

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Isolated, repudiated by his people and even shunned by his own party, George W. Bush - the lamest of lame ducks - still seems able to count on the support of at least one world leader: Stephen Harper.
And so it was on the weekend, as it has so often been in the past two years, that our prime minister provided rare support for Bush as the soon-to-be former president battled against a chorus of world leaders urgently calling for a set of badly needed reforms.
Isolated, repudiated by his people and even shunned by his own party, George W. Bush - the lamest of lame ducks - still seems able to count on the support of at least one world leader: Stephen Harper.
And so it was on the weekend, as it has so often been in the past two years, that our prime minister provided rare support for Bush as the soon-to-be former president battled against a chorus of world leaders urgently calling for a set of badly needed reforms.
Just as Harper backed Bush's effort to block global progress on climate change, this time he helped Bush stymie European-led efforts at the G20 summit in Washington to restore regulations to international financial markets.
It was the rollback of these regulations that allowed Wall Street to transform itself into a giant casino where tycoons made billions playing fast and loose with the life savings of ordinary citizens.
Harper's resistance to European calls for tighter regulations is ironic, since he has the luxury of presiding over a country that's been spared the worst of the financial meltdown, largely because of the Canadian tradition of tighter domestic financial regulations.
This has allowed Harper to ride out the current financial storm politically unscathed, even gaining re-election in the middle of it.
In fact, although Harper's record on this has received little attention, his government had started to push Canada down the dangerous road toward looser financial regulation.
In its first budget in 2006, the Harper government changed the rules in ways that effectively opened up the Canadian mortgage market to U.S. insurers. Finance Minister Jim Flaherty noted that these "new players" would bring "greater choice and innovation" to the Canadian mortgage market. Unfortunately, they did just that. They introduced risky products - like mortgages amortized over 40 years with little or no down-payments.
The new mortgages quickly caught on. With their lower monthly payments, they made houses seem more affordable. In reality, however, they dramatically increased the cost of a home, roughly tripling it.
As the implosion of the U.S. housing market provided a vivid example of the pitfalls of looser mortgage regulations, Flaherty finally intervened last summer, tightening CMHC's rules.
The Harper government has been even more aggressive pushing financial deregulation on developing countries.
Ellen Gould, a Vancouver-based trade consultant, notes that Ottawa has pressed developing nations to open their economies to the "supposedly superior services" offered by the financial institutions of the advanced world.
At the World Trade Organization negotiations in 2006, Canada played a leading role in pushing developing nations to accept rules that would allow their domestic banks and insurance companies to be taken over by foreign financial institutions - like the ones that have been collapsing on Wall Street recently.
The Canadian push for "financial liberalization" predates Harper. It was keenly advocated by Liberal governments as well. But the Harper government has continued to push for this sort of deregulation long after it should have known better, as recently as the WTO ministerial in July 2008.
One can draw solace perhaps from the realization that Canada doesn't shape the course of world events. Still, it's disappointing to realize that we're using what little influence we have at organizations like the G20 to help the exiting Bush administration do this last bit of disservice to the world.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Isolated, repudiated by his people and even shunned by his own party, George W. Bush - the lamest of lame ducks - still seems able to count on the support of at least one world leader: Stephen Harper.
And so it was on the weekend, as it has so often been in the past two years, that our prime minister provided rare support for Bush as the soon-to-be former president battled against a chorus of world leaders urgently calling for a set of badly needed reforms.
Just as Harper backed Bush's effort to block global progress on climate change, this time he helped Bush stymie European-led efforts at the G20 summit in Washington to restore regulations to international financial markets.
It was the rollback of these regulations that allowed Wall Street to transform itself into a giant casino where tycoons made billions playing fast and loose with the life savings of ordinary citizens.
Harper's resistance to European calls for tighter regulations is ironic, since he has the luxury of presiding over a country that's been spared the worst of the financial meltdown, largely because of the Canadian tradition of tighter domestic financial regulations.
This has allowed Harper to ride out the current financial storm politically unscathed, even gaining re-election in the middle of it.
In fact, although Harper's record on this has received little attention, his government had started to push Canada down the dangerous road toward looser financial regulation.
In its first budget in 2006, the Harper government changed the rules in ways that effectively opened up the Canadian mortgage market to U.S. insurers. Finance Minister Jim Flaherty noted that these "new players" would bring "greater choice and innovation" to the Canadian mortgage market. Unfortunately, they did just that. They introduced risky products - like mortgages amortized over 40 years with little or no down-payments.
The new mortgages quickly caught on. With their lower monthly payments, they made houses seem more affordable. In reality, however, they dramatically increased the cost of a home, roughly tripling it.
As the implosion of the U.S. housing market provided a vivid example of the pitfalls of looser mortgage regulations, Flaherty finally intervened last summer, tightening CMHC's rules.
The Harper government has been even more aggressive pushing financial deregulation on developing countries.
Ellen Gould, a Vancouver-based trade consultant, notes that Ottawa has pressed developing nations to open their economies to the "supposedly superior services" offered by the financial institutions of the advanced world.
At the World Trade Organization negotiations in 2006, Canada played a leading role in pushing developing nations to accept rules that would allow their domestic banks and insurance companies to be taken over by foreign financial institutions - like the ones that have been collapsing on Wall Street recently.
The Canadian push for "financial liberalization" predates Harper. It was keenly advocated by Liberal governments as well. But the Harper government has continued to push for this sort of deregulation long after it should have known better, as recently as the WTO ministerial in July 2008.
One can draw solace perhaps from the realization that Canada doesn't shape the course of world events. Still, it's disappointing to realize that we're using what little influence we have at organizations like the G20 to help the exiting Bush administration do this last bit of disservice to the world.
Isolated, repudiated by his people and even shunned by his own party, George W. Bush - the lamest of lame ducks - still seems able to count on the support of at least one world leader: Stephen Harper.
And so it was on the weekend, as it has so often been in the past two years, that our prime minister provided rare support for Bush as the soon-to-be former president battled against a chorus of world leaders urgently calling for a set of badly needed reforms.
Just as Harper backed Bush's effort to block global progress on climate change, this time he helped Bush stymie European-led efforts at the G20 summit in Washington to restore regulations to international financial markets.
It was the rollback of these regulations that allowed Wall Street to transform itself into a giant casino where tycoons made billions playing fast and loose with the life savings of ordinary citizens.
Harper's resistance to European calls for tighter regulations is ironic, since he has the luxury of presiding over a country that's been spared the worst of the financial meltdown, largely because of the Canadian tradition of tighter domestic financial regulations.
This has allowed Harper to ride out the current financial storm politically unscathed, even gaining re-election in the middle of it.
In fact, although Harper's record on this has received little attention, his government had started to push Canada down the dangerous road toward looser financial regulation.
In its first budget in 2006, the Harper government changed the rules in ways that effectively opened up the Canadian mortgage market to U.S. insurers. Finance Minister Jim Flaherty noted that these "new players" would bring "greater choice and innovation" to the Canadian mortgage market. Unfortunately, they did just that. They introduced risky products - like mortgages amortized over 40 years with little or no down-payments.
The new mortgages quickly caught on. With their lower monthly payments, they made houses seem more affordable. In reality, however, they dramatically increased the cost of a home, roughly tripling it.
As the implosion of the U.S. housing market provided a vivid example of the pitfalls of looser mortgage regulations, Flaherty finally intervened last summer, tightening CMHC's rules.
The Harper government has been even more aggressive pushing financial deregulation on developing countries.
Ellen Gould, a Vancouver-based trade consultant, notes that Ottawa has pressed developing nations to open their economies to the "supposedly superior services" offered by the financial institutions of the advanced world.
At the World Trade Organization negotiations in 2006, Canada played a leading role in pushing developing nations to accept rules that would allow their domestic banks and insurance companies to be taken over by foreign financial institutions - like the ones that have been collapsing on Wall Street recently.
The Canadian push for "financial liberalization" predates Harper. It was keenly advocated by Liberal governments as well. But the Harper government has continued to push for this sort of deregulation long after it should have known better, as recently as the WTO ministerial in July 2008.
One can draw solace perhaps from the realization that Canada doesn't shape the course of world events. Still, it's disappointing to realize that we're using what little influence we have at organizations like the G20 to help the exiting Bush administration do this last bit of disservice to the world.