My objection centres around the wording, "Premier is essentially the same as a US Governor".
Not, "similar", or "somewhat the same responsibilities", "essentially the same".
Yes, lots of countries use the term "Governor" for the leaders of states and provinces. But specifying, "US Governor", adds a ton of baggage to the term that essentially makes the statement incorrect.
It's a Parliamentary system, a different form of government and the roles are not "essentially" the same.
I didn't see the "at war" part in the full text of the speech, and I don't rememer hearing it when I watched it. Perhaps it was in response to one of the questions after the speech?
The scope of the powers is virtually identical within their jurisdictions. Provinces are clearly not going to be negotiating international treaties, for instance, but they are going to be negotiating inter-provincial relations.
Well, I object to the need to somehow relate everything to an American frame of reference. The two systems are fundamentally different, and the roles are not really analogous. Far better to say, "Like a Prime Minister, but for a province." What's hard about that?
This is essentially incorrect. Canadian provinces use a parliamentary system very similar to the federal government. The Premier of a province is analogous to the Prime Minister of the country, but for a single province.
The Premier in not elected separately like a US Governor, nor does he act separately from the legislature of the province. He's the leader of the party that holds the most seats in the Legislature and forms the Government of the province.
Feathers are about 20-25 cents each, while my preferred Big Ben's are about 8 cents. I'm happy to get 4 - 6 shaves out of a Big Ben. The thing about the Big Ben's is that the last shave isn't rough, it just more work to get a really close shave.
When we bought our first house back in 1991, we assumed the existing mortgage at 9% and reduced our offer a bit because the rate wasn't awesome. We had a 6 month close, and we still had to finance the last 30% of the purchase price. During that 6 months we watched in horror as the rates went up to 14%.
We were able to lock in before it hit 14% and the blended mortgage we ended up with was 11%.
That's absolutely a waste. Note that not all brands and models of blades are the same and it's very possible that you get a better/smoother shave on the 2nd, 3rd or 4th shave on a blade.
I have a bunch of these, mostly vintage. My favorite is a 1951 Gillette Tech. Super comfortable shave. There are different styles, the early ones going back to about about 1910 have an "open comb" design, but changed over to safety bars around 1935. Closer to 1960 the twist butterfly design became more popular.
Razors vary according to how agressive they are, which usually relates to how much blade is exposed to the skin. My experience has been that the least aggressive blades from Gillette came out of the 1950's. I don't really know about super modern razors.
Blades vary based on sharpness, smoothness and lifespan. There is no universal "better". Thick whiskers need a sharper blade, and sensitive skin needs a smoother blade. Teflon coated blades can even get sharper after a use or two when the Teflon wears off a bit.
I've bought quite a few razors at flea markets for less than $10 and they can be excellent. That favorite 51 Gillette Tech was about $20 on eBay. I have fine whiskers and sensitive skin, and my favorite blade is a Big Ben by Lord. Cheap-ass blades that cost about $8.00 for 100. They are medium sharp and smooth, and last 4-6 shaves for me.
The other part is the "wet" stuff. Soap and paraphernalia. Skip the drug store crap and get hold of some good soaps or creams. It makes a difference. George Trumper is a good expensive brand that will at least tell you how much better a good cream can be. Personally I like RazoRock soaps.
Brushes can be super expensive. I have a few very expensive badger brushes, but honestly, my go to daily brush is a $15 Omega boar brush. It's huge, and when brand new smelled like a disgusting blend of moth balls and wet pig as well as being way too stiff. If you break them in, then the bristles get spit ends, with the result being a brush that's soft at the tip but stiff overall.
Lastly, a shaving scuttle. Basically, it looks like the love child of a teapot and a big mug. It's ceramic and double walled, with a spout to put hot water inside the gap between the walls. It has ribs on the inside of the bowl to improve foaming. Get it hot, smear some soap on the bottom and whisk it up with the brush to get hot foam.
Note that these are not the same as the delicate porcelain things you find in antique stores. Best to source them from Etsy.
I'm in Canada, not the US, so some of the practices are strange to me. But Google tells me that a typical rate for size of mortgage in your example is 6.6%, not 2.85%.
Just for shits and giggles, I ran this past Google Gemini to crunch the numbers. A 250,000 mortgage at going rates for 25 and 30 years with the difference invested for 30 years vs investing the entire payment amount for 5 years after paying off a 25 year mortgage. And accounting for taxes.
Basically, they tie at a 9% RoR, and the longer mortgage wins by 25K at 10%. But let's also remember that is future dollars, with a PV of about $11K.
Also of note, the 25 year mortgage has a slightly lower rate than the 30. That impacts the result a bit.
Here in Canada, amortization periods and mortgage terms are totally different things. Nobody takes a 30 year term. Most common is a 5 year term on a 20, 25 or 30 year amortization schedule.
Some people take 10 year terms when rates are awesome and they want the comfort of knowing what the payment will be for a decade.
Relative rates between terms is driven by what the current and projected rates are. For instance, if current rates are high and the projection is that they will drop in the future, then a 5 year rate might be lower than a 1 year rate. If current rates are low, then the 5 year rate would usually be higher, but how much depends on the projections.
For pretty much the entire period from 2008 to 2020, the rates here in Canada were incredibly low and projections were to stay low. So the spread between a 6 month term and a 5 year term was minimal. People got used to that.
In Canada, every time you renew your mortgage at the end of a term, it's an opportunity to shop around for better rates, pay some more down or fiddle with the amortization period. There might be fees or the need for a new appraisal if you change lenders but none of that if you just renew with the name lender.
We used to take shorter terms, often 6 months and usually no longer than 2 years, and always shaved off at least 6 months extra off the amortization remaining at each renewal. The only time we went longer was in 2007 when I was convinced that inflation was on the rise and would drag the rates up. So we picked a 3 year term and 6 months later the crash came and rates dropped 3% over the next year or so.
There are two things missing from that calculation. First, the mortgage savings are generally after tax, while investment gains are taxable. So the comparison of break even needs to take this into account.
Secondly, if pay off the mortgage earlier, then you have some number of years at the end where you can then invest the entirety of your payment instead of paying mortgage.
The calculation should be to compare the net effect of the taxable investment of the lower mortgage payment difference for 30 years vs the net effect of paying less total interest over 20 years, plus investing the entire mortgage payment for 10 years after the mortgage is paid off.
Otherwise, you're not comparing apples to apples.
The last thing isn't numbers, really. You can live in a house, you cannot live in an investment account, and you have to live somewhere. If the market crashes it takes your investments with it, but if the housing market crashes, then you can still live in your house. And if for some reason you have to sell the house, then owing less on it - guaranteed - is a good thing, no matter if the value has gone up or tanked. That does something to the risk calculation.
Not to mention the discipline bit that you mentioned. Life has a habit of getting in the way, and the decision to invest is always an open question whenever something happens. The decision to pay a higher mortgage for a shorter term is closer to firm than that.
My objection centres around the wording, "Premier is essentially the same as a US Governor".
Not, "similar", or "somewhat the same responsibilities", "essentially the same".
Yes, lots of countries use the term "Governor" for the leaders of states and provinces. But specifying, "US Governor", adds a ton of baggage to the term that essentially makes the statement incorrect.
It's a Parliamentary system, a different form of government and the roles are not "essentially" the same.
I didn't see the "at war" part in the full text of the speech, and I don't rememer hearing it when I watched it. Perhaps it was in response to one of the questions after the speech?
There's a fair number of lawyers in northern Ontario who also do a lot of work in Manitoba. Winnipeg to Kenora is something around a 2 hour drive.
The scope of the powers is virtually identical within their jurisdictions. Provinces are clearly not going to be negotiating international treaties, for instance, but they are going to be negotiating inter-provincial relations.
Well, I object to the need to somehow relate everything to an American frame of reference. The two systems are fundamentally different, and the roles are not really analogous. Far better to say, "Like a Prime Minister, but for a province." What's hard about that?
Attack of the Killer Tomatoes 🍅
The Sun is the same, in a relative way, but you're older Shorter of breath and one day closer to death.
"With a fucking dildo!"
This is essentially incorrect. Canadian provinces use a parliamentary system very similar to the federal government. The Premier of a province is analogous to the Prime Minister of the country, but for a single province.
The Premier in not elected separately like a US Governor, nor does he act separately from the legislature of the province. He's the leader of the party that holds the most seats in the Legislature and forms the Government of the province.
I think that the Bluenose on the tail of the dime is sailing under a tailwind. So that's ok too.
There is so much variation between blade types that it's really worthwhile trying out some sampler packs.
From Rush's "Farewell to Kings"...
Bleating at the marketplace, And stopping at the "Y"
Very unusual behaviour for those scheming demons.
Feathers are about 20-25 cents each, while my preferred Big Ben's are about 8 cents. I'm happy to get 4 - 6 shaves out of a Big Ben. The thing about the Big Ben's is that the last shave isn't rough, it just more work to get a really close shave.
Historically speaking, today's 6.5% rate is more normal than the 2-3% of the decade leading up to COVID.
When we bought our first house back in 1991, we assumed the existing mortgage at 9% and reduced our offer a bit because the rate wasn't awesome. We had a 6 month close, and we still had to finance the last 30% of the purchase price. During that 6 months we watched in horror as the rates went up to 14%.
We were able to lock in before it hit 14% and the blended mortgage we ended up with was 11%.
Stupid high. Ha!
That's absolutely a waste. Note that not all brands and models of blades are the same and it's very possible that you get a better/smoother shave on the 2nd, 3rd or 4th shave on a blade.
Double edge safety razor.
I have a bunch of these, mostly vintage. My favorite is a 1951 Gillette Tech. Super comfortable shave. There are different styles, the early ones going back to about about 1910 have an "open comb" design, but changed over to safety bars around 1935. Closer to 1960 the twist butterfly design became more popular.
Razors vary according to how agressive they are, which usually relates to how much blade is exposed to the skin. My experience has been that the least aggressive blades from Gillette came out of the 1950's. I don't really know about super modern razors.
Blades vary based on sharpness, smoothness and lifespan. There is no universal "better". Thick whiskers need a sharper blade, and sensitive skin needs a smoother blade. Teflon coated blades can even get sharper after a use or two when the Teflon wears off a bit.
I've bought quite a few razors at flea markets for less than $10 and they can be excellent. That favorite 51 Gillette Tech was about $20 on eBay. I have fine whiskers and sensitive skin, and my favorite blade is a Big Ben by Lord. Cheap-ass blades that cost about $8.00 for 100. They are medium sharp and smooth, and last 4-6 shaves for me.
The other part is the "wet" stuff. Soap and paraphernalia. Skip the drug store crap and get hold of some good soaps or creams. It makes a difference. George Trumper is a good expensive brand that will at least tell you how much better a good cream can be. Personally I like RazoRock soaps.
Brushes can be super expensive. I have a few very expensive badger brushes, but honestly, my go to daily brush is a $15 Omega boar brush. It's huge, and when brand new smelled like a disgusting blend of moth balls and wet pig as well as being way too stiff. If you break them in, then the bristles get spit ends, with the result being a brush that's soft at the tip but stiff overall.
Lastly, a shaving scuttle. Basically, it looks like the love child of a teapot and a big mug. It's ceramic and double walled, with a spout to put hot water inside the gap between the walls. It has ribs on the inside of the bowl to improve foaming. Get it hot, smear some soap on the bottom and whisk it up with the brush to get hot foam.
Note that these are not the same as the delicate porcelain things you find in antique stores. Best to source them from Etsy.
I'm in Canada, not the US, so some of the practices are strange to me. But Google tells me that a typical rate for size of mortgage in your example is 6.6%, not 2.85%.
Just for shits and giggles, I ran this past Google Gemini to crunch the numbers. A 250,000 mortgage at going rates for 25 and 30 years with the difference invested for 30 years vs investing the entire payment amount for 5 years after paying off a 25 year mortgage. And accounting for taxes.
Basically, they tie at a 9% RoR, and the longer mortgage wins by 25K at 10%. But let's also remember that is future dollars, with a PV of about $11K.
Also of note, the 25 year mortgage has a slightly lower rate than the 30. That impacts the result a bit.
Here in Canada, amortization periods and mortgage terms are totally different things. Nobody takes a 30 year term. Most common is a 5 year term on a 20, 25 or 30 year amortization schedule.
Some people take 10 year terms when rates are awesome and they want the comfort of knowing what the payment will be for a decade.
Relative rates between terms is driven by what the current and projected rates are. For instance, if current rates are high and the projection is that they will drop in the future, then a 5 year rate might be lower than a 1 year rate. If current rates are low, then the 5 year rate would usually be higher, but how much depends on the projections.
For pretty much the entire period from 2008 to 2020, the rates here in Canada were incredibly low and projections were to stay low. So the spread between a 6 month term and a 5 year term was minimal. People got used to that.
In Canada, every time you renew your mortgage at the end of a term, it's an opportunity to shop around for better rates, pay some more down or fiddle with the amortization period. There might be fees or the need for a new appraisal if you change lenders but none of that if you just renew with the name lender.
We used to take shorter terms, often 6 months and usually no longer than 2 years, and always shaved off at least 6 months extra off the amortization remaining at each renewal. The only time we went longer was in 2007 when I was convinced that inflation was on the rise and would drag the rates up. So we picked a 3 year term and 6 months later the crash came and rates dropped 3% over the next year or so.
There are two things missing from that calculation. First, the mortgage savings are generally after tax, while investment gains are taxable. So the comparison of break even needs to take this into account.
Secondly, if pay off the mortgage earlier, then you have some number of years at the end where you can then invest the entirety of your payment instead of paying mortgage.
The calculation should be to compare the net effect of the taxable investment of the lower mortgage payment difference for 30 years vs the net effect of paying less total interest over 20 years, plus investing the entire mortgage payment for 10 years after the mortgage is paid off.
Otherwise, you're not comparing apples to apples.
The last thing isn't numbers, really. You can live in a house, you cannot live in an investment account, and you have to live somewhere. If the market crashes it takes your investments with it, but if the housing market crashes, then you can still live in your house. And if for some reason you have to sell the house, then owing less on it - guaranteed - is a good thing, no matter if the value has gone up or tanked. That does something to the risk calculation.
Not to mention the discipline bit that you mentioned. Life has a habit of getting in the way, and the decision to invest is always an open question whenever something happens. The decision to pay a higher mortgage for a shorter term is closer to firm than that.