Barb at greaterfool.ca 18 Feb 2011 4:02am and 4:10am- “Today in Vancouver, the radio station “News 1130″ had a doozer of a headline. Bob Rennie is selling a bunch of the Olympic condos at 30% less that original asking. Should the people who paid full price be able to sue?!!! Are you kidding me??? 60% of responders said no. That leaves 40% of people who think that people that were crazy enough to pay ridiculous prices for a little space in Vancouver should be compensated for their stupidity and greed. So, if they happened to have made a ton of money on the investment they could keep it, but losing isn’t allowed???!!!”
“I just looked up the radio announcement [and poll] from news 1130. It was 34% who thought the people who bought the Olympic condos prior to the 30% discount should be able to sue!!! What are they thinking??”
Thank you, Barb; we share your exasperation regarding this issue. 34% of the responders (at the point of posting this) are of the opinion that “people who paid a premium for a condo in the former Olympic Village have grounds to sue”. Methodological issues aside (the actual number could be considerably more, or less), this is amazing, eh? It’s an example of a ‘moral hazard’ mind-set: the tendency to take on inappropriate risk with the expectation of being protected from any future negative free-market forces. This phenomenon will not only manifest at the Olympic Village, it’ll be broad when price drops start in earnest across all properties. We’ll have cries for bail-outs from RE owners. The politics of all that will probably get gruesome, particularly since the politicians, and their families, and their supporters, and the RE industry shoring up their communities’ economies, are all up to the eye-balls in leveraged RE.