WHO IS RESPONSIBLE ?

This is an economic argument which I constantly progress: What can possibly justify the creation of a mechanism which wrests control from the owner and operator of a successful family sustaining asset base and skill set and turns it over to a person who is incapable of properly managing or planning anything?

If a family asset was earned by or bequested to a person they might assume control of the asset. I would suggest that there is no predictable or safe way to borrow on the entirety of the Family Asset to proceed with business speculation.

Perhaps a person with a proven track record of successful earning could convince the provider of a Family Asset to allow borrowing against that asset but to convince the provider of the Family Asset to borrow the entire amount  that the asset was worth is a very unlikely scenario.

As a prudent economist I ascribe to the bucket theory of Economics. If you drain the dollars away the bucket gets emptied. The bucket may visually be present but it is empty if you peer into it, empty as the equity in a mortgaged home is, a ghost of counter cancelling numbers. The plan to safely and sustainably continue to shelter the family would require the creation of a minimum of debt on the family home. 

I know that I need shelter. I would not ever risk the loss of my home. That is not a factor to the person who does whatever they feel like doing without planning or mathematical pre-calculation or experience. A person who does not care if the Family Asset is lost will probably lose it if they have control.

THAT IS JUST EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED WHEN THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA CREATED DIVISION OF ASSETS BASED ON A "NO FAULT" DIVORCE ACTION.

THE LONG TERM FAMILY FINANCIAL AFFAIRS WERE THUS TOTALLY UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE NON- PROVIDER WHO COULD INITIATE DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS AND COMPLETELY FINANCIALLY DEVASTATE THE FAMILY ASSET PROVIDER.

THE WOMAN'S RIGHTS ACTIVISTS TRUMPETED  

"WOMEN ARE BETTER AND SMARTER AND FASTER AND STRONGER AND WE ARE TAKING OVER" 

The poorer working class person who struggled to sustain one Family Asset would be required to create and support two Family Assets or have no control of the Family Asset that he, face it it was nearly exclusively "HE's" at the time, had provided. I do speculate as an Economist: Is that what took all the fun out of being a working class working man back then and created the nearly universal peonage system today. If Dad has no money left after paying off Mom who just takes care of herself where will there be money to help the next generation get started in business or Family Asset creation and ownership?

Who is responsible for the Creation of this damaging Economic Inconsistency?

THAT WOULD BE THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA AND THE LAWYERS AND POLITICIANS WHO OPERATE IT.