Jump to content

I’ve never seen so many vagrants on the street


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Why do you consider it an insult? I made a valid statement. You make uninformed statements.

 🤣

4 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Homes or any products are for anyone to buy. Speculators and investors buy them  to provide them rental units.... to make a profit. Who do you think owns the 1,912,290 units rental units in this country? Other home owners??

Yes you did, you insinuated government, developers  and speculators, and still do blame "speculators"  "in February 2021 that investors made up 20% of the country's home purchases"

Homes built in Canada should primarily be for Canadians who are going to live in them.  If you want to stick up for the rights of rich foreigners while Canadians are going broke or homeless that says a lot.
 

Quote

 

Fact is buyers, regardless of who they are, are driving the prices up. Bidding and out bidding is what drives the price of anything up.

It only takes two people wanting the same thing to drive up the price. Auctions are prime examples of that and in today environment (actually the environment  6 months ago) housing was an auction scenario.

 

If there is 1 home and 3 bidders the price will generally be lower than if there is 1 home and 5 bidders.  Price is determined by supply and demand.  Period.  End of discussion.  Either fix the supply, or fix the demand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Price is determined by supply and demand.  Period.  End of discussion.  Either fix the supply, or fix the demand.

Not really that simple.

If you have a home, or two, you may not need another one.  Your demand should be zero.

But if you have the money to buy another 10 homes and rent them out at high prices to those who need them, but cannot buy for one reason or another, you have found a way to screw them over with the help of your government, just for the sake of making money. 

You do not need the houses but you are a factor in increasing the price of those houses.

 

Edited by cougar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. You think that your bank fees can't be raised higher? 😳 Think again.

2. In the days of Bell Canada it was a highly regulated monopoly.

3. Regulate profits for: flipping, owning empty homes, air bNb, rent increases.  

4. A generation ago, the argument was that of we had a different framework (the one we have now) renters would be better off.

 

 

 

 

1. Thought we were talking about banking profit reviews?  I just questioned the review of them as records are set every year. What review?

2. Not sure what you are saying?/ Go back to more regulation?

3. I cannot see or imaging anyone wanting any limit or to regulate how much money you can make. Goes against every fibre in the capitalism principal.

4. Not sure what "framework" you are speaking of. Rent control? In my opinion, rent control was the cause of shortage of rental housing. Why would a developer or builder build rental units if they could not make money??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

 🤣

Homes built in Canada should primarily be for Canadians who are going to live in them.  If you want to stick up for the rights of rich foreigners while Canadians are going broke or homeless that says a lot.
 

If there is 1 home and 3 bidders the price will generally be lower than if there is 1 home and 5 bidders.  Price is determined by supply and demand.  Period.  End of discussion.  Either fix the supply, or fix the demand.

So, no one can buy a second or 3rd house/building/apartment to rent out and earn income? How much sense does that make??

If there are 10 bidders and they all want something, the one that bids the most wins... not a supply and demand issue but a desire issue.  There were lost of houses for sale and people just picked the ones they wanted and bid on it. If they bid enough, the win it.

You clearly do not understand the concept of auction and free market bidding. No insult, just stating fact, again.

Just to blow your argument a bit farther out of the water. 2021  and so far in 2022, the number of housing units is at a record high.... supply is increased.

"On a trend and monthly SAAR basis, the level of housing starts activity in Canada remains historically high, hovering well above 200,000 units since June 2020 and increased from March to April,” https://betterdwelling.com/canadian-new-home-starts-remain-high-but-have-cratered-in-toronto/

"   Canada averaged 189.69 Thousand units from 1977 until 2022, reaching an all time high of 330.12 Thousand units in March of 2021 and a record ..."  https://tradingeconomics.com/canada/housing-starts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

1. I just questioned the review of them as records are set every year. What review?

2. Not sure what you are saying?/ Go back to more regulation?

3. I cannot see or imaging anyone wanting any limit or to regulate how much money you can make. Goes against every fibre in the capitalism principal.

4. Not sure what "framework" you are speaking of. Rent control? In my opinion, rent control was the cause of shortage of rental housing. Why would a developer or builder build rental units if they could not make money??

1. There's a pervasive level of regulatory review.  The fact that banks still make record profits doesn't negate that.  They come make more.

 2. First step is to be aware of economics.  It's a tall order.

3. And yet I have given you so many examples.

4. The example I gave you happened in the 1990s.  Fewer controls haven't helped.  It's time to stop repeating this like a mantra.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. There's a pervasive level of regulatory review.  The fact that banks still make record profits doesn't negate that.  They come make more.

 2. First step is to be aware of economics.  It's a tall order.

3. And yet I have given you so many examples.

4. The example I gave you happened in the 1990s.  Fewer controls haven't helped.  It's time to stop repeating this like a mantra.

Heck, bottom line for me is that if you in any way try to control, regulate or limit the money making ability of any person, businesses, company, you can very easily damage the economy. You can and will drive business and companies out of the country.

Profit drives business. Witness the demise of companies doing business in Canada because it costs too much to do business here and limits their profits... off to China, far east, India etc
One of the prime complaints of Canadians, especially here on this forum, is government interference and control and you espouse more?? 

Me, I am for more free enterprise with less regulation. Stifle profits, stifle economic growth IMO.

Edited by ExFlyer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

1. Heck, bottom line for me is that if you in any way try to control, regulate or limit the money making ability of any person, businesses, company, you can very easily damage the economy.   

2. Witness the demise of companies doing business in Canada because it costs too much to do business here and limits their profits... off to China, far east, India etc

3. One of the prime complaints of Canadians, especially here on this forum, is government interference and control and you espouse more?? 

1. There's a paradox at play: self regulation of business works best, and also always leads to excesses that require government action.  But you are right.

2.  Not a great example. Manufacturing and labour costs were not aligned with the global market.  Government was actually taxing regular Canadians via tariffs. Go work for a typical factory today and you won't get much over minimum wage.

3. It's not a cure-all.  You don't get radiation treatment for a cold and you don't drink hot tea for cancer.

You must admit that something's changed in real estate.  So we need to look at it.

Homelessness is turning into an epidemic and yet there are lots of empty homes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. There's a paradox at play: self regulation of business works best, and also always leads to excesses that require government action.  But you are right.

2.  Not a great example. Manufacturing and labour costs were not aligned with the global market.  Government was actually taxing regular Canadians via tariffs. Go work for a typical factory today and you won't get much over minimum wage.

3. It's not a cure-all.  You don't get radiation treatment for a cold and you don't drink hot tea for cancer.

You must admit that something's changed in real estate.  So we need to look at it.

Homelessness is turning into an epidemic and yet there are lots of empty homes.

Yes, real estate was "hot" a few months or so ago. Quite a lot of cooling in the past month or so and it is not climate change. Or maybe it is.

Being an old guy, I have seen the real estate market heat up and cool down many times. Government interference in the lines of interest rate hikes cooled it down (early 80's 18% mortgage rates). Maybe that is what occurred lately?

Homelessness an epidemic? Cannot say. Why so many? Cannot say either. Too easy to get free money. If there was an answer, it could be helped.

I certainly hope you are not saying we should allow the homeless into empty houses fort free??

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

 

Being an old guy, I have seen the real estate market heat up and cool down many times. Government interference in the lines of interest rate hikes cooled it down (early 80's 18% mortgage rates). Maybe that is what occurred lately?

Homelessness an epidemic? Cannot say. Why so many? Cannot say either. Too easy to get free money. If there was an answer, it could be helped.

I certainly hope you are not saying we should allow the homeless into empty houses fort free??

 

All I'm saying is that this is a problem that needs a collective response.  Squeezing working people indefinitely is what Marx said about capitalism, so let's prove him wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, cougar said:

Not really that simple.

If you have a home, or two, you may not need another one.  Your demand should be zero.

But if you have the money to buy another 10 homes and rent them out at high prices to those who need them, but cannot buy for one reason or another, you have found a way to screw them over with the help of your government, just for the sake of making money. 

You do not need the houses but you are a factor in increasing the price of those houses.

 

Well that's demand.  If there's people with money out there wanting to buy homes, regardless of the reason, this demand drives up the price, and lowers the supply for regular people who want to live in homes.

Edited by Moonlight Graham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

So, no one can buy a second or 3rd house/building/apartment to rent out and earn income? How much sense does that make??

If there are 10 bidders and they all want something, the one that bids the most wins... not a supply and demand issue but a desire issue.  There were lost of houses for sale and people just picked the ones they wanted and bid on it. If they bid enough, the win it.

You clearly do not understand the concept of auction and free market bidding. No insult, just stating fact, again.

Just to blow your argument a bit farther out of the water. 2021  and so far in 2022, the number of housing units is at a record high.... supply is increased.

"On a trend and monthly SAAR basis, the level of housing starts activity in Canada remains historically high, hovering well above 200,000 units since June 2020 and increased from March to April,” https://betterdwelling.com/canadian-new-home-starts-remain-high-but-have-cratered-in-toronto/

"   Canada averaged 189.69 Thousand units from 1977 until 2022, reaching an all time high of 330.12 Thousand units in March of 2021 and a record ..."  https://tradingeconomics.com/canada/housing-starts

If you don't understand a basic market principle like supply and demand then I can't help you.  Go on ebay, when more people want a certain product they go for higher prices.

I'm glad there's record home building.  Canada also has a record high population, so this should be the case.  This doesn't mean supply is outpacing demand, especially in key markets.  If it were housing prices would be falling for reasons other than rising interest rates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

If you don't understand a basic market principle like supply and demand then I can't help you.  Go on ebay, when more people want a certain product they go for higher prices.

I'm glad there's record home building.  Canada also has a record high population, so this should be the case.  This doesn't mean supply is outpacing demand, especially in key markets.  If it were housing prices would be falling for reasons other than rising interest rates.

Man, are you ever a contradiction LOL.

Basic market principle is that a product will sell for whatever the buyer will pay.

You are using Ebay as an example which is exactly what I have been saying to you. A product wanted by more than one person will drive up prices, exactly like houses.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Man, are you ever a contradiction LOL.

Basic market principle is that a product will sell for whatever the buyer will pay.

You are using Ebay as an example which is exactly what I have been saying to you. A product wanted by more than one person will drive up prices, exactly like houses.

 

Great we agree.  So as i said before, if you lessen the incentive for foreign buyers to speculate on our housing merely for profit by ie: introducing a foreign buyer tax, you will lower the prices of homes.  This is exactly what some governments in Canada have done.  Let's see how it plays out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Well that's demand.  If there's people with money out there wanting to buy homes, regardless of the reason, this demand drives up the price, and lowers the supply for regular people who want to live in homes.

I think it is a different thing, but OK, if you want to call it all demand, I would prefer to call it "modified demand", while the real demand by people who really need a house to live in can be called "organic demand".

The two should be handled separately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Great we agree.  So as i said before, if you lessen the incentive for foreign buyers to speculate on our housing merely for profit by ie: introducing a foreign buyer tax, you will lower the prices of homes.  This is exactly what some governments in Canada have done.  Let's see how it plays out.

Yeah, finally you saw the light. :)

Buying a house by out bidding someone drove up the prices.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/15/2022 at 8:11 PM, blackbird said:

The 33,000 government employees just trying to negotiate a contract with the BC government will be the ones who benefit from the Socialist government in Victoria.  They have already been offered several percent a year plus a signing bonus etc.  But they want far more. 

It's bound to hit a dead end at some point. The model isn't sustainable. But it may last for a while yet, and the point is to grab as much as possible, while it last.

Again, another tired adage don't bring private it'll be for profit. Who cares? Why as a customer should care I if one system dings me for profit, while another, for "automatic annual rise"? Between the two ditches what is the better one do you know who knows? Do we have to, bound to choose between the bad and and the worse, the least bad always?

Have we ground so lazy and st.. simple here that forgot how to ask most obvious questions? Not to mention, getting answers to them.

Edited by myata
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I may...

As one of those investors, I have made myself and my kids financially secure. I don't think I could accomplish that in today's markets. There just doesn't appear to be any room for growth right now.

However...we do have a problem with foreign investment. We all know who we're talking about so lets just say it out loud.

The Chinese have driven up real estate prices far higher than Canadians alone would have. Hell they're still doing it. Our government...such as it is...is beholden to these Chinese, so they will not do anything substantial to curb this practice.

Canada needs leadership that cares more for the Canadian people, than they do for China and The Power Corporation...which is majority owned by...the Chinese. China deserves a HUGE F'U from Canada. Now...if we could only find a leader who has the spine to issue that Canuck style F'U.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

If I may...

As one of those investors, I have made myself and my kids financially secure. I don't think I could accomplish that in today's markets. There just doesn't appear to be any room for growth right now.

However...we do have a problem with foreign investment. We all know who we're talking about so lets just say it out loud.

The Chinese have driven up real estate prices far higher than Canadians alone would have. Hell they're still doing it. Our government...such as it is...is beholden to these Chinese, so they will not do anything substantial to curb this practice.

Canada needs leadership that cares more for the Canadian people, than they do for China and The Power Corporation...which is majority owned by...the Chinese. China deserves a HUGE F'U from Canada. Now...if we could only find a leader who has the spine to issue that Canuck style F'U.

I realize there has been lots of talk about foreign ownership of housing.

Yet, when I search I get the below. It is not as great as some want to make it out to be. The high cost of housing is driven by Canadians themselves.

"CMHC and Statistics Canada just released numbers tracking non-resident ownership dating back to 2014. Beginning with the Greater Vancouver Area, 4.8% of residential properties are owned by non-residents, however, that number increases in Vancouver proper, where non-residents own 7.6% of residential properties."  https://www.rentalhousingbusiness.ca/cmhc-and-stats-canada-release-foreign-buyer-numbers/

 

"foreign ownership of Canadian homes remains small at about 3.8 per cent in British Columbia, and 2.2 per cent in Ontario, according to official data. The proposed ban is unlikely to alter much of the bullish fundamental or kill the market, according to Dexter Realty in Vancouver."   https://www.scmp.com/business/article/3173326/canada-prepares-ban-most-foreigners-buying-homes-two-years-control-soaring

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, myata said:

It's bound to hit a dead end at some point. The model isn't sustainable. But it may last for a while yet, and the point is to grab as much as possible, while it last.

Again, another tired adage don't bring private it'll be for profit. Who cares? Why as a customer should care I if one system dings me for profit, while another, for "automatic annual rise"? Between the two ditches what is the better one do you know who knows? Do we have to, bound to choose between the bad and and the worse, the least bad always?

Have we ground so lazy and st.. simple here that forgot how to ask most obvious questions? Not to mention, getting answers to them.

The BC government union is now hitting the liquor supply / distribution system first with their strikes, which is ok with me.  But it will cut the money supply for the provincial NDP government which depends on selling liquor.

We have socialized liquor sales as well as private sales in B.C. which seems to work smoothly.  I don't know why some people are against private health care providers as long as the government pays for the public to receive the health care.  As long as there is no charge to the user, it should not make any difference who supplies the health care if the government is paying for it.  The government can find the most economical way to provide health care as long as the health care is available for everyone.  That is what matters to the people, not who is providing it.   The people don't care whether it is a public government union providing health care or a private company paid for by government.  The most efficient and economical system should be used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

The high cost of housing is driven by Canadians themselves.

Actually the government is a major cause of the high cost of housing.  It is a complex issue and I don't know all the answers.  But I know that all levels of government have imposed all kinds of regulations and red tape on the construction home building industry which makes it very difficult to build homes and drives the price up considerably.  Governments also have locked up land around municipalities and given huge tracts of land to logging companies in B.C. making the price of real estate in town and on the edge of town unavailable or extremely expensive.  This is a huge problem.  Yet Canada covers a huge geographic area and has one of the smallest populations per acre in the world.  If a lot more land was made available outside towns and cities for building homes, I am sure the prices would drop considerably.  But we are stuck with Socialist, dictatorial, authoritarian governments at all levels who refuse to do anything to help the general population.  They are busy catering to their favourite privileged groups.  I think there could be a lot of corruption behind the scenes tying up real estate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh FFS the tired old whine about 'socialists' being the problem.

3% Property transfer tax on realty - imposed by Social Credit
7% GST on NEW houses - imposed by Conservatives

$30K-$40K regulatory permitting thru local gov't few of which can be considered 'socialist' and mainly to ensure modern safe standards in construction. Just like how you can no longer buy new cars w/o daytime lights, disc brakes, radial tires, seat belts, etc. No one buys a car w/o an auto tranny or radio & power windows anymore, nor a home without finished basements -  so they don't even make them these days.
Main cities constrained by geography not gov't buying up the land or logging companies. Lower Mainland is also hampered by the Agricultural Land Reserve, since the 1970s and no one wants to get rid of else everything would need to be imported.

Speculation - which is a basic cornerstone of free enterprise, so much so developers and sellers even whine about being taxed on profits. If someone offers you $1M for the home you bought for $50K, you're insane not to take it.
Foreign buyers - yes that's a concern but there's even push-back against taxing ones not used to reside in or not rented out. AFAIK BC's the only place there's an Empty Homes Tax.

And of course a bit of utter stupidity on the part of gov't - like the HomeOwner and Seniors HomeOwner grants here. You're supposed to refile year after year and now online. Like I deal with seniors, most aren't capable of doing email let alone navigate through these piss poor gov't sites. And in my own case - there's years of past filings in the gov't records. What happened? Did maybe I mysteriously get younger so I don't qualify anymore?

So it's pretty ignorant to blame 'socialists' for everything you don't like. Like did political correctness disappear under Bush, Harper, Trump? No, it kept getting bigger and more common.

The damn 'small homes' and social housing sites are now running at costs of over $500K per unit in the big cities. This is a much bigger and more complex problem than most people think. Add on that Vancouver and the Lower Mainland is the only place that's not like the rest of Canada, it rarely drops below 0 in the winter, so the homelerss tend to congregate there.

I will maintain my position that the only way to progress for this country is to spread out.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And to add - don't blame the logging companies. They buy the rights to the trees, not the land. That's the whole reason for the Softwood Lumber Duties the USA wants us to sell them the land outright, so they can speculate on that too. Our system of making them replant and give back access to the forests  is too 'socialist' for their liking.
So if you want to make everything rotten apply to the boonies too - support their position.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

which is ok with me.

So, if it doesn’t affect you directly, then it’s fine with you?

 

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

But it will cut the money supply for the provincial NDP government which depends on selling liquor.

Can’t they just increase another tax, or increase liquor taxes to make up for any shortfall?

 

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

The people don't care whether it is a public government union providing health care or a private company paid for by government.

Currently in BC, are doctors government union workers, or private companies?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

I realize there has been lots of talk about foreign ownership of housing.

Yet, when I search I get the below. It is not as great as some want to make it out to be. The high cost of housing is driven by Canadians themselves.

"CMHC and Statistics Canada just released numbers tracking non-resident ownership dating back to 2014. Beginning with the Greater Vancouver Area, 4.8% of residential properties are owned by non-residents, however, that number increases in Vancouver proper, where non-residents own 7.6% of residential properties."  https://www.rentalhousingbusiness.ca/cmhc-and-stats-canada-release-foreign-buyer-numbers/

 

"foreign ownership of Canadian homes remains small at about 3.8 per cent in British Columbia, and 2.2 per cent in Ontario, according to official data. The proposed ban is unlikely to alter much of the bullish fundamental or kill the market, according to Dexter Realty in Vancouver."   https://www.scmp.com/business/article/3173326/canada-prepares-ban-most-foreigners-buying-homes-two-years-control-soaring

That may look small...but its not. That's 2.2% of all the properties in all of Ontario. And its concentrated around the cities.

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...