From the renters article:

But Prof. Somerville believes the real reason that owners fare better than renters is because owning forces you to save.

“The forced saving is useful,” Prof. Somerville says. “In general, we don’t save that much in North America – and therefore something that makes us save more isn’t a bad idea.”

This forced savings myth really bugs me. Savings is defined as under-consumption or deferred consumption. It's money you earn but don't spend. It's available to you whenever you need it. A mortgage is money you're forced to spend, is not available whenever you need it (since it was never saved in the first place) therefore is the COMPLETE OPPOSITE of savings!

@superduperbulltime:

You're right, we should be more like Col. Russell Williams, family man, respected in the community, homeowner.

@realpaul: "‘forced savings’ argument is a delusion that has been debunked rather obviously in the current market cycle"

…except in Vancouver! Prices are barely down from their peaks. The forced savings meme is generally true, only because people generally lack the ability to save unless "forced" to do so, but yes they only "save" in net if they pay a non-inflated price in the first place. Otherwise it's "forced bizarro savings."

Tsur and the rest of the UBC gang will always pump RE, it pays their bills:

http://www.sauder.ubc.ca/Programs/Real_Estate_Div…

UBC is the only recommended path to become an agent by RECBC:

http://www.recbc.ca/licensing/career.htm

I'm glad I graduated from SFU business, I'd be embarrassed to have gone to Sauder. For all of you who have, write to them as an alumnus and state your outrage that the RE industry has taken over your alma mater.

superduperbulltime sure does Canadian immigration policy proud. Who wouldn't want more of the illiterate, abusive and incapable of reasoning?

I agree with the forced savings argument in normal circumstances. What's being missed in the criticisms is the distinction between funneling money into straight consumption versus a sustainable asset. Spending on a house obviously has superior future returns than blowing it on cars and vacations. Again, in normal circumstances. If not the best possible financial return better than strippers and blow.

Of course national governments across the globe fucked even that up by overstimulating housing, turning something that has historically been a source of economic stability into a crushing liability.

Politicians: is there anything they can't fuck up for votes?

From Vegas to Dubai, the worldwide real estate massacre shows no signs of ending.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20101022/wl_time/085…

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101022/ts_alt_afp/u…

Varun Chaudhary bought two two-bedroom residences in the Burj for about $1.5 million in 2005 even before construction began. He saw the value leap from $762 per sq. ft. to $3,811 per sq. ft. at the heights of the boom. Today, those values hover just above his purchase price. But he says he isn't worried about his investment. "These properties will recuperate faster than other properties because it's an icon, because it's only one in the world," he says. "You just have to say 'Burj Khalifa.' That's the address; you don't have to explain. It's a style statement in itself."

FEEL THE VALUE.