eXXon posted:

Ignoring externalities and the various subsidies poured into fossil fuels over the decades/centuries, you mean?

cowofwar posted:

Ethical oil lol

It will be ethical when the full costs to society and the environment are internalized. The source is irrelevant.

Baudin posted:

Price to income and price to rent are good ways of looking at it but are unlikely to convince a lot of older people (re: parents) since they generally look at these kinds of purchases as the cost to carry the debt on a per month basis, which is probably why we're in this situation in the first place.

In other news here in Edmonton we haven't seen a marked downturn in commercial purchases. People seem to still be interested in buying apartments/strip centres/office buildings/industrial properties/etc.

quote:

Re: House price muddle: Bank of Canada provides ‘forward confusion,’ Terence Corcoran, Dec. 12

Terence Corcoran’s questioning the validity of 10/20/30% statements about housing overvaluation was well founded and demonstrates the sorry state of how economists have been attempted to measure housing markets.

It is surprising, therefore, to see the Bank of Canada address the issue of house prices as one of “valuation.” All our communications with CMHC, StatsCan, Bank of Canada and the Minster of Finance have never responded to questions about valuation rather than “selling prices.” The confusion among economists between the term average valuation and average sale price certainly accounts for the first 15 to 20% numbers offered in their opinions. What exact “value” is the Bank of Canada referring to? From the written responses we have had over the last 12 months from the Bank and the above institutions it appears that when they talk of value they are referring to average MLS selling prices.

The Canadian Real Estate Association announced recently that the average home price in Canada rose 5.2% in November, based on MLS sales, but that does not mean the value of homes in Canada rose 5.2%. Estimates of the current over-valuation in Canadian housing by economists around the globe are similarly flawed. Certainly the IMF does not appear to be aware of the unique structure of the rental and resale markets in Canada when it tries to determine the risk exposure on pricing in the Canadian market. It’s a methodology that may work in France but not Canada.

Evidence of or causes of price inflation in the housing market are not supported by any measure currently being used by economists. Thanks for challenging the Bank of Canada and the confusion Canadians face every time a real estate data point is released.

Ross Kay
Ross Kay Realty Consultants
Burlington, ON

Bhurak posted:

Anecdotally the owners of the 4-plex I live in have been trying to sell it for 4 months. I'm getting tired of strangers traipsing through my house. There is lots of interest but it seems no one wants to pull the trigger.

Baronjutter posted:

Friend who's moving to Edmonton for is buying a house ASAP because renting there for even a month or two first would be a month or two of throwing away your money and not building your own equity. He'll be there for 3 years. Hooray military! (this is the same guy who lost about 60k selling his previous military condo, even after the military paid all his soft costs)

Rime posted:

$500 invested in Husky Energy on Monday would have returned $5500 today. Ffffffffuuuuuuuck me for not jumping on that wagon.

Rime posted:

$500 invested in Husky Energy on Monday would have returned $5500 today. Ffffffffuuuuuuuck me for not jumping on that wagon.

I shouldn't do math while hungover on deathwish.

Wilhelm posted:

...do you mean $550 today? I'm not seeing this 1100% boost.

Cultural Imperial posted:

Yup it's a 'penthouse'.

A 1000sqft penthouse.

Baronjutter posted:

Friend who's moving to Edmonton for is buying a house ASAP because renting there for even a month or two first would be a month or two of throwing away your money and not building your own equity. He'll be there for 3 years. Hooray military! (this is the same guy who lost about 60k selling his previous military condo, even after the military paid all his soft costs). It's a shame military employees are forbidding from ever renting, which is good because imagine if people who had to move around every few years rented instead of kept buying and selling houses over and over? That just wouldn't work out!

Lexicon posted:

For people who are idiots with money, buying remains a very good mechanism of forced saving, especially if you're getting your soft costs covered.

Baronjutter posted:

Friend who's moving to Edmonton for is buying a house ASAP because renting there for even a month or two first would be a month or two of throwing away your money and not building your own equity. He'll be there for 3 years. Hooray military! (this is the same guy who lost about 60k selling his previous military condo, even after the military paid all his soft costs). It's a shame military employees are forbidding from ever renting, which is good because imagine if people who had to move around every few years rented instead of kept buying and selling houses over and over? That just wouldn't work out!

quote:

Now that the annual growth in the price of houses in Auckland exceeds most of our annual incomes, it's time we kicked back.

There is little point in continuing to work when the weatherboard three-bedroom bungalow is generating such massive returns on an annual basis. Why rise at 6 in the morning to endure the commute to the factory or office when your house makes more dollars on a daily basis? It's time we garnered the return for our wisdom in owning the roof over our heads. Life is short. It's time to consider a lengthy OE while letting our houses do the work for us.

It is amazing that we are the first civilisation to unravel the alchemists' secret right here in Auckland. Some of the greatest economic thinkers throughout the ages failed to recognise a simple reality that is playing out in suburbs such as Avondale and Glen Eden. I knew that Adam Smith, John Maynard Keynes and Milton Friedman lacked real insight into economic affairs.

The economic success of a nation is derived from the ownership of weatherboard villas, bungalows and granny flats.

Our political leaders have recognised this new economic paradigm. They are wise and generous in the extreme. They are even willing to allow other people from around the world to drink at our fountain of riches.

Our leaders have shown how resolute they can be by ignoring calls from the narrow-minded and selfish to deny outsiders access to our El Dorado. They likely believe that their generosity will ensure that our blessings will continue and our contentment under their wise government will grow.

Economic academics are busy rewriting their textbooks. They foolishly taught that national prosperity depended on how well a country used its resources to produce goods and services to meet the wants and needs of its citizens. They used to use gross domestic product to measure the annual output of a country. They are struggling to incorporate this new paradigm of national prosperity into their textbooks as it unfolds on a daily basis in the suburbs of Auckland.

New Zealand has been blessed with a tax system that has encouraged the emergence of this successful form of wealth creation. Other nations have tended down the path of less profitable industries such as software development and pharmaceuticals. New Zealand has had a strong dairying sector but there is little point in getting up early to milk cows when there is such wealth to be had from owning a bungalow in Kelston.

New Zealand has benefited from a deregulated banking system. Without the financial support of this sector it is doubtful the country would have unlocked the secret to economic prosperity. The banks have been the conduit to peoples' dreams of material nirvana through housing inflation.

Other parts of the country have been less successful in applying the lessons learned in Auckland. This is largely attitudinal. People in these regions often regard their houses as dwellings to be lived in, rather than wealth-creating money machines. They regard houses as homes rather than ATMs. Many gaze with bemused envy as millionaires proliferate in this great city.

Apart from attitude, there are several other key ingredients that economists have identified that have allowed this massive paradigm shift in economic thinking that is unfolding in Auckland. Fundamental ingredients include support from politicians and bankers and the real estate industry and media to allow the new reality to emerge. The market conditions that helped create the new reality include severe supply constraints and liberty of demand.

It cannot be overemphasised just how seismic the shift in economic thinking has been. Human history has been plagued by the necessity of work. There have been untold writings on the curse of human labour as a necessity of our existence.

What has occurred in the suburbs of Auckland has the potential to render this blight on humanity obsolete. Wages and salaries will be redundant concepts buried by the beauty of capital gains. It is so simple it is amazing it has taken millennia to discover.

Peter Lyons teaches economics at St Peter's College in Epsom and has written several economics texts.

quote:

• As of the end of the third quarter, 16.9 percent of U.S. homeowners with a mortgage are underwater, down from a peak of 31.4 percent in 2012 Q1.

Cultural Imperial posted:

Jumpingmanjim posted:

Oh joy


http://www.zillow.com/research/negative-equity-2014-q3-8532/

quote:

The “effective” U.S. negative equity rate, including those homeowners with less than 20 percent equity in their homes, is 35 percent.

quote:

1.9 percent of owners with a mortgage remain deeply underwater, owing at least twice what their home is worth.

Jumpingmanjim posted:

Oh joy


http://www.zillow.com/research/negative-equity-2014-q3-8532/

swagger like us posted:

This is the main reason. By tying people doing with some serious cost mechanisms, idiots don't go buying Mustangs with deployment money. You have no idea how big of a problem it is with idiots buying big ticket items but these are 22 year olds making 55k+, so bad choices happen quick. Though this isnt really unique to the Military, pig rigs and other Fort Mac workers making much more do the same thing.

Fiscal problems are a huge issue in the Military, and its often thrown around you are more likely to get released/kicked out for fiscal problems than for any other issue.

Lexicon posted:

Has the military tried not hiring idiots?

Lexicon posted:

Has the military tried not hiring idiots?

swagger like us posted:

It has less to do with hiring "inherent idiots" or something and more to do with the military primarily hires young people who are in general immature and unable to handle money well because secondary school spends a shitload of time going over loving trigonometry and calculus but no time going over interest rates or basic finances.

quote:

Buying an investment property while renting: The pros and cons

blah_blah posted:

Yes, I imagine that a lot of people who take calculus in high school go into the military.

swagger like us posted:

Uhh, I'm pretty sure Aerospace Engineers and Electrical and Mechanical Engineers would probably need calculus yes. Among plenty of other trades. You do know not everyone in the Military is an army grunt right?

swagger like us posted:

It has less to do with hiring "inherent idiots" or something and more to do with the military primarily hires young people who are in general immature and unable to handle money well because secondary school spends a shitload of time going over loving trigonometry and calculus but no time going over interest rates or basic finances.