Canada Housing/Debt: Trust me, I'm a landlord.

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Canada Housing/Debt: Trust me, I'm a landlord.

«‹›1518 »

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

So much rich hating. You're all jealous of other people

# ? Jul 17, 2015 23:42

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 27, 2024 16:05

Juul-Whip: Mar 10, 2008

That's fine and for people who can afford it, have at 'er. But I always laugh at the financial horror stories of people who go well beyond 5, 10, 20 grand, for a one-time party to celebrate a marriage that is clearly doomed, on credit to boot. And I've watched more than a few of my own relatives, who are hardly rolling in cash, drop 10k on their Big Day, which ends up being super fuckin boring and forgettable because Mormons don't drink.

Also, I forgot a zero in that "$5000" figure. Meant to write $50,000.

Juul-Whip fucked around with this message at 00:11 on Jul 18, 2015

# ? Jul 17, 2015 23:48

Powershift: Nov 23, 2009

You guys realize people leave perfectly good furniture on the curb all the time, right?

And with socialized healthcare, and a subarctic climate, you don't have to worry much about mystery rashes or spiders, either.

# ? Jul 17, 2015 23:49

Juul-Whip: Mar 10, 2008

My brother got a newly-reupholstered sofa with these amazing wooden claw feet, for free. Thing is like 100 years old.

# ? Jul 17, 2015 23:53

Lain Iwakura: Aug 5, 2004; The body exists only to verify one's own existence.; Taco Defender

cowofwar posted:

This is what everyone says before planning a wedding but unless both people have distant family and are asocial recluses it rarely pans out.

$5000 is a good party budget but if someone wants a wedding that's a different number.

Our wedding is costing us as a baseline $8,000 but that is because we've opted to choose a venue that handles the wedding itself, the reception, and the catering--catering includes wine but no booze. The venue was chosen because it was actually where we met in the first place and there was just too much of an attachment to it. My parents and her parents wanted to pay for half of it but we worked it down to them paying for a portion of it so I imagine that it will end up being $5,000 for the venue after all is said and done--I really didn't want either nor did my partner but they wanted to be involved so I guess we'll work with that.

Once we add things like rentals for tuxes, the dress, photography, and DJs, it adds another $3,000 to $4,000 to the total, so in the end our wedding should not really exceed $10,000 overall as a cost to just the two of us.

Both of us have enough cash in the bank to pay for the wedding at least five times so I don't think it's really an insane price at this point.

But then I look at my sister's friend and her now-husband and they spent $50,000 for a February wedding in a similar setup but all on credit. :psyduck:

Lain Iwakura fucked around with this message at 00:34 on Jul 18, 2015

# ? Jul 18, 2015 00:01

Dreylad: Jun 19, 2001

It was in TIME magazine so who knows how accurate the stat is, but on average Americans spent around ~$30k on weddings.

# ? Jul 18, 2015 00:03

Risky Bisquick: Jan 18, 2008; PLEASE LET ME WRITE YOUR VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT SO I CAN FURTHER DEMONSTRATE THE CALAMITY THAT IS OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM.; Buglord

THC posted:

That's fine and for people who can afford it, have at 'er. But I always laugh at the financial horror stories of people who go well beyond 5, 10, 20 grand, for a one-time party to celebrate a marriage that is clearly doomed, on credit to boot. And I've watched more than a few of my own relatives, who are hardly rolling in cash, drop 10k on their Big Day, which ends up being super fuckin boring and forgettable because Mormons don't drink.

I barely remember my wedding and it was mid 40s paid with cash all said and done. I've never been to a wedding where costs were below 20, it's just not possible for europeans to party on that budget.

Cultural Imperial posted:

So much rich hating. You're all jealous of other people

These guys are hella poor, basket bicycle riding hipsters. Also lol at not counting ring or vacation costs as wedding costs.

# ? Jul 18, 2015 00:20

Juul-Whip: Mar 10, 2008

I actually make decent money, I just have different priorities than most people I guess. My parents had a potluck for their wedding.

# ? Jul 18, 2015 00:46

etalian: Mar 20, 2006

So how long until Canada has negative interest rates like in the Eurozone?

# ? Jul 18, 2015 01:13

Reince Penis: Nov 15, 2007; by R. Guyovich

etalian posted:

So how long until Canada has negative interest rates like in the Eurozone?

18-24 months at this rate.

# ? Jul 18, 2015 01:34

Baronjutter: Dec 31, 2007; "Tiny Trains"

My wedding was about 5k all said and done, and most of that was in plane tickets and bribes. I had no guests and lugged home a bunch of groceries on the metro from Tesco on the way back. A couple years later my parents really wanted to have SOME sort of gathering so our friend who owned a hotel let us have the penthouse suites, and a caterer friend did amazing food for cheap, and a local restaurant made us a few hundred worth of sushi for free. The most expensive part was the bar, but a lot of people brought bottles anyways. I think my dad ended up spending about $1000 and it was a huge fun party with all extended family and friends.

Nothing wrong with a bigger wedding if that's what you want, but it seems so many people just do what they think they're supposed to do, or what their parents/family want, or what they feel entitled to, and don't care about the debt. Weddings really do cost exactly what you want them to cost, there's no minimum really. You don't have to have a million guests, you don't have to have a catered reception, hell you don't even have to have a ceremony, you can fill out the paperwork at London Drugs if you want.

# ? Jul 18, 2015 02:03

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

I'm gonna post a great PDF Canadian negative interest rates later.

# ? Jul 18, 2015 02:26

etalian: Mar 20, 2006

I wonder how the BoC can claim everything Ok while at the same time implementing preemptive QE type measures.

# ? Jul 18, 2015 02:49

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

http://www.financialpost.com/m/wp/b...o-a-housing-pop

quote:

Home Capital Group Inc is used to critics saying it�s vulnerable to a housing pop

TORONTO � For the short sellers (and there are many) betting against Canada�s uncomfortably hot housing market, and specifically, the company seen as most exposed to it, Home Capital Group Inc., it was a gratifying week.

Short positions in the company shot up, and the stock dived 19 per cent Monday, after the company revealed that new mortgages were much lower than expected in the second quarter � after an already weak first quarter. But that wasn�t the end of the unexpected news. Home Capital also announced it had cut ties with a number of its broker partners � third-party deal-makers � after their practices were deemed as not being up to Home Capital�s standards.

If Canada�s housing market is overvalued by as much as 20-30 per cent, as observers from the International Monetary Fund to the Bank of Canada have warned, Home Capital is seen as highly vulnerable to the first slip in market stability, since it specializes in lending to clients who are often turned away by traditional banks � because of a rough credit history, or a lack of one, or because they�re self employed. The piling on of bears after this week�s announcement may have been investors seeing cracks in the housing market. But it could also be some are worried about those sub-standard broker partners.

quote:

Multiple sources familiar with the company and its partners suggested this was no meager number of brokers: Hundreds of them were cut off, representing multiple firms. They were primarily based in Ontario and sources said that instances of improper mortgage documentation were discovered as part of an audit.

One result is, of course, fewer people bringing deals into Home Capital, which will not be helpful in getting mortgage growth back on track. Another possible result could be investors wondering how many mortgages already backed by Home Capital were sold that weren�t up to snuff � and how deep these problems became before they were noticed.

Gerald Soloway, chief executive of Home Capital, said in an interview at his Toronto office that he is not worried about short sellers and their thesis that Home Capital is ground zero in a Canadian housing meltdown.

�I just profoundly disagree with the bets they are making,� he said. �We�re on the ground and we do not see the distress (in the Canadian market) they think is happening.�

Martin Reed, president of Home Capital, told the Financial Post that one of the brokers the company ended its relationship with was Toronto-based Interfinance Mortgage Corp., a prominent regional brokerage that describes itself as holding �a large market share of subprime lending.�

However, when the Financial Post contacted Kiran Kaushal, president of Interfinance on Friday, she did not agree. �I am a broker, I don�t work with Home Capital� she said, and quickly ended the interview.

Home Capital, which operates through Home Trust Company, is one of Canada�s largest alternative mortgage lenders, with 40,000 uninsured mortgages on its books and an additional 25,000 insured mortgages, some of which are securitized and sold. The company has a footprint in Canada�s hottest housing markets, including cities in British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario.

Its focus on Canada�s biggest urban centers � it does little to no underwriting in rural Canada � has been a smart business decision as massive price gains and strong home-building centered in the country�s big cities has kept demand for mortgages strong.

Of course, all that frothy pricing has attracted those willing to bet the market is in a bubble ready to pop, and Home Capital�s direct exposure to riskier mortgages has made it a prime target. Data from financial information company Markit shows Home Capital has recently become the third-most shorted stock in Canada, with about 23.81 per cent of its free float shorted as of Thursday�s close.

Those bets were rewarded this week, with share prices tumbling nearly 25 per cent to $31.70 over the past five trading days. The stock is now significantly down from its high of $55.75 on Aug. 11, 2014.

Home Capital has been one of Canada�s fastest- growing companies in the past decade. It began humbly as Home Savings & Loan Corp., a St. Catharines-based company Soloway bought in 1987. Back then, it had just 12 employees, with $51 million in assets and $3 million in equity. It was a company where Soloway knew all his people personally. Today it has more than 800 employees and $25 billion in assets.

It was Soloway�s more than two decades of experience as a real estate lawyer that gave him the spark to get into the alternative mortgage business. During his time as a lawyer, he was a branch solicitor for one of Canada�s major banks and said he noticed that it was becoming increasingly difficult for a growing market of self-employed Canadians to get access to mortgages.

�I saw these individuals were very credit-worthy and they had good down payments and they had great capacity to service the loans, but they were getting turned down,� he said.

The business also catered to other segments of the market where borrowers faced trouble getting mortgages from the big chartered banks: recent immigrants and those with checkered credit history.

But just a few years after Soloway bought Home Savings, the Canadian housing market crashed. And the epicentre then � as the short sellers sense is the case now � was Toronto, where a bubble fuelled by low unemployment and a massive immigrant influx had rapidly doubled prices in just a few years. When mortgage rates shot up to 14 per cent by 1990 and the economy entered recession shortly after, the market came tumbling down.

Today, there is talk of recession in the air, but interest rates could scarcely be much lower after the Bank of Canada�s quarter-point cut this week to a 0.5 per cent overnight lending rate. The major banks followed the cut by trimming their prime rate to as low as 2.7 per cent.

But Soloway said he learned a lot of lessons from that early meltdown.

�One has to be always prepared for a major adjustment in the mortgage market � it can happen without a lot of foresight or advanced warning,� he said. �Lending has to be done by asking: what if tomorrow is the start of a very serious recession?�

Last Friday�s announcement that Home Capital would sever ties with brokers revealed that the company sold just under $1.6 billion in new mortgages in the second quarter, a surprise to investors, considering most analysts were expecting a number well north of $2 billion. One short seller, who did not want to be quoted, said it set the short-seller community abuzz with talk of further downside in the stock.

Analyst Shubha Khan of National Bank Financial notes that the brokers Home Capital cut ties with accounted for a significant portion of new mortgages, a number he pegs at about 15 per cent. He also said that mortgages from the terminated brokers �may be susceptible to higher loan losses� compared with the company�s current loan loss ratio of 0.07 per cent.

Reid said that while he is aware of the shorts targeting his company, Home Capital has not seen any uptick in arrears and furthermore, continues to attract a lot of positive interest from outside the country.

�We have a lot of long-term U.S. investors who are holders of the stock, and have been for many, many years,� he said. �They tend to do their homework and better understand the Canadian market � they understand better the differences between the Canadian market and the U.S. market, whereas the hedge funds tend not to do the due diligence. They don�t take the deeper dive and understand.�

In his office in Toronto, Soloway made it clear the company was taking steps to ensure that all the broker partners it does business with are up to the company�s standards.

�One of the things we�ve recently done is completely segregate, on mortgages, both the sales part and the underwriting part,� said Soloway. �Again, it�s a long-term method to ensure quality.�

Reid clarified that the changes were being implemented before the recent broker purge.

�We just rolled that out � for insured loans and we�re starting this month � on the other groups,� said Soloway. �There�s a constant evolving on how to get better and how to make the company safer, and still with the basic principle, how do we serve the group that brought us to where we are today.�

Still, those looking to cash in on expectations that loan losses are going to grow are positively swarming the company. Roughly 18 per cent of shares were being shorted before the announcement about the cancelled relationships, and by Friday, that had grown to nearly one in four shares being shorted. Short positions have more than doubled since the stock hit its peak last year. Of course, investors have bet against Canada�s seemingly unstoppable housing market before, and got it wrong. And Soloway is no stranger to defending Home Capital against the skeptics. What�s changed this time is whether the skeptics are betting against Home Capital over more than just a housing bubble.

namaste friends fucked around with this message at 03:02 on Jul 18, 2015

# ? Jul 18, 2015 02:55

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

PDF on negative interest rates.

https://www.desjardins.com/ressources/pdf/pv150709-e.pdf

quote:

Canada�s economic and financial conditions differ greatly
from those of many European countries where negative
interest rates are in effect. For the BoC to lower its key
interest rates below zero, a series of events and steps would
have to happen, making this scenario quite unlikely.
First of all, the BoC would have to use the freedom of action
that is available to it. Its main key interest rate currently
stands at 0.75%; this leaves some room for it to reduce
key interest rates further within a traditional framework.
After that, the economic situation would have to deteriorate
considerably to warrant using unconventional monetary
policy tools. In particular, the U.S. economy would have
to be in serious trouble, which would push the Fed to
take action again. Given the caution that it has already
demonstrated with respect to negative interest rates, the Fed
would probably take that route only as a last resort, i.e. after
announcing a new program of asset purchases. Like the
Swiss and Danish central banks, the BoC would go along
for the ride with the Fed, mainly in order to prevent the
Canadian dollar from appreciating against the U.S. dollar.
Given the heavy debt burdens that Canadian households are
carrying, a negative interest rate policy would probably not
be terribly effective in stimulating the economy through the
credit channel, but it could be more effective through the
exchange rate channel.
Some bond yields would probably move into negative
territory alongside the key interest rates, but there is no
guarantee that retail interest rates would do likewise.
The Swiss example suggests that the BoC would have to
lower its key interest rates way below zero in order for that
movement to be reflected in certain retail interest rates.
However, the potentially high costs of lowering key interest
rates that far, and the caution that the Fed has shown in the
past about that policy, make this scenario even less likely
for Canada.

# ? Jul 18, 2015 02:58

ocrumsprug: Sep 23, 2010; by LITERALLY AN ADMIN

With interest rates below inflation, we are already effectively negative rates.

# ? Jul 18, 2015 03:34

Precambrian Video Games: Aug 19, 2002

Cultural Imperial posted:

http://www.financialpost.com/m/wp/b...o-a-housing-pop

Does anyone really believe that a subprime lender that securitizes mortgages just now got around to doing due diligence on their partners' lending practices? Based on a quarter of their shares being shorted, I'm guessing not.

# ? Jul 18, 2015 03:43

etalian: Mar 20, 2006

If Harper wants to save the budget he could always raise funds via a dunking tank.

# ? Jul 18, 2015 04:06

Lain Iwakura: Aug 5, 2004; The body exists only to verify one's own existence.; Taco Defender

etalian posted:

If Harper wants to save the budget he could always raise funds via a dunking tank.

I'd pay $10000 for that.

# ? Jul 18, 2015 04:12

less than three: Aug 9, 2007; Fallen Rib

Put it up to an auction, see how high it can go. :haw:

# ? Jul 18, 2015 04:15

Furnaceface: Oct 21, 2004

etalian posted:

If Harper wants to save the budget he could always raise funds via a dunking tank.

Depends on whats in the tank...

# ? Jul 18, 2015 04:42

etalian: Mar 20, 2006

Furnaceface posted:

Depends on whats in the tank...

the tank will be filled with toxic mortgage securities.

eXXon posted:

Does anyone really believe that a subprime lender that securitizes mortgages just now got around to doing due diligence on their partners' lending practices? Based on a quarter of their shares being shorted, I'm guessing not.

It probably more along the lines of proverb about closing the barn doors after the horse already escaped.

etalian fucked around with this message at 05:22 on Jul 18, 2015

# ? Jul 18, 2015 04:56

Mandibular Fiasco: Oct 14, 2012

The Globe and Mail is finally starting to publish some columns that reflect reality in this town.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...rticle25558615/

quote:

Almost overnight after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, its planned economy was transformed into a market economy. Businesses, factories and property spontaneously fell into the hands of a minority of the population.

This near-instantaneous liberalization, encouraged by Western powers under naive interpretations of how free-market capitalism ought to apply to the new Russian economy, led by some measures to the greatest income inequality in the world, and with it, the resentments and political corruption that massive wealth disparities tend to necessitate.

In modern-day Vancouver, policies at all three levels of government are leading to another great generational wealth transfer � not on Russia�s scale, perhaps, but certainly the largest in the city�s history. Homeowners and developers have become millionaires overnight through no particular skill or agency of their own, at tremendous long-term cost to the community. And like Russia, one pernicious lie has snaked its way into popular discourse: That this is simply free-market capitalism at play.

Housing in Canada has never really been a free market. Municipalities dictate what and where real estate can be built through zoning laws. Provinces regularly step in with social housing programs. And, most interventionist of all, the Bank of Canada chooses interest rates. And as we saw this week, despite the uproar of many, the bank is setting rates artificially low to cheapen the Canadian dollar and encourage exports. This has fanned the flames of real estate by lowering domestic mortgage payments and making Canadian property cheaper in foreign currency terms.

Furthermore, mortgages themselves are insured by the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corp., a Crown corporation. The CMHC�s mortgage insurance program has made debt available to Canadians who otherwise would not be eligible for mortgages. Ironically, in a bid to make home ownership more accessible, the CMHC has contributed to the country�s affordability problem by adding to demand and pricing out some of the people it was mandated to help.

In foreign capital�s involvement, the application of the term �free market� makes even less sense. Free markets in a global sense simply don�t exist. Countries have different laws, regulations and standards. This is why trade agreements are created � to level the playing field.

Due to government refusal to collect data on foreign ownership, it�s impossible to know how much of our real estate stock is owned by foreigners. The B.C. Real Estate Association, a biased stakeholder by all rights, estimates foreign ownership of housing stock to be at most 5 per cent, thus dismissing the impact of foreign ownership as inconsequential.

Two amateurish flaws with that analysis stand out among others.

First, when assessing the impact of foreign ownership, it is not the share of units that matters, but the share of capital. Foreigners disproportionately buy detached and luxury properties. The price of a detached home is more than four times higher than an apartment, so the share of foreign ownership could be several times higher than the BCREA estimate.

Second, foreign buyers tend to be less price-sensitive, and their subject-free cash offers drive up prices excessively. Put in economic terms, foreign demand is more inelastic than domestic demand and can have a dramatically disproportionate effect on housing prices.

This brings us to the most distortionary government program of all � the immigrant investor program. Through this scheme, 45,000 millionaires migrated to Vancouver between 2005 and 2012 alone. It was thought that investor-class immigrants would create jobs and boost the economy, but the program has been such a massive failure that investor-class immigrants pay less in taxes than refugees. Through a series of loopholes and abject fraud, this class of immigrant continues to funnel untaxed money into Vancouver from abroad.

They come because Canada has some of the loosest property ownership and tax laws in the developed world, and Vancouver is its wild west. The city has among the country�s lowest property taxes, developers hold disproportionate political influence and a league of professionals, such as real estate agents and immigration lawyers, are ready to take their slice of the pie.

The idea that foreigners should have the same rights as nationals to purchase real estate has no economic basis. Global free markets can have terrible externalities when supply is fixed. You can�t produce more land in Vancouver in the way you can produce more iPads or cars. This is why Canadians are restricted from buying property in countries like Switzerland, Iran and China. Those spouting free market arguments have no understanding of its real world constraints and prove the adage that a little understanding of economics is more dangerous than none. The countries with cities in Demographia�s top 10 international housing least affordability list all have regulations to at least measure, and in most cases curtail, foreign ownership, except for Canada.

There was a time when governments cared about the principle of housing affordability � when housing was what you lived in, rather than an investment class. Those times are far gone. B.C. Premier Christy Clark won�t even agree to collect data on foreign ownership. �By moving foreign owners out of the market, housing prices will drop,� she cautioned in May.

You hear government officials literally laugh off ideas of locals living in neighbourhoods like Coal Harbour. That the idea someone who works in Vancouver should be able to live in the city is somehow funny speaks to the perverse acquiescence and cowardice of our leaders.

The aforementioned policies (or lack of policies) have made existing homeowners incredibly wealthy, while most everyone else is permanently priced out of the market. This wealth hasn�t been created � it�s been transferred from the future to the present. Robust wealth is created through business and innovation. As our stagnant job market shows, we are not becoming wealthier � and with leagues of young, educated people leaving the city, it is on a path of decline. We have mortgaged its future, and the future of younger generations, to pad the coffers of today�s property owners.

Vancouver�s housing crisis has been directly caused by government policy, and now that an entire generation has been priced out of the market, we�re being told to deal with it � it�s the free market. That term, �free market,� has become meaningless in the process � invoked when it benefits the wealthy and powerful, and completely circumvented when it doesn�t.

# ? Jul 18, 2015 19:21

Melian Dialogue: Jan 9, 2015; NOT A RACIST

Except half of the article is talking about "THE FOREIGNERS (PPSSST, CHINESE)". But I like the final acceptance that the housing market has never, or never will be, a "free market".

# ? Jul 18, 2015 20:14

Lumius: Nov 24, 2004; Superior Awesome Sucks

I think you are oversimplifying his argument, he is saying hey maybe we should have some kind of ability to measure the impact of foreign capital and restrict it's ability to affect the lives of locals (which includes immigrant Chinese too). His argument against investor visas is backed by a study too , not commenting on the validity of it, but I don't think that its fair just to basically call him racist and hand wave it away. Obviously the availability of cheap credit is an issue but obviously the deeper issue is governmental (lack of sometimes) interference.

# ? Jul 18, 2015 20:28

Lexicon: Jul 29, 2003; I had a beer with Stephen Harper once and now I like him.

Many dozens of pages of chat and articles, and there's still doubt among some posters that exogenous capital is a material factor in Vancouver housing

# ? Jul 18, 2015 20:38

Melian Dialogue: Jan 9, 2015; NOT A RACIST

Lexicon posted:

Many dozens of pages of chat and articles, and there's still doubt among some posters that exogenous capital is a material factor in Vancouver housing

Material? yes? The primary factor? No.

# ? Jul 18, 2015 20:40

Slim Jim Pickens: Jan 16, 2012

Melian Dialogue posted:

Except half of the article is talking about "THE FOREIGNERS (PPSSST, CHINESE)". But I like the final acceptance that the housing market has never, or never will be, a "free market".

Why are foreign investors uninvolved? The entire country experiences a housing bubble, but only Vancouver goes completely insane and tops the charts in unaffordability. It seems like a pretty simple conclusion that Chinese investors are a part of the problem.

# ? Jul 18, 2015 20:46

MiddleOne: Feb 17, 2011

Slim Jim Pickens posted:

Why are foreign investors uninvolved? The entire country experiences a housing bubble, but only Vancouver goes completely insane and tops the charts in unaffordability. It seems like a pretty simple conclusion that Chinese investors are a part of the problem.

Because it distracts from what really need to be done.

# ? Jul 18, 2015 20:54

etalian: Mar 20, 2006

Xoidanor posted:

Because it distracts from what really need to be done.

Yeah greedy Chinese is a better red herring than realizing the home home prices a result of bad government policies.

# ? Jul 18, 2015 21:31

Lumius: Nov 24, 2004; Superior Awesome Sucks

I'm not sure if that's sarcasm but the author says the fact that foreign money is being parked in Vancouver is itself a result of bad government policies.

# ? Jul 18, 2015 21:35

Kafka Esq.: Jan 1, 2005; "If you ever even think about calling me anything but 'The Crab' I will go so fucking crab on your ass you won't even see what crab'd your crab" -The Crab(TM)

Slim Jim Pickens posted:

Why are foreign investors uninvolved? The entire country experiences a housing bubble, but only Vancouver goes completely insane and tops the charts in unaffordability. It seems like a pretty simple conclusion that Chinese investors are a part of the problem.

A pretty simply conclusion if you skip the part where you link foreign investing to the fact that there are a lot of rich Chinese in Vancouver.

# ? Jul 18, 2015 21:45

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

If you think street making GBS threads mainlanders are the primary source of momentum for the velocity of real estate money flying around in Vancouver, y'all loving crazy

# ? Jul 18, 2015 22:01

etalian: Mar 20, 2006

Harper doesn't believe government stimulus is the answer:
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/07/11/harper-says-canadian-economy-in-downturn-due-to-negative-global-trends.html

quote:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper says the government will react with �strong fiscal discipline� to the �downturn� in the Canadian economy, which he blamed on the recent turmoil in the global economy.
�Let me just state clearly what the situation is, there has been a downturn and the reason for that has been the downturn in the global economy,� Harper said in Pickering, Ont.
�It�s really that simple. Look around the world, we have another crisis downturn in Europe, we have a very significant slowdown and some other related economic problems now in China, we had very negative first quarter growth in the United States.
�So those things have obviously affected this country and in particular through oil prices and some commodity prices.�
Harper added that the federal government will not �spiral ourselves into deficit� and face credit downgrades, create an �investment freeze� by hiking taxes on businesses or take away tax breaks to Canadian families.
�Those are things we don�t do,� he said. �What we are doing, is providing strong fiscal discipline with lower taxes and we will have very large scale investment going into the Canadian economy this month alone through the increased universal child care benefits.�

# ? Jul 18, 2015 22:16

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

Hahahahahha

I'm definitely voting cpc next election.

# ? Jul 18, 2015 22:18

etalian: Mar 20, 2006

When the economy is crashing the most important thing is having lots of cuts to spending, more tax cuts to decrease revenue and making sure you keep the budget balanced!

etalian fucked around with this message at 22:56 on Jul 18, 2015

# ? Jul 18, 2015 22:27

Hal_2005: Feb 23, 2007

etalian posted:

Harper doesn't believe government stimulus is the answer:
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/07/11/harper-says-canadian-economy-in-downturn-due-to-negative-global-trends.html

Please cite one successful case where deficit spending led to sustained economic growth. Spending just for the sake of spending, via the infrastructure agencies does little to actually stimulate a positive balance of trade and only ends up skewing employment to your local (best) pork jurisdictions. If a federal program were indeed a success then we would see not only Japanese and Greek programs cited as methods of permanant economic expansion but would read nothing but how the Vancouver Games created a 10 years of wealth creation. So be careful on what you cite in response.

A good article for Uncle Wong, feel free to join Marty's comment section.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2015/07/housing-britain

# ? Jul 18, 2015 23:40

etalian: Mar 20, 2006

Hal_2005 posted:

Please cite one successful case where deficit spending led to sustained economic growth. Spending just for the sake of spending, via the infrastructure agencies does little to actually stimulate a positive balance of trade and only ends up skewing employment to your local (best) pork jurisdictions. If a federal program were indeed a success then we would see not only Japanese and Greek programs cited as methods of permanant economic expansion but would read nothing but how the Vancouver Games created a 10 years of wealth creation. So be careful on what you cite in response.

A good article for Uncle Wong, feel free to join Marty's comment section.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2015/07/housing-britain

sorry for triggering you by implying government deficits and stimulus are a good thing in emergency situations.

The canadian economy is crashing right now and fearless leader seems to believe things like clinging to a balanced budget while trying to do tax cuts is a great idea.

# ? Jul 18, 2015 23:56

OhYeah: Jan 20, 2007; 1. Currently the most prevalent form of decision-making in the western world

2. While you are correct in saying that the society owns

3. You have not for a second demonstrated here why

4. I love the way that you equate "state" with "bureaucracy". Is that how you really feel about the state

Hal_2005 posted:

Please cite one successful case where deficit spending led to sustained economic growth.

Please cite one successful case where austerity led to sustained economic growth.

# ? Jul 19, 2015 00:19

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 27, 2024 16:05

Hal_2005: Feb 23, 2007

etalian posted:

sorry for triggering you by implying government deficits and stimulus are a good thing in emergency situations.

The canadian economy is crashing right now and fearless leader seems to believe things like clinging to a balanced budget while trying to do tax cuts is a great idea.

Don't ever confuse me being busy or on vacation for being 'triggered'. Did my calling you out Trigger your failure safeword? Get it together. I step in when I see stupid poo poo, and say my mind. Thats what I do, and I do it well.

Is the Canadian economy "crashing" or "contracting" do you know the difference? Contraction is what we are going through. This is normal, and I've wrote to the threads about this for 2 years now. Suck it up. A "crash" is where you have 5% or more of your GDP year over year implode in one 30 day period. Do you see bank riots or closures ? No.

The thread no more than 180 days ago said we were in a bubble. You are now seeing the reversal. Enjoy it, this is a normal deflationary cycle. Things will weaken, layoffs are on course for where everyone expected. The FX is tracking the slowdown in Canadian fixed capital deployment. Calling for government to stimulate job formation is a waste of confidence, and our currency reserves. Tax cuts make the burden for people easier, because it allows households to manage the down cycle better by enabling consumption without placing excess burdens on govt outreach programs. How would it make any sense whatsoever to increase the tax burden at the same time our exports and trade weighted dollar is crashing. Did this work for Abenomics ?? Or France? Both tried this since 2010, with horrible results.

Should the Canadian govt pull in deficit spending early deflation cycle, then when it gets really bad the govt. will have to borrow more at a more pecuniary rate in US dollars to stimulate growth as we will have blown our credit rating and yield offering without knowing how bad this cycle is. Second, all non-energy industries are still hovering on stagnation. Throwing more money at the Auto, Tech & Biotech industry in Canada has historically been a great way to lose money.

Citations where austerity led to economic growth (and then im out):

- England (1971-2001)
- Canada (1909-1934)
- Vietnam (1993-2001)
- Korea
- Germany (post reunification)
- Colombia (1998-2013)
- Ireland (2008-2014)
- Latvia (2008-2015)
- Lithuania (2008-2015)
- Iceland (2008-2015)

If I really sit down, I could think of a few more. But you get the point.

Still waiting on the Keynsian side to trot out a country. Ill check in, in a few hours. Come up with something to impress me.

Hal_2005 fucked around with this message at 00:25 on Jul 19, 2015

# ? Jul 19, 2015 00:19

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Canada Housing/Debt: Trust me, I'm a landlord.

«‹›1518 »