7 ms·

Pertinent satire: https://youtu.be/wz-PtEJEaqY https://youtu.be/wz-PtEJEaqY You are subsidizing landlords by giving this stimulus. It’s not that bottom up.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
toomuchtodo 6y ago
Why would landlords take a haircut for a pandemic? In most cases, they have mortgages to pay as well. If you want to cut out the middleman, Canada could’ve paid mortgage bondholders directly through mortgage servicers on behalf of tenants and landlords.
- cheez 6y ago
  Economic crises are a way to redistribute wealth from spenders to savers. This prevents that natural function.
  - designium 6y ago
    Only issue in your rationale is that the savers are usually the ones who own the "Capital". I'm not in the circle but my boss social economic strata, his type of people are buying Ferraris during Covid. Not sure how can an average household can afford to spend $250K for a car like that now. But there are MANY of those in Canada doing it NOW. Not trying to insinuate anything here, but I'm giving you some data points to show that it's not just a matter of moving money from spenders to savers, but there are other things involved.
    - cheez 6y ago
      My point is that those people are protected from economic crisis while the rest are not.
      - phone8675309 6y ago
        Are you surprised that the wealthy, with the power they wield and the money they have, are much more connected to the levers of power and much more adept at working them giving their connections and wealth?
        cheez 6y ago
        Nope
  - frequentnapper 6y ago
    man it sucks. I'm one of those savers and have been waiting for my turn to be able to buy a home for last 5 years. I was hoping the house prices would come down to affordable level, but they are on fire again! What's the point of being responsible when spending and borrowing like there's no tomorrow will guarantee you help from govt?
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - didibus 6y ago
      I'm a saver myself for the most part, but the economy is not designed around saving. Its designed around moving "pending" money towards growth areas. For example, a bank only agrees to hold onto your money, because it will actually spend it for you. Whenever you "saved" money, unless it was in your own coffin of gold, you actually just gave it to someone else to spend it with the promise that whenever you want it back they'll have it. That said, if the market crashes, they won't have it. Because the bank's plan to "have" your money when you ask for it is actually to give you someone's else's. Cause your money has already been spent, either loaned to someone who wanted to buy a house, or start a business, etc. That means if all those loans defaults, the bank actually won't "have" your money, it'll have lost it. This is at a high level (from my understanding), why the government always bails out banks and bank related markets like home loans. If the bank go broke, everyone's money is gone.
      - qqqwerty 6y ago
        At least in the U.S., savings and checking accounts are FDIC insured. So savers would likely be made whole in the event of a bank run.
        frequentnapper 6y ago
        but only up to 250k
        6y ago
- criddell 6y ago
  Why not pass the haircut on through the mortgage bondholders? Tenant -> landlord -> bond holders. Then what? Where does the chain end?
cheez 6y ago
Absolutely. When it happened, a few Canadian friends of mine were impressed with Trudeau but when we walked through the amount and where it would likely go, we realized it was purely to hold up the housing market. Without this, the housing market would have collapsed FEROCIOUSLY. So this was a gift (yet again) to Canadian landlords and homeowners at the expense of the younger generation.
- julianlam 6y ago
  Where do your Canadian friends live? You _do_ realize that CERB payouts are the same nationwide, and if your friends are using the majority of the CERB payment to pay rent, that's a result of living in a high rent area. The younger generation also benefits from CERB and there are other appropriate programs for youths and students.
  - cheez 6y ago
    Go look at Canadian real estate. Middle of nowhere with services is 300K. Mortgage on that is something like 1000/month. This was purely to prevent a housing collapse.
- cmdshiftf4 6y ago
  >So this was a gift (yet again) to Canadian landlords and homeowners at the expense of the younger generation. What about the people who would have been made homeless, perhaps permanently, by the housing market collapsing ferociously as you pointed you?
  - rahimnathwani 6y ago
    How do you become homeless by the 'housing market collapsing'? If the price of housing goes down rapidly (which I guess it what's meant by 'collapse'), that makes it more affordable, not less.
    - cmdshiftf4 6y ago
      What do you think happens the tenants when the landlord's properties go into foreclosure? What do you think happens mortgage lending in such a scenario? What percentage of current renters have a 20% downpayment ready for even something as large as a 50% drop in home values? In Toronto, last I checked it as 1.1m for the average house and about 800k for a reasonable condo. How many current renters do you honestly think have $110k/$80 ready for a downpayment? A housing market collapse only benefits those with great sums of capital on the sidelines waiting to deploy.
rwj 6y ago
There has been some talk of support for renters. I'm fairly convinced that this is a bad idea, as any increased will go to the property owners. Bring rental prices down means increasing stock, but I'm not sure anyone has a plan for that.
- noir_lord 6y ago
  I mean we have the plan. The state building decent affordable housing on a massive scale to increase the supply and bring down the absurd prices. The UK managed it post-WW2 when it occurred to the government that hundreds of thousands of well trained, very fit young men who'd been taught to kill where going to need somewhere to live over the next two decades. At the peak of that in the 60's we built 400,000 council houses (in addition to private housing) per year. In 2017 we built 160,000 in total. Also back in the 60's there where strict rules on the size of family council (state) built housing around size - so those 400,000 houses had more generous room sizes on average. The thing the plan lacks is a plan to get around the fact that home-owners will go ballistic and that government disproportionately listens to them and I say this as someone who will be buying a house in the next couple of years. Ironically I'll be putting an ex-council house high on my list because a lot of them where built like battleships, had high ceilings and nice room sizes and frequently decent sized gardens. Picking one I know from growing up. https://www.google.com/maps/@53.7817901,-0.2459041,3a,75y,319.37h,90.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swaPjkUQdem4JcfzeugkIHQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 https://www.google.com/maps/@53.7817901,-0.2459041,3a,75y,31... Oh and to make it worse, Covid has and will decimate the house building industry, it's already an ogliopoly (the top 10 builders account for >50% of all houses built and artificially restrict supply to protect prices) - the remaining small builders are basically knackered at this point. They really did build some nice ones. What we really need is people with a bold vision of how to solve the problems, someone like Ebenezer Howard who started the garden city movement in the late victorian era but frankly we don't have them and if we did they likely wouldn't get elected anyway. It seems like we are stuck on this one way downward spiral when it comes to housing for no sensible reason I can see.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

toomuchtodo 6y ago

Why would landlords take a haircut for a pandemic? In most cases, they have mortgages to pay as well. If you want to cut out the middleman, Canada could’ve paid mortgage bondholders directly through mortgage servicers on behalf of tenants and landlords.

cheez 6y ago
Economic crises are a way to redistribute wealth from spenders to savers. This prevents that natural function.
- designium 6y ago
  Only issue in your rationale is that the savers are usually the ones who own the "Capital". I'm not in the circle but my boss social economic strata, his type of people are buying Ferraris during Covid. Not sure how can an average household can afford to spend $250K for a car like that now. But there are MANY of those in Canada doing it NOW. Not trying to insinuate anything here, but I'm giving you some data points to show that it's not just a matter of moving money from spenders to savers, but there are other things involved.
  - cheez 6y ago
    My point is that those people are protected from economic crisis while the rest are not.
    - phone8675309 6y ago
      Are you surprised that the wealthy, with the power they wield and the money they have, are much more connected to the levers of power and much more adept at working them giving their connections and wealth?
      - cheez 6y ago
        Nope
- frequentnapper 6y ago
  man it sucks. I'm one of those savers and have been waiting for my turn to be able to buy a home for last 5 years. I was hoping the house prices would come down to affordable level, but they are on fire again! What's the point of being responsible when spending and borrowing like there's no tomorrow will guarantee you help from govt?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - didibus 6y ago
    I'm a saver myself for the most part, but the economy is not designed around saving. Its designed around moving "pending" money towards growth areas. For example, a bank only agrees to hold onto your money, because it will actually spend it for you. Whenever you "saved" money, unless it was in your own coffin of gold, you actually just gave it to someone else to spend it with the promise that whenever you want it back they'll have it. That said, if the market crashes, they won't have it. Because the bank's plan to "have" your money when you ask for it is actually to give you someone's else's. Cause your money has already been spent, either loaned to someone who wanted to buy a house, or start a business, etc. That means if all those loans defaults, the bank actually won't "have" your money, it'll have lost it. This is at a high level (from my understanding), why the government always bails out banks and bank related markets like home loans. If the bank go broke, everyone's money is gone.
    - qqqwerty 6y ago
      At least in the U.S., savings and checking accounts are FDIC insured. So savers would likely be made whole in the event of a bank run.
      - frequentnapper 6y ago
        but only up to 250k
        6y ago
criddell 6y ago
Why not pass the haircut on through the mortgage bondholders? Tenant -> landlord -> bond holders. Then what? Where does the chain end?

cheez 6y ago

Absolutely. When it happened, a few Canadian friends of mine were impressed with Trudeau but when we walked through the amount and where it would likely go, we realized it was purely to hold up the housing market. Without this, the housing market would have collapsed FEROCIOUSLY. So this was a gift (yet again) to Canadian landlords and homeowners at the expense of the younger generation.

julianlam 6y ago
Where do your Canadian friends live? You _do_ realize that CERB payouts are the same nationwide, and if your friends are using the majority of the CERB payment to pay rent, that's a result of living in a high rent area. The younger generation also benefits from CERB and there are other appropriate programs for youths and students.
- cheez 6y ago
  Go look at Canadian real estate. Middle of nowhere with services is 300K. Mortgage on that is something like 1000/month. This was purely to prevent a housing collapse.
cmdshiftf4 6y ago
>So this was a gift (yet again) to Canadian landlords and homeowners at the expense of the younger generation. What about the people who would have been made homeless, perhaps permanently, by the housing market collapsing ferociously as you pointed you?
- rahimnathwani 6y ago
  How do you become homeless by the 'housing market collapsing'? If the price of housing goes down rapidly (which I guess it what's meant by 'collapse'), that makes it more affordable, not less.
  - cmdshiftf4 6y ago
    What do you think happens the tenants when the landlord's properties go into foreclosure? What do you think happens mortgage lending in such a scenario? What percentage of current renters have a 20% downpayment ready for even something as large as a 50% drop in home values? In Toronto, last I checked it as 1.1m for the average house and about 800k for a reasonable condo. How many current renters do you honestly think have $110k/$80 ready for a downpayment? A housing market collapse only benefits those with great sums of capital on the sidelines waiting to deploy.

rwj 6y ago

There has been some talk of support for renters. I'm fairly convinced that this is a bad idea, as any increased will go to the property owners. Bring rental prices down means increasing stock, but I'm not sure anyone has a plan for that.

noir_lord 6y ago
I mean we have the plan. The state building decent affordable housing on a massive scale to increase the supply and bring down the absurd prices. The UK managed it post-WW2 when it occurred to the government that hundreds of thousands of well trained, very fit young men who'd been taught to kill where going to need somewhere to live over the next two decades. At the peak of that in the 60's we built 400,000 council houses (in addition to private housing) per year. In 2017 we built 160,000 in total. Also back in the 60's there where strict rules on the size of family council (state) built housing around size - so those 400,000 houses had more generous room sizes on average. The thing the plan lacks is a plan to get around the fact that home-owners will go ballistic and that government disproportionately listens to them and I say this as someone who will be buying a house in the next couple of years. Ironically I'll be putting an ex-council house high on my list because a lot of them where built like battleships, had high ceilings and nice room sizes and frequently decent sized gardens. Picking one I know from growing up. https://www.google.com/maps/@53.7817901,-0.2459041,3a,75y,319.37h,90.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swaPjkUQdem4JcfzeugkIHQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 https://www.google.com/maps/@53.7817901,-0.2459041,3a,75y,31... Oh and to make it worse, Covid has and will decimate the house building industry, it's already an ogliopoly (the top 10 builders account for >50% of all houses built and artificially restrict supply to protect prices) - the remaining small builders are basically knackered at this point. They really did build some nice ones. What we really need is people with a bold vision of how to solve the problems, someone like Ebenezer Howard who started the garden city movement in the late victorian era but frankly we don't have them and if we did they likely wouldn't get elected anyway. It seems like we are stuck on this one way downward spiral when it comes to housing for no sensible reason I can see.