Log In
Register
Home
Topic RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Email this6:37 am
November 8, 2018
Offline
Vatox said
I hate to break the truth to everyone, but the biggest source of fault and the only one, from Canada, that would have made the biggest impact, is the Canadian Consumers.
It is like saying that if vodka is sold at liquor store for $1/liter, the rampant alcoholism which follows is the fault of people who buy the liquor cheap. The government that sets alcohol prices has nothing to do with consumption problem.
Think of borrowing in terms of demand and supply curve. The cheaper supply (of money) is, the higher the demand will be.
The only entity to blame for higher demand is one that makes supply cheaper. The Canadian government, its BoC, in this case.
6:54 am
April 27, 2017
Offline
Loonie said
I have lived over 75 years and was born in Canada. I have
NEVER been offered a free loan. The idea that borrowing is or has been free is so much BS.
The only things I have EVER borrowed for are a modest mortgage and post-secondary education.
My first professional job required a car; I rented a used one until I could afford to buy a used one outright, about 8 months in those days.Car loans are a money pit. Most of the people I worked alongside in those early years always bought new cars and always had hefty car loans that they complained about incessantly. They thought my approach was at best curious, but my used rental cars cost about a third of their monthly car payments and my used car purchase would have only financed about four months of their car payments. I drove that car for several years until I could afford to buy a new used car outright, and so on until I finally bought a brand new car of my choosing for cash.
You can blame consumers if you want, but , to quote George W Bush, the advice from the top is "go shopping". The peculiar organization of our economy requires it as a kind of patriotic duty.
If the bank charges you 1% while inflation is 2% then the bank is paying you to borrow. In real terms. So, you are right. It wasn’t free. It was better than that. That’s what they call “stimulative” rates when central banks “stimulate” borrowing and spending.
The argument that people are wrong to borrow and spend as a response to bank of Canada trying to get them to do just that isn’t very strong.
8:33 am
January 28, 2015
Offline
I'm turning 60 next month . At 16 I had a car loan , at 18 a student loan ,both paid off within a year. At 22 bought my first house , at 32 bought 2nd house moved up split at 34 and gave my X half. Kept the house , divided it in half moved ito the basement ,worked a ton of hours and paid it off @40. Took over entire house@ 37 and have paid the mortgage to myself to this day. I have always paid cash for everyting ,new cars ,appliances , furniture etc and always have cash on hand
An old guy told me keep paying the mortgage or you will end up like me a garage full of Canadian Tire, always pay cash for large items and the 3rd one is basically free. I have maxed out RRSP,since I was 22 and TFSA since it started. I love this inflation , I have and will be buying more as rates increase GICs . For the first time purchased 10 year GIC@5.1% 433.00 per month and have many coming due in the next 5 months.
11:04 am
September 11, 2013
Offline
I take a less black & white view, i.e. if liquor is $1 litre thus triggering higher alcoholism rates I'd say the cause is partly the low price setter and partly the consumer, i.e. you can't ignore the fact that many people refrain from increasing their alcohol intake even if the price drops.
Long-term debt for individuals' discretionary consumption is generally not a good idea, that's obvious, true, but debt incurred to buy assets or investments that end up increasing in value by a greater amount than the costs of the debt is sweet. Especially, as is the case (examples) for some investments or when small businesses incur debt to grow into bigger ones, if the debt is also tax deductible. Or if you take out a mortgage in the 1960s for $20,000 on a cottage north of Toronto which your heirs end up getting when it's worth a few million, extremely sweet!
12:33 pm
October 29, 2017
Offline
Alexandre said
Vatox said
I hate to break the truth to everyone, but the biggest source of fault and the only one, from Canada, that would have made the biggest impact, is the Canadian Consumers.It is like saying that if vodka is sold at liquor store for $1/liter, the rampant alcoholism which follows is the fault of people who buy the liquor cheap. The government that sets alcohol prices has nothing to do with consumption problem.
Think of borrowing in terms of demand and supply curve. The cheaper supply (of money) is, the higher the demand will be.
The only entity to blame for higher demand is one that makes supply cheaper. The Canadian government, its BoC, in this case.
Not true at all. That’s passing the responsibility once again! every Canadian has to take responsibility for their own actions. I could easily see people stocking up on vodka, but most would just drink the same amounts, it’s current alcoholics or recovering ones, that could go nuts on consumption.
When it comes to money, people can’t seem to find the joy and contentment in life, with what they earn.
1:10 pm
October 21, 2013
Offline
mordko said
If the bank charges you 1% while inflation is 2% then the bank is paying you to borrow. In real terms. So, you are right. It wasn’t free. It was better than that.
This is just economics hocus pocus. If you take on debt, you have to pay interest, period, and you will have to pay it at the prevailing rate regardless of whether inflation goes up or down. People are not borrowing because they already have capital that is depreciating; they are borrowing because they don't have the capital. There is no such thing as a loan at 1% and I doubt there ever has been, certainly not in my lifetime. And the guy who has no capital is not going to get a loan at the lowest rate anyway. If he can get a loan, he will pay at or above inflation. Think credit card debt and used car loans, which is where most discretionary overspending takes place by people who are short on capital. If the rate is lower, it's typically because purchase and loan are intertwined and the car is overpriced.
The fact remains there are no free loans. It's an illusion. Suggesting that there are just fuels the fire of overspending - and that is the current problem. We have a precarious economic system that depends on overspending. That will have to be recognized before anything will improve significantly. We are just spending ourselves into a hole.
1:38 pm
April 27, 2017
Offline
Mortgage rates went to 1% less than a year ago. I am taking a wild guess that its in your life time but happy to be proven wrong.
This is basics as opposed to “hocus-pocus”. People do get extremely rich by borrowing at interest below inflation. Often its about corruption but in recent times it was Central Banks’ policy. What it means is that the bank is lending you in full knowledge that it will get back less than it lent. In real terms, which are the only terms that matter.
You could invest what you borrow profitably rather than buy trinkets. Or you can buy a used car and resell it a year later and end up with profit exceeding the loan interest by a large margin. I’d say its free money. Borrowing when real interest rates are below zero is smart. Canadians are, on the whole, quite smart.
2:00 pm
April 14, 2021
Online
Loonie said
The fact remains there are no free loans. It's an illusion.
I disagree. My brother managed a free loan before the 2008 crisis. They offered him a sub-prime rate which he astutely took and re-invested in some short-term GIC or bonds. When the rates rose and the loan was called, he sold his investments and re-paid the loan. It was literally free money. Sadly, I wasn't bright enough to repeat the same scheme.
4:55 pm
March 30, 2017
Offline
Taking a low interest loan and buy a used car to make profit is NOT free money, there is risk there will be a loss and that is the ‘interest’ one pays.
Same with taking out a loan and make investment. There is no real life scenario where u can take out a lower interest loan without collateral and able to purchase a risk free asset that earns a higher return…
9:12 pm
October 21, 2013
Offline
Some people are confusing interest rates with returns on investment.
Borrowing is one thing; what you do with it after that is another. You might win (which you have interpreted as a negative interest rate); or you might lose, which will cost you even more.
The interest rate is the same in both cases, as your contract will indicate.
What is at issue right now is consumer spending. Borrowing on credit cards or lines of credit, whether frivolous or essential, is going to cost you.
4:52 am
April 27, 2017
Offline
This article explains the basics quite well.
https://www.businessinsider.com/personal-finance/what-is-real-interest-rate
6:38 am
April 6, 2013
Offline
mordko said
This article explains the basics quite well.https://www.businessinsider.com/personal-finance/what-is-real-interest-rate
The article is wrong.
The cost of a 5% loan is 5% per year. Lenders don't care about the real rate of a loan because they earn on the spread between the nominal rate of the loan and the nominal rate of the deposits that fund the loan.
Bank will make 2% on a 5% loan funded with 3% deposits, no matter what inflation does.
The real rate is not the difference in the nominal rates. Real rate of an investment paying 7% nominal with inflation of 3% is actually
(1+ 0.07) / (1 + 0.03) - 1 = 0.0388 = 3.88%
8:27 am
April 27, 2017
Offline
The article is 100% correct. The term its using is “real interest rate”. The dictionary defines it as follows:
Real interest rate = nominal interest rate - rate of inflation (expected or actual).
Source: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/realinterestrate.asp
The key statement is this:
“The possibility of negative real interest rates in an inflationary environment leads shoppers to prefer buying goods today instead of waiting to make the purchase. This is commonly referred to as the time-preference theory of interest.”
9:55 am
April 6, 2013
Offline
mordko said
The article is 100% correct. The term its using is “real interest rate”. The dictionary defines it as follows:Real interest rate = nominal interest rate - rate of inflation (expected or actual).
Source: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/realinterestrate.asp
The key statement is this:
“The possibility of negative real interest rates in an inflationary environment leads shoppers to prefer buying goods today instead of waiting to make the purchase. This is commonly referred to as the time-preference theory of interest.”
Both those are garbage.
In an inflationary environment, shoppers prefer buying goods today instead of waiting because the goods will cost more later. It has nothing to do with interest rates, real or nominal.
In fact, some shoppers prefer buying goods today. Period.
Please write your comments in the forum.