after some relationship fluff.

Well worth a listen.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

That posting was copied from the Greater Fool site. I am not the one who wrote it. I will continue to post any similar stuff I find.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

I don't think you understand that I am one of the biggest bears around. I am not predicting roses and chocolate bars for real estate!

Perhaps our economy is somewhat similar to Spain, that could be, industry wise. I am not disagreeing. My point was simply that they have more foreign speculators per capita than we do (ours were a myth!)

I am also not disagreeing that this burst is going to be unfrickinbelievable in scope!

“Ms. Kniffen said about 40 percent of Cascadia Pacific Realty’s clients were Americans” is a direct quote from the company not my writing fiction. Look it up on their web-site. Look for quotation marks in my posting . They are these sqiggly things “”"”"”"”"”" on either side of an enclosed grouping of words. Ex: The dog said “Woof” at the mailman. Woof is the direct quotation.

Let's not get too pedantic here, mmmkay? I understood that was a quote from an RE agent, which is exactly why I ignored the hell out of the quote and asked you for a REAL stat, not something imaginary from the RE fairies.

Dude, it's your own fault that you chose to use an RE agent as your proof that there are more foreign speculators in Vancouver than in Spain!

Is the bet on or off? Where are your numbers? Do you want to call a truce, or do you want to share a keg in 15 years?

Current score: 1 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

It sure isn't what you wrote. Your commentary was all within one paragraph implying that you considered a declining population would result in declining productivity. Convenient that you change your interpretation after having it explained. GDP growth and productivity are two different concepts. You were confusing the two.

In any case, yes negative growth is detrimental to an economy.

Current score: -3 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

Yes.

You are not using the term correctly.

How did I use the term incorrectly?

The size of the work force doesn’t enter into it.

Where did I say that it does? I simply said that it's detrimental to an economy to have negative growth, am I wrong?

I also said that it's detrimental to an economy to have an aging population. I'm talking about the effects of the Boomers aging and expiring on real estate values. But outsourcing will save us, thank you Jeebus!

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

Do you understand what productivity is? You are not using the term correctly. Productivity is simply a measure of output per unit of work (e.g. one hour). The size of the work force doesn’t enter into it.

I can only presume you are referring to a drop in overall economic output due to a decline in the workforce. I doubt that our economic output will drop. Firstly, there are lots of workers coming behind the boomers. Secondly, our population is still growing. Thirdly, many boomers will remain in the work force in part time or consulting roles. Remember, they are an active bunch.

And finally, I would predict that should the workforce drop in size, productivity increases would likely make up for it. It’s a global economy and outsourcing services and products is easy to do. That will allow our workers to take on roles that generate higher GDP per work (i.e. higher productivity). But, I am not a macroeconomist so this is just a hunch on my part.

Current score: -3 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

Kinda like: "IF I CLOSE MY EYES YOU CAN'T SEE ME"

Current score: 2 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

"Most people who buy SFH in GV are not first time home buyers."

And those people don't impact the market significantly. Sell 1 home to buy another and the net market impact is essentially 0. For the market to keep going upwards it needs to feed on new buyers and home ownership is at record levels.

But enough of you changing the subject and avoiding my question.

You've admitted your system of market prediction is broken over the long run. You've said your system works fine for the last 50 years but will fail over the next 100.

At what point between now and 100 years from now does your system fail?

What makes you believe the system is still working now if you know it will fail eventually?

Your system of market prediction is 0 for 4 right now in predicting recent trends, that, coupled with the fact that you know it will not work forever doesn't tell you that maybe now is the time it fails? Really?

You've said in the past that you don't purposely dodge questions yet twice you've avoided this one (in spite of your name being in bold at the top). How about an answer Dave?

Current score: 2 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)