Moonbox
-
Posts
8,743 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
40
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Moonbox
-
-
Moonbox, you are naive.
I think you view capitalism/markets as the Darwinian jungle - the strong, greedy eat the weak and survive. You believe that government regulators are honest referees. And referees keep the jungle honest, civilized and protect the weak.
August, I'm not sure you read anything else I mentioned in this thread. As for capitalism being a Darwinian jungle, it really really is, and I don't understand why you can say otherwise. As for the government being honest refereesm, give me a freaking break. I'm not that naive.
Moonbox, you should go back and read Adam Smith. (Free markets with prices protect the weak.) You should also spend some time with government bureaucrats.
A 1st year BBA student knows more about free markets and the invisible hand than most of the people on this board and I can assure you I'm a fair bit beyond that thanks. As for free markets protecting the weak, that's BS. Unrestrained and unregulated free markets are just as harmful to the average person as an over regulated centralized economy.
Unrestrained, we have Bill Gates, Rockefeller, price fixing and straight out cheating. Regulating is good when it seeks to prevent deceitful, unfair and blatantly stupid market practises, because those things do not help the economy grow.
In hindsight, it is easy to blame one side, or the other. People should never have borrowed, lenders should never have approved the mortage/loan.
and if you read my other posts you would have seen I blamed the borrowers just as heavily.
In hindsight. I think that you guys don't realize what happened.
I know exactly what happened, being in the industry myself. Your nice simplified explanation failed to explain the role that the Fed had in propping the housing prices up and how negligent the lenders were in approving mortgage loans. People were applying for refinances and new mortgages without having to prove their income. Borrowers and lenders basically ignored the most important principle of lending -- affordability. It really doesn't matter what your house is worth if you can't afford the payments on the mortgage.
Zero down mortgages with 40 year amortizations and without income confirmation, based on the brilliant assumption that housing prices would continue to skyrocket forever -- that's what the Free Market came up with in the US.
At present, no State regulation can protect against such folly.
If Canadians have avoided financial bubbles, it is because of our basic conservatism.
That's such naive BS I don't even know what to say. To say that Canadians are somehow just naturally more risk averse than the rest of the modernized world is balogna. We avoided the meltdown because our financial industries are heavily regulated.
Our mortgage regulations required clients to either put 20% down on housing purchases (making the mortgage less risky and at the same time showing the clients have the background that enabled them to save that much in the first place), or they were required, by law, to purchase default insurance through a third party which has fairly strict approval guidelines. Interestingly enough, one of those guidelines is proven affordability, and CMHC DOES NOT typically approve mortgages above their affordability ratios.
To say that the US and the rest of the world couldn't implement something similar is just not true.
-
I think we would both agree that the number of people that can afford to invest more than $10,000 per year is smaller than the number of people that can invest $10,000 per year. Its basically true by definition.
Of course, I'm just assuming that we can agree on this since you in fact stated the opposite.
Haha yes we can agree on that. I had to look back to see what the heck I'd said and I'd misunderstood you earlier. What I'd been trying to say was that the number of people who can afford 10,000/year, or even $7500/year in TFSA contributions are ones whose income is so high now that something remarkable would have to happen for them to end up with less than 16,000 in retirement income.
Every single one that doesn't have other investments or a private pension plan. So yes, perhaps the number will be relatively small if we only consider the people that put in exactly $10,000 per year, but it will be much larger if we consider people that put in $5,000-10,000 per year.
It will still be extremely small. When you consider CPP and OAS, those people will literally need to have zero other sources of income. The type of people who can save 5-10k per year into their TFSA are not people who have zero income when they retire.
Lots. I have an aunt that is literally worth millions (they sold an acreage near Surrey for a huge sum of money years ago) and she qualifies for every income supplement available. You know why? Because income and wealth are NOT the same thing.
So she has millions of dollars of wealth and is not making ANY income with it? Even a million dollars in lousy GIC's or savings accounts would earn enough to disqualify her.
My point is simply that this plan will allow more people to qualify for the GIS than currently do, and some of them will be qualifying despite having pretty substantial wealth. I see that as bad policy.
My point is the GIS is not something worth worrying about because the amount of wealthy people who qualify for it because they've saved in their TFSA is going to be small. Where this plan could really hurt us is with people like me in their late 20's or early 30's who invest in equities in their TFSA and would be able to hold them there for 30-40 years. Capital gain taxes on most personal investors my age won't even exist if the $10,000 limit lasts forever.
Like you said though, it's not going to happen. Even if it goes through it won't be kept that way for long.
-
So you think that the percentage of people that can afford $10,000 is the same as those that can afford $12,000, $15,000, or $50,000? I suppose anyone that can invest $10,000 can also afford to invest $1,000,000?
What the heck are you even talking about? I'm saying the percentage of people that can afford to invest $10,000 annually for 25 years are the people with >100,000 incomes. How many of those people do you know who end up with nothing for income when they retire, thus qualifying for a supplement? Give me that percentage.
I fear that you were right about most people not understanding the TFSA, and you are obviously one of them. People that have been able to afford $10,000 a year into their TFSA will be defined as low-income seniors provided that they didn't make significant investments in other places.
The OAS website is saying that the max income for the GIS is $16,000. What do you think the percentage is of retired folk who have been putting $10,000 in their TFSA each year and only $16000 in retirement income? Pretty freaking low.
The TFSA is a far better investment vehicle for the young than the old. For seniors today, a TFSA is only marginally better than a standard savings account.
Most young people are still putting money into the RSP instead of the TFSA for the tax deduction. Seniors by far prefer the TFSA and they're the ones that have bought in the most to it.
At any rate, the reason that its a bad policy now, let alone in 25 years, is that its a tax cut for people that least need help in retirement saving.
Kind of like RRSP's right?
Even if it only lasts 10-15 years, it will increase the number of people receiving the GIS. It doesn't need to go on forever for that to happen.
Okay we'll wait and see over the next 10-15 years and see:
1) How many wealthy people (the only ones who could save the $10,000 per year) end up with <$16000 in retirement income/year .
2) How long both future Conservative and Liberal governments will allow what will obviously be a fairly significant tax loophole if left unchecked.
I'll agree with you in the sense that if left like this forever, the $10,000 limit will get out of hand. If you or I can see that, I'm sure present and future governments will too, and it will be a very easy thing to to change.
What I won't agree with, in any sense, is that we're going to see a huge abuse of the GIS. The idea of wealthy people with nothing for income when they retire other doesn't really add up.
-
Sure, people that can afford to throw significantly more than $10,000 a year into savings will still not qualify for income supplements in retirement. What percentage of Canadian families do you think that makes up?
Probably the same percentage of people who could afford $10,000 a year to contribute to their TFSA. People with usually a fair bit more than $100,000 salaries. How many people do you know are able to invest 15-20% of their after tax income???
And money might fall from the moon, too. You can't reasonably evaluate a platform promise on account of what might happen in the future.
It's no less reasonable than your balogna scenario where lower income seniors, who've been able to put away $10,000 per year for the last 25 years, somehow find themselves in a position where their income is so low they then qualify for supplements from the government. That doesn't make a lot of sense.
We can definetly evaluate the platform on the premise of what might/should/almost certainly will happen in the future simply by looking at the promise for what it is. This is a Tory pander to seniors. The Tories know that the percentage of seniors who vote is high, they know seniors are the main users of the TFSA and they know that most seniors won't have 25 years to accumulate balances in them. They also know, like any reasonable human being should, that they won't be in power for the next 25 years, or likely even 10-15 years for that matter, and that if it's such a terrible idea then subsequent governments will stop it before it gets to be a problem.
Plug it into a calculator if you don't believe me. I ran the numbers with an investment at the start of each (annual) compounding period. Also, 5% isn't really exaggerated given that you can get 3.5% in a simple 5 year GIC. Interest rates are going up, if anywhere.
Fair enough I ran it with no initial contribution. That was me just being nitpicky and contrary. A fault of mine.
At any rate, my point stands regardless of the interest rate; at 1% or 99%, increasing the TFSA limit will increase the number of people qualifying for low-income supplements.
Again, it boils down to your assumption that the people who can afford to invest $10,000 annually (the wealthy) all of the sudden become poor as soon as they retire.
-
I see some real softening in the Ontario numbers, and if that trend continues, then we're not heading towards a 2008 redux, but a 2006 redux.
Not to burst your bubble but there's no trend yet really. The Nanos polls that are really showing the change have a margin of error of 6% and we've seen 4% shifts per day up and down in both directions.
Ignatieff had better do better in Ontario than Dion did, so I wouldn't be surprised if the Liberals match Tory support in Ontario. It's the rest of Canada that they have to worry about.
-
He felt that he could'nt say for sure if it was a trend,but it was definately there and was something to keep an eye on over the next week...
I think this is about as substantial as a fart in the wind so far. We'll have to wait and see...
If Harper comes back with a weaker minority than he's got now,I don't think he would be leader of that party much longer...And you're right,even with an effective loss,Ignatieff comes out smelling like a rose and no one will care about the Dion experiment..
Unless Harper and the CPC implode then Michael Ignatieff is going to get lynched after this election. Stephen Harper has been the most polarizing PM since Trudeau and even a lot of his base don't really like him, disregarding the swing vote. His only saving grace is that the best the Liberals could come up with to oppose him were Dion and Ignatieff, under whom the party has merely survived at historically low levels of support and likely by brand name alone. Unless he can pull off some magic in the next three weeks, he's a total dud and he's certain to be ousted.
-
Encouraging people to save is a great idea, but as I indicated in my first reply, this increase in the TFSA will increase the number of people qualifying for GIS supplements to OAS payments. The reason is that the interest gained in a TFSA is not classified as income, and thus does not disqualify people from low income supplements to OAS.
For example, if someone invested $10,000 per year into their TFSA for 25 years at a return of 5%, they would have a balance of $501,134.54, which at the same rate of 5% would provide over $25,000 per year of interest "income" that wouldn't be classified as income for the purpose of qualifying for income supplements.
It's an interesting premise, but there are so many things wrong with it. First, the people who can throw $10,000 a year into their TFSA are likely those whose income is high enough to basically disqualify them for any significant supplements even with the TFSA income. Second, you're assuming that the TFSA will remain an option at the $10,000/year contribution limit for the next 25 years with no lifetime contribution limit, which is incredibly unlikely. The government, whether it be Liberal or Conservative in the future, would by all reason put limits to it.
Lastly, your calculations are exaggerated. The annuity @ a 5% interest rate (an exaggerated rate but I'll give it to you) leads you to around $475,000 and you're ignoring the impact inflation has on it. Assuming a 5% interest rate, you'd have to equally assume a ~3.5% inflation rate. Effectively those greedy bastards will maybe earn 1.5% on their investments and you can bet that 25 years from now that $25,000 in income is going to be worth maybe half that effectively.
Where the TFSA could potentially be a huge windfall for intelligent or wealthy investors I think is in equity and capital gains. Change that 5% a year in interest to an average of 8-10% capital gain on average and that's a pretty big deal. Once again, however, it's an impossibility that this would continue ad infinitum.
-
You're definitely wealthier than someone that can't save $5,000 a year.
And people that can afford to sock away $10,000 a year are definitely doing better than the vast majority of Canadians.
My experience is the vast majority of people don't even understand what the TFSA is. Yes, it's likely that most people don't have $10,000 per year to invest, but it's not like the RSP and the people who do have $10,000 aren't getting tax deductions on their contributions. They're getting an account where they can invest in small portfolios of investments and have the gains/income from it not taxed.
I'm not exactly sure why it's a bad idea for the government to encourage people to save money and invest for retirement (which Canadians are notoriously bad at). If they don't they're going to end up costing the government just as much in support and pensions anyways.
My generation is not going to be able to pay for the baby boomer pensions the way they stand now.
-
I'll stand by my statement. Meet a "white pride" guy, odds are pretty good you've just met a racist.
I assume you're basing your statement on your vast first hand experience of these groups right? I could make a similar blanket statement and say that an Islamic group, or an aboriginal group, is equally racist.
-
The Liberals have proven themselves to be good economic managers in the past, especially with Paul Martin.
Chretien and Martin followed Trudeau, who was the worst economic manager the country has ever had by a long shot. We're still paying off his debt.
-
But TB, if you still don't get my point, imagine for a second that when Ignatieff returned to Canada, he had chosen instead to run as a Conservative. How would the Anglo Leftist MSM now be portraying his identification with Americans or defense of Bush's invasion of Iraq?
I'd like an answer to this too.
Harper took so much criticism in his earlier days as PM and opposition leader for being pro-American from Liberal supporters but they can conveniently ignore Ignatieff's "my country" comments etc...
-
Yeah, fancy that. When posters remain relatively patient with one another, there are sometimes real points of agreement to be found, and the disagreements are often more matters of degree than true fundamental differences.LoL yes I know
I have heard a couple of perhaps plausible explanations, but I can't say for certain how right they are; one is that executive bonuses are in themselves a type of marketing for a company or conglomerate; that saying "look how high our executive bonuses are" provides a psychological, emotive feeling of success towards the particular brand, and in fact can help in selling shares and garnering investment.
But I don't know for sure.
I don't think executive bonuses really provide any sort of impetus for stock market prices. The bonuses are rewards for bumping up the share price perhaps, but P/E ratios, dividends and speculation are what really drive them. I guarantee you that big investors aren't looking at executive bonuses when trying to determine whether a stock is a good purchase.
The only defence I can think of for it is that short term or immediate bonuses attract big name executive talent, which shareholders want. My question for them, however, is whether they should be looking for big name CEO's concerned only with the short term and short term bonuses, or smaller names (though likely just as intelligent) CEO's with the company's long term interest in mind.
-
In large part because white pride groups are pretty much just fronts for White Supremacists.
Perhaps that's the case but you'd have to look at the group itself and what it represents before you make that judgement. Usually White Supremacist groups are LOUD AND PROUD about how stupid and bigoted they are.
There's a HUGE distinction between a white supremacist and a white person feeling disenfranchised by affirmative action in the modern western world. I support and encourage the second sort of person to band together and give their complaints voice, while at the same time holding the first group in absolute contempt for the ignorance that they preach.
-
"the Association for the Rights of Whites"?
Is it OK to use language like that now then?
I don't see what the difference is between that and something like B'nai Brith or the Muslim Congress of Canada, or even Women's Rights groups. Is it impossible that the rights of white people are sometimes overlooked simply because they're a majority?
Please explain that to me.
-
Alright. I do in fact agree with you on every point. But I cannot but help maintain a slight difference in degree: between the wealthy greedy folks who understand finance and end up doing fine, and the the non-wealthy greedy folks who don't understand finance and end up not fine.
I agree with you bloodyminded. There is a difference and the real tragedy of this is that the architects of the whole fiasco made out like bandits with little no consequences. The way executives are compensated makes it so that all they're concerned with is present and short term profit. They were getting rewarded on the volume of mortgages they could sell and thus it benefited them to qualify as many people as possible. There was really nothing illegal about this, although I'm sure a lot of them knew it wasn't a great idea long term.
In my mind, CEO's and executives need to be awarded on the LONG TERM performance of their business unit. They should have to make sure that their present strategies continue to benefit the company in the long run and their bonuses should be paid out over time or in deferred stock options. Shareholders NEED to make sure their executives have the long term health of a company in their best interest otherwise things like this will continue to happen. Any educated manager/business owner knows that employees will do what they're getting measured and paid for. If a CEO is measured on short term profit, that's what he'll be gunning for and damn the consequences. It's like that for any job from CEO down to general laborer.
If you want to prevent systemic greed and recklessness, you have to have systems in place to prevent it. Regulation of mortgage underwriting, such as in Canada, ensures that people can't buy houses they can't show they can afford. Intelligently designed performance incentives for CEO's and employees will ensure that they're doing what's right for the company, rather than what will make the numbers look good today.
After all of that though bloodyminded, it seems we're pretty much in complete agreement lol.
-
I'm not sure you can really call him a white supremasict from those comments. He's perhaps racist against natives, but that's all it looks like. I myself think it's ludicrous how much money we throw away at aboriginals and how much of it they squander, though I wouldn't go so far as to say they can't hold a job...That's just dumb.
-
Think about it though. It's brilliant. When the next left-leaning party gets into power, they'll be so far in debt that they won't possibly be able to implement any of their social policies. This will make them ineffectual and lead people back into the arms of the Conservatives. Genius.
That's exactly what Trudeau did coincidentally.
-
Almost nobody is more than Canada has, no? Earlier aircraft were designed, built, and exported in numbers to other air forces, as posted. See CF-100 Canuck form comparisons.
53 Canucks were sold to Belgium. Oh boy!
As for SAAB, the company is floundering and there's been a lot of talk about selling the company off altogether. It's barely solvent as it stands.
That's not exactly the success story you're making it out to be.
-
Sweden's population is about 10 million, much smaller than Canada's, yet they have developed high performance jet aircraft for domestic use and military export for many years (e.g. Gripen, Draken, Tunnan, Viggen, Lansen, etc.).
The Gripen is a 13 year old plane that has been purchased for export by almost nobody. A small handful of craft have been purchased and it was mostly because it was the cheapest thing on the block.
-
I assume you meant 30 million people. And while I'm not sure about other countries with the exact same population, there are much much smaller countries that have thriving defense industries. Israel for example. You don't have to be a world superpower with hundreds of millions of people to have a successful defense industry.
Yes I meant 30 million people lol. At any rate, Israel's defense industry is heavily subsidized by the US like Smallc said.
-
What I and others don't understand is why the complete destruction of the prototypes and all engineering research/paperwork? Why the refusal to sell any of it to other allied countries, like the US, France and Britain? It has been well documented that those countries were interested, at least in parts of what was available if not whole aircraft.
As I've stated before, other countries were not actually excited about the plane by the time it was cancelled. There WAS interest in the early stages and the British were actually going to buy the finished product. Unfortunately the project took too long, the other countries you mentioned came up with their own similar/superior projects that would be coming online around the same time and that's the interest in the Avro fizzled out.
It's the complete and utter destruction of anything to do with the plane that puzzles me, unless the Tories simply were afraid that in a few years some country would produce a plane similar to the Arrow that performed so well that it would embarrass their government's decision.
So your most likely scenario is that the government trashed the equipment and designs purely out of spite and contempt? It's more likely that the project turned out to be a massive embarrassment and the government wanted to cover up how much taxpayer money they wasted on a dud plane.
It's almost as if Canada produces companies like RIM in spite of its governments! Is there some master plan in Ottawa that includes all parties to keep us from becoming high tech manufacturing leaders?
Name us another country of $30 million with a thriving defence industry. Hint: There aren't any.
-
They havn't even set a minimum BID.. they aren't saying how much.. they are saying $0.01 is good enough for me. Lets get this thing ported.
I'm going to guess you have no citation for that....
-
My point is that they're all to blame, if there's any blame to be made about the stimulus spending. Any party blaming any other party for it is being hypocritical.
Yes sorry. That's kind of what I'm trying to say I can't disagree with that.
-
It's Parliament's fault.
What's your point?
Ripoff oil prices
in Business and Economy
Posted · Edited by Charles Anthony
deleted re-copied Opening Post
Oil is a worldwide commodity. What happens in Africa or Europe or wherever affects everyone. Even so, the prices definetly seem to go up pretty fast when something drives them up, and they're way stickier on the way down when prices are being pushed down.