Motion of No Confidence in Canada (Harper isn't going)

[aerius]

A decrease in housing prices does not decrease the value of mortgage-backed securities. What affects the value of mortgage-backed securities is the flow of payments from the mortgagee.

And what does a high default rate do to the flow of payments, especially the junior tranches of those MBSs? Which you can bet are the ones the banks are offloading first. MBSs are generally structured to deal with a default rate of no higher than 3% or so on the underlying pools, more than that and real fun stuff starts to happen. With a >10% default rate even the senior and super-senior tranches take a hit and the lower tranches are zeros as has happened in the US.

And, as we've both already mentioned, the mortgages in question are already insured by a Crown Corporation, meaning that that the feds were already on the hook for these mortgages in the case of default.

The key here is the liability is limited under the previous arrangement, once the CHMC loses $8 billion is broke and it's all over & done. If there are $20 billion in losses the banks will eat the remainder. This is no longer true, we get eat the remainder now after that $8 billion is gone.

In any case, you haven't provided any evidence that the Government has lost money on those market transactions, and quoting a general decrease in housing prices in the 1990s certainly doesn't cut it, especially since housing prices don't directly affect the value of these securities.

I haven't provided direct evidence since they've buried the transactions where I can't find them. None of this stuff shows up on the Bank of Canada reports, government flow of funds or any of the other financial reports I keep an eye on. All I can say is there's a lot of crappy mortgages which are going to default at a very high rate, a ton of MBSs are using these mortgages as the underlying, and unless the banks are retarded beyond belief they've offloaded as much of this dogshit as they can onto the government in exchange for cash. We know the government has carried out bond sales in the exact amount as these mortgage and MBS purchases so the banks are sitting on cold hard cash while the government is left holding a bag of used dog food.

[J]

To summarize; take the $75 billion, zero out the MBS portion then knock 30-50% off what remains. It's not a 100% loss but my rough guess is it'll be at least a 60-70% loss. My wife could give you a more precise figure since she works for one of the banks but I'm not sure if she's allowed to spill the beans.

Nope, can't say a thing these days in my new position. I can only comment based upon certain publicly available materials and even that is discouraged by my employer. Silence! Be a good worker bee! Honey for the hive!

---

The election. Oh yes. The election.
I'm finally beginning to understand what it must feel like to be an American.
Also
And

[General Trelane (Retired)]

You're fucking out of mind. Since when is good management defined as turning a $10 billion surplus into a $64 billion deficit?

You're living in a dreamworld if you think a Liberal government wouldn't have spent at least as much money as Harper did. If you recall, in Harper's "economic update" back in late 2008, there was no stimulus spending mentioned. That's when the opposition parties threw a fit and started the coalition business.

Are you implying that the primary impetus for that coalition was the lack of stimulus spending? If so, then you're ignoring the other issues that were also included in that "economic update". What really caused the opposition to agree to a coalition was the government proposal to axe the federal subsidy of $1.95/vote for each political party. This kind of tactic would be smart politicking by a majority government, but in a minority, it's just indicative of Harper's bully methods--he gambled that the opposition wouldn't dare trigger an election so soon after the October 2008 election (one that he called, by the way), so he'd by able to bully this through to hurt the other parties. He clearly didn't expect the opposition parties to work together to form a coalition and was then left with prorogation as the only way to save his sorry ass, and this provided a cooling-off period during which the coalition predictably fell apart (that and the fact that yes, Harper did offer budgetary concessions to appease some of those stated reasons for the coalition).

Shifting gears, I find it tiring that Harper has chosen to focus his campaign so far on the insinuation that Ignatief will form a coalition government if the Cons don't get a majority, and that Iggy's lying when he denies that he would do this. Do people really believe Harper on this? If so, then I need to ask them this--why the hell didn't Iggy go for a coalition instead of an election?

[Magis]

And what does a high default rate do to the flow of payments, especially the junior tranches of those MBSs? Which you can bet are the ones the banks are offloading first. MBSs are generally structured to deal with a default rate of no higher than 3% or so on the underlying pools, more than that and real fun stuff starts to happen. With a >10% default rate even the senior and super-senior tranches take a hit and the lower tranches are zeros as has happened in the US.

To my knowledge, we have not seen any dramatic rise in foreclosure rates in Canada like we saw in the United States. But even if we had, as I've already mentioned several times, the federal government already had liability connected with potential defaults on these mortgages because they were federally insured. Now I'm not a fan of market transactions like this by the federal government in the first place, but I don't think there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the government has made any significant loss or gain on these transactions, and the relative stability of both the real estate market and foreclosure rates in Canada leads me to believe that it won't end up costing the tax payers much, if anything.

[Enigma]

<snip>

Shifting gears, I find it tiring that Harper has chosen to focus his campaign so far on the insinuation that Ignatief will form a coalition government if the Cons don't get a majority, and that Iggy's lying when he denies that he would do this. Do people really believe Harper on this? If so, then I need to ask them this--why the hell didn't Iggy go for a coalition instead of an election?

Maybe he hopes in this election that he can at most get enough seats to get a majority (fat chance at the moment), or that he gains enough seats from the Tories so that he can create a strong enough coalition that can survive even if the Bloc or NDP decide to break off at a later date and for some reason side with the Tories.

[General Trelane (Retired)]

<snip>

Shifting gears, I find it tiring that Harper has chosen to focus his campaign so far on the insinuation that Ignatief will form a coalition government if the Cons don't get a majority, and that Iggy's lying when he denies that he would do this. Do people really believe Harper on this? If so, then I need to ask them this--why the hell didn't Iggy go for a coalition instead of an election?

Maybe he hopes in this election that he can at most get enough seats to get a majority (fat chance at the moment), or that he gains enough seats from the Tories so that he can create a strong enough coalition that can survive even if the Bloc or NDP decide to break off at a later date and for some reason side with the Tories.

I don't know either. Personally, I'm furious with Harper over his control tactics (especially with his attempts to muzzle the media). Maybe the opposition is really just carrying through on principles on this? If so, that would be surprising. From a practicle point of view, I really don't see this turning out positive for the opposition (and the Libs in particular), so bringing down the government on principle may wind up causing more harm--especially if Harper does get a majority; we've seen his style in a minority, and I shudder to think how he'd act with a majority. So as it is, I'll do my best to re-elect Linda Duncan even though I'm not really NDP.

[Phantasee]

Yeah, there's not a lot of chance of ousting Mike Lake from Millwoods-Beaumont now that he's in, he's built a strong machine here. Linda Duncan is facing an all out attack by the Cons, they really really really want that seat. I think her orange spot on the map embarrasses them? She's going to need all the help she can get.

[General Trelane (Retired)]

Well, one thing that may be helping Duncan's campaign is that Conservative candidate Hastman's office has called my house more than a half-dozen times to gauge my political leanings in the month before the non-confidence motion. This even after I clearly expressed my frustration with the Conservative Party and intent to vote against Hastman during the first call. The second time, I made it clear that I didn't want any more calls from them. They still called. If they're doing the same to other voters, this can't help his popularity at all.

[Phantasee]

Yeah, like I said, they are going hard. The Cons I know who are working on Ryan's campaign are comparing it to Thermopylae. "Thousand nations of the Persian empire descend upon you." I had to remind them Xerxes wasn't the winner in that case. It's like they only caught the middle of 300 or something.

[General Trelane (Retired)]

Regarding Harper's incessant harping about a coalition*, The Record has a political cartoon that cuts to the chase.

*He's not just going on and on about a potential coalition government should the Cons not get a majority, but he (or at least many of his party) are crying foul over a supposed coalition where the opposition parties are cooperating in fielding their candidates.

[SCRawl]

Ignatieff was on my college campus this morning. I missed him -- his visit started after my class, and left before I got out of class -- but I did get to see his entourage and the big Liberal bus. Apparently he announced some proposal for funding for something or other, but as I mentioned I wasn't there to get the details.

[aerius]

To my knowledge, we have not seen any dramatic rise in foreclosure rates in Canada like we saw in the United States. But even if we had, as I've already mentioned several times, the federal government already had liability connected with potential defaults on these mortgages because they were federally insured. Now I'm not a fan of market transactions like this by the federal government in the first place, but I don't think there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the government has made any significant loss or gain on these transactions, and the relative stability of both the real estate market and foreclosure rates in Canada leads me to believe that it won't end up costing the tax payers much, if anything.

We haven't seen them yet because our real estate market has yet to implode. However when we look at the forward indicators such as sales price & volume, the types of mortgages being originated, mortgage & general debt loads, income levels and so forth they're all very similar to what was seen in the US during 2006-2008. They all point towards a housing crash and a sharp increase in defaults & foreclosures. As I've also mentioned the liability prior to 2008 was limited to the $8 billion insurance fund held by the CHMC, that limitation no longer exists. When we have a housing crash the government will lose a crapload of money, it's pretty much baked into the cake at this point. Everyone thinks it's different here, it isn't, the laws of math and cashflow don't change when you cross the 49th parallel.

[Next of Kin]

Shifting gears, I find it tiring that Harper has chosen to focus his campaign so far on the insinuation that Ignatief will form a coalition government if the Cons don't get a majority, and that Iggy's lying when he denies that he would do this. Do people really believe Harper on this? If so, then I need to ask them this--why the hell didn't Iggy go for a coalition instead of an election?

Yeah, Harper has been playing the Iggy-coalition card quite readily in his campaign. I can imagine his back-peddle will look something along the lines that if the Conservatives manage to win a minority then Ignatief might be sacked and there might be a new Liberal leader in favour of a coalition government.

[Phantasee]

So it looks like the Cons have it in the bag, more or less. What are the odds of a Con majority or minority right now? Can a person bet on that sort of thing in Vegas?

[SCRawl]

Shifting gears, I find it tiring that Harper has chosen to focus his campaign so far on the insinuation that Ignatief will form a coalition government if the Cons don't get a majority, and that Iggy's lying when he denies that he would do this. Do people really believe Harper on this? If so, then I need to ask them this--why the hell didn't Iggy go for a coalition instead of an election?

Yeah, Harper has been playing the Iggy-coalition card quite readily in his campaign. I can imagine his back-peddle will look something along the lines that if the Conservatives manage to win a minority then Ignatief might be sacked and there might be a new Liberal leader in favour of a coalition government.

There's actually another possibility. If the Conservatives fail to capture a majority, but maintain a minority, chances are good that they still won't have the confidence of the House. After all, the reason for this election is that the Conservatives were ruled to be in contempt of Parliament, and the election won't change that. If that's the case, then the only alternative to another election would be for the party with the next-highest number of seats to ask the GG to give their party a chance, and I can totally see this happening.

[Phantasee]

I am pretty excited to see that, actually. It would be a first for Canada, yeah? I love the idiots on Facebook freaking the fuck out over the idea of a Liberal/NDP and possibly Bloc coalition. "Treason!" is the word of the day, I guess. I'm like, if Westminster (you know, the fucking original model we built our system around) just had a Con/LibDem coalition, why can't we?

Treason is for republicans and people not watching the wedding.

[Drooling Iguana]

Yeah, I don't know why people think that a coalition is a bad thing. It means that the combination of parties that the majority of the country voted for get to form the government, rather than the one that the majority of the country voted against. How is that undemocratic?

[Fiji_Fury]

In a simple statement: its is democracy at work.

The drooling sycophants that insist it's a form of undemocratic treason are repeating Harper's mantra without bothering to check any form of substantive evidence; it's a disturbing trend of Harper in particular. Basically, if it doesn't help him keep power, it's undemocratic. If it does help him keep power it is "justified" and "necessary".

I'm sick of the petty antics being perpetrated by many of the opposition parties, but I'm even more disgusted at the blatantly fear-mongering, anti-evidence, party pandering approach of Stephen "I'm Mr. Accountable When It Suites Me" Harper. The man's administration is toxic and his track record causes him to lack credibility.

[Enigma]

I say let the Tories have the majority this election and let them stand or fall on their actions. This way they cannot blame the other parties in the next election should they screw up. As a minority, they can always blame the other parties for their shortcomings saying "They didn't let us serve the country" or something like that.

So, let them serve a term as a majority and then stick it to them should they fail.

[Justforfun000]

I say let the Tories have the majority this election and let them stand or fall on their actions. This way they cannot blame the other parties in the next election should they screw up. As a minority, they can always blame the other parties for their shortcomings saying "They didn't let us serve the country" or something like that.

So, let them serve a term as a majority and then stick it to them should they fail.

I really don't think setting our country up deliberately for more scandal plagued misery is an ethical ideal just to see the Conservatives shoot themselves in the foot.

[Enigma]

I say let the Tories have the majority this election and let them stand or fall on their actions. This way they cannot blame the other parties in the next election should they screw up. As a minority, they can always blame the other parties for their shortcomings saying "They didn't let us serve the country" or something like that.

So, let them serve a term as a majority and then stick it to them should they fail.

I really don't think setting our country up deliberately for more scandal plagued misery is an ethical ideal just to see the Conservatives shoot themselves in the foot.

Every single party will have scandals. But having the Tories in a minority will make it easier for them to use the Libs and the NDP as scapegoats if something goes wrong. Having them at least for one term in a majority would remove that. They'd be on their own to stand or fall. They won't be able to blame others for their mess.

[General Trelane (Retired)]

Curiously, in Quebec, the BQ have dropped to second place. . .behind the NDP. I say that's good news, but it remains to be seen whether this will translate to any changes on election day.

[Norade]

At a glance I'm leaning NDP for this election, but I'll need to read up on each parties campaign promises so far before I have mymind made up. Does anybody have a good site where somebody who hasn't been keeping track of the election coverage so far can get a relatively unbiased view of things?

[Justforfun000]

Every single party will have scandals. But having the Tories in a minority will make it easier for them to use the Libs and the NDP as scapegoats if something goes wrong. Having them at least for one term in a majority would remove that. They'd be on their own to stand or fall. They won't be able to blame others for their mess.

Oh I understand your logic..I'm just scared of what will happen during the majority.

[Phantasee]

Personally I support individual candidates more than parties. The Cons have soured me a fair bit recently on all their candidates. The shit they've been up to in Edmonton and especially Strathcona is pretty unsavoury. Ask me last year, and I would have supported a generic Liberal candidate only a little bit ahead of the current MPs in Edmonton. At this point, I will support almost anyone with a pulse over most of the Cons here.

Stephen Harper, though? He chills my blood. A majority would be terrible. That's some retarded thinking, because Harper can get away with anything he likes with a majority. The party is incredibly obedient, it's unlikely you would see anyone breaking with them if they got a chance to push any agenda through Parliament.