Canada the next venezuela.

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, Dougie93 said:

The Americans took Haitians in on a temporary basis in the wake of a catastrophic earthquake.  When Trump took over he revoked the temporary asylum and as soon as he did they started heading for the next best option in Canada at Quebec.

 

True, but Trudeau canceled temporary protected status in Canada before Trump did.

[Dougie93]

Just now, bush_cheney2004 said:

True, but Trudeau canceled temporary protected status in Canada before Trump did.

Whatever, I don't find America to be bound to maintain temporary statuses permanently.   Canada can't secure the border so Trump is basically forcing Canada to deport the Haitians if Canada so deems to,  or not, which is fair enough, Canada is the ultimate Free Rider and so has zero high ground vis a vis continental security, moral or otherwise.

[cannuck]

12 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Capitalism thrives in those countries for the same reasons it thrives here: highly educated and highly skilled workforce with all basic health needs addressed.  The majority of the population is well positioned to produce products and services that the world wants.  The overall health and well-being of the society is the pay-off for economic success, not concentrated wealth in the hands of a handful of extremely wealthy individuals who have to gate themselves off from the wider impoverished society and hire armed guards.  That’s been the old fascist South American model.  Take your pick, rogue survival of the fittest capitalism or a rules based system that both creates and distributes wealth.  The kleptocracy in Russia moved radically from false communism to false capitalism, resembling the South American model more than the Scandinavian one. 

Generally, my views come from somewhere right of the Great Khan and Libertarian more like Ron Paul, but you hit the nail right on the head.  While the role of government should be to govern, it DOES have an important job of delivering social services.  Health, education, welfare and sick care are what we, the Scandhoovians and pretty much everyone else in the former G7 EXCEPT the USA do very well.  Medicine SHOULD be just that - a social service, not a predatory business.   Those factors make starting, running and growing a business in Canada far easier when it comes to the issues around employee well being.  Contrary to popular belief, big business creates very few productive jobs.   The vast majority come from small to medium size companies.  We provide the social benefits package that would be very difficult for startups to do.   Where we fall flat on our face, though, is we confuse capitalism with casino capitalism.  While we have the culture and platform for Bay Street to be the mini-me of Wall Street, we do NOT have a culture and infrastructure to invest in Main Street.  Instead, we waste our efforts giving the free ride crowd of the speculative world an extremely well educated and supported workforce.

[turningrite]

17 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Canada’s challenge isn’t employing people in highly skilled jobs or creating successful businesses, it’s retaining the successful businesses once they reach a certain size.  Waterloo and Ottawa are full of companies that eventually get snapped up by or merged with other firms.  Yet some will say we need this capital investment.  Apparently much of Huawei’s original telecom tech came from Nortel, which was acquired by American outfits.  Think about Corel or Blackberry.  Same kinds of stories.  Interac is of course a huge player in digital payment.  There’s social media like Kik and all of the entertainment and film work.  We’ve got some of the best sound stages.  In some ways government policy, however thoughtful or effective, is just tinkering around the edges.  People want to be here and our cities are growing fast.  If we can find ways to push settlement north, the country can really benefit from the wealth in the ground.  As for your concerns about nanny social programs, taxation and government spending in general, Canadians actively elect for these policies.  They speak to the quality of life that alll Canadians enjoy.  Ask Scandinavians if they like their programs and generally the answer will be yes.  These are some of the most successful countries in the world, like Canada. 

Canada's capital/investment class likes the easy money route. There's seldom available capital for good innovative start-ups to be ramped up to world-class competitors. It's easier to sell to the Americans or Chinese or Europeans, pocket one's cash and spend one's winters somewhere warm. And the powerful economies aren't keen on competition from the upstarts anyway. Trump went after Bombardier in order to protect Boeing's interests, rendering it necessary for Bombardier to hand its C-series project to Airbus, Boeing's giant European counterpart. Isn't "free trade" wonderful?

Meanwhile, the Canadian formula for success is the monopoly/oligopoly model, where a sector tolerates a modest amount of regulation in return for protection from foreign competition and essentially guaranteed profits. It really only works within the small Canadian marketplace bubble, though.

We can only have decent social programs to the extent we can afford them. As our economic performance has slipped substantially relative to the rest of the developed world over the past three or four decades, is it any wonder that our public health care system is now considered one of the worst performing in the developed world according to numerous studies and rankings? And we remain stubbornly attached to our model when other systems with better outcomes are in many cases more innovative and allow for more competition. We're presented a false choice between retaining our current system or adopting the dysfunctional American model. Personally, I favor a mixed-payer system, whereby during our working lives we'd pay premiums into dedicated individual accounts to qualify for access to a basic public system covering most necessary services while individuals and/or employers could choose to augment their coverage by purchasing private insurance. Corporations that bring in immigrants and sponsors would be responsible for funding the accounts of newcomers. At the end of the day, there is no such thing as "free" health care and it's irresponsible to promote the notion that there is. Somebody has to pay for it. I paid high taxes for years to cover health care expenses for other people only to find the system utterly lacking and declining when I really needed it. The Canadian system doesn't work, isn't equitable and isn't fair.

Edited January 30, 2019 by turningrite

[Zeitgeist]

54 minutes ago, turningrite said:

Canada's capital/investment class likes the easy money route. There's seldom available capital for good innovative start-ups to be ramped up to world-class competitors. It's easier to sell to the Americans or Chinese or Europeans, pocket one's cash and spend one's winters somewhere warm. And the powerful economies aren't keen on competition from the upstarts anyway. Trump went after Bombardier in order to protect Boeing's interests, rendering it necessary for Bombardier to hand its C-series project to Airbus, Boeing's giant European counterpart. Isn't "free trade" wonderful?

Meanwhile, the Canadian formula for success is the monopoly/oligopoly model, where a sector tolerates a modest amount of regulation in return for protection from foreign competition and essentially guaranteed profits. It really only works within the small Canadian marketplace bubble, though.

We can only have decent social programs to the extent we can afford them. As our economic performance has slipped substantially relative to the rest of the developed world over the past three or four decades, is it any wonder that our public health care system is now considered one of the worst performing in the developed world according to numerous studies and rankings? And we remain stubbornly attached to our model when other systems with better outcomes are in many cases more innovative and allow for more competition. We're presented a false choice between retaining our current system or adopting the dysfunctional American model. Personally, I favor a mixed-payer system, whereby during our working lives we'd pay premiums into dedicated individual accounts to qualify for access to a basic public system covering most necessary services while individuals and/or employers could choose to augment their coverage by purchasing private insurance. Corporations that bring in immigrants and sponsors would be responsible for funding the accounts of newcomers. At the end of the day, there is no such thing as "free" health care and it's irresponsible to promote the notion that there is. Somebody has to pay for it. I paid high taxes for years to cover health care expenses for other people only to find the system utterly lacking and declining when I really needed it. The Canadian system doesn't work, isn't equitable and isn't fair.

Well having one or just a handful of bulk buyers gives government health providers a huge savings over smaller private companies.  Canada spends a much smaller portion of GDP than the US.  Yes some countries do public health care better than we do and we should look at that.  The general consensus about health care in Canada is that if it’s small potatoes surgeries/treatments, expect to wait, however if it’s something serious like cancer the system comes to the party quite effectively. 

With regard to your other comments about overall economic performance in Canada, for me it comes down to living standards.  Canada has had almost 15 years of continuous growth with a very mild couple of slowdowns.  I look at how people live in many western countries, small homes on small lots or stacked townhouses and apartments, and I don’t just mean in major cities.  In cities like London or Paris middle class people often rent and they rarely consider second properties.  I also think about the safety of some of these cities, the entrenched class system, etc.  We have it good here, though there’s much work to be done.  I’d just caution you when looking at particular data points that indicate success in one or a few areas, as sometimes these mask bigger overall or multiple other problems.  

[turningrite]

2 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

With regard to your other comments about overall economic performance in Canada, for me it comes down to living standards.  Canada has had almost 15 years of continuous growth with a very mild couple of slowdowns.

Well, according to a 2014 PBO analysis, almost all the income gains over the recent past have gone to a small sliver of income earners at the very top. It's not a sustainable model. Living standards for ordinary citizens are quickly deteriorating, particularly in our largest cities, like Toronto and Vancouver. According to Stats Can, Toronto, once a solidly middle class city, is now largely poor, with the right to boast about having Canada's highest child poverty rate. And this is despite the massive subsidies now available to lower income families with children. Our housing market has been transferred into a casino for overseas wealth. Our basic infrastructure is inadequate and falling apart. It's no paradise, I can tell you that.

[cannuck]

yes, our great "growth" in the economy happens because we measure purely speculative gain as economic growth, when it is nothing but inflationary wealth redistribution that drags the real values down for productive endeavour.

[taxme]

On 1/25/2019 at 1:01 PM, turningrite said:

Attempts to suppress free speech in Canada are certainly problematic but at this point the situation clearly doesn't equate to proof of a failed totalitarian state. In my opinion, this movement is being led by the elites who control the political agenda, who apparently intend to bolster their interests by minimizing irritants like the growing opposition to large-scale immigration. Your observation, then, appears to support my characterization of Canada's system of government as being an elite controlled limited democracy. Even though our elitist-in-chief, Trudeau, does his best to minimize the impact of what he calls "fringe" ideas, we still have a free vote and candidates with other opinions can run for office largely without official intimidation. They'll be thoroughly dismissed by the mainstream political cartel and its media allies, of course, but, so far, we can still for the most part express and vote for those expressing dissenting views.

Another five more years of dictator comrade Trudeau and what you have said above will all come true. Canada will become a communist country where dissent will not be tolerated. Websites like this one will be forced to shut down as freedom of speech will be eliminated in Canada. Never listen to or trust liberals/socialists/communists or environmentalists as they all have the same program and agenda in mind. Eliminate free speech unless it is their kind of free speech. Our leftist liberal media in Canada has now been bought off by comrade Trudeau with blackmailing taxpayer's tax dollars to make sure that anything said about the dictator that appears to be not so nice will not get reported. Only nice stories about comrade Trudeau will be allowed to be seen and read. If that is not communism than what else does it mean? Just remember that his old man Trudeau was a good friend of Castro's and his kid has said that he admires China and their system of government. Liberals are communistic in nature because if they do not agree with anyone and what they have to say they want them stopped or arrested and charged with promoting hate. Racism and is one of their favorite words that they like to use against their opponents. Most times it always works well for them. Deplorable people. 

[taxme]

1 hour ago, turningrite said:

Well, according to a 2014 PBO analysis, almost all the income gains over the recent past have gone to a small sliver of income earners at the very top. It's not a sustainable model. Living standards for ordinary citizens are quickly deteriorating, particularly in our largest cities, like Toronto and Vancouver. According to Stats Can, Toronto, once a solidly middle class city, is now largely poor, with the right to boast about having Canada's highest child poverty rate. And this is despite the massive subsidies now available to lower income families with children. Our housing market has been transferred into a casino for overseas wealth. Our basic infrastructure is inadequate and falling apart. It's no paradise, I can tell you that.

Come on, why don't you just say what the problem is? You and I know that our present day immigration policy is killing this country. Something most Canadians appear to want to ignore this well known fact. Our present day Trudeau blows our tax dollars on the rest of the world while Canadians go in need. If all the tax dollars that are being blown on legal and illegal refugees in Canada were to stop then there would be no poverty or people going hungry or living on the streets in Canada. our wages would be higher and our standard of living would be even better. Liberals are nothing more than a bunch of elite no minded people. They only think about themselves and what is good for themselves. The democrats in the states are just like that also. 

Canada can be paradise tomorrow if we had leaders in Canada who fought to make it so. But instead they appear to want to make Canada not so great anymore. We have a problem here in Canada and it is called being a bunch of politically correct puppet politicians on a G. Soros string that wants to make Canada not so great anymore. Canada is fast becoming another Venezuela and with comrade Trudeau at the helm of this Canadian sinking ship for another five years we too will all be running short on toilet paper and more. Canadians need to call a spade a spade and stop trying of trying to appear to be so politically correct. Liberal immigration/multiculturalism and political correctness is killing this country. It needs to come to the end in the next election or Canad is doomed. Believe it or not. 

[Dougie93]

Canada is simply Confederation, British Crown in North America carries on without it, the doom of Canada is of no particular consequence to anyone but the Eskimos.

[Zeitgeist]

2 hours ago, turningrite said:

Well, according to a 2014 PBO analysis, almost all the income gains over the recent past have gone to a small sliver of income earners at the very top. It's not a sustainable model. Living standards for ordinary citizens are quickly deteriorating, particularly in our largest cities, like Toronto and Vancouver. According to Stats Can, Toronto, once a solidly middle class city, is now largely poor, with the right to boast about having Canada's highest child poverty rate. And this is despite the massive subsidies now available to lower income families with children. Our housing market has been transferred into a casino for overseas wealth. Our basic infrastructure is inadequate and falling apart. It's no paradise, I can tell you that.

Yet the pattern of the greatest income gains going to the wealthiest is even worse south of the border.  While real estate prices are high in Toronto, the city city still has far fewer homicides and less poverty than its closest rival, Chicago.  Toronto is a victim of its own success, a phenomenon often described as the Manhattanization of the 416.  What's more remarkable is that even the suburbs' property values have climbed substantially, making the Golden Horseshoe into a megalopolis.  The Greenbelt and Places to Grow legislation has improved and controlled the sprawl, but with that comes higher real estate prices and more boxes in the sky.  I'd argue that this is inevitable and necessary to push growth north.  If a 2000 sq. ft. bungalow is $2,000,000 in Etobicoke and $200,000 in North Bay, it's time to consider packing your bags.  That's where the immigration needs to flow.  Vancouver's problem is that it's too bloody nice.  Middle class can't live there anymore.  It's Surrey or Richmond for Joe Shmuck if you're lucky.  Then again, that's how it goes in Manhattan and London.  In Toronto it can still be done, but you're going to have to work for it.

Edited January 30, 2019 by Zeitgeist

[turningrite]

On 1/30/2019 at 5:02 PM, Zeitgeist said:

1.) Yet the pattern of the greatest income gains going to the wealthiest is even worse south of the border. 

2.) Toronto is a victim of its own success, a phenomenon often described as the Manhattanization of the 416.

3.) [The north] is where the immigration needs to flow. 

1.) The difference, of course, is that in most U.S. locales you can still buy or rent housing at rates far below those available in the Toronto or Vancouver regions. And a far greater percentage of English-speaking Canadians live in those two regions than in, say, the metro areas of America's four or five most expensive "global" cities. So, we're much worse off.

2.) The GTA's population has been artificially juiced by a suite of government policies. In particular, one hundred thousand or more immigrants each year enter a region with already inadequate access to reasonably priced housing, without access to adequate medical care, without adequate transit infrastructure, with adequate highways... Well, you get the picture. We're full and yet politicians, beholden to lobbyists and a braying, self-serving business class, who shout "bring in more" without any consideration of the impacts on the already suffering existing population, pay scant attention. Yes, Ms. Freeland, eventually, voters will get fed up and revolt against this nonsense.

3.) Immigration won't flow north. If anything, recent years have illustrated that it will increasingly focus on a handful of cities in the country's south. If you travel to some of the towns in Northern Ontario, like Timmins and Thunder Bay, you'd realize that several decades ago these places were magnets for immigrants. That era has ended. Now, you need to go to Brampton or Markham to realize where the immigrants are actually going.

Toronto is an expensive dump, plain and simple. And it becomes more so as each day passes. This country will eventually pay a steep price for not paying attention to livability and affordability in its largest urban centres, which are, after all, where 21st century creativity and wealth will actually be generated in economically prudent countries, a club to which Canada does not belong. 

[Zeitgeist]

7 hours ago, turningrite said:

1.) The difference, of course, is that in most U.S. locales you can still buy or rent housing at rates far below those available in the Toronto or Vancouver regions. And a far greater percentage of English-speaking Canadians live in those two regions than in, say, the metro areas of America's four or five most expensive "global" cities. So, we're much worse off.

2.) The GTA's population has been artificially juiced by a suite of government policies. In particular, one hundred thousand or more immigrants each year enter a region with already inadequate access to reasonably priced housing, without access to adequate medical care, without adequate transit infrastructure, with adequate highways... Well, you get the picture. We're full and yet politicians, beholden to lobbyists and a braying, self-serving business class, who shout "bring in more" without any consideration of the impacts on the already suffering existing population, pay scant attention. Yes, Ms. Freeland, eventually, voters will get fed up and revolt against this nonsense.

3.) Immigration won't flow north. If anything, recent years have illustrated that it will increasingly focus on a handful of cities in the country's south. If you travel to some of the towns in Northern Ontario, like Timmins and Thunder Bay, you'd realize that several decades ago these places were magnets for immigrants. That era has ended. Now, you need to go to Brampton or Markham to realize where the immigrants are actually going.

Toronto is an expensive dump, plain and simple. And it becomes more so as each day passes. This country will eventually pay a steep price for not paying attention to livability and affordability in its largest urban centres, which are, after all, where 21st century creativity and wealth will actually be generated in economically prudent countries, a club to which Canada does not belong. 

Well I disagree.  New York City is still far more expensive than Toronto, which is more in line with a city like San Francisco or Boston, more expensive but much bigger than either of those cities.  Toronto is actually planning well.  The waterfront is getting better and better and of course the Greenbelt and Places to Grow are ensuring the housing is built along transit hubs.  We have the reverse phenomenon of many cities. People want to be downtown in Toronto.  The city is actually booming culturally and economically.  The cost of living is high which does pose a problem demographically, since we want diversity of income.  However, the Toronto of today is much larger and denser than the TO of 30 years ago.  Places like Brampton are like extensions of the city much as Scarborough or York once were.  Toronto really ends at the Greenbelt and the Escarpment.  Having the green boundary prevents sprawl, an advantage that Montreal and Manhattan have being islands, and that Vancouver has being hemmed in by ocean and mountains. Soon the only immigrants who will be able to afford to live there are the rich ones, like in Vancouver.  They’ll have to move farther out like many Ontarians.  

Edited February 1, 2019 by Zeitgeist

[Dougie93]

41 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

 They’ll have to move farther out like many Ontarians.  

It's nicer out here in Wellington County anyways, it's not Glenn Gould's Toronto anymore, or at least,  the last vestiges of that are going away now, the Megacity is consuming the old City of Toronto.

 

[turningrite]

4 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Well I disagree.  New York City is still far more expensive than Toronto, which is more in line with a city like San Francisco or Boston, more expensive but much bigger than either of those cities.  Toronto is actually planning well.  The waterfront is getting better and better and of course the Greenbelt and Places to Grow are ensuring the housing is built along transit hubs.  We have the reverse phenomenon of many cities. People want to be downtown in Toronto.  The city is actually booming culturally and economically.  The cost of living is high which does pose a problem demographically, since we want diversity of income.  However, the Toronto of today is much larger and denser than the TO of 30 years ago.  Places like Brampton are like extensions of the city much as Scarborough or York once were.  Toronto really ends at the Greenbelt and the Escarpment.  Having the green boundary prevents sprawl, an advantage that Montreal and Manhattan have being islands, and that Vancouver has being hemmed in by ocean and mountains. Soon the only immigrants who will be able to afford to live there are the rich ones, like in Vancouver.  They’ll have to move farther out like many Ontarians.  

Actually, Boston and parts of the New York suburbs aren't as expensive as the GTA. And wages tend to far more accurately align with housing costs in the U.S. global cities. Toronto and Vancouver, on the other hand, serve as repositories for foreign cash. I've lived here for well over three decades and particularly over the past decade have seen a clear downward trajectory in terms of qualify of life. New York, Boston, San Francisco and other cities make efforts to retain their walkable districts, unlike Toronto, which increasingly lines its downtown pedestrian areas with enormous, boring condo buildings that turn the areas below into windswept canyons. In the winter, the situation is brutal. Toronto doesn't care about its human environment. It's driven by cash. It becomes more soulless, cold, dirty and alienating as each year passes.

[Dougie93]

New York and San Fransisco are just as soulless, I lived in Toronto the Good back in the heyday of the seventies,  and I spent a lot of time in New York and San Fran back then as well, NY and SF have undergone the same process of conformity and blandness.

Edited February 2, 2019 by Dougie93

[Zeitgeist]

9 hours ago, turningrite said:

Actually, Boston and parts of the New York suburbs aren't as expensive as the GTA. And wages tend to far more accurately align with housing costs in the U.S. global cities. Toronto and Vancouver, on the other hand, serve as repositories for foreign cash. I've lived here for well over three decades and particularly over the past decade have seen a clear downward trajectory in terms of qualify of life. New York, Boston, San Francisco and other cities make efforts to retain their walkable districts, unlike Toronto, which increasingly lines its downtown pedestrian areas with enormous, boring condo buildings that turn the areas below into windswept canyons. In the winter, the situation is brutal. Toronto doesn't care about its human environment. It's driven by cash. It becomes more soulless, cold, dirty and alienating as each year passes.

Well,  condo developments have created new vibrant areas like Corktown Commons and the East Harbour neighbourhood.  I agree that some are monstrosities, but on the architecture forums people usually like them.  At least money and development is coming into the place.  I find some cities on both sides of the border have stood still and not in a good way. I don’t know why Doug Ford doesn’t like the Foreign Buyer’s Tax.  Seems like a no brainer to me.  

[Dougie93]

3 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

 I don’t know why Doug Ford doesn’t like the Foreign Buyer’s Tax.  Seems like a no brainer to me.  

Because you don't use your brain apparently.   Supply and demand is what drives the prices, the FBT is just a money grab which doesn't even generate much money since foreign buyers simply operate through proxies.

It's a nanny state leftist sop, which where it would have effects,  they are all bad, in that it creates distortions which cumulatively exacerbate a boom and bust cycle, and otherwise it doesn't have any significant effects.

One of the distortions in this case is that now you have proxies who appear to be local but are in fact foreign backed, and so you don't know who owns what anymore, because you drove the activity underground.

Another leftist ideological faith based policy in the name of punishing capital, which isn't going to punish rich people, but cumulatively will come crashing down on the middle classes who are not hedged.  

Same as what happened in 2008, which was the result of the Americans intervening to "make housing more affordable" inciting unintended consequences in the form of Bubbles and Black Boxes.

It's not going to be Venezuela, but when the market corrects, that will simply be a buying opportunity for capital, as the middle classes default on their mortgages.

Some people made out like bandits in 2008, 2008 was berry berry goo to me, I'm basically waiting for another one of those before I go a buying again.

As Bob McKenzie says "it's not rocket surgery".  Market correction blood in the streets, buy low, late cycle overinflated bubble,  sell high, wash rinse repeat.

Edited February 2, 2019 by Dougie93

[Zeitgeist]

32 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Because you don't use your brain apparently.   Supply and demand is what drives the prices, the FBT is just a money grab which doesn't even generate much money since foreign buyers simply operate through proxies.

It's a nanny state leftist sop, which where it would have effects,  they are all bad, in that it creates distortions which cumulatively exacerbate a boom and bust cycle, and otherwise it doesn't have any significant effects.

One of the distortions in this case is that now you have proxies who appear to be local but are in fact foreign backed, and so you don't know who owns what anymore, because you drove the activity underground.

Well there aren’t proxies in the majority of cases and the reality is that the FBT barely made a dent in sales, so at least Ontario taxpayers reaped some reward.  Same goes for British Columbia.  

[Dougie93]

38 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Well there aren’t proxies in the majority of cases and the reality is that the FBT barely made a dent in sales, so at least Ontario taxpayers reaped some reward.  Same goes for British Columbia.  

 The prices in Vancouver were backstopped by locals, they just can't afford fully detached so the increase was in condos, net-net no more affordability than before, the condos which locals could afford were dented, to the upside, more expensive. 

And you don't know who is a proxy, because it's easy to set up a company to purchase things in Canada, from Canada.

When it shifted to condos, they simply bought condos instead.

In both cases the bubble  simply shifted from fully and semi, to condos.

The taxpayer makes nothing because both BC and Ontario are deep in debt and running deficits.

None the less, stupid people like you help to make cold hearted people like me richer, so thank you for your service.

Please continue to foolishly intervene in the markets to create distortions and associated precipitous mass corrections, because I can't make any real money, until there is blood in the streets.

I'm perfectly happy to profit from other peoples misery, so long as those Dingbats brought it down upon their own heads, after I gave them fair warning and they didn't listen.

Edited February 2, 2019 by Dougie93

[Dougie93]

By the way, if you wish to suppress real estate prices, the mechanism is quite simple; raise interest rates.

Obviously the nanny state is juicing the market to justify its existence, at 1.75% interest,  resulting in inflation. 

  The solution to higher prices is lower prices, make the interest rate 8%, problem solved.

Will that make the middle classes happy?  Probably not, but that is because they are not careful about what they wish for.

No that I'm complaining, as even tho I could afford to buy things with cash, there's no reason to at sub 3% interest, so it's a liquidity gift from the central banks, cheers.

Edited February 2, 2019 by Dougie93

[Zeitgeist]

1 hour ago, Dougie93 said:

 The prices in Vancouver were backstopped by locals, they just can't afford fully detached so the increase was in condos, net-net no more affordability than before, the condos which locals could afford were dented, to the upside, more expensive. 

And you don't know who is a proxy, because it's easy to set up a company to purchase things in Canada, from Canada.

When it shifted to condos, they simply bought condos instead.

In both cases the bubble  simply shifted from fully and semi, to condos.

The taxpayer makes nothing because both BC and Ontario are deep in debt and running deficits.

None the less, stupid people like you help to make cold hearted people like me richer, so thank you for your service.

Please continue to foolishly intervene in the markets to create distortions and associated precipitous mass corrections, because I can't make any real money, until there is blood in the streets.

I'm perfectly happy to profit from other peoples misery, so long as those Dingbats brought it down upon their own heads, after I gave them fair warning and they didn't listen.

“Stupid” huh?   So now you’re resorting to personal insults since there’s no audience for your uncritical worship of Republicans and apparently Queen Elizabeth.  8% interest rates would destroy the economy overnight in Canada and the US.  Most people are over leveraged.  You take what the society has to give but don’t want to give anything back.  It’s the “buck a beer” crowd that doesn’t see the value in thoughtful public policy.  

[Dougie93]

12 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

“Stupid” huh?   So now you’re resorting to personal insults since there’s no audience for your uncritical worship of Republicans and apparently Queen Elizabeth.  8% interest rates would destroy the economy overnight in Canada and the US.  Most people are over leveraged.  You take what the society has to give but don’t want to give anything back.  It’s the “buck a beer” crowd that doesn’t see the value in thoughtful public policy.  

No offence intended, you invoked your own stupidity when you said "no brainer", I simply deduced by your own assertion.

I am not a Republican, nor even a republican, the GOP is slightly better than the Democrats, but only slightly, otherwise it is an effective duopoly.

As to leverage, there's nothing wrong with leverage, without leverage you would be living in the 1970's, and you wouldn't like that neither.

8% is average, when my father bought his house in Toronto in 1989, he was paying 18% interest.  

Yes, there will be a correction when interest rates are forced by inflation back to historical averages, but it will not be the end of the world, contrary to popular sentiment, corrections are a good thing.

I give plenty back to the society, around six figures worth every single year.   What society does with that revenue after, is beyond my control.

I pay far more than a buck a beer, I buy tall boys, often European, price is in the $2-3 per can range,

Edited February 2, 2019 by Dougie93

[Yzermandius19]

9 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

“Stupid” huh?   So now you’re resorting to personal insults since there’s no audience for your uncritical worship of Republicans and apparently Queen Elizabeth.  8% interest rates would destroy the economy overnight in Canada and the US.  Most people are over leveraged.  You take what the society has to give but don’t want to give anything back.  It’s the “buck a beer” crowd that doesn’t see the value in thoughtful public policy.  

Interest rates have been over 8% before, the economy did not destroy itself overnight.

[Dougie93]

6 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Interest rates have been over 8% before, the economy did not destroy itself overnight.

You know its time to take your profits to the sidelines and prepare to short, when people start saying that anything more than 2% interest is a "doomsday".