|
http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21647622-land-centre-pre-industrial-economy-has-returned-constraint-growth The paradox of soil Land, the centre of the pre-industrial economy, has returned as a constraint on growth Apr 4th 2015 | From the print edition THE history of economics has been, among other things, a story of learning to care less about land. The physiocrats of 18th-century France saw it as the primary guarantor of wealth. Adam Smith included it alongside labour and capital as one of the three factors of production that combined to generate output. A little later Thomas Malthus saw its innate scarcity as ensuring eventual catastrophe in the face of exponential population growth. Instead of succumbing to catastrophe Western countries found ways to work around land’s scarcity, some of them ingenious—skyscrapers, artificial fertiliser, railways, suburbs—and some nefarious—dispossessing the oppressed and colonised. Improved transport allowed land farther off to do the work that land close at hand had done before, whether by producing crops half way round the world or housing workers out in the suburbs. High productivity allowed more food to be grown on fewer farms. The value of land relative to GDP fell remorselessly (see chart 1). By the second half of the 20th century land was sufficiently marginalised in rich-world economies that it scarcely registered in economics textbooks. By the 1970s some seers, noting the falling cost and increasing power of information technology, convinced themselves that the textbooks were anticipating the way of the world: land and location would soon cease to matter in real life, too. Instead, concern over land has come roaring back. The issue is not overall scarcity, but scarcity in specific places—the cities responsible for a disproportionate amount of the world’s output. The high price of land in these places is in part an unavoidable concomitant of success. But it is also the product of distortions that cost the world dear. One estimate suggests that since the 1960s such distortions have reduced America’s GDP by more than 13%. Old Kent Road to Mayfair Land’s new relevance is rooted in two main developments. The first, ironically enough, is related to the revolution in computers and communications that was beginning to become evident in the 1970s. In some ways this revolution has brought about the “death of distance” foreseen by Frances Cairncross (a former journalist at The Economist). Supply chains leap borders and oceans; calls to customer services can be answered a continent away. But if distance has died, location has not. In the middle of the 20th century many big, previously vibrant cities in the rich world were shrinking. In the 1980s, in some of them, that turned around. Edward Glaeser of Harvard University and Giacomo Ponzetto of CREI, a research centre in Barcelona, reckon that this was because information technology made work in some knowledge-intensive industries far more lucrative. Financial traders could manage more money across more investors; software firms could sell their products cheaply and easily across a global market. As the return to knowledge-intensive activities exploded, so did the economic fortunes of idea-producing places. There is support for this idea in research done by Thor Berger, of Lund University, and Carl Benedikt Frey, of the University of Oxford. Before the 1980s there was no statistical link between the skill-level of a city’s workforce and its tendency to create new kinds of work. From the 1980s on, by contrast, new job categories appeared with much greater regularity in places with highly skilled workers than in those that lacked them. What is more, Mr Glaeser and his colleague Matthew Resseger find a close relationship between the population of a metropolitan area and the productivity of workers within that area. It seems that workers accumulate knowledge faster in cities with lots of idea industries. Top cities became hotbeds of innovative activity against which other places could not easily compete. The people clustered together boosted each others’ employment opportunities and potential income. From Bangalore to Austin, Milan to Paris, land became a scarce and precious resource as a result; the economic potential of a hectare of a rural Kentucky county is dramatically lower than that of a hectare in Silicon Valley’s Santa Clara county. And there is only so much of Santa Clara to go around. Yet more Santa Clara could be built, were it not for the second and more distressing factor behind land’s return: the growing constraint imposed by land-use regulation. The Santa Clara town of Mountain View, for instance, is home to some of the world’s leading technology firms. Yet nearly half of the city’s homes are single-family buildings; the population density is just over 2,300 per square kilometre, three times lower than in none-too-densely populated San Francisco. The spread of land-use regulation is not hard to understand. The clustering that adds to local economic vibrancy has costs, too, as the unregulated urban booms of the 19th century made clear. Crowded slums were fertile soil for crime and epidemics; filthy air and water afflicted rich and poor alike. Officials began imposing new rules on those building in cities and, later, on those extending them: limiting heights and building designs; imposing maximum densities and minimum parking requirements; setting aside “green belts” on which development was prohibited. Such regulations have steadily expanded in scope and spread to cities around the world. As metropolitan economies recovered from their mid-20th-century slump populations began growing again. The numbers of people living in the central parts of London and New York have never been higher. And as demand for quality housing increased the unintended consequences of the thicket of building regulation that had grown up in most cities became apparent. David Ricardo, an eminent early-19th-century economist who was, among other things, a friend of Malthus’s, would have recognised the issue. Back when land was at the centre of the discipline his observations led him to the idea of a rent: an unearned windfall accruing to the owner of a scarce resource. Strained food supply would raise food prices, he reasoned, which would encourage landowners to bring ever more land under cultivation. But higher food prices benefited all landowners. A lord sitting on highly productive agricultural land suddenly found his profits swelling: not as a result of innovation on his part but because humanity needed more of something he happened to own. This is what is happening in the world’s cities today. According to data gathered by Robert Shiller, of Yale University, the inflation-adjusted cost of building new housing in America is roughly the same now as it was in the 1980s. The inflation-adjusted cost of buying a new home, by contrast, has risen by 30% over the same period (during the property bubble of the 2000s house prices climbed a great deal further before falling back). Individual cities have experienced even larger increases. From 1993 to 2013 prices in Boston and San Francisco rose by 60% in real terms. American cities are not exceptional. Economic change led to the rejuvenation of cities around the world, stress on stagnant housing stocks, and soaring housing costs. In many developed economies, the value of housing is an ever greater store of wealth (see chart 2) Belleville to Rue de la Paix Economists studying the issue generally reckon that rising housing costs are a product of the rising cost of land. David Albouy of the University of Illinois and Gabriel Ehrlich of America’s Congressional Budget Office reckon that in America land accounts for a third of total housing costs, and close to half in some metropolitan areas. A high share of land in housing costs results in the creation of large rents for landowners. If regulatory limits on building heights and density were relaxed, fewer plots of land would be needed to satisfy a given level of demand. That would reduce the rents collected by landowners, since any uptick in demand could quickly be met by new development. Just as soaring agricultural productivity led to a decline in the relative economic power of rural landowners in the 19th and 20th centuries, the relaxation of strict limits on development would lead to a decline in property wealth relative to the economy as a whole. More of the gains of economic activity would flow to workers and investors. Instead building regulations keep urban-land productivity low, and the costs are staggering. A 2005 study by Mr Glaeser and Raven Saks, of America’s Federal Reserve, and Joseph Gyourko, of the University of Pennsylvania, attempted to derive the share of property costs attributable to regulatory limits on supply. In 1998 this “shadow tax”, as they call it, was about 20% in Washington, DC, and Boston and about 50% in San Francisco and Manhattan. Matters have almost certainly got worse since then. Similar work by Paul Cheshire and Christian Hilber, of the London School of Economics, estimated that in the early 2000s this regulatory shadow tax was roughly 300% in Milan and Paris, 450% in the City of London, and 800% in its West End. The lion’s share of the value of commercial real estate in Europe’s most economically important cities is thus attributable to rules that make building difficult. One may find it hard to sympathise with Mayfair hedge funds facing high rents. But the net effect of these costs is felt more by the poor than by the rich. Take American homeowners. The fact that 60% of households own property might seem to suggest that rising house prices and inflated land values were good for a large swathe of the middle class. Yet Edward Wolff of New York University notes that the middle class enjoyed much less of a boost to wealth because of an accompanying rise in mortgage debt (see chart 3). Meanwhile poorer Americans, who rent their homes, experienced soaring housing prices as a large and sustained increase in their cost of living. Housing wealth has played a critical role in rising inequality, to which Thomas Piketty, an economist at the Paris School of Economics, drew attention in his bestselling book “Capital in the Twenty-First Century”. In a recent paper Matthew Rognlie, a doctoral student at MIT, noted that the rising share of national income flowing to owners of capital, rather than workers, is largely attributable to increased payments to owners of housing. Capital income from housing accounted for just 3% of the total in 1950 but is responsible for about 10% today. Land rents are also captured by landowners in many emerging markets. According to CBRE, a property company, Beijing and New Delhi are among the world’s ten most expensive office markets, while Kuala Lumpur and Jakarta are among those with the fastest price increases. Extremely fast growing areas are often crucial to developing economies, which means poorly regulated property markets can do a lot of harm. In India’s big cities onerous permitting procedures, tight rent control, and strict limits on how land may be used have heavily distorted patterns of growth and the allocation of its benefits. Growth in the rents available to property owners fuels corruption and wastes resources. Landowners work to strengthen development restrictions while politicians cash in on their ability, through selective development approval, to grant fortunate supplicants a windfall. In economies where political corruption is already a problem the renaissance of land may be especially corrosive. In October 2014 the Times of India reported that the bribes required to clear the various stages of the planning-permission process in central Mumbai could add up to as much as half of basic building costs. The ugliest effect of the return of land, though, may be the brake it applies to the economy as a whole. One of the main ways economies increase worker productivity, and thus grow richer, is through the reallocation of people and resources away from low-productivity segments to more efficient ones. In business this means that bad firms go bust and good ones grow to great size. Something similar should hold for cities. Where workers can be put to use at high levels of productivity labour scarcity will lead to fast growing pay packets. Those pay packets will attract workers from other cities. When they migrate and find new, high-paying work, the whole economy benefits. Mediterranean Avenue to Boardwalk But that process is now breaking down in many economies. For workers to move to the high wages on offer in San Francisco, they must win an auction for a home that provides access to the local labour market. The bidding in that auction pushes up housing costs until there are just enough workers interested in moving in to fill the available housing space. Salaries that should be sending come-hither signals are ending up with rentiers instead, and the unfairness can trigger protest, as it has in San Francisco. Many workers will take lower-paying jobs elsewhere because the income left over after paying for cheaper housing is more attractive. Labour ends up allocating itself toward low-productivity markets, and the whole economy suffers. Chang-Tai Hsieh, of the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, and Enrico Moretti, of the University of California, Berkeley, have made a tentative stab at calculating the size of such effects. But for the tight limits on construction in California’s Bay Area, they reckon, employment there would be about five times larger than it is. In work that has yet to be published they tot up similar distortions across the whole economy from 1964 on and find that American GDP in 2009 was as much as 13.5% lower than it otherwise could have been. At current levels of output that is a cost of more than $2 trillion a year, or nearly $10,000 per person. The good news is that the world’s urban-land scarcity is largely an artificial problem. The bad news is that that does not make it a soluble one. Redressing strict land regulation is among the most politically fraught of policy issues. It is in many ways like other toxic issues, such as trade or immigration. The society on the receiving end of new imports or population inflows benefits as a whole, but those put out of business by competition or dismayed by cultural change feel a disproportionate level of damage, and organise in opposition. And in the case of land values this opposition will be rich. There are ways to address this with policy. Governments could aim specific assistance at those harmed by dense development, as they have to those affected by liberalised trade. Disbursing some of the tax revenue earned as a result of new development to landowners within a small area around that development to compensate for short-term hardship would reduce opposition to new building. Or they could heed the advice of Henry George, an American follower of Ricardo who in the 1880s made the case for a land-value tax. It has many theoretical virtues. Most taxes dampen, distort or displace economic activity by changing incentives on the margins. But a land tax cannot reduce the supply of land, and it would stimulate economic activity by penalising those whose land is unproductive. And your tax base is always right there—a city lot cannot be whisked off to Luxembourg. The mayor of New York City, Bill de Blasio, hopes that taxing vacant lots by value will help deal with urban blight in the Bronx and elsewhere. But there are practical problems with a land tax—perhaps the largest of which is that by its very nature it hits the well-connected rich hardest. Even fiscally purist Estonia, which adopted a land tax in 1993, has complicated it with multiple bands, including an exemption for homeowners. Those already blessed with property may also object to the other obvious approach to the problem: faster and higher-capacity transport links allowing the benefits to be spread farther afield. Some ways of improving transport—such as congestion charges on traffic—may be cheap, but especially in big cities new infrastructure is a slow and costly undertaking, as veterans of Boston’s tunnel-enhancing “big dig” can attest. A new underground railway line in London, Crossrail, is currently Europe’s most expensive infrastructure project. In the absence of jet packs all round, what else might technology offer? In time, perhaps, it could do to location what it did to brute distance, abolishing the problem. Virtual reality and social networking might combine to provide the benefits of dense populations without the propinquity. Unlikely, yes—but perhaps no more so than a skyscraper, or a subway train, to David Ricardo. From the print edition: Briefing Hal_2005 fucked around with this message at 07:04 on Apr 10, 2015 |
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 07:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 12:40 |
|
|
ocrumsprug posted:It's cool. The Saudi's (Iraq and Libya too) increased their production to cover this shortfall. Not going to thread poo poo, but you need to look at VLCS traffic and flows. Saudi Arabia hiked crude oil production to protect market share from inbound Iranian cargoes which are now competing for indian, japanese and chinese price hubs starting in June (hopefully). Go on bloomberg retail and take a look at the western canada select spread to loui sour. Yes they are all increasing, and yes Canadian crude will be pushed from the market, but to get to that point, Saud or even Mexico would have to dump their crude below the contango tanker day-rate (the cost to store your crude outside of Texas in the GoM waiting for a Refinery or Tank farm to buy your cargo). That number is around 18/bbl. Saud can sell it to China still for about as low as $38/bbl. So, just like when we saw LNG cargoes from Qatar / Africa reverse from the USA and divert towards Japan & Italy in 2007, when the natural gas price fell off a cliff and never recovered because LNG was shuttered from the US east coast; same will happen here. This being said, and as I said in 4 posts now, this will be a medium term issue. In the short term, the front of the crude oil curve is dictated by immediate supply, and this is why I told goons to go listen to Jeff Currie explain this for retails on CNBC, because we are at a historic (no hyperbole) high in crude. Which means there will be bear rallies, and then swift reversions to the mean tank farm price. As more crude comes in, that storage scarcity and desperation for revenue maximization will keep pushing the front of the curve down, until someone buckles or stops taking crude; forcing in shut-ins upstream. Or new inventory caverns to be built; like what Keyera and Kinder Morgan are doing now in Alberta. So We could see 80 on the back end, we could also see 38 dollars, but that is the price of Texas Intermediate, which is an illusionary average price point, much like Brent. It ultimately depends on the refinery utilization rates and crude runs for this summer. Which is why you see large swings on crack spreads determined by those front months TLDR: Crude goes up, crude goes down; canadian spreads mean realized prices in CAD will be higher than the average global discount for upstream for another few months or so. If we keep getting large crude builds out of Cushing, 38 is in play. Right now its range bound to 45-53. Dont use that for your Interactive Brokers daytrading accounts. When you see crude roof, you will definitly see it happen, like Gulf War 1. Until then its structurally bound to the spread of 1st to 6th month crack differentials. And yes, as Greg at BNN reported; Housing rates are tied to the Bank of Canada rates, which are pricing off of the govt's cash cover ratios on their current issues outstanding. This can be explained away as the interest cover ratio on how well Canada's govts (all of them) can pay down their interest charges. Economy is slowing? yields go down. Currency goes down also. Markets which are pricing in physical assets in the new exchange rate basket go up. But net-net (ex-exchange) there is no real difference in asset values; however Canadians feel poorer because of the DEFLATION all goons love and badly desire. As we saw in the USA, should bond yields go below 1.5%/a, (note in Canada we quote mortgages on semi-annuals so do your grade 12 math to adjust!) people tend to leverage up even further to offset headwinds in purchasing power due to expensive imports and stagnant profits/wages. If it gets really loving bad, well, then we need quantitative easing. If you were following Pimco Canada today (  ) and if you look at the 2s20 of the Canada bond curve, then the market is already pricing in Canada will need to go full China/USA/ECB/Japan sometime before June 2016. So expect to be in Uncle Wong's Cabin for a good loving long time. Or your parents basement. Both are applicable. This will be a U shaped recession, probably at least 3 years long in Canada, more for the manufacturing centers of Canada who were shipping fabrication out west to offset the lost exports to Mexico / Japan/ China.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 07:39
|
|
|
They also discovered a new 100 Billion barrel field in the UK this week, which is probably only around 10-30 Billion after extraction losses but still enough to make them energy independent for the next decade. Granted, the production decline across the board by 2025 is going to be glorious to behold. If you want to make insane money, buy like buffet during this slump and hold as long as possible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 07:46
|
|
|
I see that Nova Scotia came to their senses. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/nova-scotia-film-industry-tax-credit-slashed-by-liberal-government-1.3026509 100% non-refundable subsidy. 100%!!!! Jesus H Christ. They nipped it in the bud before everyone and their dog showed up like in Louisiana, because within a few years that few million in handouts quickly turns into a billion dollars if you don't watch out. Quebec is cutting their programs over the next few years, and Ontario is up poo poo creek with their budget that leaves BC as the masters of corporate welfare. I still think that BC taxpayers just doesn't give a gently caress on who spends their money on whatever. Half a billion a year can go towards a lot of stuff but no... we can have Deadpool and Star Trek 3 shoot here and boost tourism and have the film crews boost hotels and craft services....  Soon as I get a non film gig, I'm out of here. I'm done. And I'm writing a letter to my MP with copys of my pay stubs and asking who does this program benefit? From my view its foreign workers and Hollywood.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 07:47
|
|
|
Big K of Justice posted:I see that Nova Scotia came to their senses. I can tell you 100% unironically if you are in film, then you already know how the subsidization of films and their limited partnerships work. So about 40% of the labor must be local source, the rest, including the post-production can be done in the USA, and the stapled credits go back to the home country. So net net? your seeing for a 1 million dollar project, about 5 million in hard cash dollars, being Accounted for as tax credits leaving the country. Take that up with the liberal genius from Quebec who drafted the new Canada Film Board and Canada Film's director of project relations (bribes). If you want some extra lulz, write WB a letter asking how much of their profit on Inception and Interstellar was shielded by Canadian tax credits. You may get an angry 'no comment'. The next time you see Leo DiCaprio being papped at 1Oak spraying the Vuve magnum, be sure to remember his take home pay comes from when those tax losses and subsidies are exchanged for cash, and that cash could have went towards feeding the Toronto Star special case of the week: single mothers, starving Montreal Student union protesters etc etc. Just using Leo as a punch-man. Don't go sperg on SAG, it will only push the jobs back south to Mexico or Russia who throw drugs into the sweetner packs. But I dont need to explain this to you as an industry guy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 08:08
|
|
|
Hey Hal, as a self-described owner of a hedge fund, a Conservative MP, and a director in the canadian film industry, why do you have such difficulty writing posts that don't sound like a schizophrenic wrote them?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 08:14
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Hey Hal, as a self-described owner of a hedge fund, a Conservative MP, and a director in the canadian film industry, why do you have such difficulty writing posts that don't sound like a schizophrenic wrote them? Not following you. Feel free to take it up with me in PM's if you find TOFL grade 13 too hard to read. Cool ? My Gimmick is to speak at a professional grade and state the facts. Not attacks. Want me to make an exception for your bipolar 1-gimmick, entitled, self righteous, condescending rear end ? I could, very happily I might add. And I would wager you would get a very good permaban out of it. Not a director, but I do know enough about it thanks to TIFF's + Lionsgate and respective project finance pitches. You are happy to do google fu and try and refute what I say. But I swore you already wasted 2 posts saying you didn't care what I wrote. So why start here?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 08:28
|
|
|
See the thing is I remember your thread in BFC titled 'Ask me anything about running a hedge fund' where you stated that you run a LSEQ fund (http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3637931). And I remember your posts in the CanPol thread talking about your staffers as an MP. The thing about gimmick accounts is that they have to be somewhat plausible. Are we to believe that you're both the owner of a hedge fund and an MP as well?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 08:36
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:See the thing is I remember your thread in BFC titled 'Ask me anything about running a hedge fund' where you stated that you run a LSEQ fund (http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3637931). And I remember your posts in the CanPol thread talking about your staffers as an MP. Check your pm's. First: I cannot believe you are this mentally and literally challenged that I need to reiterate it for you: For disclosure, yes, I have disclosed to SA am a financial professional and I run a registered hedge fund. That was done because I was being asked questions on finance, and felt it would be good to contribute on a more broad spectrum for the boards. Everyone here knows that, so it should not be a shock, except only to you, when I can write 1 draft copy of abstract and complex topics to contribute to the D&D. If 1 copy, and perhaps not always to Chicago standard offends you then you are not really here for insight or debate, and should be moderated out. This is the second time I have told you this, so this will be the last time my contributions become 'hal' vs what 'hal said'. If you find anything to refute on my points of insight or argument, then feel free to respond to them, not the guy writing it. Clear ? Second: and for the final time, I am not an MP, I have said this 5 times and you are the only poster that for whatever reason, Autism Spectrum or whatever, is totally incapable of reading when I am pandering, when I am being snarky and when I am being contextual. Which is a bit surreal to me, given this is supposed to be a liberal leaning, but highly literate group of posters. I do however do alot with all the govt's, in all branches of Canada. For privacy concerns I will not disclose more, and that should be respected. It is common for people to see projects, finance and legal outside their niche. In my case, I have financed film projects, I have also done due diligence on energy projects and I think thats all I will say to you. If you really, and badly want to debate me on what I say, then by all means step up and contribute. But this is growing old. You have google, you also have a brain so by all means. If you think I have said something which is not infotainment for your sensibilities, then post away. I do want to know what is your OCD obsession with my posts, and why are you now dragging down threads vs. posting value added content? And I hope you will get your brain in gear and take this to PM's like I did with CI and others. As I'd rather not waste more posts hand holding you through what should be pretty simple blocks of text. Hal_2005 fucked around with this message at 08:59 on Apr 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 08:48
|
|
|
I wouldn't give a poo poo about your real life work except all your posts are predicated on the notion that you're an in-the-know politician and financier. And LMAO at you disclosing to SA that you're a finance professional and run a hedge fund. Did you have to fill a compliance form and submit it to lowtax? I mean look at this poo poo where you state you're a Conservative politico. Hal_2005 posted:umm. As one of my staffers is gay, I think it's mostly just due to the party really doesn't give a poo poo about your sexual orientation on the inside. Its pretty meritocratic, and at the worst its not like you need to declare anything; dont ask dont tell, it really has no bearing on your work or status anyways. The CPC does have bylaws in place against harassment, and post-Doll bloc shooting HQ did a full review both to ensure the whistleblower and minority rights were in line with what the Liberals and Rainbow Col. suggest as best work practices. So not sure if there is a question in there, or just ignorant commentary....
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 09:00
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:I wouldn't give a poo poo about your real life work except all your posts are predicated on the notion that you're an in-the-know politician and financier. And LMAO at you disclosing to SA that you're a finance professional and run a hedge fund. Did you have to fill a compliance form and submit it to lowtax? Yes, someone who worked for me and then went to Ottawa is gay. He still works up there but for his first role he worked for someone who was gay and is still in the closet. They are now in New York. I spoke to explain because someone posted a very off-color remark that the CPC was sexually biased. That went on for a few pages and I refuted that by saying there has been no discrimination inside the party. I wrote from personal experience which is well within how the threads have gone for the past 10 versions when people share experiences with other goons. Like when a few Calgarians shared experience about goodwill during election runs. And no, you are now being a troll and an idiot. Why would you need to file a compliance form for Lowtax. Is Lowtax a financial entity? is Something Awful a SRO or financial regulatory body? Anyone can share what they want, and the site can believe it or not. In fact thats pretty common on Reddit and SA in the past. Hell, we did Ask/Tell. Refer to my 'WHY' I thought it would be quality to open that avenue to goons who were interested in finance and financial placement. So I'm still not seeing your issue or problem, but this is turning into a pretty good meltdown. Want to keep going ? Like I said, and this is now the second time, with precedent: feel free to pull me to PM's but your intent here is not to contribute to any thread about the housing affordability in Canada, nor debate about how tax loopholes are draining funds for at risk demographics, so I think we're done. Are we done? I think we are. Edit: Cleaning it up. Being cordial. Hal_2005 fucked around with this message at 09:21 on Apr 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 09:08
|
|
|
Nah, 'u mad bro' doesn't really work when you're posting multi-paragraphs meltdowns that don't really do anything to back-up your claims about being a finance magnate slash political insider especially when your post history is a short click away. If you post about having insider knowledge about the markets or purported relationships with politicians, expect to get called out on it. I don't feel like I need to say anything more than a poster pretending to be a hedge fund manager giving advice about the Canadian economy captures the Canadian zeitguiest more than anything else.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 09:19
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Nah, 'u mad bro' doesn't really work when you're posting multi-paragraphs meltdowns that don't really do anything to back-up your claims about being a finance magnate slash political insider especially when your post history is a short click away. No. Sorry, you don't get to get off that easy Shrike. You can clearly see, as can all of D&D, I calmly responded and explained to you with a good explanation to every point of question you had. Like a mature adult professional. I gave you respect, even if you have given me zilch for 7 pages now. And I even sent you a PM, which I blind cc'd to verify I have made every effort to not chew you out 'on the internet'. I stand by my post history, and my methods. How do you defend your contributions ? Have you made any to anything I have said ? I dont see it sofar. We're here for the lulz on the main board, but going back to lazzie-faire, this place is for semi-serious discussion, be it open source intelligence or factual education about socioeconomic policies under the veil (thin!) of annon. its done with arguments and formed responses. Sometimes we even give context when other goons can't connect all the dots, like when I had to explain to you just now how I know about the glass closet. Each time I contribute I explain my bias or frame of reference. And even when the posts are abstract, I often try to intersperse it with humor to make the content crystal clear in when and how it should be read. That is just normal english. So are paragraphs and compound ideas. It sucks, I know. When I asked you to both take it off line and explain your barbs, twice now, on two different occasions, you have backed down. Only to come back again and stalk me like someone who is suffering from a bad OCD, and this is growing unhealthy since its not passive-aggressive arguing but personal attacking. And given your debate and questioning style (or gimmick) is to attack the person; I'm at a loss. I'll bet given your rap sheet, this is going to continue on for another few more posts. So I'm just calling it out right now. Everything I said: yes, even Leonardo Di Caprio's commonly known cocaine habit could have been verified as contextual and accurate with a google or two. I suspect you are not here to actually learn anything about Canada, or even share your views on Canada but just for attention seeking trolling. If this is indeed all you want, I reflectively feel bad for you bud. You are so loving jaded as a Goon poster, you just cant get over the fact some Goons grow up (grow up for emphasis) and actually keep the accounts to chat. And in that context, I totally can understand how it could be beyond you that someone actually talks with a semblance of insight 'on YOUR internet'. Sad. Get back on topic. Hal_2005 fucked around with this message at 09:51 on Apr 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 09:43
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:Yeah, seriously. If anything, having the AI or whatever credential is a strongly negative indicator for your hireability. If I was planning on starting up a pyramid scheme, do you think the school would sell me their alumni mailing list?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 10:12
|
|
|
It hardly matters. I doubt anyone even reads hal's posts - I get about one paragraph in to the rambling messes before I get tired of the patronizing tone. It's all anecdotal partisan "in-the-know" bullshit without any support.
cowofwar fucked around with this message at 12:35 on Apr 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 12:33
|
|
|
Hal_2005 posted:So about 40% of the labor must be local source, BC's program for POST/VFX workers are a 58% labor rebate, the only requirement is that the worker is a BC resident for one year. There's no requirements on anything else. There's not enough experienced Canadians to do the work so the majority are Americans/Europeans on work visas. Since it's mostly American and European companies rushing to Vancouver to open up satellite offices as fast as they can. That means aliens on work visas qualify for the tax credit, and the film doesn't even need to be shot here at all. The UK/NZ subsidies required the bulk of the production work to be done there. Not so with many of the Canadian subsidies. On my production team I'm the only Canadian. Half the people I work with is the same people I worked with in LA over the past decade +. It's not much effort to bring in a dude on a TFW for 2 projects and have them meet the bc resident requirement. Oh well, once BC slides into a deficit, their program is going to be gone, and you'll see Vancouver's film workers flip their poo poo. #saveBCfilm. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 14:31
|
|
|
How many oil spills in the vancouver harbour will it take to tank the housing prices?PT6A posted:What's the deal with people getting these bullshit qualifications for jobs that neither require nor, typically, accept any such qualifications? They are being pushed at the highschool level into programs they 'enjoy'. A lot of people have interests, namely everyone, but many of these people lack the drive to push and work hard towards a career in the same field. They have essentially turned their hobby into a 20-80k debt package and will be cursed to work at starbucks or similar for quite some time. I'm sure everyone knows a couple people in this situation 
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 14:59
|
|
|
All I want to know about Hal is why he feels the need to prefix question marks with a space
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 15:56
|
|
|
Canadian budget version of MIGF if that makes sense to anyone.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 16:02
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Canadian budget version of MIGF if that makes sense to anyone. I agree he seems a little crazy, but I also agree with him that you seem unusually obsessed with him.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 16:03
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:All I want to know about Hal is why he feels the need to prefix question marks with a space TOFL grade 13.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 16:03
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I agree he seems a little crazy, but I also agree with him that you seem unusually obsessed with him. Fascination with the pathological? The financier gimmick started off plausible but it veered off the cliff once he felt the need to give an 'expert' opinion about everything. I used to work in finance before heading back to school so his master of the universe schtick came off as incredibly fake.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 16:06
|
|
|
cowofwar posted:It hardly matters. I doubt anyone even reads hal's posts - I get about one paragraph in to the rambling messes before I get tired of the patronizing tone. It's all anecdotal partisan "in-the-know" bullshit without any support. It's like reading a MIGF post, except the author is also high on bath salts. shrike82 posted:Canadian budget version of MIGF if that makes sense to anyone. Ha, beaten.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 16:10
|
|
|
I've never found it hard to read his stuff. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 16:20
|
|
|
.
Sassafras fucked around with this message at 07:41 on Apr 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 16:32
|
|
|
Y'all rich hatin. Hal's insight into oil is 10x better than anyone else's in these threads.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
.
Sassafras fucked around with this message at 07:41 on Apr 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
quote:
http://m.theglobeandmail.com/life/home-and-garden/real-estate/5-kids2-adults1000-sq-ft/article23875496/?service=mobile Love it when media propagates this idiotic meme that living in a loving coffin is the new normal. And got much more loving Vancouver can you get. 'Video game designer'. gently caress off
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
Isentropy posted:Lenore Zann? I began to figure that one out in late 2013. It was the closest I've come, and probably ever will come, to drawing something obscene on the ballot and walking off. The province at large had a choice between someone who was almost slavish to corporations even by the current politician standard, and two leaders who thought austerity was some kind of holy sacrament. It'll be really nice if the next provincial election has more of a meaningful choice to it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
quote:I like small, confined spaces for how efficient they are This is the first time I've heard the words "small, confined" used to describe something that isn't a jail cell Speaking of jail: quote:Mr. Crook has instituted an awards program to maintain order. triplexpac fucked around with this message at 17:07 on Apr 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
I feel like there could be a happy medium between a retired couple living in a 5000 sq. ft. McMansion and trying to cram 6 people into a 1,000 sq. ft. apartment. What, oh what, could it possibly be?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 17:25
|
|
|
Birth Control and self restraint. Which are two sides of the same coin, when you think about it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
Rime posted:They also discovered a new 100 Billion barrel field in the UK this week, which is probably only around 10-30 Billion after extraction losses but still enough to make them energy independent for the next decade. Or it's like all that sweet shale oil in California and like... 4 % of the initial claim.  Basically, don't take "report commissioned by the field's developers" to be worth anything (but for tricking investors). This article does a pretty decent take on a lot of media-propelled bollocks going around: http://oilprice.com/Energy/Oil-Prices/Top-12-Media-Myths-On-Oil-Prices.html Pimpmust fucked around with this message at 16:52 on Apr 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
I would have understood the article if it was him and his wife and maybe 1 child, but loving 5? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
I want a follow-up interview with the guy in 5 years once his kids turn teens.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:Adrian Crook has discovered life is better once you abandon the accepted wisdom that you need a house and backyard to raise happy kids. Oh man, wait till he finds out you don't need to have kids either! 
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 18:16
|
|
|
The natural extension of all this bullshit austerity living is that you don't need money, healthcare, education or food. At least you live the dream of designing video games in Vancouver
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
http://news.buzzbuzzhome.com/2015/04/why-high-housing-prices-toronto-and-vancouver-are-justified.htmlquote:In conclusion, using population density to evaluate housing values appears to be much better than the commonly used variables such as rents, income or debt levels. The guy who wrote this is an employee of "Fortress Real Developments". Shills for idiots like Brad Lamb.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:http://news.buzzbuzzhome.com/2015/04/why-high-housing-prices-toronto-and-vancouver-are-justified.html Is it just me, or is this article written like "X is true: but here are all the things in the data that don't back this up"
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 12:40 |
|
|
triplexpac posted:Is it just me, or is this article written like "X is true: but here are all the things in the data that don't back this up" Yup. Exactly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 20:08
|
|