Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Frazzled wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Time to go break out the ol' zaibatsu-bustin' shoes.

Look to your own banks first boyo. You literally have protected markets by law and what, three real banks?

I think there are seven major banks that operate in Canada (don't quote me on that number).

More importantly, we also have regulations to control our markets so that our economy is partially insulated from the boom-and-bust wankfest that gets worshipped elsewhere.

You have three real banks and two smaller banks. You have protected financial markets and oligopolistic competition. So spare me the "US Banks R EVILZ!" spiel.

...are you really trying to imply that the US banking sector isn't also dominated by oligopolistic competition? In a thread that's about the harzardous effects of such a system, no less?

Of course Canada has only a handful of major banks. But that doesn't really matter. And it looks like Ratbarf beat me to the explanation as to why.

And no, I'm not gonna make the "US Banks R EVILZ" spiel. That's not me. But I am gonna make the "US banks aren't unique in their nihilistic, selfish practices: we just knew to keep our dogs on leashes so we wouldn't get bit" comment.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Time to go break out the ol' zaibatsu-bustin' shoes.

Look to your own banks first boyo. You literally have protected markets by law and what, three real banks?

I think there are seven major banks that operate in Canada (don't quote me on that number).

More importantly, we also have regulations to control our markets so that our economy is partially insulated from the boom-and-bust wankfest that gets worshipped elsewhere.

You have three real banks and two smaller banks. You have protected financial markets and oligopolistic competition. So spare me the "US Banks R EVILZ!" spiel.

...are you really trying to imply that the US banking sector isn't also dominated by oligopolistic competition? In a thread that's about the harzardous effects of such a system, no less?

Of course Canada has only a handful of major banks. But that doesn't really matter. And it looks like Ratbarf beat me to the explanation as to why.

And no, I'm not gonna make the "US Banks R EVILZ" spiel. That's not me. But I am gonna make the "US banks aren't unique in their nihilistic, selfish practices: we just knew to keep our dogs on leashes so we wouldn't get bit" comment.

1. The comment started when a Canadian was talking about the evil US system when the US banks are just playing oligopolistic catch up to Canadian and European banks. It does matter. You can't talk about US banks without looking at your own banks.
2. A Canadian could tell everyone else to keep their dogs on leashes - because their oligoplistic market allows regulators to demand conservative ratios. Canada has some of the most conservative standards in the business, so conservative, they were the model for the new Basel accords. Go Canada. (in case this isn't clear I am applauding the Canadian banking system and their regulators)
3. However, no European or Japanese could say the same about their banks, which are far worse off than US banks, and like fungus gifted used car sharks next to fine Canadian institutions.


I'll end this by saying BMO couldn't bank itself out of a paper bag. We hates dem don't we Precious...

So then you agree with my point: Canadian banks are doing well (relatively), because our market is conservatively regulated, which also prevents banks from becoming "too big to fail/jail".

Hence, my comment about zaibatsu-busting.

...so what are arguing about?

 azazel the cat wrote:
So then you agree with my point: Canadian banks are doing well (relatively), because our market is conservatively regulated, which also prevents banks from becoming "too big to fail/jail".

Hence, my comment about zaibatsu-busting.

...so what are arguing about?

No. Your banks are too big to fail as well. That was one of the arguments against permitting the big Canadian Bank mergers in the late 90s early 2000's.
Canadian banks are regulated to the highest conservative standards by OSFI.
If you had more permitted competition domestically you'd get your heads handed to you.

You kinda have to ignore Frazz when he gets going like this; the mods give him some extra tolerance because of his longstanding presence on the board.

He does not represent the attitudes of the majority of American people; in fact his attitudes typically represent those of a shrinking minority. So please don't judge the rest of us by his statements.

Vulcan wrote:You kinda have to ignore Frazz when he gets going like this; the mods give him some extra tolerance because of his longstanding presence on the board.

He does not represent the attitudes of the majority of American people; in fact his attitudes typically represent those of a shrinking minority. So please don't judge the rest of us by his statements.

Congratulations, you're one of the rare few to earn an exalt from me. Wear this prestigious award with pride.

 Fifty wrote:
We are actually at the stage of many near-future RPG games and comic books, wherein the megacorps are essentially bigger than governments, and can run their own laws. He is essentially saying that the banks are more powerful than the US government. Does anyone think the banks will willingly rein themselves in? No, they just get more powerful to the point that they cannot be regulated by any nation, as they will threaten that nation with financial ruin.

He's not saying they're more powerful than the federal government, just that they form too large a portion of the economy to safely lay into. Giving them what they deserve would cause quite a bit of collateral damage, because of the number of people they employ and the number of businesses and people who rely upon their services to do business.

In other words, you can't shut them down or disrupt their business because doing so would cause significant harm to a great number of people, which would cause further harm to the economy, and so on. It's basically a call to split them into smaller, less individually important pieces.