Crack smoking mayor of a major city? Actually we DID do that in the US first. Or does no one remember “Bitch set me up” Marion Barry - Wikipedia
“How do you get off the back of an Elephant? You don’t you get off the back of a duck, it’s much easier.”
I’d say the real problem is trying to figure out what’s a bubble in the first place. It’s all well and good to declare that people are now paying more for something than it’s worth, but who plays God and decides exactly what something’s worth?
Bubbles are real (and in fact have been generated in laboratory conditions - it seems part of the human psyche), but what defines a bubble is the sudden collapse, by which point its already too late.
And even then, collapse isn’t enough by itself. Was oil at $100 a bubble?
I’m in favour of taking gentle steps that try and diffuse what we think might be bubbles. But rhetoric aside (of course we’ll all claim “this is a bubble”), anyone who truly cannot recognize the inherent uncertainty of declaring a bubble is fairly deep in Dunning-Kruger territory and ripe to lose their shirt, or, if dictating policy, making very damaging decisions.
Actually, you can detect bubbles earlier than that, at least in well understood markets. If you have grasp on the supply and demand, a bubble will defy the expected price and continue to climb in spite of changes in supply going up (to cash in on the inflated price) or demand going down (because the price just isn’t worth it).
puts on ridgy-didge australian accent… “you call that a bubble?” my sydney apartment doubles in value every week.
I’d tend to agree, except that even well-understood markets can change. Heck, in my opinion the entire stock market has been in one massive bubble since 1982. There’s no way the valuations justify the prices.
Yet 35 years of history are pretty much proof that the rule book I grew up with simply no longer applies. (Or perhaps it will, and I’ll be right in the very long term.) The fundamental rules don’t change often, but they do occasionally change. (Hell, I’ve been betting that we’re in a low-interest bubble for 20 years, and I’ve continuously wrong. The rules there seem to have simply changed as well.)
Now, in a well-understood, low-volatility market, I’d certainly agree that your chance of correct prediction is substantially higher, but certainty? No. Also, low volatility markets are the least likely to experience a bubble.
Again, I do think it’s wise to try and defuse bubbles, with the understanding you could well be destroying people’s lives for nothing (the devastating 1980’s recession was partially caused by an attempt to calm a bubble-like exuberance that may not have been existed. Or then again, impoverishing people for years may actually have been the lesser of two evils). But such policy should be kept well away from anyone who believes that it’s a simple problem with clear answers.
While prices did drop after the introduction of a foreign home buyers tax in Vancouver last year, they’re once again surging to new highs.
In Toronto, both prices and sales have taken a dive since the same type of tax came into effect in April.
Some had hoped a combination of recent government rule changes making it harder to get a mortgage, higher mortgage rates and the foreign buyers tax might have a lasting effect in cooling the market.
However, Toronto home prices are still up compared to last year and some industry experts predict, that as in Vancouver, the city’s recent dip will simply be a blip.
“addressing a housing affordability crisis with yellow peril rhetoric is just…gross.” Nonsense. Hiding behind imaginary claims of racism is beyond transparent. It’s not racist to call out hundreds of thousands of foreign nationals laundering money in Canadian real estate any more than it is to express concern that people in multi-million dollar homes are claiming poverty level incomes and our government is being incredibly lax with regards to income tax enforcement.
I don’t care what color or nationality the criminals are.
I care that they made housing unaffordable for an entire generation and that our current and previous government appear complicit.
I’d be complaining just as loudly if it were the Swedes orchestrating the ongoing corruption. Nice try.
Haha. You should get Justin Bieber any time soon now.
Lots of issues to address in there. But, at root, my concern is with the suggestion that the affordability of detached houses in two urban cores is more morally salient than the free movement of people.
Ascribing criminality, money laundering, and corruption to entire populations (in the hundreds of thousands) is a whole other kettle of fish. I certainly haven’t seen any evidence to support those assertions.
I certainly haven’t seen any evidence to support those assertions
A few random links from google to get you started. In no specific order. Several thousand more on there if needed.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/stephen-punwasi/chinese-buyers-vancouver-real-estate_b_14584566.html
http://condo.ca/vancouver-real-estate-hotbed-of-chinese-money-laundering/
One-click google search for “chinese money laundering Canada”:
https://www.google.ca/search?q=chinese+money+laundering+canada&rlz=1C1CHBF_enCA743CA743&ei=CkmLWaaHF6jRjwSM0oewCQ&start=20&sa=N&biw=1504&bih=1090
None of those articles constitutes evidence that hundreds of thousands of Chinese visa holders are parties to the crimes you list. I’m not contesting that there are lots of shady dealings, I’m contesting the conflation of some bad actors with a population.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
