“There are many young people in Van who have saved up large sums of cash for down payments [for properties] they still have yet to afford. When properly values drop to a certain value, they will fill the void. I’m not saying that we will be able to buy a $600K house (I can’t), but most of us now are beginning to seriously look into starter homes (1 bedroom/den condos). I spent $400K on a 1 bed/den (I’m in my 20′s still), but as soon as prices dip, I will upgrade immediately. And almost all my peers have the same plan.”
- Vinny17, Globe & Mail, 3 Aug 2011, 3:12pm
Doesn’t add up.
Can’t afford a 600K home; buys a $400K 1bed/den. Then, when prices drop, expects to be in a position to “upgrade immediately”?
Surely, with price drop, all equity in $400K property will disappear (if not, why can’t he afford a 600K home now?).
In a crash, almost all move-up-wannabes are frozen in their current properties, with substantially reduced equity in those properties.
Many believe that prices can’t drop substantially because pent-up demand will step in at small pullbacks, such as 10%-off.
We disagree, we believe that demand will drop with falling prices.
- vreaa
If you don’t know who the sucker is, it’s you. (And almost all your peers.)
you and an army of upgraders will be doing same. This will be repeat of 2008/09 and the market will come back quickly and increase sharply. Don’t get sucked into believing you’ll ever see anything past a 20% drop.
Rusty you still have not answered my question “what is your prediction on what kind of City Vancouver will be if real estate keeps going up”.
In your last response you said you don’t make predictions about the future but you are now making a prediction so please tell us what you see for city if real estate keeps rising.
this is the people’s liberation army, right?
I was just having a similar debate with one of the smartest people I know. She lives in house in North Burnaby that she bought for $300 like 25 years ago. She was talking about a new neighbour that paid $950k recently and set about renovating. I suggested that house could be worth half that in 5-10 years. She agreed that it might drop as low as $700k but definitely no lower than that. Doesn’t add up to me. At $700k it still costs 50% more to carry than you could rent it out for. Who is going to look at a property that just lost 25% of it’s value, and be willing to pay a premium over renting it? The psychology that has people buying places they could rent for half the price requires them to be absolutely 100% convinced that their equity will grow. At best a person looking at the $700k home would be able to convince himself that it MIGHT be at the bottom and about to turn back around. That will be a far cry from the absolute certainty that will be required to get him to put his signature on a $500k+ mortgage. Suddenly, when facing the very real possibility of losing significant equity, arguments about needing roots for your kids, a yard for your dog or the prestige of a title will seem somewhat hollow.
If something is priced near fundamental value, dropping its price usually results in increased demand. A 20%-off sale in iPads or tomatoes or beer or vinyl siding may well bring in buyers who would never usually buy those products, or cause regular users to buy more/stock up.
Not so with a product where there has been a speculative mania, where prices are well above anything supportable by fundamental value (price:rent most obvious), and where most buying that has been going on has been greatly influenced by the idea/hope/belief that prices will remain strong.
In this case, when prices drop, the major premise for buying (and in some cases, holding) disappears, and demand drops. This is counter-intuitive in that one would expect buyers to welcome price drops, but the reverse is the case.
As MBA implies above, somebody who stretches to buy a 950K property (because they believe it’ll soon be a 1M property, and in time a 1.5M property) will almost definitely sit on their hands when that same property drops to 700K.
Anyway, rusty has made his position clear, and we’ll probably get a chance to see who is right in this regard fairly soon; perhaps within the next 12-24 months.
This is the classic bear trap. Prices fall by 15-20% and a bunch of people rush in thinking they are getting a bargain. Prices appear to stabilize and then there is another leg down. Usually happens more than once on the way down.
happened to me wednesday, bought Yellow Pages stock at $1.88, thinking I was so clever. At least im only out an hundred bucks to learn that lesson
“…as soon as prices dip, I will upgrade immediately…”
The stupid, it burns!
http://www.plognark.com/Art/Sketches/Blogsketches/2008/thestupiditburns.jpg
The old wooden coaster at the PNE has a half second hang time from the moment that the chain drive hands off to gravity at the very apex. There is no turning back now, you can see the hill in front of the carts and then you grab your breath on the other side… Go ahead and buy in the dip, while not looking at the track ahead … LOL
y’know that would be a fantastic spot for some condo towers without 4th, 14th, 24th, 34th or 40-49th floors
ams,
the future of Vancouver will look about the same as it has for the past 20 years. You’ll pay a premium for detached homes, the necessity of buying young and using your equity to move along the property ladder, a transient population of young people, a swapping of lower income out of the city and higher coming in, etc. Young people will complain about the high housing costs in the future just as they have for the past two decades. This has been happening for two decades now ams, where have you been?
Thanks for answering my question Rusty. So if I hear you correctly you believe that we will have more of the same with low income and your people forced to move out of city.
I moved to Vancouver temporarily in 2006 and became permanent here in 2008, so I have not been here for the past 20 years.
I do have a story for you from a book called the “Black Swan”.
It goes something like this:
“The turkey is born, and meets the farmer. On the first day, the seemingly friendly farmer brings the turkey food and water and cleans his coop. Second day same thing, third day same thing. By the 500th day the turkey is convinced the farmer is his servant: all that the farmer does is take care of the turkey, bring him food, water and clean the place in which he lives. Heck, by the 1000th day the turkey has plenty of evidence that the farmer is his very best friend.
What the turkey does not know is that tomorrow is Thanksgiving….”
Past gains are not a guarantee of future results!
True that. Winter is coming.
ahh sorry folks about all the typos only got 2.5 hours of sleep yesterday
[Sorted. - typo pixies.]
vreaa,
you’re making some broad sweeping assumptions here
1) that fundamentals are not at work with home purchases – in fact, each buyer has qualified using their income and wealth, which is their own individual fundamental. Prices may not fit yours – too bad for you I guess.
2) that homes are being purchases speculatively. In fact, homes are being purchased with no plans to sell in the near future – and most are being bought for the purpose of providing for family stability
3) that you can apply your premise for buying to an entire market. People buy homes for reasons that you may not understand or agree with. This ego-centric application of you ethos to an entire population is what is making your angry and frustrated.
If you want to blame anyone for your impotence blame the federal government immigration policy. Without aggressive immigration we’d still stuck at 25Million citizens with detached home prices back to 1985 levels.
“The old wooden coaster at the PNE has a half second hang time from the “moment that the chain drive hands off to gravity at the very apex. There is no turning back now, you can see the hill in front of the carts and then you grab your breath on the other side… Go ahead and buy in the dip, while not looking at the track ahead … LOL”
kc,
Same roller coaster ride as 2 and 3 years ago. The riders saw the track ahead and were rewarded for their foresight. Why should riders think any differently this time?
i’m convinced that you are not a troll
and that in real life you are as equally idiotic.
2.9 interest rates are insanely low.
I know these rates may seem normal after several years of this sort of nonsense, but 2.9 is crazypants and cannot be sustained.
God help overleveraged Vancouver homeowners when interest rates go up.
Rates below 2.9% can be sustained. Japan is around 0% and has been so for twenty years. Their real estate has been losing value for 20 years too.
We don’t need rates to rise for prices to crash.
True, but Canada isn’t Japan. If Canada’s economy becomes similar to Japan — then I agree rates can and will remain low for years.
Perhaps I should be more specific: these very low interest rates cannot be sustained for purely political reasons (ie- keeping a Tory majority.) Right now they don’t have to be raised, but I expect there will be significant pressure within the next two two three years to raise rates. Could happen sooner with a Eurozone freak out.
Flaherty must have one of the most stressful jobs in Canada.
Macroecon isn’t my forte. Why are prolonged 0% interest rates palatable in Japan but not in Canada?
“Macroecon isn’t my forte. Why are prolonged 0% interest rates palatable in Japan but not in Canada?”
I’m not an expert either — maxed out at intro macro. I’d welcome comments from somebody who has a good grasp on macro.
My admittedly uneducated sense of it is that Japan could keep interest low because their economy is in a slump “lost decade” style. Canada, with her abundance of natural resources, will most likely not stall out.
If the economy heats up, or if interest rates go up in other countries, my sense is that the government will get pressure to raise rates or risk losing investment dollars in the CAD. Likewise, in terms of the political economy, I would expect the bond “vigilantes” to put pressure on the government to raise rates.
Rusty ->
1) Remember that, when we consider historical price:rent or price:income fundamentals, the same ‘individual fundamentals’ that you are caring to focus on were at work in those past markets, too. Your claims are obliquely reminiscent of the recent “Vancouver is affordable if you only consider parts of Vancouver” argument that we have seen in the MSM.
Fundamentals as applied to the group, and as compared to historic norms, remain valid. By these standards Vancouver is woefully overvalued. Attempts at massaging definitions of fundamentals are another way of claiming “It’s different this time”, and we know where that leads.
2) You argue that buying is not speculative because: “homes are being purchased with no plans to sell in the near future”. That has never been our thesis; we have never suggested that all buyers are ‘flippers’. We are of the position that there is a speculative component to almost all purchases because, were it not for the belief that prices will continue to rise, many would not be buying.
They may be buying a personal residence; it may seem that they are simply buying for their own use; but that doesn’t negate the fact that they are speculating on ongoing price increases/strength. This is the speculative component that impresses us most in the current market.
3) Regarding “People buy homes for reasons that you may not understand or agree with” – true, but isn’t that always true, of all markets?
You are attempting to personalize the discussion rather than focus on the market itself. Similar issue with the ad hominen stuff with which you insist on peppering your posts: “ego-centric”, “angry and frustrated”; your guesses about my ‘price fit’, etc, etc. We could enter into debate about each of these (because, by and large, you are most often wrong in your personal assumptions), but let’s rather spend our time considering the market itself.
for the purpose of closing this discussion find me high priced location in the world where your fundamentals fit i.e. price/income, price/rent
Okay, fair question:
Seattle
SFH:Median household income ratio, ave. 1990-2001: 4.07
Ratio at top of their bubble (2007): 6.66
Recent level (Jan 2011): 4.90 (and still falling)
chart
Eyes/Rusty/L8erdude is not engaging in good faith. He does not wish to debate, only to provoke your response and to project his misgivings about himself on to others. Don’t dance for the troll’s pleasure.
Housing is more sane in WA DC then Vancouver.
Chicago, Seattle, San Fran, LA, Denver, Boston, Connecticut, etc.
They are all better on fundamentals then Vancouver.
Alternatively, if the past 30 years is a reflection of the next 30 years how about Vancouver in 81 and Vancouver in 95 as indicative of the future – two of the most significant residential real estate price corrections in world history. Sure Vancouver is the most expensive market in the world – it’s also one of the most volatile real estate market in the word because it doesn’t trade on the basis of local fundamentals. Value is based on the whims of Asian direct investment which is subject to culture-specific manic and fad psychology. When the Chinese figure out that real estate in Newport Beach, California is a fraction of the price of Vancouver, then it’s all over until the next foreign invasion of hot money. Unfortunately when prices correct, high ratio mortgage locals will not just get stinged this time around, they will be obliterated. How many locals will survive a loss of $300,000?
Fundamentally correct, Airedales… as orders of probability/stochastics go. But, of course, that’s just an opinion. And opinions are like anal sphincters… everbody’s got one.
On the famous ‘other hand’, we may well have more serious things to worry about.
But we’ll see.
F Rusty
look it up for yourself [edit -ed.], you got time
Don’t underestimate the psychological impact of a price contraction. The last 3 years provide many examples of high magnitude contractions in multiple different asset classes. This makes it pretty difficult/foolish to discount the freak out factor that has become the new norm. Selling begets selling…reference any major market index from the last week if a reminder is necessary. Actions speak louder than words, and my bet would be that comments like this, while they sound good in theory, won’t have any follow through when s%^t hits the fan.
ams,
There are affordable homes for young people in Vancouver. I can only guess that a either; a condo/attached is not your slice of pie or you’re not young. Young people will continue to make choices to stay or leave. We’ve had a transient population of young folk for the better part of 25 years now – I expect the same going forward.
vreaa,
re: Seattle. The reason for the decline is not the fundamentals. Besides, Seattle is hardly an internationally desired destination like Vancouver.
Tell me if your calculations work for Sydney, Singapore, Rome, Hong Kong, Beijing, Tokyo, Paris, Moscow, NY, London. Do you think the annual household incomes to support a SFH is 3-4 in these locations? Or do you think every location in the world should follow these formulas?
Trust me fella, you need to use a less simplistic approach. There is more to home prices than you can wave a “fundamentals” wand at.
Hong Kong: $320B, Per capita $44.0k
London: $565B, Per capita $65.8k
Moscow: $321B, Per capita $30.7k
New York: $1406B, Per capita $73.3k
Paris: $564B, Per capita $56.9k
Rome: $144B, Per capita ~$53k
Shanghai: $233B, Per capita $15.3k
Singapore: $215B, Per capita $47.9k
Seattle: $235B, Per capita $75.5k
Tokyo: $1479B, Per capita $41.3
Vancouver: $95B, Per capita ~$45k
https://www.ukmediacentre.pwc.com/imagelibrary/downloadMedia.ashx?MediaDetailsID=1562
Global city ranking:
Hong Kong: Alpha+
London: Alpha++
Moscow: Alpha
New York: Alpha++
Paris: Alpha+
Rome: Alpha-
Shanghai: Alpha+
Singapore: Alpha+
Seattle: Gamma+
Tokyo: Alpha+
Vancouver: Gamma+
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_city
Rusty may be spewing some crap, but the “Global City” ratings takes the cake. Take a look at the cities in that link and tell me where you would rather live: Warsaw (Alpha-) or Vancouver? Mumbai (Alpha) or Vancouver? Johannesburg (Beta) or Vancouver? Vancouver may not be the greatest city in the world, but what a stupid list. We don’t need obscure city ratings to prove that Vancouver’s real estate values are out of whack.
However, if you want to talk fundamentals – in regards to real estate (not geopolitics or economic supercenters), you need to look at the how “livable” a city is: culture, education, environment, health care, political stability, economic stability, recreation, safety, transportation, etc. This is the reason that Vancouver rated #1 on Mercer Quality of Living Survey and consistently is ranked in the top 10.
The rent/buy ratios are involved, but better suited for Vancouver’s suburbs, as they are the zones that feed into Vancouver’s standards. You cannot isolate any one “fundamental” without the others. Yes, Vancouver will correct, and it is likely that it is at its lulled peak before a drastically softened market. But don’t kid yourselves. Don’t think there will be scooping up of high value properties at dirt cheap prices – and if there is, it won’t be by you and I, it’ll be by the Chinese.
Thank you for your thoughtful remarks. You are right that the “Global City” rankings seem to emphasize economics and geopolitics more than livability. I may not want to live in Mumbai or Johannesburg, but they are respectively the financial centers of India and Sub-Saharan Africa.
From your proposed criteria of “culture, education, environment, health care, political stability, economic stability, recreation, safety, transportation, etc.”, I would rank Vancouver highly for environment and recreation. I have lived in cities with far better culture, education, health care, economies, and transportation.
If there were a fire-sale on SFH in Vancouver that would be nice, but it wouldn’t solve the low salaries, lack of a real industry, high taxes, and mediocre schools with disturbing ESL ratios. Vancouver is pretty and has fun things to do, but its overall value proposition is weak.
“Seattle. The reason for the decline is not the fundamentals. Besides, Seattle is hardly an internationally desired destination like Vancouver.”
Rusty — don’t you understand what happened in the U.S.? Housing exceeded fundamentals. People got in with teaser rates. People were overleveraged when housing climbed to unsustainable prices in relation to income. People couldn’t pay the mortgages and housing fell.
I understand that non-US attention to the housing crisis concentrated on the derivatives & subprime, because THAT mess threatened the world-wide economic situation due to not knowing who held part of “the big sh*t pile.” But this was not WHY housing initially fell big time in the US. The housing prices fell and then triggered the worldwide economic crisis. But they fell because the fundamentals were screwy .
If enough people can’t pay gas or food because the mortgage is too darn high then trouble is a-coming.
Lets put this into terms maybe even Rusty can comprehend and understand….
Rusty – you have 100 pennies a month …. your mortgage is 70 of the pennies. Then you have to pay the Canadian Gov the other 30 pennies, this leaves NO pennies to live on the rest of the month… I hope rusty still has pennies in the bank…. OH wait the bank wanted those pennies too when he bought his over priced house…. However, to Rusty’s crash proof protection program he pulls out a VISA card and lives on borrowed funds…
2 years go by and rusty looks at his negative VISA balance and decides it is time to clear up this mess with 1 of 2 ideas… I – HELOC or 2 – places the home for sale into a falling market… Either of the 2 routes gives Rusty many, many new shiny pennies but still doesn’t solve the problems for more than likely Rusty buys a more expensive house anyway. rinse and repeat. Multiply this by 1000′s of Rusty’s in Vancouver’s bubble.
“Housing exceeded fundamentals”
some housing corrected, other markets did (and are doing) quite well. There are some markets in the US that never took much of a hit…just as I think some markets and market segments will be just fine here. Got yourself a detached home with land in Vancouver proper it’ll be a pretty safe bet
“When the Chinese figure out that real estate in Newport Beach, California is a fraction of the price of Vancouver, then it’s all over until the next foreign invasion of hot money”
They’ve already figured out that health care and education in the US is inadequate. Also impossible to get green card. Sorry to break it to you but Canada is an easy mark. Landed immigrant status, free education, cheap health care, clean air, nearly zero crime rate…should I go on?
You are wrong about US healthcare and education. If you live in nice areas, or can afford private schools, education in the US is much, much better than in Canada. If you have a decent job or piles of cash, then health care in the US is much, much better than in Canada. Anyone who can afford a SFH in Vancouver can also afford to enjoy the great healthcare and schools in the US.
Just ask yourself: where did Danny Williams get his heart surgery? What is the nationality of 80% of Harvard students? Answer: US.
However, you are right that it is difficult to get a Green Card. So the conclusion is: the Chinese who are coming here are the ones who couldn’t get into the US? That could be a new marketing slogan for Canada:
“Canada: We accept the US’s rejects”
you are close… how about “Canada: we accept ALL rejects”
More Chinese live in NYC then then # of people who live in metro Vancouver.
You are wrong about the US vs Canada. I have direct knowledge where Asian investors are bypassing Canada because the US offers much better investment opportunities, lower cost of living, better health care, and better climate. Asain money that domiciled to Vancouver 10 to 20 years ago is steadily moving out to other provinces and the states where positive real returns are possible. I know of a situation where an Asian investor purchased a well-managed golf course for a little more than the cost of Vancouver townhouse.
ah that’s a real investor
what we have are the speculators – aka greater fools
In theory, it is tougher to migrate to the US than Canada.
However, the US immigration policy has more loopholes than swiss cheese – take a gander down to Seattle, check-out the low traffic, mainly Korean-owned grocery stores on the periphery: these are loss-leader grocery stores that a recycled through the community, as it allows the owner operator, or ‘investor’, into the country and a track on for Green card.
There is huge legal immigration in the US, it is less visible due to the larger population, and has less impacte, again due to the larger population.
Rusty -> When you say: “re: Seattle. The reason for the decline is not the fundamentals.” What do you mean?
“Seattle. The reason for the decline is not the fundamentals. Besides, Seattle is hardly an internationally desired destination like Vancouver.”
Maybe there’s a critical misunderstanding here about what caused the initial collapse in housing prices in Seattle (and in the US). Housing in Seattle has continued to drop as a result of unemployment problems which were caused by the housing drop. (see the collapse of Washington Mutual). But the initial drop in prices occured before the collapse of Lehman & before other countries noticed a problem. It was the drop that eventually caused Lehman to go down. But that initial drop was all about fundamentals. People were overleveraged, and used HELOCs to pay monthly expenses. Increasing prices sustained the market. Until one day, between ’07 and ’08, the bubble popped. It took about a year before Lehman collapsed and the world noticed that Houston had a problem.
Seattle’s initial housing drop was all about the fundamentals. Additional drops have been about freaked out buyers and unemployment, caused by the subsequent economic disruption and the lack of faith in housing as an investment. Renting is very popular, now, in the States.
wrong Yank, it’s about confidence. In fact, Seattle was holding up well for quite some time during the US collapse. But buyers are sitting on the sidelines too long and the whole US economy is in the shitter because of it.
vreaa, Seattle’s problem is that it just ain’t the “it” place anymore. If you had to live in the US Seattle would probably be pretty far down your list. Check out Baltimore, Boston, Austin, Dallas, Denver, St Louis, Houston, Indy, etc. See any collapses here? In fact, most smaller midwest cities are unaffected. Seattle used to be hip so folks looked past the rain and lack of sunshine – as soon as it lost it’s luster people started to notice the sun didn’t shine. Fortunately, even with our rain there still isn’t a Canadian city that can touch our climate advantage.
that’s it
my good
you’ve got the macro side all figured out
the us economy is in the shitter because people AREN’T BUYING HOMES
that’s the lynch pin!
BUYING HOMES
goodness, what CAN’T buying a home fix?
i know why the US lost Vietnam
I know why the US lost Iraq
i know why the US lost afghanistan
those dead soldiers just didn’t buy enough homes
it all makes sense now
rusty, i tip my hat to you
Rusty,
Don’t misunderstand me — what happened in the US was specific, and I don’t expect Canada to play out in the same way. And I’m not a psychic – Vancouve may defy market fundamentals. Many people predicted a soft landing for the US housing market — and that was a possibility. A risk of a drop is simply that — a risk, not a certainty. But I do think Vancouver is at a high risk for a catastrophic housing dip.
I think you have underestimated the breadth and depth of the US housing drop. It was not restricted to California, Arizona, and Florida. The loss in GDP in the US due to the housing drop is around 4.5 trillion. I would suggest that you cannot find any city in the US that did not drop. Baltimore, St. Louis, Indianapolis, ect., all dropped. Not only that, people who bought at the height of the bubble experienced devastating losses in equity. Many house owners are still underwater and cannot sell their houses. The loss of house equity is what is holding back the US economy right now because people are still deleveraging their housing losses.
In Seattle, fundamentals caused that first drop. I have multiple friends and family living in and around the city, and I can guarantee that the early drops were shocking and economically problematic to many. I watched the bubble go up and defy fundamentals. Then I watched it fall, and fall, and continue to fall. I urged relatives to sell at the height, and continued to urge them to sell after the first drop. I know a builder who went bankrupt in the first drop.
The problem in Seattle was not a downgrade in an “it” factor. Seattle’s problem was more the sinking of Washington Mutual, due to the housing crisis. Portland and San Fran have always long competed with Seattle in drawing young hipsters and affluent yuppies in search of sailing & ski opportunities. Companies like Amazon and Microsoft continue to draw young workers to the city despite the competition of these other “it” places to live.
You’ve talked about a 20 percent drop as if it would not be devastating to many in Vancouver. And I quite agree with you that those who live in the most desirable parts of the city in a SFH will not loose as much $$ as those who live in the suburbs and those who live in condos. Affluent people are always more likely to ride out a storm. However, a 15%-20% drop will be devestating to people who are overleveraged with their mortgage debt. Sure, wealthy investors will be ok & so will people who are not leveraged. But encouraging 5% down and HELOC loans mean that a 20 percent drop will put a portion of your population underwater after even a small drop.
You will not need a huge % of in-trouble-Vancouverites to cause problems with the local economy. If just 15% of the population is underwater, that will cause issues with consumer spending. Don’t discount the ripple effect.
Judging from the number of posts, it appears Rusty’s realtor career must not be going so well at the moment.
Could it be that the market is softening? Impossible, right big R?
sshhhh his head will explode
What’d'ya mean, “sshhhh”!??…
http://tinyurl.com/3qfw86r
Same old crap. This anecdote is so 2006 dateline USA. Why 50 comments… I don’t know.
…because most Vancouver players (and a few commenters here) still don’t see the USA 2006 – Vancouver 2011 connection.
This disconnect is one of the most remarkable aspects of our bubble.
It’s hard to think of an adequate metaphor…
“It’s hard to think of an adequate metaphor…”
Ostrich head in sand? I’ve got to admit – the disconnect is mystifying to me.
I have wondered if it has to do with a cultural national identity issues. Progressive economists in the U.S. (Krugman, ect.) pointed to Canada and the stable Canadian banking system to call attention to the American de-regulation and derivative crazyiness. This sort of rhetoric got a lot of news coverage that crossed the border into Canada.
I wonder if this rhetoric left some blind to the housing bubble similarities with the U.S.? Canadians are deeply invested in defining themselves against Americans. I understand this, as the American popular culture saturation must be very annoying. But that very valid cultural need to self-define against the 800 pound gorilla to the south also may blind Canadians to the similiarities. And Harper is very Americanized in his economic & housing policy – studied at an American think tank, ect. It’s quite similar to the impulses of Greenspan.
“…Harper is very Americanized in his economic & housing policy – studied at an American think tank, ect. [sic]…” – OurFave’Yanqui’
More than you might dare imagine, Yank. He’s – & I shuddder to say this – on “A Mission From God”. Rather like Bush II – vs. TheBluesBrothers (who, in the best tradition of ‘ContinentalDivide’ were 1/2 PureMapleSyrup).
Say, Yank – how’s it feel to be, officially, “AA “… Just teasing! ‘Nemesis’ hails from the only place in the GreathWhiteNorth where you have to have ‘look North’ to glimpse the ‘Brave&TheFree. I’ve more than done my time on the ‘ol Ambassador’ to visit the extended family. Speaking of which, if MotorCity’s ‘urban planning’ proceeds as proposed… I would so ‘load up’ on Caterpillar.
For the record, and our collective illumination here @ VREAA… how’s the MoodMusic down there right now (as in, “angry”??? or WTF???)… Crossed the line briefly today @ NightHawk, WA (my preferred ‘CheckPointCharlie’ thanks to EdwardHopper) just to have a quick administrative chat with the HomelandBoyz&Girlz/ICE about NAFTA transit niceities… (Hey, you never know, eh!?)
“Say, Yank – how’s it feel to be, officially, “AA “… Just teasing!”
I’m pretty amused by the whole thing. Nouriel Roubini has all of these funny tweets and pictures on his twitter feed about catching AA American trout versus the AAA Canadian trout– he’s in Maine at an economics conference on the border with Canada. “Scoop! View of a AAA country (Canada) from a Maine lake in a county next to the US-Canada border! http://yfrog.com/kkd9vhxj
I think I’ll go with economist Duncan Black’s summary: “Apparently we’re supposed to care about what some idiots at some corrupt organization think about anything.” S & P actually helped caused the economic crisis. They graded the mortgage loan sh*t pile as prime. http://www.eschatonblog.com/
“For the record, and our collective illumination here @ VREAA… how’s the MoodMusic down there right now (as in, “angry”??? or WTF???)…”
hmm -II’m actually living in a Canadian Prarie city right now, but was recently in the states for a buisness trip. In the states people were freaked out by the debt ceiling political fight & upset with the stock market plunge. From what I can tell the general public doesn’t really know what to think about the downgrade. The mood is disgust with politicos in WA DC, and a general sense of anxiety. To get a feel about the newspaper reaction, here’s a blog from Time magazine chatting about it: http://swampland.time.com/
Political pundits are trying to figure out who to blame, and partisans are blaming the other party. Today I’ve been reading economic blogs – the reaction of economists seems to be shrugging off the downgrade but increased concern with a possible double dip recession. Krugman is interesting on it & so is Roubini. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/05/sp-and-the-usa/ and http://www.bloomberg.com/video/73577494/
Interesting times! Next up — to see if this walk on the Euro turns into a run.