I hear it all too often, 'but the Canadian banking system is in better shape than the U.S. banking system' and 'Canada has stricter regulations on banking, so it can't happen here'.
"At some point during the crisis, three of Canada's banks — CIBC, BMO, and Scotiabank — were completely under water, with government support exceeding the market value of the company," CCPA senior economist David Macdonald said.
"Without government supports to fall back on, Canadian banks would have been in serious trouble."
Wake up!At least in the U.S. people knew about it. Maybe they did not get all the real figures (because people would have dissented in pure disgust if they had the real numbers beforehand), but the bank bailouts and TARP programs at least made it into the news. But this is Canada, we have government transparency, don't we?
How much is the federal government planning to cut out of programs to the less fortunate, universal health care, food inspection, and education? If it's somewhere in the neighbourhood of $114 billion, then it sounds like everything makes sense on the balance sheet of unfairness. And the banks have the gall to report profits of $25 billion for that period in which they were bailed out. I would not count governmental handouts as profit, since removing that from the 'look how well we did this year' figure, means no CEO bonus and no shareholder dividends for such irresponsibility. Why are we paying to reward thieves, liars, and hypocrites preaching fiscal responsibility while displaying no such ability themselves?
How much less would it have cost to let the banks go under, forgive outstanding personal loans and mortgages, maintain corporate loans and mortgages as extra taxes to help cover this operation, tell shareholders and stake holders to piss up a rope (because they are the force that has driven the bank into bankruptcy), and pay out any positive savings accounts? Given that fractional reserve banking only holds onto about 10% of what it actually loans out the number is probably $114 million, and that is only IF they actually go under.
I know that the problem is not the math or the logic of it, the problem is: then where do retired politicians go to work to add to that meager quarter million a year in pension they now get?