Jump to content

Foreign investors are buying condos in bulk to rent out


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Moonlight Graham said:

 

1. If orienting towards globalism/globalization for a certain policy advances the national interests and/or interests of everyday Canadians I will support it.  If it doesn't, I won't support it. 

2. I won't support our government bombing a village in Africa so we can steal their gold and increase gov revenues.

3. So the problems are:  1. our politicians are corrupt, and 2. some of them are too concerned with political correctness and virtue signaling to stand up to foreign interests in favour of Canadian interests for fear of being called racist, discriminatory or making some ethnic constituency PO'd etc. 

4. If a Canadian politician is corrupt, and/or too cowardly to make a decision that some may deem racist but actually isn't and they aren't able to act in Canada's best interests they should resign or be voted out.

1. Fine, but what makes you think that you could assess said interests on the whole ?  I ask because I have listened to top economists talking about trade policy and they are fully humble about the reach of their understanding and their ability to predict outcomes.  You seem to be more confident than them at your ability to assess trade-offs.
2. Why do you assume you would ever hear of such an event ?
3.  1. 2. You think "Political Correctness" drives Canadian politicians to sell Canada out in favour of some ideology ?  One counter example that springs to mind is the pipeline purchase that Trudeau executed.  I find it very strange that people somehow can hold the simultaneous beliefs that Trudeau's "wokism" is fake and yet that he's a slave to it.  Yeah, wokism and this racism fever thing that you fear actually postdates manufacturing and the major trade deals from taking off in the 1990s.  The China trade deal came from un-woke Harper.  I think you need to realize that the economic boom of the last 30 years came on the back of global trade, like it or not.
4. Do you think Trudeau understands Economics ?  He listens to his team - that's plainly obvious.  There is a group of advisors who explains to him what needs to be done.  Racism has zilch to do with it, unless you have some counter example.  Trudeau just killed the Huawei deal - did the word 'racist' come up even once ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Fine, but what makes you think that you could assess said interests on the whole ?  I ask because I have listened to top economists talking about trade policy and they are fully humble about the reach of their understanding and their ability to predict outcomes.  You seem to be more confident than them at your ability to assess trade-offs.
2. Why do you assume you would ever hear of such an event ?
3.  1. 2. You think "Political Correctness" drives Canadian politicians to sell Canada out in favour of some ideology ?  One counter example that springs to mind is the pipeline purchase that Trudeau executed.  I find it very strange that people somehow can hold the simultaneous beliefs that Trudeau's "wokism" is fake and yet that he's a slave to it.  Yeah, wokism and this racism fever thing that you fear actually postdates manufacturing and the major trade deals from taking off in the 1990s.  The China trade deal came from un-woke Harper.  I think you need to realize that the economic boom of the last 30 years came on the back of global trade, like it or not.
4. Do you think Trudeau understands Economics ?  He listens to his team - that's plainly obvious.  There is a group of advisors who explains to him what needs to be done.  Racism has zilch to do with it, unless you have some counter example.  Trudeau just killed the Huawei deal - did the word 'racist' come up even once ?

1. Well i don't.  As I said factors need to be weighed.  Studies and analysis need to be done.  I'm no expert but it doesn't seem like allowing foreign speculators to buy up Canadian housing is serving Canadians very well.  The car example was just an example, i'm no expert there either.

2. True.  Just giving an example.

3. Sometimes.  Example:  Trudeau's gov would only sign the TPP after the other countries agreed to rename it the "The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership" because they wanted to rebrand it as "progressive" in order to virtue signal.  But to be clear I think corruption, election calculus, and economics drives the large majority of decisions in our trade policy, not wokeism.

Our politicians are selfish.  Their primary motivation isn't the good of the country, it's to remain in power.  For Trudeau he also wants to look good in front of everyone.  Trudeau has a big ego and wants to appear to be saving the climate, saving women, saving indigenous etc. so he looks like a hero.  That's where a lot of the wokeness comes from.  I'm not saying wokeism is the only factor in Trudeau decisions, again many factors involved, but he doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt that the national interest is his primary motivation.

4. Again, many factors at work.  The last of the 5 eyes to ban Hauwei.  Weak leadership.  I'm sure much of that was fear of China trade retaliation.  Maybe Hauwei is in their pockets too, who knows.  I'm sure we'd be alarmed at how much the CCP has paid off our politicians over the decades.  But letting them use 5G would be unpopular with voters so they can't allow it.  If the public didn't care who knows what Canada would have done, we've been sold down the river before.  Liberals and Harper were weak on national security re: China, probably due to corruption.  It's not like CSIS wasn't ringing the alarm for over a decade.  Canadian corporations want to trade with China too, good for profits, so of course they'd lobby too.  Canadian developers and banks have made tons of money from foreign real estate speculators.  High housing prices are wonderful for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

1. Well i don't.  As I said factors need to be weighed.  Studies and analysis need to be done.  I'm no expert but it doesn't seem like allowing foreign speculators to buy up Canadian housing is serving Canadians very well.  The car example was just an example, i'm no expert there either.

2. True.  Just giving an example.

3. Sometimes.  Example:  Trudeau's gov would only sign the TPP after the other countries agreed to rename it the "The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership" because they wanted to rebrand it as "progressive" in order to virtue signal.  But to be clear I think corruption, election calculus, and economics drives the large majority of decisions in our trade policy, not wokeism.

Our politicians are selfish.  Their primary motivation isn't the good of the country, it's to remain in power.  For Trudeau he also wants to look good in front of everyone.  Trudeau has a big ego and wants to appear to be saving the climate, saving women, saving indigenous etc. so he looks like a hero.  That's where a lot of the wokeness comes from.  I'm not saying wokeism is the only factor in Trudeau decisions, again many factors involved, but he doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt that the national interest is his primary motivation.

4. Again, many factors at work.  The last of the 5 eyes to ban Hauwei.  Weak leadership.  I'm sure much of that was fear of China trade retaliation.  Maybe Hauwei is in their pockets too, who knows.  I'm sure we'd be alarmed at how much the CCP has paid off our politicians over the decades.  But letting them use 5G would be unpopular with voters so they can't allow it.  If the public didn't care who knows what Canada would have done, we've been sold down the river before.  Liberals and Harper were weak on national security re: China, probably due to corruption.  It's not like CSIS wasn't ringing the alarm for over a decade.  Canadian corporations want to trade with China too, good for profits, so of course they'd lobby too.  Canadian developers and banks have made tons of money from foreign real estate speculators.  High housing prices are wonderful for them.

1. Look, I hate the housing bubble but there is a large segment of Canadian homeowners who are happy with the current setup and 'real estate' as an industry employs a lot of people also.  But I don't know either.  The fact is that economists serve the same role as medieval wizards did, with the same amount of knowledge of their craft possessed by their subjects and sponsors.
2. Ok.
3. Wow, never heard of that.  But there probably isn't a single example of a deal that was so important and so much ignored.   I don't have any sense of what Trudeau is like as a person, but these trade deals end up having their own power, their own agendas... and I doubt he could do much beyond adding some words to the name.  And I don't see any evidence of 'selfishness' having an impact on trade policy.  If you do, please share.
4. I think it was retaliation of its own, for the two Michaels.  Harper himself turned against the trade deals so the aforementioned advisors are probably all on the same page... China isn't growing closer to the west with all this liberalization as expected.  

You think Harper was corrupt, Trudeau was corrupt... but their economic advisors probably advised them both to get closer and to step back - are they corrupt too or just doing the best they can - following strategic flows given the information they have ?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Look, I hate the housing bubble but there is a large segment of Canadian homeowners who are happy with the current setup and 'real estate' as an industry employs a lot of people also.

2. You think Harper was corrupt, Trudeau was corrupt... but their economic advisors probably advised them both to get closer and to step back - are they corrupt too or just doing the best they can - following strategic flows given the information they have ?  

1.  Homeowners aren't making money if when they sell their home they have to buy another home, which is the vast majority of people because everyone has to live somewhere.  If housing prices rise to 2 million on average you can sell your house for 2 million then have to buy another house for 2 million, or downsize to a condo that costs 1.5 million.  You didn't make any money.  If home prices crash and cost 200k on average you sell your home right now for 200k and then have to buy another home for 200k or a condo for 150k.  You didn't lose any money.  The only way to make money in selling your primary residence is to move into an entirely different market that is much cheaper and not affected by these housing prices, which doesn't much seem to exist in North America.

The only way you make money is by having a second residence you're speculating on, or you're a developer or a bank.  A home is a basic human need like food and clothing, it shouldn't exist primarily for profit by speculators, developers, or banks.  Every extra dollar spent on a mortgage is a dollar your standard of living has decreased because you can't spend that dollar on something else.  Canadians spend a higher % of their income on housing than any other developed country.  Homelessness is rising.  Our politicians have screwed them by permitting the speculation for decades.  Many of them have investment properties too, they're in on the screwjob.

2. Politicians have different factors to consider before making an economic policy decision.  They listen to economic advisors, lobbyists/donors, public polling etc.  This crisis was created by policies at different levels of government that have lasted decades.

A few years ago my city council and mayor elections started allowing private donors to donate.  They previously hadn't and have since banned the practice.  They publish the donations publicly.  The number of housing developers and individuals associated with them on the list was alarming.  Your city is no different: https://acorncanada.org/blogto-all-toronto-city-council-alleged-have-accepted-donations-developers

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Moonlight Graham said:

 If housing prices rise to 2 million on average you can sell your house for 2 million then have to buy another house for 2 million, or downsize to a condo that costs 1.5 million.  You didn't make any money.  If home prices crash and cost 200k on average you sell your home right now for 200k and then have to buy another home for 200k or a condo for 150k.  You didn't lose any money.  The only way to make money in selling your primary residence is to move into an entirely different market that is much cheaper and not affected by these housing prices, which doesn't much seem to exist in North America.

Yep. People don't make money on their primary residence but on their investment properties.

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

The fact is that economists serve the same role as medieval wizards did, with the same amount of knowledge of their craft possessed by their subjects and sponsors.

😁  And how much money did the wizards make in the past for their craftsmanship?  Maybe it is cheaper to hire wizards and fire the economists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

again, the inflation economy is by design

the central banking cartel is propping the government up with money printing

there is no law which you could pass that would constrain prices

the only thing that will constrain prices is removing dollars from the system, by raising interest rates

but since that would cause a massive market correction, the elites are not going to do that voluntarily

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the question is really how high can the inflation rate go before the central bank is forced to deleverage ?

in 1981 that number was 13%

in the case of Canada, Canada will remain in lockstep with America

so it just comes down to when does the Federal Reserve in New York have to deleverage ?

whenever the Fed is forced to deleverage, the Bank of Canada will follow suit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

1.  Homeowners aren't making money if when they sell their home they have to buy another home, which is the vast majority of people because everyone has to live somewhere.   

2.  Our politicians have screwed them by permitting the speculation for decades.  Many of them have investment properties too, they're in on the screwjob.

3. Politicians have different factors to consider before making an economic policy decision.  They listen to economic advisors, lobbyists/donors, public polling etc. 

4. This crisis was created by policies at different levels of government that have lasted decades.

5. A few years ago my city council and mayor elections started allowing private donors to donate.  They previously hadn't and have since banned the practice.  They publish the donations publicly.  The number of housing developers and individuals associated with them on the list was alarming.  Your city is no different: https://acorncanada.org/blogto-all-toronto-city-council-alleged-have-accepted-donations-developers

 

1. True... BUT:  A) There are a number of soon-retirees who plan to sell in an expensive market like a big city and move to the hinterlands.  Elliot Lake is still very affordable and the summer nights and mosquitoes are beautiful there.  B ) It doesn't matter because it's still a kind of sign that times are good and that individuals who bought before the boom were/are "smart". C) It still fuels a lot of the economy in terms of employment and money lending etc.

2. Foreign ownership is likely a source of some of the speculation but there are plenty of Canadian flippers.  Be sure to listen for them to call for 'bailouts' when the market dissipates and they have to go drop their keys on the desk at the bank.

3. True ... but the loudest and most influential of these will be pro-globalization and pro-trade.  Individuals care more about their own situation and I would bet that few of them phone their MPs to complain that we are signing the TPP.

4. Why are you saying 'Crisis' ?  Listen to me: for ALL discussions on economics be very circumspect as to what you say.  I for sure try to be, and I learned that by listening to the very cautious statements that top economists make.

Canada has a trade SURPLUS.  I wasn't aware that we were currently in the black either, but here it is:

https://www.ceicdata.com/en/indicator/canada/trade-balance

?type=area&from=2021-04-01&to=2022-03-01

5. Very astute observation.  The press has, for some reason, neglected to report money donations with rigour and they should.  Toronto has a lot of 'leftist' councillors who get that sweet developer money too.   

My understanding is that current Federal contributions are capped at $3300.  That doesn't prevent the national governments from being pro-business (they are) but we don't end up with the American situation where representatives won't meet with you unless you are a donor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

again, the inflation economy is by design

the central banking cartel is propping the government up with money printing

there is no law which you could pass that would constrain prices

the only thing that will constrain prices is removing dollars from the system, by raising interest rates

but since that would cause a massive market correction, the elites are not going to do that voluntarily

You make it sound like there is physical money pumped in, that needs to be sucked out.  I do not think there is such a thing.  You have electronic money that can be generated just as numbers in accounts with no backing of paper or other assets.

To have inflation, I think the money has to get to the pockets of those consumers who start paying more for items and services and then the prices go up , therefore inflation is evident.

If consumers do not get more money, they cannot afford the higher prices.  Given necessities of life are among the first items to go up in price - like food, gas, shelter,  you are entering a dangerous realm with a possibility of a civil war if too many remain hungry and homeless.

Edited by cougar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, cougar said:

You make it sound like there is physical money pumped in, that needs to be sucked out.  I do not think there is such a thing.  You have electronic money that can be generated just as numbers in accounts with no backing of paper or other assets

it makes no difference,  it's more dollars ether way

"money printing" is a turn of phrase

the technical term would be "inflating the money supply" hence "inflation"

Edited by Dougie93
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

it makes no difference,  it's more dollars ether way

"money printing" is a turn of phrase

the technical term would be "inflating the money supply" hence "inflation"

OK.  So do you see inflation possible without the consumers getting an increased cash flow?

If the banks "print" or supply money to the government so it pays off its debt or the interest on it and the money, once received by the investors is just deposited in bank accounts, I can see no reason for inflation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, cougar said:

 I can see no reason for inflation.

it's quite simple

you have more dollars chasing fewer products

so in the case of real estate, more dollars chasing fewer properties

the buyers bid the price up, with more dollars

the value of the home has not changed

the prices rise simply because the buyers have more dollars of less worth to bid with

Edited by Dougie93
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, cougar said:

 So do you see inflation possible without the consumers getting an increased cash flow?

you won't get inflation without inflating the money supply

that doesn't mean that prices wont rise based on supply & demand as well

so in the case of a fully detached home in Caanda

those are in short supply

so there is a supply & demand component to rising home prices

but on top of that, the central bank is inflating the money supply, which compounds the price increases

the ostensible reason for the central bank doing this, is called Quantitative Easing

in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, central banks instituted a policy called Quantitative Easing

the way it works is that the central bank prints money to buy the government's debt

normally the government has to sell its debt to the bond markets

bond holders would then be setting the interest rate, much higher than the government could afford

but in order to "stimulate" the economy

the central bank buys Canada's debt (bonds) with more printed Canadian dollars

these debts then sit on the central bank's "balance sheet"

the central bank in essence bails the economy out with a flood of cash, to stimulate spending

this drives the interest rates down to net negative rates, negative rates when inflation adjusted

meaning the central bank is in effect paying you to borrow money

you borrow these new dollars from the banks, as a mortgage, at a rate so low, it's basically free money

to juice the economy, to stave off a correction

but the central bank is spending all of these dollars into the economy, flooding the economy with money

more dollars, but the same number of things to buy, means more dollars must be spent to secure the purchases

the prices are bidded up essentially,  simply because the purchasers have more of these dollars to spend

and thus how prices rise due to inflation

Edited by Dougie93
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

it's quite simple

you have more dollars chasing fewer products

so in the case of real estate, more dollars chasing fewer properties

the buyers bid the price up, with more dollars

the value of the home has not changed

the prices rise simply because the buyers have more dollars of less worth to bid with

And this is the argument I made:

The consumer/buyer needs to get more dollars in their pockets before inflation can begin.  If the newly printed money goes into the already overinflated bank accounts of investors, the buyer will have no more money than before to trigger inflation.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, cougar said:

And this is the argument I made:

The consumer/buyer needs to get more dollars in their pockets before inflation can begin.

and how they do that is by borrowing

so when the central bank buys the debt to lower the interest rates

that allows the consumer to borrow at the lower rate

when the rate is driven down to net negatove

that means you are borrowing the money at no interest at all when inflation adjusted

you are borrowing the money for free, it's free momey

so many more people run out to borrow a mortgage

more buyers with more of these inflated dollars  bid the prices of homes up in the process

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

and how they do that is by borrowing

so when the central bank buys the debt to lower the interest rates

that allows the consumer to borrow at the lower rate

 

I have to disagree.  You can borrow only as much as the bank will give you based on your income and assets.

You can't borrow more money, just because the bank printed more money.

In any event, printing more money does not explain inflation that easily.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

you're a typical Canadian

financially illiterate

It is possible.

It is also possible your explanation wasn't clear enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, cougar said:

It is possible.

It is also possible your explanation wasn't clear enough.

you say you have an "argument"

an "argument" means you present a case that proves your point

so if inflation of the money supply is not the cause of inflation

then what causes inflation ?

tell us

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

so if inflation of the money supply is not the cause of inflation

then what causes inflation ?

Making it easier for people to obtain this money, and I mean not in the form of debt, but to earn it.

Look at it like pay rates.  One works for $15/hour ; then for the same work he gets $20/hour.  Prices go up accordingly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, cougar said:

Making it easier for people to obtain this money, and I mean not in the form of debt, but to earn it.

Look at it like pay rates.  One works for $15/hour ; then for the same work he gets $20/hour.  Prices go up accordingly.

but wages are not rising significantly, so that is not causing inflation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

but wages are not rising significantly, so that is not causing inflation

And how long do you think this can continue?

You think you can live on a 1970's salary in 2022?

So far people are making sacrifices - cutting off non-essential purchases, delaying repairs and other items they had planned.

If wages remain the same, I will not call it inflation, I will call it a squeeze from the world mafia to get the last remaining juices from the masses

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, cougar said:

And how long do you think this can continue?

again, the source of inflation is the inflation of the money supply by the central bank

that is the cause

rising wages would not be the cause, that would be a result

the only reason workers would have to demand more dollars

is because the central bank is devaluing those dollars by inflating the amount of dollars in the economy

Edited by Dougie93
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

again, the source of inflation is the inflation of the money supply by the central bank

that is the cause

So you tell me gas went up from 1.07 / liter to 2.07/ liter because the bank printed more money?

Sorry I do not believe that.

 

I think a better argument for you would be to say that COVID resulted in many people getting money for nothing - no production and no work.  This can be a reason for inflation, yes.

Edited by cougar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, cougar said:

So you tell me gas went up from 1.07 / liter to 2.07/ liter because the bank printed more money?

Sorry I do not believe that.

it's basic economics, so wallow in ignorance as you like /shrugs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,355
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    JoshDotoli
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • whoshere earned a badge
      First Post
    • TomT earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • TomT went up a rank
      Rookie
    • Tony Hladun went up a rank
      Explorer
    • TomT earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...