Yeah, but the return rate for stocks over the last century has been 10% per annum. I’m not making it up, this is what an actual financial advisor will tell you about the relative performance of real estate and investing, and why one or the other might be right for you.

You shouldn’t really be leveraging yourself to buy into an index fund. If you can buy a house outright that’s also a better deal than a mortgage.

There is a room with a large-ish group of people in it. Someone in it has won a lottery. How many people in the room have winning lottery tickets, if you had to estimate?

An MP being a spy is more likely than winning a lottery, but I still think it’s fair to say the vast majority aren’t. To the point where if it’s not zero one seems most likely.

Edit: Even if my conclusion turns out to be wrong, I stand by this logic. Vote me down all you want.

Sure there is. Off the top of my head: how much you were speeding as it effects likelihood of being pulled over, salt content in your drinking water, and median daily percentage of necessary daily calories over the course of a year.

In this case, that’s a substantial but not overwhelming share of the population with 90% of the wealth either way. To me personally, that seems the same. You can have a different impression and not be wrong, I guess.

How? I’m pretty sure the commentators have said there’s no mechanism to do that, exactly in Han Dong’s case.

One of these days, a banana is actually going to cost that, and then this joke will no longer work. Hopefully not for decades though.

Funny enough, real estate preforms worse than just an index fund, usually. The difference is that a mortgage makes not regularly paying in much more difficult.

But yeah, the underclass tends to rent.

A basement suite in rural Saskatchewan. I’m guessing that’s about the going rate.

The “total number of owners” link goes here. I’m not really sure how to read what come up, though. I actually wonder if the site was bugging out.

Here’s the actual exchange. Not to give them traffic, but maybe like me you want to click through to something else.

According to other people in that thread, it goes down to 30% or 40% if you don’t include people who just live together with a homeowner. Honestly that doesn’t change the story much for the purpose of OP, IMO.

People who own one or two houses are not rich

If they own two, they’re definitely rich, although not big-R Rich. A house to live in and a rental is basically a retirement plan all on it’s own. Even one makes me think you’re in the middle class and doing okay.

65% of the population owning 90% of the wealth isn’t that surprising

Agreed.

when in reality the problem comes from the government spending money wherever and not applying strict foreign home purchasing laws that keep increasing home prices.

Neither of those things have caused the housing crisis.

I have a strong feeling you’re in the picture here, as a homeowner.

Edit: And neither have homeowners, to be clear. There’s just physically not enough buildings, which is a problem that’s being worked on.

IIRC a lot.

Or maybe pump it into a well to displace oil out. My impression is she simps for oil interests way harder than farmers.

Yeah, that was my first thought. If it was a guaranteed well-paying career like it used to be maybe it would change the mood in here. Otherwise, no, it’s just a way to have a less pathetic military.

Probably not nobody, but that shouldn’t be the main point. We don’t want to be defenceless anymore.

That being said, I don’t look forward to being drafted into such a shitty military culture.

That makes it kind of value-neutral. If they want to make IP money, they could always develop a slightly enhanced derivative.

I don’t know, I don’t buy the “miracle herbs” thing. It seems like a ploy for people selling herbs more than anything.

This is why we need the Charter. Politicians don’t care about a few horribly disabled people, and average people don’t want to think about them, but courts have to.

It doesn’t even have to be a coalition. They could pull out of some ridings unilaterally, and might want to if it guarantees another minority government.

It could be, but this benefits all homeowners, and ordinary ones make up the most politically important block, which is why I’m unclear. OP could mean anything from all homeowners (the edgey take) to just the billionaire ones.

Hmm. Polling as the Conservatives are, would they win against a united left? I’ve suggested a strategic exit from three-way races on here before, but maybe that’s not even enough.

There’s also a US election between now and then.

He’s primarily after the youth vote. I’m not sure which “devils” you mean exactly, but young people don’t usually own a home.

Why the fuck would he say this right now.