http://fora.tv/2008/10/16/Naomi_Klein_Disaster_Capitalism

Naomi really helps illustrate the issues behind how our Conservatives think. Take the time to learn and understand what she says.

The neo-con current is weak and reaches only measurable levels in Alberta and Saskatchewan where people are being recklessly marginalized by greed.
Call it leftie and pretend like you can laugh at it. Shake your head, turn your nose up, it’s all the same unthinking crap. It’s totally about ego as Reform-conservatism is a fashion statement more than a political belief.

Of course anything outside your acceptable regime of right ideals is extreme. I can always trust a misinformed con to resort to decades old red-bashing. But I mean, McCarthyism? Really? You gotta upgrade your propaganda if you’re trying to out-window-dress me.

You’re in a fantasy if you think any of the moves you mentioned didn’t come at the expense of the society around you.

It’s not that I disagree about people getting into too much debt. But the cause originates from the same problem-point that people are trying to base solutions off of.
Many people can’t be bothered to think about it because just like how their parents failed to teach them social values, they failed to teach them good personal finances.

But the other half of the blame lies with people who are taking advantage of the situation and that is by far more deliberate. The buyers are only doing what they’ve been doing for decades: Buying houses in a prosperous nation of collective wealth.

What changed? The answer is obvious. People saw an opportunity to milk it and did so, thus creating the problem. It’s not the buyers’ faults, they come from all walks of life.
People have grown up in privileged comfort regardless of their income or status, left or right. Where it differs is that all the ones who failed to understand their roots now rally under the views of the “right”. They think wealth was something they earned themselves and that it is something to hold over others.

You think you’re self made, but you’re not. Go be self made alone, without society around you. Without people to take advantage of, without consideration to leverage.

Therein lies my complaint. The Reformers – because they certainly aren’t red tories as they would want you to think (hmm, why would that be, maybe because we’re socialists?!) – want to divide our country into two classes.
Anything they do is from the perspective that people most like them will profit, and that everyone else can suffer to give it to them.
That’s why people are getting blamed and not the sellers and the lenders. Listen to the phrasings even here, it’s all the stupid unwashed masses fault, right?

It won’t be long before you’re paranoid enough to call everything communism. That sentiment is the last resort argument of choice for nose turning cons.
But you choose not to address anything because you can’t. To deny it would be to deny everything that put you where you are.
Again, I’m so sick of addressing the same bravado and talk-down mentality you cons have, none of you get it.

Canada grew as a social democracy, and is falling as a conservative communism. To assume otherwise is just contrived and ignorant. That is why 66% of the government scrambles to block the Reformers.
It’s not because they hate them like the bunch of angry children they are. It’s because the Reformers are only in it for themselves.

One day you’ll learn, because their greed will ultimately outpace yours.

Merry Christmas.

10% of Canadians having trouble paying their mortgages with small interest rate hikes is huge. I wonder how this would affect those recently laid off from Potash Corp? They may get other jobs, but unlikely they’ll match old incomes.

Wow Alex. I have no idea where to begin. I will say a few things though…..I never said “nothing’s wrong”. There is a lot wrong and it has to be corrected and it will be corrected.
I agree with Jen, core fundamentals for lending went out the window a few years ago. In my adult life, I have transferred all over western Canada with my work and had therefore gone through 14 different properties. Sometimes I made money, sometimes I lost money but the bottom line was that everytime I bought, I had to qualify with 10% down and a reasonable debt ratio. It was tough at times but I knew that if I qualified, I would be able to afford it. That isn’t happening now.
There are many people out there who have bought with little or nothing down the last couple of years and its going to come back and bite them hard. I don’t feel bad for those who get burned because of greed. They chose not to live within their means.

I choose not to address the rest of your extreme left socialist rhetoric. You’re swimming against a very strong current and will have to decide if you can live with it. If not, there are other countries that cater to your ideals….although the citizens there tend to be an oppressed lot.

I’ll never forget reading Animal Farm in high school….and what I took from that book was that while socialism is perfect and wonderful on paper, it doesn’t apply to everyday living and doesn’t promote freedom. People tend to like freedom, Alex. Freedom to prosper and freedom to screw up and start all over again.

Good luck to you.

Jen,

I think you’re absolutely correct that all of these incentives, programs, and softening of the guidelines have driven homes prices higher. “Mr. Market” was doing some wonderful work before interest rates were lowered to nothing and it is too bad that some of these programs which made home ownership more attainable for more people may have to go as a result. It’s too bad that they hadn’t worked on adjusting those amortization periods incrementally over the past couple of years.

Merry Christmas! (Greeting intended only for those who celebrate Christmas, and not intended to offed anyone who doesn’t. You’re still cool in my books)

I’m sorry Alex, but I have to respectfully disagree with your assertion that Mr. Flaherty is proposing anything that will be excluding Canadians from something they have enjoyed for “decades”. CMHC started insuring 30, 35, and then 40-year mortgages in 2006, didn’t they? Do correct me if this isn’t right. Prior to this, 25-year amortizations and substantial down-payments were typical, and the housing market held it’s own level for decades. People needed to save more for longer prior to buying a house, but it still happened. If the excess liquidity that was added several years ago is taken away it may be temporarily painful for some buyers, but the market will find its own level again. I’m not saying this to be “exclusive” in any sense of the word- I think everyone deserves decent housing, and we need to do a much better job as a society in making sure that this is available.

I would like to argue that it was at least partially the sharp increase in “affordability” that extending amortizations and lowering down-payments allowed that is what led to the housing market to it’s current highs. The sharp lowering of interest rates has merely added fuel to the market fire, particularly the bubblier markets of Vancouver and Toronto. I’d also like to add that if national average real estate prices rising 20% during one of the nastiest recessions in a couple of generations isn’t “irrational”, I’m not sure what is. Housing has been disconnected from the fundamentals, such as price-to-income and price to rent ratios, that it is taking an increasingly high level of most people’s incomes to keep a roof over their head. This isn’t good for anyone, long term.

Hope you have a great holiday, Alex.

It really gets me having to repeat the same responses to the same disinformation continuously.
I don’t understand what it takes to convince people that they are trashing our nation with these values. You enjoy a quality of life that I will promise you was not nurtured into existence by rampant greed.

I have offered solutions in prior threads (one just recently), but they are of course too ridiculous or un-moderate because they address the problem directly. Which is obviously not what people like Flaherty are out to do. The Conservatives want to preserve the market of getting something for nothing because it puts them and their status further above others.

You exemplify the very point I made initially which is that the freedom-boosters are always dissatisfied with what they get. “We’ve never had it.”, “A good example of it was.”, yet somehow we’re to believe that it works, never existed, doesn’t exist today, has existed and didn’t work because it wasn’t done right…Am I missing any? Libertarian idealists to me are a very wild and inconsistent bunch, most people see them for what they are: Biased.

I am thrilled by your use of “Western society” because I think that itself has become subtly conflated with a sense of brotherhood of the *Canadian West*. You are switching on some clever techniques used nowadays by the Reform-right to popularize self destructive anti government paranoia. Essentially anarchy for the rich. We saw where that got the U.S., I’d like you to find someone credible who agrees that Canada needs to go down those roads.

Yet sadly, this ignorance is what continues to plunge our country deeper and deeper into its problems. It has become a vice for our nation to think that you can build wealth entirely on what amounts to financial nonsense. With each passing day we become less and less capable of producing goods and providing services.

Conspicuously the businesses and the capitalists (sorry for making it us vs. them) are constantly redirecting blame to the government. So are you trying to say I’m blaming businesses because I have no proof?
I have proof that the government does what I want for me! I wake up to cleared streets, I get fresh clean water to my home, I get lighting, electricity, affordable public insurance, health care.
Yet I run out of air in the room naming the services and products I avoid because saintly capitalism has withered every aspect of them to nothing save for one thing: They keep taking more money. Less truly does mean more it seems!

The most I can take away is that you’re saying “nothing’s wrong, leave it”. Sorry to say, those are yesterday’s views.

It’s time to get up to speed with what everyone is realizing: Rampant capitalism and exceptions for it (be it through regulatory capture at the government level or market consolidation within the markets themselves) hve created a nightmare for Canadians.

So, to tie this all back in to what Flaherty is proposing. He’s basically excluding more Canadians from something they have enjoyed for decades. There’s lasting damage and impact in creating a wealth barrier around home ownership. Mainly that you are abandoning much of the working and middle class.
Two-tiering seems to be the result of every effort made by the Conservatives, clearly that is the direction they want to take this country. I think you’ll also find they’d most enjoy it if that two-tier split West to East. People aren’t going to stand for that much longer not even most of the 33% who were tricked into voting for them.

We know now we need to get into the plumbing of how our capitalism is allowed to operate as part of our society. It has become a threat to our collective livelihood.
There’s an interesting root to the term society and what meaning it shares with the term social. I think it’s obvious enough that I won’t have to explain it to you.
I’d like you to consider what you’re saying a little more closely because to me it seems reflexive and not very thought out. I know what I believe to be true because I wanted to know how and why I enjoy the quality of life that I do.

Being a “realist” just sounds like an unsubstantiated way of saying “I’m right and you’re wrong”.
I am not a realist, gloomer or a booster if that’s the game you’re playing. I’ve been saying things won’t work (and they haven’t) and I will continue to say it until politics is for the people.
When decisions being made are based on a genuine desire to solve the problem and not making partisan attempts to create loopholes for wealth, I’ll gladly say “wow!”

So I don’t think this comment alone will stop the market, they are going to have to go through with it and actually change the rules. I am just curious how they will respond if they overdo it and housing prices actually start to decrease?

As far as the ethics of the whole thing, this is not a good trend. The government is increasingly micro-managing, first with interest rates and now with CMHC rules. If they just left interest rates alone in the first time we wouldn’t be in this boat to begin with.

You’re very quick to criticize and point out the problem but offer no solutions.
Markets are either free or they are not. You can’t switch between free and controlled based on the current situation or when we have a problem. It doesn’t work that way and if you can find a country that can do that and is not oppressive to it’s citizens, I would suggest you look for a place to live there.
Our western society is not only a democracy but is also based on capitalism. Sure we have adopted a few socialist ideas but by and large, we all want the freedom to do what we want. Capitalism is not the issue. The issue is manipulation by a chosen few to feed on the greed of many….which has been building the last 5 years. It can only go for so long and then a correction is needed. True, the rich usually come out ok and can still benefit but that doesn’t mean everyone else suffers…just the greedy ones who bit off more than they could handle. Should the rest of us have to bail them out? I don’t think so.
I have no problem with the gov’t changing the rules for qualifying for a CMHC mortgage since they are the ones guaranteeing the bill. Should have been done long ago. If the banks still want to give mortgages out with no money or 5% down with a VRM and not be CMHC approved, let them do so but I’m pretty confident that the banks won’t be interested.
When rates go up in the new year…and I think theres a good chance it will be before June… that will also kill sales. It will also likely get more than a few homeowners foreclosed on when they see what happens to their rates when they want to lock in for 5 years. It has to happen. The pendulum swung way too far and sooner or later, it has to swing back. No gov’t, capitalist or socialist will be able stop it. I’m not a gloomer…I’m a realist.

Without a doubt! Many more have said that we never have and still don’t have free markets. They swear that it hasn’t been done right until they get what they want. It’s a culture of dissatisfaction. You never can get it straight because everyone has some kind of hidden agenda for supporting the theory.

Free market idealism crosses so many boundaries, it’s an ideal that gets thrown around by people simply trying to get what they want. It can be bent to any purpose and is quite easy to sell.

Yet every time we try to ease ourselves into the free market theories, we find out very quickly just how many deep stones there really are.

We’ve tried it, it’s not the solution – for now. It might be a good package of ideals in general! Trust me, I’m a nut for “free” in just about every application of the term – but not while we have so many problems.

We can’t hang people out to dry who haven’t done anything wrong.

Flaherty proves his ineligibility for his position by demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of what the solution needs to be.

This could definitely kill sales, but the prices won’t be affected. If your intent is to “stimulate the economy”™, then you’re going to have to repair some of the damage that was already done.
We are in this mess *because* of free market idealism, and just as I always predict in free market theories: It works out for the people who have the most money & equity to begin with, while everyone else gets screwed.

No economic recovery will be realized while we have governments that refuse to address the problems at hand. All we’re getting right now are misinterpretations to justify ramming through more capitalist welfare.

Yes, and the debate begins…

Any change to mortgage regulations is potentially dangerous, warned CIBC World Markets economist Benjamin Tal, because the government could “overshoot” its goal. While Mr. Tal agrees the market is showing signs of overheating, he said prices should “stagnate” in the coming months as pent-up demand is satisfied and new housing starts alleviate a shortage of listings for older homes.

“My message to the government is to be careful not to overshoot,” he said. “You do not kill a fly with a hammer. Housing is a very important part of the economic recovery, which is still very fragile. You do not want to ruin that market.”