What bubble will pop first, Bitcoin or the Canadian real estate market?
What bubble will pop first, Bitcoin or the Canadian real estate market?
Luis Green
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
ft.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
wiki.mises.org
theglobeandmail.com
twitter.com
Kevin Watson
>nocoiner
Bitcoin will never pop
Ryder Watson
God I hope this entire country dies.
Alexander Campbell
US auto or oil industry
Jaxon Harris
Probably both at the same time when you consider that China's are the biggest bitcoin investors and also the one's causing the massive inflation in housing costs in Canada.. It will be glorious to watch.
Connor Robinson
US tech industry i think, huge valuations with out the earnings to match
Isaac Hughes
the Canadian housing market might crash sooner though
Colton Green
Won't Canada just keep importing chinks to keep the game going?
Matthew Garcia
wrong, it's central bankers causing that
Jaxon Foster
Back when the central bank wasn't as powerful and interest rates were higher, house prices were extremely cheap and everyone BUILT their own homes
The solution is to have a free market
or at least dramatically raise interest rates
Owen Wood
wrong, it's chinese people buying property in Canada and using it as a savings bond while nobody is living inside the house or renting it out to Canadians..
Nicholas Rivera
Can't wait for real estate to crash so I can cash out my crypto gains and buy land on the cheap.
Jacob Butler
Foreigners are using our housing market to launder money. It's not central bankers.
Blake Baker
>wrong, it's chinese people buying property in Canada
dumb fuck
WHY do you think they are doing this in the first place?
Because they now the price will continue to rise thanks to central bank pumping money into the housing market
If not for the Central bank of Canada, the housing market would have never gained steam, in fact prices would be DECLINING.
The main problem is the central bank
Josiah Green
see:
It literally is central bankers.
Parker Price
LEAFS FIRST
Noah James
It wont help, the housing market is still out of contol.
Gavin Scott
wont help, the housing market is still out of contol.
Anthony Butler
Watch this faggots
youtube.com
Gabriel Baker
>vancouver reports decline in listings
>prices still climb
Foreigners.
Jonathan Young
Auto for sure. I sold cars for a while. You think the mortgage crisis had bad lending then you don't see some of these car deals people get into. I'm talking people who make 3,000$ a month and pay 600$ for rent (because they split a 2 bd apt w their gf) and sign a deal for 600$ for 8 years for a Chrysler 200 because they have so much negative equity on their last deal. There has to be a saturation limit. I see the auto industry starting to stagnate sometime soon. Then going into crisis mode soon after.
Ayden Thompson
It's still central banking.
What you are seeing is the beginning of the pop of the bubble.
90% of the problems in the Canadian economy over the past 20-30 years can be traced back to central banks.
Ian Wilson
>US Government regulating their housing market means Canada does to
Chinese investors are washing their money in Canadian markets to avoid being taxed and scrutinized by their own government. This has been studied for years and has nothing to do with the bank of Canada. Notice how it's only high-chinese populated cities that have this problem.
Kayden Stewart
This country is heading towards a communist regime. If/when the housing market crashes the government is just going to absorb everything eliminating a citizens private property. Trudeau is already talking about subsidized housing, whats a better for the government to do that then control all housing property in the country.
Then they'll tax everybody who lives there as a way of "maintaining" the countries properties.
Colton Hernandez
>I see the auto industry starting to stagnate sometime soon
the guy who runs Wolfstreet has done a really good series of articles covering it, especially with subprime loans and then the amount of discounts auto companies are having to offer to keep sales numbers from collapsing
Brody Davis
>foreigners
>central banks
Christopher Morales
The one the chinks have no interest in
Josiah Rivera
It is central banks
Scandinavian countries like Sweden have NEGATIVE interest rates and housing there is more fucked than it is here and they don't even have Chinese investors
Carter Butler
>Chinese investors are washing their money in Canadian markets to avoid being taxed and scrutinized by their own government.
No shit.
If there wasn't a central bank pumping money into the housing market, they would just be keeping it in Canadian dollars or something.
>Notice how it's only high-chinese populated cities that have this problem.
I'm in Edmonton and we also have this problem.
Housing prices have skyrocketed over the past 20 years.
They are supposed to be coming down so my generation can afford them.
Gabriel Cooper
No, but nobody builds anything over here.
Logan White
>Scandinavian countries like Sweden have NEGATIVE interest rates and housing there is more fucked than it is here and they don't even have Chinese investors
Interesting.
Source?
Carter Murphy
This is what happens when you allow goverment to control the money.
I think that Bitcoin will just ultimately be used by big capital people to gain value from idiots who don't know how to invest. Too small anyway to be an important bubble.
Asher Rogers
Jeremiah Powell
Gabriel Gonzalez
Sweden is even more fucked than I thought.
Their economy is going to decline so fucking bad thanks to this.
So much for the swedish welfare state.
Evan Roberts
Do people realize how cheap houses and college tuition would be in a free market?
Charles Ramirez
Central banks are a problem but here's the thing, it's difficult to remove central banks from the capitalism equation. Even during the free banking period from 1837-1862, local banks started behaving like central banks acting as lender's of last resort.
"During the free banking era, some local banks took over the functions of a central bank. In New York, the New York Safety Fund provided deposit insurance for member banks. In Boston, the Suffolk Bank guaranteed that bank notes would trade at near par value, and acted as a private bank note clearinghouse."
The problem contained in the banking system is a deeper problem and perhaps more fundamental problem in our monetary/economic system.
Read this thread here:
My opinion is that the problem arises from banks being able to lend out their deposits(Thus creating money), which is almost an essential feature of capitalism
The ability of private banks to lend out deposits gives more and more control to the private banking system allowing them to consolidate power and eventually create a central bank.
youtube.com
youtube.com
Here's an anecdote from the time period you're referring to (late 1800s) which illustrates the sort of power private bankers wielded over the US government:
Jace Wilson
I'm sure. My manager would sell at a loss but recoup through shady financing and manufacturer bonuses. The only way they made money was on used cars with big markups. Or to Dodge customers who tended to be pretty dumb.
Kayden Murphy
>ven during the free banking period from 1837-1862, local banks started behaving like central banks acting as lender's of last resort.
I already debunked this era as being free banking.
>Although the period from 1837 to 1864 in the U.S. is often referred to as the Free Banking Era, the term is something of a misnomer, for it refers not to a general system of "free" banking in the literal sense described previously, but rather to various state banking systems based on so-called "free banking" laws, which, though they made it unnecessary for new entrants to secure charters (each of which was subject to a vote by the state legislature), nonetheless restricted their undertakings in important ways. Most importantly, U.S. "free" banks were denied the right to establish branch networks, and had to "secure" their notes by purchasing and surrendering to state banking authorities certain securities those authorities deemed eligible for the purpose. The securities in many cases included bonds of the authorizing state governments themselves; and it has been determined that the depreciation of these very securities was the chief cause of "free bank" failures, and indeed of bank failures generally, during the period in question. The lack of branch banking, in turn, caused state-issued banknotes to be discounted at varying rates once they had traveled any considerable distance from their sources. In short, the shortcomings of banks and bank-supplied paper currency during the so-called "free banking era" in the U.S., far from establishing the need for special regulation of banks, testifies to the dangers of unwarranted or unwise regulation. Then, from 1863 to 1913, known as the National Banks Era, state-chartered banks were still operating under a free banking system. Some scholars have found that the system was mostly stable.[8]
Dylan Cooper
>My opinion is that the problem arises from banks being able to lend out their deposits(Thus creating money), which is almost an essential feature of capitalism
In a free market, this is highly illegal, in the free market periods in Sweden this mostly didn't happen and they had 1 banking panic in 100 years. LOL
Jeremiah Clark
Why do you think Swedes are buying crypto currency like crazy?
Jayden Butler
The period from 1862-1913(national bank era) was not more free than the free banking era from 1837-1862(called the free bank era).
I debunked your argument here:
Somehow this is "free banking"
>government prints 450 million in legal tender and hands it out
"The Second Legal Tender Act,[3] enacted July 11, 1862, a Joint Resolution of Congress,[4] and the Third Legal Tender Act,[5] enacted March 3, 1863, expanded the limit to $450 million. The largest amount of greenbacks outstanding at any one time was calculated as $447,300,203.10."
>coverts state run banks to national banks
>created national currency
>puts a goverment regulator in charge of it
The 1864 act, based on a New York State law, brought the federal government into active supervision of commercial banks. It established the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency with the responsibility of chartering, examining and supervising all national banks.
>levees a tax on banks
"On July 13, 1866, the banking Act of 1865 was extended beyond requiring every national banking association, state bank, or state banking association to pay a 10% tax on any notes paid out by them."
Somehow despite all of this you have free banking system. You are a lemming.
Dominic Garcia
>nocoiner
how does it feel knowing, you'll soon also be
>nohomer
?
Noah White
The national bank era inexorably led to the creation of the federal reserve
Look at the shear amount of power wielded by private bankers over the US government
youtube.com
It's no wonder bankers like JP Morgan, Rockefeller's bank was also involved, were able to create the Federal Reserve a 15 years later:
Anthony James
The last sentence you highlighted in that image just says the National Banks Era was stable. It was not an era of free banking.
Josiah Harris
It seems it was a half government banking and half free banking system.
wiki.mises.org
See: Civil War
Either way Sweden's free banking system is even more impressive.
Massive increases in economic growth and living standards and only one panic in 100 fucking years.
Cooper Anderson
>Look at the shear amount of power wielded by private bankers over the US government
Dude I get it.
This is still the fault of the government though.
In a free market in banking, it's illegal to print money out of thin air. Fractional reserve banking is illegal, it's fraud.
People have to deposit money with the banks and the banks can lend out this money.
The solution is literally free banking.
Did banks have massive power over the Swedish economy?
No?
Then you're wrong.
Joshua Edwards
It was a semi free and semi government system.
There was no monopoly on currency creation at the time.
Anyone could start their own bank and issue notes.
Jose Lopez
>In a free market, this is highly illegal
A bank that cannot lend out deposits is not a bank. It's a glorified safety deposit vault.
Banning the lending of deposits is tantamount to the bans on usury in the middle ages. This is basically the anti-thesis of a capitalist system.
Alexander Davis
Hah. They should start probing into city and Provincial politicans being bought off by Chinese money. That would be a true rat's nest.
Xavier Nguyen
>A bank that cannot lend out deposits is not a bank. It's a glorified safety deposit vault.
I never said you couldn't lend out deposits.
Just that you couldn't print money out of thin air with no deposits backing it.
Asher Roberts
>Did banks have massive power over the Swedish economy? No?
I'm not familiar with the Swedish banking system. I'll have a more thorough read through it. Presumably the free banking period eventually ended because now they have a central bank.
Leo Martinez
Nathan Harris
>I never said you couldn't lend out deposits
Fractional reserve is just the ability of a bank to lend out it's deposits. You cannot oppose fractional reserve system while allowing banks to lend out deposits.
>Just that you couldn't print money out of thin air with no deposits backing it.
They keep a percent (usually 10%) of their deposits in reserve in case some of them want to take their money out of the bank.
Camden Rodriguez
>Presumably the free banking period eventually ended because now they have a central bank.
It ended because scumbags wanted more power. That's what governments do.
It worked successfully for 100 years though and made Sweden really rich.
James Cox
>Fractional reserve is just the ability of a bank to lend out it's deposits. You cannot oppose fractional reserve system while allowing banks to lend out deposits.
No, people would have a contract with a bank saying you can lend out a portion of the money you put there.
Luis Bennett
bitcoin will pop first. I'll explain why.
I have some friends that work in the real-estate market for Toronto. The market won't burst, it will actually do the opposite. It will at the very least have a slight rise, but honestly, i believe it will continue to rise rapidly.
Last year, the government let in 150k immigrants into Canada. Most of which are from China and have money. (not the muzzies you all think we're immigrating). On top of this, there's been a rise of foreign investors from countries like China that want their money off-shore, so they invest in real-estate in Vancouver, but when Vancouver introduced a tax on them, they shifted to Toronto and just dont care about the tax anymore.
Next year (2018) Canada is going to allow about 500,000 immigrants in. These are mostly from China, and a lot from India, and we only take the educated and wealthy. These people are willing to sacrifice quality of life (aka paying a lot for a small house). This is going to drive up the housing market like we've never seen.
>tl;dr, you think the housing market is a bubble? we've only seen the beginning of this. It's going to rise like we've never seen before.
Jonathan Russell
>No, people would have a contract with a bank saying you can lend out a portion of the money you put there.
This is already how it works. It's written into the contract you sign when you open an account with the bank.
As I said earlier you need to prevent banks from lending deposits if you want to prevent them from creating new money.
Aaron Powell
True for US market too.
Wyatt Gonzalez
>This is already how it works.
No, it's not.
There are central banks involved that inflate the money supply.
It's not how it works now.
Go look up Sweden.
Isaiah Murphy
>financial standards
>canada
choose only one
Asher Phillips
>There are central banks involved that inflate the money supply.
92-96% of the money in circulation is created by ordinary commercial banks when they lend out their deposits.
Re-watch this video
Jonathan Russell
> 25, virigin and still live with parents
Camden Gomez
Which is still money creation out of thin air.
Robert Powell
Right and the only way to stop this money creation out of thin air is to ban contracts that allow banks to lend out their deposits.
This would basically amount to a ban on usury. This is not consistent with libertarianism/an-capitalism
Cooper Bailey
In a free market you would have a high paying job.
Noah Carter
>Right and the only way to stop this money creation out of thin air is to ban contracts that allow banks to lend out their deposits.
Why would I want to ban that?
You're not making any sense.
I never said these things.
Jayden Young
>Why would I want to ban that?
You're opposed to fractional reserve banking are you not?
Charles Gutierrez
If you give money to a bank and let them lend out your money for a return, that's called and investment.
Jackson Garcia
It's also called money creation
Robert Morris
No it's not.
If I lend you 10 dollars and you take that money and invest it. No new money is created.
I can ask for my money back when you are done investing with it and I will still have 10 dollars.
Or I might have more money if your investment gained a return
Michael Foster
Blake Jackson
No, no new money is created in the situation I described.
Not the current system.
Actually debunk what I said
William Cook
>If I lend you 10 dollars and you take that money and invest it. No new money is created.
You need to stop thinking about money as paper notes. Money is what allows someone to purchase something.
It has to do with double entry bookkeeping and how assets/liabilities are registered on a bank's balance sheet.
>Actually debunk what I said
You don't understand the first fucking thing about this.