It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
TORONTO – Canada thinks it can teach the world a thing or two about dodging financial meltdowns.
The 20 world leaders at an economic summit in Toronto next weekend will find themselves in a country that has avoided a banking crisis where others have floundered, and whose economy grew at a 6.1 percent annual rate in the first three months of this year. The housing market is hot and three-quarters of the 400,000 jobs lost during the recession have been recovered.
World leaders have noticed: President Barack Obama says the U.S. should take note of Canada's banking system, and Britain's Treasury chief is looking to emulate the Ottawa way on cutting deficits.
Largely as result of this particular difference, Canadian regulators have tended to be more assertive. Consider this observation from the New York Review of Book’s Feb. 12 article “How We Were Ruined & What We Can Do”: “[Allan] Greenspan had been given the authority to examine the quality of mortgage lending by Congress in the 1990s, but simply did not use it, pleading free-market principles. The SEC under Bush appointee [Christopher] Cox could have examined the books of investment banks, but again mostly did not bother.” Here in Ottawa, I’ve never heard of Office of the Superindendent of Financial Institutions shrinking from scrutinizing our banks, or the brokerage houses they bought after 1987.
One way in which American banking regulation is more intrusive than the Canadian system is the U.S. federal Community Reinvestment Act, which forces banks to lend in low-income areas. Andrew points to this as a mistake, which perhaps it is, but I haven’t read a persuasive case for the CRA being much of a factor in the subprime meltdown. On the contrary, Businessweek’s Aaron Pressman wrote last fall that the CRA can’t be plausibly blamed, since “50 per cent of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject comprehensive federal supervision and another 30 per cent were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations.” Pressman went on: “Not surprisingly given the higher degree of supervision, loans made under the CRA program were made in a more responsible way than other subprime loans.”
What do you guys think?
Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
reply to post by Equinox99
dont believe anything from yahoo, all these so called postive spin stories are just for the G20/G8 summit.
People from Alberta have been coming to toronto, looking for jobs, boy they made a bad move, there arent any jobs only part time jobs.
As for goverment jobs you need education, meaning you have to pay for that education if you dont your out.
Things arent pretty as this artlice wants to point out
Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
reply to post by Equinox99
dont believe anything from yahoo, all these so called postive spin stories are just for the G20/G8 summit.
People from Alberta have been coming to toronto, looking for jobs, boy they made a bad move, there arent any jobs only part time jobs.
As for goverment jobs you need education, meaning you have to pay for that education if you dont your out.
Things arent pretty as this artlice wants to point out
Originally posted by GrinchNoMore
That has to be the first time i have EVER heard someone say anything is due to not enough immigration, if anything it would be the reverse.
Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by v3_exceed
As a Canadian Business owner with multiple locations, I have to say that I have been hiring like CRAZY over the past year.
I've increased my overall workforce by almost 500 in the last two years. My business owning friends are going through the same thing.
~Keeper
Originally posted by v3_exceed
Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by v3_exceed
As a Canadian Business owner with multiple locations, I have to say that I have been hiring like CRAZY over the past year.
I've increased my overall workforce by almost 500 in the last two years. My business owning friends are going through the same thing.
~Keeper
Well considering the hard and soft costs on 500 employees, I'm going to call BS on that one. sorry. I appreciate that the internet provides a certain amount of anonymity as well as bravado, but the recursive expenses that go along with 500 employees as well as the ancillary costs make what your saying extremely unlikely.
I am also a Canadian business owner with multiple locations in Alberta and in BC. I can only go on my personal experience of the last 15 years as a business owner and the last 44 years as a Canadian. So you can say what you like, but your credibility has just gone down the tubes.
..Ex