|
|||||||
| Coffee Lounge Talk amongst other community members. |
| View Poll Results: Your outlook on current Vancouver Real Estate Prices? | |||
| It'll keep going up up up, just you see! |
   
|
0 | 0% |
| We've reach a plateau. Prices will remain relatively the same. |
  
|
2 | 11.11% |
| A slight drop, but nothing major. |
  
|
8 | 44.44% |
| I fear a U.S style mortgage meltdown on a smaller scale. |
  
|
5 | 27.78% |
| I'll be living in a van down by the river. |
  
|
3 | 16.67% |
| Voters: 18. You may not vote on this poll | |||
 |
|
|
LinkBack | Topic Tools | Rate Topic |
Oct 04, 09
|
|||
|
|||
|
Good summary of the real estate bulls vs. bears debate (mostly dominated by bulls, but whatever): The Ultimate Bulls/Bears Real Estate Guide | B.C. Real Estate | 2008 Downturn | BCBusiness
The first 20-25 minutes of Peter Schiff's 2006 speech to mortgage brokers pretty much sums up why artificially low interest rates will end up fucking us all over in the end. Or the 10-25 minute mark. Interest rates aren't supposed to be this low. A country with a negative savings rate like Canada, isn't supposed to have low interest rates right now, because that keeps people from saving. Interest rates control the supply and demand of money. If you couldn't afford to buy the place you want if the interest rate was 6-8%, then you have no business buying that place. Basically. There's no way most of these places would be selling if our government wasn't artificially lowering the rates. Btw: Peter Schiff was the finance and economics advisor of Ron Paul's 2008 presidential campaign. Subscribe to his youtube channel. It's awesome. 
|
|
Oct 05, 09
|
|||
|
|||
|
cosigning schiff's accuracy on the US mortgage/economy issues, austrian theory is very applicable
Don't think its accurate on the Canadian market though, there's no umbrella contract mortgages, or fake-rated bonds based on said mortgages. You still need to put a down payment down, and get insurance when your DP is <20%. You still need to pass checks that limit your mortgage based on your gross income. The lower rates will encourage more purchases, but ultimately it's legit (albeit less) money for a legit product. Canada would have to base our entire economy on these mortgages and then a huge number of people would need to start defaulting to mimic the US problem. If someone sees that happening, please let me know. Otherwise continue to give banks less money (in interest) for borrowing the same sized mortgages we always have.
|
|
Oct 09, 09
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
Oct 10, 09
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
saving rates in canada are low but not negative, interest rates and savng rates influence each other but what you put forth is a very basic explaination of the factors that influence the saving rate. the arguments put forward by the ron paul camp are so simplistic and intellectually bankrupt its scary that any reasonable person could support him politically. austrian economics is a crock of shit
|
|
Oct 14, 09
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
SEAN! As an accountant you would be worried when a company increased the size of their balance sheet by 250% in 2 years while revenues are down. Well that is what central banks are doing. The Federal Reserve has increased the size of its balance sheet to 2.2 TRILLION (with a T) dollars. That coupled with special lending facilities for financial institutions, slashing interest rates to zero, buying up record amounts of treasury debt, taking toxic assets as collateral, the list goes on. So no, interest rates aren’t the only factor in the supply of money, they’re just the most important one. They affect the supply of money the most. Find me an economist who doesn’t agree with that. Source: http://imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2009/wp09120.pdf This document demonstrates graphically the dramatic expansion of the Federal Reserve's balance sheet. It's a solid source, the IMF. Quote:
 Canadians are going in exactly the opposite direction of Americans. Namely, not saving. If you can't see the writing on the wall for that, well then I don't know what to tell you. A negative real interest rate discourages savings. Savings is capital. Low or negative real interest rates are what fuel speculative bubbles in stocks, real estate or any other asset class. Because people aren't stupid. They want a RETURN on their money. If they can't get it by saving, they'll try to get it by other means. There is a DIRECT correlation and causation between interest rates and savings rates. That doesn't mean that other things don't affect the savings rate. But interest rates are probably 90% of it.
|
|
Oct 14, 09
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Is it simplistic to look at fundamentals? Well damn, I guess accounting is "simplistic" since it only looks at balance sheets and income statements. I mean, there is so much more to a business than that, we might as well throw modern accounting principles out the window because they're too simplistic.
|
|
Oct 15, 09
|
|||
|
|||
|
I see a lot of resistance to some of the ideas posted here by "bears" (I suppose you could count me as one of them)
What I don't see is *any* kind of facts or analysis put forward by anyone who could be considered a "bull". I see rawb and sean talking a good game without a single shred of evidence. "My home price rose 8% more than I bought it for" is hardly proof of any trend. It's certainly not meeting a minimum standard of actual analysis. Calling austrian economics a "crock of shit" isn't an argument. You said that interest rates are only a "small part of the puzzle" when it comes to the supply of money. Alright Sean!... What's more important than interest rates? If it's so obvious and you're so economically sophisticated, enlighten us simpletons with what you consider the prime factors in monetary policy that affect the supply of money. Rawb, saying real estate isn't going to fall because people want to move here isn't an argument. There is no way to quantify that kind of "good will" except through population growth.  This graph completely destroys your theory that "everyone wants to come to Vancouver". Of the major cities compared, Vancouver has the LOWEST population growth over the last 5 years. The facts simply don't bear out this silly notion that Vancouver real estate is worth more than other places because "people want to live here". We have people saying austrian economics is "simplistic" but I should say that the only simplistic thing I can see around here is the analysis and reasoning of the majority of posters on this board. No facts. No evidence. Completely unsupported assertions being used to refute cold hard facts. No one has a crystal ball. No one can say "I know 100% for sure that within 12 months the real estate market will be in the toilet". But what I can say as someone with an education in the field who takes a great personal interest in economics, there are certain fundamental truths you cannot get away from. If you compare Vancouver with ANY OTHER CITY in terms of real estate price by ANY METRIC it is morbidly overpriced. Rents to Price Income to Price Residential Vacancy Rates Population Growth If one of you can come up with a single shred of evidence that would cause Vancouver to ignore all economic logic and not join every other real estate market in the world in the near future, then please produce it.
|
|
Oct 15, 09
|
|||
|
|||
|
The "save me from another FnK thread" pager Esi gave you went off a year too late dude. She should just leave a note with a link on the bathroom mirror.
Anyways, back to the thread, do you think there will be a 40% value drop of Vancouver real estate in the next 14 months? That's what were arguing here. I assume you are ever-faithfully taking Esi's side in this one like in your other posts?
|
|
Oct 15, 09
|
|||
|
|||
|
This isn't "Esi's Side", I'm the one who got her interested in economics in the first place.
And even if that was the case, there's enough evidence of your crew circle jerking and running to each others' defense on multiple occassions so if you're going to be tossing around an assertion like that it essentially means less than nothing. And still waiting for any kind of reasoned analysis to back up a single thing you've said. I guess when you don't have anything intelligent to say you can always resort to going personal.
|
|
Oct 15, 09
|
|||
|
|||
|
Weird, to my recollection you've never posted in a thread under this nickname unless it was to defend Esi or take potshots at people you used to be friends with, weird coincidence! Anyways, quoting for emphasis as it may have gotten lost:
Quote:
|
|
Oct 15, 09
|
|||
|
|||
|
OK.
So ITT we've gone from you essentially making up a bunch of figures. To arguing economics with personal anecdotes. To accusing the person who disagrees with you of ad hominem attacks when none existed. Then on to an attempt at discrediting someone else who disagrees with you based on the fact they're "rushing to her rescue" even though half of your posts are you e-knighting for your friends. Let's recap: 1) No actual evidence or analysis. No facts. No links. Nothing of any substance whatsoever. 2) Attempting to personally discredit someone who disagrees with you in a disingenuous way without actually addressing the points made. ("That won't happen" isn't an argument) 3) Vilifying antagonist by pointing out behavior you are guilty of on a massive scale. You're doing a bang up job there Rawb. P.S. Nominal house prices can even go up in the allotted timeframe. Nominal prices don't really matter if the real price of housing measured in anything other than dollars goes down. She said 35%-40% by end of 2011. Not out of the question but I don't know if I would've predicted something that drastic. With all that the government is trying to do to prop up house prices, it's impossible to make an accurate prediction. If it dropped 32% you would no doubt criticize the prediction. Can't you just admit that you've done a piss poor job stating your case? Are you ever going to showcase a single piece of evidence to contradict what we've been saying?
|
|
Oct 15, 09
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
 Sounds like you disagree with her hypothesis, which is all I've ever done in this thread. 40% is drastic. Glad we could clear that up and I'm glad you're on my side here. Cue up the Destiny's Child, I like this new, independent version of "internet Mike".
|
|
Oct 15, 09
|
|||
|
|||
|
In a technical sense you could say that. But that's only in light of the exceptional measures taken by the powers that be to stop such a thing from happening. Measures that will ultimately do more harm economically than good.
Back when she made that prediction I would've predicted only marginally smaller a drop, say 30-35%. It's still in the cards Rawb. You're really a master of bullet time through aren't you... Again. I addressed what you were talking about. Will you address what I'm talking about?
|
|
Oct 15, 09
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
No one reading this thread has learned a single thing from any of your posts. We could remove every one of your posts from this thread and the conversation would be no worse off. Go ahead and take 10% of a post I wrote as victory worthy of celebration. You still have no reasons for believing what you believe. You're basically a Real Estate Catholic.
|
|
Oct 16, 09
|
|||
|
|||
|
I mean you can argue my methods and thought processes all you want (I assume that's going to get you off the couch and back into the bed), but in the end even you agree with my conclusion. Your time may be better spent in private steering Esi over to our side.
PS: It's really noble what you're doing protecting your girlfriend -- loyal even when she flys off the handle a bit and says something you don't agree with. I want you to know that we all recognize this and you are probably the Antonio Banderas of Economics.
|
|
Oct 16, 09
|
|||
|
|||
|
You win a gigantic eye roll.
We don't respect people's beliefs in this world. We evaluate their reasons. You can't just think Tupac is still alive. Or that 9/11 is an inside job. You kind of need solid reasons to believe those things. You have no reasons for what you believe and that makes your points intellectually bankrupt. You keep bringing up Esi like she's the reason behind this and I'm not sure why. Is it a convenient way for you to dismiss my points? 1) She's not my girlfriend. 2) I'm not posting on her behalf. 3) You bumped the thread. I do not agree with your conclusion. Would I have gone on record saying a 40% drop? No. I would go on record saying 25% because I like to under-predict things like this. I also wouldn't have set a firm timeline like "by the end of 2011" but that doesn't mean that it won't happen, it just means it's a bold prediction. You've said 10-20% is all we're going to see in the way of a drop. I clearly don't share your view nor your reasoning so I'm not sure if you're trying to pull some Jedi Mind Trick here and convince me that I agree with you, but I don't. Bottom Line: You really don't have a clue what you're talking about and it shows.
|
|
Oct 16, 09
|
|||
|
|||
 Artful Dodger is a nimble and elusive Warrior. When strongly attacked he changes the subject with a diversionary counterattack. For example, if in a moment of pique his opponent refers to him to him as a "sonofabitch", Artful Dodger will not only demand a public apology for the insult to his own mother, but will castigate his opponent on behalf all mothers everywhere. Knowing full well that staying on topic works to his disadvantage, Artful Dodger will not allow himself to be pinned down.
|
|
Oct 17, 09
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
You have 31 posts on this board, every single one over a period of a few years is defending Esi's viewpoint or attacking one of her ex's. You can check above, I included the link. If you're not her boyfriend then you're some weird lapdog -- which is pretty sad dude. I'll gladly debate you on anything you want but not when you have a weird sycophantic white knight agenda.
|
|
Oct 21, 09
|
|||
|
|||
|
You know. I'm willing to grant you 100% of what you've said being true. You haven't really said much, but I'm willing to give it to you.
OK. You got me. All I do is defend Esi on this message board. You still don't have a clue what you're talking about. You still haven't made an actual point. You still haven't offered a single shred of evidence. You're still wrong. I'm a lapdog. You got me. And you're clueless about the topic and refuse to address every single point I've made. Is this how you show you're knowledgeable rawb? By ignoring the opponent's arguments and trying to personally discredit them? This is sad. I'll let the people reading this be the judge. You've avoided every actual point of contention in favor of trying to discredit me because Esi posted in this thread too. You're not up for a debate with me on any issue of substance. I wouldn't even waste my time.
|
|
|
|
Similar Topics
|
||||
| Topic | Topic Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Ladies Vs. Real women | Veni*C | Coffee Lounge | 9 | Sep 23, 09 05:07 PM |
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:45 AM.
