Thats why I am in Vancouver and not London, and why I lived in Poco and not downtown for years and why I bought a beaten up piece of crap house when I did move into Vancouver and lived in it for years doing repairs myself or when I had the money, not borrowing.
Well I'm not living in Bishop's Avenue myself, but I can see beyond the limited level of influence an individual has on the market.
The banks don't have a limited level of influence - they're lending policies have greatly influenced the property market. Here in the UK, the standard policy used to be that you could borrow up to 3x the main wage earner's salary plus 1x a partner's salary.
Had that policy been maintained you would not have had such a ridiculous overheated housing market.
And for the others that say - rent, I'd agree with that - if the rental sector was economic and didn't mean you had to live in a cesspit if you wanted affordability which is the case here.
Well I'm not living in Bishop's Avenue myself, but I can see beyond the limited level of influence an individual has on the market.
The banks don't have a limited level of influence - they're lending policies have greatly influenced the property market. Here in the UK, the standard policy used to be that you could borrow up to 3x the main wage earner's salary plus 1x a partner's salary.
Had that policy been maintained you would not have had such a ridiculous overheated housing market.
And for the others that say - rent, I'd agree with that - if the rental sector was economic and didn't mean you had to live in a cesspit if you wanted affordability which is the case here.
I 'm not familiar with bank lending in the UK, but was this a regulatory policy where banks couldn't lend on terms easier than that or was that a formal regulation by a governing body?
If regulatory then I think demanding your pound of flesh from bankers is misguided and your anger should actually be squared right on politicians.
Well I'm not living in Bishop's Avenue myself, but I can see beyond the limited level of influence an individual has on the market.
The banks don't have a limited level of influence - they're lending policies have greatly influenced the property market. Here in the UK, the standard policy used to be that you could borrow up to 3x the main wage earner's salary plus 1x a partner's salary.
Had that policy been maintained you would not have had such a ridiculous overheated housing market.
And for the others that say - rent, I'd agree with that - if the rental sector was economic and didn't mean you had to live in a cesspit if you wanted affordability which is the case here.
I was never under the belief I could afford to live in London, and that was when I was living there, none of my friends live there, Slough or Amazingstoke is as close as they could get.
It isn't Wall Streets fault that americans are ideologically simple and fell/fall for right wing sound bites like 'trickle down' and then vote for Reagan.
Wall Street has but one aim, to make money, politicians have but one aim, to get re elected, ultimately what goverment you get is the electors fault.
Bill Maher chimes in AFTER spending time at the occupy movement (Which is more than anyone here can say.) Being that he was used to tarnish the movement earlier in this thread I think it's fair to say he can be used as a good sound bite especially now that he has been there first hand and spoke with many people involved in the movement.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to To Be Quite Honest For This Useful Post:
I dont why people have an issue with these protests. They have been non-violent, they arent hurting anyone or anything, so whats the problem? Let them protest and quit bitching about it.
The Following User Says Thank You to Canuck-Hater For This Useful Post:
I dont why people have an issue with these protests. They have been non-violent, they arent hurting anyone or anything, so whats the problem? Let them protest and quit bitching about it.
As I understand it, in Calgary a group can obtain a permit and rent the plaza for "day use". In fact a group has done just that for this coming Saturday, now the space "occupied" by another none permitted, none paying group.
That's just one aspect. The city also can't carry out the seasonal maintenance that needs to be done.
This article outlines some of the issues other cities are facing.
Sounds like a bunch of excuses to stop the protests. The National Post-a very right wing newspaper clearly has an agenda of belittling the occupy movement. Theres a such thing as free speech. These are all good things to protest against-war, poverty, and economic frustrations. Lower the excess police presence, that would save us money. Its not even necessary.
Sounds like a bunch of excuses to stop the protests. The National Post-a very right wing newspaper clearly has an agenda of belittling the occupy movement. Theres a such thing as free speech. These are all good things to protest against-war, poverty, and economic frustrations. Lower the excess police presence, that would save us money. Its not even necessary.
I dont why people have an issue with these protests. They have been non-violent, they arent hurting anyone or anything, so whats the problem? Let them protest and quit bitching about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canuck-Hater
Sounds like a bunch of excuses to stop the protests. The National Post-a very right wing newspaper clearly has an agenda of belittling the occupy movement. Theres a such thing as free speech. These are all good things to protest against-war, poverty, and economic frustrations. Lower the excess police presence, that would save us money. Its not even necessary.
I haven't read the last couple hundred posts in the thread, so excuse me if this point has been made, but why are you bitching about people in the press bitching about the occupiers? Isn't the whole point of their "occupation" to get people to talk about "it", for better or for worse? What are you whining about exactly? The occupiers have achieved the most they could have asked for... They've been sitting around for a couple weeks posting twitter updates from their iphones while squatting on property they don't own, and their cause is getting press because of it.
Were you expecting a positive spin from the National Post? No? So if the National Post had just ignored this whole thing, would you be here complaining that they are selective about their stories? Would you prefer that the National Post said nothing at all?
So they're just going to stop making mortgage payments.
Didn't they sign their mortgage papers after fully reading them and understanding them.
I hope they like living outside year round, if this is the case they are stupid people.
Actually, the whole mortgage crisis ensued because the mortgage loans owned by lenders were sold to make MORE money. The people who signed the mortgage papers can stop paying because the loan has been satisfied when it was sold as an investment. Starts 27:30 in the Documentary "Inside Job".
It sounds like the same logic as you not having to pay a collection firm that purchases bad debt because they satisfied the original debt.
I don't think it legally works that way.
The contract was signed by family x with company A. Company A sells the contract to company B. Company A still wants the money - show me the original contract. If it can not be produced (because they are not in possession of it) but they have received money for the original contract the facts would be the contract has been satisfied.
Now perhaps the company who owns the mortgage would then get the money but those " investment funds" now no longer exist. That's what is different here.
I have no idea about collection debt - this was derived from a guy in Texas who occupied a house that was foreclosed. I'll try to find the news story but I have no idea where I did see it. There is also an 80 year old man who has done the same with many homes in California (I think).
Here it is. The guy didn't own the house previously, but he is still occupying the house today.
Actually, the whole mortgage crisis ensued because the mortgage loans owned by lenders were sold to make MORE money. The people who signed the mortgage papers can stop paying because the loan has been satisfied when it was sold as an investment. Starts 27:30 in the Documentary "Inside Job".
This argument is doubly valid for a freeman on the land.
