Confessions of a Shiftless Mind

Do you not agree?

I find that banks, and even credit unions now, gouge us for every conceivable transaction fee or usage fee possible. It is ridiculous. Some might say, fair use, everyone does but they fail to take into account what a bank exists to do.

Banks are founded on the idea that businesses and individuals sometimes need cash that they don’t have. They exist to provide loans. Where do they get the money from? Originally, they got the money to lend by having people keep their money in the bank. The incentive for us to keep money in the bank (instead of our own private safes or sock drawers, or under the mattress) is that banks pay us interest on our deposits. The difference between the interest they charge on a loan and the interest they pay on a deposit used to be how banks made money.

Under this system, banks needed investors to keep their money there. They would not have the assets otherwise to lend. Their relationships with those with accounts used to be positive - they wanted your business and were prepared to do whatever they could to secure your deposit over the bank down the road. However, something happened in the last 50 years or so.

At some point (a finance major probably knows exactly what I am talking about), the government gave banks permission to lend money they did not have. They no longer needed to keep deposits on hand to cover the loans they held. They could essentially “make up” money from nothing. This meant that banks no longer needed investors and depositors. The beginning of the fee heist was at this time. Since then, the profits of banks skyrocketed, as they no longer needed to keep savings account rates competitive. They no longer care whether or not you save your money with them. In fact, deposit and account services are now a cost the banks feel you incur with them. Now, storing your money in a bank is a privilege, and they will make you pay through the teeth for it. Plus, all loans they give now are pure profit. They give you money they don’t have, and when you pay it back, plus interest, that is all new money and profit for them!

It disgusts me how much money they make, and how poorly they treat customers now. There is only one reason for it. They no longer need us to make money. 4.6 billion is an obscene amount of money. They have been making these kinds of profits for years now, if not decades. Where is all this money going I wonder? They aren’t lending it out. They aren’t spending it. What is happening to it?

_{This message brought to you by a temporary outburst of libertarianism. It is also by nature expressly anti-business and anti-commerce. What am I thinking, a good Tory bashing the moneylenders?}

What do you know: a rational government decision? You don’t do what you’re paid to do, you’re fired!

On the closure of 75% of “Status of Women” offices in Canada:

But Liberal MP Maria Minna called the move “reprehensible.”

“Canadian women are still only earning 71 cents to every dollar earned by their male counterparts, more and more women are living in poverty, and we are still waiting for the government to create child-care spaces,” she said.

If this MP is right, then clearly the Status of Women Canada has squandered our public money over the last 20 years of their existence! If they have taken hundred of millions of our tax dollars to help the status of women in Canada, and they are STILL in the above situation and it is getting WORSE, then we MUST get rid of the SOW! Clearly they are having no effect, and we should spend the money in other ways that will accomplish something for women!

Of course, I am sure this MP doesn’t really mean what she says. Is she honestly trying to say that women are worse off in society today than ever before? Than 5 years ago? 10? 20? Somehow I think that will be a hard sell to the public.

More on this announcement from Relapsed Catholic and Dissonance and Disrespect.

Great new blog focusing on new about our Military. They have a stellar post highlighting a number of positive stories about the good that Canada has been doing, that have been ignored overshadowed by casket coverage from Afghanistan.

Bookmark it and overcome the media bias against our military.

…

I guess I should read more carefully.

That’s what I thought he said anyway, until I read his article.

Should Quebec have its own “National” hockey team? Good question. Given its recognition the other day as a “Nation within Canada”, it needs to be given some thought.

Have any other “nations” been given similar status? Well, I could cite international Rugby and Soccer. England has her own team, as well as Wales and Scotland. I am not sure about Northern Ireland. All of the previous are part of the “United Kingdom”, but are considered “nations” for the purpose of international sports.

On the other hand, what if some Quebec hockey players don’t agree with the sovereigntist view of a Quebec national team? What if they elect to play for Team Canada? I don’t think all would, but certainly I think some see themselves as Canadian first, and Quebecker second. Would Quebec then engage in the same kinds of freedom-stifling actions they have used to enforce French language use in the province? Would they force Quebec-born players to play for them?

It also raises the point of who comprises the Quebec nation. Are all residents of Quebec Quebeckers? What about new immigrants? They came to become “Canadians” not “Quebeckers”. Would they have a choice? It is my understanding that they did not have a choice as to which province to immigrate to initially - that Immigration Canada dictated which provinces were allotted which people go where. What about the First Nations of Quebec? Are they Canadians or Quebeckers? Will they be permitted to choose their nationality? What if they want their own hockey team?

I am starting to think that this question of a Quebec National Hockey Team is a lot bigger and will have a lot more ramifications than whether or not Patrick Roy gets asked to coach the Quebec Juniors or the Canadian Juniors. One thing I know for certain though - Sid the Kid is still playing for Team Canada!

I think my lack of Poli Sci credits are showing.

What exactly is it about the word “populist” that easterners consider a bad word? What is wrong with being a populist? If you are not a populist, what does that really mean? I have heard of Preston Manning described as a populist. How was he different from Stephen Harper?

What was it about how one acts as a politician that makes someone a populist? Can someone explain this to me, then explain why the media and liberals (these two aren’t synonyms yet?) think it is a bad thing?

You know, I have been blogging for years and years now (not always at this particular home), and one thing I have seen over and over - leftist hecklers will probably 80% of the time post comments under a pseudonym. They seem afraid to have their views connected with them personally. On the other hand, I can only recall one instance in my blogging life that I have posted anonymously. The reason why was that I was playing devil’s advocate. The rest of the time, no matter how controversial the subject, I have never hidden behind a fake poster name.

What caused me to comment on this? A comment, or string of them actually. Some guy, evidently with no life, has been returning here periodically to post comments that have foul language hidden in them. He seems to think I have some kind of profanity filter and has been taking the usual steps to get around them. Of course, I have no such profanity filter. I have just been deleting his messages since it is clear he is not really in contributing to discussion in any meaningful way - he just wants to tick me off.

Note to Ootpoot - I am in no way banning you from this site. Feel free to post. I won’t tolerate your use of profanity though. Call me a bigot. I guess I am, against people who can’t express themselves without profanity. Also, feel free to engage in a debate about the use of profanity in public dialogue. I would be fascinated to hear your viewpoints, assuming they have more substance than “Hyuh hyuh… the F-Word is funny!”

From an article about upcoming film, “Bobby”, a fictionalized story of characters peripheral to Robert Kennedy’s assassination:

Only one character, however, is painted as an outright villain. That’s Timmons, a racist, almost reptilian kitchen manager who is fired when he refuses to allow his mostly-minority staff time off to vote in the California primary (presumably for Kennedy). Furious, he gets revenge by blowing the whistle on his married boss (Macy) who’s sleeping with a switchboard operator (Heather Graham)….

…

He’d be your classic red-state voter today, Slater says.

We’re all about treating people fairly down here in Hollywood. Equality, love and tolerance, and all that. Except for those DANG RED STATE VOTERS! Racist, reptilian monsters, by-and-large!

The promise of a government paying down its debt and providing tax relief. I know I’ve heard this one.

Yes… it was the late 80’s. This annoying Calgary mayor had just swept to power in Alberta. The province was in debt and running a deficit every year. How are they doing now? Well, now they have no debt, the province is swimming in money, and they don’t even need to raise minimum wage because nobody can attract workers without paying at least $10 an hour.

Oh… did I mention they don’t have a PST either?

This is a story I could bear being told nationally, 15 years from now. How about you? Can you stomach Conservative rule for 15 years, with the knowledge that all of Canada will end up like Alberta?

I know I can.

to all my American visitors!