Vancouver Real Estate 'Bubble' at 30-year Peak

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by nds88

Its the Crabs In A Bucket mentality that has been growing in Western society the last several years. The Bernie Sanders types, which is a rapidly growing base, have this hatred towards the rich and their solution is not to work on bettering themselves, but tearing down those more financially successful.....and taxing themselves to death too.

Perhaps they've come to the realization that the entire system is rigged. The American Dream is dead, at least in the US.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Perhaps they've come to the realization that the entire system is rigged. The American Dream is dead, at least in the US.

Its all good though. I'm sure one of the billionaires running will fix it. The people most in touch with reality are usually those with a thousand million dollars and more.

I just like typing out thousand million because it sounds so ridiculous, especially considering that Bloomberg has already blown through 400 million without batting an eye.

No wealth inequality to see here. Brutal that everything has to be so binary.
Can it not just be agreed that we don't need to be punishing success, but at the same time I'm not convinced its entirely necessary for people to be able to hold on tens of billions in wealth.
It would seem apparent to me there is a large grey area to agree on between before we get to 63 billion dollars in net worth.

[misher]

Originally Posted by rofina

Its all good though. I'm sure one of the billionaires running will fix it. The people most in touch with reality are usually those with a thousand million dollars and more.

I just like typing out thousand million because it sounds so ridiculous, especially considering that Bloomberg has already blown through 400 million without batting an eye.

No wealth inequality to see here. Brutal that everything has to be so binary.
Can it not just be agreed that we don't need to be punishing success, but at the same time I'm not convinced its entirely necessary for people to be able to hold on tens of billions in wealth.
It would seem apparent to me there is a large grey area to agree on between before we get to 63 billion dollars in net worth.

What really bugs me is that even though Canada is less inequal than America, we are poorer overall than America with lower median wages. And this is pre-tax so healthcare shouldn't factor in. If anything, one argument is that healthcare should increase median wages as labourers can work more.

So things are basically more affordable and prosperous in America than Canada for the median person and better for the rich person. This hints that the top 50% of Canada (aka those who work) should move to America. Plus things are cheaper and more affordable in America.

Everyone says lowering income inequality leads to a higher median wage. But in Canada it seems like we've just made the rich really poor and the poor slightly poorer. Basically we're punishing the rich and that comes and bites us in the middle class ass.

Carbs in the bucket indeed, the middle class are giving up their own success by punishing the rich. We can all be poor together, that's Canadian equality.

PS: This rental housing motion for C2 is interesting:

https://council.vancouver.ca/2020022.../motionb14.pdf

[Migrant_Coconut]

All this over a 20.5% marginal tax increase? If you're making $250k, that's literally less than five hundred bucks more than last year. Come on.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by misher

So things are basically more affordable and prosperous in America than Canada for the median person and better for the rich person. This hints that the top 50% of Canada (aka those who work) should move to America. Plus things are cheaper and more affordable in America.

You cannot make this conclusion by looking at median wages, because "things being affordable and prosperous" and "median wages" aren't as tightly related as you think, it's missing a whole lot of factors.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

All this over a 20.5% marginal tax increase? If you're making $250k, that's literally less than five hundred bucks more than last year. Come on.

misher has shown time and time again that he doesn't really understand what he's talking about. This is yet another example.

[misher]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

All this over a 20.5% marginal tax increase? If you're making $250k, that's literally less than five hundred bucks more than last year. Come on.

Weren't we discussing the recent Liberal/NDP real estate taxes?

Originally Posted by CanSpice

You cannot make this conclusion by looking at median wages, because "things being affordable and prosperous" and "median wages" aren't as tightly related as you think, it's missing a whole lot of factors.

True. But given that we have much more land and resources per a person you'd assume we'd be doing better than the Americans. Especially since some of the biggest arguments for socialism over there are that if we treat the poor/middle class better by taxing the rich they will make more. They aren't.

Come on even you guys got to admit that the wages here are shockingly low, especially in comparison to America's. I feel like we're comparing Poland to Germany here.

[nds88]

Originally Posted by rofina

Its all good though. I'm sure one of the billionaires running will fix it. The people most in touch with reality are usually those with a thousand million dollars and more.

I just like typing out thousand million because it sounds so ridiculous, especially considering that Bloomberg has already blown through 400 million without batting an eye.

No wealth inequality to see here. Brutal that everything has to be so binary.
Can it not just be agreed that we don't need to be punishing success, but at the same time I'm not convinced its entirely necessary for people to be able to hold on tens of billions in wealth.
It would seem apparent to me there is a large grey area to agree on between before we get to 63 billion dollars in net worth.

I agree with WarrenC12 that the system is rigged in some ways in that the wealthy have certain tax and investment advantages once they are rich. However, we do have equal opportunity to become rich. It's gotten even easier with the internet and record low interest rates. Unless you are a trust fund baby, everyone that got rich from scratch had to pay their dues via risk, capital, time, work, other sacrifices etc. Even titans like Bezos, Gates, Zuckerberg had to pay their dues to get to their spot.

The average person (male/female/gay/straight/dropout/black/white) can easily make it to the 5-10 million dollar net worth without "The Man" preventing them from getting there. This is a very good life that anyone in North America can achieve still.

Once we talk about 63 billion dollars that is different. No one needs 63 billion dollars. Let's use Bloomberg as an example. According to Forbes he owns 88% of Bloomberg LP, a financial information and media behemoth. What he needs is not money, but control to grow and direct his company as he sees fit. If suddenly he were forced a wealth tax (like what some political figures are pitching), he slowly loses control of his company because he's forced to liquidate his shares. I agree that Bloomberg is allowed to keep every share he owns and can pay cap gains tax when he decides to sell, or his estate will pay it on his death. I also agree that no one needs 63 billion dollars. But Bloomberg has the right to own everyone of his shares, and use it to control his company, for as long as he sees fit.

63 billion dollars is just a by product of him growing and directing his company via his control. Likewise with Walmart, Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook, Google. The Bezos and Zuckerbergs need the voting power to stay in control. These are all arguably very important companies. The market has decided that its better to have certain companies/industries become giant Goliaths and forcing something like a wealth tax or other tax to prevent individuals from getting unnecessarily wealthy would result in not having companies like Apple, Google, Walmart etc.

How this links back to Vancouver real estate is a Bernie-esque group of voters demanding the real estate prices go down and we tax the rich. The Government put in a plethora of taxes and legislation and we saw prices of Condos down 15%-20% by Summer 2019. None of my friends or family that are whiners and big talkers about waiting for the correction to get in, actually got in (the stats in general showed the number of sales were down during this time, so all the whiners that had a chance to get in "cheap", didn't even take action).

They had all this time to save up, look at places, make offers on a huge supply of stale listings. Not one bullet fired by any of the whiners I know. Now prices in Condos are nearing all-time highs. What a bunch of chumps. What did they expect? Prices could have gone down 50% and they would not have pulled the trigger. Its an entitled mindset more people have shifted to today than 1-2 decades ago.

[misher]

Originally Posted by nds88

I agree with WarrenC12 that the system is rigged in some ways in that the wealthy have certain tax and investment advantages once they are rich. However, we do have equal opportunity to become rich. It's gotten even easier with the internet and record low interest rates. Unless you are a trust fund baby, everyone that got rich from scratch had to pay their dues via risk, capital, time, work, other sacrifices etc. Even titans like Bezos, Gates, Zuckerberg had to pay their dues to get to their spot.

The average person (male/female/gay/straight/dropout/black/white) can easily make it to the 5-10 million dollar net worth without "The Man" preventing them from getting there. This is a very good life that anyone in North America can achieve still.

Once we talk about 63 billion dollars that is different. No one needs 63 billion dollars. Let's use Bloomberg as an example. According to Forbes he owns 88% of Bloomberg LP, a financial information and media behemoth. What he needs is not money, but control to grow and direct his company as he sees fit. If suddenly he were forced a wealth tax (like what some political figures are pitching), he slowly loses control of his company because he's forced to liquidate his shares. I agree that Bloomberg is allowed to keep every share he owns and can pay cap gains tax when he decides to sell, or his estate will pay it on his death. I also agree that no one needs 63 billion dollars. But Bloomberg has the right to own everyone of his shares, and use it to control his company, for as long as he sees fit.

63 billion dollars is just a by product of him growing and directing his company via his control. Likewise with Walmart, Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook, Google. The Bezos and Zuckerbergs need the voting power to stay in control. These are all arguably very important companies. The market has decided that its better to have certain companies/industries become giant Goliaths and forcing something like a wealth tax or other tax to prevent individuals from getting unnecessarily wealthy would result in not having companies like Apple, Google, Walmart etc.

How this links back to Vancouver real estate is a Bernie-esque group of voters demanding the real estate prices go down and we tax the rich. The Government put in a plethora of taxes and legislation and we saw prices of Condos down 15%-20% by Summer 2019. None of my friends or family that are whiners and big talkers about waiting for the correction to get in, actually got in (the stats in general showed the number of sales were down during this time, so all the whiners that had a chance to get in "cheap", didn't even take action).

They had all this time to save up, look at places, make offers on a huge supply of stale listings. Not one bullet fired by any of the whiners I know. Now prices in Condos are nearing all-time highs. What a bunch of chumps. What did they expect? Prices could have gone down 50% and they would not have pulled the trigger. Its an entitled mindset more people have shifted to today than 1-2 decades ago.

I agree with everything you said. I will point out that some Canadian provinces have wealth taxes or probate fees, wealth does not last and eventually the kids or grandkids will be poor if they are not competent and live a life of luxury. When we're talking about the rich living on our backs, we're talking about a "tiny" minority of people and chasing these people is a lot of trouble while leading to little actual benefit when you divide it over our entire population. Arguments for higher taxation often use tax evasion as an example, but punishing those who properly pay taxes is not the answer to tracking down those who avoid taxes. I started my own small company (or it just grew into that) with one partner midway through university and was making $500-1k a day but I was working 14 hour days and I gave it up because I couldn't handle the stress. I tried finding employees to split my work with and it was impossible, all my friends/acquaintances could do the work and complained about always being broke but all they would do is say no its too stressful or promise to do it then I had to chase them because they never did. My partner continued it and she has her own condo and a porsche in her early 20's. Anyone intelligent and hardworking in our society can be rich. Thats the Canadian/American dream. Lets not blame others for our lack of success.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by misher

True. But given that we have much more land and resources per a person you'd assume we'd be doing better than the Americans. Especially since some of the biggest arguments for socialism over there are that if we treat the poor/middle class better by taxing the rich they will make more. They aren't.

Come on even you guys got to admit that the wages here are shockingly low, especially in comparison to America's. I feel like we're comparing Poland to Germany here.

Land and its resources require a certain amount of population to properly utilize it. We do not have that population. The States do.

WRT wages, we can reduce the gender/immigrant wage gap, upskill the workforce (mostly blue collars in a disappearing manufacturing sector), increase the amount of co-ops and apprenticeships for recent grads (who can't get hired due to lack of experience and end up in gig jobs), and either invest in technology/new equipment or create incentives for others to do so. All of this would seem to fall under "socialism."

[misher]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Land and its resources require a certain amount of population to properly utilize it. We do not have that population. The States do.

WRT wages, we can reduce the gender/immigrant wage gap, upskill the workforce (mostly blue collars in a disappearing manufacturing sector), increase the amount of co-ops and apprenticeships for recent grads (who can't get hired due to lack of experience and end up in gig jobs), and either invest in technology/new equipment or create incentives for others to do so. All of this would seem to fall under "socialism."

Have never been against limited socialism (am pro capitalism but I understand that there needs to be a balance). But we seem to have more socialism than America yet its not working. Investment in equipment/capital in Canada has been getting lower for years.

Also I think we have the population to properly exploit our land and resources. Doubling our population isn't going to increase wages. Canada's population is 1/4th America's WW2 population and half Nazi Germany's, that should be good enough to make an impact and reach our full potential per a person. Each additional person may benefit the nation but we should have already passed our maximum marginal gain per additional person.

In the end you say reduce the gap, but in the end it feels like our efforts to reduce the gap are based around taking from the top rather than pushing up the bottom.

[nds88]

Originally Posted by misher

I agree with everything you said. I will point out that some Canadian provinces have wealth taxes or probate fees, wealth does not last and eventually the kids or grandkids will be poor if they are not competent and live a life of luxury. When we're talking about the rich living on our backs, we're talking about a "tiny" minority of people and chasing these people is a lot of trouble while leading to little actual benefit when you divide it over our entire population. Arguments for higher taxation often use tax evasion as an example, but punishing those who properly pay taxes is not the answer to tracking down those who avoid taxes.

What Province has a wealth tax and how/what does it tax?

I don't think the rich really live on our backs. They leverage the system at massive scale. Someone like Bloomberg probably hires American, pays good wages and creates product/services the market actually values. Apple (or others that manufacture offshore) doesn't really live on North American backs, but they totally exploit cheap labour in foreign countries. Perhaps Companies like McDonald's that primarily rely on minimum wage could be argued as somewhat exploitive, but they play within the rules.

A friend of mine used to live in Russia. He told me the Government lowered taxes and suddenly their tax revenues increased. The rich that were sheltering their money overseas brought it back to Russia since it was more beneficial to pay a lower rate rather than paying none and potentially getting caught. I don't know if Canada has a comparable problem. However, I do know that incentivizing people can be done with a carrot or stick. Although Canada likes to tout being friendly, we sure like using the stick in our regulations/taxation instead of the carrot.

[misher]

Originally Posted by nds88

What Province has a wealth tax and how/what does it tax?

I don't think the rich really live on our backs. They leverage the system at massive scale. Someone like Bloomberg probably hires American, pays good wages and creates product/services the market actually values. Apple (or others that manufacture offshore) doesn't really live on North American backs, but they totally exploit cheap labour in foreign countries. Perhaps Companies like McDonald's that primarily rely on minimum wage could be argued as somewhat exploitive, but they play within the rules.

A friend of mine used to live in Russia. He told me the Government lowered taxes and suddenly their tax revenues increased. The rich that were sheltering their money overseas brought it back to Russia since it was more beneficial to pay a lower rate rather than paying none and potentially getting caught. I don't know if Canada has a comparable problem. However, I do know that incentivizing people can be done with a carrot or stick. Although Canada likes to tout being friendly, we sure like using the stick in our regulations/taxation instead of the carrot.

Russia moved to a 12% flat tax rate and along with other economic factors saw huge tax revenue increases. Before a lot of people hid their income. Britain recently lowered it’s top rate from 50 to 45 with only minimal deceases in revenue.

And yes I don’t know if Canadians know how to do things without the stick anymore.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by misher

Russia moved to a 12% flat tax rate and along with other economic factors saw huge tax revenue increases. Before a lot of people hid their income. Britain recently lowered it’s top rate from 50 to 45 with only minimal deceases in revenue.

And yes I don’t know if Canadians know how to do things without the stick anymore.

Is this a joke? Russia?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by misher

Have never been against limited socialism (am pro capitalism but I understand that there needs to be a balance). But we seem to have more socialism than America yet its not working. Investment in equipment/capital in Canada has been getting lower for years.

Also I think we have the population to properly exploit our land and resources. Doubling our population isn't going to increase wages. Canada's population is 1/4th America's WW2 population and half Nazi Germany's, that should be good enough to make an impact and reach our full potential per a person. Each additional person may benefit the nation but we should have already passed our maximum marginal gain per additional person.

In the end you say reduce the gap, but in the end it feels like our efforts to reduce the gap are based around taking from the top rather than pushing up the bottom.

Going to need a source (NOT the Fraser Institute) for that one. The Accelerated Investment Incentive has been active since 2018, among others.

Not sure why we're comparing ourselves to WW2 countries - or why half or a quarter of the population should equal all of the growth. We've got the population of Fascist Italy and the density of Soviet Russia under this analogy.

What would you do to push from the bottom that we're not doing or discussing already? Flat taxes and marginal tax cuts in Canada won't help anybody except the yacht sector.

Originally Posted by misher

Russia moved to a 12% flat tax rate and along with other economic factors saw huge tax revenue increases. Before a lot of people hid their income. Britain recently lowered it’s top rate from 50 to 45 with only minimal deceases in revenue.

Russia's the 42nd most corrupt nation on Earth; the 13% flat tax is a "factory reset" to handle the post-Soviet shadow economy. Even then, they've got a VAT of 20% (compare to 6-13% in Canada) and are thinking about a new progressive tax.

... I wouldn't look at the UK as a role model either, given the current situation.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by nds88

I agree with WarrenC12 that the system is rigged in some ways in that the wealthy have certain tax and investment advantages once they are rich. However, we do have equal opportunity to become rich. It's gotten even easier with the internet and record low interest rates. Unless you are a trust fund baby, everyone that got rich from scratch had to pay their dues via risk, capital, time, work, other sacrifices etc. Even titans like Bezos, Gates, Zuckerberg had to pay their dues to get to their spot.

The average person (male/female/gay/straight/dropout/black/white) can easily make it to the 5-10 million dollar net worth without "The Man" preventing them from getting there. This is a very good life that anyone in North America can achieve still.

Once we talk about 63 billion dollars that is different. No one needs 63 billion dollars. Let's use Bloomberg as an example. According to Forbes he owns 88% of Bloomberg LP, a financial information and media behemoth. What he needs is not money, but control to grow and direct his company as he sees fit. If suddenly he were forced a wealth tax (like what some political figures are pitching), he slowly loses control of his company because he's forced to liquidate his shares. I agree that Bloomberg is allowed to keep every share he owns and can pay cap gains tax when he decides to sell, or his estate will pay it on his death. I also agree that no one needs 63 billion dollars. But Bloomberg has the right to own everyone of his shares, and use it to control his company, for as long as he sees fit.

63 billion dollars is just a by product of him growing and directing his company via his control. Likewise with Walmart, Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook, Google. The Bezos and Zuckerbergs need the voting power to stay in control. These are all arguably very important companies. The market has decided that its better to have certain companies/industries become giant Goliaths and forcing something like a wealth tax or other tax to prevent individuals from getting unnecessarily wealthy would result in not having companies like Apple, Google, Walmart etc.

How this links back to Vancouver real estate is a Bernie-esque group of voters demanding the real estate prices go down and we tax the rich. The Government put in a plethora of taxes and legislation and we saw prices of Condos down 15%-20% by Summer 2019. None of my friends or family that are whiners and big talkers about waiting for the correction to get in, actually got in (the stats in general showed the number of sales were down during this time, so all the whiners that had a chance to get in "cheap", didn't even take action).

They had all this time to save up, look at places, make offers on a huge supply of stale listings. Not one bullet fired by any of the whiners I know. Now prices in Condos are nearing all-time highs. What a bunch of chumps. What did they expect? Prices could have gone down 50% and they would not have pulled the trigger. Its an entitled mindset more people have shifted to today than 1-2 decades ago.

I'm on board, I understand that these people don't generally have billions in bank accounts, its equity and ownership.

That all being said, there ought to be a way where someone can retain control while not accumulating 100 billion in personal net worth.

I can't say I have personally met a billionaire, but I have met people with 100 million+ net worth. They're not somehow more prescient or intelligent than the average cat, not in a way that I would say gives them ability to make decisions or govern in an above average capacity. Im thinking of 2 individuals in particular, one made money on real estate and development and one made money in bio-tech. Both excellent businessmen that persevered and had intimate knowledge of their business. I would liken the concept to Micheal Jordan playing baseball. Hes a GOAT in NBA, no one doubts that. That doesn't automatically mean its a given that he was going to be home run kind of MLB. I think the same can be said for successful business men, it doesn't automatically mean they have some innate ability to govern an entire region/country because they succeeded building one business. And the inverse is true - that does NOT take away from their business success.

Lastly, I wholeheartedly agree about the locals and the market. Not one vocal market bearish friend that I have has purchased over the last year. They didn't want to buy in the run up because "who buys when prices are up 15% YoY, its obviously going to drop." Then prices go down for 2 years and the tune changes to " who buys and catches a falling knife? prices are obviously going to drop more." They will continue to sit on the sidelines and wait for 2010 prices. And the worse is, I literally know people that thought 2010 was going to drop back to 2002, "before the bubble took off."

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by rofina

No wealth inequality to see here. Brutal that everything has to be so binary.
Can it not just be agreed that we don't need to be punishing success, but at the same time I'm not convinced its entirely necessary for people to be able to hold on tens of billions in wealth.
It would seem apparent to me there is a large grey area to agree on between before we get to 63 billion dollars in net worth.

I agree that we shouldn't punish success, and inequality is reaching historic levels. And we're talking about a history that includes "god emperors" and masses of slaves.

My comment was in response to your post saying Bernie supporters want to tear down the rich. I don't think they do, but it must be very frustrating to toil for minimum wage at 40-60 hours a week to put food on the table, and you're one medical emergency away from total bankruptcy, or worse (dead because you can't afford the medical care).

Now imagine that job is working in an amazon warehouse, while Bezos is running around paying nickels in taxes.

Hell ya i'm supporting Bernie with a medicare-for-all plan paid for by the ultra-rich via some kind of wealth tax and/or new income tax brackets.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I agree that we shouldn't punish success, and inequality is reaching historic levels. And we're talking about a history that includes "god emperors" and masses of slaves.

My comment was in response to your post saying Bernie supporters want to tear down the rich. I don't think they do, but it must be very frustrating to toil for minimum wage at 40-60 hours a week to put food on the table, and you're one medical emergency away from total bankruptcy, or worse (dead because you can't afford the medical care).

Now imagine that job is working in an amazon warehouse, while Bezos is running around paying nickels in taxes.

Hell ya i'm supporting Bernie with a medicare-for-all plan paid for by the ultra-rich via some kind of wealth tax and/or new income tax brackets.

I totally get it.

Probably a controversial opinion, but Bloombers campaign is more shameful than Trumps. Its the most insidious thing in American politics to date.

He literally joined the race to derail Bernie, and plans to do anything possible to buy the election. That's not an exaggeration.

I was listing Andrew Yang on CNN talk about how Bloomberg is paying 100-150% market rate for staffers and media buys just to drive rates up so the other campaigns cannot afford media or staff.

Even typing it out now, I cant wrap my mind around it. Its not that his ideas are better, or he has more followers, or any metric that you might consider, its simply literally buying the election by overspending to a capacity that sure to bankrupt other campaigns. Hillary Clinton spent 600 million on her entire election campaign in 2016. That's preposterous enough. Bloomberg has spent 450 million so far on the first set of primaries.

The fact this isn't front page news in big bold letters is alarming. But also telling of the state of things.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by rofina

I totally get it.

Probably a controversial opinion, but Bloombers campaign is more shameful than Trumps. Its the most insidious thing in American politics to date.

He literally joined the race to derail Bernie, and plans to do anything possible to buy the election. That's not an exaggeration.

I was listing Andrew Yang on CNN talk about how Bloomberg is paying 100-150% market rate for staffers and media buys just to drive rates up so the other campaigns cannot afford media or staff.

Even typing it out now, I cant wrap my mind around it. Its not that his ideas are better, or he has more followers, or any metric that you might consider, its simply literally buying the election by overspending to a capacity that sure to bankrupt other campaigns. Hillary Clinton spent 600 million on her entire election campaign in 2016. That's preposterous enough. Bloomberg has spent 450 million so far on the first set of primaries.

The fact this isn't front page news in big bold letters is alarming. But also telling of the state of things.

I think Bloomberg is doing what Trump did, only more openly. The Republicans this time around are employing god only know what kind of dirty tricks.

The fact that dark money can flow into "democratic" elections in a country as powerful as the United States is mind boggling. Best not to think about it if you want to retain your sanity.

Bloomberg is flopping badly on TV though, he doesn't have nearly the personality (or whatever you'd call it) that Trump has.

[misher]

Originally Posted by rofina

I'm on board, I understand that these people don't generally have billions in bank accounts, its equity and ownership.

That all being said, there ought to be a way where someone can retain control while not accumulating 100 billion in personal net worth.

I can't say I have personally met a billionaire, but I have met people with 100 million+ net worth. They're not somehow more prescient or intelligent than the average cat, not in a way that I would say gives them ability to make decisions or govern in an above average capacity. Im thinking of 2 individuals in particular, one made money on real estate and development and one made money in bio-tech. Both excellent businessmen that persevered and had intimate knowledge of their business. I would liken the concept to Micheal Jordan playing baseball. Hes a GOAT in NBA, no one doubts that. That doesn't automatically mean its a given that he was going to be home run kind of MLB. I think the same can be said for successful business men, it doesn't automatically mean they have some innate ability to govern an entire region/country because they succeeded building one business. And the inverse is true - that does NOT take away from their business success.

Lastly, I wholeheartedly agree about the locals and the market. Not one vocal market bearish friend that I have has purchased over the last year. They didn't want to buy in the run up because "who buys when prices are up 15% YoY, its obviously going to drop." Then prices go down for 2 years and the tune changes to " who buys and catches a falling knife? prices are obviously going to drop more." They will continue to sit on the sidelines and wait for 2010 prices. And the worse is, I literally know people that thought 2010 was going to drop back to 2002, "before the bubble took off."

The problem is when ownership/control has value.

Also if Bill Gates or Musk sold a good chunk of their stock and donated it to charity, the value of their company stock would drop like a rock. Microsoft and Tesla's stocks are both valued higher because their founders own it.

Your accusing the super rich of being too rich when a large aspect of their wealth is because people trust them.

Steve Jobs is a good example of this, his illness and death weighed on Apple stock even though they did everything possible to reassure investors:

Apple's Stock Dips After Death of Steve Jobs

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/apples-...of-steve-jobs/

Are we really going to tax consumer trust?


On to the housing market, likely things are going to get less affordable as immigration pumps up but development hits the brakes.

Predicted drop in B.C. housing starts not due to demand: CMHC
Province expects a precipitous drop in housing starts this year and another slip in 2021, but housing experts warn that is no indication demand for housing has dropped off

The executive director of the Victoria Residential Builders’ Association said the province and municipal governments have to shoulder some of the blame.

“We are seeing a decline in housing starts despite the fact we have very strong population growth,” he said. “We need to accommodate this with new housing not less housing.”

Edge said the province promised in 2017 it would improve the supply of housing and work on streamlining the approval processes at the municipal level.

“That hasn’t been done,” he said. “[The budget] predicts a 24 per cent decline in housing starts over two years, yet they are also predicting population growth. The demand for market housing is there, but they appear to be doing nothing about improving supply for that growing market demand.”

B.C.’s population is expected to grow by between 57,000 and 60,000 people each of the next four years, while Victoria’s population grows by about 5,000 people per year.

Edge concedes the province has worked to provide new non-market housing — the province claims it has just over 23,000 new units in progress or complete around the province — but he said it hasn’t dealt with the main supply issue.

“This is not a demand problem, this is a supply problem,” he said. “When you build market housing people leave their existing homes for new homes, or they buy up in the market. That leaves housing available.”

He said nothing has been done about streamlining approval and permitting processes for housing at the municipal level.

“And that’s because the B.C. government has no authority over municipalities,” he said.

“Three levels of government treat housing as a cash machine [GST, property transfer tax, development cost charges, fees and required amenities],” Edge said, noting because they can’t influence the processes of municipalities the “promises by the provincial and federal governments to increase supply and permit approvals are just a lot of hot air.”

https://www.westerninvestor.com/news...mhc-1.24081524