REGULATION? HOW MUCH?
Here's an interesting debate.
The EU wants major bank reforms.
They want standards set, tax havens exposed and closed down, more cash on hand for gloomy days and more transparency.
Well, not so fast there.
Canada and the U.S. do not agree.
The fear is that too much regulation will stifle the economy.
Hahahahahaha...
Of course, our "free enterprise system" our open market Eden has done so well for us all.
Little glitches like shuttered homes, businesses and banks? No problem. The taxpayers can always bail them out.
Couldn't Obama and Harper consider for a moment a little more oversight on lenders and financial institutions have been running riot these past few years with universally disastrous results?
5 comments:
David,
I disagree with your lumping the US and Canada together when it comes to financial regulation. Canada is leagues ahead of the US, and Europe, on regulation of the banking sector. It is the envy of the industrialized world right now.
On the contrary, if Harper can get his pending legislation creating one national securities regulator through parliament, we'll be in much better shape, and the little guy (i.e. small investors and taxpayers) will be better served and protected.
To much regulation may expose US and Canadian politico's drug dealer friends.
Just follow the money old chaps!
In 1997 when the US went into Japan to sort out their economic crisis, the first thing they did was tell Japan to let banks fail, offer no bailouts and keep interest rates high. It looks like what's good for the goose is not acceptable to the Gander.
I believe the reason Harper and Obama are against tougher banking regulations is they won't be able to lend money at such ridiculously low rates.
It is time we went back to the old virtues of saving our money, and building wealth through capital appreciation, not speculation.
Keynesian economics fails to recognise the importance saving has for the betterment of our economy, and will lead us back to the inflation of the seventies and eighties.
The arrogance, greed 'n' UNaccountability of bankers 'n' CEO is outrageous if not criminal!
This from Stephen Hume's piece (Vancouver Sun, Feb. 21, 2009)
Given all this economic gloom, my jaw dropped when I read reports that until the British government spiked the plan this week, executives from the Royal Bank of Scotland intended to grant themselves more than $1.5 billion Cdn in bonuses for their stellar performance in 2008.
This year's bonuses were okay, it seems, because they represented a 60-per-cent drop from bonuses paid in 2007. Wait a minute: In 2007 that bank lost more than $12 billion Cdn. It was teetering on the brink of insolvency when the public saved it with an injection of about $40 billion.
Pardon me, but this leads to an impolite question. Whatever happened to the idea that people should be accountable to the community for behaviour that affects the community?
Post a Comment