fight to stay in power, and you're expecting them to think 10 years in the future? They do something that sucks now, but is good for the future... and the other guys call for a non-confidence vote and get them booted.

So... keep voting for the NDB, Bloc, Green, Mary Jane parties all you guys want. Just don't also bitch about how Governments don't think about the future.

How would things be any different if I had voted for the Liberals or NDP instead of the Greens? How are the Greens a "fringe party" when one in ten Canadians who took the time to vote in the last election voted for them? Don't you know how the Reform party started out? Wow. Just wow.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Leon Kennedy

How would things be any different if I had voted for the Liberals or NDP instead of the Greens? How are the Greens a "fringe party" when one in ten Canadians who took the time to vote in the last election voted for them? Don't you know how the Reform party started out? Wow. Just wow.

That says more about the quality of the voter than the validity of the party.

Tell me more about the Green platform of economic merit of wealth transfer between regions? What is their position on a bank tax? What about gays peoples rights to adopt?

Reform was somewhat fringe as well, but what does that have to do with anything?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

I agree with your other comments but this is apples and oranges. We have more in common with Houston that we do Toronto ... trust me on that one as I lived there.

Many of the differences between Cgy and Spokane are because one place is a city and one place is a town (I know it fits the definition of a city ... but it's a town). IE Red Deer has more in common with Spokane that it does with Toronto.

I think we're making different kinds of comparisons here. I'm not talking about infrastructure, I'm talking about culture and polity. In that sense, I spent 11 years in the U.S. and never felt American for a single day--and I wouldn't if I lived there for another 40. I lived in towns and cities, and in three very distinct regions of the country--and it was always the same feeling. Houston might feel a bit like Calgary in some ways, but my guess is that as soon as you start talking to someone you instantly notice that we don't have the same sorts of values and attitudes at all.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I think we're making different kinds of comparisons here. I'm not talking about infrastructure, I'm talking about culture and polity. In that sense, I spent 11 years in the U.S. and never felt American for a single day--and I wouldn't if I lived there for another 40. I lived in towns and cities, and in three very distinct regions of the country--and it was always the same feeling. Houston might feel a bit like Calgary in some ways, but my guess is that as soon as you start talking to someone you instantly notice that we don't have the same sorts of values and attitudes at all.

well, agree to disagree. By chance while in Houston I did manage to talk to a few and was very surprised how similar they were from a values and attitude standpoint ... which was percisely what I was referring to. The real things that stand out to me as difference were the acceptance of guns (although many albertians would be happy to pile into the back of a pick up to go to a gun rally themselves) and their propensity to spend alot of money on rims for their cars.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by Leon Kennedy

How would things be any different if I had voted for the Liberals or NDP instead of the Greens? How are the Greens a "fringe party" when one in ten Canadians who took the time to vote in the last election voted for them? Don't you know how the Reform party started out? Wow. Just wow.

In the last federal election, the Green Party captured only 6.78% of the popular vote, which is 32.2% less than the 10% that you claimed ("one in ten"). For the record, that 6.78% counted for only 937,613 out of 13,834,294 voters.

In addition to this ridiculously low voter statistic, there is also the incredibly dismal fact that they failed to win a single seat in Parliament. That's actually the good news. The bad news for the Greens was that not only did they not win any seats, but they lost the only seat they had won in the previous election... that belonging to their party leader, Elizabeth May.

Yeah, you're right. They're not a fringe party at all.

Edit: I'm not even going to waste my time trying to explain to you the concept of "your vote" combined with the other 4.2 million votes that were wasted on one of the eighteen fringe parties that ran in the last election.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by troutman

Two parties? Then all we need is FOX News Canada and MSNBC Canada, to really divide us.

Single Transferrable Vote then? Rep by pop? What we have now is a number of parties that makes no sense under our political system. That leads to confused voters and stupid debates over who actually has a mandate to govern (see coalition crisis).

[SebC]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Edit: I'm not even going to waste my time trying to explain to you the concept of "your vote" combined with the other 4.2 million votes that were wasted on one of the eighteen fringe parties that ran in the last election.

I will. Actually, I'll just quote Wikipedia.

In the study of electoral systems, a wasted vote may be defined in two different ways:

1. Any vote which is not for an elected candidate.
2. Any vote which does not help to elect a candidate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasted_vote

Two ways to fix the wasted vote problem: voters get smarter, or we change the system for them.