# Canadian banks heavily shorted



## godblsmnymkr (Jul 15, 2015)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/glob...nvestors-are-betting-against/article26211578/

TD #2 most shorted after XIU. doesnt make sense to me since TD has least amount of energy loan exposure. i believe every major bank is on largest net increases table except for BMO. 
I am no expert here but it seems like the negative sentiment on Canadian banks is overdone. people are basically betting on a lot of loans in energy and housing going bad for these banks. anyone have some insight to the smaller oil sands companies ability to pay their loans. 

something that worries me is all of the oil sands companies would have had price hedges to sell their oil for the next 1-2 years. what happens when those hedges run out and they are selling oil for the new market price?


----------



## avrex (Nov 14, 2010)

I disagree with your title "heavily shorted".

The table you linked to only shows the raw number of shares shorted. What about the total number of outstanding shares?

What you want to look at is *short interest percentage*. 
This is the percentage by dividing the number of shares sold short by the total number of outstanding shares

In this thread, I explain that the highest short interest of the big 5 banks places only as high as 45th place on a list of the largest 235 TSX companies (i.e. those with a market cap larger than one billion dollars.)


----------



## godblsmnymkr (Jul 15, 2015)

yes good point i should have thought of that =)


----------



## treva84 (Dec 9, 2014)

CWB posted growing earnings for Q3 yesterday (despite the drop in oil) and declared a 0.22 cent dividend (same as last, no cut) yet they are down over 3% today. An effect of the shorting?


----------



## CPA Candidate (Dec 15, 2013)

As a long, I see it as some dry tinder for future appreciation.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

avrex said:


> The table you linked to only shows the raw number of shares shorted. What about the total number of outstanding shares?
> 
> What you want to look at is *short interest percentage*.
> This is the percentage by dividing the number of shares sold short by the total number of outstanding shares
> ...



great stuff!

another example of how tables, charts & data bases can fool a hasty viewer & point him wrong.

there's a silver lining in the globe's article linked by godbless upthread (post #1 i believe.)

look at those tsx short decreases for the latest reporting period. Coming up nicely for air are the much-maligned energy & pm sectors.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

I'm not sure it means much that XIU is heavily shorted. The short positions could easily be part of some hedging strategy or pair trade... XIU is the most liquid ETF in Canada so it's a good anchor for a wide variety of trading strategies.

Regarding the Canadian banks, personally I'm bearish on them. They required emergency bailouts in 2008 and three of the Big Five lost all of their equity value (i.e. became worthless) during the crisis, so we know that Canadian banks are not particularly strong or stable. They're just as vulnerable to market forces as other global banks.

The big worry right now, in that context, is the crashing energy and resource sector. If this continues and if real estate slows down, the banks could have another crisis. And bank stocks have run up the most in the last bull market so they stand out as the highest risk for sharp declines.

A big run up in the valuation of highly leveraged entities is followed (potentially) by steep declines. And these things are leveraged about 30:1


----------



## dime (Jun 20, 2013)

james4beach said:


> three of the Big Five lost all of their equity value (i.e. became worthless) during the crisis, so we know that Canadian banks are not particularly strong or stable. They're just as vulnerable to market forces as other global banks.



Where did you read this? I've never heard this before that they 'became worthless'. Historical stock charts Canadian stocks dropping by half in 2008 (which most stocks did at that time) and then recovering from 2009-2010. 


I remember reading in articles frequently during 208-09 that "Canada has the most sound banking system in the world." It took till 2012 for reports that the banks were offered 114 billion in support. Journalists point out that it was considered 'liquidity support' not a 'bailout'. The money loaned was only temporary and returned in full after the liquidity crisis of 08-09. 

James maybe you referring to how during that time 3 banks (CIBC BMO & Scotia) were loaned an amount equal the value of the company’s shares.

The Canadian Bankers Association said at that time the money was for banks to lend to small business during the crisis, and not to keep the Banks from 'failing' and that the Banks were not in danger of going bankrupt.

During the meltdown in 2008-2009 in the credit markets there were similar measures taken around the world to support businesses.


----------



## birdman (Feb 12, 2013)

It seems to me that if the banks lost all their equity they would no longer be in business and shares would be valued at zero. I quickly reviewed the income statement for the Royal Bank for 2009 and noted the following:
Equity: $36,906,000,000.
Retained Earnings: $20,585,000,000.
Net Income: $3,858,000,000.

I couldn't be bothered to read all 150 pages of the report and yes, earnings were down from 2007 and 2008 but that is to be expected during downturns. I fail to see and understand the negativity that some posters regularly post on what I believe to be one of the strongest sectors in the world. Without checking the details, I believe that the big 5 have never missed a dividend in perhaps 100 yrs or so and there have been previous posts on this subject. Having spent almost 40 yrs in the business I feel the the business is a good one with little downside risk over the long term. Yes, my portfolio is about 50% in Canadian Banks but to each their own.
As an aside, the Royal made $9,000,000,000. in 2014, had $32,000,000,000. in retained earnings, and $53,000,000,000. in equity.
I suggest everyone come to their own conclusions on the subject and quite frankly I don't have the time nor inclination to debate this further.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

dime said:


> Where did you read this? I've never heard this before that they 'became worthless'. Historical stock charts Canadian stocks dropping by half in 2008 (which most stocks did at that time) and then recovering from 2009-2010.


It was due to the secret bailouts form the Federal Reserve (and Bank of Canada). The details were not known until Bloomberg sued the Federal Reserve to reveal the information under Freedom of Information. Details are in this report: https://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/reports/big-banks-big-secret

Here's the story on the lawsuit, and Bloomberg sharing the discovered secrets at the end of 2011 (more than 3 years after it happened)
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...data-compiled-by-bloomberg-released-to-public

Basically at one point, due to huge emergency loans, the liabilities of CIBC and Scotiabank exceeded their assets. This means the banks had, for a period, zero or negative equity. Assets = Liabilities + Equity

This information was kept secret from shareholders. If this information had been known, the stocks would have dropped to $0 to reflect the fact that they had ZERO equity.

In my opinion, the banks also violated the law by failing to report these loans on their books. They released audited financial statements but did not mention these material facts. Nobody cares about this apparently, but I do.

Obviously everyone is happy the information was kept secret, but we should not lose sight of the reality: several big Five banks became worthless for a brief period. This does not give me confidence in buying bank equity. I also won't buy equity in a company that lies in the financial statements and fails to report material facts about the financial disclosure.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

james4beach said:


> Basically at one point, due to huge emergency loans, the liabilities of CIBC and Scotiabank exceeded their assets. This means the banks had, for a period, zero or negative equity. Assets = Liabilities + Equity


Of course they don't have the actual data to back that statement up, as they point out near the end of the document, how much money they received is unknown.


----------



## birdman (Feb 12, 2013)

I don't agree James4Beach. Yes, Assets =Liabilities+Equity but that does in no way infer the are insolvent or have zero or negative equity. It just means they do not have enough deposits to cover loans and thus they need to buy deposits (borrow) to cover their assets. It is confusing to some but a deposit by a bank customer is really just a loan to the F/I. Borrowing from another bank or the Bank of Canada is the same. Nothing to fret about and while I don't profess to know the details I'm pretty sure the banks have access to large amounts of cash (deposits ) from the Bank of Canada. Of course the other option is to simply reduce their loan portfolio which is why most business loans are "payable on demand". If there is ever a run on a bank they always can demand payment of their demand loans and of course refuse to renew mortgages and other loans at maturity. When I was in the business (a bank and then a credit union), in the case of the latter we were required to have 10% of our deposits (liabilities) in cash but normally strived to keep it at 12-15%. However, we also had access to significant lines of credit of perhaps another 10 or 20%. Don't confuse equity with borrowing from another party; its just another liability. For that matter at one time when our loan demand was heavy and our deposit growth was having trouble keeping up, I negotiated a significant loan from a chartered bank to preserve our liquidity and maintain it above our internal 12% -15% policy. If I recall we borrowed well below prime and made money on the funds borrowed. It was just more assets and liabilities and had nothing to do with equity or profitablility. 
Needless to say a huge run on all the financial institutions is a serious thing (eg Greece). I also recall that on one occassion many decades ago the chartered banks were experiencing "tight Money" , in other words loan demand exceeded the available deposits. To deal with it the banks simply curtailed credit growth and were reluctant to approve new loans due to the drain on liquidity. I was not aware if they were borrowing from the Bank of Canada but they simply slowed down loan growth. I also might add that if a financial institution needs to raise money in a hurry all they have to do is raise deposit rates and loan rates and the deposits flow in very quickly and loan demand dries up. This is the reason that for large blocks of money (and I MEAN Large) some banks may pay a premium rate if they are pressed for liquidity. Hope this helps.


----------



## londoncalling (Sep 17, 2011)

great post frase. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## lonewolf (Jun 12, 2012)

The bull market in cash has a long way to run to the upside. The safest play is not with money lent to the Canadian banks in the form of GICs & savings accounts. The real bull market will be in cash not money on deposit @ banks that make loans. When the DJI goes below the 09 lows & most likely to 1000 with government bonds defaulting the Canadian banks will not look so strong anymore. Banks that are 100% liquid that do not lend money instead have service charge will be the safest play for the bull market in cash. Better be sitting @ the right table if your going to survive & prosper in the mother bull market in cash.


----------



## smihaila (Apr 6, 2009)

lonewolf said:


> [...] The safest play is not with money lent to the Canadian banks in the form of GICs & savings accounts. The real bull market will be in cash not money on deposit @ banks that make loans.


Could you please elaborate on those 2 sentences? I'm afraid I don't understand. Are you suggesting that a Cyprus incident is hihly probable to happen in Canada and hence, not even money in CDs or savings account will be safe? Will there be a bear market in which the king-cash should chase other forms of 'investment', possibly non-conventional (i.e. p2p lending etc)?

Thank you.


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

Anything is possible today with all the debt, money printing, derivatives and manipulation of all markets out there. It could implode so bad that we go all the way back to where it all started when Nixon closed the gold window.

Not sure how this house of cards will play out but we are definitely at a scary point right now. Look around you, China has just dumped 93 billion in treasuries and now we have 4 chemical companies blow up in China over the last month. We having stock markets crashing around the world along with commodities. The middle east is in chaos along with Ukraine because of poor western intervention. You could go on and on and barely hear any of this in the bought and paid for mainstream media but there is much danger out there.


----------



## lonewolf (Jun 12, 2012)

smihaila said:


> Could you please elaborate on those 2 sentences? I'm afraid I don't understand. Are you suggesting that a Cyprus incident is hihly probable to happen in Canada and hence, not even money in CDs or savings account will be safe? Will there be a bear market in which the king-cash should chase other forms of 'investment', possibly non-conventional (i.e. p2p lending etc)?
> 
> Thank you.


 When money is put in the bank weather CD or GICs it is not deposited for safe keeping it is a loan to the bank, which is why interest is paid. I do not think the banks are going to make good on those loans. We are in a credit bubble any money that lent out is @ risk of not being paid back, This is to big for CDIC to handle. Banks are in conflict of interest with their clients. Credit unions are not. NYSE margin debt close to record highs stocks will be sold to meet margin requirements. There is going to be a shortage of dollars to pay back loans pushing up the value of dollars. Physical bills are going to be more valuable then bank IOUs


----------



## Topo (Aug 31, 2019)

CIBC's total provisions for loan losses jumped 52%. That is quite an increase for one quarter. Net income fell 10%. 



> *CIBC profit falls short of forecasts on higher loan-loss provisions, weakness in domestic banking*


Other banks also reported higher provisions for loan losses.


https://www.theglobeandmail.com/bus...ess-in-capital-markets-unit-domestic-banking/


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Yeah, it’s a good buying opportunity for real estate. Got offers in on several 1 bedroom places for under 50k. Real estate prices are in free fall, no one buying. Haven’t seen prices like this in decades. Rental market demand is high, prices for a one bed probably hovering around $1000. 

The banks are mostly insured on bad real estate loans by cmhc, so they aren’t hurting as much as they appear. Their others loans, well...


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

One statistic that I think stands out is that Canadians are suddenly acquiring debt at a much slower rate than they have in the past 50-60 years.

I doubt Canadians have decided en masse to become more frugal and suspect that lenders have shut the door to a lot of people who have maxed out their credit.

In other words.....people would borrow more but nobody will give them any more money.

What happens when people don't earn enough and can't borrow to pay their bills ? 

They default, asset values fall, lenders take losses, and the economy goes into a recession.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Benjamin Tal, chief economist for CIBC Market Capital has been saying for a long time that the "debt" problem is low wages.

Canadians have acquired debt to pay their monthly expenses, because they don't earn enough.

When people can't borrow any more, the problem is exposed and trouble sets in. We may have reached the pinnacle stage of debt.

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/the-iss...dian-debt-fears-points-to-wage-woes-1.1338900


----------



## Topo (Aug 31, 2019)

sags said:


> Benjamin Tal, chief economist for CIBC Market Capital has been saying for a long time that the "debt" problem is low wages.
> 
> Canadians have acquired debt to pay their monthly expenses, because they don't earn enough.
> 
> ...


That's the main point. It's the economy that matters, not any single bank or financial institution. Could the increase in provisions for loan losses be the canary in the coal mine?


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

I’ve got a buddy who specializes in renting to the poor. Everyone of his tenants have a big screen flat tv. Maybe only a 50” one, but they alll have one. Which also means cable. They also have cellphones, when landlines can be had for next to nothing. 

It’s low wages alright, not living beyond their means because they feel entitled.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

Clearly it is a problem with the combination of low wages, consumer debt, and unrealistic expectations. Over the past ten years our economy has inched closer and closer to a service industry based economy. Contracting out, low wages, and offshoring.

It is not just the low income earners. We have a friend who just bought a new higher end vehicle to replace their three year old one. Same person just remortgaged their home, dine out very frequently, and regularly complain about being worried about money issues. During my career I worked with what would be considered high income earners. I knew several who lived paycheque to paycheque. Consumer debt is plagues all levels of income earners.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Seems loan loss provisions are reverting to the mean from a couple of years of unusually low levels. No idea if this is true and too lazy to check.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

I thought all this got solved when they increased the minimum wage to $14 and $15 per hour. 

Are we now saying that even if we simply give these people more money, for doing absolutely nothing for it, that even that won't fix the problem. That perhaps some of their problems are self-inflicted and others are from the fundamental economic reality that in a capitalistic economy someone has to be poor for anyone to be not poor. That rich and poor is simply a measure of the difference between people and not any particular amount of money or income.

Gee I sure wish they saw that before they drove all those businesses into the gutter by forcing an outrageous minimum wage on business owners.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

OptsyEagle said:


> drove all those businesses into the gutter by forcing an outrageous minimum wage


I know that there has been a lot of complaining and gnashing of teeth over this, but I am not aware of any particular business failures actually attributed to the new minimum wage standards. Are there reports of actual problems I should be aware of?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Millennials have less net worth than boomers did at the same age.

Middle aged millennials hold a paltry 3% of the wealth. When they were the same age, boomers held 21% of the wealth.

It should come as no surprise that millennials are looking at the more socialist policies of Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, AOC and others.

https://www.businessinsider.sg/millennials-less-wealth-net-worth-compared-to-boomers-2019-12/


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

gardner said:


> I know that there has been a lot of complaining and gnashing of teeth over this, but I am not aware of any particular business failures actually attributed to the new minimum wage standards. Are there reports of actual problems I should be aware of?


How are your restaurant stocks doing these days. 

Bankruptcy is more a function of debts the owners carry. Minimum wage affects the profits. A drop in profits will immediately affect the stocks you might own, but may or may not create a bankruptcy.

Anyway, taking the money from business owners or consumers simply to drive up inflation is pretty dumb. You can put the minimum wage anywhere you want, the only way to make the poor as wealthy as the non-poor is to make everyone poor. That is a fundamental law of economics because wealth will always be "the difference between the rich and the poor".

By the way, we don't have poor in this country. We have people who are upset because they don't have what other more wealthier people have. If you want to see what poor looks like just google "poor people of ethiopia". I am pretty sure you won't see anything in Canada that looks like that.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

sags said:


> Millennials have less net worth than boomers did at the same age.


That is because the boomers were not allowed to spend their future today, like the millennials are. If you spent your today yesterday, then your today will look a lot worse then someone else's today who did not do something as stupid as that.

The boomers knew that if they spent today yesterday, that today would finally come and they would be a lot poorer. The millennials figure they can spend their future today and when that future arrives, maybe someone else will do something to fix it for them. After all, isn't that how it works.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

OptsyEagle said:


> By the way, we don't have poor in this country. We have people who are upset because they don't have what other more wealthier people have.


Incorrect and totally clueless. We have poor people in Canada. There are people who can't even afford the basics of life including food & shelter -- more than you would think.

It's also deeply flawed to compare a first world nation to a third world country. The living standard in Ethiopia is absolutely not the same as what is expected in Canada.


----------



## Topo (Aug 31, 2019)

The consumer debt problem has two sides to it: one side is the consumer who for the most part cannot live within his means and has to have the big house, fast car, etc. All of them, right now. There are those who may have fallen on hard times due to job loss or health problem, etc, but those are a minority in my opinion.

The second problem is the ease and low cost of credit. While it may be beneficial for businesses, for consumers it has proven to be a trap that puts them into a vicious cycle of borrowing more to keep going.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

james4beach said:


> Incorrect and totally clueless. We have poor people in Canada. There are people who can't even afford the basics of life including food & shelter -- more than you would think.
> 
> It's also deeply flawed to compare a first world nation to a third world country. The living standard in Ethiopia is absolutely not the same as what is expected in Canada.


You said it. First world. The first world does not have poverty. We have a big issue with disparity. That being the difference between the wealthy and the less wealthy. Obviously you will be able to find an exception but for every exception you find, I would be able to show you 1000 that follow this rule.

Any don't call me clueless. You know better.


----------



## Mortgage u/w (Feb 6, 2014)

The economy is not going in recession because inflation is not up. Inflation is not up because incomes are not going up. Income is not going up because of the demographics - people 55+ still in work force not demanding/needed salary increases. 

So borrowing may seem at a stand still, but its still very present. Less people maximize their RE borrowing capacity because B20-21 rules come into play. Housing bubble in GTA and GVA is over and back on a normal track. Interest rates are being controled to ensure the market does not overheat.

As long as all these variables remain, we ain't hitting a recession. Once the job demographics change, then a reset may be inevitable.


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)

CIBC and TD totally blew it. CIBC had a $52M fraud loss - that hurts (and has nothing to do with consumer credit). The other banks are looking a lot better, all had higher adjusted profit year over year.

National Bank continues to hit it out of the park - new all time high today. I haven't bought new shares since 2015 when I was buying at $40, now $73 plus dividends. Boom.


----------



## dubmac (Jan 9, 2011)

gardner said:


> I am not aware of any particular business failures actually attributed to the new minimum wage standards. Are there reports of actual problems I should be aware of?


Not sure about business failures, but this article caught my eye a few days ago in the g&M
10 yrs ago = 2009! :hororr:


----------



## MarcoE (May 3, 2018)

OptsyEagle said:


> By the way, we don't have poor in this country. We have people who are upset because they don't have what other more wealthier people have. If you want to see what poor looks like just google "poor people of ethiopia". I am pretty sure you won't see anything in Canada that looks like that.


The Canadian homeless are very poor. Walk around Toronto (where I live) and you see thousands of them. True, Canada is better off than third world countries. We don't have sprawling shantytowns and people don't starve to death here. But we definitely have poor people too. More than a country as affluent as Canada should have.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

The guy I know who works with rehousing the homeless says the money they are given is ridiculous. They get their rent, utilities, food, buss tokens...literally thousands on top of their regular benefits. If only we could all be so “poor”. 

Despite their hardships, he says, they still manage to find money for cell phones, drugs and alcohol as well as eating out at McDonald’s. 

Then again, why take the word of someone who works with them. After all, when I volunteer with the poor I also see a lot of money thrown at them and wasted. Different I guess when you get your hands actually dirty as opposed to sitting in your houses talking about their plight.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

doctrine said:


> National Bank continues to hit it out of the park - new all time high today. I haven't bought new shares since 2015 when I was buying at $40, now $73 plus dividends. Boom.


NA is the biggest gainer in my taxable account. Had for a long time. Up about 220%. I would like to sell off part of holding, but nothing to offset the gain against. I would like to trim all our bank holdings. May have to start trimming a little at a time. Meanwhile the divies keep coming in!


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Just a Guy said:


> The guy I know who works with rehousing the homeless says the money they are given is ridiculous. They get their rent, utilities, food, buss tokens...literally thousands on top of their regular benefits. If only we could all be so “poor”.


Yeah, that frail looking bearded old man who huddles for heat rising from the subway vents at Yonge & College... or sleeping on cardboard (his mattress on the sidewalk)... is actually not poor!

I'm mistaken, how could I be so stupid and gullible! I forgot that there is no such thing as poverty in this country.

It's all just an act. Once Just a Guy is looking the other way, he hops and skips over -- smile brimming ear to ear -- to buy another sparkly new cell phone and get another big meal at McDonald's. Laughing all the while: "stupid taxpayers... little do they know I'M LIVING LIKE A KING!"

Same for the woman in pyjamas who I see around my place in Winnipeg pushing a shopping cart of all her worldly posessions. Again, it's all just an act to deceive stupid taxpayers and Just a Guy!

As soon as the onlooker has passed, the woman starts hopping, skipping and frolicking on to McDonald's to enjoy another grand feast at the expense of the stupid taxpayer!!


----------



## MarcoE (May 3, 2018)

Just a Guy said:


> The guy I know who works with rehousing the homeless says the money they are given is ridiculous. They get their rent, utilities, food, buss tokens...literally thousands on top of their regular benefits. If only we could all be so “poor”.


I know. Whenever I walk by a homeless person sleeping on a piece of cardboard, or huddling over a grate in a desperate attempt to avoid freezing to death, I get jealous and think: "If only I could be so poor!"


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

I gather you don’t understand the difference between mismanaging money and being poor. They are given resources, they mismanage them because they don’t know how to use them. Let’s throw more money at them, that will change nothing. 

I’d also point out that my buddy is rehousing the homeless, what are you guys doing? “Bringing awareness” right? Up there with thoughts and prayers. Any idea how they wind up on that piece of cardboard despite all the resources they have access to?

Ever been poor yourself? No social safety net? Knowing the resources they have access to and having been there without them, yeah you do wish you could actually be that poor, because I never would have been then. 

Probably never even talked to the poor, let alone gone to a shelter or seen their lifestyles, but know all the answers from walking past them.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Apparently the social assistance benefits in Alberta are far superior to those available in Ontario and other Provinces.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

In Ontario, people who reach maximum medical recovery from a work injury are "deemed" to have a minimum wage job and the phantom wages are deducted from their benefit.

So a hard working person who gets seriously and permanently injured on the job invariably ends up on welfare. Not everyone on social benefits is a lazy bum. 

Some are forced there by a "victim blaming" worker insurance system instituted to prevent lawsuits against employers. 

When the decision is made to "deem" a job to an injured worker, they get a letter in the mail informing them how to collect social benefits.

An employer based insurance program that protects them against lawsuits and transfers liability to the tax payers, and governments past and present see nothing wrong with that.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

MarcoE said:


> The Canadian homeless are very poor. Walk around Toronto (where I live) and you see thousands of them. True, Canada is better off than third world countries. We don't have sprawling shantytowns and people don't starve to death here. But we definitely have poor people too. More than a country as affluent as Canada should have.


Yes. But with homeless we are usually dealing with mental illness or substance abuse of some type. Poverty is a result of those disabilities and giving them money would rarely help them. It would probably kill the substance abusers.

Listen. *Capitalism creates a divide by its existence.* Your wealth is only wealth because it makes someone else want to do something for you or give you something that is theirs. That is all wealth is and ever will be. Everyone cannot be rich or no one would be. Once you start to understand that a divide MUST be present and the larger the divide the higher the wealth, then you can start to see and address the real nature of the problem. 

I am not heartless. I am logical. The first thing logic requires us to separate are all the examples of poor that are actually something else. I explained homelessness. The other big one is disparity. The lion's share of examples people site about 1st world poor are really just highlighting the difference in living standards between the wealthy and the less wealthy. If you show me 1000 people that did not get 3 meals today, who are not mentally ill or abusing substances, I will still take 999 of them and show you examples where they own a cell phone. Pay for cable TV. Own a car. Purchased alcohol or went on a trip in the last month. Why do I highlight those. If I was concerned at all, about my children being fed at anytime this month, I can guarantee you I would not have spent money on luxuries such as those.

When you separate out all the mentally ill, substance abusers, and people who do not even believe they are poor either, by the way they spend their money, you are left with such a small number of people in our 1st world, that are poor, one can make the statement we have no poor. 

Anyway, we have been trying to fix this by increasing minimum wages, low income housing, food banks and even snow suit programs and toy drives, for longer then I have been alive and the so called problem always seems to be getting bigger. Is it possible that I am right. That a capitalistic society will have and must have individuals with less money then others, and perhaps that is what we are really complaining about.

That is my point.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

So how do we fix this....

So I listed the basic nature of the problem above. Capitalism, demands a wealth divide between the individuals in it's society. One might argue capitalism creates poverty, if one wants to continue to believe what we have in Canada is poverty. Where they would be wrong is if they ever thought that another economic system could ever do better. We know all those other economic systems we know about, dictatorships, communism, etc., were a lot worse. Capitalism creates this divide primarily by its free market system. If you increase wages for the poor, without any corresponding increase in goods and services for those wages, it is inflationary. The prices in the society simply rise. If you keep giving money to the poor and the things they need to buy just go up in price, what good do you really do? All minimum wage increases do is select a few people in society to get some small improvement(the people that get the minimum wage), an improvement paid for by mostly individual who were just slightly above minimum wage and didn't get anything but now have to pay higher prices for everything they use to buy. Now they are poor. Well done.

The only way to fix this problem is first and foremost. Quit complaining about the wealth divide. In a well regulated society it is a sign of a well working system. Quit fighting the laws of economics. Once we get over the annoyance that someone else has more then we do, we can start to observe that as we put into place, programs that generate higher levels of GDP production, everyone will do much better. It is GDP that inevitably pays for everything. It is where we get all our incomes and where taxes get generated and paid. It is where we get all our food, housing, healthcare, military, and all our luxury items as well.

Now, if GDP sends everyone a 4% raise next year. Someone making $25,000 per year will get $1,000 more. A person earning $1,000,000 per year will get $40,000. Now I see that as two people who earned a 4% raise. But with the socialist, the media and anyone jealous of the divide, will need to keep harping on the fact that one person got $40,000 when the other only got $1,000. We need to steel about $35,000 of it in additional taxes to make this almost fair. What was unfair about it in the 1st place. If the 4% raise came from 4% GDP growth, it would not even be inflationary. The poor person would actually be wealthier by $1,000... and more of that growth probably came from the person earning $1,000,000 then it did from the person earning $25,000.

Anyway, we need to stop that way of thinking, it is corrosive to our GDP growth. It always has been and always will. In our society most of the GDP growth will come from a small number of individuals. Obviously they will be in the wealthy group because people in our society that "make the rain" usually get paid well. That is why they made the rain in the fist place. If we tax that person above 87.5% on his/her extra $40,000, I can assure you that they will simply not want to earn it anymore. When that happens, GDP is reduced and any raises others earn will probably just be inflationary.

We need to promote and foster our most productive individuals if we want the highest GDP possible, in our country, that can create the highest living standards ever. The highest productive people will be found in the highest wealth/income groups. That should be obvious. Instead of taxing them into the stone age, perhaps we should put in place programs that give them incentive to produce not reasons to retire or call it a day at 2:00pm. That is what will fix the living standards of all our citizens. What we are doing now is just an illusion. We have been doing it long enough to prove that it doesn't work. Why do you think I came up with all this stuff. They don't teach it in school. I asked the same question. Why doesn't any of this seem to work. We have been raising the minimum wage all my life and it has not worked. 

Well, the above is what I came up with.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Raising the minimum wage to $14 or $15 an hour still kept working people below the poverty line. People are just slightly less poor than they were before.

Capitalists don't magically earn money. They rely on the efforts of others and taxpayers to earn their money. If the costs are shared, so should the profits be equally shared.

If the profits are not shared to a sufficient degree, the situation becomes unsustainable and change is inevitable at some point.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

There will always be people who can do things and there will always be less successful people. They aren’t allowed to Teach that in school anymore by the way. Kids can’t even compare marks anymore. Everyone is not equal, never will be. 

Not sure why successful people are expected to always take care of the less successful people. How many of you regularly contribute money to the least successful member of your own families even?

The fact that, someone like my son, starts building up passive income at 18 and winds up wealthy is no reason why he should have to take care of his classmate who decided to get into drugs at the same age. These are both personal choices. If his classmate chooses not to learn outside the system how to make money, how is that my son’s fault? He real victims here aren’t “the poor”, it’s the ones being taken advantage of so they can continue making bad choices. 

99% of the poor I work with will never turn their lives around like I did. They will also continue pumping out kids who don’t know any better and will continue the family tradition. 

To me, I’d make the social system way more uncomfortable. Right now they get enough so that life isn’t “great”, but it’s good enough not to want to change. Being uncomfortable is what made me want to change. They need to be educated properly on how they can change their lives, not the current crap they teach in school which basically absolves them of any responsibility because they are taught to be “victims”. 

Teach them to cook, teach them to shop effectively, teach them responsibility, consequences for actions, self discipline, money management, etc. Give them some support, it put in a government program where they have to work, maybe with a guarantee to the employer like they do with housing and show them how, with a little bit of actual effort, they could actually improve their lifestyles on their own. 

As for the mental illness excuse, I can show you many severely ill people who have jobs and a good lifestyle, fully integrated into society. The difference is hey don’t think they’re victims and they aren’t. They’re contributing members of society. Sure, they are ceos of major companies, but they aren’t living off the public teat either.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

sags said:


> Raising the minimum wage to $14 or $15 an hour still kept working people below the poverty line. People are just slightly less poor than they were before.
> 
> Capitalists don't magically earn money. They rely on the efforts of others and taxpayers to earn their money. If the costs are shared, so should the profits be equally shared.
> 
> If the profits are not shared to a sufficient degree, the situation becomes unsustainable and change is inevitable at some point.


Then why raise the minimum wage at all. I agree with you. Raising the minimum wage to any level will still result in people getting less of the pie then others and works towards shrinking the overall size of the pie itself. That will not change. 

Capitalists do require others to earn money. Not as much as the others need the capitalists, to earn theirs, which is why the capitalists get paid more. They do more. That is my point. I am not saying the lower paid workers do not do anything. I am just saying what they do, does not create as much value as what the higher paid people do. It is that creation of value that pays for everything, not how many hours you spent in the office or on the production floor.

Capitalism needs regulation. No doubt. The rich need and do pay much more tax then the non-rich, and they should. The fear I have is that the so called have nots, would be happier if everyone had nothing, then to see anyone with more then them. That is at the core of this complaint, in my opinion. Logic cannot deal with illogical emotions. That I cannot fix.

They want a share of the pie that they did not earn. It does not work because if you just give them pie, without them earning it, then it becomes inflationary. Also, their services (their job) become less competitive then others around the world, creating unemployment, and lower levels of GDP productivity in the society.

One needs to stop looking at these differences, between the wealthy and the less wealthy. They distract you from the true nature of the problem and what is required to fix it.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Sags doesn’t understand that if you raise the minimum wage, all you are doing is raising the poverty line. You can never catch it because the line is drawn between the people who will always have more and the people who will always have less. 

There is nothing forcing the less wealthy to remain less wealthy in this country, they just don’t know how to change and are mostly unwilling to learn. People like sags continue to say you can’t buy real estate for $45k that rents for $1000 and finance the whole thing. He’s right, people like sags can’t do it. People like me continue to do it and make several hundred dollars a month without working. To him that’s unfair. I need to give my money to him because he can’t do it. The reason he can’t do it? The answer is in his mirror, but he’d never admit that. He’s the victim of society. I have an unfair advantage, I use my brains and he shouldn’t have to. He’s entitled to a fair share of my profits because he was put on this planet.


----------



## MarcoE (May 3, 2018)

Just a Guy said:


> I gather you don’t understand the difference between mismanaging money and being poor. They are given resources, they mismanage them because they don’t know how to use them. Let’s throw more money at them, that will change nothing.
> 
> I’d also point out that my buddy is rehousing the homeless, what are you guys doing? “Bringing awareness” right? Up there with thoughts and prayers. Any idea how they wind up on that piece of cardboard despite all the resources they have access to?
> 
> ...


Actually I donate every month to a food bank. And I come from a country that has more serious problems than you can imagine. But it's great that you have a buddy who does some charity work. Clearly that makes you an expert.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

MarcoE said:


> Actually I donate every month to a food bank. And I come from a country that has more serious problems than you can imagine. But it's great that you have a buddy who does some charity work. Clearly that makes you an expert.


Having been there personally and working with them directly makes me an expert. I’m sure your donation at a supermarket really gets you in touch with the problem. Even know where the food bank is located? Ever seen a tent city, soup line? Ever been in one?


----------



## MarcoE (May 3, 2018)

OptsyEagle said:


> Yes. But with homeless we are usually dealing with mental illness or substance abuse of some type. Poverty is a result of those disabilities and giving them money would rarely help them. It would probably kill the substance abusers.


And yet they're still poor. Everywhere in the world, poverty is the result of SOMETHING. Here in Canada, with the homeless, it might be the result of mental illness and/or substance abuse. In another country, it might be the result of war. In a third country, it might be the result of a dictatorship hoarding the resources. In a fourth country, it might be famine. There's always a reason. Because you can pinpoint the cause doesn't mean poverty doesn't exist. To claim there are no poor people in Canada, just because you identified the cause of their poverty, is ridiculous. And in fact, to look down on the homeless -- "oh, it's just their fault because they're so lazy!" -- comes across as elitist. They didn't choose to be mentally ill (those who are) anymore than a poor farmer in a third world country chose famine or malaria.


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)

OptsyEagle said:


> Listen. *Capitalism creates a divide by its existence.*


No, human society creates a divide. Capitalism is a system of economics that acknowledges its existence. Every 'equal' economic/government system in the world has failed to acknowledge this basic truth. Communism everywhere has the same divide of rich people and poor starving people. Usually in greater numbers. But regardless, it is still there. In anarchy and failed states, there is still rich and poor people. Sometimes, revolution changes who has the money. That is all. Welcome to real life. Capitalism is the worst system ever designed, except for all the others, which multiply human suffering to unbelievable levels. It's not the fault of capitalism, it's the fault of human nature.


----------



## MarcoE (May 3, 2018)

Just a Guy said:


> Having been there personally and working with them directly makes me an expert. I’m sure your donation at a supermarket really gets you in touch with the problem. Even know where the food bank is located? Ever seen a tent city, soup line? Ever been in one?


Actually I work with a charity and donate cash, not just a can of corn at the supermarket. And I don't claim to be an expert. It's interesting that you claim to be an expert despite getting so much wrong.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

I know many mental ill who are gainfully employed. Contributing members of society. There will always be people who succeed and people who fail. That’s reality. All people aren’t equal. Also a reality. Nothing is holding these people down, unlike in other countries. They have equal opportunities. The fact that they don’t or can’t take advantage of them isn’t the fault of those who do. Even in a truly communist society there will be people who do better and people who do worse. It’s human nature. You can’t change reality.


----------



## MarcoE (May 3, 2018)

Okay, next time I walk by a homeless person freezing to death, I'll tell him: "I know you're about to freeze to death, but Just a Guy has a buddy who rehouses the homeless, which makes him an expert, and according to him there is no poverty in Canada. Enjoy your day!"


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

MarcoE said:


> Actually I work with a charity and donate cash, not just a can of corn at the supermarket. And I don't claim to be an expert. It's interesting that you claim to be an expert despite getting so much wrong.


You claim I’m wrong with nothing but an opinion and no experience. Interesting. Maybe if you came down and see the system at work, you’d realize reality is a little different than you want it to be. Btw, ive also been in countries where they have true poverty and seen that first hand. Not from my balcony while I take tea from a silver cup. the guy on a cardboard box would be consider wealthy by those standards.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

MarcoE said:


> Okay, next time I walk by a homeless person freezing to death, I'll tell him: "I know you're about to freeze to death, but Just a Guy has a buddy who rehouses the homeless, which makes him an expert, and according to him there is no poverty in Canada. Enjoy your day!"


Well, at least you’ll have talked to one, probably the biggest step you’ve ever taken. You may also point out where the nearest shelter is provided free to him which he’s not using...oh wait, you’d actually need to know it’s location. You obviously don’t even know they exist all over the place. Could also tell him where he could get a free meal...nope, you don’t know that either. Bet he does though, the social workers on the street tell them daily...oh wait, you don’t know about them either. Ever think about calling the community services bus that comes around to collect the homeless on cold night? Oh wait, didn’t know they exist, let alone have a number you can call. Don’t really care either, you just walk around them, not a great inconvenience really. 

Keep donating at your social gatherings and patting yourself on the back though.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

MarcoE said:


> And yet they're still poor.


(referring to the mentally ill and substance abusers)

Sure, but you don't fix their problem by giving them money. That is my point.

OK. Would it make everyone feel better if I said, that once you separate the mentally ill, the substance abusers, and the ones who cannot manage money, there are very few poor people in Canada as opposed to none.

There I said it. Canada does have some poor people. Now lets go back to a logical way of making their life better then this fruitless method of throwing other people's money at them and by doing so creating a whole new group of people who are worse off and giving very little benefit to the ones who received it.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

doctrine said:


> No, human society creates a divide.


OK then. Not really important anyways. What is important, is what would happen if there was no divide at all, between the rich and poor. Everyone had exactly the same amount as everyone else. How wealthy would they all actually be? Think about that. How are you going to motivate the owner of the food store to give you food, when they don't need your money. Why would the home owner transfer ownership of their house to your family, when they don't need your money?

Even if nothing created the divide, we would desperately move forward to create it ourselves, or we would all be poor. Nothing would have value because we are not allowed to have more then anyone else. I don't care what created the divide, I am just glad it is there or I would be sorely in trouble...as would everyone else.

Again, I am not heartless. Show me a solution that might work and I would be happy to see everyone live a life of bliss. So far most of the ideas put forward, simply drag down people that are better off closer to the ones that are not.


----------



## Topo (Aug 31, 2019)

One point to consider about the risk of defaults on personal loans is that even if interest rates are low and go lower, in a recessionary environment loss of income could push consumers into default. Interest rates decreasing a few percentage points may not be that helpful.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

We could wipe out the entire human population down to one person and clone them. Though I bet certain clones would still do better than others. Maybe just reduce the population to one, then everyone would be equal and life would be fair for everyone.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

By the way, did anyone notice the jobs reports out today?

The *US generated 266,000 new jobs* in November, dropping their unemployment rate down to 3.5%. I think that might even be the reason for the strong rally in our stock markets. *Canada lost 71,200 jobs* in November.

Now help me out here. Which country lowered their corporate tax rates significantly while reducing the tax on companies repatriating foreign capital back to their country that could be used for investment...and which country did not?

I need to look that up in case there might be a relationship to it. I think a few posts above it was suggested to actually increase corporate taxes and even if people lost their jobs there would be money available to support a food stamp program. At least no rich person would make an extra million or two that way. I am sure that will make those 71,200 families feel better this Christmas knowing that in our country we do what we can to prevent rich people from getting richer and we are happy to do it at any cost.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

There is poverty, and we should do something about it, but we have to do the right things.

There was recently an article about a tents outside a homeless shelter in my area, some of the reasons given where they simply didn't want to follow the rules of the shelter.

Of course we could just jail them, like they're proposing in California, that will definately solve the problem.
FWIW, they're not calling it jail, they're mandatory treatment programs where you can't leave.


The "homeless problem" is like the "climate change" problem. It isn't the existance of the issue, it's a question of what the appropriate actions are.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Raising the minimum wage to $14 or $15 an hour still kept working people below the poverty line. People are just slightly less poor than they were before.
> 
> Capitalists don't magically earn money. They rely on the efforts of others and taxpayers to earn their money. If the costs are shared, so should the profits be equally shared.
> 
> If the profits are not shared to a sufficient degree, the situation becomes unsustainable and change is inevitable at some point.


Raising minimum wage $14 to $15, just destroys entry level jobs, and lowers the incomes of people at the bottom end of the wage scale.
Arguing for policies that make things worse for the working poor, just for political gain is cruel and heartless.

When someone is hired to do a job, their pay is their compensation.
There is nothing stopping them from taking an ownership stake in their employer if they choose to do so, or making their own company.

There was a big outcry when many silicon valley tech workers were working for equity, instead of salary, then when the businesses collapsed they ended up broke.

As I get older and manage more, and run more successful small businesses, I realize it is REALLY HARD to run a successful business. I'm darn glad that there are people more skilled at it who provide the job that I work at.
I honestly feel that those who create the jobs should be fairly compensated for their value.
They manage to coordinate to create something of enough value that people are willing to pay for, they create the products and jobs that are responsible for our high standard of living.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

MrMatt said:


> Raising minimum wage $14 to $15, just destroys entry level jobs, and lowers the incomes of people at the bottom end of the wage scale.
> Arguing for policies that make things worse for the working poor, just for political gain is cruel and heartless.
> 
> When someone is hired to do a job, their pay is their compensation.
> ...


Amen.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Optsy

I just want to say thanks for the effort you put into this thread, making lucid what most of us instinctively know but have trouble making comprehensible.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

OptsyEagle said:


> By the way, did anyone notice the jobs reports out today?


Funny, I don't remember you cheering the excellent job reports out of Canada over the last few years. The unemployment rate in this country recently dropped to 40 year lows.


----------



## MarcoE (May 3, 2018)

Just a Guy said:


> Well, at least you’ll have talked to one, probably the biggest step you’ve ever taken. You may also point out where the nearest shelter is provided free to him which he’s not using...oh wait, you’d actually need to know it’s location. You obviously don’t even know they exist all over the place. Could also tell him where he could get a free meal...nope, you don’t know that either. Bet he does though, the social workers on the street tell them daily...oh wait, you don’t know about them either. Ever think about calling the community services bus that comes around to collect the homeless on cold night? Oh wait, didn’t know they exist, let alone have a number you can call. Don’t really care either, you just walk around them, not a great inconvenience really.
> 
> Keep donating at your social gatherings and patting yourself on the back though.


You might want to google what a "strawman argument" is, since you love using it. It's generally a sign of a lazy mind. Like yours.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Keep telling yourself you’re making a difference. Without you, the poor of Canada would have no resources. Nothing but a cardboard box.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

OptsyEagle said:


> By the way, did anyone notice the jobs reports out today?
> 
> The *US generated 266,000 new jobs* in November, dropping their unemployment rate down to 3.5%. I think that might even be the reason for the strong rally in our stock markets. *Canada lost 71,200 jobs* in November.
> 
> ...


Many of the US jobs created were in healthcare and public services, and 54,000 were GM workers returning to work after the strike plus those laid off because of the strike.

Increased public service spending had far more to do with the additional jobs than corporate spending due to lower taxes.

Look at how the US debt is rising. Trump is raising the debt to lower taxes on corporations and the wealthy, and CNBC reported the tax cuts accomplished nothing.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> Funny, I don't remember you cheering the excellent job reports out of Canada over the last few years. The unemployment rate in this country recently dropped to 40 year lows.


And the participation rate is also dropping for the last decade.

Ever wonder why so many people are choosing not to work?


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

Hey. The jobs report just dropped into my lap. I don't really think a single month would prove much one way or the other.

My other points laid out here, are my argument. Anyone that can put aside their jealousy will see that increasing corporate taxes, from the levels we have now, will reduce the incentive to run a business in Canada, and consequently create jobs. Increasing taxes on anyone will reduce their incentive to work. What the right amount of taxes a company or person should pay can be debated until the cows come home without any consensus, but from the arguments I have seen from the socialists side, I have to assume they must be coming from jealousy or personal bias because they just make no sense at all. The suggestions seem to be more vindictive then constructive. If with others, their opinions are not coming from jealousy, then I would say that it is coming from that wonderful Canadian tradition of good will where you are willing to help someone out by suggesting that someone else should give more.

The other fundamental law I would think we could agree on, but never seem to, is that if you give a person money they have less incentive to earn it. If given it for long enough time they will also become dependent on it and eventually feel entitled and angry that they do not get more. Go ask the people suing Doug Ford right now when he put an immediate stop to that rediculous guaranteed minimum income program that Wynne wanted to test. How dare he take away THEIR money.

Anyway, that jobs report of 71,200 lost jobs in Canada is certainly not good for our banks. Might be the big reason for the loan loss provisions, but I doubt there from defaults from Canadian's unemployed in November, since the bank's quarter ended in October. So I am not sure I am going to want to see what they post for loan losses next quarter, if we keep losing jobs at that rate, in this country.


----------



## MarcoE (May 3, 2018)

Just a Guy said:


> Keep telling yourself you’re making a difference. Without you, the poor of Canada would have no resources. Nothing but a cardboard box.


Earlier OptsyEagle was saying there are no poor in Canada. I'm glad to see you agree with me.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

MarcoE said:


> Earlier OptsyEagle was saying there are no poor in Canada. I'm glad to see you agree with me.


Next time I’m with them, in a few hours, I’ll be sure to tell them that you’re their saviour. That they should praise you. 

Why not stick to something you know about. Walking past them on the street doesn’t give you any clue as to their condition, you’ve pretty much established by your postings that you’re the equivalent to Sags on this topic at least. You make things up and pretend they’re true.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Do they still calculate job gain and losses by the number of want adds in the paper? It’s how it used to be done, thought it was the most boneheaded calculation ever, even for government.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

I guess now that the election is over job reports can return to normal?


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

MrMatt said:


> And the participation rate is also dropping for the last decade.
> 
> Ever wonder why so many people are choosing not to work?


OK so for the sake of argument, let me agree that the US is doing a better job fueling their economy.

Do you realize how much extra DEBT they have used, including central bank stimulus, to make this recovery happen? US debt including current budget deficits are through the roof.

If Canada wants to follow in America's footsteps, we need to dramatically increase federal spending. The US also creates a lot of government jobs and work that's basically government linked. Many of the private sectors we hear about are actually benefitting from government spending of various ways.

I worked for the last few years in a private sector company which indirectly benefitted from government stimulus, in a very substantial way. This created many high paying jobs in our company, kick-started careers for younger people, etc. Tremendous results of government stimulus.

The US economy is hugely government subsidized. They have taken massive new debts to make all of this happen.

Do we want the same in Canada? Maybe! It sounds like Eder and MrMatt are voting for the American model. More debt, more government stimulus, more federal spending.


----------



## MarcoE (May 3, 2018)

Just a Guy said:


> Next time I’m with them, in a few hours, I’ll be sure to tell them that you’re their saviour. That they should praise you.
> 
> Why not stick to something you know about. Walking past them on the street doesn’t give you any clue as to their condition, you’ve pretty much established by your postings that you’re the equivalent to Sags on this topic at least. You make things up and pretend they’re true.


I'm SO glad the homeless have you here. All the scorn you heap upon them is clearly just an act. After all, you have a buddy who rehouses them. Truly you are a hero! You deserve an award. The prime minister himself should give you a trophy with the following words engraved on it: "Just a Guy: Has a buddy who rehouses the homeless." You, sir, are a true hero.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

The reference to a buddy, since you clearly can’t read, was talking about how the homeless don’t need to be homeless. There is a program where a caseworker will find them a place to live and pay all their expenses for a year at least. Hard to be poor and living on the street when such a program exists. Of course, you have no clue about what the “poor” have access to in this country and think they are actually poor. Did you also miss out on all those other programs I listed? Yep, sure enough you did. Having been actually broke, and not qualified for any of these programs, I can tell you they don’t have it as bad as you think if they don’t want to. 

Maybe learn to read before you spout off about your ignorance. And by read I mean more than Facebook memes for the clueless bleeding hearts who think a food bank contribution is doing something. Maybe get involved and learn something about what the poor truly have access to before judging based on no actual knowledge. A first step would be to find the address of your food bank and dropping off your donation in person. Probably shatter your whole world of preconceived notions though. Don’t listen to people like us who are actually involved and maybe frustrated at the waste.


----------



## hfp75 (Mar 15, 2018)

One good or bad jobs number is useless... a few in a row matter....


----------

