Today, he sent me a link to a Newsweek article (by Fareed Zakaria, Feb. 07) that backs this up with some facts. Coming in one of the most widely read U.S. news magazines, we can't dismiss this as Canadian boosterism.
Guess which country, alone in the industrialized world, has not faced a single bank failure, calls for bailouts or government intervention in the financial or mortgage sectors. Yup, it's Canada. In 2008, the World Economic Forum ranked Canada's banking system the healthiest in the world. America's ranked 40th, Britain's 44th.Canada has done more than survive this financial crisis. The country is positively thriving in it. Canadian banks are well capitalized and poised to take advantage of opportunities that American and European banks cannot seize. . . .
So what accounts for the genius of the Canadians? Common sense. Over the past 15 years, as the United States and Europe loosened regulations on their financial industries, the Canadians refused to follow suit, seeing the old rules as useful shock absorbers. Canadian banks are typically leveraged at 18 to 1—compared with U.S. banks at 26 to 1 and European banks at a frightening 61 to 1. Partly this reflects Canada's more risk-averse business culture, but it is also a product of old-fashioned rules on banking.
Canada has also been shielded from the worst aspects of this crisis because its housing prices have not fluctuated as wildly as those in the United States. Home prices are down 25 percent in the United States, but only half as much in Canada. Why? Well, the Canadian tax code does not provide the massive incentive for overconsumption that the U.S. code does: interest on your mortgage isn't deductible up north. In addition, home loans in the United States are "non-recourse," which basically means that if you go belly up on a bad mortgage, it's mostly the bank's problem. In Canada, it's yours. Ah, but you've heard American politicians wax eloquent on the need for these expensive programs—interest deductibility alone costs the federal government $100 billion a year—because they allow the average Joe to fulfill the American Dream of owning a home. Sixty-eight percent of Americans own their own homes. And the rate of Canadian homeownership? It's 68.4 percent.
Canada has been remarkably responsible over the past decade or so. It has had 12 years of budget surpluses, and can now spend money to fuel a recovery from a strong position. The government has restructured the national pension system, placing it on a firm fiscal footing, unlike our own insolvent Social Security. Its health-care system is cheaper than America's by far (accounting for 9.7 percent of GDP, versus 15.2 percent here), and yet does better on all major indexes. Life expectancy in Canada is 81 years, versus 78 in the United States; "healthy life expectancy" is 72 years, versus 69. American car companies have moved so many jobs to Canada to take advantage of lower health-care costs that since 2004, Ontario and not Michigan has been North America's largest car-producing region. . . .
If President Obama is looking for smart government, there is much he, and all of us, could learn from our quiet—OK, sometimes boring—neighbor to the north.
This sort of reminds me of the fabled race between the tortoise and the hare. No question which is which here, is there? The slow, steady one won the race.
Ralph
Boring can be a good thing! A lot of what Canadians do make sense to me. They keep quiet for the most part and go about their business in a reasonable way.
ReplyDeleteIt has never made sense to me that interest on a large mortgage is deductible, but if you own your own home outright, you have no deductible except for property tax. Perhaps deductible interest should be based on income and the price of the house. I do like to see affordable housing, but interest on a house someone can't afford? That just encourages irresponsible spending.
Another thing I don't understand is why Americans are so afraid of national health care. It makes sense in so many ways especially if you look at the quality and availability of care just north of us.
sylvia
We're still being held captive to the big bugaboo of the 50s -- "socialism" -- which is the scare word they trot out to oppose single-payer, universal health care. It makes sense in every way. Experts have said that the elimination of all the administrative, advertising, and salaries for clerks -- who do nothing by look for ways to deny claims -- would save enough money to provide coverage for all the uninsureds.
ReplyDeleteDon't we have "socialized" fire departments and schools? What's so basically wrong with government providing services for its citizens?