Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by Wolven

Alberta is supposedly an innovative place with smart people who like to figure things out (and we are in need of more industry diversification). If we used the Fort Mac or Edmonton to Calgary run to build test tubes and solidify the technology then we could stand up a transportation industry and be leaders in it as opposed to waiting for another country to figure it out and sell it to us.

Anyway, the point is to look toward the future instead of looking to a legacy technology that is likely to become obsolete before it pays for itself. If you don't like Hyperloops then you'll hate my next suggestion of developing a space elevator.

Edmonton was becoming a hotbed for research on things like autonomous vehicles (something more useful than a hyperloop) but the UCP wasn't interested in helping:
https://betakit.com/how-albertas-tec...incial-budget/

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Firebot

Effectively, someone who has lived in Toronto / Ottawa / Montreal her whole life and seeing things from a center of the universe Toronto / Montreal perspective without much insight to the rest of Canada.

Do you know for a fact that she's never left that area?

Regardless, it's a really silly criticism. It's akin to when Douglas Murray said you can't have an opinion on Israel/Palestine if you haven't visited the region.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Regardless, it's a really silly criticism. It's akin to when Douglas Murray said you can't have an opinion on Israel/Palestine if you haven't visited the region.

In fairness I suspect that visiting that region in particular would have an outsized impact on your perspective on the conflict, far more than most places you could visit... like I think I have a pretty solid sense of what's going on in Ukraine, even though being there would obviously make a huge difference to my ability to understand the realities on the ground. But spending a few weeks in Gaza, Jerusalem, the West Bank, as a journalist or author or commentator or whatever, I can't really even imagine how much that would help, as someone who isn't steeped in that conflict.

[TorqueDog]

I mean, you can have an opinion, but whether it's worth anything is a different matter.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

I mean, you can have an opinion, but whether it's worth anything is a different matter.

[chemgear]

First day on the job, "You'll own nothing and be happy about it!" Good if you got in early enough to get a place, if not . . .

https://twitter.com/user/status/1922667874126106746

[ThePrince]

Originally Posted by chemgear

First day on the job, "You'll own nothing and be happy about it!" Good if you got in early enough to get a place, if not . . .

https://twitter.com/user/status/1922667874126106746

I don't understand what the issue with this response is? Seems like an adequate and nuanced position.

You absolutely don't want the price of houses going down. There's nuance in that though - you don't want the price of existing houses to go down. If you do, then you have a housing market and economy crash like you saw in the US resulting in the global financial crisis.

Like the minister said, the most stable way to bring things in line is build more affordable housing so that people who can't currently afford homes can afford them. You don't want the rest of the housing supply drastically reducing in price, because your economy will be destroyed, but ideally the average cost of housing comes down (or plateaus, or rate of increase is moderated, etc.) because you've built lower cost supply that people are able to afford.

That was the right answer to that question.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by chemgear

First day on the job, "You'll own nothing and be happy about it!" Good if you got in early enough to get a place, if not . . .

https://twitter.com/user/status/1922667874126106746

The government can’t say we are going to make housing prices go down as that will discourage investment. But if you increase supply that is the natural result overtime.

This is one of the problems that you likely want to inflate your way out of rather than a drastic cut.

[Titan2]

Originally Posted by ThePrince

I don't understand what the issue with this response is? Seems like an adequate and nuanced position.

You absolutely don't want the price of houses going down. There's nuance in that though - you don't want the price of existing houses to go down. If you do, then you have a housing market and economy crash like you saw in the US resulting in the global financial crisis.

Like the minister said, the most stable way to bring things in line is build more affordable housing so that people who can't currently afford homes can afford them. You don't want the rest of the housing supply drastically reducing in price, because your economy will be destroyed, but ideally the average cost of housing comes down (or plateaus, or rate of increase is moderated, etc.) because you've built lower cost supply that people are able to afford.

You need to be careful. If you keep posting intelligent nuanced takes you are going to transform into a Lib!

[TorqueDog]

Yeah, the guy basically said it in a different way, they’re not saying the quiet part out loud because that will cause existing homeowners to cry “you’re devaluing our homes!” … more supply should — in theory — reduce prices too.

Here’s the uncomfortable truth: People both want affordable housing and people also want their existing homes not to lose value as they’ve (likely) based their retirement plan on their home as being the most valuable asset they have. Can’t have both unfortunately.

Here’s another uncomfortable truth: People want an absurd amount of space and don’t want to live in a tiny European-style flat, and also want to be able to afford in the nicer / nicest parts of town. People have a lot of conflicting goals.

A buddy of mine lives out of town making great money but wants to return to Calgary, and laments he can’t afford to buy a house in the city. Of course I know what he makes and he could easily buy a place. I just don’t have the heart to tell him he could afford plenty if he wasn’t expecting a 2,000 sq-ft house in a posh area of SW Calgary, but he doesn’t want to live in a townhouse in Applewood. [shrug]

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by Titan2

You need to be careful. If you keep posting intelligent nuanced takes you are going to transform into a Lib!

What is the benefit of this kind of smug know it all platitude?

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

What is the benefit of this kind of smug know it all platitude?

Catharsis.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

A buddy of mine lives out of town making great money but wants to return to Calgary, and laments he can’t afford to buy a house in the city. Of course I know what he makes and he could easily buy a place. I just don’t have the heart to tell him he could afford plenty if he wasn’t expecting a 2,000 sq-ft house in a posh area of SW Calgary, but he doesn’t want to live in a townhouse in Applewood. [shrug]

Seems like building dog crate condos have become pretty popular in Vancouver and Toronto.

That minister already has quite the record with hilariously increasing housing costs as a mayor. Something like doubling costs in just a decade.

[sa226]

Yes that tweet and the reaction to it is exhibit "z" on everything wrong with gotcha politics these days.

You can't just throw a bomb into the housing market. It's needs to be stabilized. What about everyone with equity in their houses? You're just going to slash that by 20 percent? It's a complex issue that is far more than just "why isn't the government lowering house prices??" Like that's how it works.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

What is the benefit of this kind of smug know it all platitude?

Sometimes on the internet place a lot of us have been on together for 10+ years we like to do this thing called “kidding around” (there are other names for it: joking around, taking the piss, ribbing, “having a laugh” if you’re TrentCrimm pretending to be British again). I know we’ve got some sensitive folks and those for whom this is SUPER SERIOUS business and people who like to take it but not dish it, but I also know Prince isn’t any of those things, so put down the armour and relax.

tl;dr because it’s funny

[Drak]

I’m willing to sacrifice value in my home to see prices drop to make it more affordable for people to rent and buy. But that’s just me. I don’t plan on moving or upgrading. I’d like to see young people and families have more affordable housing options.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Seems like building dog crate condos have become pretty popular in Vancouver and Toronto.

That minister already has quite the record with hilariously increasing housing costs as a mayor. Something like doubling costs in just a decade.

I mean, it’s Vancouver; they’re not exactly making more land, and at least some of it is gonna start falling into the ocean as global sea levels continue to rise. Land in Vancouver is a scarce commodity and over time this problem will get worse, no matter what anyone with coiffed hair and a silk tie is gonna say about it.

Your referring to them as “dog crate condos” — which I don’t think is an uncommon take on them — also hammers home my other point; people want more than what an actually affordable product would deliver. People’s preferences and expectations are pricing them out of real estate as badly as the state of our housing market itself is.

[CliffFletcher]

I don’t really get the equity in homes argument. Only 10 per cent of Canadians have home equity lines of credit. And the financialization of housing is what got us into this mess in the first place.

* Housing as a guaranteed investment and loan asset

* Your kids will be able to afford a home

Pick one.

For most homeowners, the only impact of their home increasing in value is the amount of money they’ll pass on in inheritance when their kids are in their 50s and 60s. I don’t see how homeowners (or their children) are ahead of the game if that number grows, while it becomes necessary to contribute $100k+ to those same kids when they’re in their 30s to get them on the housing ladder.

[TorqueDog]

Well, you try and convince them of that. It’s been hammered into people’s heads for how long now that your home is your biggest and most valuable asset to consider in retirement planning? Rightly or wrongly, its status as a sacred cow isn’t going to go away quickly.

But if affordability of housing is going to be resolved, the market is gonna have to at least take a bit of a haircut.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

For most homeowners, the only impact of their home increasing in value is the amount of money they’ll pass on in inheritance when their kids are in their 50s and 60s.

Also property tax increases... but this assumes you're never selling your house. Lots of people, when they retire or when they go empty nest or some time after either of those milestones will sell their home and downsize to be able to travel, or sell it to move somewhere else now that they're not tied into a school district or work commute, or a thousand other things. Increase in home value has a huge impact on that.