Alberta is the only Canadian province to offer non-recourse residential mortgages where owners can hand keys back to their lender and walk away without further liability. Because these are traditional mortgages with a 20%+ down payment, they are not insured by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), which leaves risk of loss with the lender. As job losses rise, less people are coming to Alberta and more are looking to leave. All of this is adding downward pressure to home prices that were badly inflated during the 2001-11 commodities boom. Fort McMurray and the luxury market in Calgary have already seen prices drop 20% from the highs of 2014 and counting. See: Jingle mail raises ugly head in Alberta.
Jingle mail — the act of walking away from an underwater mortgage by mailing your keys back to the bank — is a peculiarity of the Alberta residential market and an act of desperation. However, a combination of high debt and lost jobs make it an option in a province going through a significant economic reckoning.
“Jingle mail, or strategic defaults, weaken the housing market and increase loan losses among Canada’s banks.”
“I’ve got to just jump in here because, honestly, Senator Sanders is the only person who would characterize me a woman running to be the first woman president as exemplifying the establishment.” –Hillary Clinton, February 4, 2016
Reality: As America learned after the 2008 election, correcting systemic inequality takes much more that just changing the race of the leader. A change of sex won’t solve the issues here either. If only it were that simple. Here is a direct video link.
The biggest problem with allowing people to get away with repeated crimes and accumulate incredible wealth and influence through their actions, is that they come to actually believe that they are entitled and blameless.
In January, Bernie Sanders mentioned Goldman Sachs chief, Lloyd Blankfein as an example of the corporate anarchy plaguing the world. In a television ad Sanders mentioned Goldman Sachs by name.
This week on CNBC, Blankfein said that Sanders’ criticism created an environment that “has the potential to be a dangerous moment — not just for Wall Street, not just for the people who are particularly targeted, but for anybody who is a little bit out of line.”
In an interview yesterday with the International Business Times, Senator Elizabeth Warren responded to the outrageous comments made by Blankfein as follows:
“In a time when literally thousands of people are being locked up every year for non-violent drug offenses or stealing a car, the CEO of a giant bank can help engineer the theft of hundreds of millions of dollars — and he gets a raise,” she said. “The executives of another bank can help organize the money laundering for drug cartels, and they don’t even get charged with a crime, while an addict [who] buys a few pills can land in jail for a year. This is two criminal justice systems.”
See: Elizabeth Warren defends Bernie Sanders from Goldman criticism.
Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are the most vocal candidates in pointing out the unholy financial influence of the finance sector on other Presidental hopefuls. For good reason, as revealed in this chart:
Sanders has also criticized fellow leadership candidate Hillary Clinton, for accepting $675,000 of speaking fees and $930,000 of campaign contributions from the firm and its executives during her career. Goldman Sachs has donated at least $250,000 to her family’s foundation — which in 2014 held a donor meeting at the company’s Manhattan headquarters.
See: Election 2016
The Wall Street Journal produced this summary of Clinton’s top 5 contributors.
Perhaps the most disturbing part of all of this, is that the US Supreme Court, the highest court of the self-proclaimed ‘greatest democracy in the world’, enabled this devastating purchase of political influence 5 years ago in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, when it ruled that political spending is protected under the First Amendment, such that corporations and unions can spend unlimited amounts of money on political activities, as long as it is done independent of a party or candidate.
Confirmed by a recent report from the Brennan Center, this has been a democratic catastrophe: of the $1 billion spent in federal elections by super PACs since 2010, nearly 60% of the money came from just 195 individuals and their spouses who make the maximum $5,200 donation directly to a candidate, then make unlimited contributions to single-candidate super PACs.