I think this is the beginnings of an economy based on perpetual growth and fossil fuel energy running headlong into geological energy constraints. Basically I see an undulatory downward path for the rest of my life. From here out, I think any rallies in our economic condition are going to be met with spiking commodity prices that knock us right back down.
Posted: Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:36 pm Post subject: Re: The Gloom Spreads North
nobodypanic wrote:
stop damn you! you're killing me here. i just sprayed my computer with a mouthful of pepsi.
Pepsi is so much better than Coke. Coke lost when they stopped using glass bottles.
How the hell old am I?
In any case, stop drinking that crap!!
1. Straight sugar.
2. High acid will rot your teeth.
3. Diet has high phosphorus which may make your bones weak.
4. Expensive!
_________________ Massive Human Dieoff must occur as a result of Peak Oil. Many more than half will die. It will occur everywhere, including where you live. If you fail to recognize this, then your odds of living move toward the "going to die" group.
Joined: May 27, 2007 Posts: 1723 Location: The Post Peak Oil Historian
Posted: Sun Oct 05, 2008 11:10 pm Post subject: Re: The Gloom Spreads North
They stopped using glass bottles? All of them or just the 6 oz ones? _________________ In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. - George Orwell
It riles them to believe that you perceive the webs they weave. - Moody Blues
Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2008 5:20 am Post subject: Re: The Gloom Spreads North
Cas I am no prophet by any means. But I am aware that for about 100 years now, the political parties in Canada have used the US boogie man to scare weak minded people who can't figure out their own paycheques into voting for them. And it has become ingrained in the Canadian mind, that anything US is Bad Socialism/Communism is good. I also remember Liberal PM Lester Pearson, at the height of the anti-US move in the early 60's doing a study with Walter Gordon Canadian Finance Minister into the effects of ending all trade with the USA. The result of the lengthy study was that without US trade and finance into Canada. Our economy and lifestyle in Canada would drop back to what it had been by 40 years. The Liberals shelved the report quietly. Canadians do not understand how closely linked we are to the USA. Culturally, and financially. It was American investment that created the oil industry in Alberta. Now that being said, many many Albertans, and I suspect Dale amongst them, are borderline or semi-separatist. Federal Policies towards Alberta have created a bedrock pool of about 25% constant support in Alberta for our own Independant country. Alberta is the milch cow that unwillingly funds all the Socialist programs in Canada. Personally I would vote if given the chance for Independance in Alberta in a heartbeat. Canada has been run basically by one family for over 40 years. Alberta will slow back as Dale said. Real Estate is falling here in Alberta. Projects are being put on hold due to cost and financing. Commodities will drop. Depending how long the USA is in trouble will determine how deep in the crap Canada and Alberta sinks. Mexican oil production fell 9% this year, and will continue to fall. As the world closes in the USA will need Alberta oil more than ever, what will burst Alberta's bubble more than anything short term will be expanded oil production offshore USA, if it ever really brings on new production. And if any of the 4 Socialist Parties in Canada get elected with the Federal election Oct 14th in Canada. If they get in it will be very bad for Alberta. This will stiffen the necks of Albertans and strengthen the Independance movement in Alberta very fast. Many young people that bought real estate in Alberta near the top of the last peak wil be hurt. Those that saw it coming and got out of debt, will weather the storm better depending how deep it goes. The Gathering Storm is approaching us all. _________________ "Since you have chosen to elect a man with a timber toe to succeed me, you may all go to hell and I will go to Texas." Davy Crockett
Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2008 9:56 am Post subject: Re: The Gloom Spreads North
I agree completely.
Not everyone in Canuckistan drink's the Kool Aid, especially in the west.
Nickel is far from representative of the way all people think in Canada, again especially in the west.
Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 7:49 am Post subject: Re: The Gloom Spreads North
Quote:
I expect this mess to hit B.C. hard.
Our real estate is so out of whack compared to people's average incomes that I suspect it will crash harder here than anywhere else in Canada.
so true......and it's been that way for quite sometime. I remember back in the eighties that a 900 sq ft WWII bungalow in Kitsilano on a relatively small lot would easily sell for $400K versus a larger lot an brand spanking new home in Calgary for about $150. Now its more like 1.5 MM versus 600 K. I have a number of friends who live in Vancouver and it's nearby areas that have stated it is unlikely most people in the area will ever own their home in their lifetime as they all took the minimum downpayment route.
Price you must pay for living in Lotus land I suppose. The big difference now versus Alberta in the eighties is that inflation was at an all time high back then....people walked from their mortgages. As long as people in Vancouver can stay employed they should be OK as the Canadian banks seem to have largely dodged the bullet.
Joined: Jun 26, 2007 Posts: 1461 Location: The Canada of America
Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 8:03 am Post subject: Re: The Gloom Spreads North
Cashmere wrote:
Nickel has assured me that Canada's economy is not dependent on the U.S. economy.
No, Caz, what I've objected to are instances where you purport our ENTIRE economy is dependent on it. The great majority of trade is, in fact, domestic. I know we go on and on about being a trading nation, and we are, but the fact is that, as with most healthy economies, we consume the majority of what we produce and sell the excess. Foreign export trade represents about 37% of our economy, and of that, the US accounts for about 4/5, down from about 90% in the late 90s. Obviously a downturn in the US economy implies ramifications here. I never denied that. It's one of the reasons I've been championing expanding our trade with other countries and why I really hope we strike a deal with the EU.
We need to keep some perspective. First of all, some industries will be hit more than others. Manufacturing, unfortunately, tends to produce things people WANT, but can do without, where raw materials and energy tend to be things they NEED. So some sectors will experience more of a downturn than others. It also requires a reduction of sales to the US over over 3% to represent a 1% contraction in our economy. Unless the entire planet winds up living in refrigerator crates (in which case, it's a bit much to single out Canada), the US is always going to need to buy things from Canada.
So aside from the trade aspect, we need to also keep in mind that many of the fundamentals are different. We have a separate currency, a separate interest rates structure and bond issue, a separate debt and debt servicing structure, an economy that has been paying down the debt since 1995 instead of increasing it, and only a handful of chartered banks, whose exposure to the housing bubble in the US is concerning but limited by a lot of regulation.
Will things get bad here? Sure; it's a global downturn. Will they get as bad as in the States? I have my doubts. The economic fundamentals, as I've said, are different here. I haven't seen RBC or CIBC or TD or BMO or ScotiaBank about to topple over because of bad debt (oh, sure, they're bitching about negative numbers and looking for sympathy, but that's not the same thing), or having to be propped up or bought up by the federal government. Canada was always more conservative when it came to deregulation, and though the banks screamed about it in the past, I've been be reading lately that there's some grudging acceptance that maybe it wasn't a bad idea after all.
Moley's not the only one who can quote from the Globe, by the way...
Quote:
Lucky or prescient? Chretien takes credit for stronger banks
From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
October 8, 2008 at 1:42 AM EDT
NEW YORK — Jean Chretien is smiling.
Ten years ago this fall, after his government rejected a pair of proposed bank mergers, the financial community was awash in dire prophesy: Canadian banks were too small to compete with their bulked-up neighbours to the south, the critics complained.
They were too insulated to remain relevant in a global economy characterized by lightning change and mind-bendingly complex products.
Yet today, amid the worst financial crisis in a generation, those predictions have been turned squarely on their head. While Wall Street titans succumb to a credit meltdown, spreading their contagion to Europe, the Canadian banking system has emerged as the most stable and best performing in the world.
Three Canadian banks are now in the top 10 in North America by market value, and the remaining two are not far behind.
Mr. Chretien, who faced considerable Bay Street backlash for his stance on the banks, now credits his government's policy with helping to ward off the financial meltdown currently gripping much of the G8.
“While everybody's in turmoil, Canada is not in turmoil,” Mr. Chretien explained in a brief interview.
“And the two big reasons are that we balanced the books in '95, and we said no to the merger of the banks.”
Of course, it's impossible to say with any certainty whether the decision to quash two mergers – one between Royal Bank of Canada and Bank of Montreal, the other between Toronto-Dominion Bank and Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce – shielded the Canadian industry from the mortgage-fuelled fallout that has ravaged Wall Street.
One school of thought is that if the Canadian banks gained scale through mergers in 1998, they would have made bolder moves south of the border, and perhaps become entangled in the same toxic lending activities that have prompted the collapse of several major U.S. banks.
Indeed, sources said that had RBC and BMO joined forces, one of their first acquisition targets would have been Wachovia Corp., the North Carolina bank that has been hobbled by soured mortgages, and is now the subject of a takeover battle between Citigroup Inc. and Wells Fargo.
“It was a crazy race they were in,” Mr. Chretien said of the U.S. banks, which were expanding frantically in the belief that bigger was better.
“Our guys were not in that race because they claimed they were too regulated.”
Charles Baillie, the former head of TD, believes that had the Canadian banks merged, they would have been able to resist the temptation of reckless lending that consumed Wall Street, and might be in a better position now to participate in an industry-wide buying frenzy.
Yet he acknowledges it's no sure thing, and said that the current health of the banking sector probably nullifies any appetite for industry mergers.
“If we had been allowed to merge, we might have thought that we were big characters and played more aggressively,” he said. “But I think it's more likely we would have played by the same lending standards we have now.”
RBC, TD, and BMO have each established a presence in the U.S. market, albeit not in the transformative way they may have imagined when they lobbied for mergers. And CIBC's painful experience in investment banking there in the late 1990s proved that a bank can find trouble through foreign expansion regardless of whether they first tie the knot with a domestic partner.
Yet while the impact of merger policy is debatable, the issue of culture isn't: indeed, it is one of the main reasons why the Canadian industry has remained stable in the face of a global banking mess.
Canadian banks have historically been more cautious lenders than their U.S. peers, preferring to hang on to most loans they underwrite rather than package them off in complex securities to third parties.
The numbers bear this out: As of the end of last year, only 23 per cent of mortgage loans in Canada had been securitized, with the remainder sitting on the balance sheets of federally regulated institutions. In the U.S. market, by contrast, 51 per cent of mortgage debt had been moved off balance sheets through securitization, much of it Byzantine.
Ian de Verteuil, a BMO Nesbitt Burns analyst who compiled the numbers in a recent research report, noted that there are several problems with such a heavy reliance on securitizations. Underwriting standards become less stringent (if you're not keeping a loan on your books, there's less reason to be picky); the complexity of the securities backed by these mortgages require more reliance on rating agencies, which have shown themselves to be sorely lacking; and the fact that many of these securities are held by unregulated entities like hedge funds makes central bank interventions less effective.
“We believe the fundamental difference between the Canadian and the U.S. banking systems is that Canada still effectively runs an on-balance-sheet banking system, while the U.S. does not,” Mr. de Verteuil wrote in his report.
This is not to say there haven't been problems: several of the banks have had exposure to subprime mortgages and faltering bond insurers.
CIBC, the worst hit, suffered almost $7-billion in writedowns.
Even so, the capital position of these banks remains very strong, and investors have noticed this. Although the index of Canadian banks has fallen about 10 per cent this year, that is far less than the U.S. industry (25 per cent), Europe (38 per cent) or Asia (37 per cent). And this relative strength has catapulted RBC to the number four ranking among North America's big banks – a big leap, considering its planned merger with BMO in 1998 would have made the combined company a distant 10th.
Instead of being devoured, the Canadian banks might do some devouring of their own. Chief executives of the Big Five are being pitched daily on potential acquisitions in the U.S. sector, and most believe they will find some bargains to fuel their expansion.
Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 11:28 am Post subject: Re: The Gloom Spreads North
Nickel, one thing to keep in mind, Chretien did not create the banking system in Canada it has existed like that for over 100 years. And the only reason he did not take the bait was not from wisdom. I remember the event quite well. It was because he would have faced a serious backlash from all Canadian's and the polls on the proposed mergers and changes told him to leave things alone. Luckily he took the advice of Canadians. _________________ "Since you have chosen to elect a man with a timber toe to succeed me, you may all go to hell and I will go to Texas." Davy Crockett
Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 11:53 am Post subject: Re: Hey, I thought Harper said Canada had no economic proble
And you believed him? _________________ The whole of human history is a refutation by experiment of the concept of "moral world order". - Friedrich Nietzsche
Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 12:03 pm Post subject: Re: Hey, I thought Harper said Canada had no economic proble
Dreamtwister wrote:
And you believed him?
Moi?
Not at all, he clearly is in over his head and now desperately tries to learn how to swim. For him it was never about Leadership or Vision always about having the power, hence why he pulled a fast one for the election hoping to beat reality and sticking us with four more years of his "Leadership".
Last edited by Snowrunner on Thu Oct 09, 2008 12:30 pm; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 12:06 pm Post subject: Re: Hey, I thought Harper said Canada had no economic proble
Since Harper's neocon masters are at a loss, he is completely helpless.
The Chicago school is dying quickly and he has no where to go. _________________ Gravity is not a force, it is a boundary layer.
Everything is coincident.
Love: the state of suspended anticipation.
To get any appreciable distance from the Earth in
a sensible amount of time, you must lie.
Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 1:38 pm Post subject: Re: Hey, I thought Harper said Canada had no economic proble
Everything is so tangled together on a global scale so I doubt Canada will be spared. The U.S. is going to get it the worst still though. You know with everything that is happening, It's so surreal that I'm sitting here on my laptop still living a normal life. When do you suppose everything is going to go nuts?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
