|
Rime posted:You are correct in your assertions regarding what is clearly a terribly run shelter. Other people are correct in asserting it would be better run if Alberta put more money into rehabilitation programs. I agree that Alberta should put more money into rehabilitation programs, but I disagree that more funding would help this one work better. They don't want to deal with the problems that exist outside their doors, yet go out of their way to ensure that emergency services are called as infrequently as possible. That's not a problem you can fix with funding -- they're specifically trying to cover up the impact the facility is having on the surrounding community as they continue to ignore it as much as possible themselves. On the other hand, I would like to make clear that my comments from the original discussion regarding rehab facilities and halfway houses were largely coloured by living next to Alpha House during its temporary re-location, and I now recognize more fully that it's simply a very badly run facility with a questionable mission and should not be taken as representative of all similar facilities.
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 17:03 |
|
|
Rime posted:A lot of people, and not solely around here, lack comprehension of "nuance". It manifests on both sides in any topic which is uncomfortable enough to cause a polarizing backlash. ... or maybe he just made a post that was basically "Heh, you know that place I complain about when I'm not complaining about taxes on the Classy Adult Stuff that I partake in (wine, cheese, and cigars for those of you whom aren't in the know)? Well someone died there recently, probably because of staff shortage  I expect everyone to apologize (for some reason??  ) "
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
Stop harshing on my soapbox, maaaaan. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
Professor Shark posted:... or maybe he just made a post that was basically "Heh, you know that place I complain about when I'm not complaining about taxes on the Classy Adult Stuff that I partake in (wine, cheese, and cigars for those of you whom aren't in the know)? Well someone died there recently, probably because of staff shortage He predicted there would be problems with the house and laid out his reasons why. The responses were along the lines of "How DARE you be against this you evil, selfish shitloarde!" (and it seems like the responses still are that way, heh). His predictions came true. Rather than admit that he had a point, people are doubling down and refusing to admit that hey, maybe there was a problem in the first place???
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
I can understand some of PT6A's sentiments, or the general populaces sentiments when they have unkind thoughts to things like shelters. Shelters are really bad to be around, they kill the neighbourhood they are in, or at least the ones I've seen have. A shelter moving into your block means that restaurant you've worked 5 years to become profitable will most likely die. That hairdressing school you opened has students pulling out because they're being harassed and assaulted every day on the way to school, resulting in your bankruptcy. Your precious investment condo has just lost a ton of equity. No one wants them in their neighbourhood because they are awful to be around. About the only shelter type operation I've ever seen actually work and not kill the block was one way out in the country. It was a big farm where people got away from downtown, away from the dealers. They actually taught skills and made the people feel valuable for the first time in their lives. There was also no spill-over trouble, everything was contained on the farm. Even so, a loving church on the next lot over went full NIMBY and got the farm shut down, specifically saying "those people" belong downtown not in their wealthy hobby-farm area. Of course the best solution is to prevent these people from being on the street in the first place. It's generally always mental illness and/or addiction. Most of these people need to get away from downtown, get some sort of treatment somewhere peaceful. The countryside is a perfect place for these facilities because they are isolated enough that it both protects the community from them, but most importantly protects them from the dealers and lovely "friends" who prey on them and keep them in their cycle of addiction. Also a lot of these people need to be essentially forced into some sort of treatment, something I think we need to become ok with so long as the treatment facilities are proven effective and humane. http://www.woodwynnfarms.org/about-woodwynn-farms/woodwynn-farms/ 70% success rate. The typical urban shelter is something around 5%. Of course the farm has higher "standards" for who can enter the program. Which is another big problem with shelters, often the people who need them most are too abusive/violent/crazy to follow even the most basic rules to stay in a shelter. Those are the people who really need to be institutionalized. Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 21:44 on Mar 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Which is another big problem with shelters, often the people who need them most are too abusive/violent/crazy to follow even the most basic rules to stay in a shelter. Those are the people who really need to be institutionalized. This is precisely the problem with Alpha House -- its mandate is, essentially, to take in people to whom even the other shelters in the downtown area have said, "No, you're too out of it even for us to help you." It's not a rehab facility (although they try to promote it as such), and it's not a normal shelter. I'm honestly not sure whether it's possible or beneficial to have people that are that hosed up integrated into the community at large, but I'm sure if it is, you have to address the problems that are likely to be caused, and you need to do it with cooperation from the local community as well as the authorities.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
quote:
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
53% drop in Quebec. 35% down in Ontario with a 50% reduction in Toronto condos. What does Alberta do? Just shave one percent off and we're good. Albertans really do not pay attention, do they?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
ocrumsprug posted:53% drop in Quebec. It's kind of a misleading statistic, because builders often hold off constructing when they are not 100% sure which way the market is going to go. When they are dead certain poo poo is well and truly hosed, they all race to complete as fast as possible, sell at whatever discount is needed to clear inventory, and run for the hills.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Which is another big problem with shelters, often the people who need them most are too abusive/violent/crazy to follow even the most basic rules to stay in a shelter. Those are the people who really need to be institutionalized. Why can we not use Housing First, which has a documented high success rate for helping supposedly intractable chronically homeless people? There is enough space right now to house everyone. Why do you want to reach for essentially incarcerating them first? Many of these people's mental illnesses can be more successfully treated in a much less restrictive setting by just giving them a stable living situation and some privacy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
Franks Happy Place posted:It's kind of a misleading statistic, because builders often hold off constructing when they are not 100% sure which way the market is going to go. When they are dead certain poo poo is well and truly hosed, they all race to complete as fast as possible, sell at whatever discount is needed to clear inventory, and run for the hills. Fair enough, but aren't housing starts indicative of sentiment looking forward 1-3 years? Seems like Toronto and Quebec seem to have very different outlooks that Alberta for the future, which seems odd considering who has the most to lose if oil doesn't rebound in a big way. Is this Albertan confidence that oil is going to rebound?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
bartlebyshop posted:Why can we not use Housing First, which has a documented high success rate for helping supposedly intractable chronically homeless people? There is enough space right now to house everyone. Why do you want to reach for essentially incarcerating them first? Many of these people's mental illnesses can be more successfully treated in a much less restrictive setting by just giving them a stable living situation and some privacy. I think that's a great idea, but it should be targeted first at the homeless people who are well enough to actually be let into a normal homeless shelter. I think that's a great place to start dealing with people who are frequent users of shelter services, and Calgary has actually been pretty decent at providing those sorts of services through the Drop-In and the Mustard Seed. However, if you're too unwell to function well enough to stay in a normal shelter, I don't know it's the best idea. Treatment is often needed first -- I'm not saying abstinence, just enough to get these folks to where they can actually function around other people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
bartlebyshop posted:Why can we not use Housing First, which has a documented high success rate for helping supposedly intractable chronically homeless people? There is enough space right now to house everyone. Why do you want to reach for essentially incarcerating them first? Many of these people's mental illnesses can be more successfully treated in a much less restrictive setting by just giving them a stable living situation and some privacy. Obviously every effective method should be brought to bear on the problem, and funded based on effectiveness and need. But there are people on the street that can never live an independent life and need some sort of structured living arrangement, but that of course should be the last resort. I mean we can't even look after our seniors in a humane way, I don't have high hopes for ever seeing us take homelessness, mental illness, and addiction seriously. What I don't get is that people always complain about the cost. "What?! It costs 50,000 a year to shelter and treat these people?! I should take drugs that's more than I make!!!" yet they are 100% ok with those people causing way more than 50k a year in costs related to their policing, medical care, incarceration, and property damage. That's ok. From all the numbers and studies I've read, effective treatment pays for its self. Not only is it generally cheaper even in the short term when compared to the direct and external costs of not treating, good treatment and support "cures" the person and turns them from a massive drain on society into a productive tax-payer. From a dispassionate economic conservative perspective this seems like good business, but it's generally "economic conservatives" that are the most violently against investing in any sort of solutions. I guess because the government never invests money into society to reap profits, it's always just wasting money. Do we have any experts on this sort of poo poo on the forums? I'd love a thread on this subject.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
There is a need for mental health institutions but I think most provinces have shut them down and offloaded patients to jails, shelters and the streets. There isn't a problem with shelters or hospitals or whichever other institution, it's that this critical component of infrastructure is missing. Shelters aren't jails - they can't forcibly commit people or control their behavior/actions. These people need to be committed and worked on by mental health practitioners - not left to hang around on the streets going through hospital admissions every week and jails every year - neither of which has professionals with the tools or the will to help them. Baronjutter posted:Obviously every effective method should be brought to bear on the problem, and funded based on effectiveness and need. But there are people on the street that can never live an independent life and need some sort of structured living arrangement, but that of course should be the last resort. cowofwar fucked around with this message at 22:38 on Mar 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 22:36
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I think that's a great idea, but it should be targeted first at the homeless people who are well enough to actually be let into a normal homeless shelter. I think that's a great place to start dealing with people who are frequent users of shelter services, and Calgary has actually been pretty decent at providing those sorts of services through the Drop-In and the Mustard Seed. However, if you're too unwell to function well enough to stay in a normal shelter, I don't know it's the best idea. Treatment is often needed first -- I'm not saying abstinence, just enough to get these folks to where they can actually function around other people. But a large part of what is preventing them from functioning is their homelessness. Being homeless is incredibly stressful. Housing First programs in many cities (like Salt Lake City and Phoenix) have shown that when you put these supposedly "non functional" people with schizophrenia in a no strings attached house, their symptoms can dramatically improve even with no other intervention.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
ocrumsprug posted:Fair enough, but aren't housing starts indicative of sentiment looking forward 1-3 years? Seems like Toronto and Quebec seem to have very different outlooks that Alberta for the future, which seems odd considering who has the most to lose if oil doesn't rebound in a big way. Oh yeah, it's definitely a useful statistic, in that it gives you a general sense of what builders and the credit markets are thinking. I just wanted to point out that once the markets decide that the future = terrible, they all run for the fire escape as fast as possible, which is why starts remaining high in Alberta is not indicative of anything good. To whit: ocrumsprug posted:Is this Albertan confidence that oil is going to rebound? No, it means that builders build and lenders lend. They are all likely just racing to not be the last guy holding a parcel of land/building permit/loan/etc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
bartlebyshop posted:But a large part of what is preventing them from functioning is their homelessness. Being homeless is incredibly stressful. Housing First programs in many cities (like Salt Lake City and Phoenix) have shown that when you put these supposedly "non functional" people with schizophrenia in a no strings attached house, their symptoms can dramatically improve even with no other intervention. But but I don't take drugs where's my free house?! Answer: give everyone a free place to live. \/ Right but if investing in homeless people was actually a net profit that would open all sorts of crazy doors. Soon there will be studies showing that investments in education actually turn a profit for society, or investments in infrastructure, or the environment, or healthcare. This is extremely dangerous thinking. Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 22:54 on Mar 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 22:47
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:But but I don't take drugs where's my free house?! Given an identical pile of money to treat homelessness, Housing First is more cost effective than shelter-based gatekeeping or psychiatric institutionalization. It's a policy fiscal conservatives everywhere can support: many of the clients transition to paying 100% of their rent and holding down full time jobs for the first time in decades.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 22:49
|
|
|
bartlebyshop posted:But a large part of what is preventing them from functioning is their homelessness. Being homeless is incredibly stressful. Housing First programs in many cities (like Salt Lake City and Phoenix) have shown that when you put these supposedly "non functional" people with schizophrenia in a no strings attached house, their symptoms can dramatically improve even with no other intervention. Are these people who were so addicted and non-functional that even homeless shelters would not accept them and/or had permanently barred them? I have no doubt that the housing-first approach has helped many chronically homeless people who have mental illnesses or substance abuse issues, but I don't think the sort of severe issues that could bar one from admittance to normal services aimed at homeless people can be dealt with in 100% the same way. It is a useful approach, and probably our best hope at reducing homelessness, but that does not make it a silver bullet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Are these people who were so addicted and non-functional that even homeless shelters would not accept them and/or had permanently barred them? I have no doubt that the housing-first approach has helped many chronically homeless people who have mental illnesses or substance abuse issues, but I don't think the sort of severe issues that could bar one from admittance to normal services aimed at homeless people can be dealt with in 100% the same way. It is a useful approach, and probably our best hope at reducing homelessness, but that does not make it a silver bullet. You might like this open access article about Housing First vs "linear" (traditional shelter model) approaches to addiction treatment. quote:Most linear interventions assume that a return to long-term stable housing, in either the private market or a subsidized setting, requires the restoration of behavioral self-regulation and the capacity to interact in a constructive social environment and also that an individual's tangible resource needs must be addressed in order to ensure that person's engagement and attendance quote:Both the Pathways and the Direct Access to Housing programs accept homeless persons with severe mental illness and a history of substance abuse, that is, those persons who are the most vulnerable of the homeless population and who seem less likely to succeed in group rehabilitation programs. This criterion is exemplified by the heavy representation of the psychotically mentally ill in the New York program, 53 percent of one reported sample (Tsemberis, Gulcur, and Nakae 2004), with more than one-third recruited directly from psychiatric emergency rooms. quote:In the randomized trial, the Housing First and the control (Continuum of Care) trial groups were the same in regard to substance misuse (Padgett, Gulcur, and Tsemberis 2006; Tsemberis, Gulcur, and Nakae 2004). In addition, the Housing First participants used formal substance abuse and psychiatric services less often than the control group did. Since substance use was the same for the trial groups, but housing retention was better with Housing First, the authors concluded that there was “no empirical support for the practice of requiring individuals to participate in psychiatric treatment or attain sobriety before being housed” (Tsemberis, Gulcur, and Nakae 2004, p. 654). (Emphasis mine) quote:No studies have compared a Housing First with a non-Housing First approach for clients recruited on the basis of having severe addiction, although a case series from a Seattle housing program (known as 1811 Eastlake) published preliminary findings on-line from seventy-five severe alcoholics who were permitted to drink in their rooms (Downtown Emergency Service Center 2008). The program's services included voluntary medical and chemical dependency treatment, and of the seventy-five entrants, fifty (66 percent) remained housed for a year. The clients were reported to have accrued $2.5 million less in public service expenditures compared with the year preceding admission, although a formal calculation of program and capital costs is not publicly available. The Seattle report, as well as reports from a Canadian shelter with on-site alcohol provided to refractory alcoholics (n= 17) (Podymow et al. 2006), suggests that some long-term refractory alcoholics can be housed and may even drink less if alcohol is permitted indoors in a secure setting. quote:For this reason, a fundamental challenge confronts most cost-offset arguments related to housing homeless persons: a policy of helping persons with complex needs usually invites new costs, unless communities decide to house just a few stratospherically expensive individuals, like “million-dollar Murrays” (Gladwell 2006). Concerns about the persuasiveness of cost-offset arguments in mental health have been expressed elsewhere (Goldman 1999) and are relevant here as well. Formal cost-effectiveness calculations (i.e., dollars spent per benefit obtained) lack the immediate market appeal of the simpler cost-savings argument but may ground future policy discussions more securely. I think Murray, from that Gladwell New Yorker article, is a perfect example of the kind of person you are thinking of. He refused to quit drinking and racked up cost after cost because he was living on the street and therefore fall more vulnerable. Putting him in a house, rent free, and allowing him to drink would have saved everyone time and money even if his drinking did not decrease.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
bartlebyshop posted:I think Murray, from that Gladwell New Yorker article, is a perfect example of the kind of person you are thinking of. He refused to quit drinking and racked up cost after cost because he was living on the street and therefore fall more vulnerable. Putting him in a house, rent free, and allowing him to drink would have saved everyone time and money even if his drinking did not decrease. I agree completely. Sobriety should not be required for access to housing, nor should any mental illnesses have to be 100% controlled/treated. There's a gap between that, and some (possibly not all) of the people around Alpha House. Remember: these people were kicked out and, in some cases, barred from other shelters because they were that unable to keep their poo poo together. That's a whole different thing from having substance abuse or mental illness issues. I don't give a gently caress if they keep drinking or shooting up, or doing whatever they want to do, so long as they can stop harassing and assaulting people. That's the part I have a problem with, and I think it's an impediment to treatment in a housing-first context, because no one wants to be or should be subjected to someone who is so uncontrolled that they are harassing and assaulting people. That's the root cause of this whole discussion: people who are so hosed up that even charities which provide services to the homeless cannot deal with them properly. EDIT: For reference, the Drop-In Centre also serves intoxicated people (although they do have a sober floor) and they have a much lower complaint frequency from everyone I've ever talked to. Many of the people at Alpha House are banned from the DI Centre for doing some really reprehensible poo poo, not because the DI demands you be clean and sober before they so much as look at you. The folks at the Drop-In Centre are the ones we should be (and are!) targeting with housing-first policies. PT6A fucked around with this message at 23:40 on Mar 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 23:32
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I agree completely. Sobriety should not be required for access to housing, nor should any mental illnesses have to be 100% controlled/treated. There's a gap between that, and some (possibly not all) of the people around Alpha House. Remember: these people were kicked out and, in some cases, barred from other shelters because they were that unable to keep their poo poo together. That's a whole different thing from having substance abuse or mental illness issues. Keeping these people penned up together is probably a large part of what's driving the aggressive behaviour. Sharing washrooms and kitchen space drives even relatively healthy people to extreme acts of assholery. It wouldn't surprise me if giving these people their own private bedroom, washroom, cooking, and eating area removed a lot of the aggression. You see the same thing in psychiatric hospitals: groups of people struggling terribly are put in a place with no hope of privacy or escape, and then everyone is surprised when they act out and hurt someone else/themselves. Keeping desperate people cooped up together is a recipe for disaster and it's a problem that Housing First can easily address.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 23:38
|
|
|
I'm going to jump in at this point, and go back to why our government keeps promoting housing bubbles. There's a couple of issues. One, our building industry in the GTA are super corrupt and exert a disproportionate amount of influence at the municipal and provincial level. Two, and this is kind of more significant, deindustrialization means that the housing industry has to pick the slack for keeping blue collar workers employed. This is probably a significant contributor to the above problem. This is also why there is such an emphasis on new housing starts and promoting urban sprawl. Not really sure how we can fix this issue. I don't think anybody else has any idea either. All you guys just want to pop the bubble, but no politician (or indeed, unelected bureaucrat) can really let that happen.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 00:09
|
|
|
ascendance posted:I'm going to jump in at this point, and go back to why our government keeps promoting housing bubbles. The thing is, there is plenty of poo poo that needs building that isn't a pointless waste of time and money like empty housing. We have roads and bridges collapsing, polluted land that needs proper remediation, etc. etc. All of this while raising capital has literally never been cheaper for municipal and provincial governments. It should be a no-brainer for cities to be clamping down on reckless development and instead employing people to build infrastructure we desperately need. Really, the only part of your post that anyone needs to read is: quote:Our building industry in the GTA are super corrupt and exert a disproportionate amount of influence at the municipal and provincial level. ...because that's true across Canada, and it's killing our cities.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
Franks Happy Place posted:The thing is, there is plenty of poo poo that needs building that isn't a pointless waste of time and money like empty housing. We have roads and bridges collapsing, polluted land that needs proper remediation, etc. etc. All of this while raising capital has literally never been cheaper for municipal and provincial governments. It should be a no-brainer for cities to be clamping down on reckless development and instead employing people to build infrastructure we desperately need. Now, you might ask, why doesnt the government just expend the capital necessary to obtain that equipment and train people up into becoming that rare and specialized labour. Well, we cant do that, because it would be socialism, and socialism is bad.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 00:32
|
|
|
http://www.aogr.com/web-exclusives/us-rig-count/2015
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 00:42
|
|
|
Since they're running out of even floating storage capacity for crude: what happens when they can't shelve it anywhere, can't turn enough rigs off, and can't refine it fast enough due to all these shut-downs? Just pour it on the ground?  I wish we could get that goon who was looking at starting his own oil company a few years ago to provide some insider perspective.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 00:47
|
|
|
Another oil train just derailed in North Ontario. What does this have to do with the Canadian Debt Bubble? About as much as the debate over how to provide care for drug addicts and the mentally ill. It is a great metaphor for the state of the thread right now, though. E: Dump it in the Makami River, apparently /\/\/\/\/\
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 00:53
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:Another oil train just derailed in North Ontario. Given that this thread began life as the housing thread, and housing is still a main focus of the thread, I think urban planning issues and discussing how to house people is actually quite on topic in this thread. On the other hand, the derailment issue would probably be better discussed in the main CanPol thread, but that's just how I see it and I don't particularly care either way.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 01:28
|
|
|
I almost see it now as the Politics thread being a slightly more serious D&D like thread to keep up to date on politics in Canada, while this is a general sort of "lol canada is hosed" thread.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 01:51
|
|
|
In related news even the IMF is concerned about the credit bubble: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...rticle23378421/ quote:The IMF also warned that rules to slow the growth of insured mortgages have fuelled a boom in uninsured mortgages among buyers able to afford a 20 per cent down payment. Uninsured buyers now make up two-thirds of new mortgages. Such buyers are particularly active in the country’s most expensive housing markets, the IMF said, raising concerns that some buyers might be borrowing to help finance their down payments.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 02:01
|
|
|
You know what's better than an ironic derail about a derail? An ingenuous derail about a derail about a derail.  PT6A posted:the derailment would probably be better discussed in the main CanPol thread
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 02:10
|
|
|
Rime posted:Since they're running out of even floating storage capacity for crude: what happens when they can't shelve it anywhere, can't turn enough rigs off, and can't refine it fast enough due to all these shut-downs? Just pour it on the ground? The orthodox economic answer is that the price will go down until an equilibrium between supply and demand is reached. In this case, oil prices would continue to decline until more and more end users see oil-powered items as a viable energy solution (as opposed to, for example, natural gas or mains power or whatever). The extent that prices go down, and where this equilibrium is reached, depends on the elasticity of supply and demand: how quickly producers can shut in wells or find new places to sock oil away versus how quickly consumers can decide to go on longer car trips or buy bigger SUVs or postpone energy-efficiency investments or decide to centralize production and distribution because it becomes relatively cheaper to ship than build locally. Because you can't just dump oil on the ground or burn it off at the wellhead (I hope), you'll see bigger and bigger pressure on oil prices - at least theoretically. Supposedly the oil industry has relatively high supply elasticity relative to demand elasticity, so it is actually less of a problem here than it would be in some other areas, but I'm not sure how true that is. This is one of the reasons why I've been a bit less gung-ho about the decline in oil prices. I mean, yes, yes, gently caress Alberta forever and all that, but the fact is that when oil prices go down, the environment loses. The biggest environmental consequences of fossil fuels are still in their consumption rather than their production. Ironically, a huge increase in oil prices of the sort that would spur massive oilsands investment is probably the best scenario for the environment as it'd give consumers of all stripes a bigger incentive to become more efficient. (So would a carbon tax, but at least global price shifts work everywhere and aren't subject to companies just up and moving.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 02:11
|
|
|
etalian posted:In related news even the IMF is concerned about the credit bubble: David Corbett posted:This is one of the reasons why I've been a bit less gung-ho about the decline in oil prices. I mean, yes, yes, gently caress Alberta forever and all that, but the fact is that when oil prices go down, the environment loses. The biggest environmental consequences of fossil fuels are still in their consumption rather than their production. Ironically, a huge increase in oil prices of the sort that would spur massive oilsands investment is probably the best scenario for the environment as it'd give consumers of all stripes a bigger incentive to become more efficient. (So would a carbon tax, but at least global price shifts work everywhere and aren't subject to companies just up and moving.) cowofwar fucked around with this message at 02:20 on Mar 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 02:16
|
|
|
etalian posted:In related news even the IMF is concerned about the credit bubble:
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 02:24
|
|
|
ascendance posted:I know lots of ppl afforded the 20% down by selling their condo, or help from parents. Wouldn't be surprised though if parents are remortgaging homes to help their kids get the 20% down. A lot of those finance moron stories seemed have the pattern of shaking down friends and family just so they could afford a overpriced mortgage.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 02:45
|
|
|
David Corbett posted:Because you can't just dump oil on the ground or burn it off at the wellhead (I hope), you'll see bigger and bigger pressure on oil prices - at least theoretically. Supposedly the oil industry has relatively high supply elasticity relative to demand elasticity, so it is actually less of a problem here than it would be in some other areas, but I'm not sure how true that is. As I understand it the storage issues for crude are because there's so many refinery issues right now that they cannot handle the incoming capacity, they're pumping it out of the ground but is has practically nowhere to go, so increasing the price on the refined product won't actually have an impact on that portion of the supply chain. They can't even just sell it because the US is barred by congress from exporting or something like that. etalian posted:A lot of those finance moron stories seemed have the pattern of shaking down friends and family just so they could afford a overpriced mortgage. Loaning a friend the cash to buy in this market is vastly more retarded than asking your friends for such a thing in the first place. Who would do either of these. 
Rime fucked around with this message at 02:59 on Mar 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 02:54
|
|
|
cowofwar posted:alt energy is now a pretty big lobby Ahahahaha no they aren't, they're up against CAPP and whoever covers coal these days. They're tiny.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 03:57
|
|
|
Rime posted:Loaning a friend the cash to buy in this market is vastly more retarded than asking your friends for such a thing in the first place. Who would do either of these.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 04:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 17:03 |
|
|
This is some bush league begging. Kickstarter that poo poo you morons. Fund my downpayment motherfuckers
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 04:15
|
|