Personal Finance

Another real estate bubble?

  • Last Updated:
  • Dec 17th, 2013 5:22 pm
Tags:
None

Poll: Are we in a 2nd real estate bubble?

  • Total votes: 0. You have voted on this poll.
Jr. Member
Jun 25, 2009
167 posts
YYZ
Pitz, I'm being dead serious when I say this, but it's funny because I agree with the POINT that you try to get across in a lot of your posts. I have views that are just as negative as posters like you and Churo1.

Fundamentally though you reach your points with such bad logic. We're both at the same end point, it's just our paths there are completely different.
pitz wrote:
Aug 30th, 2009 11:49 pm
Well I suggested one way a 'stimulus' could have been implemented, without benefitting the people who created the 'mess' in the first place. I guess it would be entirely debateable whether 'engineers' would put the money to work on useful projects, or if they'd just morph into bankers themselves -- but at least there would be a much greater possibility that engineers would invest the money into developing something useful. No possibility with bankers, of course.
I love how you always conveniently ignore this, but blame some of your engineering buddies for this ****. You can start by also telling them to stop switching over to finance cause they're the CEO's of some of the companies that got us here.

I deal with line ministries all the time and some of the crap out of engineer's mouths in their requests for funding will have you rolling on the floor.
Weak minds always resort to personal attacks at the first possible opportunity. Guess that makes you weak :) .
Both of us are =)

if I remember correctly I openly debated you on good terms and you immediately resorted to name calling. that doesn't excuse me, but hey I'm not telling you to stop either. I've seen you resort to cheap shots and tactics constantly. I don't mind them, but you can at least hold yourself the same standard you expect everyone else to be at. Or you can just contradict yourself non-stop, the choice is yours =).

If outsourcing is so efficient, why is the economy a mess?? Answer me that? Because outsourcing has been running full blast for most of the past decade, yet...
you gots a reading comprehension problem? please don't twist what I said to cover your mistakes. You very openly contradicted yourself and negated your whole argument. this is something I've pointed out numerous times in many forums and many threads. you'll type 500 words, 250 of which cancel out the logic in the other 250.

I work with snake politicians like you all the time who try this crap, I'm use to it.

I never mentioned for a second it was so efficient, or the whole economy was efficient. I just said it was more efficient to manufacture abroad then at home at home.
I have not provided any 'misinformation' whatsoever. I think you need a bit of an attitude adjustment, "Kid", before you come back to troll here.
we both do. I'll say it again, Ativan isn't enough for you. it's definitely not enough for me, but I recognize that.

again; YEARS of POSTING, 6700 posts and probably thousands of people have openly debated you in EVERY THREAD you speak in. troll of the century? I've seen engineers in three different forums telling you you don't represent them and don't speak on their behalf. but I give you credit for trying.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Dec 11, 2005
18947 posts
1381 upvotes
Where's the option for "there was never a real estate bubble where I live"
To be nobody but yourself - in a world which is doing its best, night and day, to make you everybody else - means to fight the hardest battle which any human being can fight; and never stop fighting. -- E. E. Cummings
Deal Expert
Mar 23, 2009
16424 posts
3503 upvotes
Toronto
brunes wrote:
Aug 31st, 2009 8:01 pm
Where's the option for "there was never a real estate bubble where I live"
What have the pricing increases been like over the past 10 years, and have there been any drops recently?

I know absolutely nothing about the NB market.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Jun 26, 2009
1031 posts
3 upvotes
Surrey, BC
pitz wrote:
Aug 30th, 2009 11:49 pm
If outsourcing is so efficient, why is the economy a mess?? Answer me that? Because outsourcing has been running full blast for most of the past decade, yet...
Flawed argument. Just because B happened when A happened doesn't mean A won't happen if B didn't happen.

Eg. Someone was shot in the heart, they sent him to the hospital and he died there. Using your logic it would mean that hospitals suck since they let that guy die. In fact, if he didn't go to the hospital then he would survive.

Efficiency gains from outsourcing wasn't high enough to compensate the economic distortions of G. Bush's low interest rates and debt due to the war in Iraq. But without outsourcing then the economic mess would've been bigger.

Also, if you truly understand ECON 101 then you would know that overall employment is not affected by how much you export or import.

Whether you trade with China or not, the overall employment in Canada is equal.
The unexamined life is not worth living.
- Socrates
Banned
User avatar
Jun 19, 2006
9349 posts
52 upvotes
Troodon wrote:
Aug 31st, 2009 11:49 pm
Flawed argument. Just because B happened when A happened doesn't mean A won't happen if B didn't happen.
Oh, I don't claim causality. But if the economic ideas that have dominated the past decade were efficient, if they were sustainable, and reliable, then would we be in this mess? Of course not.

Outsourcing, cost cutting, and 'financialization' have been huge themes of the past decade, have they been not?
Also, if you truly understand ECON 101 then you would know that overall employment is not affected by how much you export or import.
That's an interesting theory. Don't see how it can possibly be true though; a net exporter has higher than needed employment (to serve domestic demand), while a net importer has lower than needed employment (because they're importing goods and services from overseas).

If North America's supply of beach volleyballs is made in North America, a few hundred people are working in the beach volleyball factories here. If they're made in China, and imported, then employment is a few hundred people greater in China, and a few hundred people less in [North] America.

Don't see how "ECON 101" factors into basic common sense.
Whether you trade with China or not, the overall employment in Canada is equal.
See above.
Kid A[tivan wrote:"]we both do. I'll say it again, Ativan isn't enough for you. it's definitely not enough for me, but I recognize that.
Lol.
again; YEARS of POSTING, 6700 posts and probably thousands of people have openly debated you in EVERY THREAD you speak in. troll of the century? I've seen engineers in three different forums telling you you don't represent them and don't speak on their behalf. but I give you credit for trying
Maybe I've not been beaten down by life or by the profession, as some of them obviously have been. I don't know. Some people just cope in different ways.
"I worked with several H1B employees that were/are borderline ********. One of them wanted to spray an electrical patch panel with solvent to see if it would make the “network go faster”". <--- lol (source)
Deal Fanatic
Aug 27, 2004
6503 posts
141 upvotes
Toronto, ON
Troodon wrote:
Aug 31st, 2009 11:49 pm
Also, if you truly understand ECON 101 then you would know that overall employment is not affected by how much you export or import.
And if you took ECON 201 (well, 222 at my university), you'd understand that all the trade models assume a floating exchange rate such that the balance of payments balances out.

In the real world, China doesn't have a floating exchange rate. They have a rigged exchange rate such that a) their exports are artificially cheap (thus decimating our manufacturing industries), and b) their central bank ends up stock piling gazillions of US dollars (and other foreign currencies) that they then lend BACK to Americans (and to a lesser extent, other foreigners) so they can buy more things, repeating the cycle.

How, precisely, this is healthy remains to be seen. Instead of making stuff, we (where we = the "western" world) are giving the Chinese pieces of paper in exchange for stuff.
Deal Fanatic
Aug 27, 2004
6503 posts
141 upvotes
Toronto, ON
pitz wrote:
Sep 1st, 2009 1:10 am
Don't see how "ECON 101" factors into basic common sense.
ECON 101's models are based on a number of assumptions, several of which are unrealistic in the real world.

One of the biggest problems of the last 20-30 years is that a LOT of policymakers have come out with their economics degrees and applied some of these models, without realizing that some of the assumptions (in particular about exchange rates and mobility of labour) simply do not hold in the real world.

In the ECON 101 world, for example, there are two goods. Call them beer and pizza. If country #1 is better at producing beer, and country #2 is better at pizza, then both are wealthier if #1 produces all beer, and #2 produces all pizza, and then they trade. It's all very convincing in a classroom, but... very, very, very simplistic.

One final note: for whatever reason, the ECON 101 world somehow happens to promote policies that, in the real world, favour the interests of the rich (e.g. tax on consumption is reasonably good, tax on capital is bad, lump sum tax is best). So the rich have had a vested interest in... encouraging... politicians to adopt policies based on those models. And when you apply them in the real world, it seems everybody isn't necessarily better off the way they are in ECON 101 world.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Jun 26, 2009
1031 posts
3 upvotes
Surrey, BC
VivienM wrote:
Sep 1st, 2009 1:14 am
And if you took ECON 201 (well, 222 at my university), you'd understand that all the trade models assume a floating exchange rate such that the balance of payments balances out.

In the real world, China doesn't have a floating exchange rate. They have a rigged exchange rate such that a) their exports are artificially cheap (thus decimating our manufacturing industries), and b) their central bank ends up stock piling gazillions of US dollars (and other foreign currencies) that they then lend BACK to Americans (and to a lesser extent, other foreigners) so they can buy more things, repeating the cycle.

How, precisely, this is healthy remains to be seen. Instead of making stuff, we (where we = the "western" world) are giving the Chinese pieces of paper in exchange for stuff.
It still balances out. How do Americans pay for Chinese goods? They pay them using American dollars which is:

1. either used to buy American goods (increase American jobs that make American goods)
2. OR used to buy American T-Bills which allowed Bush to hire troops for Iraq (increase jobs)

Even with a fixed exchange rate, employment remains constant.
One final note: for whatever reason, the ECON 101 world somehow happens to promote policies that, in the real world, favour the interests of the rich (e.g. tax on consumption is reasonably good, tax on capital is bad, lump sum tax is best). So the rich have had a vested interest in... encouraging... politicians to adopt policies based on those models. And when you apply them in the real world, it seems everybody isn't necessarily better off the way they are in ECON 101 world.
ECON 101 says consumption tax is bad since it distorts price signals. A lot of Bush policies (which favoured the rich) were NOT based on ECON 101

-no bid contracts... ECON 101 says competition is good NOT no competition
-environment exploitation... ECON 101 says externalities must be internalized
-lack of healthcare reform... ECON 101 says oligopoly of a few insurers is bad
-agricultural tariffs... bad according to ECON 101
If North America's supply of beach volleyballs is made in North America, a few hundred people are working in the beach volleyball factories here. If they're made in China, and imported, then employment is a few hundred people greater in China, and a few hundred people less in [North] America.
What do the Chinese do with Canadian dollars... they will use it to spend on Canadian goods which gives us employment.
Don't see how "ECON 101" factors into basic common sense.
If it did then you would not need a 4 year degree to get a bachelor in econ
The unexamined life is not worth living.
- Socrates
Deal Fanatic
Aug 27, 2004
6503 posts
141 upvotes
Toronto, ON
Troodon wrote:
Sep 1st, 2009 2:00 am
It still balances out. How do Americans pay for Chinese goods? They pay them using American dollars which is:

1. either used to buy American goods (increase American jobs that make American goods)
2. OR used to buy American T-Bills which allowed Bush to hire troops for Iraq (increase jobs)

Even with a fixed exchange rate, employment remains constant.
3. Or used to buy American T-bills, allowing Americans to pay lower taxes and buy more things from China. Causing Americans to keep paying ever more interest to China...

But how does employment inherently remain constant?

Are you making the other giant ECON 101 assumption, i.e. that workers can always move to any job and that wages are absolutely flexible? It's not exactly realistic in the real world...
Troodon wrote:
Sep 1st, 2009 2:00 am
ECON 101 says consumption tax is bad since it distorts price signals. A lot of Bush policies (which favoured the rich) were NOT based on ECON 101
ECON 101 says consumption tax is better than capital tax. Worst than lump sum tax. But lump sum tax exists only in economists' dreams.
Troodon wrote:
Sep 1st, 2009 2:00 am
-no bid contracts... ECON 101 says competition is good NOT no competition
-environment exploitation... ECON 101 says externalities must be internalized
-lack of healthcare reform... ECON 101 says oligopoly of a few insurers is bad
-agricultural tariffs... bad according to ECON 101
- low marginal income tax rates
- low regulation (ECON 101 says regulation is mostly just rent seeking and useless when the market has perfect information)
- attempt to make dividends tax free (i.e. move closer to consumption tax)

As for health care reform, if you went to ECON 4xx, you'd see the problem isn't oligopoly, the problem is adverse selection in private insurance markets, which is why private insurance without at least a universal mandate is doomed to be a disaster. But that's a stunning example of how right-wing economics is based on extremely basic economics ("private markets are always better") and ignores the case for more government intervention...
Troodon wrote:
Sep 1st, 2009 2:00 am
What do the Chinese do with Canadian dollars... they will use it to spend on Canadian goods which gives us employment.
In theory. Or they'll pile them up in Beijing. Which isn't really good for them, either, in the long term... because they sold us real stuff for pieces of paper that seemingly aren't useful to them.
Troodon wrote:
Sep 1st, 2009 2:00 am
If it did then you would not need a 4 year degree to get a bachelor in econ
I've done my 4 years, got my economics degree. And while I have nothing against economics, I think it is very important to remember the ASSUMPTIONS in every model you see. A lot of them are very debatable...
Deal Addict
User avatar
Jun 26, 2009
1031 posts
3 upvotes
Surrey, BC
[QUOTE]But how does employment inherently remain constant?

Are you making the other giant ECON 101 assumption, i.e. that workers can always move to any job and that wages are absolutely flexible? It's not exactly realistic in the real world...[/QUOTE]

In the long-run the workers will have found their jobs. But in the short run, the government can use the capital account surplus (from selling t-bills) to subsidize certain workers or give them skills required to get them better jobs.



[QUOTE]I've done my 4 years, got my economics degree. And while I have nothing against economics, I think it is very important to remember the ASSUMPTIONS in every model you see. A lot of them are very debatable[/QUOTE]

Unforunately, we'll need a system that's better than democracy for government regulation to work. Politicians just feed the public propaganda for them to justify their actions catering to lobby groups and corporations.
The unexamined life is not worth living.
- Socrates
Deal Fanatic
Aug 27, 2004
6503 posts
141 upvotes
Toronto, ON
Troodon wrote:
Sep 1st, 2009 1:00 pm
In the long-run the workers will have found their jobs. But in the short run, the government can use the capital account surplus (from selling t-bills) to subsidize certain workers or give them skills required to get them better jobs.
And again, you're assuming that any worker can be trained to do anything.

I'm sorry to have to say the politically incorrect thing, but I don't think you could take 75% of laid-off auto manufacturing workers, say, and turn them into aerospace engineers at Bombardier. Doesn't matter how much money you wanted to throw at it.

Different human beings have different natural abilities and limitations. The ECON 101 model... doesn't account for that. It assumes "labour" is one single unitary thing.
Troodon wrote:
Sep 1st, 2009 1:00 pm
Unforunately, we'll need a system that's better than democracy for government regulation to work. Politicians just feed the public propaganda for them to justify their actions catering to lobby groups and corporations.
It's hard to say. Democracy seemed to work fine in the past - look at anything the U.S. Congress did prior to... 1994 or so. Lots of reasonable regulatory proposals on the environment, labour standards, consumer protection, taxes, etc. Then over the past 15 years, it's just become government for big-$$$$$$ special interests as politicians just need to raise more and more and more and more cash.

Canada isn't anywhere near as bad.
Jr. Member
Jun 25, 2009
167 posts
YYZ
pitz wrote:
Sep 1st, 2009 1:10 am
Maybe I've not been beaten down by life or by the profession, as some of them obviously have been. I don't know. Some people just cope in different ways.
I find this hard to believe... 6700 of the same posts over years, all crying about being underpaid and under appreciated. then blaming anyone related to finance for yours and society's problems...
Banned
User avatar
Jun 19, 2006
9349 posts
52 upvotes
Kid A wrote:
Sep 1st, 2009 7:54 pm
I find this hard to believe... 6700 of the same posts over years, all crying about being underpaid and under appreciated. then blaming anyone from pharmacists to accountants for yours and society's problems...
Blaming pharmacists? Lol. Now that's right out of left field. Got any sources, quotes, etc?
"I worked with several H1B employees that were/are borderline ********. One of them wanted to spray an electrical patch panel with solvent to see if it would make the “network go faster”". <--- lol (source)
Jr. Member
Jun 25, 2009
167 posts
YYZ
pitz wrote:
Sep 1st, 2009 8:12 pm
Blaming pharmacists? Lol. Now that's right out of left field. Got any sources, quotes, etc?
actually, now that I looked it up. you were just bitter at them for being nothing but pill counters. it seemed like you were pissed off the average pharmacist makes more then the average engineer

I apologize and I will edit my post accordingly.

glad you didn't dispute anything else though
Deal Addict
User avatar
Jun 26, 2009
1031 posts
3 upvotes
Surrey, BC
VivienM wrote:
Sep 1st, 2009 5:38 pm
And again, you're assuming that any worker can be trained to do anything.

I'm sorry to have to say the politically incorrect thing, but I don't think you could take 75% of laid-off auto manufacturing workers, say, and turn them into aerospace engineers at Bombardier. Doesn't matter how much money you wanted to throw at it.

Different human beings have different natural abilities and limitations. The ECON 101 model... doesn't account for that. It assumes "labour" is one single unitary thing.
But they can work at McDonalds. Also, the most efficient way would to be give them a $10/hour subsidy. It costs less than keeping GM alive and it's the most direct method of solving the problem.
Democracy seemed to work fine in the past - look at anything the U.S. Congress did prior to... 1994 or so
-Reagonomics
-invaded Guatemala for no reason
-subsidized farming
-did not warn people of tobacco hazards when the research was published... only several decades later
-did not join the kyoto accord
-invaded Vietnam
-and the list goes on...
The unexamined life is not worth living.
- Socrates

Top