A typical day talking about money while dealing with CBC's malicious moderators

 http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/stocks-nafta-crash-1.4361844

NAFTA's demise just one potential trigger for a market crash: Don Pittis

Business pages are humming with comparisons to 1929 and 1987's Black Monday market declines

By Don Pittis, CBC News Posted: Oct 20, 2017 5:00 AM ET
  
584 Comments Hours ago then the top thread went "Poof"

826 Comments 


  
Jack Ruler

in 2008 the who thing started with the USA
I am so glad Harper had a minority government and followed Martins rules for banking to see us through

Lawrence Aaluuluuq (RedWhite)

@Jack Ruler

Harper didn't WANT Martin's banking rules.
He voted against them, and tried tearing them down during his minority government tenure.

There is no reason to give Harper any credit, other than "Thanks for not having a majority government before our recession."

david mccaig

@Lawrence Aaluuluuq (RedWhite)

noticed your top post has gone missing

 

David Raymond Amos

@david mccaig Trust that I noticed too and CBC knows it

David Raymond Amos 

@Lawrence Aaluuluuq (RedWhite) Methinks Harper loved NAFTA remember when he was a big part of the 3 Amigos before the crash of 2008 and how Bush praised him?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/bush-reaffirms-support-for-nafta-1.707825

Bush reaffirms support for NAFTA
CBC News Posted: Apr 21, 2008

Better yet anyone recall what McCain, Obama and Clinton were saying? This is in the same article

"Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, who are vying to become the Democratic presidential candidate, have threatened to dump NAFTA unless it's reopened to include protection for workers and the environment. Republican presidential hopeful John McCain has appeared more supportive of NAFTA, but not enough to reassure business leaders."

Furthermore Frank McKenna and I both know for a fact that Harper is a Bankster's best friend. Just Google the following 3 words

Harper and Bankers

David Raymond Amos

@Lawrence Aaluuluuq (RedWhite) Remember this response to you earlier today? Here it is again verbatim

Your observation is wrong trust that I am no fan of Trump but the topic of this article is the possibility of the markets crashing which I am truly amazed has not happened yet.

"As stock markets have continued their relentless rise, investors watch fearfully for something that could trigger a rush for the exits."

That said if the market does crash Methinks Trump will be the big instigator of it but not only for his doings with NAFTA

"Speculators typically recognise that they're buying into a bubble, but think they're smarter than everyone else, and will be able to predict the top, then sell before everyone else," says the commenter, who uses the pen name Phoenix."

For the record I agree with Phoenix's observation. However at least Don Pittis and I have names and he does not. Hence does the opinion of Phoenix truly count with his fellow very greedy speculators? Would they even notice his opinion if CBC had not published this article?

 
Lawrence Aaluuluuq (RedWhite)

The only commenters I've seen in these comment sections are the ones who loudly cheer for Trump despite what an absolute monster he is.

These are the same people who would vote for John Wayne Gacy if he led the Conservative party, and would tell US we're stupid for not genuflecting to their latest God-Emperor.

Until the right wingers throw those frothing Reformers to the curb, and come back to the centre, they will not be taken seriously.

David Raymond Amos
@Lawrence Aaluuluuq (RedWhite) Your observation is wrong trust that I am no fan of Trump but the topic of this article is the possibility of the markets crashing which I am truly amazed has not happened yet.

"As stock markets have continued their relentless rise, investors watch fearfully for something that could trigger a rush for the exits."

That said if the market does crash Methinks Trump will be the big instigator of it but not only for his doings with NAFTA

"Speculators typically recognise that they're buying into a bubble, but think they're smarter than everyone else, and will be able to predict the top, then sell before everyone else," says the commenter, who uses the pen name Phoenix."

For the record I agree with Phoenix's observation. However at least Don Pittis and I have names and he does not. Hence does the opinion of Phoenix truly count with his fellow very greedy speculators? Would they even notice his opinion if CBC had not published this article?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/quebec-religious-neutrality-1.4360820

Quebec's new religious neutrality law offers a special level of hypocrisy: Neil Macdonald

All this took place beneath the National Assembly's official crucifix, which hangs over the speaker's chair

By Neil Macdonald, CBC News Posted: Oct 18, 2017 3:51 PM ET

  
3159 Comments
Commenting is now closed for this story.


 
Jake Johnson

I agree completely with this new legislation. Quebec has got it right this time. Hopefully OntariOWE will follow suit and implement similar legislation!!

David Raymond Amos 

@Jake Johnson "Translation: Quebec remains largely white and Roman Catholic, especially outside Montreal, where there's a big church in practically every town, and God help anyone stupid enough to remove that crucifix, or monkey around with other Catholic symbols, like the giant illuminated cross that dominates the summit of Mount Royal in Montreal. This law is about Muslims, period. Ça va?"

Perhaps the diehard Caholics should ask me or my wife's many irish Catholic relatives why sued Cardinal Bernard Francis Law in 2002. (Hint it had nothing to do with sexual abuse)

Content disabled.

David Raymond Amos

@Jake Johnson Too too funny. Folks spitting a chewing about religion skipped over my comment like it didn't exist However I would bet dimes to dollars that the Attorney General of Quebec and the Feds toiling under Trudeau "The Younger " read it N'esy Pas Hubby LaCriox and Minister Joly?

NAFTA's demise just one potential trigger for a market crash: Don Pittis

Business pages are humming with comparisons to 1929 and 1987's Black Monday market declines

By Don Pittis, CBC News Posted: Oct 20, 2017 5:00 AM ET

A piece of tickertape showing stock prices from the Great Crash of Oct. 29, 1929. As markets continue to rise, business pages are filled with comparisons to the past. (Lucas Jackson/Reuters)

As stock markets have continued their relentless rise, investors watch fearfully for something that could trigger a rush for the exits.

Although the date fell on a Thursday this year, yesterday was the 30th anniversary of 1987's Black Monday, when markets plunged about 23 per cent in a single session. The equivalent today would be a drop in the Dow Jones Industrial Average of more than 5,000 points.

No one knows if or when another market crash might come, but as business commentators glance warily at the inflated value of assets, there has been plenty of speculation about what might be the one little nudge that could cause nervous traders to lose faith.

Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland, seen here talking to U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and Mexican Secretary of Economy Ildefonso Guajardo Villarreal, has warned about the potential consequences of the U.S.'s NAFTA demands. (Yuri Gripas/Reuters)

One suggestion has been a severe and decisive political meltdown in the Trump administration. Others include an outbreak of global conflict or a serious cyberattack. One report suggests the beginning of the U.S. central bank's plan to reduce its balance sheet could set things off, even though the details and date have been known for months.

But there are also hints a worthy trigger could be an abrupt change in international trade co-operation signalled by the failure of the North American Free Trade Agreement, which remains under tense renegotiation.

Scary stories

Most investors and businesses would obviously be unhappy if markets suddenly tumbled.

Nevertheless, for the business media — and many of their readers — market crashes seem to hold a fascination similar to the one that inspires fans of apocalyptic fiction.

A top story this week in one of the world's bibles of hard financial journalism, Britain's Financial Times, was an article comparing the current markets not just to 1987 but to the Great Crash of 1929 that presaged the Great Depression.

The writers noted that respected Yale scholar Robert Shiller, author of the book Irrational Exuberance, has recently warned that the comparison is not favourable.

"The cyclically adjusted price-to-earnings ratio kept by Yale economics professor Robert Shiller is at levels topped only by the peaks before the dotcom bubble burst in 2000 and the Great Crash in 1929," the Financial Times article says.

In the comments below the piece, there are many who offer reasons for why it can't happen now, including the suggestion that, since everyone is now talking about the danger of a new crash, traders all have their eyes wide open.

Greater fool

But someone responding to that comment quotes previous research by Shiller that shows even before the crash of 1987, the vast majority of investors worried the market was overvalued.

"Speculators typically recognise that they're buying into a bubble, but think they're smarter than everyone else, and will be able to predict the top, then sell before everyone else," says the commenter, who uses the pen name Phoenix.

That's the greater fool argument, well-known in all kinds of investing including the real estate market.

Timing is everything for market traders on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange. (Jin Lee/Associated Press)

That kind of trigger-finger mentality where so many investors are nervously watching for the signal to sell is clearly destabilizing. But so far, every time the market retreats, investors buy on the dip.

That could be changing, according to a piece this week in Wall Street Journal affiliate MarketWatch.

What the author describes as professional "smart money" is increasingly betting the market will fall while ordinary investors, described as "dumb money," are upping their stake.

Most great crash analysis in the business press comes to the reassuring conclusion that for a variety of reasons it won't happen this time.

As mentioned, that doesn't mean there aren't plenty of suggestions about what could abruptly change the mood.

One that may not have received enough attention is the danger of a changing global trade climate should NAFTA fall apart.

'Worst possible outcome'

Certainly Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland has expressed nervousness about the rocky state of the trade talks, clearly pointing a finger at "unconventional" and "troubling" demands from the U.S. that could bring the deal down.

"We need to be prepared in a very sensible, pragmatic, dare I say it, a no-fuss Canadian way, for the worst possible outcome," Freeland said this week. "And we certainly are."

A direct warning about the financial impact of a trade breakdown came from an unexpected source this week when the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation used the threat of such an outcome to demonstrate it's equipped to deal with the worst kind of crises.

Although it described the event as unlikely, the CMHC said a move toward anti-globalization and increased tariffs could lead to a 31 per cent decline in house prices. The federal corporation did not get into how such an event would affect stock prices, but there is every reason to expect the same logic would apply to securities.

• Looking back at the Black Monday stock crash, 30 years later
• ANALYSIS| Smart folks know stock market euphoria can't last forever

NAFTA critics have expressed doubts that the deal has created miraculous benefits for the U.S. or Canada. Nonetheless, there are widespread fears that the process of unwinding integrated cross-border industries that have grown together over 23 years will hurt should the deal fall apart.

In the event of that outcome, the question is whether a sudden collapse of NAFTA and its implication for future corporate earnings would be enough to alter the current exuberant mood. Just the threat of such a result could be one more reason to try to seal a deal.
Follow Don on Twitter @don_pittis

Quebec's new religious neutrality law offers a special level of hypocrisy: Neil Macdonald

All this took place beneath the National Assembly's official crucifix, which hangs over the speaker's chair

By Neil Macdonald, CBC News Posted: Oct 18, 2017 3:51 PM ET

Quebec nationalists have always claimed that theirs is a civic, utterly non-ethnic, non-religious nationalism. I never bought the idea that such a thing existed. There's even less reason to believe it after today. (Fred Ernst/Associated Press)

I grew up in Quebec, but I last lived there in 1994, so I am told by francophone friends my old assumptions about the pure laine nature of the province's culture are dinosaurish. Quebec, they tell me, is a vibrant, multi-ethnic, accepting society.

Everything, I am assured, has changed since nationalist leader Lucien Bouchard declared during the 1995 referendum campaign that Quebecers are a "white race," and his political partner, Jacques Parizeau, blamed the separatists' loss on "money and the ethnic votes."

Around the same time, I sat with some embarrassment as Quebec media icon Laurier LaPierre stamped angrily out of the room during a dinner party over the suggestion that Quebec is a more homogeneous, less accepting place than English Canada.

LaPierre was gay and said he always felt more welcomed in Quebec.

Identifying 'real' Quebecers

But, of course, LaPierre was also white and of Roman Catholic heritage. He never tried to wear a turban or a niqab or a skullcap in, say, Rimouski, the riding once represented by the fearsome Suzanne Tremblay of the Bloc Québécois, who liked to identify and single out those prominent Quebecers who weren't "real" Quebecers, based on accent or spelling of name.

Anyway, I've given way in recent years. I am, after all, an anglo who grew up in Quebec and speaks fluent French, which is a much different thing than being a Quebecer.

It is also unquestionable that Montreal has changed, at least the downtown neighbourhoods I still visit frequently; they are becoming a multicultural Babel, and the internet has shattered government efforts to ensure languages other than French remain unlearned, at least by the hoi polloi.

Pauline Marois proposed the Charter of Values in 2013, which would ban public sector employees from wearing overt religious symbols. (Graham Hughes / Canadian Press)

I was further chastened when the Parti Québécois of Pauline Marois, with its deeply ethnocentric "Charter of Values," was laughed out of the room by Quebec voters last election in much the same manner as federal Conservative MP Kellie Leitch, with her nativist leadership campaign to test the "values" of new immigrants, was laughed out of the room by her own party.

Conservative Party of Canada members no doubt remembered it was Leitch, at the direction of Stephen Harper, who championed the Tories' "barbaric practices tipline" and solidly backed Harper's proposed ban on niqabs at citizenship ceremonies. That idea, along with the Conservatives, was shunned by most voters, especially in Quebec.

But shamelessness remains a vital requisite in politics.

Let me see, how can I say this…

Today, under the gaze of Jesus Christ suffering on the cross, Quebec's governing Liberals stood as one and voted into law a "religious neutrality" bill forbidding anyone granting or receiving government services — which includes riding a bus or subway — from wearing a face covering.

• 'I should see your face, and you should see mine,' Quebec premier says of new religious neutrality law
• Quebec bus drivers seek clarity on law that prohibits passengers from covering faces

As one, the opposition parties stood and opposed it, not out of concern for freedom of expression but because the bill didn't go far enough. It didn't ban turbans and the paraphernalia of other religions from the public square.

To repeat: all this took place beneath the National Assembly's official crucifix, which hangs morosely over the speaker's chair.

In fact, the new law takes pains to specifically enshrine that hypocrisy. Section 13 states: "The measures introduced in this Act must not be interpreted as affecting the emblematic and toponymic elements of Québec's cultural heritage, in particular its religious cultural heritage, that testify to its history."

Translation: Quebec remains largely white and Roman Catholic, especially outside Montreal, where there's a big church in practically every town, and God help anyone stupid enough to remove that crucifix, or monkey around with other Catholic symbols, like the giant illuminated cross that dominates the summit of Mount Royal in Montreal. This law is about Muslims, period. Ça va?

A crucifix above the speaker's chair in the Quebec National Assembly. (CBC)

To put it another way, Quebec's ruling Liberals just implemented a Harper policy that was widely regarded as racist, and Quebec's opposition parties could be led by Kellie Leitch, if she could just learn to speak French with more than Grade 2 proficiency.

Had the Parti Québécois had its way, the new federal NDP leader, Jagmeet Singh — who flaunts his own religion, wearing a turban and carrying a ceremonial dagger — wouldn't be allowed onto a bus in Montreal, much less into the public gallery of the National Assembly.

Don't get me wrong. I'm uncomfortable with shows of overt religiosity by political leaders. I trust neither Singh nor Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer, a devout Christian conservative, to keep their religious views out of governance.

But I'm even more uncomfortable with government telling any of us what we can publicly declare, or wear. Niqabs are creepy instruments meant to control women, but women have the right to wear them if they wish, just as ultra-Orthodox Jewish men have the right to wear strange costumes from the Pale of Settlement, and their wives have the right to cover their heads, or shave them and wear wigs.
And take the bus while they're at it.

But passing this law and making self-righteous speeches about the need for "religious neutrality" and "social cohesion" while the bleeding, tortured martyr-God of their own religion hangs on the opposite wall is a special level of hypocrisy.

Quebec nationalists have always claimed that theirs is a civic, utterly non-ethnic, non-religious nationalism. I never bought the idea that such a thing existed. There's even less reason to believe it after today.