The world needs a new conservative leader, not only socially, but financially as well. Almost unfathomably, its best hope is now a quiet, steely Canadian. And he’s currently teetering on where every other conservative leader has folded.

Only a few months ago, Canada’s Conservative government was headed for defeat because of its steadfast opposition to rewarding epic failures with cash prizes -- more commonly known as "bailouts". Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper adjourned parliament to preempt a political coup by opposition Liberals and their separatist and socialist comrades. They were upset that Harper slammed the treasury's till shut on their little fingers. He was rewarded with 45% support from the Canadian public in a multi-party system -- nearly a full 10% more than he had in October's federal election, and 5% more than he would need to form a majority government, but he squandered the chance.

Harper blinked. Knowing that he will have to return to parliament and resume this drama when his budget is tabled at the end of January, his party was showing signs of insecurity and talking bailouts, starting with a possible $3 billion for the Big Three American auto companies. Dad (America) has been a bit too slow on the draw with cash for smokes and booze, so the kids are hitting up mom (Canada), who sees this as a chance to score some popularity points. None of this will ultimately help the kids become independent any faster.

Harper's opposition to bailouts has been the message all along, until this recent wavering. Canadian banks were made to do without -- and rightfully so. Even UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown said at the G20 Summit in Peru this Fall that Canada's economy is doing well in relation to other countries. Maybe that's because Canada hasn't treated the economic equivalent of a headache by whacking itself over the head with a tire iron, like almost every other developed country has been doing.

In November, Harper's Finance Minister, Jim Flaherty, said: "Nobody wants to see taxpayers' money taken -- and then in effect wasted -- where a company is not going to survive ... we want to see the plan for survivability." He added, without any hint of irony, that the plan should involve hybrids and other cars that no one else wants to buy, and proven bankruptcy facilitating "environmental technology". Here's a better plan: Back off and quit telling them what they have to do. Let them figure it out. A crash pad stuffed with cash won't provide them with any incentive to excel -- just like the best trapeze artists, the ones who stay on the bars, don't have any safety nets. That's not a coincidence.

Predictably, the Canadian mining and forestry sectors are now asking for handouts. The country has turned into an ant hill, with one signaling to the others that he's hit the mother lode.

How exactly would this $150 billion cash bonanza help the Canadian economy? It won’t -- beyond assuaging egos. Harper is being pressured to act on a feel-good liberal delusion. To wit, Liberal Senator Jerry Grafstein told a business news channel: "I say we should be taking the lead on all these issues and demonstrating how we could come up with a package, a competitive package, that would, in my view, persuade the Americans to come along as well."

Does Grafstein not notice that even the American TV weather maps stop abruptly at the border? Barack Obama and the Democrats are going to want a Big Three bailout to placate his massive union worker voting base. The Republicans, led by Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), won't do much to oppose it. President Bush found a way to slip them a few bucks on his way out the door because he doesn’t want to be held responsible for the industry tanking. I doubt that there’s any handwringing in there over what Canada is doing or thinking...

The public relations effort to parlay government cash withholding for the Big Three into full-blown panic is well underway in Canada, with the Ontario Manufacturing Council (the province where the auto manufacturers are located) releasing a study showing how 582,000 Canadian jobs will be lost if the Big Three get totaled. They only actually employ 34,100 people directly, but the study says that if the Big Three collapse, "significant job losses also occur in the wholesale and retail trade sector, information and professional services, and finance, insurance and real estate. Nearly all sectors experience significant job losses over the next five years."

And don’t forget the company that makes hula girls for your car dashboard. Or the fuzzy dice manufacturers. And the purveyors of shiny rims. Or the birth control industry...because it's a lot easier to get a legover in the backseat of a standard size General Motors car than a Honda Civic (or so I've heard).

Harper has the economic background to defend free-market economics and conservative principles and leverage his surge in popularity, but can he sell and articulate it for mass consumption the way Ronald Reagan did? Or will he start lowering the bar and talking about depressions and recessions and bailouts, as Conservatives have already done here in the US?...ohhh, silly me, Harper already did, and look where it got him?

(2/19/09 TIME) What Obama can learn from Canada on Bank Bailouts

However the topic Obama might like to explore more than any other during the few hours he has with Harper — one with perhaps the most far-reaching consequences for U.S. recovery — is the Canadian prime minister's unprecedented spending to strengthen Canadian banks and keep credit flowing in the economy. (See the top 10 financial collapses of 2008.)

When earlier this year Harper unveiled his 2009 budget, he agreed to purchase an additional $50 billion in government-insured mortgages from Canada's major banks, bringing the total since the program was announced late last year to C$125 billion. Indeed the country's minority Conservative government has staked its political fortunes on the so-called Extraordinary Financing Framework (EFF), intended to counter the credit crunch by providing up to C$200 billion in credit for consumers and businesses. (Read "Canada Faces Recession — and a Political Crisis Too.")

The trouble is that since the pump-priming EFF was launched with an initial purchase of C$25 billion in government-backed mortgages in October 2008, there is nothing to suggest it has made any progress toward achieving its stated objectives. To be fair, about C$40 billion has been spent to date, but Canadian banks are just sitting on the new cash like the proverbial goose. "There is no evidence of more credit becoming available," says analyst Michael Goldberg with Toronto-based Desjardins Securities Inc. "In fact loan growth in the economy is slowing."

At first glance Ottawa's C$125 billion pales in comparison to the $1-trillion "bad bank" being contemplated by Obama to jump-start lending in the U.S.; however, accounting for differences in size between the two economies, the figures are nearly identical. If Canadian banks, ranked best capitalized in the G7 according to the Geneva-based World Economic Forum, are sitting on massive cash injections to healthy balance sheets, what can Obama expect from U.S. banks?

In Canada, the Harper government is purchasing good assets from financial institutions, including TD Bank Financial Group and Royal Bank of Canada, with a low probability of default, and does not expect EFF to cost taxpayers a single penny.

The same is not true south of the border. Under the best-case scenario in the U.S., unsteady financial institutions will need to off-load toxic assets to Washington's "bad bank" in order to start rebuilding balance sheets. Others, like Citigroup and Bank of America, that are teetering on the brink of insolvency will need new capital just to remain on life support. (See 25 people to blame for the financial crisis.)

As a result, it's unlikely that any of the $1 trillion Obama wants for his "bad bank" will be turned into credit that helps revive business and consumer spending. The main reason is that the North-American economy might be stuck in a classic liquidity trap, first witnessed during the Dirty Thirties when banks began hoarding newly created liquidity as insurance against a further downturn. "The fact is that since the failure of Lehman Brothers every bank in the world has been concerned with beefing up capital to survive the next few years," says Lawrence Booth, a finance specialist at the University of Toronto's Rotman School of Management.

The Canadian experience with EFF reinforces the U.S. experience with TARP: government loses control of stimulus money once it falls into the hands of recipients. Obama needs to be realistic about what the "bad bank" can accomplish — namely relieving banks of some junk assets at considerable cost to the taxpayer. It won't jump-start consumer lending — at least not in the foreseeable future if the lesson of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's experience is anything to go by.

類似美林等一干證卷公司才更厲害！

你還沒在股票市場賺到，錢就把所有家當給了它們．

如果你想貪的多一點作定期投資基金，那你充其量可以當個紙上富翁而已．

At the bottom of Pandora's box, there is hope.

不！根據專家解讀，應該是Dora潘啦！

我猜...應該是傑克在盒子裡！

Waste no money on guns and bullets. Save for the food.