How bad will it get?

Facing the worst financial crisis in decades, five experts chart out the future

by Steve Maich on Thursday, November 27, 2008 9:00am - 50 Comments

How bad will it get?

Last week brought another massive plunge on world stock markets, followed by yet another government bailout of a troubled bank—this time a US$300-billion lifeline from the U.S. Federal Reserve to Citigroup. The S&P/TSX Composite index has now dropped by 44 per cent since June, wiping out more than four years of market gains, and marking the sharpest decline for Canadian stocks on record. Millions are wondering and worrying about job security, the value of their homes and what’s happening to their dreams of retirement.

With North Americans now embarking on the biggest shopping season of the year, the economy is at a critical point, and Maclean’s assembled five of Canada’s brightest financial minds to answer some of the most pressing questions in the air:

• Patricia Croft, chief economist at RBC Global Asset Management

• Don Drummond, chief economist with TD Bank Financial Group

• David Rosenberg, chief North American economist at Merrill Lynch

• Avery Shenfeld, managing director and senior economist with CIBC World Markets

• George Vasic, equity strategist and chief economist at UBS Securities Canada.

Due to scheduling conflicts, Maclean’s interviewed each participant separately. This is an edited transcript of their comments.

Maclean’s: How would you describe what has happened on the stock markets over the past three months?

Vasic: Other than to say it’s been traumatic? I’d say, we’ve certainly seen a historic plunge in markets on the back of a potential financial system collapse that was inconceivable in the minds of virtually all investors.

Croft: It’s been absolutely incredible. This is the worst bear market in stocks since the Great Depression. In some ways it feels like a vortex. You get swept up in it every day.

Drummond: We’ve gone from a period in which the general expectation is that the U.S. economy, despite increasing signs of trouble, was going to go on growing rapidly forever, to a feeling now that it’s just falling endlessly and has not reached a bottom.

Shenfeld: [The markets have] seen the typical selling you’d expect to see in a recession, coupled with a broader wave of forced selling by fund managers who’ve seen redemptions or have had to pay back loans. This sell-off has been much larger than what one would have expected from an ordinary recession and even worse than what we’ve seen in past financial crises.

M: We heard Stephen Harper sound a pretty grim tone at the APEC meetings over the weekend. What should we take from his comments?

Vasic: He’s preparing us for the fact that the surplus is going to turn into a deficit. Canada has more fiscal firepower at its disposal than you’d see in the U.S. or Europe or anywhere. The real question is whether we want to deploy it or not. If I were Mr. Harper I wouldn’t be very aggressive on using it. The history of all these fiscal initiatives [like massive increases in government spending] is that a) they come too late, and b) they’re hard to get off once the economy recovers. That’s how our fiscal problems got started in years past.

Croft: I think it’s very refreshing that Harper has finally used the R-word [recession]. That’s usually verboten for a politician or a central banker. But it’s all about managing expectations. There is no magic bullet for Canada. We are unfortunately going to suffer much the same fate as every other major economy around the world. We have a very stable financial system, which will hold us in good stead, but we are a very open economy and a very small economy. Our major trade partner is in a very deep recession, and I don’t think we’ve even really begun to feel the impact of that decline.

M: How bad is this likely to get for the Canadian economy?

Drummond: I would have expected a more profound impact than we’ve seen so far. One of the first places you’d expect it to slow as soon as we began seeing economic uncertainty would be car sales, and so far car sales have continued to increase in Canada, albeit modestly. We’re even still creating jobs in Canada. That’s a bit of a puzzle. But I still think we will see worse economic outcomes in Canada than we’ve seen so far. Not as deep as in the U.S., but it will get worse before it gets better.

Rosenberg: Now we are entering into the eye of the hurricane: the intense consumer leg of this recession. The U.S. consumer now accounts for over 70 per cent of U.S. GDP and almost 20 per cent of global GDP, and that’s why as soon as the U.S. consumer started to give it up in late summer, that’s when oil prices started to peel off. This is the most broadly based U.S. recession in post-World War II history, and it has gone global. In the U.S. we have already lost 1.2 million jobs, and we probably have at least another three million to go. In our forecasts, the unemployment rate peaks between 8.5 and nine per cent in the opening months of 2010.

In Canada, whatever happens in the States inevitably migrates north of the border. Anybody who was around in the early 1990s knows what that’s about. Canada’s vulnerability is that corporate profits are reliant on commodities—that’s strike number one. Strike two is that Canada is disproportionately exposed to the auto sector. Strike three is that the principal buyers of Canadian products are U.S. consumers. On the other hand, Canada [benefits] from the fact that the banks aren’t nearly as under-capitalized as they are in the U.S. And although house prices are deflating, they’re not nearly as bad as in the U.S. Third point—the Canadian government, having started this with a balanced budget, has more room to ease fiscal policy than the U.S. So Canada has three strikes, but it also has three balls.

Vasic: Well, it’s going to get worse from here. We’ve really just recently fallen into the teeth of the economic slowdown. The thing that stands out is just how little Canadian employment has been affected so far. We know that capital spending cuts are coming [from major companies], we know that in central Canada there will be a lot more adjustments to come in the manufacturing sector, so the employment picture is going to deteriorate quite significantly in the next six to nine months. But we’re coming off an employment situation that is very close to the best we’ve seen in 30 years, and that’s worth remembering. If our unemployment rate goes [from around six per cent now] to 7.5 per cent, which we think it will, it’s not a good thing. But for most of the past 30 years, we were above that anyway.

Croft: In the U.S. I think the unemployment rate is going to at least 8.5 per cent, and in Canada I think we’re going up to 7.5 per cent. If you look at construction employment, it’s at a record high in Canada at a time when residential real estate is cooling precipitously. Those jobs are at risk. I have to believe there are more job losses in manufacturing, too. And the auto sector—wow . . . that’s a significant concern.

Bookmark and Share
  • Bryan Wallis

    This mess has been created by greed. It is a foundation of the capitalist consumer based economy. Borrow and spend now and pay later mentality gone mad! All driven by the big financial institutions and business sector. The bigger the corporations the bigger the greed. Its all about profit, profit margins and executives thinking that they are financial heros and deserve multi million dollar salaries. Its incestuous inter-relationships and behaviour of the financial elite. Even our “wonderful” Canadian banking system was all into this up their necks, and took billions in write-downs. All of which were funded by your banking fees, high borrowing int. rates. They own us an apology! How about, “we are sorry we got you into this mess, it was our corporate greed that got us here, so all us executive manageres.

    I ask you, how many unsolicited bank credit card mailings did you receive in the mail this week, I had dozens from every banking institution in Canada, and I already have three major bank credit cards. Even the companies that I bank with and have credit cards with send me more mailings to get more cards. Give me a break. Stop this idiotic behaviour! Loose the greed mentality. Get some principles and morals in your financial behaviour financial sector.

    For heavens sake have some common sense people. All the bankers and financial institutions that “bought” into the subprime mortgage scheme shot be tarred and feathered. How rediculous that we do not regulate the financial sector with checks and balances to control the greed behaviour.

    I invest, I have RRSPs, I trade stock…and yes I have seen my investments devalued by a significant value. Calm down people. I haven’t made one financial move since this mess started. In fact I am watching it closely for opportunities right now. Be patient, let the panicers do their thing. While at the same time I get angry that investing to many is nothing more than legalized gambling. Things like options and derivatives, selling short…its all madness. Stop it!

    And, the media should get a grip on itself. Just like the old story, tell people you are going to run out of toilet paper and there will be a rush to buy it and yes you create the shortage. The media outlets are the best examples of how to take a story and make it doomsday when in fact it isn’t. It may be difficult but it is not doomsday. Clips skillfully displayed of frazzled traders, head in hand, ruffled hair, using phrases like, this plummeted, this has reached catastrophic proportions, is there no end in sight….yup it all keeps you glued to the evening news and sells advertising, which is what they are wanting to do. However, take a breather, look out the window, smell the air, shut off the TV, relax with a good book and you know what…things will be just fine!

    And finally, yes I know exactly what its like to loose a good paying professional job because of difficult times. During the 1981-1982 madness, I was a victim. I dug in, worked hard, changed careers, and have managed to successfully “weathered the storm”. While it might not feel well at this time, it is completely curable.

  • DIane Erb

    I find what is going on at this time extremely stressful. I am a victim of auto parts supplier “lay off”.
    No I have not been given a severance (my employer wants to call it a temporary lay off) so as not to have to pay me severance. Under the employment standards act they came keep my severance for 35 weeks.
    I applied for EI the day I got laid off – Oct 24th. As of this date. Nov 29th I have still to receive a cheque. My debt is climbing. I have watched my modest amount of RRSPs deteriorate in half. Also my pension from my employer. The day I found out I thought I was going to pass out. I still have 17 yrs. before I can retire. I’m keeping my fingers crossed that this will be a quick turnaround for our country. I’m not looking forward to Christmas.

  • T. Thwim

    Murray: Not quite true. The government grants the banks the right to create money by fiat, through leveraging their assets into loans. There is nothing that says the government cannot take this right for themselves.

    The danger of doing so is inflation. However, in a time when people are getting increasingly concerned about deflation, perhaps that’s not such a bad thing.

  • roger

    BRYAN i like your attitude stay positive brother, would it be out line too say that your new career that you bost about is in the financial sector. That was beautiful man the way you just said exactly what are expert financial advisers sayed a few days ago, wait i guess i shouldn’t really refer too them as experts because the last i checked my 53 year old friend DLANE was feeling stressed about not having a job, and i presume he/she has a house too pay for and maybe kids too look after so when she goes out too find a another job and cant because she/he soon relizes that its not only the auto industries that getting hacked at its every were, and her rrsp’s are now completely gone and her house is up for sale and she/he is at the food bank where they only have a pice of bread and half eaten bowl of soup for her because the government cant keep up with the bailout’s, because the corporate rejects just cant fly couch it may stink up their 5,000 dollar suits, well it starts too paint a not so positive outlook. Look she/he’s a saver just like you. Look at her/him trusting her corporate rejects just like you i guess she/he just did not save enough in those 53 years of service as you did, but could it be that she/he dose have enough time with what she/he’s got, ya it all be over in 18 mounths so we haven’t got anything too worry about, keep it real brother i still have hope too we’ll make it EIGHTEEN MOUNTHS not long at all. ya hahahaha

  • Stephen

    T Thwim,

    Not totally accurate. Banks create assets (loans) out of liabilities (deposits). The government allows them to play a percentage game of not keeping the entire asset available to the liability holder. This is no different than you borrowing from the bank and then investing or spending. The bank says you can pay back percentages etc or borrow multiples of other assets (your house, car, jewelry) that you have.

    In fact banks go and borrow (liabilities) from the government, or in the case of non commercial banks other banks and then deploy that liabilitiy into loan or an investment (asset). There is no fiat here. Mistaking fractional reserve, a regulatory funtion to prevent overleverage, and fiat is a mistake.

    Only the government can create money out of nothing based solely on its good name. Duriong crazy times like the late 80′s large companies will try a version of this. An example being Olympia and York where they told any banker who wanted to look at their books, or ask for pledges of securities and assets to take a major leap. Essentially they wanted to borrow on name. And as Banks and investors learn, lending debt as equity (is no covenants, no security) always leads to tears.

    The good name of the government is effectively lending against its taxing power against citizens and the nominal assets it owns in the country.

    Just a correction, because it is often used to say Banks spin money out of nowehere, and this isnt true. The asset is always matched against a liability. Example

    Bank A has deposits of $100…for sake of argument the fractional resevere is 10%. They could loan out $1000. The question is where do they get the $900 in cash. It can come from Bank equity, investors may have invested $5,000 or it can come from borrowings from the bank of canada. If the capital base is eroded due to loan losses, too much overhead etc, crdit crunch…. If the central bank is running tight money then the bank cant loan the money because it cannot get the cash…i.e. a credit crunch….or it can borrow from other banks, who then judge the solvency of Bank A….if that is questioned you get a credit crunch because they cannot find the $…..or they can not keep the asset on the books and sell it quickly taking a fee for origination and maybe admininistration….if they cant sell the security for the $900 then they have a credit crunch…..

    So canadian Banks had higher capital bases, slightly tighter credit granting, meaning lower losses, a greater amount of their liabilities coming from deposits (savings), not underpricing their risks and not overleveraging themselves on potentially illuiquid assets (loans they couldnt sell, recover or securitize or customers that do the same). This was a combination of industry culture, regulatory environment and industry structure.

    Point: is if banks could create money by Fiat then we would NEVER have a credit crunch.

    As for the “buying of mortgages” well the bank has now sold the asset and increased its liabilities, capital base. It can use that to cover off future losses on loans (if thats what is happening) and protect its solvency and reputation so others continue to it, or it can create new assets through additional loans or investments. The government now has more assets on the books, the mortgages, that earn interest. These were all government secured loans so the risk profile to the government hasnt changed, ultimately, just its capital deployed.

    Given that the government can borrow cheaper than the mortgage rates (for the moment) the governemnt will cover itself. This was not a “subsidy” to the bank in that the government gets nothing in return. The government’s balance sheet changes in composition, a matched incease in changes to assets and liabilities, and while interest rates are low the income statement actually changes to the positive…..the sources of uses and cash change dramatically.

    Point: Not a subsidy. An investment whose risk increase is solely based on interest rates and currently that is a government income statement gain.

    Sorry to be a pedant on this, but it gets twisted for political ends sometimes.

  • T. Thwim

    Stephen: Thanks muchly! I’d recently seen a little presentation demonstrating money as being created by debt, and it seemed to make sense, however your question of “How would there ever be a financial crunch as we’re seeing now?” points out the problem with it.

  • Stephen

    T Thwim,

    It isnt so much that money is created out of debt…its a source of money. Subtle difference.

    Interesting finance concept is the source of funds shouldnt drive acceptance of a project. This is true at the firm level, assuming there has been a strategic decision made earlier on what your overall finanicng looks like (structure of debt vs equity vs retained earnings (which is like equity but internally generated))

    It gets hammered in during B School (yes I have a Master of Bugger All) that source of funds doesnt matter. I believe this important point is true but gets taken to extreme, in that somebody abandons their responsibility to guard the capital structure decision….OR that firms get convinced that its ok to keep pushing the debt envelope. The temptation is there because increase returns on equity (stock) if you can successfully use debt to acheive the same operational goals as equity. Like all things there is a season for different types of capital structures.

    How that applies to government finance is a different story. There is an equivalent question, what should your capital structure be, i.e. what is the right Debt to GDP ratio, what is the right Interest payments to tax revenue ratio etc etc. How much debt, to the extent it is used, shoudl be foreign sourced vs domestic sourced.

    Answering those questions would set some constraints and floors around what government does do, how much it can do etc etc . But these questions do not get asked, explicitly or implicitly by the opposition, the press or voters. This is similar to a firm that doesnt tell its managers or investors what the discount rate for projects is, what the capital structure is targetted for (amout of debt not what projects). What happens is managers see their banks (the compnay treasury) as an endless supply of money and they continually make demands regardless of company strategy.

    So we have implicit promises in all parties proposals. I suspect the conservatives might have done more thinking than others but it may be more instictual rather than being written down. I think you would shock most finance ministers, Prime Ministers and Finance Critics if you asked them what is the long run target and path to get there for

    Debt to GDP
    Interest Payments to Tax Revenue
    Foreign Debt % vs Domestic Debt
    Tax revenue as a percentage of GDP

    What was their time frame for reaching each of those. That sets the table for how much governments spend, then you start to ask what % will be long temr hard investments, roads bridges etc, vs expenditures (subsidies, transfers, operating)

    There is no “right answer” on any of these per se, other than avoding end cases too much debt, too high tax, too little service from governemnt (inability to provide basic services)

    These questions dont get asked, they dont get taught in run of the mill political science courses and they dont enter our political discourse. But these basic questions need to be there. The demands on both sides are endless….from 0 taxes to complete government control. Explicit question of guiding principles need to be there, and asking parties and leaders to operationalize their philosphies is one way to do it. Thats how investors and boards of directors judge management, whether its of a for profit or a non profit, whats your strategy and what are its implication in real terms.

    Once again I apologize for being a pedant and long winded on this, but this is a hobby horse for me, the generally low level of discourse, whos hot whos not (yes I have a Jane Taber dart board) And journalists, well educated, intellignet and inquisitive people should be driving the questions….its not that it doenst happen all the time….it never appears to happen. It doesnt matter what your poltical affilitation is, your job is to ask questions and create insight and information. You can disagree later, but ask the darn questions of all sides.

    This current political and economic situation is a perfect example. All high drama, will the government fall..can the opposition overcome their differences (paper them over). All narrative and no content, fast food for their readers. What would the opposition provide if they succeed, what is the difference, what are the costs. How is Canada different, if at all, from their trading partners. The economists in this article, which was a start, seem to idicate that maybe there is value to keeping powder dry, unlike the US, UK and now China and Russia where it was use your bullets if you got em situation.

    So who met who, who is in what cabinet seat, who slighted who, who is not returning calls etc is the level of discourse…..I guess I have high standards. I sense you want a more nutritous discourse as well.

  • Peggy O’Neill

    I was surprised to begin reading the remarks by these ‘experts’. None of what they’ve said is anything new, just repeating what has been said already in the past month, and what has been predicted by so many financial and economic experts for the last five years. Come on, MacLean’s, you can do better.

  • http://ragingranter.blogspot.com Raging Ranter

    David Watts, they swapped government debt for mortgages, in order to inject cash into the system – precisely the kind of thing a government needs to do. The money isn’t meant to “trickle down” to anyone. It is meant to keep the financial system from seizing up entirely, leaving the banks in a position to keep refinancing various loans and debt when they come up for renewal.

    Those $75 billion worth of mortgages were already insured by CMHC, which meant the government was already holding all the risk on their books. The government might even make money on that transaction. (Though that particular justification I find a little suspect. If the economy recovered to that point, the banks would be lining up to repurchase the mortgages they were so quick to get rid of.) If you are indeed correct, that $75 billion in “taxpayers’ money” was handed over to the banks, then the deficit this year should be at minimum, $75 billion, correct? I haven’t even heard a single Opposition MP say something that absurd yet.

    Peggy O’Neil, the “experts” are full of it as always. Lately I’ve been recommending Nassim Nicolas Taleb’s book The Black Swan. He’s a Harvard professor with Ph. D.’s in both Mathematics and Statistics. Not only is the book funny and light-hearted, but the guy absolutely ridicules economists, financial gurus, investment advisors, MBAs, bankers, government officials, CEOs, fund managers and everyone else who believes they can forecast future economic and financial events.

  • http://ragingranter.blogspot.com Raging Ranter

    Scooter, the US dollar isn’t strong. Look at it this way, the US was the first to hit the tank. When it looked like the rest of the world was holding up rather well while the US faltered, the US dollar tumbled. Now, Canada, Europe, and everyone else is in recession, or close to it. We all just figured out we are in the same boat. Thus, our currencies have come down against the US. It has nothing to do with the US dollar being strong. It has everything to do with every other currency in the world being just as weak. You could say that it took longer for our currencies to fall than it did for the US, and that we’re ALL poorer now.

    Remember, currencies can only be measured as a cross-rate against other currencies. The terms “strong” and “weak” are always completely relative. The USD is much “stronger” now, because the rest of our currencies are much “weaker”. There was simply a lag of a year or two from when the US toppled to when the rest of us did.

  • http://ragingranter.blogspot.com Raging Ranter

    You could say that it took longer for our currencies to fall than it did for the US, and that we’re ALL poorer now.

    Sorry, that should have read, “You could say that it took longer for our economies to fall than it did for the US, and that we’re ALL poorer now.”

  • Stephen

    Ranter,

    Great book…all about avoiding the Black Swan quadrant…..

  • Western Separatist

    Are Canadians going to allow the Commie Coalition to complete its coup d’etat on our democratically elected government?
    This country is OVER.

  • Paul Revere

    The Sunday Citi $ 326 Billion in Welfare….. was Followed Monday, Again Without Congress’ Approval,… With $ 800 Billion to Banks at 1.5 percent, so they can Loan 10 Times that much at 6,7,8,9+ percent?

    One Million jobs Lost in last 4 months!

    Former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill was told “deficits don’t matter” when he warned of a looming fiscal crisis.

    O’Neill, fired in a shakeup of Bush’s economic team in December 2002, raised objections to a new round of tax cuts and said the president balked at his more aggressive plan to combat corporate crime after a string of accounting scandals because of opposition from “the corporate crowd,” a key constituency.

    O’Neill said he tried to warn Vice President Dick Cheney that growing budget deficits-expected to top $500 billion this fiscal year alone-posed a threat to the economy. Cheney cut him off. “You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don’t matter,” he said, according to excerpts. Cheney continued: “We won the midterms (congressional elections). This is our due.” A month later, Cheney told the Treasury secretary he was fired.

    Bush-Cheney $ 5 Bil per month “War of Choice” Occupation for Big Oil Profits, Deregulation of Banking and Finance, … and Now Bush Gives $ 4.5 Trillion Welfare to Wall Street Crooks, AIG, Citi and most deposit banks, Freddie Mac and Fannie May, But ZERO For HOMEOWNERS?

  • Pingback: Top Posts « WordPress.com

  • danno

    We have yet to see the tip of the iceburg. If everyone was amazed, in horror, at the crash of the sub prime market and subsequent shrinkage of the securitization market, then the jaw will fully hit the floor when the Credit Default Swaps (CDS) fully collapse. This unregulated “insurance” against defaults is estimated at over 70 Trillion USD. The intitial bailout of “hand picked” institutions was simply a bandaid. Financial institutions that previously had survived the great depression went out of business, except for those that received bailout funds. Any bailouts or guarantees by any of the world’s governments without regulation of Derivitives (including futures, short selling, CDS’s, etc.) will result in a short term delay of a longer term recession. Greed has driven the major nations to a point that more is not enough. Long gone are the days where banks could limit themselves to borrowing funds that they had on deposit from their banking members. A global paradigm shift will need to occur to take us back to the days where we spent less than we made and saved for a rainy day.

  • http://ragingranter.blogspot.com Raging Ranter

    Danno, futures are already regulated by the CFTC in the US, and by similar bodies in other countries. Futures are traded on centralized exchanges like the CBOT, CME, NYMEX, Montreal, LIFFE, etc… They are not the problem.

    The problem is the various exotic derivatives that have been created and traded, leveraged with tiny margins, and NO oversight. What we need to do it force derivatives into an exchange-like environment, where they can be traded in a transparent manner. Most of the exotic, highly leveraged derivatives would simply seize to exist. They’d never meet the standards of an exchange-listed contract.

  • http://ragingranter.blogspot.com Raging Ranter

    And I agree we need to get back to a more savings-oriented financial system. The quickest and most sensible way to do that would be to increase the margin requirements of all leveraged financial instruments, and, more importantly, the reserve requirements of all deposit taking institutions.

    That’s why all the stimulus talk is so back asswards. We’re spending too much. We’re throwing too much money around at too many things. We need MORE savings. Not less. Stimulus is a direct boost to aggregate demand. Retail sales are higher in the US this year than last. We’re fiddling while Rome burns. And Economists? They say we need more stimulus (i.e. more consumption), and they hand out awards to those who say it the loudest.

  • danno

    Rage – I was referring more in regards to the unregulated default swaps. The bailouts to companies like AIG, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac were a temporary bandaid to cover the initial onslaught of CDS’s that were called. These companies, their stock holders, and execs got rich for several years off of these financial instruments and then fled when the the crap hit the fan.

    Short selling is also regulated, but when the regulators step in to “close the door after the horse has already left the barn” it creates little assurance to the markets.

    Let’s get back to how business was operated before there was a stock exchange, or credit lines for that matter. The growth of you business was limited to your cash flow. There could have been no Walmart in that system in as short a span as it has evolved.

    This leads back to your comments that I agree with whole heartedly. Namely blind bailouts will not help.

  • danno

    that being said, it has been a great time to fill my boots with AIG, Freddie, and Fannie. Just need 1 of the 3 to rebound to 52w high and I can cover the hit on my retirement portfolio (which will come back on it’s own in the 5 year window).

  • wml

    I just heard a contradictory statement by the P.M. one in english one in french – both not true. In french he said that the sovereigntists were in bed with the Liberals. In english said the liberals were in bed with the separatists. Oh wow!! talk about unity and stability – disgusting. Another false statement he uttered was that when the accord was signed there was no canadian flag there. That also turns out to be a falsehood.

    Ideological right wingers create instability – it’s in their nature. Many contradictions are surfacing. Mr. Harper himself signed an agreement with the separatists in 2004 to topple the then martin government, and sent a letter to the GG at the time. Seems that he is wielding double standard rhetoric. Not good. Now he is quoted as saying that when a leader looses confidence of the house a confidence motion should be immediately held, but now denies that to others. Hmmmm what to heck is going on with these birds?

  • Brad Sallows

    >Ideological right wingers create instability

    So do ideological left wingers, aka NDP. Even the Liberals have ideology. No fooling. No party has a monopoly on good or bad qualities, so let’s get past the kindergarten dialog and discuss issues. For example, how is $30B going to be divided? Who gets, how much, when?

    If you can read, go back to the 2004 letter – it isn’t an agreement; it isn’t a threat to topple the government; it’s a request to the G-G to consult the opposition if the PM requests dissolution after a vote of non-confidence. The letter is dated September, which marks a two month hiatus – lots of time to think about contingencies – since the late June election; in the event, the government outlived the letter by more than a year. Not exactly an ambitious timetable to “topple the government”, don’t you think?

    Also, a confidence motion isn’t held _after_ a leader “looses confidence”; the motion (or other issue) precedes the vote which declares non-confidence.

  • Bryan Wallis

    Roger my man. Nice guess, but totally wrong. I am a professional forester. At the time I endured great financial hardship (1981-82) I had the three young kids, lost my forestry job, dept up to my ears and a house mortgage greater than the value of the house. It took 10 years before I recovered but here I am today, the message is – sure it may be tough, it sucks bad….say this to yourself, I could, like my friend be dying of cancer, I could be born into 100s of other 3rd world countries in the world.

    If you have your health, your family…you have the foundation to recover. Dont wallow, do something about it and don’t expect the gov’t to do it for you. I never drew one $$ from EI.

    I am a treaty negotiator, I get paid to negotiate big deals, high stress!

    My net worth has also dropped signficantly recently as others have noted, the point is I have my health, my family and I live in the best place on earth bar none, in spite of the corrupt financial folks.

  • DWO

    The fact remains that until the USA shows a material progress in a specific direction under the new administration, any stimulus package is a very expensive shot in the dark. Bailing out GM here in Canada etc., is simply ridiculous until we see some measureable progress south of the border. So Harper decides to wait a bit. Not a bad thought

  • Pingback: Macleans.ca - 500,000 U.S. Job Losses

From Macleans