Banks Sitting On Record Capital--- Straight From The Mouth Of The Beast

What to do with the money?! Why is that even a question when, for at least the last year, politicians have been promising to fix our crumbling, 50-year-old infrastructure?

---
"George Bush has declared the war on terrorism to be the cause of his generation. The cause of Canadian sovereignty will be ours." - John Godfrey, MP for Don Va

Our banks should try to sit on large amounts of money because we're a little fish in a big pond, our gov't prevents businesses like banks from doing business so it's much harder for them to compete in international markets. Canadians could get burned big time if our banks are caught with their pants down in the markets.

Our banks are some of the most profitable worldwide. They should be investing in our country, not selling us out.....but thanks for contributing Mr. Greenspan.

Yes, our banks are just fine. In fact, they were in good shape before they started stealing our own money from us even more! Service charges are a joke! It`s OUR money! They should be paying us generous interest, but lowered interest rates and service charges killed that! And all for what? So that the CEO of say, Royal Bank can give himself a bonus of $20 million? Government sanctioned robbery!!!

---
Dave Ruston

The way things are set up for them it is worse than just stealing our own money by charging service charges. Through almost nonexistent required reserves to back their deposits they have literally been given the right to print money by loaning out the same money many times over. But this is nothing new, as it has been going on since the 1600's, I believe, when this whole scheme started in England. For a good overview of the history of banking and how the above works read Paul Hellyer's book "Funny Money."

Yes, creating money out of thin air, as Hellyer calls it. Another reason for the government to print the money to fund projects. Hellyer advocated sharing the money creating task with the private banks 50-50.

---
Dave Ruston

Hey Dave, the 50-50 thing sounds good, but what so you think about having 5 big crown corporations that operated indepedently but were nationalized? This would inevitable meet with much more opposition south of the border, but France's Socialist Party tried to nationalzie their banks around 1981.

Actually, I like the idea. That is, of course, if it can be done without corruption. Then the banks would, under a government that cares, invest in Canada first and foremost! Only thing is, being that they`d all have the same boss, how would that affect competition between them? Then again, perhaps the idea of success could be perceived as how much good a particular bank does vs another. Such things as helping new home buyers, small businesses, interest free loans to municipalities in need, student loans, or grants, and scholarships, etc. Am I dreaming or what? Nevertheless, I think with dedicated, altruistic people, it is possible.

---
Dave Ruston

you can't just print money. All that'll happen will be inflation aka loss of purchasing power.

Anon, you haven't read many books on the subject.

Inflation is controlled by NOT printing too much money, which is very technical, and there are other ways to help the lower income families purchase their own homes, but don't look for 30 year mortgages in the near future, if at all.

That is what would allow most Canadians the right to own their own homes, but the system as it is now is totally against this idea.

A 30 year mortgage at a fixed interest rate is not in the bank's best interest, but it would allow a lot more families to purchase a home, then add on, then renovate, etc.

This could be called cash flow, but our current monetary system will not allow it.

If you really want to take a stretch, then consider the possibility of the banks to allow a mortgage on a smaller home, such as a one bedroom home like I grew up in. My grandfather had the bedroom, my parents converted the dining room into a bedroom and they converted the living room into 2 bedrooms, one for my 2 sisters and one for me.

We had a basement, but in those days we had to heat by coal, and there was very little in the way of converting the basement into a rec room, or even a basement apartment.

I have always wondered what ever happened to the 2-bedroom house.

Developers !!! There's no money in it !

So there we have it. Affordable housing is not available and I have to give you one more example.

I am currently living in a renovated trailer, not a travel trailer, but a trailer that was used in the past to house the workers on highway projects.

This trailer is 33' by 9'6" and it is comfortable. It is large enough to have a 10 X 9'6" bedroom, and a washroom of 4' X 9'6", which is ample room to do your regular duties.

The problem is, the municipality has a basic requirement that the house must be at least 600 sq. ft.

Mine is, including the sun room, 400 sq. ft.

I am living with a dog of some 14 lbs., definitely a lap dog (bigger than most, but I can take it), and I am having no problems whatsoever, regarding I have no hydro, no septic system, and no heating system as such, so I am heating by propane portable heaters.

I say this: the banks would not give me a mortgage to help me renovate the place, so I am going to live here until something better comes along.

The banks want minimum:

750 sq. ft.
must have a foundation, no pier pads or sono tubes

This is a blow to the small family starting out, as far as I'm concerned, there is no such thing as a starter home.

Interesting aside, when I was bringing up my family of 2 boys, I never heard the term "starter home" until the real estate agencies created it.

That is creative.


---
"Most politicians 'can't hold a job anywhere else...I mean, you're not dealing with top-drawer individuals.'" - Jeff Lyons, Toronto lobbyist.