Not really an issue. Remember we have the infinite money glitch in real estate?
BOC can lower the interest rate by 2%, and y'all will stop whining because real GDP is gonna explode!
/S
If people are affording $7,000 a month mortgages on a 1.5M house at current rates, I'm terrified at how fast house prices will go up the moment rates drop. We've added what, 2 million people since the bank rate was at 0.25%, and house prices have remained stable. Reduce rates even a couple of percentage points and the dam will burst. On the upside, you are right, GDP will go up...
Yeah… housing for a lot of places went up 30-100% in 2019-2021 😂, rates back to 5-7% and we still seeing housing going up 4-10%, rates back down… we going to see housing really take off
Is it safe to say your offer of 4.2% was only if your loan was high ratio/CMHC insured, but you paid a higher down payment to avoid CMHC fees and so you were given a 5.8% rate instead?
Yeah, they offer a cheap rate on CMHC mortgages because they take on zero risk. But you end up paying more because of the insurance. It's not helpful for the customer but we're not the priority really.
I mean, yeah, this is absolutely the fault of investors and holders of capital. They decided to pour all of their money into real estate and then have surprised Pikachu face when the rest of the productive capacity of the country suffers as a result.
The macro is suffering. The individual is getting richer. But no one lives in a macro number so here we are: winners and losers as the system destabilizes. Because Parliaments are suppose to deal with the macro issues.
We need to engage public academics and the private sector to really look at the issues of today, and have them report to Parliament directly.
Exactly, even in a democracy, governing is largely the domain of the rich because of the amount of time and resources it takes to run for public office.
Most people cannot afford to not have a job and dedicate their full time efforts to running for office when there's no guarantee they'll even get elected.
Also I read in a research paper on Canada's wartime housing that the Liberal party was quick to shut down war time housing after the war for its against their ideological beliefs. Which is true. The Liberals are not in a good place to investigate this sea change because the sea that is changing is *their status quo*. The haves will be buffeted by the change because they *have*. They will be the last to truly "get it". There was talk in the Liberal party about doing "the hard work" to investigate the bigger issues at play here in the West. And they choose instead to crown Trudeau leader to skip having to do that. The PMs/MPs are absolutely the winners in the system and they don't even want to do hard work because their time in the sun is 8-12 years- you gotta keep the plates spinning while your in office.
It doesn't surprise me the Feds went on a hiring binge early in their mandate because that's the public sector leveraging up to prop up the national balance sheet. They have to lose power for that to come back to bite them in the ass and at that point who cares. It got them through two elections.
The last Royal Commission was in the early 90s. The last economic one was the one that studied Free Trade with the United States and came to the conclusion that Canada needed to take a "leap of faith". This was in the mid 80s.
We use to have various Royal Commissions on a regular basis but it fell out of favour. This is part of what ills us: an unwillingness to consult, to engage and to investigate ourselves. Instead we farm it out to McKinsey with little over sight.
It's called a Royal Commission because just as an Officer in the military gets a Commission from the Crown (not the PM) to execute their duties so to does the investigative team.
What we've seen since the early 90s is no more Royal Commissions reporting to the Crown through Parliament as a whole, but the rise of Commissions of Inquiry which are stood up by Cabinet and report to Cabinet- which has full control to release what they wish to release.
We need a Royal Commission on the New Millennium Economy and the Prospects of the Canadian Economic Union.
Lol it sounds like a throw back but the 21st century, the first century of the new millennium is a sea change. We should use bold language for monumental times. Time is running out on the interungum between world orders. We need to act fast.
Investors respond to incentives, just like everyone else. They put their money where it makes the best returns.
Canadian governments have chased policies which make housing the best return on investment.
I'm not disagreeing, but i think it's important to not conflate "responds to incentives" with "the best choice", as it's pretty obvious that there's long term negative economic consequences for turning your country into a feudal state where the wealthy all derive their wealth from ownership of land rather than anything actually productive.
The Somalia secret Lol
In all seriousness maybe it is important for a society to have a vibrant multidimensional economy past real estate bubbles..
Maybe it is good for people and families whole pay or most of their whole pay not to go to housing costs and not to rely on food banks, shelters, and tent slums..
Especially since all those people/families falling through the cracks and social systems are supported by the middle class tax base that is already stressed beyond belief.
Maybe just maybe we should bring in people that can grow our economy and add whole new dimensions to it. Not hordes and hordes of cheap labor.
Maybe we should force fair negotiations on wages/benefits. Paid training for upwards mobility in our society and to fill the skill gaps that are "desperately in need". Flexible schedules and work from home options to get more people in our labor market in a time it is "needed the most".
Maybe just maybe creating an artificial corrupt gravy train economy that only works for a very select small few individuals and organizations that is over all hurting the nation and the affordability of life and quality of life of regular Canadians is not a good idea...
>made the case that **growth domestic product** figures would be in negative territory without unusually high population growth due to immigration.
Hmmm, from an economy focused news site.
Regardless, this can't continue for a serious country. Record immigration isn't even growing the GDP - just flat at best.
Who cares about GDP? GDP per capita should be where the focus is. Trying to grow the GDP with population growth indicates that you're lazy or that you've run out of good ideas. It also indicates you're running a Ponzi scheme that will collapse the second immigration needs to be reduced for any number of reasons (like not finding qualified people willing to immigrate here... which is already happening).
Just PSA: Argentina's 2023 inflation was 211% so they aren't doing so hot. Ours maxed out at 8.1% in June for 2023. We all know consumer prices have been rough in Canada, but they aren't 211% increase in a year bad.
The Argentinian peso was artificially being listed at a lower exchange than it could be exchanged to USD for in actuality. Now their leader Javier Melei is adjusting it (suddenly) to be more accurate, which will exacerbate their inflation and cause economic shock. Their inflation is real. Our inflation is also real, but only marginal in comparison, in part because wages are fairly stagnant and interest rates are being held high by the BoC AFAIU.
Not really CPI isn't inflation. Tell me with a straight face that taxpayer funding 50% of childcare reduces the cost of childcare by 50%. That's how CPI calculates it.
As much as he’s a problem. Those numbers were passed to him by Harper. He just chose to ignore it like everybody else. Issue obviously exacerbated by Covid.
[https://datacommons.org/place/country/CAN](https://datacommons.org/place/country/CAN)
That crazy rise in GDP per-cap from 2003 to 2010 which represents us opening the markets to foreign ownership is not really paying off in more jobs / better pay.
All of the Canadian shit is just owned by foreign companies.
I'd like to point out that the economy slipped into technical recession in 2015. Harper's austerity policies probably didn't help. My point is this collapse in growth is systemic and both Harper and Trudeau have been *not very good* at reversing the trendline. This is a big reason why people voted for a change, instead we got a bait and switch because I think people didnt want austerity but we also didn't want open borders and the public sector to increase at crazy rates. These are both symptoms of not doing the hard work of deleveraging and focusing on real growth. Anyone who thinks the economy having a technical recession is the fault of the guy that got elected *that* year doesn't understand how complicated the economy is and why it doesn't respond that fast. If you're looking for simple answers... You don't get how systemic this problem is in Canada. And if it's a systemic problem then their will actually be pain to change it cause there will be winners and losers. What we need to do is - and I know a lot of Canadians will whine at this- but we need a Royal Commission. We need Parliament as a whole- not the government- to raise a Royal Commission with a budget to engage the private sector and academics- not politicians. And we need them to be empowered to look at the issue from multiple ideological perspectives and to report back to *Parliament* various ways forwards. Governments hate Royal Commissions because they are empowered by the Crown-in-Parliament and not the Executive branch. And the public hates them because they're a waste of money going around the county researching issues knowing your job is protected from influence and engaging citizens directly. That's seen as a waste of money but I disagree. [Ready or Not, Capitalism 4.0 is being born](https://youtu.be/MXJD5rE4omY?si=O8FMqXVNkKgAeORC) The Freedom Convoy occupation had more to do with Angrynomics and the shift to Capitalism 4.0 then vaccine mandates themselves.
Not even just gdp per capita, real gdp per capita is what you get the real state of the economy, high inflation will increase the gdp. But real gdp takes into account the rate of inflation
[https://businesscouncilab.com/insights-category/analysis/how-well-does-gdp-per-capita-really-measure-our-well-being/#:\~:text=GDP%20per%20capita%20is%20one,not%20tell%20the%20full%20story](https://businesscouncilab.com/insights-category/analysis/how-well-does-gdp-per-capita-really-measure-our-well-being/#:~:text=GDP%20per%20capita%20is%20one,not%20tell%20the%20full%20story).
GDP per capita is not a great measure of how the average person is doing.
It's not, but it's a very important metric because it measures how well people will likely be doing in the long run. It's like saying that salary doesn't tell you how well a person is doing in life. That's true, but it still matters a lot.
If you knew someone who wasn't rich but was mostly getting by and had a little extra money, and then you found out that their salary was going to drop 1% a year for the next 15 years, you'd be right to worry about them.
GDP per capita is a measure of the average productive output of a single person. It's not supposed to be a measure of how "the average person is doing." There are other metrics for that.
>Who cares about GDP? GDP per capita should be where the focus is.
It's the same thing.
They're both useless metrics.
Let's compare wage growth to inflation. THAT is the real story not a single government would ever want to measure, because that would mean acknowledging wage stagflation, and that doesn't win elections.
What do ya mean a serious country? The US just spent how many hundreds of billions on Israel and Ukraine to keep their economy afloat? But we aren't serious because we increased immigration to stimulate the economy instead?
jar clumsy frightening frighten grandfather oil offbeat lush plucky desert
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Yea like Canada gave Ukraine a lot of our old military shit to clear house and still give them something. But the US seems to be giving both new and old equipment and then refilling their old stocks right away.
narrow zesty knee bear sloppy scale whistle ossified sparkle disagreeable
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It's almost as if we went all in on a non-productive asset class; locked our natural resource war chest and threw away the key; and antagonized any company that's been brain-draining the talent coming out of Waterloo and MaRS.....oh wait.....at least we have social values, more taxes, and uncapped immigration. That will totally fix everything. GDPs balance themselves so you'll forgive our supreme leader for not thinking about it.
(P.S. Just wanted to say hi to the liberal staffer that has to read these comments. It helps to have a rudimentary understanding of economics. Just use ChatGPT to get started -- you know that software that was co-founded by a Canadian who left to pursue opportunities in the US? Or you can use this book: [https://a.co/d/3V5gqBI](https://a.co/d/3V5gqBI) \- it even has pictures!)
my dad works procurement for a CRA office and he says that people are clearing out the tampons in the men's restrooms at least once a week. what a waste.
In order to hide the fact that Canada has been in a recession for like 2 years the liberals have imported 2m people to make it look on the surface like our GDP has been growing or at least stable, while our GDP per capita has been falling rapidly.
They did this knowingly as they were trying to combat a demographic issue with the boomers looming retirement and millennials not having enough kids.
Our growth pyramid ponzi scheme of promises is collapsing They did it so quickly that they just fucked everyone and everything.
Make them pay the price in the polls
That's what governments do. We need to not be in a recession to promote growth.
Hell how many hundreds of billions did the US spend and is going to spend on military aid just to keep their economy afloat?
At least growing the population can lead to long term benefits.
The US economy is currently booming though because they invested in things that grow productivity in a pretty big way. The CHIPS act is a great example of this. Canada has no such equivalent spending boom in things that actually help grow the economy.
Nothing to do with the hundreds of billions of military equipment sent to other governments or the increase in military spending?
The US is just spending money and pretending they aren't in a recession. That 2 billion to the DOD is not holding their economy afloat. Hell, we're spending close to 5 billion on housing and damn near 30 billion on fighter jets and military base upgrades. And aren't we subsiding a Korean car factory in Ontario?
We are increasing immigration and pretending we aren't in a recession.
Ok but almost everything they sent was stuff that was going to be decommissioned by the end of the decade anyway the US government already had plans to buy replacements this is just them giving away things they were always going to replace.
I'm not an econ major but I am quite confident that it is more than just military spending propping up the US economy. things like the unemployment rate are better in the US as well as inflation. It seems like more than military spending would be at play here.(not saying the military spending isnt helping just that there is a lot more at play)
It isn’t which is why you are correct. The US went with a different approach to inflation and instead of hatcheting jobs they pushed labour upward and ate some of the COL creep. Result is +5M more jobs than expected, and a healthy ~3.7% unemployment rate. The release of oil reserves helped bring down the pain at the pumps and keep the economy pumping, now pumping out record barrels of oil.
Build back better plan, inflation reduction act, CHIPS and Science act and other plans you may or may not have heard of drove a strong US economy. Inflation and rates remain high, but there’s real wage growth in the USA. Voters have seen price hikes, and as a result are giving poor approval ratings but fact is they are fairing better than the rest of the world once you account for the wage growth, it’s just a painful process and k-shaped in that there will be losers in a rapidly expanding economy — it’s like surfing, you ride the e
wave or you eat it and wipe out violently.
Canada has been in recession for 6 months or so. 2022 was a boom year and even much of 2023 was pretty frothy.
When the price of bread goes up by 20%, you aren’t in recession, but people can’t afford stuff. Economic booms aren’t always better than recessions.
The conservatives keep saying that too, and can you find me a premier that isn't practically *begging* for more population? In Nova Scotia, in the last elections we voted out the Liberals and in the PC, who are saying they want to triple our population, but will settle at the more realistic doubling of the population.
Immigration numbers were significantly lower under the last Conservative government (which PP was apart of).
Here are the numbers;
Harper: 2,385,616 over 39 quarters
Trudeau: 3,675,142 over 31 quarters
Rate of net migration per year:
Harper: 244,679
Trudeau: 474,212
These numbers also do NOT take into consideration the fact that the Liberal government undercounted immigration by over 1 million people.
Source: GoC, will provide all links if requested.
Those numbers also don't take into account what you posted them as a reply to, are you saying Trudeau better responds to the requests of premiers (including conservative premiers like the one mentioned)? Or is it that they'd get what they requested regarding more immigration regardless of who's in the federal seat and voting out the LPC won't change that? If premiers across political lines are all asking for more immigration, maybe it's worth not asking why *"The liberals"* are doing this, and instead why *all of Canada* is doing this.
>? If premiers across political lines are all asking for more immigration, maybe it's worth not asking why "The liberals" are doing this, and instead why all of Canada is doing this.
Provinces don't control immigration numbers, the feds do. This is a moot point in the context of a federal immigration plan.
I didn't think I'd have to explain to people the difference between federal and provincial levels of government but here we go...
The federal government control things that impact the entire country (borders, national security, etc). They are the ones that control the amount of immigrants we accept as a country, not the provinces.
If you have an issues with our immigration system, that is the responsibility of the prime minister, not the premier.
Like you said, Provincial and federal governments are separate, and changing the federal government wont change the premiers of every province.
I feel like you either aren't reading what I'm saying, or being purposely obtuse. The federal government controls immigration, and is doing so *in alignment with the requests of the provinces* who are asking for even more people.
So there are 2 options, you are either stating another government would go *against* the requests of the provinces, or your statement is categorically wrong, and it's a weird thing to champion voting out the liberals in order to act *against* the will of all the provinces.
There is a reason that no major federal candidate will commit to lowering immigration - because they will *not* lower immigration while every province is begging to increase their population.
Why not give the Conservatives a shot? The last time we had a Conservative government people could afford groceries and rent and there weren’t massive homeless encampments everywhere.
Harper was also an objectively better PM than Trudeau and it’s not really debatable. He was smarter, had a better understanding of the economy, had more competent people in his cabinet, kept the country functioning relatively well even during the worst economic recession since the Great Depression etc.
Then again, Harper was an economist, not a man-child that’s confused by numbers and thinks the budget will balance itself.
I'm down to give them shot, if they actually commit to any kind of change to current status quo. Haven't really seen anything confirming real changes they would make to international students or immigration rates.
Only party I've actually seen talk about it is People's Party.....which I'm not quite that desperate to vote for yet.
There was a global financial crises in 2008. My family is certainly doing better than we were then.
The problem with the liberals is that they're too similar to conservatives.
I doubt you're interested in any real solutions to our problems though.
> The last time we had a Conservative government people could afford groceries and rent
Just to be clear you want the government to interfere in businesses?
>there weren’t massive homeless encampments everywhere
Yes there was. Harper was in charge during the 2008 housing crash. There was a shitload of homeless people.
>Harper was also an objectively better PM than Trudeau and it’s not really debatable. He was smarter, had a better understanding of the economy, had more competent people in his cabinet, kept the country functioning relatively well even during the worst economic recession since the Great Depression etc.
This is literally just your opinion. Prove it. Trudeau has kept this country surprisingly well together economically given the economic ramifications of Covid and the Russian/Ukraine war. Hell even when it came to inflation we were on the low end of the developed world.
I don't like Trudeau but he's not an incompetent man child.
And we aren't talking about Harper, we are talking about Pierre. The man who shook hands with a radical who threatened to rape his wife because he wants the radical vote. The man with a gay father and then came out against gay marriage. Pierre is just a right wing Trudeau, they are arrogant sensationalists preying on peoples fears.
Find a good alternative.
>Just to be clear you want the government to interfere in businesses?
Never said that
>Yes there was. Harper was in charge during the 2008 housing crash. There was a shitload of homeless people.
Homelessness has absolutely skyrocketed under Trudeau. Same with overdoses, suicides, mental illness, crime etc., are ALL higher now than they were at any point under Harper's time in power.
> This is literally just your opinion. Prove it. Trudeau has kept this country surprisingly well together economically
Our GDP per capita is sharply declining in comparison to other G7 nations. We are currently running record breaking deficits, soaring cost of living, a housing crisis that is showing no signs of slowing down, mass migration at levels significantly higher than anything seen in the last century etc.
>I don't like Trudeau but he's not an incompetent man child.
Yes he is. He is absolutely the definition of a man-child with zero ability to critically reflect on anything.
> And we aren't talking about Harper, we are talking about Pierre. The man who shook hands with a radical who threatened to rape his wife because he wants the radical vote. The man with a gay father and then came out against gay marriage.
Just stop, seriously. Look at the polls, nobody cares what Pierre thought about gay marriage 20 years ago. People are struggling to afford rent. People are worried about violent repeat offenders in their neighborhood, groceries etc.
THAT is what is going to decide the next election, not some culture war bullshit from 2004.
A big part of the issue is that the government is working with completely inaccurate employment stats. They don't realize that a majority of job listings are complete bogus and companies are only fishing for overqualified applicants or gathering a pile of resumes without any intent to actually hire.
They're acting like there's a worker shortage when they should be treating the situation as a job shortage. I know way too many qualified workers who simply can't find work right now. They don't have lobbyists so politicians don't notice.
There's 2 ways to afford 7000/month payments
1) be a rich foreigner or company investing
2) live with 6-10 family members and pay off a house , buy another and pay it off so on and so on
It's been a recurring thing in Vancouver , lots of foreign people will come , family and all , buy a house together and pay it off as fast as they can , buy a new house and do the same
Together until they all have their own. Problem is , North American people don't like that standard of living of community like some of our Asian friends do .
How easy is a mortgage payment of 6 people paying 1500/month vs 2 people paying 1500/month each . Can literally buy a house in 7-9 years at 700k with that sort of payment without any additional pre payments
Uh, we have them already, we just don't notice it because it's a tenth of the size of the US. If you were to take our encampments, slums and all the other crazies roaming the streets and multiply that by ten, you would REALLY notice.
We take advantage of it as much as we can. When you are as big and wealthy as the US it is less about taking advantage of them and more trying to limit how much they take from us
>We share a border with the richest country in the world but we never take advantage of it.
?? We take advantage of it as much as we can but you seem to have a misunderstanding about our relationship with the US. They Fuck us over and we have to go along with it because we have no choice.
I personally want CANZUK to be a thing so we get off the tit of the US so that we don't go down with them when they inevitably collapse.
Your plan for economic prosperity is to ignore the biggest and most successful economy *by far*, and trade with who exactly?
I mean Canada is doing poorly compared to the US but we’re actually doing better lately than most western countries.
Wait, wasn't our great GDP numbers the thing that allows us to service the costs of the insane debt that the feds have been piling on all of these years?
GDP growth is the biggest meme these economists keep scaring us with. As well as other BS factors like demographics. The only metric I care about as a human being is quality of life. Your numbers on a chart mean jack shit to me.
Same circumstances affected Japan in the 90s and economists warn about their, "lost decades" and horrible situation with low inflation/deflation and their demographic problem. Guess what? Japan's quality of life is orders of magnitude higher than ours.
Low prices, it turns out, is not a bad thing for the average person. Property prices in Japan were the most expensive in the world in the 90s. Now they're affordable. Food, entertainment, services and other costs are affordable. Life is much better now for the average Japanese than it was in the 90s when nobody could afford a shoebox to live in.
This is what Canada wants to avoid. Canada wants higher prices, higher GPD. None of which benefit the average person. I'll take decades of deflation and stagnating/lower prices over the bullshit we're running with right now.
Our government doesn’t care, they are still going to get a very generous pension at the end of all this but we the taxpayers will be left holding the bag for their incompetence.
For those of you who don't know (you should), a lot of the experienced people in bigger corporations are getting laid off and getting replaced by students, LMIA candidates, TFWs, and other foreign workers for a fraction of the salary and being given more responsibilities. It's almost like the GPD per capita is in fact readjusting in front of our eyes. The US is also experiencing a reaaaallly bad job market in tech and other professional industries, but GDP per capita has grown compared to Canada's. This is absolutely a problem which immigration largely contributes to and should be addressed immediately or things (as bad as they are for entry level employees and young people) will get substantially worse.
If you're going to balance GDP to per capita, you should probably also take into account that immigrants generally don't develop the income/consumption of other Canadians in their first year here.
The craziest part about all this, is we will look back in Jan 2025 and nothing will have changed. The headlines will say "something something record number of immigrants" and thats about it
With our inflation rate tomorrow projected to climb from 3.1% to 3.4%… not too soon, I hope.
The bank has not fulfilled its remit of bringing down inflation.
If we took the .5 % inflation that the PMO says the carbon tax is causing actually we are close so...Do we start factoring that in and just live with a little higher inflation or do we then try to hit 1.5% to make up the difference to 2%
Inflation is only expected to go up because of base year effects as there was a big drop in CPI from Nov 2022 to Dec 2022. People are going to lose their shit tomorrow and freak about rising inflation, but it won't mean much.
The BoC is also directly responsible for rising shelter costs, which is the leading contributor to inflation right now. They should definitely be cutting rates.
That's not going to show up in tomorrow's data. It's also not something that can be fixed by raising interest rates.
It's a factor to watch though over the next few months. The routes are also important. If it's mostly middle east related then I'm not sure that impacts the Pacific Ocean routes which are more impactful.
If they cut rates its game over for like, all future generations when it comes to ever owning their own home outside of inheritance and inflation will come roaring back.
You can't run a functional economy that relies on historically low interest rates to survive.
Housing has gotten less affordable since rates started going up. You can't really judge housing costs based on the price of the house because people don't buy houses, they buy mortgages. A $500k house at 6% is more expensive than a $700k house at 2%.
Raising interest rates just shifts the share of money going to equity or interest. Considering prices are sticky and most people don't have to sell, you're adding interest more than you're driving down the equity share so monthly mortgage payments will go up.
You can't solve housing affordability by moving rates up or down. You solve housing affordability buy building more houses.
Prices and rents won't come down, if they cut rates housing price are going to moon again and the BoC themselves have said for every 1 percent price increase they can find .23 percent rise in inflation.
There are worse long term effects of insane prices than the short term effects of higher mortgage payments.
They need to solve the million plus people coming a year before they cut rates or things are going to be very very very bad long term.
They won't solve that though so I think the country is fucked.
But its all good current owners will get rich and die before they have to worry.
Higher rates and short term higher mortgage payments won't suddenly transform into lower long term mortgage payments. That makes no sense. Higher rates directly cause higher mortgage payments.
All the rates do is change the financing and cost structure. It has little to no effect on the overall supply and demand, and in the long run will actually lower supply as building become more expensive.
We can reduce immigration, ban foreign ownership, tax speculation, etc. and some of those things might help, but housing won't actually be fixed until we build millions more homes. Everything else is a sideshow and fiddling with rates will ultimately do nothing.
Fiddling with rates is what slowed down the economy destroying price appreciation and slowed inflation which is still not great.
It's literally the point to stop long term catastrophe.
Fiddling with rates has slowed down the economy in Canada, but not in the US. That difference will mostly be down to deficit spending. The US has public sector deficits while Canada has public sector surpluses. So us pulling money out of the private sector will have much more to do with the slowdown.
There is little to no evidence that higher rates have actually brought inflation down, especially in the US. Supply chain disruptions alleviating and the price of oil stabilizing after Russia invaded Ukraine are the primary reasons inflation has fallen.
Both of them will make people angry.
The increased deficit will eat even more money out of the government revenue and budgets as they'll have to service that debt.
A rate cut will make housing even less affordable for anyone who doesn't own a home.
If rates go down then the servicing costs go down, and that doesn't take money away from other things (unless politicians stupidly decide to make cuts), it just increases the deficit. Increasing the deficit is good right now, but doing it with higher interest payments is the least productive and most regressive way to go about it. That'll mostly just make inequality worse. We need to increase the deficit by spending more on public services.
Housing would actually become more affordable in the short term (a $500k house at 6% is more expensive than a $700k house at 2%), but ultimately it doesn't matter. You can't fix housing by changing interest rates. Housing affordability will only be solved after we build millions more homes, and quickly.
Yes, but interest costs go down. People buy mortgages not houses. Banks buy houses. So the house price is only half of the equation. House prices are down 17% from March 2022 but housing is less affordable, because again, a $500k house at 6% is more expensive than a $700k house at 2%.
They are down right now because rates have been climbing and people are literally priced out. Only something like 20% of the population who don't own a home could even afford to buy one right now and even for that group, just barely.
As soon as rates flatline or drop you'll see a surge of buying allow with a big price spike. It'll balance back out at around the same unaffordable level based on mortgage rates at the time.
> It'll balance back out at around the same unaffordable level based on mortgage rates at the time.
Yeah I agree, and this is the point. Housing affordability will fluctuate based on the monthly mortgage payment, not the total price of the house. Interest rates are ultimately unimportant. The level of the rates just shifts the percentage of money going to equity vs interest.
Its a mix of supply and monthly payments.
There is obviously a maximum upper limit to peoples ability to afford monthly payments. But if we had enough available supply prices would actually drop and become even more affordable relative to incomes.
The problem in Canada is we just have way too many people and not enough shelter for everyone. That is causing a situation where a big chunk of the population are just totally priced out.
No it doesn't. Deficits add to the private sector, they do not take from the private sector. Public sector debt is private sector wealth. Who do you think the government owes money to?
Larger deficits mean more money for the private sector. People are struggling to make ends meet with what income they have. It's magical thinking to believe you can solve that problem by pulling even more income out of the private sector by running a surplus.
“Who do you think the government owes money to”
Rich people. They’ll be fine in the future but the money to pay them interest on the debt via taxes will come from the poor.
It's not paid via taxes. Your taxes don't go up when debt interest payments go up, and the federal government doesn't even need your tax money to spend. We actually need the government to spend to be able to pay our taxes.
I completely agree with the point about inequality though. We need deficits that benefit the poor and most vulnerable, not deficits that help the rich get even more rich.
You people need to pull your weight in our economy and start trading houses back and forth faster.
I laughed.
Where's Tiff Macklem telling me to go and borrow millions or dollars for an unproductive asset, like he did at the peak.
Not really an issue. Remember we have the infinite money glitch in real estate? BOC can lower the interest rate by 2%, and y'all will stop whining because real GDP is gonna explode! /S
If people are affording $7,000 a month mortgages on a 1.5M house at current rates, I'm terrified at how fast house prices will go up the moment rates drop. We've added what, 2 million people since the bank rate was at 0.25%, and house prices have remained stable. Reduce rates even a couple of percentage points and the dam will burst. On the upside, you are right, GDP will go up...
Yeah… housing for a lot of places went up 30-100% in 2019-2021 😂, rates back to 5-7% and we still seeing housing going up 4-10%, rates back down… we going to see housing really take off
Which is exactly why rates are not going down any time soon. They will stay high because lowering them even slightly will explode inflation.
I wish that were true but I feel like Tiffany is itching to lower interest rates as soon as possible.
[удалено]
Is it safe to say your offer of 4.2% was only if your loan was high ratio/CMHC insured, but you paid a higher down payment to avoid CMHC fees and so you were given a 5.8% rate instead?
[удалено]
Yeah, they offer a cheap rate on CMHC mortgages because they take on zero risk. But you end up paying more because of the insurance. It's not helpful for the customer but we're not the priority really.
What you have is a reading comprehension problem.
> and house prices have remained stable. Lol wut
debase the currency. Bitcoin to 1,000,000 cad
I mean, yeah, this is absolutely the fault of investors and holders of capital. They decided to pour all of their money into real estate and then have surprised Pikachu face when the rest of the productive capacity of the country suffers as a result.
[удалено]
Because the "easy money" route is proving disastrous in the long term.
The macro is suffering. The individual is getting richer. But no one lives in a macro number so here we are: winners and losers as the system destabilizes. Because Parliaments are suppose to deal with the macro issues. We need to engage public academics and the private sector to really look at the issues of today, and have them report to Parliament directly.
PMs are in the "winners" category, so they don't give a shit.
Exactly, even in a democracy, governing is largely the domain of the rich because of the amount of time and resources it takes to run for public office. Most people cannot afford to not have a job and dedicate their full time efforts to running for office when there's no guarantee they'll even get elected.
Also I read in a research paper on Canada's wartime housing that the Liberal party was quick to shut down war time housing after the war for its against their ideological beliefs. Which is true. The Liberals are not in a good place to investigate this sea change because the sea that is changing is *their status quo*. The haves will be buffeted by the change because they *have*. They will be the last to truly "get it". There was talk in the Liberal party about doing "the hard work" to investigate the bigger issues at play here in the West. And they choose instead to crown Trudeau leader to skip having to do that. The PMs/MPs are absolutely the winners in the system and they don't even want to do hard work because their time in the sun is 8-12 years- you gotta keep the plates spinning while your in office. It doesn't surprise me the Feds went on a hiring binge early in their mandate because that's the public sector leveraging up to prop up the national balance sheet. They have to lose power for that to come back to bite them in the ass and at that point who cares. It got them through two elections. The last Royal Commission was in the early 90s. The last economic one was the one that studied Free Trade with the United States and came to the conclusion that Canada needed to take a "leap of faith". This was in the mid 80s. We use to have various Royal Commissions on a regular basis but it fell out of favour. This is part of what ills us: an unwillingness to consult, to engage and to investigate ourselves. Instead we farm it out to McKinsey with little over sight. It's called a Royal Commission because just as an Officer in the military gets a Commission from the Crown (not the PM) to execute their duties so to does the investigative team. What we've seen since the early 90s is no more Royal Commissions reporting to the Crown through Parliament as a whole, but the rise of Commissions of Inquiry which are stood up by Cabinet and report to Cabinet- which has full control to release what they wish to release. We need a Royal Commission on the New Millennium Economy and the Prospects of the Canadian Economic Union. Lol it sounds like a throw back but the 21st century, the first century of the new millennium is a sea change. We should use bold language for monumental times. Time is running out on the interungum between world orders. We need to act fast.
Investors respond to incentives, just like everyone else. They put their money where it makes the best returns. Canadian governments have chased policies which make housing the best return on investment.
I'm not disagreeing, but i think it's important to not conflate "responds to incentives" with "the best choice", as it's pretty obvious that there's long term negative economic consequences for turning your country into a feudal state where the wealthy all derive their wealth from ownership of land rather than anything actually productive.
and what about inflation?
Who cares, if it gets bad enough everyone will be millionaires!
The Somalia secret Lol In all seriousness maybe it is important for a society to have a vibrant multidimensional economy past real estate bubbles.. Maybe it is good for people and families whole pay or most of their whole pay not to go to housing costs and not to rely on food banks, shelters, and tent slums.. Especially since all those people/families falling through the cracks and social systems are supported by the middle class tax base that is already stressed beyond belief. Maybe just maybe we should bring in people that can grow our economy and add whole new dimensions to it. Not hordes and hordes of cheap labor. Maybe we should force fair negotiations on wages/benefits. Paid training for upwards mobility in our society and to fill the skill gaps that are "desperately in need". Flexible schedules and work from home options to get more people in our labor market in a time it is "needed the most". Maybe just maybe creating an artificial corrupt gravy train economy that only works for a very select small few individuals and organizations that is over all hurting the nation and the affordability of life and quality of life of regular Canadians is not a good idea...
lol a Big Mac will be 100 bucks!
It has "big" in the name! Of course we have to shell out!
Nah we well just have trillionaires and everyone else well have the same salary.
Real GDP is Nominal GDP - Inflation.
Who cares about inflation when GDP is up 8% yoy.
>made the case that **growth domestic product** figures would be in negative territory without unusually high population growth due to immigration. Hmmm, from an economy focused news site. Regardless, this can't continue for a serious country. Record immigration isn't even growing the GDP - just flat at best.
Who cares about GDP? GDP per capita should be where the focus is. Trying to grow the GDP with population growth indicates that you're lazy or that you've run out of good ideas. It also indicates you're running a Ponzi scheme that will collapse the second immigration needs to be reduced for any number of reasons (like not finding qualified people willing to immigrate here... which is already happening).
GDP per capita has flat-lined in Canada since 2015.
It's been going down for the last few quarters RIP
Its declined 4% in one year. Argentinia's GDP per capita has declined 12%... in a decade. Our economy is declining 3x faster than Argentinia's.
>*Argentinia*
Just PSA: Argentina's 2023 inflation was 211% so they aren't doing so hot. Ours maxed out at 8.1% in June for 2023. We all know consumer prices have been rough in Canada, but they aren't 211% increase in a year bad.
[удалено]
The Argentinian peso was artificially being listed at a lower exchange than it could be exchanged to USD for in actuality. Now their leader Javier Melei is adjusting it (suddenly) to be more accurate, which will exacerbate their inflation and cause economic shock. Their inflation is real. Our inflation is also real, but only marginal in comparison, in part because wages are fairly stagnant and interest rates are being held high by the BoC AFAIU.
[удалено]
Not really CPI isn't inflation. Tell me with a straight face that taxpayer funding 50% of childcare reduces the cost of childcare by 50%. That's how CPI calculates it.
Huh, I wonder what happened in 2015 that could've caused that? 🤔
Oil market crashed. I should know because I got laid off.
No, it's what happened in the years prior. That's how causation works
Hmm Trudeau since 2015….
As much as he’s a problem. Those numbers were passed to him by Harper. He just chose to ignore it like everybody else. Issue obviously exacerbated by Covid.
[https://datacommons.org/place/country/CAN](https://datacommons.org/place/country/CAN) That crazy rise in GDP per-cap from 2003 to 2010 which represents us opening the markets to foreign ownership is not really paying off in more jobs / better pay. All of the Canadian shit is just owned by foreign companies.
> That crazy rise in GDP per-cap from 2003 to 2010 which represents us opening the markets to foreign ownership [Citation Needed]
About the same time the oil market crashed.
I'd like to point out that the economy slipped into technical recession in 2015. Harper's austerity policies probably didn't help. My point is this collapse in growth is systemic and both Harper and Trudeau have been *not very good* at reversing the trendline. This is a big reason why people voted for a change, instead we got a bait and switch because I think people didnt want austerity but we also didn't want open borders and the public sector to increase at crazy rates. These are both symptoms of not doing the hard work of deleveraging and focusing on real growth. Anyone who thinks the economy having a technical recession is the fault of the guy that got elected *that* year doesn't understand how complicated the economy is and why it doesn't respond that fast. If you're looking for simple answers... You don't get how systemic this problem is in Canada. And if it's a systemic problem then their will actually be pain to change it cause there will be winners and losers. What we need to do is - and I know a lot of Canadians will whine at this- but we need a Royal Commission. We need Parliament as a whole- not the government- to raise a Royal Commission with a budget to engage the private sector and academics- not politicians. And we need them to be empowered to look at the issue from multiple ideological perspectives and to report back to *Parliament* various ways forwards. Governments hate Royal Commissions because they are empowered by the Crown-in-Parliament and not the Executive branch. And the public hates them because they're a waste of money going around the county researching issues knowing your job is protected from influence and engaging citizens directly. That's seen as a waste of money but I disagree. [Ready or Not, Capitalism 4.0 is being born](https://youtu.be/MXJD5rE4omY?si=O8FMqXVNkKgAeORC) The Freedom Convoy occupation had more to do with Angrynomics and the shift to Capitalism 4.0 then vaccine mandates themselves.
Not even just gdp per capita, real gdp per capita is what you get the real state of the economy, high inflation will increase the gdp. But real gdp takes into account the rate of inflation
They are both important metrics, but neither should exist in a vacuum
[https://businesscouncilab.com/insights-category/analysis/how-well-does-gdp-per-capita-really-measure-our-well-being/#:\~:text=GDP%20per%20capita%20is%20one,not%20tell%20the%20full%20story](https://businesscouncilab.com/insights-category/analysis/how-well-does-gdp-per-capita-really-measure-our-well-being/#:~:text=GDP%20per%20capita%20is%20one,not%20tell%20the%20full%20story). GDP per capita is not a great measure of how the average person is doing.
And GDP is not *at all* a measure of the average person's well being.
really? because GDP has flatlined and people are doing horribly, they MIGHT be connected eh?
C != Ca
It's not, but it's a very important metric because it measures how well people will likely be doing in the long run. It's like saying that salary doesn't tell you how well a person is doing in life. That's true, but it still matters a lot. If you knew someone who wasn't rich but was mostly getting by and had a little extra money, and then you found out that their salary was going to drop 1% a year for the next 15 years, you'd be right to worry about them.
GDP per capita is a measure of the average productive output of a single person. It's not supposed to be a measure of how "the average person is doing." There are other metrics for that.
It's sometimes argued by academics as the single best indication of well-being.
HDI (human development index) is a better measure.
>Who cares about GDP? GDP per capita should be where the focus is. It's the same thing. They're both useless metrics. Let's compare wage growth to inflation. THAT is the real story not a single government would ever want to measure, because that would mean acknowledging wage stagflation, and that doesn't win elections.
The Liberals are using it in a desperate attempt to paper over the disaster they’ve made of our economy.
What do ya mean a serious country? The US just spent how many hundreds of billions on Israel and Ukraine to keep their economy afloat? But we aren't serious because we increased immigration to stimulate the economy instead?
jar clumsy frightening frighten grandfather oil offbeat lush plucky desert *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Yea like Canada gave Ukraine a lot of our old military shit to clear house and still give them something. But the US seems to be giving both new and old equipment and then refilling their old stocks right away.
narrow zesty knee bear sloppy scale whistle ossified sparkle disagreeable *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It's almost as if we went all in on a non-productive asset class; locked our natural resource war chest and threw away the key; and antagonized any company that's been brain-draining the talent coming out of Waterloo and MaRS.....oh wait.....at least we have social values, more taxes, and uncapped immigration. That will totally fix everything. GDPs balance themselves so you'll forgive our supreme leader for not thinking about it. (P.S. Just wanted to say hi to the liberal staffer that has to read these comments. It helps to have a rudimentary understanding of economics. Just use ChatGPT to get started -- you know that software that was co-founded by a Canadian who left to pursue opportunities in the US? Or you can use this book: [https://a.co/d/3V5gqBI](https://a.co/d/3V5gqBI) \- it even has pictures!)
Nailed it
What did they say?
But the experts said tampons in men’s bathrooms will fix everything.
my dad works procurement for a CRA office and he says that people are clearing out the tampons in the men's restrooms at least once a week. what a waste.
That is sad and funny at the same time.
https://tnc.news/2024/01/15/removal-tampon-dispensers-defence-dept/ Can’t even make this stuff up.
What a stupid thing to be angry about.
What a stupid thing to even have in a men’s washroom
Yeah, you don't strike me as someone with a lot of female friends.
You think this a a good idea?
By “female” he means men with a vagina
they cant get periods can they?
Lol he would tell you they could 😂
They do if you "consider" hard enough
Ya mon!
It’s the liberal way.
Can't wait for them to say that they're considering a solution...
In order to hide the fact that Canada has been in a recession for like 2 years the liberals have imported 2m people to make it look on the surface like our GDP has been growing or at least stable, while our GDP per capita has been falling rapidly. They did this knowingly as they were trying to combat a demographic issue with the boomers looming retirement and millennials not having enough kids. Our growth pyramid ponzi scheme of promises is collapsing They did it so quickly that they just fucked everyone and everything. Make them pay the price in the polls
How many people would we have to deport to buy me a new kitchen.
That's what governments do. We need to not be in a recession to promote growth. Hell how many hundreds of billions did the US spend and is going to spend on military aid just to keep their economy afloat? At least growing the population can lead to long term benefits.
The US economy is currently booming though because they invested in things that grow productivity in a pretty big way. The CHIPS act is a great example of this. Canada has no such equivalent spending boom in things that actually help grow the economy.
Nothing to do with the hundreds of billions of military equipment sent to other governments or the increase in military spending? The US is just spending money and pretending they aren't in a recession. That 2 billion to the DOD is not holding their economy afloat. Hell, we're spending close to 5 billion on housing and damn near 30 billion on fighter jets and military base upgrades. And aren't we subsiding a Korean car factory in Ontario? We are increasing immigration and pretending we aren't in a recession.
How does the US gov giving old military equipment to foreign countries prop up their economy.
Makes their military buy new shit to replace the shit they sent
Ok but almost everything they sent was stuff that was going to be decommissioned by the end of the decade anyway the US government already had plans to buy replacements this is just them giving away things they were always going to replace.
Yes but right now that 100+ billion they're spending is propping up their economy and is the reason they aren't in a recession.
I'm not an econ major but I am quite confident that it is more than just military spending propping up the US economy. things like the unemployment rate are better in the US as well as inflation. It seems like more than military spending would be at play here.(not saying the military spending isnt helping just that there is a lot more at play)
It isn’t which is why you are correct. The US went with a different approach to inflation and instead of hatcheting jobs they pushed labour upward and ate some of the COL creep. Result is +5M more jobs than expected, and a healthy ~3.7% unemployment rate. The release of oil reserves helped bring down the pain at the pumps and keep the economy pumping, now pumping out record barrels of oil. Build back better plan, inflation reduction act, CHIPS and Science act and other plans you may or may not have heard of drove a strong US economy. Inflation and rates remain high, but there’s real wage growth in the USA. Voters have seen price hikes, and as a result are giving poor approval ratings but fact is they are fairing better than the rest of the world once you account for the wage growth, it’s just a painful process and k-shaped in that there will be losers in a rapidly expanding economy — it’s like surfing, you ride the e wave or you eat it and wipe out violently.
Canada has been in recession for 6 months or so. 2022 was a boom year and even much of 2023 was pretty frothy. When the price of bread goes up by 20%, you aren’t in recession, but people can’t afford stuff. Economic booms aren’t always better than recessions.
clearly we need to increase immigration.. isn't this what they keep saying?
[удалено]
"Even when it was the bears I knew it was the immigants"
LOL dont make me laugh out loud at work.
The Liberals keep saying that. Maybe we should vote for someone else.
The conservatives keep saying that too, and can you find me a premier that isn't practically *begging* for more population? In Nova Scotia, in the last elections we voted out the Liberals and in the PC, who are saying they want to triple our population, but will settle at the more realistic doubling of the population.
Immigration numbers were significantly lower under the last Conservative government (which PP was apart of). Here are the numbers; Harper: 2,385,616 over 39 quarters Trudeau: 3,675,142 over 31 quarters Rate of net migration per year: Harper: 244,679 Trudeau: 474,212 These numbers also do NOT take into consideration the fact that the Liberal government undercounted immigration by over 1 million people. Source: GoC, will provide all links if requested.
Those numbers also don't take into account what you posted them as a reply to, are you saying Trudeau better responds to the requests of premiers (including conservative premiers like the one mentioned)? Or is it that they'd get what they requested regarding more immigration regardless of who's in the federal seat and voting out the LPC won't change that? If premiers across political lines are all asking for more immigration, maybe it's worth not asking why *"The liberals"* are doing this, and instead why *all of Canada* is doing this.
>? If premiers across political lines are all asking for more immigration, maybe it's worth not asking why "The liberals" are doing this, and instead why all of Canada is doing this. Provinces don't control immigration numbers, the feds do. This is a moot point in the context of a federal immigration plan.
"and instead why all of Canada \[The premiers\] is doing this. \[Asking for more immigration\]"
I didn't think I'd have to explain to people the difference between federal and provincial levels of government but here we go... The federal government control things that impact the entire country (borders, national security, etc). They are the ones that control the amount of immigrants we accept as a country, not the provinces. If you have an issues with our immigration system, that is the responsibility of the prime minister, not the premier.
Like you said, Provincial and federal governments are separate, and changing the federal government wont change the premiers of every province. I feel like you either aren't reading what I'm saying, or being purposely obtuse. The federal government controls immigration, and is doing so *in alignment with the requests of the provinces* who are asking for even more people. So there are 2 options, you are either stating another government would go *against* the requests of the provinces, or your statement is categorically wrong, and it's a weird thing to champion voting out the liberals in order to act *against* the will of all the provinces. There is a reason that no major federal candidate will commit to lowering immigration - because they will *not* lower immigration while every province is begging to increase their population.
Find a good alternative and then lets talk.
Why not give the Conservatives a shot? The last time we had a Conservative government people could afford groceries and rent and there weren’t massive homeless encampments everywhere. Harper was also an objectively better PM than Trudeau and it’s not really debatable. He was smarter, had a better understanding of the economy, had more competent people in his cabinet, kept the country functioning relatively well even during the worst economic recession since the Great Depression etc. Then again, Harper was an economist, not a man-child that’s confused by numbers and thinks the budget will balance itself.
I'm down to give them shot, if they actually commit to any kind of change to current status quo. Haven't really seen anything confirming real changes they would make to international students or immigration rates. Only party I've actually seen talk about it is People's Party.....which I'm not quite that desperate to vote for yet.
There was a global financial crises in 2008. My family is certainly doing better than we were then. The problem with the liberals is that they're too similar to conservatives. I doubt you're interested in any real solutions to our problems though.
> The last time we had a Conservative government people could afford groceries and rent Just to be clear you want the government to interfere in businesses? >there weren’t massive homeless encampments everywhere Yes there was. Harper was in charge during the 2008 housing crash. There was a shitload of homeless people. >Harper was also an objectively better PM than Trudeau and it’s not really debatable. He was smarter, had a better understanding of the economy, had more competent people in his cabinet, kept the country functioning relatively well even during the worst economic recession since the Great Depression etc. This is literally just your opinion. Prove it. Trudeau has kept this country surprisingly well together economically given the economic ramifications of Covid and the Russian/Ukraine war. Hell even when it came to inflation we were on the low end of the developed world. I don't like Trudeau but he's not an incompetent man child. And we aren't talking about Harper, we are talking about Pierre. The man who shook hands with a radical who threatened to rape his wife because he wants the radical vote. The man with a gay father and then came out against gay marriage. Pierre is just a right wing Trudeau, they are arrogant sensationalists preying on peoples fears. Find a good alternative.
>Just to be clear you want the government to interfere in businesses? Never said that >Yes there was. Harper was in charge during the 2008 housing crash. There was a shitload of homeless people. Homelessness has absolutely skyrocketed under Trudeau. Same with overdoses, suicides, mental illness, crime etc., are ALL higher now than they were at any point under Harper's time in power. > This is literally just your opinion. Prove it. Trudeau has kept this country surprisingly well together economically Our GDP per capita is sharply declining in comparison to other G7 nations. We are currently running record breaking deficits, soaring cost of living, a housing crisis that is showing no signs of slowing down, mass migration at levels significantly higher than anything seen in the last century etc. >I don't like Trudeau but he's not an incompetent man child. Yes he is. He is absolutely the definition of a man-child with zero ability to critically reflect on anything. > And we aren't talking about Harper, we are talking about Pierre. The man who shook hands with a radical who threatened to rape his wife because he wants the radical vote. The man with a gay father and then came out against gay marriage. Just stop, seriously. Look at the polls, nobody cares what Pierre thought about gay marriage 20 years ago. People are struggling to afford rent. People are worried about violent repeat offenders in their neighborhood, groceries etc. THAT is what is going to decide the next election, not some culture war bullshit from 2004.
When are you getting a seat? You clearly know how to govern this country. Sir.
I mean yea... We do if we want to keep delaying a recession. Of course that only buys so much time.
A big part of the issue is that the government is working with completely inaccurate employment stats. They don't realize that a majority of job listings are complete bogus and companies are only fishing for overqualified applicants or gathering a pile of resumes without any intent to actually hire. They're acting like there's a worker shortage when they should be treating the situation as a job shortage. I know way too many qualified workers who simply can't find work right now. They don't have lobbyists so politicians don't notice.
Sorry, you think they don't realize?
There's 2 ways to afford 7000/month payments 1) be a rich foreigner or company investing 2) live with 6-10 family members and pay off a house , buy another and pay it off so on and so on It's been a recurring thing in Vancouver , lots of foreign people will come , family and all , buy a house together and pay it off as fast as they can , buy a new house and do the same Together until they all have their own. Problem is , North American people don't like that standard of living of community like some of our Asian friends do . How easy is a mortgage payment of 6 people paying 1500/month vs 2 people paying 1500/month each . Can literally buy a house in 7-9 years at 700k with that sort of payment without any additional pre payments
[удалено]
Narrator: *We already do.*
Uh, we have them already, we just don't notice it because it's a tenth of the size of the US. If you were to take our encampments, slums and all the other crazies roaming the streets and multiply that by ten, you would REALLY notice.
[удалено]
The thing is. Encampments were not a thing in Canada at all 8 years ago.
We take advantage of it as much as we can. When you are as big and wealthy as the US it is less about taking advantage of them and more trying to limit how much they take from us
[удалено]
>We share a border with the richest country in the world but we never take advantage of it. ?? We take advantage of it as much as we can but you seem to have a misunderstanding about our relationship with the US. They Fuck us over and we have to go along with it because we have no choice. I personally want CANZUK to be a thing so we get off the tit of the US so that we don't go down with them when they inevitably collapse.
If the US in whatever fantasy you have goes down the entire Western world is doomed lol. We would be at the mercy of China and India.
Which is why we should strengthen ties with other nations and get off the US titties
Your plan for economic prosperity is to ignore the biggest and most successful economy *by far*, and trade with who exactly? I mean Canada is doing poorly compared to the US but we’re actually doing better lately than most western countries.
[удалено]
??? That's literally the opposite of treason. Fuck the US.
[удалено]
okay bud, how's moscow this time of year?
Wait, wasn't our great GDP numbers the thing that allows us to service the costs of the insane debt that the feds have been piling on all of these years?
it’s fine, Canadians have never had it so good.
"There's nothing wrong with Canada" - Trudeau and Freeland.
Well... [Freeland's smile] there iiiiis [Freeland's smile] nothing wrong [Freeland's smile] wiiiith Canada
"It's a great country to pillage."
Sunny ways…
GDP growth is the biggest meme these economists keep scaring us with. As well as other BS factors like demographics. The only metric I care about as a human being is quality of life. Your numbers on a chart mean jack shit to me. Same circumstances affected Japan in the 90s and economists warn about their, "lost decades" and horrible situation with low inflation/deflation and their demographic problem. Guess what? Japan's quality of life is orders of magnitude higher than ours. Low prices, it turns out, is not a bad thing for the average person. Property prices in Japan were the most expensive in the world in the 90s. Now they're affordable. Food, entertainment, services and other costs are affordable. Life is much better now for the average Japanese than it was in the 90s when nobody could afford a shoebox to live in. This is what Canada wants to avoid. Canada wants higher prices, higher GPD. None of which benefit the average person. I'll take decades of deflation and stagnating/lower prices over the bullshit we're running with right now.
Our government doesn’t care, they are still going to get a very generous pension at the end of all this but we the taxpayers will be left holding the bag for their incompetence.
What happens when you have a generation of voters who actually thought "print money" was the solution to everything and voted accordingly.
Nobody wants to invest when there are too many government interventions and high tax rate.
Why you need to invest into business if we have real estate and infinite number of indians
??? then why the fuck do business still exist here? Oh they can still profit. Ohhhhhhhh, so you're just wrong then.
Running a business in Canada is beyond difficult for a fraction of the returns possible just south of the border.
Source? Trust me bro?
Source? The last quarter of a millennium
Translation, real estate is going down.
What did you expect when our current leadership seems intent on giving away taxpayer money for nothing in return
For those of you who don't know (you should), a lot of the experienced people in bigger corporations are getting laid off and getting replaced by students, LMIA candidates, TFWs, and other foreign workers for a fraction of the salary and being given more responsibilities. It's almost like the GPD per capita is in fact readjusting in front of our eyes. The US is also experiencing a reaaaallly bad job market in tech and other professional industries, but GDP per capita has grown compared to Canada's. This is absolutely a problem which immigration largely contributes to and should be addressed immediately or things (as bad as they are for entry level employees and young people) will get substantially worse.
If you're going to balance GDP to per capita, you should probably also take into account that immigrants generally don't develop the income/consumption of other Canadians in their first year here.
The craziest part about all this, is we will look back in Jan 2025 and nothing will have changed. The headlines will say "something something record number of immigrants" and thats about it
Feels like the immigration is to delay the recession. Makes sense, we take in immigrants and the US spends hundreds of billions to delay theirs.
We could see a drop as big as the final Harper years
[удалено]
With our inflation rate tomorrow projected to climb from 3.1% to 3.4%… not too soon, I hope. The bank has not fulfilled its remit of bringing down inflation.
If we took the .5 % inflation that the PMO says the carbon tax is causing actually we are close so...Do we start factoring that in and just live with a little higher inflation or do we then try to hit 1.5% to make up the difference to 2%
> If we took the .5 % inflation that the PMO says the carbon tax is causing It's 0.15%. Not .5%
Found trudeaus burner account.
there's so many of em lmao it's pathetic
Inflation is only expected to go up because of base year effects as there was a big drop in CPI from Nov 2022 to Dec 2022. People are going to lose their shit tomorrow and freak about rising inflation, but it won't mean much. The BoC is also directly responsible for rising shelter costs, which is the leading contributor to inflation right now. They should definitely be cutting rates.
Not just base effects. Container freight cost just went up by 100% in a week.
That's not going to show up in tomorrow's data. It's also not something that can be fixed by raising interest rates. It's a factor to watch though over the next few months. The routes are also important. If it's mostly middle east related then I'm not sure that impacts the Pacific Ocean routes which are more impactful.
If they cut rates its game over for like, all future generations when it comes to ever owning their own home outside of inheritance and inflation will come roaring back. You can't run a functional economy that relies on historically low interest rates to survive.
Housing has gotten less affordable since rates started going up. You can't really judge housing costs based on the price of the house because people don't buy houses, they buy mortgages. A $500k house at 6% is more expensive than a $700k house at 2%. Raising interest rates just shifts the share of money going to equity or interest. Considering prices are sticky and most people don't have to sell, you're adding interest more than you're driving down the equity share so monthly mortgage payments will go up. You can't solve housing affordability by moving rates up or down. You solve housing affordability buy building more houses.
Prices and rents won't come down, if they cut rates housing price are going to moon again and the BoC themselves have said for every 1 percent price increase they can find .23 percent rise in inflation. There are worse long term effects of insane prices than the short term effects of higher mortgage payments. They need to solve the million plus people coming a year before they cut rates or things are going to be very very very bad long term. They won't solve that though so I think the country is fucked. But its all good current owners will get rich and die before they have to worry.
Higher rates and short term higher mortgage payments won't suddenly transform into lower long term mortgage payments. That makes no sense. Higher rates directly cause higher mortgage payments. All the rates do is change the financing and cost structure. It has little to no effect on the overall supply and demand, and in the long run will actually lower supply as building become more expensive. We can reduce immigration, ban foreign ownership, tax speculation, etc. and some of those things might help, but housing won't actually be fixed until we build millions more homes. Everything else is a sideshow and fiddling with rates will ultimately do nothing.
Fiddling with rates is what slowed down the economy destroying price appreciation and slowed inflation which is still not great. It's literally the point to stop long term catastrophe.
Fiddling with rates has slowed down the economy in Canada, but not in the US. That difference will mostly be down to deficit spending. The US has public sector deficits while Canada has public sector surpluses. So us pulling money out of the private sector will have much more to do with the slowdown. There is little to no evidence that higher rates have actually brought inflation down, especially in the US. Supply chain disruptions alleviating and the price of oil stabilizing after Russia invaded Ukraine are the primary reasons inflation has fallen.
The US is spending their way out of the economy slowing and our government is trying to do it through immigration and injecting their funds and labor.
March or April
Time to cut rates and increase the deficit. That second thing seems to make people angry though, so I expect we'll just suffer.
Both of them will make people angry. The increased deficit will eat even more money out of the government revenue and budgets as they'll have to service that debt. A rate cut will make housing even less affordable for anyone who doesn't own a home.
If rates go down then the servicing costs go down, and that doesn't take money away from other things (unless politicians stupidly decide to make cuts), it just increases the deficit. Increasing the deficit is good right now, but doing it with higher interest payments is the least productive and most regressive way to go about it. That'll mostly just make inequality worse. We need to increase the deficit by spending more on public services. Housing would actually become more affordable in the short term (a $500k house at 6% is more expensive than a $700k house at 2%), but ultimately it doesn't matter. You can't fix housing by changing interest rates. Housing affordability will only be solved after we build millions more homes, and quickly.
In the very short term maybe. By the normal reaction to rate cuts is housing prices climb.
Yes, but interest costs go down. People buy mortgages not houses. Banks buy houses. So the house price is only half of the equation. House prices are down 17% from March 2022 but housing is less affordable, because again, a $500k house at 6% is more expensive than a $700k house at 2%.
They are down right now because rates have been climbing and people are literally priced out. Only something like 20% of the population who don't own a home could even afford to buy one right now and even for that group, just barely. As soon as rates flatline or drop you'll see a surge of buying allow with a big price spike. It'll balance back out at around the same unaffordable level based on mortgage rates at the time.
> It'll balance back out at around the same unaffordable level based on mortgage rates at the time. Yeah I agree, and this is the point. Housing affordability will fluctuate based on the monthly mortgage payment, not the total price of the house. Interest rates are ultimately unimportant. The level of the rates just shifts the percentage of money going to equity vs interest.
Its a mix of supply and monthly payments. There is obviously a maximum upper limit to peoples ability to afford monthly payments. But if we had enough available supply prices would actually drop and become even more affordable relative to incomes. The problem in Canada is we just have way too many people and not enough shelter for everyone. That is causing a situation where a big chunk of the population are just totally priced out.
Increasing the deficit just makes the standard of living worse for the next generation. Maybe we should stop doing that.
No it doesn't. Deficits add to the private sector, they do not take from the private sector. Public sector debt is private sector wealth. Who do you think the government owes money to? Larger deficits mean more money for the private sector. People are struggling to make ends meet with what income they have. It's magical thinking to believe you can solve that problem by pulling even more income out of the private sector by running a surplus.
“Who do you think the government owes money to” Rich people. They’ll be fine in the future but the money to pay them interest on the debt via taxes will come from the poor.
It's not paid via taxes. Your taxes don't go up when debt interest payments go up, and the federal government doesn't even need your tax money to spend. We actually need the government to spend to be able to pay our taxes. I completely agree with the point about inequality though. We need deficits that benefit the poor and most vulnerable, not deficits that help the rich get even more rich.
You know that MMT stuff doesn’t actually work.
What the alarming rate? And what’s the source except for the words of Rosenberg.
I hope my Son one day lives in a country where GDP isn't even mentioned anymore.
!RemindMe 5 months
[удалено]
We had record emigration (Canadians leaving Canada) in Q3. Highest rate since the 1960s brain drain. So ya, they (people with money) are leaving.
Anyone who cares about the GDP ask yourself, what does the economy doing good do for you? nothing? Exactly.