<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Juiced</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.greaterfool.ca/2009/10/30/juiced/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.greaterfool.ca/2009/10/30/juiced/</link>
	<description>Book and Weblog - Authored by Garth Turner</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2010 15:16:45 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: West Coast</title>
		<link>http://www.greaterfool.ca/2009/10/30/juiced/comment-page-4/#comment-48528</link>
		<dc:creator>West Coast</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2009 17:53:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.greaterfool.ca/?p=3904#comment-48528</guid>
		<description>&quot;Real estate market in recovery: CMHC&quot;
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/11/02/consumer-housing-starts-cmhc.html#socialcomments



...Some days I just don&#039;t know why I read the cbc news blog. It has become a sick combo of tabloid journalism and market hyping. At least it looks like most commentors on the story are catching on.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Real estate market in recovery: CMHC&#8221;<br />
<a href="http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/11/02/consumer-housing-starts-cmhc.html#socialcomments" rel="nofollow">http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/11/02/consumer-housing-starts-cmhc.html#socialcomments</a></p>
<p>&#8230;Some days I just don&#8217;t know why I read the cbc news blog. It has become a sick combo of tabloid journalism and market hyping. At least it looks like most commentors on the story are catching on.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: RJD</title>
		<link>http://www.greaterfool.ca/2009/10/30/juiced/comment-page-4/#comment-48516</link>
		<dc:creator>RJD</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2009 17:10:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.greaterfool.ca/?p=3904#comment-48516</guid>
		<description>DaBull has been drinking DaCarneyJuice</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>DaBull has been drinking DaCarneyJuice</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Taxpayer like you</title>
		<link>http://www.greaterfool.ca/2009/10/30/juiced/comment-page-4/#comment-48483</link>
		<dc:creator>Taxpayer like you</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2009 14:46:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.greaterfool.ca/?p=3904#comment-48483</guid>
		<description>163 confused

Yes it would be better if the stats were more recent. Its 
kinda like finding out you were right then having to wait 
five years for verification.

I probably mis-interpreted your post at 160 a little. The rental income for the owners should appear under their household/economic family income, thus appearing twice as both income for the renters and landlords. Yep, confusing. If the landlord is a company, I&#039;m guessing it only appears as hh/ef income if it pays out a wage or dividend to stockholders.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>163 confused</p>
<p>Yes it would be better if the stats were more recent. Its<br />
kinda like finding out you were right then having to wait<br />
five years for verification.</p>
<p>I probably mis-interpreted your post at 160 a little. The rental income for the owners should appear under their household/economic family income, thus appearing twice as both income for the renters and landlords. Yep, confusing. If the landlord is a company, I&#8217;m guessing it only appears as hh/ef income if it pays out a wage or dividend to stockholders.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: CalgaryRocks</title>
		<link>http://www.greaterfool.ca/2009/10/30/juiced/comment-page-4/#comment-48478</link>
		<dc:creator>CalgaryRocks</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2009 14:02:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.greaterfool.ca/?p=3904#comment-48478</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;of course it doesn’t bother you at all that CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, etc. are every single one of them shills for the Demcraps. One alternative voice out there and you get your knickers in a twist. It is laughable.&lt;/i&gt;

Well I used to watch it but then I figured out I was being manipulated into believing things that were false. Constant innuendo, exagerations and character assassination take a toll. 

So now Fox news makes me puke. I find it irritating and transparent propaganda.  This has nothing to do with the leaning of the other stations.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>of course it doesn’t bother you at all that CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, etc. are every single one of them shills for the Demcraps. One alternative voice out there and you get your knickers in a twist. It is laughable.</i></p>
<p>Well I used to watch it but then I figured out I was being manipulated into believing things that were false. Constant innuendo, exagerations and character assassination take a toll. </p>
<p>So now Fox news makes me puke. I find it irritating and transparent propaganda.  This has nothing to do with the leaning of the other stations.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bill-Muskoka (NAM)</title>
		<link>http://www.greaterfool.ca/2009/10/30/juiced/comment-page-4/#comment-48467</link>
		<dc:creator>Bill-Muskoka (NAM)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:52:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.greaterfool.ca/?p=3904#comment-48467</guid>
		<description>#147 Evangeline

Well, I can tell you have the hook, line, and sinker swallowed fully.  Yes, the terrible forces are out to get you.  Here is a clue to reality:

1.  The year is now 2009-not 1950

2.  You were equipped with a brain (allegedly) so try using it.

3.  Those you follow are the real enemy of democracy and freedom.  You, however, are most welcome to have freedumb, but keep it away from me.  Like Putin said &#039;We don&#039;t want your form of democracy!&#039;

4.  Realize that several &#039;institutions are now in decomposition:  1. The Roman Catholic Church based Paulianity, not Christianity; 2. The Funnymentalist Evangelical Movement;  The Far Right political movement.

Perhaps you have personally witnessed the death of a creature?  I have, including my fellow humans.  The death throes are usually accompanied with violent convulsions due to the nerves firing off random impulses.

Please observe Fox (Faux) New&#039;s convulsions of rhetorical mindlessness.  You may wish to send flowers.  I suggest using FTD (Fox Television Demise).

Have a nice day and keep watching Fox, because you need your daily fix or hate.

As to my own interpretation of news you could not be more wrong.  I use multiple sources of all different political bias, and then apply a thing called research, historical origins, and experience before I accept any so-called news.  The difference is I know bigotry, hatred, and racism when I see it.  I also do not believe any news organization does a proper in-depth research of issues.

Yes there are Pro-Left and Pro-Right news agencies.  I still believe the responsibility of a journalist is the tell the people the Five W&#039;s-&#039;Who, What, When. Where, and Why.&#039;  Few news organizations do that anymore.

To see what that is like try reading Al Jazeera online.  In depth research of serious issues, not mere quips and sound bites.  I suppose you think they are the enemy too because Fox told you so?  You make a great Sheeple.  Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>#147 Evangeline</p>
<p>Well, I can tell you have the hook, line, and sinker swallowed fully.  Yes, the terrible forces are out to get you.  Here is a clue to reality:</p>
<p>1.  The year is now 2009-not 1950</p>
<p>2.  You were equipped with a brain (allegedly) so try using it.</p>
<p>3.  Those you follow are the real enemy of democracy and freedom.  You, however, are most welcome to have freedumb, but keep it away from me.  Like Putin said &#8216;We don&#8217;t want your form of democracy!&#8217;</p>
<p>4.  Realize that several &#8216;institutions are now in decomposition:  1. The Roman Catholic Church based Paulianity, not Christianity; 2. The Funnymentalist Evangelical Movement;  The Far Right political movement.</p>
<p>Perhaps you have personally witnessed the death of a creature?  I have, including my fellow humans.  The death throes are usually accompanied with violent convulsions due to the nerves firing off random impulses.</p>
<p>Please observe Fox (Faux) New&#8217;s convulsions of rhetorical mindlessness.  You may wish to send flowers.  I suggest using FTD (Fox Television Demise).</p>
<p>Have a nice day and keep watching Fox, because you need your daily fix or hate.</p>
<p>As to my own interpretation of news you could not be more wrong.  I use multiple sources of all different political bias, and then apply a thing called research, historical origins, and experience before I accept any so-called news.  The difference is I know bigotry, hatred, and racism when I see it.  I also do not believe any news organization does a proper in-depth research of issues.</p>
<p>Yes there are Pro-Left and Pro-Right news agencies.  I still believe the responsibility of a journalist is the tell the people the Five W&#8217;s-&#8217;Who, What, When. Where, and Why.&#8217;  Few news organizations do that anymore.</p>
<p>To see what that is like try reading Al Jazeera online.  In depth research of serious issues, not mere quips and sound bites.  I suppose you think they are the enemy too because Fox told you so?  You make a great Sheeple.  Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Confused</title>
		<link>http://www.greaterfool.ca/2009/10/30/juiced/comment-page-4/#comment-48465</link>
		<dc:creator>Confused</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:37:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.greaterfool.ca/?p=3904#comment-48465</guid>
		<description>162 Taxpayer like you

Thanks for the link, however, I don&#039;t know how to interpret the stats, they are from 2005 and the owner/renter incomes include incomes of persons 15 years or older who live in the house (not the additional rental income going to the owners) and there are no indications of the house price or ownership (I want to see if the more expensive primary houses are likely to have more renters). 

In addition, in 2005 prices in Calgary were reasonable - a $200K house was considered expensive. In 2007 house prices jumped 50%+ (a 0% interest rate, high gas prices, a huge net migration and a severe shortage of labour helped this). Back in 2005 renters were not necessary - now I&#039;m not so sure. I don&#039;t have median family income stats for 2009 but I do know layoffs are increasing and high-paying jobs are becoming scare (the oil&amp;gas companies are suffering). When the average/median house price is hovering at $400K+ and the median income is not rising and jobs are becoming scare I would think a housing correction is overdue (unless, gas prices increase in which case the interest rate can do whatever it wants as the jobs will be back and Albertans (including me) can once again begin reckless spending :) ).

Garth, I may be wrong here but so far despite all the doom-and-gloom and my hoping - prices in Calgary are rising (no it&#039;s not Realtors bending the stats; houses are selling for more money) - could it be that I&#039;m the only one in this city living in a recession? When will this end?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>162 Taxpayer like you</p>
<p>Thanks for the link, however, I don&#8217;t know how to interpret the stats, they are from 2005 and the owner/renter incomes include incomes of persons 15 years or older who live in the house (not the additional rental income going to the owners) and there are no indications of the house price or ownership (I want to see if the more expensive primary houses are likely to have more renters). </p>
<p>In addition, in 2005 prices in Calgary were reasonable &#8211; a $200K house was considered expensive. In 2007 house prices jumped 50%+ (a 0% interest rate, high gas prices, a huge net migration and a severe shortage of labour helped this). Back in 2005 renters were not necessary &#8211; now I&#8217;m not so sure. I don&#8217;t have median family income stats for 2009 but I do know layoffs are increasing and high-paying jobs are becoming scare (the oil&amp;gas companies are suffering). When the average/median house price is hovering at $400K+ and the median income is not rising and jobs are becoming scare I would think a housing correction is overdue (unless, gas prices increase in which case the interest rate can do whatever it wants as the jobs will be back and Albertans (including me) can once again begin reckless spending <img src='http://www.greaterfool.ca/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' />  ).</p>
<p>Garth, I may be wrong here but so far despite all the doom-and-gloom and my hoping &#8211; prices in Calgary are rising (no it&#8217;s not Realtors bending the stats; houses are selling for more money) &#8211; could it be that I&#8217;m the only one in this city living in a recession? When will this end?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Taxpayer like you</title>
		<link>http://www.greaterfool.ca/2009/10/30/juiced/comment-page-4/#comment-48444</link>
		<dc:creator>Taxpayer like you</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2009 04:36:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.greaterfool.ca/?p=3904#comment-48444</guid>
		<description>160 Confused

Heres another great statscan link. You can pick your province or town, owners or renters, mortage or no mortgage.

It would seem to indicate the &quot;renter&quot; households have 
far lower average/median income than &quot;owner&quot; 
households, so your logic of multiple renters doesnt seem 
to work.

http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/english/census06/data/topics/RetrieveProductTable.cfm?Temporal=2006&amp;PID=96272&amp;GID=838045&amp;METH=1&amp;APATH=3&amp;PTYPE=88971%2C97154&amp;THEME=81&amp;AID=&amp;FREE=0&amp;FOCUS=&amp;VID=0&amp;GC=99&amp;GK=NA&amp;RL=0&amp;TPL=RETR&amp;SUB=814&amp;d1=4</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>160 Confused</p>
<p>Heres another great statscan link. You can pick your province or town, owners or renters, mortage or no mortgage.</p>
<p>It would seem to indicate the &#8220;renter&#8221; households have<br />
far lower average/median income than &#8220;owner&#8221;<br />
households, so your logic of multiple renters doesnt seem<br />
to work.</p>
<p><a href="http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/english/census06/data/topics/RetrieveProductTable.cfm?Temporal=2006&amp;PID=96272&amp;GID=838045&amp;METH=1&amp;APATH=3&amp;PTYPE=88971%2C97154&amp;THEME=81&amp;AID=&amp;FREE=0&amp;FOCUS=&amp;VID=0&amp;GC=99&amp;GK=NA&amp;RL=0&amp;TPL=RETR&amp;SUB=814&amp;d1=4" rel="nofollow">http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/english/census06/data/topics/RetrieveProductTable.cfm?Temporal=2006&amp;PID=96272&amp;GID=838045&amp;METH=1&amp;APATH=3&amp;PTYPE=88971%2C97154&amp;THEME=81&amp;AID=&amp;FREE=0&amp;FOCUS=&amp;VID=0&amp;GC=99&amp;GK=NA&amp;RL=0&amp;TPL=RETR&amp;SUB=814&amp;d1=4</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: LB</title>
		<link>http://www.greaterfool.ca/2009/10/30/juiced/comment-page-4/#comment-48442</link>
		<dc:creator>LB</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2009 04:03:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.greaterfool.ca/?p=3904#comment-48442</guid>
		<description>I watched Mark Carney&#039;s report to the Senate commitee , beginning to end. A not insignificant point, that I don&#039;t see mentioned on this blog, was his statement about the Government/BOC (re)establishing regulations requiring Canadian banks to increase their capital ratios. Will THIS be the catalyst for banks to quickly raise interest rates,  which Mr. Carney hints at? Will this also finally illuminate publicly which of our Big 6 is the weakest link, positioning it to fail?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I watched Mark Carney&#8217;s report to the Senate commitee , beginning to end. A not insignificant point, that I don&#8217;t see mentioned on this blog, was his statement about the Government/BOC (re)establishing regulations requiring Canadian banks to increase their capital ratios. Will THIS be the catalyst for banks to quickly raise interest rates,  which Mr. Carney hints at? Will this also finally illuminate publicly which of our Big 6 is the weakest link, positioning it to fail?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Confused</title>
		<link>http://www.greaterfool.ca/2009/10/30/juiced/comment-page-4/#comment-48438</link>
		<dc:creator>Confused</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2009 03:25:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.greaterfool.ca/?p=3904#comment-48438</guid>
		<description>Hey Garth,

Just took a quick glance at your site and really like it. I am still confused as to what is inflating this bubble. In Calgary, after the CMHC increased its budget and floating rates dropped to 2.5%, house prices are rising rapidly (coincidently, so is unemployment). I have been waiting two years for the RE bubble to burst and so far it has not - do you have specific time frames on when you think this actually will happen?

I also noted there is confusion between family/household income; according to this report:

http://www.rbc.com/economics/market/pdf/house.pdf

houses in Calgary are more than affordable; of course, this is based on &quot;household&quot; not MEDIAN &quot;family&quot; incomes. Household incomes includes that of renters! So if you have multiple renters your &quot;household&quot; income can go up by at least 80K making houses here very &quot;affordable&quot;. The last report by stats-can that I can find was from the 2006 census and back then the median household income in Calgary was just under 90K. I have not seen any other reports since; if someone can post a link to more recent stats by a reputable source that would be great.

http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/famil108a-eng.htm

P.S. Please don&#039;t blame Realtors, I get really irritated when scape-goats are used to subvert personal responsibility; Realtors do not create bubbles nor do they force people to buy or sell houses. Individuals make this choice of their own free will.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey Garth,</p>
<p>Just took a quick glance at your site and really like it. I am still confused as to what is inflating this bubble. In Calgary, after the CMHC increased its budget and floating rates dropped to 2.5%, house prices are rising rapidly (coincidently, so is unemployment). I have been waiting two years for the RE bubble to burst and so far it has not &#8211; do you have specific time frames on when you think this actually will happen?</p>
<p>I also noted there is confusion between family/household income; according to this report:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.rbc.com/economics/market/pdf/house.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.rbc.com/economics/market/pdf/house.pdf</a></p>
<p>houses in Calgary are more than affordable; of course, this is based on &#8220;household&#8221; not MEDIAN &#8220;family&#8221; incomes. Household incomes includes that of renters! So if you have multiple renters your &#8220;household&#8221; income can go up by at least 80K making houses here very &#8220;affordable&#8221;. The last report by stats-can that I can find was from the 2006 census and back then the median household income in Calgary was just under 90K. I have not seen any other reports since; if someone can post a link to more recent stats by a reputable source that would be great.</p>
<p><a href="http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/famil108a-eng.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/famil108a-eng.htm</a></p>
<p>P.S. Please don&#8217;t blame Realtors, I get really irritated when scape-goats are used to subvert personal responsibility; Realtors do not create bubbles nor do they force people to buy or sell houses. Individuals make this choice of their own free will.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JET</title>
		<link>http://www.greaterfool.ca/2009/10/30/juiced/comment-page-4/#comment-48437</link>
		<dc:creator>JET</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2009 02:49:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.greaterfool.ca/?p=3904#comment-48437</guid>
		<description>#156 Watched Bubble Never Pops:

According to this the 2006 median income for Toronto was $51,200: http://www.thestar.com/specialsections/vitalsigns/article/703740--toronto-a-city-of-disparities

According to this, the 2006 median income &quot;in and around&quot; Toronto was  $75,829: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2008/05/01/tto-census.html
(referencing the census, the article also said incomes had been dropping)

Watched or not, a bubble is a bubble. Even &quot;watched bubbles&quot; eventually pop.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>#156 Watched Bubble Never Pops:</p>
<p>According to this the 2006 median income for Toronto was $51,200: <a href="http://www.thestar.com/specialsections/vitalsigns/article/703740--toronto-a-city-of-disparities" rel="nofollow">http://www.thestar.com/specialsections/vitalsigns/article/703740&#8211;toronto-a-city-of-disparities</a></p>
<p>According to this, the 2006 median income &#8220;in and around&#8221; Toronto was  $75,829: <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2008/05/01/tto-census.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2008/05/01/tto-census.html</a><br />
(referencing the census, the article also said incomes had been dropping)</p>
<p>Watched or not, a bubble is a bubble. Even &#8220;watched bubbles&#8221; eventually pop.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
