“we can disagree”

You’re not disagreeing with me and I’m not disagreeing with you. You’re disagreeing with textbook economics and monetary policy, which is very different.

I do understand how it works. We may disagree and that’s fine. It has nothing to do with commissions. We can debate all day long why rates keep rising when they should or shouldn’t, or why they should have started raising rates in June of 2021 when they didn’t, or why they only react instead of being proactive. I’m not entirely sure you understand. You can’t compare today to the 80’s, that’s irresponsible. Hindsight is fun right? I’m all for the aggressive rate hikes to calm inflation, because if they don’t the Stagflation is going to be bad. So go big and deep. I’m just not entirely convinced that the inflation war will be won. But huge interest rate increases will have an impact on the economy as they should to your point. Where we differ I assume is in the “actual” state of the economy. I don’t mean today, I mean in 6 months when these rates take their toll.

But you don’t. You think interest rates are designed to keep commission paycheques flowing, when lower rates are designed to INCREASE INFLATION.

Even in the early 80s the recession didn’t cause them to cut rates, it caused them TO RAISE RATES INTO THE RECESSION because inflation was still rising.

I understand QE, call it or interprete it the way you want. Interest rates will start to fall in the winter if not sooner. Is that QE or not? How inflation is defined is faulty at best. How “QE” is defined and utilised is as well. Point is there will be a push to add liquidity into the market again sooner rather than later and that’s my point.

Immigration increased in the 1990s and new homes fell yet prices fell as well. It’s almost like they’re not biased by dividing two numbers and everyone hilariously declaring “we’ll just get 400,000 immigrants per year because those suckers will always pay more!” is biased.

An immigration target isn’t the same as the number of people.

Hey WF, apologies for the confusion. Canadians need to “worry about the banks” because banks will quite rightly be more concerned about bank balance sheets and shareholders than they are about ensuring homeowners keep their homes. During the US sub-prime crisis, twice as many “prime” borrowers lost their homes as “sub-prime” borrowers. As you pointed out, foreclosure is less common than most people think, because foreclosure occurs when the bank “takes away” your home usually forcefully. Unfortunately, more homeowners either walk away and hand the keys back to the bank or sell and take the loss on the home and end up with an unsecured loan at the bank for the shortfall.