|
|
|
clown country
- Thread starter bigpoppa
- Start date
I have no idea if the headline is true (I am guessing not) however, the underlying premise very much is. CPI vastly underaccounts for housing expenses and I believe that is intentional. If the CPI basket were updated to better represent expenses for the average Canadian, their 2-3% target may be completely unachievable as carbon tax alone gets close to that and mortgage interest blows that out of the water on it's own.
EDIT:
Shelter is 28% of basket. That includes rent/mortgage, property tax, insurance, maintenance and utilities. Aside from people with paid off mortgages, I doubt you will find many in Canada below that number and most are well above.
www150.statcan.gc.ca
EDIT:
Shelter is 28% of basket. That includes rent/mortgage, property tax, insurance, maintenance and utilities. Aside from people with paid off mortgages, I doubt you will find many in Canada below that number and most are well above.
Shelter in the Canadian CPI: An overview, 2023 update
This article is an overview of the treatment of Shelter in the Canadian Consumer Price Index (CPI). It describes the concepts and methodologies related to the construction of that component and briefly discusses considerations to be taken into account when using the estimates.
I have no idea if the headline is true (I am guessing not) however, the underlying premise very much is. CPI vastly underaccounts for housing expenses and I believe that is intentional. If the CPI basket were updated to better represent expenses for the average Canadian, their 2-3% target may be completely unachievable as carbon tax alone gets close to that and mortgage interest blows that out of the water on it's own.
EDIT:
Shelter is 28% of basket. That includes rent/mortgage, property tax, insurance, maintenance and utilities. Aside from people with paid off mortgages, I doubt you will find many in Canada below that number and most are well above.
Shelter in the Canadian CPI: An overview, 2023 update
This article is an overview of the treatment of Shelter in the Canadian Consumer Price Index (CPI). It describes the concepts and methodologies related to the construction of that component and briefly discusses considerations to be taken into account when using the estimates.
There’s a lot to be said for having at least one person from every main strata of society in your cabinet to advocate for that population. Politicians these days are just so out of touch with the everyday person.
Unfortunately in Canada that might also mean one homeless person in a cabinet position too.
Mad Mike
Well-known member
Articles like this have a spot in my circular filing cabinet - they are like those arguments that were floated around here that showed how the carbon tax (which I really dislike) made something that should be cost $1 into something that cost $1.85. Space math and gobbly-gookey instead of the facts and real calcs that showed Carbon tax that thing really cost $1.05.
Banks are looking out for themselves -- which usually works for all of us. Banks make more money when consumers are healthy - and less when they live in tents and shop at foodbanks. In the case argued by the author Punwasi, I suppose you could say any of his factoids alone are correct, but when considered as a whole, or in context -- his ideas are about as useless as a plate of boiled tripe.
The point banks make is the arbitrary interest rates set by BOC are so high that they contribute heavily to inflation because of their high impact on mortgage rates (and rental rates), and the chilling effect they have on building housing supply. If you include interest high impact in the CPI, it will continue to fuel the inflation they are trying to control. One foot on the gas and one foot on the brakes.
If you took interest rate impact out of the CPI, inflation would appear lower. That would justify BOC lowering interest rates sooner and quicker, which in turn would relieve inflationary pressures associated with high interest.
I'm pretty sure the economy is telling us that people are hurting, and that lowering inflation will not immediately fuel more inflation.
More like...
Rising interest rates.
Rising inflation rates.
Rising gas prices.
A (insert name) in power.
Doesn't matter who's in power, the results will end up being the same.
I didn't know there was a Trudeau in power in most of the western world!
Follow the rabbit hole. Trudeau is controlled by WEF as are most of the other world leaders. The people with real power through WEF keep their names out of things. Going to stock up on tinfoil now.
Do you remember the late-1980s inflation and interest rate spike followed by the 1991-1992 recession?
I sure do ... that's when I graduated and went out in the workforce.
Do you remember who was in power at the time?
Hint: It was the second Conservative majority in a row.
I'm with Jampy00 on this. It pretty much doesn't make a difference who's in power, short of someone doing something stupid and catastrophic, which fortunately we haven't seen.
Thanks, I've been saying this for years.
When you vote for change it's typically only the name that changes.
If you're poor, you'll remain poor.
If you're rich, you'll remain rich.
If you're the working class, you'll continue to support both.
And ... the 2008 global financial crisis. Who was in charge at the time?
Answer: Second Conservative minority in a row. And to be honest, given that this was a global situation, there's f-all anyone in this country could have done about it. It would have happened to us regardless. Thankfully, we have decent regulation of our financial sector that limits excessive risk-taking, and at least this stopped banks from collapsing the way they did in the excited states of hysteria just to the south of us.
Answer: Second Conservative minority in a row. And to be honest, given that this was a global situation, there's f-all anyone in this country could have done about it. It would have happened to us regardless. Thankfully, we have decent regulation of our financial sector that limits excessive risk-taking, and at least this stopped banks from collapsing the way they did in the excited states of hysteria just to the south of us.
TK4
Well-known member
Dougie and his crew are lost. They don't know which way to turn.
TK4
Well-known member
In 1983 I was carrying a privately held mortgage at 15.75% - bank rate was 16.5%.
In 2007/2008 when everything went into the dumpster worldwide we all survived.
Canada is small potatoes in the grand scheme, learn to roll with it.
TK4
Well-known member
No argument from me - Doug's been spinning around since the day he took office.
Mad Mike
Well-known member
I remember, I also was paying attention to what got him elected.
If you entered the workforce in 91 may not understand what Mulroney inherited. The greatest inflation and interest rates period since the end of WWII happened in the 10 years before Mulroney's term -- the 1st Trudeau reign from 70-84. PET boasted average inflation rates of approx 9.5%, with a peak rate somewhere close to 13%. INTEREST RATES PEAKED AT 21% in the summer of 81.
Mulroney took over in 84, inheriting crazy inflation and interest rates from PET's years letting the budget balance itself. Over Mulroney's term, he tamed the PET era inflation bringing it down from an average of 10% to 4%, well under 50% of the PET average. Same with interest, he entered office by inheriting a volatile prime at 12.03% in '84, and peaked at 1% above what PET handed him. When he finished in 93 prime had been reduced to 4%. He also stabilized the economy, no more violent swings in inflation or interest rates.
The guy after him did well too, Crietien managed low inflation and low-interest rates, leaving office with prime sitting at 2.75% -- but the real champ was the next guy, Harper, who crushed Cretien's numbers. The Harper regime setup for a decade long run of 1% or less.
The we discovered the apple never falls far from the tree as JT strives to match daddy's numbers.
|
|
|
|
|