Justin Trudeau running for Liberal leadership

[Jacks]

Don't think the note is a big deal either. Not sure why he felt compelled to use a quote from his father but, meh whatever. The media is making a huge deal about it though.

Conservatives have issued a response.
http://nationalpostnews.files.wordpr...le-duddle.jpeg

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Yeah that's more what I was wondering. Doesn't the finance minster have some sway though?

Not to my knowledge. The Finance Minister controls fiscal policy (tax rates, government spending) while the Governor of the BoC controls monetary policy (interest rates, monetary supply).

[SebC]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Not to my knowledge. The Finance Minister controls fiscal policy (tax rates, government spending) while the Governor of the BoC controls monetary policy (interest rates, monetary supply).

Which is a good thing. The government has far too much incentive to sacrifice the long term in favour of the short term.

[Zulu29]

Has this really ever happened before? As a former (their actions of late have totally turned me off) conservative supporter this just reeks of unnecessary meddling. It totally goes against conservative values of allowing free market. They got rid of the wheat board, why is it ok for farmers to sell their grain on an open market but not banks to sell their mortgages?

I understand that there is historic debt levels, but they can't have their cake and eat it too. They've already re-introduced 25 year mortgages (which they played with allowing 40 year ones til it bit them) as well as the minimum down payment amount. Leave it alone.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Not to my knowledge. The Finance Minister controls fiscal policy (tax rates, government spending) while the Governor of the BoC controls monetary policy (interest rates, monetary supply).

I was under the impression that the BoC wasn't as seperate as the Fed down south. That they basically followed the fiscal policy and wishes of the finance minister. But it's very possible I could be wrong.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

Has this really ever happened before? As a former (their actions of late have totally turned me off) conservative supporter this just reeks of unnecessary meddling. It totally goes against conservative values of allowing free market. They got rid of the wheat board, why is it ok for farmers to sell their grain on an open market but not banks to sell their mortgages?

It's the government that will have to bail out the banks and mortgages if the crap hits the fan. They have good reason to meddle. The reason Canada came through the recession in good shape compared to other countries is because of better regulation of the banks.

I would normally agree that less government the better but in this case I like having my money guaranteed not to go poof if bank goes bankrupt.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Daradon

I was under the impression that the BoC wasn't as seperate as the Fed down south. That they basically followed the fiscal policy and wishes of the finance minister. But it's very possible I could be wrong.

Yeah, I think you're wrong.

First, fiscal policy (taxation and government spending) is not the domain of the BoC. That is exclusively the responsibility of the Minister of Finance. The BoC governs monetary policy (interest rates and monetary supply).

The Deputy Minister of Finance has a non-voting position on the board of the BoC, but the organization itself is kept at arm's length from the ruling government of the day. The Minister of Finance does technically have the power to dictate a specific monetary policy, but this power has never been used in the Bank's 75-year history. For several decades across multiple different governments, the BoC's mandate has been to pursue a monetary policy that maintains a steady annual rate of inflation between 1-3%.

From the BoC website:

The Bank is not a government department and conducts its activities with considerable independence compared with most other federal institutions. For example:

The Governor and Senior Deputy Governor are appointed by the Bank's Board of Directors (with the approval of Cabinet), not by the federal government.

The Deputy Minister of Finance sits on the Board of Directors but has no vote.

The Bank submits its expenditures to its Board of Directors. Federal government departments submit theirs to the Treasury Board.

Bank employees are regulated by the Bank itself, not by federal public service agencies.

The Bank's books are audited by external auditors appointed by Cabinet on the recommendation of the Minister of Finance, not by the Auditor General of Canada.

And from wikipedia:

The Bank is not a government department as it performs its activities at arm's-length from the government; it is a Crown corporation owned by the Government. Shares are directly held by the Minister of Finance on behalf of Her Majesty in right of Canada which are registered by the Bank in the name of the Minister in the books of the Bank at Ottawa, and the bank's earnings go into the federal treasury. The Governor and Senior Deputy Governor are appointed by the Bank's Board of Directors. The Deputy Minister of Finance sits on the Board of Directors but does not have a vote. The Bank submits its spending to the Board of Directors, while federal departments submit their spending estimates to the Treasury Board. Its employees are regulated by the Bank and not the federal public service agencies.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Fire

It's the government that will have to bail out the banks and mortgages if the crap hits the fan. They have good reason to meddle. The reason Canada came through the recession in good shape compared to other countries is because of better regulation of the banks.

I would normally agree that less government the better but in this case I like having my money guaranteed not to go poof if bank goes bankrupt.

Sure, except this isn't exactly the kind of risk that caused the financial crisis. It wasn't just low rates in that instance, it was the fact that the mortgages were to people who ought not to have had mortgages in the first place. Things like 'NINJA' mortgages, No Income No Job. The rates escalated in many cases as well, so that was another factor. Then the banks turned around and packaged up these mortgages and magically got them AAA rated despite them being poorer quality, and resold them as such.

There were other activities that the banks were engaging in as well, writing derivative contracts and debt swaps and the like. This was where the risks started to get way out of hand as contracts were 'insured' between institutions and underlying values were questionable at best. Almost none of this has to do with banks competing on tenths of percent of interest rates though.

[SebC]

Would be nice if we could keep this thread about Trudeau and move the Flaherty mortgage stuff to the Flaherty mortgage thread.

[Daradon]

Okey Dokey.

As far as the note goes, I don't see what the problem is, but people who are already prejudiced against Trudeau are going to hate it.

As was said, what else is he supposed to say. Thank you, I'll do my best?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Okey Dokey.

As far as the note goes, I don't see what the problem is, but people who are already prejudiced against Trudeau are going to hate it.

As was said, what else is he supposed to say. Thank you, I'll do my best?

"You bet I will"

"Count on it"

"Take it to the bank"

"Without question"

"Yes sir, I sure can"

"Yes"

"I can with your help"

"It's my full intention"

"the magic 8 ball indicates...yes"

etc etc

Instead...we get a quip his father made famous.

I have absolutely no issue with him saying he will/can beat the Cons, but this was just to transparent. Coat tail riding to a new degree.

[Daradon]

Heheh, well the one about the magic eight ball would be better. Might get my vote.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by transplant99

"You bet I will"

"Count on it"

"Take it to the bank"

"Without question"

"Yes sir, I sure can"

"Yes"

"I can with your help"

"It's my full intention"


"the magic 8 ball indicates...yes"

etc etc

Instead...we get a quip his father made famous.

I have absolutely no issue with him saying he will/can beat the Cons, but this was just to transparent. Coat tail riding to a new degree.

Harper will hand me victory

[SebC]

Originally Posted by transplant99

"You bet I will"

"Count on it"

"Take it to the bank"

"Without question"

"Yes sir, I sure can"

"Yes"

"I can with your help"

"It's my full intention"

"the magic 8 ball indicates...yes"

etc etc

Instead...we get a quip his father made famous.

I have absolutely no issue with him saying he will/can beat the Cons, but this was just to transparent. Coat tail riding to a new degree.

A lot of people like to make references to other things. This is their sense of humour. Holy manufactured outrage, Batman!

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by SebC

A lot of people like to make references to other things. This is their sense of humour. Holy manufactured outrage, Batman!

Outraged? LOL....hardly.

Just shows a complete lack of originality and exemplifies, again, how the guy is almost exclusively he is where he is....because of his father.

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Outraged? LOL....hardly.

Just shows a complete lack of originality and exemplifies, again, how the guy is almost exclusively he is where he is....because of his father.

I think what this shows you have no idea what it would take to win an election.

The smartest and absoloute best answer would be the line his father used. As any person with political savy and marketing would agree.

Politics and money starts from the strength of the base.

If there is a person out there who agrees with your opinion, they were never going to vote for him anyway. He needs his base to win not some guys in Alberta who never liked his dad.

You do know he is trying to win an election? Do you think he will win this running from his name or running to it?

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

I think what this shows you have no idea what it would take to win an election.

The smartest and absoloute best answer would be the line his father used. As any person with political savy and marketing would agree.

Politics and money starts from the strength of the base.

If there is a person out there who agrees with your opinion, they were never going to vote for him anyway. He needs his base to win not some guys in Alberta who never liked his dad.

You do know he is trying to win an election? Do you think he will win this running from his name or running to it?

The smartest and absolute best answer for someone who's entire platform is his last name.

He can't run on his own merit, he has none. So yea this is what he should be doing.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

The smartest and absolute best answer for someone who's entire platform is his last name.

He can't run on his own merit, he has none. So yea this is what he should be doing.

Sure, his platform isn't amazing (at this point), but that's hardly the main ingredient for electoral success. While its just my opinion, quite often the party with the most well thought out platform isn't the most popular when it comes time for people to cast their ballot. Name recognition is key, without question (and one of the reasons an incumbent is so hard to beat).

Aside from that, look what he'll be running against. One party who elected a swath of young and inexperienced MPs predominantly from one province who was suddenly hungry for change. A government with an ever increasing debt who has hardly stuck to any fiscally conservative principles - they've spent more than any government in history, meddled in the 'free' markets and are hardly beacons of austerity and efficiency. My point is that maybe his platform isn't awe inspiring at this time, but then again none of them are. Aside from pure partisanship it would be hard to look at what's on paper and get enthused about any of them!

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

The smartest and absolute best answer for someone who's entire platform is his last name.

He can't run on his own merit, he has none. So yea this is what he should be doing.

I'm glad we agree

[Bootsy]

Originally Posted by Slava

Sure, his platform isn't amazing (at this point), but that's hardly the main ingredient for electoral success. While its just my opinion, quite often the party with the most well thought out platform isn't the most popular when it comes time for people to cast their ballot. Name recognition is key, without question (and one of the reasons an incumbent is so hard to beat).

Aside from that, look what he'll be running against. One party who elected a swath of young and inexperienced MPs predominantly from one province who was suddenly hungry for change. A government with an ever increasing debt who has hardly stuck to any fiscally conservative principles - they've spent more than any government in history, meddled in the 'free' markets and are hardly beacons of austerity and efficiency. My point is that maybe his platform isn't awe inspiring at this time, but then again none of them are. Aside from pure partisanship it would be hard to look at what's on paper and get enthused about any of them!

I don't disagree with that , which makes it even that more disheartening that Trudeau is who the Liberals are going with.
I don't agree with almost anything the NDP stands for , I'm not particular happy with the direction the Conservatives are headed by messing with the "free" markets and then Trudeau who doesn't fall far from the tree only with much less substance, he'd be a disaster for Alberta, I'm sure he'd be loved in Quebec though.

There's no chance I'd ever vote for the NDP or a Liberal lead by Trudeau.
Basically it has just right of center voters like myself left with one option of voting for the Cons in fear of one of the others will get in.