Bank Mergers . . . should they be allowed in Canada?
Here is what Mr.Godsoe, the top official at the Bank of N.S. said in 1998 against bank mergers. " They would eliminate1/3 of our country's banking system and decrease competition to levels not seen anywhere else in the world." He also said " In-market mergers mean serious cuts in employment and branches . . . conservatively, we've estimated 20,000 plus job losses and 1000 plus branch closures across the country, and that's at the low end."

The contentions above are now being dismissed by Mr.Godsoe in his 2002 reincarnation at the Senate bank hearings. Mr Nixon, the present Royal bank boss says we have to merge to compete on a global scale. I might note here that the Canadian big six banks wrote off nearly nine billion dollars in their year ending Oct. 31, 2002. Most of this was related to the global train. I now ask the question . . . Is globalization a runaway passenger train ( note I didn't say freight) whereby only the conductor and engineer have access to a parachute? Does this metaphor aptly describe what is playing out in bank mergers? If Canadian banks employ let us say 201,000 people and 1,000 (the top managers) want bank mergers and 200,000 do not, does this seem normal or reasonable? Or better yet, would this seem to serve the public interest? . . . the real issue of the day.

Let's face it, people are not commodities . . . which raises the next question. Could this be the start of that strange phenomenon called in the U.S. a jobless recovery? Just like a forgivable loan. Could these phenomena be oxymorons without the oxy(gen)? . . . which leaves us just with the morons.

Let's talk sense, if big companies are not going to create jobs, then somebody will have to. There is no such thing as a jobless recovery, just like there is no such thing as a forgivable loan . . . not even on Reality TV.

Now let's conclude . . . if the main principal of capitalism is competition and as we speed toward oligopoly, duopoly, and monopoly (all contrasting words to competition); could it be that globalization does not really have much connection to trade but relates more to hierarchy(power),and we all know what hierarchy did to the religions of the world. Maybe we have to rescale the whole process. I just read the meaning of hierarchy, and I find out that it is defined as a group of people in a position of power and authority. Isn't it the public interest we're trying to sort out? . . . not more power or authority to fewer people. How about the 63 fewer oil companies that have been taken over in the oil patch in the past couple of years? Is there a pattern where big is necessarily better? . . . not necessarily!

Could we please have the case FOR bank mergers?
How do we square the circle? . . . especially in the public interest.

We had all better come to . . . soon! Isn't the world about people?

Are these happenings the Canadian version of " trust us" of U.S. stock market fame?

Who does want mergers? Could it be that the lawyers on Bay St. are not very busy?

River City is Reason.

Peter Manderson is an entrepeneur, an educator, and a long time business owner. He lives in Loggieville, Miramichi. This article is an excerpt from Street Smart Economics, a series of modules developed by River City. River City is Peter's newest venture into "The Awareness Industry". He says, "The deepest drive in humans is to learn."