Ding Dong the puppet is gone

[Geronimo]

Just admit you were wrong and we can move on. Words have definitions and you should use them correctly.

to be fair Dinner I can't remember the last time you did this, can you?

[N35t0r]

Just admit you were wrong and we can move on. Words have definitions and you should use them correctly.

I'm neither the UN nor a court of law, so I was going with the colloquial definition of "a combatant captured during a war".

[N35t0r]

I mean, we can certainly move on if you're so hung up on the definition of PoW:
​

Concentration camp, huh? Hell, I can remember when Bush the elder used that place to house Haitian migrants and when Clinton used to house illegal alien deportees. But now it magically becomes a concentration camp?

Put the kool-aid down and turn off MSNBC.

I remember when Bush used it to torture people!

[Lorizael]

wow we moved on to openly deporting american citizens much quicker than even i anticipated

https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/03/americas/el-salvador-migrant-deal-marco-rubio-intl-hnk

[Dinner]

I'm neither the UN nor a court of law, so I was going with the colloquial definition of "a combatant captured during a war".

"Unlawful combatant" is the term the Geneva Convention uses.

[N35t0r]

"Unlawful combatant" is the term the Geneva Convention uses.

Right. Which I'm not personally a signatory of, or a lawyer, so I don't care.

[Broken_Erika]

Trump falsely says U.S. banks aren't allowed to do business in Canada. What does he mean?

​ Trump's claim isn't true, but foreign entry into Canadian banking sector is challenging

​U.S. President Donald Trump said on Monday that U.S. banks are not allowed to operate in Canada, echoing an earlier statement he'd made on his Truth Social platform — but the claim is false.

"American banks are not allowed to do business in Canada. Can you believe that?" he said to a room of reporters. Trump has mentioned Canada's banking sector several times recently in relation to trade tensions, suggesting that he has another bone to pick as a tariff dispute simmers between the two countries.

• Trump to pause promised tariffs for 30 days after speaking with Trudeau

Several U.S. financial institutions have operations in Canada. They fall under the Schedule 2 category (foreign-owned banks with Canadian subsidiaries), and they include JPMorganChase, which has about 600 employees on this side of the border, and Citibank, which has operated in Canada for more than a century.
​
So what might the U.S. president be referring to?

"It's somewhat exaggerated. [U.S.] banks can operate in Canada, but if they really want to be major players, it's a little more difficult," said Lawrence Kryzanowski, a professor of finance at Concordia University's John Molson School of Business.

Regulations, loyal clients dissuade U.S. banks

​Foreign banks might not want to move into Canada because of tough competition. Canada's banking industry is highly concentrated, with its big six domestic banks — Royal Bank, Bank of Montreal, Scotiabank, CIBC, TD Bank and National Bank — accounting for the vast majority of total bank assets.

The Big Six already have an extensive and entrenched network of loyal clients in the domestic market, which makes it harder for foreign banks to get a foothold here: "It's not a very exciting market for a large U.S. bank," said Kryzanowski.

"If a foreign bank goes in and they want to set up a network, they have to get a lot of retail customers to switch."

Canada's Big Six fall under the Schedule 1 category — meaning they must be Canadian-owned institutions that take deposits. Any American bank that wanted to buy a major Canadian bank would face these and other restrictions.

Even smaller Schedule 1 banks face ownership limits, said Kryzanowski, because 35 per cent of the bank has to be publicly owned. "Typically, if an American bank is going to move into Canada, they want to have complete control."

There are arguments to be made for and against the Canadian banking's strict regulatory environment, he added.

Canadian banks known for stability


The regulations make it difficult for foreign competition to compete here, but they've also given Canadian banks a reputation for stability.

"The big difference between Canadian bank requirements and U.S. bank requirement is the domestic stability buffer," said Jie Zhang, a finance professor at Trent University in Peterborough, Ont.
​
That buffer — a kind of fund that Canadian banks must set aside in case of financial emergencies — helped our banking institutions stave off the worst pains of the 2008 financial crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic, according to Zhang.

Canadians banks are required to set aside a larger percentage of these funds than U.S. banks do, and those compliance costs could be another factor that dissuades American-owned banks from operating in Canada.

• Open banking could spur competition, but fintechs say Canada's moving too slowly

The Canadian Bankers Association refuted Trump's claim on Monday, noting in a statement that there are 16 U.S.-based bank subsidiaries and branches holding about $113 billion in assets currently operating in Canada.

"Canada has a strong and competitive banking sector comprised of both domestic and foreign banks," reads a post on the association's X account. "These banks specialize in a range of financial services, including corporate and commercial lending, treasury services, credit card products, investment banking and mortgage financing.

"They serve not only customers with cross-border business activities, but also Canada's domestic retail market. U.S. banks now make up approximately half of all foreign bank assets in Canada."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/trump-fact-check-us-banks-canada-1.7449233

​

[Geronimo]

ok that's a lot maybe you guys can help me understand this,

correct me if I'm wrong that:

• Regulatory Restrictions: U.S. banks operating in Canada fall under Schedule of the Bank Act, which means they can operate as subsidiaries but face ownership limits and must comply with Canadian regulations. They need approval from the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) and the Minister of Finance.
• Market Competition: Canada's banking sector is highly concentrated with six major domestic banks (Royal Bank, Bank of Montreal, Scotiabank, CIBC, TD Bank, and National Bank) dominating the market. These banks have a loyal customer base, making it difficult for foreign banks to gain a foothold.
• Operational Challenges: U.S. banks must establish a separate subsidiary in Canada, which requires significant investment and adherence to Canadian corporate laws. They also face challenges in attracting retail customers who are already loyal to domestic banks.

Are these three points correct? If so, then perhaps characterizing Trump's claim that: "American banks are not allowed to do business in Canada. Can you believe that?" as "false" is itself at least incomplete if not also "false". These market realities combined with those regulations could create defacto bans on US owned banks operating in Canada.​

[Dauphin]

That reads like ChatGPT wrote it, and garbled the messaging.

Regulators in any country will regulate a bank's activities in those countries, regardless of whether they are foreign or domestic. For example, you need a banking licence to operate in the US. They'd need Office of Comptroller General (OCC) approval as well. This isn't a restriction in and of itself.

There are more foreign banks in Canada than domestic banks, including several big names like Bank of America, BNY, Barclays, BNP. Citi, Deutsche. etc They just avoid retail customers (i.e. checking and savings for indviduals, etc).

My view is that investing in retail banking is not a great investment unless you have a large customer base, and the big established banks make it a hard barrier to entry. This is true in most countries where banks with a national presence have most of the market (all UK high street / main street bank are British banks, but it is a financial world capital with non-retail banks operating in the 100s . If regional banks (a more American phenomena) hold most retail customers then the barriers to entry are smaller as you can just gobble up a regional bank for entry into that market.

[Dauphin]

Above post pending approval....

Addendum, there is also an investment restriction preventing foreign ownership of over 25% of a Canadian bank. It probably prevents a simple acquisition of a bank to gain market entry, but it doesn't prevent you operating in Canada as a foreign bank if you got a foothold. HSBC did it for years before they sold to RBC.

[Geronimo]

That reads like ChatGPT wrote it, and garbled the messaging.

Regulators in any country will regulate a bank's activities in those countries, regardless of whether they are foreign or domestic. For example, you need a banking licence to operate in the US. They'd need Office of Comptroller General (OCC) approval as well. This isn't a restriction in and of itself.

There are more foreign banks in Canada than domestic banks, including several big names like Bank of America, BNY, Barclays, BNP. Citi, Deutsche. etc They just avoid retail customers (i.e. checking and savings for indviduals, etc).

My view is that investing in retail banking is not a great investment unless you have a large customer base, and the big established banks make it a hard barrier to entry. This is true in most countries where banks with a national presence have most of the market (all UK high street / main street bank are British banks, but it is a financial world capital with non-retail banks operating in the 100s . If regional banks (a more American phenomena) hold most retail customers then the barriers to entry are smaller as you can just gobble up a regional bank for entry into that market.

sorry. So for a Canadian bank to operate in the US what regulatory hurdles might pre-empt it? Regulatory hurdles are only relevant to keeping foreign competitors out to the extent that market realities make that possible with those regulations.

[Broken_Erika]

Trump proposes 'permanently' displacing Palestinians so U.S. can take over Gaza

​ U.S. president's comments come after his meeting with Israel's prime minister

​U.S. President Donald Trump said Tuesday he wants his country to take ownership of the Gaza Strip and redevelop it after Palestinians are displaced elsewhere.

"We will own it and be responsible for dismantling all of the dangerous unexploded bombs and other weapons on the site," Trump said at the start of a joint news conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

"I do see a long-term ownership position," Trump said when asked about the U.S. controlling the territory for an extended period, adding that he is not ruling out sending U.S. troops in to secure Gaza.
​
He added the U.S. would level destroyed buildings and "create an economic development that will supply unlimited numbers of jobs and housing for the people of the area."

Netanyahu, whose military had engaged in more than a year of fierce fighting with Hamas militants in Gaza, said Trump was "thinking outside the box with fresh ideas" and was "showing willingness to puncture conventional thinking."
​
Trump suggested this would promote stability in the region and added: "This is not a decision made lightly."

"Everybody I've spoken to loves the idea of the United States owning that piece of land."

• Analysis
  As Netanyahu and Trump meet in Washington, doubts remain about how much Israel's leader wants to end the war

However, Saudi Arabia, a key U.S. ally in the region, stressed in a statement its rejection of any attempt to displace Palestinians from their land and said it would not establish relations with Israel without establishment of a Palestinian state.

Trump's comments came hours after he suggested that displaced Palestinians in Gaza be "permanently" resettled outside the war-torn territory.
​
"You can't live in Gaza right now. I think we need another location," Trump said earlier Tuesday.

"I think it should be a location that's going to make people happy. You look over the decades, it's all death in Gaza. This has been happening for years. It's all death. If we can get a beautiful area to resettle people, permanently, in nice homes where they can be happy and not be shot and not be killed and not be knifed to death like what's happening in Gaza."

Trump has previously called on Jordan, Egypt and other Arab countries to take in Palestinians temporarily while Gaza is reconstructed after the devastating war between Hamas and Israel, which was paused in January by a ceasefire. Tuesday was the first time he has publicly floated making that resettlement permanent.
​
His proposals echo the wishes of Israel's far right and contradict former president Joe Biden's commitment against mass displacement of Palestinians.
​
Arab states and the Palestinian Authority have rejected the idea, which some human rights advocates have likened to ethnic cleansing.

Forced displacement of Gaza's population would likely be a violation of international law and would be fiercely opposed not only in the region but also by Washington's Western allies.
​
Palestinians claim Gaza as part of a future homeland, and many have indicated a desire to remain and rebuild.

Senior Hamas official Sami Abu Zuhri condemned Trump's calls for Gazans to leave as "expulsion from their land."

The war was sparked after a Hamas-led attack on Oct. 7, 2023, killed about 1,200 people and took some 250 others captive, according to Israeli tallies. Dosens of hostages remain in Gaza.
​
Israel responded with an offensive that has killed more than 46,000 Palestinians, according to local health officials, and displaced the vast majority of Gaza's population.

Israel has faced accusations of genocide in Gaza because of the scale of death and destruction, which it rejects by saying it abides by international law and has a right to defend itself after the Hamas attack.

Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant, the former Israeli defence minister, have been issued arrest warrants by the International Criminal Court for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes.
​

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-iran-deport-prisoners-gaza-1.7450362

[Dauphin]

sorry. So for a Canadian bank to operate in the US what regulatory hurdles might pre-empt it? Regulatory hurdles are only relevant to keeping foreign competitors out to the extent that market realities make that possible with those regulations.

Simple answer:
- US companies won't invest in Canadian banking as much because of capital requirements that reduce risk but also reward (11.5% CET). The same reduced revenue also impacts the big banks in Canada, but as market incumbents they aren't hit by the additional barrier to entry costs of going up against an existing oligopoly.
- Canadian banks will invest in the US because there are lower capital requirements (4.5% I believe) and barriers to entry are lower due to a less concentrated market.

Canada is less profitable, so Canadian banks are drawn to invest in the US, while US banks are not interested in Canada because there is nothing to profit on. So it's a bit like complaining you can't go to an expensive (but ****) restaurant because they won't let you in. They'll let you in, but there is no appeal for expensive **** food.

The ask to open up Canadian banking is basically have Canada break up its banks, or significantly increase the risks of one of those systematically important banks failing. Not saying either is wrong, but that what would be needed (in my view).

[Lorizael]

Trump proposes 'permanently' displacing Palestinians so U.S. can take over Gaza

Trump keeps proposing ethnic cleansing. I wonder why? Who can say what's in his heart? It's a mystery.

[Geronimo]

Trump keeps proposing ethnic cleansing. I wonder why? Who can say what's in his heart? It's a mystery.

I agree that any deportations of gazan-born gazans will be inexcusable ethnic cleansing.

Maybe it would be ok to arrange for "voluntary" resettlements but among Gazan born gazans there's no way I see more than a tiny percentage agreeing to anything like that.