Welcome!
VancouverPeak.com- jesse and Makaya are now friends
- jesse replied to the forum topic Sandbox. in the group Housing Data
- jesse posted an update: CMHC starts, completions and under construction in Vancouver […]
- The Ant started the forum topic BC Population Growth in the group Housing Data
- jesse and The Ant are now friends
- jesse and wreckonomics are now friends
- wreckonomics posted an update: New Year, New HPI. ”Selection Broadens and Demand Eases to […]
- Best place on meth and admin are now friends
- jesse and Best place on meth are now friends
- jesse replied to the forum topic February 2012 Daily Numbers in the group Housing Data
Wordpress theme by Abhishek Tripathi of Mediawick Digital Solutions
August 20th, 2009 at 9:12 am
Dave: The Miami market may be a return to the ‘good old days’ from a realtors perspective since more sales mean more commission, but I suspect it’s not feeling too much like the ‘good old days’ for people who bought in Miami just a couple years back.
August 20th, 2009 at 8:09 am
patriotzed: “In a bubble, when owning is more expensive than renting, it’s bad for the economy if renters become buyers.”
When prices are increasing it is good for the economy only in the short term. Existing owners and developers get a one-time cash advance. That money eventually needs to be repaid, which is a net drain on the economy.
August 20th, 2009 at 4:23 am
People with a higher disposable income are more beneficial to a local economy. The normal situation is that owning is cheaper than renting, and under these conditions, it is good for the economy if renters become owners. In a bubble, when owning is more expensive than renting, it’s bad for the economy if renters become buyers. People buying during a bubble are borrowing demand from the future with interest, i.e. throwing away their future disposable income, which is why bubbles bring a temporary boom followed by a prolonged crash. Like, you know, right now.
It’s really that simple.
BTW the reason why owners are generally more responsible then renters is very simple – in the past, you had to be responsible in order to become a home owner. That’s the causation – not the other way around. There are vast numbers of trashed, foreclosed houses south of the border, if you want to check out what happens when irresponsible people are allowed to buy houses.
August 19th, 2009 at 11:56 pm
one Q – and a serious one:
how can you be bullish on oil in a “crappy economy”. are you suggesting speculators alone (rather than real demand) will once again push it to $150?
August 19th, 2009 at 10:54 pm
Re: Post 22.
I’m bullish about oil and commodities, and bearish on real estate, is that ok with you? Just jack the hell up on inflation so we can finally see interest rates skyrocket and end this bubble in Vancouver once and for all. I can just imagine $150/barrel oil in a crappy economy. I wonder who those fools are that are supporting the HST. I saw on the news that they said the HST will help companies keep high salary positions. What a big joke. They also said the consumers will benefit. Consumers will benefit by staying at home more and not spend, is that what they mean? Fortunately, I will leave this hell-hole Province for a year next summer and enjoy life in Asia while the suckers here in this province will pay up on the HST. This government ain’t going to see any money from my wallet. Cash deals is the way to go especially for businesses in Richmond. Watch the government’s income shrink due to more fake reports by businesses to lower their taxes.
I’m just going with the flow.
August 19th, 2009 at 10:49 pm
Are the good ‘old days of real estate back? It appears so in Downtown Miami.
Its amazing what happens when prices drop 50%.
August 19th, 2009 at 10:47 pm
we have a real issue with corrupt realtors in alberta
we have had rapes by realtors frauds by realtors and now murder by calgary realtors
calgary realtor sought for murder
August 19th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
hovering, demand has exceeded supply for sfh’s here since about 1987. both sfh values and rents top out based on what the demand can afford. there’s not a whole lot more to it than that.
August 19th, 2009 at 9:58 pm
Quwation for the faithful.
We talk about fundamentals but I don’t think I fully grasp how both the current situation is out of whack or what the fundamentals say things should be.
Average family income in Vancouver is ?
a house should be what 3 to 4 times average family income?
Why is cost of renting versus owning currently out of whack in Van? What do you think the cost of renting versus the cost of owning should be ?
a thousand thank you’s
August 19th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
when we moved into our rental home in vancouver I found the neighbours lined up to say hello at first until I let slip we were mere renters then they all moved away from us.. eyeball saying mean nasty ugly things (to the tune of alice’s restaurant)..
it took momths for the owner/neighbours to say hello again.. some never did.. wierd shit.
August 19th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
#38
“the perfect place to play some cheap stocks, if you win you don’t pay tax.. and if you lose, well it’s a max of $10,000 for a couple, not too much money”
Oh yeah I forgot about that benefit of the TFSA. It is the best place to buy the highest risk/reward investments.
August 19th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
Investors Snapping Up Downtown Miami Condos
http://cbs4.com/local/miami.co.....33338.html
Are the good ‘old days of real estate back? It appears so in Downtown Miami.
In recent weeks developers have sold hundreds of condos, in a flurry of activity they haven’t seen since the peak of the housing market. Some builders are actually running out of inventory. The first building to sell out, Brickell on the River, happened quietly and quickly selling 120 units in just six weeks time.
August 19th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
ING is insured by the CDIC. As far as the TFSA goes, wouldn’t it make the most sense to open up a trading account? Seems like the perfect place to play some cheap stocks, if you win you don’t pay tax.. and if you lose, well it’s a max of $10,000 for a couple, not too much money.
August 19th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
Error Post 35
WALL Financial site is not NORTH but WEST of the Olympic village.Ie between Cambie Bridge and Olympic Village.
ALSO:
I’ve noticed that the WALL group tends to lead, not follow. They seem to have a knack to invest in areas before the rest of the development herd follows.
August 19th, 2009 at 8:05 pm
realpaul post #20
There are lots of YouTube videos re: Detroit. I remember 30 years ago how bad it was ” US murder capital “.
The population peaked in the 1950′s(approx. 2 million ) now its down about 900,000 and getting worse. This was the HUB of middle class..old Henry Ford mantra of a wage increase or else who is going to buy his product?..or “whats good for GM is good for America” .
Detroits suburbs look like the aftermath of a bombing campaign, it’s truly amazing . Why aren’t these cheap houses (which can be had for less than $10,000 or LESS)attracting buyers ?
There is an inflection point where something reaches a point of no return. The middle classes “Garden of Eden” is now a hell hole. Detroit is not the only US City in these dire straits.
ALSO: If areas like California , Florida, and Phoenix with much better weather are going belly up, what’s so magical about Vancouver er Raincouver.ie (October to June)
As realpaul so astutely says, middle class jobs have been increasingly been shipped offshore. Hi -Tech will save us ?
….seems like all one reads is a lot of outsourcing to China and India.
Ask yourself: if China blew up tomorrow, had a civil war, or simply froze all trade, how SOL would we be here in North America? Where would we buy many of the manufactured products we have assumed will continue ad infinitum?
One almost thinks this was a well orchestrated Machiavellian plan to keep us weak and beholden, allow the credit bubble to addict, enslave and deceive us, and leave us defenceless…a devil’s deal struck between our Gov’ts, Bankers and offshore powers.
Our Federal and Provincial Gov’ts can only maintain a lie for so long…even they are forced to expose their hand , which they have…with pre-emptive tax hikes (ie a years warning re HST )and numerous immediate program cuts.
Anecdote:
We were in South Surrey today visiting family. Neighbourhood(SFH) is approx. 10 years old .
Neighbours house is for sale .
Reason = lost their job and will have to downsize to a condo.
That’s the future in my “Made in Canada” crystal ball.
August 19th, 2009 at 7:26 pm
21 X Supraboy Says:
August 19th, 2009 at 11:57 am
I’m just wondering, what would happen when the greedy Liberals get the HST going and the olympics end? The middle and lower income people will get crushed like termites. For the greedy middle class who owns more than 3 condo units, they are in for a rude awakening.
=========
Yeah Supraboy: What IS up,flip flop…BULL..BEAR….at least be consistent.
I am NOT an NDP supporter, but I am truly disgusted with the LIEberals. LIE after LIE after LIE. How much of this BS do they expect us to listen to? They can’t believe that WE believe it !
City of Vancouver must be shitting bricks right now over the
Olympic Village. They have to hand it over to VANOC in about 10 weeks. Was over the Cambie bridge recently and the Made in Korea windows finally look in, but aesthetically it still looks ugly. That barren construction site immediately North owned by WALL Financial sure adds to the appeal(like the raw sewage floating by in False Creek.
QUESTION: Why isn’t WALL Financial ramping up construction….it’s right next to Olympic village !!! Or is their a hidden message re: WALLs “stand pat” position ?
After the Olympics is over VANOC apparently has to renovate each suite (as they have to be at certain specs for the Olympics). I wonder if VANOC was going to sell them as used, hence GST exempt ? However, did COV foresee the HST? I wonder how HST will impact the Olympic Village condos sales price.
Ah well ,after COV’s last years 8% property tax hike…COV taxpayers all got lots of money….the world’s TOP city….bwahahahahaha.
August 19th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
Global 6 PM News.
Old BC Finance minister sure looked VERY uncomfortable eh…Deficit is projected to be over $ one Billion. Revenue sources are WAAAAYYYY DOOOWWWWN.
That means there is less money in the economy, right?, hence less taxes paid right? ….Y’ know, where common sense and Economics 101 meet.
So what do smart(redundant) BC’ers do ?
Go Buy Real Estate !!!
God/Allah help us !!!!
August 19th, 2009 at 6:54 pm
Here’s an article about families finding it tough to rent in Vancouver.
http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/sto.....ouver.html
August 19th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
PCF is also just .75%
http://www.banking.pcfinancial.....tRate.page
Savings account rates suck at the moment. Of course that is the government’s way of encouraging spending.
August 19th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
Here’s the link for the CDIC. They have a list of all financial institutions that they insure. The ceiling is $100K. Provincial govt’s insure credit union deposits to $250K.
Some banks have more than one business entity, so you can deposit more than $100K in accounts under the different entities. TD Canada Trust is an example of this.
http://www.cdic.ca/e/index.html
August 19th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
some more questions:
ok so consensus is to spread the risk in few banks.
Can you guys share the rate? As of yesterday I have 0.75 at Scotia. you get just a crumbs
Is ING covered under CDIC?
How safe are credit unions? Still i have a problem putting all the money in one credit union? I am not sure if all credit unions are under CDIC?
TFSA are only 10k per couple, per year. Not much in my opinion. again just crumbs.
i have found this article to be informative but does not say more about trust accounts:
http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/526341
August 19th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
Don’t forget that if you’re married, get a Tax Free Savings Account for each of you.
August 19th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
#23 Anonymus: Option 0) Keep your cash in a credit union. BC credit unions have unlimted coverage.
August 19th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
Crash:
I just opened an account at CT Financial. I find it completely ironic that I trust them with the lions share of my life savings, but wouldn’t let them near my 2009 car, worth *significantly* less. LOL
As a side note, I think ING currently has the best rate for Tax Free Savings accounts?? Max it January 1, 2010.
August 19th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Anon, you also get seperate CDIC coverage for joint accounts at the same institution. That means you could have a total of $300k covered by deposit insurance if you have an account, your wife has an account and you have a joint account at the same bank.
It can be easier to track accounts at a single bank, but even though you’ll be covered in the event of a bank failure it will take some time to get your money from CDIC. That’s the main drawback.
Hopefully nobody here is keeping more than the covered $100k in a single bank account.
August 19th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
#23:
Option 2 is the way to go.
People’s Trust have excellent rates. Also Canadian Tire Financial have good rates.
August 19th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
23): Option 2. Spread out your risk of the bank going under.
August 19th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
$200.000 in the bank.
Option 1)
Open one high interest savings account and one trust account in Bank X in order to be under 100k. or
Option 2) open one high savings account in Bank X and another one in Bank Y.
Q) Do you earn interest in trust account? and Can you withdraw money easily (anytime) as in savings account?
August 19th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Supraboy, Are you schizophrenic? Half the time you’re bullish, half bearish. What’s up with that?
August 19th, 2009 at 11:57 am
I’m just wondering, what would happen when the greedy Liberals get the HST going and the olympics end? The middle and lower income people will get crushed like termites. For the greedy middle class who owns more than 3 condo units, they are in for a rude awakening.
August 19th, 2009 at 11:54 am
It’s impossible to tell what the future will bring, but the mighty have fallen hard in the past and continue to do so as referanced in Garths blog re: Detroit. However more succinctly we have a big problem her which also referance by Garths blog goe like this
“Some chi-chi social provocateurs say the future is globalization and urbanization. Let the manufacturing, fabricating, assembling, engineering, materials handling and support jobs migrate to Chindia. Go ahead and shut those unsightly single-story plants with their hazardous wastes and send them packing. Hollow-out small town Canada. Hell, the locals can move to an apartment in Toronto, go to York University and learn something useful.
In reality a green, knowledge-based society filled with highly-educated workers making ever more money is a dream more distant now than ever. Over the next few years immense amounts of wealth will flow out of countries like Canada and the States as we send cash to Asian bondholders. At the same time, we’re helpless without that offshore manufacturing capacity, and now snared in sluggish economic growth and chronic unemployment.
This week the IMF reinforced a point I’ve been making for months: The only certain thing about the years to come are higher taxes and slower growth (and you can in add higher interest rates). The legacy of the 2008-9 meltdown is already known: Debt. Steamy piles of it. The inescapable consequence of the greatest government spending orgy in history.
Sales taxes will be first (the new HST and more GST), followed by capital taxes and income tax. This will be accompanied by stiffer energy bills and lots more interest.
If you don’t see this coming, you’re not looking.”
This all relates to this Ponzi scam that many of you are referring to in various posts. ” Will my million dollars be 3 in 20?” Well there are many examples of that dream blowing up the face of property owners around the world. If you’re thinking ‘not here, cause we’re special’, I wonder if that same hype was used to sell the dream to all these other people. We are involved in a big gamble, and as you know know gamblers most often lose. In fact a famous study regarding the psycholgy of gamblers concluded that ‘the secret desire of all gamblers was to fail’.
Are we setting ourselves up for failure? What is the inflection point between success and doom? What percentage of your income going ultimatley to taxation and overhead will be the number that breaks the tip off the pyramid and sends the whole mess tumbling down? Everyone agrees that the current system is unsustainable, that goes without saying and yet the sirens call of greed sucks more into the game every year. In the US the system failed and crashed, where are we at in Canada in this timeline. Who will be the last man standing to hear ” Turn out the lights when you leave”.
August 19th, 2009 at 11:43 am
6 X No Longer Looking Says:
August 19th, 2009 at 2:14 am
“Are owners more responsible and more involved in their community?”
=====
In my experience it depends on the area.
Some family members and their neighbours were original owners of their properties(since the 1960′s )and ironically
4 of them sold within a year. (a couple of years ago)
3 of the houses were almost instantly converted to rooming houses…with all sorts of infill and add ons by their new Asian owners. I went by the old neighbourhood recently and one neighbours home has its driveway plugged with old cars and a chewed up front lawn. In just over 2 years a once immaculate home is now getting run down.
However, say on the West side of Vancouver, I think its more the unoffical rule that whether one be an owner or a renter, the homes be kept up. This justifies high rent and/or keeps resident owners happy…or else they would be more predisposed to stir things up. The irony is that many original West side homes were of larger sizes(wealthier area to begin with) and often converted into suites).
In other areas, ie East side, house were smaller and working class. Often the best one can do is convert the basement into a suite. Many simply sit either owned by senior citizens or absentee owners (often Asians or South East Asians )and waiting to be turned into McMansions. Often any of these homes, once sold , are demolished, rarely kept to rent or owner occupied.
August 19th, 2009 at 11:26 am
“Will that $750k house be worth $3 million in 30 years?”
Maybe, but I think the more reasonable questions is: will that $750k house be worth $300k in 2 years?
August 19th, 2009 at 11:14 am
pricedoutfornow:
very well put……..
August 19th, 2009 at 10:42 am
Renting is definitely the way to go these days. Sure, it would be nice to own a house (gardening on my patio is not exactly ideal) but at this point it makes no economic sense.
Sure, seniors with homes are wealthy these days BECAUSE they own homes….but they also saved up to put down a healthy down payment, and religiously paid off that mortgage within a reasonable period of time. And then house prices went up, so voila, they now have equity! And guess what, they didn’t have to pay some huge mortgage every month, so they could easily afford to also sock away some money in savings. But will we be able to say the same thing of people who are buying right now, in 30 years? Will that $750k house be worth $3 million in 30 years? Will that mortgage really be paid off (with 35 year amort. it may not be!) And what about the fact that the homeowner was not able to put ANY money into savings due to the huge mortgage they took out? It seems flawed somehow…people seem to be trying to replicate the experience of their grandparents/parents but they don’t realize that it’s a totally different situation. Our parents/grandparents were averse to debt, and I bet most of them didn’t expect that the little house they bought would be worth so much after 30 years. It was, after all, just a home, not a “pot of gold”. We’ve got it all wrong here and eventually it will all come crashing down-the debt will get most in the end.
August 19th, 2009 at 10:39 am
Post #9: m says
“I also may own one day again, if I can find something worth owning. It would currently cost me $300 more a month to rent my current home from the bank. ”
Thats the proper perspective that many are making.
It is “rent” either way.
Either
—”rent” to a landlord who is in debt to the bank, or
—bypass the middleman(ie landlord) and “rent” from the bank
Is this what it really boils down to?
What happens in the US will ultimately happen in Canada.
Will owning or renting be a better move given the economy in the near future.
I met a person who was a Swiss -trained chef who moved to BC. He said that renting in Europe was more the norm…due to the high cost of housing. However given the good salaries many enjoyed, even though rents were high people still had far more disposable income and were able to do more things like travel.
IMHO home ownership is not a bad thing…someone has to own..renters need the landlord first. I think most peoples plan was to go to school, get a career, rent then ultimately buy as a primary residence. Whats wrong with that ? However, this traditional evolution to home ownership has been somewhat corrupted via greedy banks developers and Gov’ts, to where people are getting turned off and following the European model.(even though the European models attempt at ownership has come and bite them in the ass).
August 19th, 2009 at 8:54 am
There was a front page story in either the Sun or the Province about two years ago that broke down the percentage of renters by neighborhood. I just went hunting for it on Google, but couldn’t find it. I remember though that there was a HIGHER percentage of renters in the more desireable neighborhoods. Kits had a higher percentage of renters than most east van neighborhoods.
Kind of puts a lie to the idea that renters drag down a neighborhood, or owners improve them.
August 19th, 2009 at 8:48 am
How can owners be more responsible, care for the property more than renters and be of benefit to local society if thy don’t even live here? Most of the RE in Vancouver is investor owned. Those rundown rentals look like they do, because the owners live overseas and don’t give a flying fcuk about their obligations to local society.
And one more thing: “Home should be a place to build a household and a life, a respite from the heartless world” – well, not in here it ain’t.
When its 30 degrees outside, it is 35 degrees in my apartment – quality design and craftsmanship of Vancouver construction for you. And just to think that the main reason for a home is to find refuge from elements… Leaky condos anyone?
P A T H E T I C!
August 19th, 2009 at 8:42 am
I think people want to own, and will pay a silly premium for it, because of the perception of wealthy owners and poor renters. People don’t tend to think of the people that are deep in debt trying to pay the assessment on their leaky condo, or the renter with several hundred thousand in liquid assets. They think owning equals wealth and if government programs makes owning possible for them (even at an unhealthy financial stretch), they get to think of themselves as one of the wealthy.
August 19th, 2009 at 8:41 am
If a down payment of $160K is required to “own” a brand new two bedroom condo in the Newport area of Port Moody, when renting the same unit with NO investment @ $1600.00/mo gets you the same thing?
Cheaper to rent, by far.
August 19th, 2009 at 8:33 am
Off topic but interesting. Calgary Realtor sought after body of California model found in briefcase
August 19th, 2009 at 8:25 am
I think we tend to forget that much of europe rents vs owns and our parents generations were the first to really move owning ahead of renting.
There is nothing fundamentally wrong with renting and the pros of owning your home in this market come with a hefty premium. We need to stay strong and not cave in to those who would have us believe that owing is the way to Nirvana.
In Vancouver’s case, where it is taking more and more of a family’s income to own a piece of re, little is left for investing in savings for retirement or discretionary spending back into the local economy.
We also tend to forget that in the case of houses there is a certain economy in the time that you spend for ever trimming, pruning, cleaning and repairing. Time is money after all.
I personally rent and am maxing out rrsp contributions and invest about 60 percent of my income. I may own again but not in this market.
There are some downsides to renting, but I daresay that the benefits of renting out weight the cons.
August 19th, 2009 at 8:24 am
There are so many things that I’d do to the place I’m currently renting if I owned it. There is little to no incentive to do anything, other than to take care of what’s already there, for a property that you rent. So a neighbourhood with both lots of rentals and landlords that don’t want to pay for anything, could start to get pretty run down. Of course I wouldn’t want to rent in a place like that and so as No Longer Looking said the quality of renter would go down yadda yadda.
But this “to own at all costs” mentatity seems very silly. Currently it is jammed down our throats that in order to be a successful productive member of society we must own.
I’m with you Chilled!
“As a previous homeowner, or should I say minority shareholder with the bank, renting did take a bit of getting used to. 6 digits in savings, no debt, weekends free from Home Despot, etc. etc. I finally realized what I was missing; absolutely nothing!! ”
I also may own one day again, if I can find something worth owning. It would currently cost me $300 more a month to rent my current home from the bank. (25% down 10 yr/25 am)That’s not including lost investment income. My savings aren’t just sitting there doing nothing afterall. For 5% down it would cost me $783 more per month. Now who’s throwing money away again??
We really should teach personal finance to our kids. I just happen to have a really smart and saavy hubby who taught me. I totally fell for the renting is throwing money away gimack until he showed me the math.
August 19th, 2009 at 7:29 am
I think owning imparts a greater sense of stability and rootedness which is the result of greater personal committment to one’s circumstances. People who buy a “home” and not an investment do so when they are satisfied with their particular set of circumstances such as employment status, relationship status and of course where they live etc.
Renting gives one the freedom to move if circumstances are not yet ideal enough to “settle down”. This ability to do so is always at the back of the mind of all renters.
August 19th, 2009 at 2:14 am
“Are owners more responsible and more involved in their community?”
That’s an interesting question. I wonder if anyone has done proper research on this.
Impact on property values probably causes some owners to get more involved than renters. But that is in a very self-centered way. NIMBYism isn’t always bad but can lead to a few people blocking something that is for the common good.
When a neighbourhood declines, its probably the more potentially mobile (wealthier) renters who flee first. This leaves behind the crackheads and such, which might give people the wrong impression that renters are a problem.
I just had an debate with my Mom about renting. She is frustrated that I’m not an owner (but does sort of agree with my bearish position). She keeps bringing up “security in old age” as a reason to own. When she mentioned the elderly being evicted in the Westend, I countered with the elderly leaky condo owners.
Then she mentioned that in her volunteer work preparing taxes for seniors, she notices the home-owners are better off. If it wasn’t Mom, I would have been snarky, but politely pointed out that the poor rent because they are poor, and renting didn’t cause their poverty.
I wanted to make a final point but she wanted to move on, so I bit my tongue. That point would have been that her own mother lived in the lovely old veterans housing on West Broadway (now replaced with leaky condos
) Grandma lived well as a renter.
August 19th, 2009 at 12:04 am
When the government says to rent, BUY.
August 18th, 2009 at 11:28 pm
Ownership confers a sense of responsibility. That’s one of the basic tenants (ha!) of capitalism.
August 18th, 2009 at 10:47 pm
Chilled: nice post
On the top of what you mentioned I did one more thing: moved to Regina.
i would sum up the whole concept as a “Change” rather then just strictly “home or no home ownership”. And once you break from the societal conditioning the feeling is so nice. It is like born again.
August 18th, 2009 at 10:30 pm
The cult of home ownership is powerful. As a previous homeowner, or should I say minority shareholder with the bank, renting did take a bit of getting used to. 6 digits in savings, no debt, weekends free from Home Despot, etc. etc. I finally realized what I was missing; absolutely nothing!! I never had a better tan in my life as well. Renting and saving becomes the new cult. For fun I recently cancelled my cable tv, brushed off my library card, cancelled my cell phone last week, more money in the bank each month. For every tax increase or rate hike, I plan on taking and equal and opposite action to counter it. Underground economy anyone?
I may own again one day, only because it is the right thing to do, not because of societal conditioning.
August 18th, 2009 at 10:21 pm
“then they invented the printing press” someting to remeMber nutsters!