Wednesday, November 27, 2013

Don't Tell Me ... They're Worried Canada Might Run Out Of Loonies? :(

(commentary posted by Roger Erickson)

The daily news only gets more bizarre.

IMF recommends Canada scale back CMHC
The International Monetary Fund says Canada is exposing itself to risk by insuring mortgages through the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and recommends scaling back the federal housing agency.
Don't tell me ... they're worried Canada might run out of loonies? :(

This is the International Monetary Fund that we're talking about here?

What's that saying about SETI? That the best proof that extraterrestrial intelligence exists is that it HASN'T tried to contact us yet?

Can you imagine if some ETI did actually visit Earth, and met the IMF first of all? 

They'd probably gracefully wipe all Lagard's memories of the mtg, exit quietly, and bookmark us with a note to check back for signs of TI after another 1000 years.

ps:  Any one see any Public Purpose in the IMF's advice to Canada?


Unknown said...

There are no aliens!

There's God, the Good Angels, the Bad Angels and us.

Live with it!

But by all means let's fund SETI GENEROUSLY so you heathen will have no excuse for your disbelief.

Ralph Musgrave said...

I agree that the IMF are incompetent. Bill Mitchell has said so several times and he is right. Plus I agree that an ability to print loonies means the printer can afford almost anything. But that doesn’t mean everything the printer chooses to spend money on necessarily makes sense. I.e. having government insure mortgages is an idea that should be considered on its own merits, as follows.

If government can insure mortgages and make a profit in the process, then I’d be in favour. But in that case why can’t private insurers make a profit out of that activity, or why can’t those granting mortgages self-insure? I can’t think of good answers to those questions, so I’ve got doubts about government doing the insurance.

Brian Romanchuk said...

I agree with the IMF that the CMHC should be scaled back, but not because of fiscal risk. It should be done because the middle class is running out of money. However, the damage is already done, as we already distorted our economy by building too many houses.

To respond to Ralph Musgrave, The original CMHC mandate was very successful from the 1950s to the 1990s. Insurance had a low price cap, and lending terms were relatively conservative (10% down; you need 20% down to buy without insurance). This meant that mortgage insurance was available for the less well off; they would not have been a lucrative market for the private sector. They expanded the programme by raising the price cap (and loosening the lending terms). This allowed a new wall of money to bid up the prices of homes. The banks are still more rigourous in their lending standards than the worst of the American lending excesses, but it is seems safe to say they are less diligent than on the mortgages which are not insured.

They also inspected the homes they insured; I have heard that they were the most reliable home inspectors around.

Matt Franko said...


Don't forget about the Son of God too....


Unknown said...


God the Son is God.
God the Father is God.
God the Holy Spirit is God.

Btw, the Trinity is clear even in the Old Testament but many Jews stumbled over Jesus because they were ignorant of Scripture.

Unknown said...

A monetarily sovereign government should neither borrow nor lend money.

1) It has no need to.
2) Such activity violates Equal Protection under the Law, especially in favor of the rich.

OTOH, nearly the entire population DESERVES restitution for theft with new fiat AS a minimum*. So who would need to borrow if they had a sufficient amount of cash?

*Land reform ala Leviticus 25 and the redistribution of the common stock of all large corporations may also be justified/morally required.

Roger Erickson said...

Stating irrelevant reasons for any action ALWAYS causes more long term harm than the operational effect of the action itself.

Once reasoning is detached from operations ... it's all downhill, in a random walk of declining group intelligence (policy discourse).

Random actions can't resist entropy.

Matt Franko said...


"Trinity" is a non-scriptural term... You are doing it 'the hard way' again IMO...

And your banking recommendations are specific POLICIES ie "options" .... Our problem right now is with basic knowledge... Iow you are recommending regulatory policies when the basic problem remains that too large a cohort cannot even recognize the basic authority of our govt institution TO regulate in the first place...

Your jumping the gun. Wait until the many more reach an understanding of this authority and THEN you can argue for your preferred policy.

You are arguing for a specific regulatory policy when probably half the population doesn't even think we should HAVE ANY regulation in the first place and the other half is at best on the fence about it...

We need to get a plurality to a point where they at least have a view of our basic authority to explore our FULL SET of options... Then you can make your arguments for your policy

Unknown said...

Wrong Franko,

The population already accepts "Thou shall not steal" and "The government should not favor the rich."

What is lacking is a clear understanding of how government backing for the banks violates both.

BTW, justice is NOT optional.

Of course the problem is far too big for me but IF I remain in Scripture I see no reason why the Lord might not destroy the counterfeiting cartel and give the human race another few centuries before Judgement. It's called "standing in the gap" before God, something you would know if you read Scripture like you should.

As for the Trinity it's irrelevant that that word is not in Scripture just as it is irrelevant that "Rapture" is not in Scripture either. Both are just human shorthand for concepts that surely exist in Scripture.