Cancelling Dr. Seuss

[marshwiggle]

Inflation adjusted house prices in Canada started taking off after the year 2000. They increased about fourfold, with a recent decline.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/QCAR628BIS

The question is why. If we see a relative price rise this must be due to increased demand, reduced supply or both.

Bubbles, which burst, aside, the cause of the price rise is a growing population that is getting richer, with no growth, even declines, of new housing construction.

See Table five, page six: https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/canadas-housing-mismatch.pdf

Restrictive zoning laws, more generally nimbyism, prevent or make new construction too costly. As I've said before, this is a political problem.

I feel we have already discussed this, but the data I have seen shows that new housing construction has kept pace with population growth during this period so is not the primary driving factor.  Sure, it must be related to supply and demand, but not due to population growth alone, or even primarily.  It seems to me that the real change, or driving force, is speculation and using realestate as an investment driving up demand. 

But for anything to be an investment, there has to be a way to realize that value in the future. Specifically, real estate bought now has to be able to be sold later for a higher price. If it rises faster than inflation, then over time there will be a smaller and smaller potential market for it. People who can't afford something don't contribute to its rising price. So again it's not at all clear to me who will be able to buy it later at an even higher price.

[dismalist]

Inflation adjusted house prices in Canada started taking off after the year 2000. They increased about fourfold, with a recent decline.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/QCAR628BIS

The question is why. If we see a relative price rise this must be due to increased demand, reduced supply or both.

Bubbles, which burst, aside, the cause of the price rise is a growing population that is getting richer, with no growth, even declines, of new housing construction.

See Table five, page six: https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/canadas-housing-mismatch.pdf

Restrictive zoning laws, more generally nimbyism, prevent or make new construction too costly. As I've said before, this is a political problem.

I feel we have already discussed this, but the data I have seen shows that new housing construction has kept pace with population growth during this period so is not the primary driving factor.  Sure, it must be related to supply and demand, but not due to population growth alone, or even primarily.  It seems to me that the real change, or driving force, is speculation and using realestate as an investment driving up demand. 

While we agree that this is a political problem, I doubt we agree on the correct path forward.  I would argue the answer is in addressing speculation rather than loosening zoning (taxation on multiple home owners, regulating foreign buyers, evaluating the impacts and rules around air BnB, etc.).  Loosening zoning rules etc. could be part of the solution, but needs to be balanced with preserving agricultural and natural lands.  Otherwise, we will simply (continue to) destroy what we have.

We have indeed already discussed this. But it bears emphasis! :-)

I've googled around for data on growth of the housing stock and the best I could come up with is that Fraser report which says declining additions to the housing stock in the face of population growth, and I add that Canadians are getting richer.

Speculation is a demand side phenomenon. It creates bubbles, and bubbles burst. One can get cyclicality from speculation, but not trend price increases. As for the other demand side phenomena -- multiple homes, foreigners -- sure, you can get prices down by forbidding purchase of homes! So, a ration ticket in addition to money. Who is going to ration? How about me?

The puzzle is that all the demand side stuff pushing up prices has not resulted in more building. But supply side deregulation balanced with other stuff just means the high price of housing isn't all that bad. Tradeoffs where ever one looks.

[dismalist]

Inflation adjusted house prices in Canada started taking off after the year 2000. They increased about fourfold, with a recent decline.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/QCAR628BIS

The question is why. If we see a relative price rise this must be due to increased demand, reduced supply or both.

Bubbles, which burst, aside, the cause of the price rise is a growing population that is getting richer, with no growth, even declines, of new housing construction.

See Table five, page six: https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/canadas-housing-mismatch.pdf

Restrictive zoning laws, more generally nimbyism, prevent or make new construction too costly. As I've said before, this is a political problem.

I feel we have already discussed this, but the data I have seen shows that new housing construction has kept pace with population growth during this period so is not the primary driving factor.  Sure, it must be related to supply and demand, but not due to population growth alone, or even primarily.  It seems to me that the real change, or driving force, is speculation and using realestate as an investment driving up demand. 

But for anything to be an investment, there has to be a way to realize that value in the future. Specifically, real estate bought now has to be able to be sold later for a higher price. If it rises faster than inflation, then over time there will be a smaller and smaller potential market for it. People who can't afford something don't contribute to its rising price. So again it's not at all clear to me who will be able to buy it later at an even higher price.

That's why bubbles burst. They start on the expectation of future price increases. Everybody believes this. You get loans, including from your grandmother. At some stage the expectations of future price increases stop -- for any reason. Here, a rise in interest rates makes is more expensive to get the loan with which to speculate. Prices plunge. That's already happening with house prices in the US and Canada.

Think tulip mania: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania

At the peak of tulip mania, in February 1637, some single tulip bulbs sold for more than 10 times the annual income of a skilled artisan.

Again, speculation makes for cyclicality, but not trend price rises.

[marshwiggle]

Inflation adjusted house prices in Canada started taking off after the year 2000. They increased about fourfold, with a recent decline.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/QCAR628BIS

The question is why. If we see a relative price rise this must be due to increased demand, reduced supply or both.

Bubbles, which burst, aside, the cause of the price rise is a growing population that is getting richer, with no growth, even declines, of new housing construction.

See Table five, page six: https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/canadas-housing-mismatch.pdf

Restrictive zoning laws, more generally nimbyism, prevent or make new construction too costly. As I've said before, this is a political problem.

I feel we have already discussed this, but the data I have seen shows that new housing construction has kept pace with population growth during this period so is not the primary driving factor.  Sure, it must be related to supply and demand, but not due to population growth alone, or even primarily.  It seems to me that the real change, or driving force, is speculation and using realestate as an investment driving up demand. 

But for anything to be an investment, there has to be a way to realize that value in the future. Specifically, real estate bought now has to be able to be sold later for a higher price. If it rises faster than inflation, then over time there will be a smaller and smaller potential market for it. People who can't afford something don't contribute to its rising price. So again it's not at all clear to me who will be able to buy it later at an even higher price.

That's why bubbles burst. They start on the expectation of future price increases. Everybody believes this. You get loans, including from your grandmother. At some stage the expectations of future price increases stop -- for any reason. Here, a rise in interest rates makes is more expensive to get the loan with which to speculate. Prices plunge. That's already happening with house prices in the US and Canada.

Think tulip mania: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania

At the peak of tulip mania, in February 1637, some single tulip bulbs sold for more than 10 times the annual income of a skilled artisan.

Again, speculation makes for cyclicality, but not trend price rises.

And tulips were a "luxury" good; no-one needed them to survive. Housing is essential, so prices need to be what the masses can afford for there to be a market. So the bubble shouldn't be able to get nearly as big as for something esoteric that will be sold to the rich who have much more flexibility in pricing.

[dismalist]

Inflation adjusted house prices in Canada started taking off after the year 2000. They increased about fourfold, with a recent decline.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/QCAR628BIS

The question is why. If we see a relative price rise this must be due to increased demand, reduced supply or both.

Bubbles, which burst, aside, the cause of the price rise is a growing population that is getting richer, with no growth, even declines, of new housing construction.

See Table five, page six: https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/canadas-housing-mismatch.pdf

Restrictive zoning laws, more generally nimbyism, prevent or make new construction too costly. As I've said before, this is a political problem.

I feel we have already discussed this, but the data I have seen shows that new housing construction has kept pace with population growth during this period so is not the primary driving factor.  Sure, it must be related to supply and demand, but not due to population growth alone, or even primarily.  It seems to me that the real change, or driving force, is speculation and using realestate as an investment driving up demand. 

But for anything to be an investment, there has to be a way to realize that value in the future. Specifically, real estate bought now has to be able to be sold later for a higher price. If it rises faster than inflation, then over time there will be a smaller and smaller potential market for it. People who can't afford something don't contribute to its rising price. So again it's not at all clear to me who will be able to buy it later at an even higher price.

That's why bubbles burst. They start on the expectation of future price increases. Everybody believes this. You get loans, including from your grandmother. At some stage the expectations of future price increases stop -- for any reason. Here, a rise in interest rates makes is more expensive to get the loan with which to speculate. Prices plunge. That's already happening with house prices in the US and Canada.

Think tulip mania: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania

At the peak of tulip mania, in February 1637, some single tulip bulbs sold for more than 10 times the annual income of a skilled artisan.

Again, speculation makes for cyclicality, but not trend price rises.

And tulips were a "luxury" good; no-one needed them to survive. Housing is essential, so prices need to be what the masses can afford for there to be a market. So the bubble shouldn't be able to get nearly as big as for something esoteric that will be sold to the rich who have much more flexibility in pricing.

It hasn't. So far. :-)

Anyway, its burst for now.

[Kron3007]

Inflation adjusted house prices in Canada started taking off after the year 2000. They increased about fourfold, with a recent decline.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/QCAR628BIS

The question is why. If we see a relative price rise this must be due to increased demand, reduced supply or both.

Bubbles, which burst, aside, the cause of the price rise is a growing population that is getting richer, with no growth, even declines, of new housing construction.

See Table five, page six: https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/canadas-housing-mismatch.pdf

Restrictive zoning laws, more generally nimbyism, prevent or make new construction too costly. As I've said before, this is a political problem.

I feel we have already discussed this, but the data I have seen shows that new housing construction has kept pace with population growth during this period so is not the primary driving factor.  Sure, it must be related to supply and demand, but not due to population growth alone, or even primarily.  It seems to me that the real change, or driving force, is speculation and using realestate as an investment driving up demand. 

While we agree that this is a political problem, I doubt we agree on the correct path forward.  I would argue the answer is in addressing speculation rather than loosening zoning (taxation on multiple home owners, regulating foreign buyers, evaluating the impacts and rules around air BnB, etc.).  Loosening zoning rules etc. could be part of the solution, but needs to be balanced with preserving agricultural and natural lands.  Otherwise, we will simply (continue to) destroy what we have.

We have indeed already discussed this. But it bears emphasis! :-)

I've googled around for data on growth of the housing stock and the best I could come up with is that Fraser report which says declining additions to the housing stock in the face of population growth, and I add that Canadians are getting richer.

Speculation is a demand side phenomenon. It creates bubbles, and bubbles burst. One can get cyclicality from speculation, but not trend price increases. As for the other demand side phenomena -- multiple homes, foreigners -- sure, you can get prices down by forbidding purchase of homes! So, a ration ticket in addition to money. Who is going to ration? How about me?

The puzzle is that all the demand side stuff pushing up prices has not resulted in more building. But supply side deregulation balanced with other stuff just means the high price of housing isn't all that bad. Tradeoffs where ever one looks.

The devil is in the details.  The Frazer institute (a conservative thinktank with an agenda) shows data from the 70s and draws the trend.  That is fine, but from what I have seen leads to false conclusions.  If you look at the trends more recently, it is a different picture.  Data I saw from BMO showed that since 2016, the number of residences per 1000 Canadians has actually increased.  Despite this, during the same period, housing prices have grown dramatically.  So, I just don't see how population growth is to blame, and long term trends since the 70s do not really explain what has happened in the last few years.

[dismalist]

Inflation adjusted house prices in Canada started taking off after the year 2000. They increased about fourfold, with a recent decline.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/QCAR628BIS

The question is why. If we see a relative price rise this must be due to increased demand, reduced supply or both.

Bubbles, which burst, aside, the cause of the price rise is a growing population that is getting richer, with no growth, even declines, of new housing construction.

See Table five, page six: https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/canadas-housing-mismatch.pdf

Restrictive zoning laws, more generally nimbyism, prevent or make new construction too costly. As I've said before, this is a political problem.

I feel we have already discussed this, but the data I have seen shows that new housing construction has kept pace with population growth during this period so is not the primary driving factor.  Sure, it must be related to supply and demand, but not due to population growth alone, or even primarily.  It seems to me that the real change, or driving force, is speculation and using realestate as an investment driving up demand. 

While we agree that this is a political problem, I doubt we agree on the correct path forward.  I would argue the answer is in addressing speculation rather than loosening zoning (taxation on multiple home owners, regulating foreign buyers, evaluating the impacts and rules around air BnB, etc.).  Loosening zoning rules etc. could be part of the solution, but needs to be balanced with preserving agricultural and natural lands.  Otherwise, we will simply (continue to) destroy what we have.

We have indeed already discussed this. But it bears emphasis! :-)

I've googled around for data on growth of the housing stock and the best I could come up with is that Fraser report which says declining additions to the housing stock in the face of population growth, and I add that Canadians are getting richer.

Speculation is a demand side phenomenon. It creates bubbles, and bubbles burst. One can get cyclicality from speculation, but not trend price increases. As for the other demand side phenomena -- multiple homes, foreigners -- sure, you can get prices down by forbidding purchase of homes! So, a ration ticket in addition to money. Who is going to ration? How about me?

The puzzle is that all the demand side stuff pushing up prices has not resulted in more building. But supply side deregulation balanced with other stuff just means the high price of housing isn't all that bad. Tradeoffs where ever one looks.

The devil is in the details.  The Frazer institute (a conservative thinktank with an agenda) shows data from the 70s and draws the trend.  That is fine, but from what I have seen leads to false conclusions.  If you look at the trends more recently, it is a different picture.  Data I saw from BMO showed that since 2016, the number of residences per 1000 Canadians has actually increased.  Despite this, during the same period, housing prices have grown dramatically.  So, I just don't see how population growth is to blame, and long term trends since the 70s do not really explain what has happened in the last few years.

Oh, if that's the problem, that's fine: Houses are long lived, so to get an idea of the change in stock [I would prefer counting] you want to go back at least 50 years, 75 are better to look at new construction. I'm finding it difficult to get a time series of number of residences per Canadian on the Statistics Canada website, otherwise I would have used that. Please provide a link to BMO if you can.

Frasers Table has sources given. One can always check if they did what they said what they did..

Again, the last few years are tulip mania, and that bubble has burst. House prices in Canada are coming down.

[jimbogumbo]

Back to Florida: https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/19/politics/florida-bans-teaching-gender-identity-sexual-orientation/index.html

[marshwiggle]

Back to Florida: https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/19/politics/florida-bans-teaching-gender-identity-sexual-orientation/index.html

The decision Wednesday by the State Board of Education clarified that outside of health or reproductive courses, such instruction is not appropriate at any grade level.

[Parasaurolophus]

Back to Florida: https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/19/politics/florida-bans-teaching-gender-identity-sexual-orientation/index.html

The decision Wednesday by the State Board of Education clarified that outside of health or reproductive courses, such instruction is not appropriate at any grade level.

Not at any grade level?

Regardless, what counts as 'instruction' about gender identity or sexual orientation? I rather suspect we'll find that it's a broad list, and utterly ignores parallel instruction in the cis- and heteronormative realms (for lack of a better word for boyness, girlness, manness, womanness, and heterosexualness).

And what counts as a 'health or reproductive course' in Florida?

[jimbogumbo]

Back to Florida: https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/19/politics/florida-bans-teaching-gender-identity-sexual-orientation/index.html

The decision Wednesday by the State Board of Education clarified that outside of health or reproductive courses, such instruction is not appropriate at any grade level.

Yes, and your point? In the article  teacher(?) pointed out that discussing Supreme Court decisions in Government could now be dicey.

[dismalist]

There are probably not many people who object to adults who have a strong desire to change their sex to allow them to do so.

Exposing kids to this stuff merely makes kids who have the infrequent uncertainties associated with puberty, gender dysphoria, more uncertain. Virtually all kids who are uncertain will outgrow this stuff. The rest can change their sex when they're adults.

What is going on? Teaching about gender dysphoria is a recruiting device.

Identity politics has become the standard way to get benefits from the political system. So, form a new identity group and join the coalition of beneficiaries! Non-binary, gender this, gender that -- blah, blah, blah -- is not a question of science and biology, 'ya know this XX and XY stuff, but is best looked at as ethnogenisis.

This is active ethnogenisis, some are creating the new identity. What better way than to rope in children. This active ethnogenisis is politics and it will be combated by political means. He who sows the wind reaps the whirlwind.

[marshwiggle]

Back to Florida: https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/19/politics/florida-bans-teaching-gender-identity-sexual-orientation/index.html

The decision Wednesday by the State Board of Education clarified that outside of health or reproductive courses, such instruction is not appropriate at any grade level.

Yes, and your point? In the article  teacher(?) pointed out that discussing Supreme Court decisions in Government could now be dicey.

It's not obvious what "instruction" would need to be done to discuss Supreme Court decisions. Give an example.

I'm a Christian, but never seriously considered sending my kids to a Christian school, largely because of "ideological mission creep". People who have a political or ideological viewpoint they want to "share" with others have a tendency to try to shoehorn it in to all kinds of places in direct proportion to how strongly they feel about the topic.
STUDENTS ARE NOT PLACED IN SCHOOLS SO THAT TEACHERS CAN MAKE THEM INTO THEIR IDEOLOGICAL ACOLYTES.

Like my example of Christian schools, even for viewpoints I agree with, I disagree strongly with teachers using their position of authority to promote them.

Emphasis in school should be on giving students the skills and knowledge they need to function in society, and where they are going to address issues of ethics and morality they should fundamentally be introduced to the complexity of moral decisions to develop their ability to think carefully (which is a sign of maturity) rather than jump to a simple conclusion (which is a sign of immaturity).

[Parasaurolophus]

Emphasis in school should be on giving students the skills and knowledge they need to function in society, and where they are going to address issues of ethics and morality they should fundamentally be introduced to the complexity of moral decisions to develop their ability to think carefully (which is a sign of maturity) rather than jump to a simple conclusion (which is a sign of immaturity).

The real world is a place with queer people in it. Learning about them isn't any different from learning about the cis or hetero world. Which you do every time you use pronouns, read about mommies and daddies, etc. Pretending queer people don't exist doesn't equip children for success.

[jimbogumbo]

Branches of government are major topics in US History and Government courses, especially AP. Two cases that would not be allowed to be discussed that are topical involve same sex marriage and abortion access. The current case under consideration involving the abortion drug access will be a discussion point in high school upper level classes throughout the US.

That's off the top of my head. It is also unclear whether or not Florida students will be able to discuss Loving v Virginia next year due to other new legislation (which appears to be in conflict with existing Florida law.