News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.5K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 4.8K     0 

EXgeMMy said:
Here's the link to the CBC special

http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/TV_Shows/The_National/1233408557/ID=2229772604
Click to expand...

I just think it's hilarious to watch this talk when I was writing in the Standard and the National Post years ago that this was coming. And back then, most of these people were saying I was soothsaying, that the Canadian market was "just fine", we have "better regulation" than other countries. We're "not the United States".

Watching that video just pisses me off. =)
 
interested said:
3) Planners supposedly do make more money for their clients than people without planners. Don't know who assembles that data (though I suspect it is the financial industry) but I think it would be fatally flawed anyhow since the people who use planners already likely 1) have more money than those who don't and 2) are more educated and concerned about their wealth and therefore more informed...in other words a skewed population group.
Click to expand...
I get the impression it's more from tax reduction and tax deferral strategies than from beating the market index. Anyone can match the market index simply by using an index ETF fund, but most of us don't necessarily know the ins-and-outs of tax laws and estate planning, etc. Unfortunately, I suspect most financial planners don't either, but the good ones should.

Note however, that much of this is irrelevant if you're an employee that just draws a regular paycheck, with the tax lopped off the top. The tax reduction and tax deferral strategies only work for income from other sources.
 
brockm said:
I dislike Amanda Lang greatly. She's even worse than most of the CNBC hacks in that she is generally incapable of objective economic analysis. Her economic worldview is colored with an extremely political disposition. A decidedly social democratic one. Based on watching her blather for the last few years I can deduce that:

1. She supports nationalistic economic protectionism, with very little in the way of economic argument to back up her views other than romantic notions of Canadianism;
2. She views all of our economic problems today as largely the fault of supposed capitalism run amok due to a lack fo regulation;
3. She thinks highly or regulators and central bankers.

Essentially she's a statist, corporatist run-of-the-mill left-wing populist commentator who happens to report on business. Yay!

I don't know, but I'm guessing she thinks highly of Paul Krugman from the things she says. And I don't think highly of people who think highly of Paul Krugman.
Click to expand...

Funny I enjoy reading Krugman's articles in the NY Times as well. I also believe that Carney is doing a fantastic job.

As far as interest rates go, I don't see them moving much anytime soon. We're in a very low growth environment just as a Japan has been for decades so get used to that 10 year bond yield with a 1 handle on it. Swiss 10 yr yields are below 1%! Are their housing market commentators jumping up and down over the possibility of interest rate increases as well? Carney is trying to encourage the Canadian consumer/homeowner to get her household debt levels under control. I don't think he's about to increase short term borrowing costs now as it would suffocate the broader economy.
 
brockm said:
I dislike Amanda Lang greatly. She's even worse than most of the CNBC hacks in that she is generally incapable of objective economic analysis. Her economic worldview is colored with an extremely political disposition. A decidedly social democratic one.
Click to expand...

If you think Amanda Lang is representative of social democratic worldview you're just an incapable of objective analysis as you claim she is!
 
jeff316 said:
If you think Amanda Lang is representative of social democratic worldview you're just an incapable of objective analysis as you claim she is!
Click to expand...

She's very clearly a social democrat. Perhaps of the Liberal Party voting variety. But she's definitely a social democrat. Her views on taxes, regulation and the role of the state can lead to no other conclusion.

Most Canadians are social democrats. The main difference between socialists and modern social democrats, is that social democrats accept the need for a market economy. They believe however we need a happy medium between socialism and capitalism.

The Liberal Party today is a moderate social democratic party. Not a classical liberal party like it was in Laurier's day.
 
Last edited:
jeff316 said:
She clearly is not to an objective observer that understands social democractic principles.
Click to expand...

Something tells me I'm more educated in political philosophy and political history than yourself.

You may be making the mistake of limiting the definition of social democracy to a political movement in Canada known as the NDP, but in political science, one would be hard pressed to argue with me, here.

When people talk about Harper dismantling the "progressive state" with cutbacks in CBC and such, they are really speaking to a social democratic political disposition. This is inescapable.

It may be discomforting to you that I could put Jack Layton and Stephane Dion in the same bucket and call them both social democrats. But they are, technically speaking. The difference between the two isn't who is the social democrat, it is where they draw lines between public and private life. The differences are in matters of degree.
 
From Wikipedia:

Social democracy supports legal entitlements in social rights for citizens. These are made up of universal access to public services such as: workers' compensation, universal health care and universal education, and other services such as child care and care for the elderly
Click to expand...

Which of these planks do modern Liberals take issue with? Or Amanda Lang for that matter?
 
Last edited:
brockm said:
Something tells me I'm more educated in political philosophy and political history than yourself.

You may be making the mistake of limiting the definition of social democracy to a political movement in Canada known as the NDP, but in political science, one would be hard pressed to argue with me, here.

When people talk about Harper dismantling the "progressive state" with cutbacks in CBC and such, they are really speaking to a social democratic political disposition. This is inescapable.

It may be discomforting to you that I could put Jack Layton and Stephane Dion in the same bucket and call them both social democrats. But they are, technically speaking. The difference between the two isn't who is the social democrat, it is where they draw lines between public and private life. The differences are in matters of degree.
Click to expand...

It's interesting how many assumptions you need to make throughout your posts on this thread. My education and understanding of the political spectrum is not clouded by my own personal views (which are decidedly not social democratic, according to either an objective definition or yours), and I watch a lot of CBC. Espousing the views that she has, and being the foil for Kevin O'Leary, does not make one a social democrat, by any degree.
 
jeff316 said:
It's interesting how many assumptions you need to make throughout your posts on this thread. My education and understanding of the political spectrum is not clouded by my own personal views (which are decidedly not social democratic, according to either an objective definition or yours), and I watch a lot of CBC. Espousing the views that she has, and being the foil for Kevin O'Leary, does not make one a social democrat, by any degree.
Click to expand...

You haven't disputed my points. You've merely dismissed them out of hand. You're making a non-argument. I've said she's a social democrat, I've given you my reasoning and supporting points. Dismissing me through non-argument and treating your position as self-evident is condescending and rude.
 
I'm sorry for hurting your feelings and for polluting this thread, neither of which were my intent when posting.
 
jeff316 said:
I'm sorry for hurting your feelings and for polluting this thread, neither of which were my intent when posting.
Click to expand...

I assure you that you're incapable of hurting my feelings. I am merely pointing out the manor in which you argue is bad form. I don't inject myself into arguments with people, dismiss their points in one fell swoop, and then refuse to back up my points. Oh, and of course: engaging in ad hominem attacks by suggesting the person lacks education in the subject.

You said I'm wrong, suggested I don't know what I'm talking about, and you've failed to say why. Just that any "objective" observer would agree with you, and not me.

Hey, I can play that game, too! Here, watch ...

Any objective observer would agree with ME!

I guess we're tied now.
 
^^^
That Vancouver has lasted this long and at these prices has perplexed me for years frankly.

Toronto is different to a degree. It is a financial capital. Vancouver is not, just a regional city. No disrespect meant, just stating facts as I see them.

Vancouver has average salaries far lower than Toronto hence massive amount of salary going to live in Vancouver at the expense of other discretionary income (referring to the locals). In Toronto this is happening as well but nowhere close to the same degree.

Prices in Vancouver are 50% higher than in Toronto.

I am not saying Toronto won't correct....it is just a matter of degree. When Vancouver falls, it will be brutal.
when downtown TO condos fall, it too may be brutal but I suspect will last about 3-4 years (vs. probably longer in Vancouver).
This view is contingent on the economy/financial center and businesses downtown TO still continuing. However, there is I believe a fundamental shift in psychology.

People moved to the burbs when gas was cheap, the house size reasonable, lots of young families. Now commutes have gone up drastically, less family units being formed, and people are valuing time not spent in a car or having to get in a car to go anywhere. So I think when the condo market implodes, which I expect it will, it will fall....speculators with little down payment will be forced out, prices will stabilize and I believe people will still want downtown. Once the stock is stabilized, after a couple of years of no building, it won't look so bad. Again, just how I see it unfolding.

With Vancouver, I am nowhere near as hopeful.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top