If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
I was listening to CBC radio...our Banks...called the best in the world...according to the report...during the big dive...they were supported to the tune of 114 Billion by various sources including our tax dollars...do our economists in the group have any input...for me...this sounds scary...as my bank tries to gouge $1,300 in bank fees on the CMA account...for April...ummm...my mattress is starting to look very lucrative :)
I was listening to CBC radio...our Banks...called the best in the world...according to the report...during the big dive...they were supported to the tune of 114 Billion by various sources including our tax dollars...do our economists in the group have any input...for me...this sounds scary...as my bank tries to gouge $1,300 in bank fees on the CMA account...for April...ummm...my mattress is starting to look very lucrative :)
Larry
I haven't read the report, only the media hype. However those behind the study have their own known ideological bent. At first glance I would say they are conflating the usual Central Bank lending and open market facilities with a bailout. And yes the money being lent is always our tax money. It makes for a catchy media splash which so far only the CBC seems to be propogating. I usually ignore all these think tank type of groups, including those all over the political spectrum, such as the Fraser Institute. If you get 5 economists in the same room you will get 7 different opinions. That's why its important to look at the concenus opinion not just the opinion of one or the other.
I could discuss it further but unless you are familiar with the operation of a central bank it won't make much sense to you. Suffice it to say that the central bank uses our tax money to do this to control inflation and interest rates. This is the main way that the government has of controlling the money supply in the economy. That and printing new money. Considering that interest rates are at an all time low and that this benefits everyone who borrows money for a mortgage or otherwise I would say we are getting our tax moneys worth from lending it out, getting interest on it and at the same time controlling inflation and interest rates. Your tax dollars are helping you to pay less in interest on your debts.
I find the report doubly suprising because only a relatively small amount had to be written off by our banks over the sub-prime crisis, notably by the Royal Bank. The TD bank for example took no write offs over the financial crisis.
What rate of interest does your mattress pay you? The banks have a cost to providing service that has to be covered one way or the other. If not the individual account holder paying for services than anyone borrowing money and only those borrowing money from the bank would be covering the cost of providing services to all other account holders. There is no free lunch, there is only a lunch you pay for or that someone else pays for you.
Let's also not forget that alot of those tax dollars are not just ours. Our banks, their dividend recipients and their shareholders that realize a capital gain pay a lot of taxes. That alone amounts to billions of tax dollars contributed to the public coffers every year. So when we say it's our tax dollars let's maybe remember where some of the taxes come from in the first place. I know it's not so popular to think of banks and their shareholders as being tax payers too but there you go.
Last edited by Zeljko Kitich; Tuesday, 1st May, 2012, 04:01 PM.
Sensational headlines get people's attention - let's make sure the facts are there to support, and that things are not taken out of context.
I too, have not read the report, but from what I remember, any "support" which the banks received was in the form of backstop guarantees. As I recall, the global banking system was on the verge of freezing up as banks would not transact with each other because of fears of bank failure. Thus, the govt. "support" more moral than anything else, and was a way to comfort the market.
In the end, our banking system stood on its own two feet and is still the envy of the world. Let's be greatful and proud of this, as the alternatives are not very appetizing - look at Europe or the US.
I haven't read the report, only the media hype. However those behind the study have their own known ideological bent. At first glance I would say they are conflating the usual Central Bank lending and open market facilities with a bailout. And yes the money being lent is always our tax money. It makes for a catchy media splash which so far only the CBC seems to be propogating.
I could discuss it further but unless you are familiar with the operation of a central bank it won't make much sense to you. Suffice it to say that the central bank uses our tax money to do this to control inflation and interest rates. This is the main way that the government has of controlling the money supply in the economy. That and printing new money. Considering that interest rates are at an all time low and that this benefits everyone who borrows money for a mortgage or otherwise I would say we are getting our tax moneys worth from lending it out, getting interest on it and at the same time controlling inflation and interest rates. Your tax dollars are helping you to pay less in interest on your debts.
I find the report doubly suprising because only a relatively small amount had to be written off by our banks over the sub-prime crisis, notably by the Royal Bank. The TD bank for example took no write offs over the financial crisis.
What rate of interest does your mattress pay you?
Hi Zeljko,
Thanks! I must admit it blew me out of the water! Clarification is needed!
On a Presonal front:
I thought I was bright...alas I lost money on the market...so I gave my funds to a person who I thought was good...he made me some money...but I thought I could do better...so I took it over...and I lost LOL...then I connected with someone else..he was worse than me...and now...for the last 3 years there is this great lady who is on top of things for me...and life is good!
That was on the personal side....as for CMA...we have been very lucky...for the last 27 years banks have not charged us bank fees...well...the glory years are gone..if someone knows of a bank that does not charge bank fees to a non-profit like ours (or charges more reasonable fees) ...a resto of your choice is a given...when I saw the $1,300 fee for April...and my bank is saying...well...we told you blah blah...we can reduce this to $1,000...my mattress is very interesting :).
Sensational headlines get people's attention - let's make sure the facts are there to support, and that things are not taken out of context.
I too, have not read the report, but from what I remember, any "support" which the banks received was in the form of backstop guarantees. As I recall, the global banking system was on the verge of freezing up as banks would not transact with each other because of fears of bank failure. Thus, the govt. "support" more moral than anything else, and was a way to comfort the market.
In the end, our banking system stood on its own two feet and is still the envy of the world. Let's be greatful and proud of this, as the alternatives are not very appetizing - look at Europe or the US.
Hi Evan,
Thank you for registering for the CMA Superfest and for your many kind words!!
I hope you are right on what you said in this post..today the truth is difficult to find :)
We will have great fun in the Laurentiens this summer with us...and I am happy you will be a part of this!
I was listening to CBC radio...our Banks...called the best in the world...according to the report...during the big dive...they were supported to the tune of 114 Billion by various sources including our tax dollars...do our economists in the group have any input...for me...this sounds scary...as my bank tries to gouge $1,300 in bank fees on the CMA account...for April...ummm...my mattress is starting to look very lucrative :)
Larry
I heard that yesterday and thought about it a bit. Sometimes I think wrong but here's my thoughts on it.
If our government was able to avert the same kind of problems here as the Americans faced simply by quietly and quickly doing what the Americans ended up doing loudly and publicly, they probably did a good job. We got thought the crisis relatively well, compared with the U.S.
The U.S. banks had to issue large amounts of shares (ownership) to their government and the right wing republic to our south became very much socialist. As far as I know they still own chunks of U.S. banks and other institutions.
Part of the bailout, as far as I can see (and it might be wrong), was the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) "buying" mortgages from the banks. These are mortgages which the CMHC was already insuring. When all is said and done and the mortgages paid off I think the government will come out about 2 billion ahead. Probably that was about half the solution. (Bailout is such a harsh word. :) )
I'm not sure of where the rest of the money came from but look forward to reading the book when someone writes it.
I heard that yesterday and thought about it a bit. Sometimes I think wrong but here's my thoughts on it.
If our government was able to avert the same kind of problems here as the Americans faced simply by quietly and quickly doing what the Americans ended up doing loudly and publicly, they probably did a good job. We got thought the crisis relatively well, compared with the U.S.
The U.S. banks had to issue large amounts of shares (ownership) to their government and the right wing republic to our south became very much socialist. As far as I know they still own chunks of U.S. banks and other institutions.
Part of the bailout, as far as I can see (and it might be wrong), was the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) "buying" mortgages from the banks. These are mortgages which the CMHC was already insuring. When all is said and done and the mortgages paid off I think the government will come out about 2 billion ahead. Probably that was about half the solution. (Bailout is such a harsh word. :) )
I'm not sure of where the rest of the money came from but look forward to reading the book when someone writes it.
I have read nothing that suggests that in Canada those were sub-prime loans or made to individuals that were not capable of making payments on those mortgages. There was no foreclosure crisis in Canada nor have I ever read that there was an increase in foreclosures in Canada because Canadian banks engaged in sub-prime lending to those for example without sufficient income to pay their mortgages. Nor did the CMHC rules permit that.
For a very good read on a very simiar financial circumstances to the subprime crisis that brought down a Canadian insurance company read Who Killed Confederation Life? This happened in 90 or 91 but is a good blueprint for the subprime crisis and what can happen if the real estate market has a significant downturn. It is a popular book but out of necessity it gets fairly technical. The same writer wrote about the Eatons downfall.
Last edited by Zeljko Kitich; Tuesday, 1st May, 2012, 04:49 PM.
I heard that yesterday and thought about it a bit. Sometimes I think wrong but here's my thoughts on it.
If our government was able to avert the same kind of problems here as the Americans faced simply by quietly and quickly doing what the Americans ended up doing loudly and publicly, they probably did a good job. We got thought the crisis relatively well, compared with the U.S.
The U.S. banks had to issue large amounts of shares (ownership) to their government and the right wing republic to our south became very much socialist. As far as I know they still own chunks of U.S. banks and other institutions.
Part of the bailout, as far as I can see (and it might be wrong), was the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) "buying" mortgages from the banks. These are mortgages which the CMHC was already insuring. When all is said and done and the mortgages paid off I think the government will come out about 2 billion ahead. Probably that was about half the solution. (Bailout is such a harsh word. :) )
I'm not sure of where the rest of the money came from but look forward to reading the book when someone writes it.
Good post Gary...I would love to read the book...from my perspective....the Canadian Banks have a special status that may not be as well deserved as what we see...In Canada we have a great banking system that charges incredible bank fees... so when I hear about these financial issues...I have to ask questions....
I have read nothing that suggests that in Canada those were sub-prime loans or made to individuals that were not capable of making payments on those mortgages. There was no foreclosure crisis in Canada nor have I ever read that there was an increase in foreclosures in Canada because Canadian banks engaged in sub-prime lending to those for example without sufficient income to pay their mortgages. Nor did the CMHC rules permit that.
I understood in Canada it was a liquidity problem. They swapped mortgages for money. What you wrote above points out why the government will make money on the transaction.
Good post Gary...I would love to read the book...from my perspective....the Canadian Banks have a special status that may not be as well deserved as what we see...In Canada we have a great banking system that charges incredible bank fees... so when I hear about these financial issues...I have to ask questions....
Larry
Banks have a 'special status' because the central bank acts through them and on the open market to control interest and inflation and money supply. That's also why they are so regulated by governments. Try this book for a good cheap read on how it all works http://www.amazon.com/Banking-Bernst...5906650&sr=8-8
That was on the personal side....as for CMA...we have been very lucky...for the last 27 years banks have not charged us bank fees...well...the glory years are gone..if someone knows of a bank that does not charge bank fees to a non-profit like ours (or charges more reasonable fees) ...a resto of your choice is a given...when I saw the $1,300 fee for April...and my bank is saying...well...we told you blah blah...we can reduce this to $1,000...my mattress is very interesting :).
At the CFC I used to bank at the Province of Ontario Savings Office, until the auditor forced us to bank at a regular chartered bank. POSO had no service charges, for cheques or deposits etc. And they paid interest on your balance.
President's Choice Financial does not charge for the same things, and produces readable monthly statements in PDF. I don't know if they let organizations have accounts. Probably not, unless you can convince them your name is Chess N. Math. I want to change my name to "Receiver General".
But maybe you're talking about modren concepts such as credit card commissions, in which case I have no hint.
At this time we open individual or joint President's Choice Financial accounts in personal names only. Business accounts and/or non-profit organizations accounts have not yet been established."
Larry - check with other banks. If any give a much better deal (i.e. free like you had before), report back to your current bank, and I'm sure they will match it. Otherwise - threaten to change banks. (I have had a CIBC account and never a charge since I opened it about 30 years ago - just keep a minimum balance of $1000).
and if you want to get a flavour of the organization behind this 'secret' bank loans study just read some of their other viewpoints, such as the US being behind the protests in Syria and wrongly trying to remove Assad from office http://www.policyalternatives.ca/pub...-revolution-vi
That was on the personal side....as for CMA...we have been very lucky...for the last 27 years banks have not charged us bank fees...well...the glory years are gone..if someone knows of a bank that does not charge bank fees to a non-profit like ours (or charges more reasonable fees) ...a resto of your choice is a given...when I saw the $1,300 fee for April...and my bank is saying...well...we told you blah blah...we can reduce this to $1,000...my mattress is very interesting :).
We are still "discussing".
If this sticks...they lose a customer for life!
I'm not sure what bank you currently use... I know BMO had good deals for community groups (as in free accounts), not sure if that also applies to non-profits.
Alternatively you could contact the Toronto Star and see if they'll do a story about how the evil big bank is milking non-profits despite how much money they already earn...!
For what it's worth, here are three of my ideas re banks and money:
1) When we deposit funds into a bank account we are, in effect, loaning money to the bank. We expect something in return. We used to get interest but now it's more service related (internet banking, cash machines and debit cards are foremost). The services are nice but let's not lose sight of the fact that we are loaning the banks our money.
2) Inflation equals tax. If you put your money in a mattress its "value" is steadily declining. So generally speaking it's better to put your money to work. Just how is, of course, the big question. No risk, no gain.
3) Money is a club (in the weapon sense). The more money you have the bigger the club you can swing. When you negotiate with a bank never hesitate to take a few swings!
Tweet
Comment