True. Also could be they lower the price point due to lack of demand, and that pulls in folks who otherwise wouldn’t have traveled to compensate somewhat. But they probably also have less money to spend and would do shorter trips…
I hope Europe and Asia get the message…
Bonus also is you are not creating value that is directly fueling the unfolding nightmare there.
part of the psyop is to claim a large or majority view, then push the view, normalize it, get even the opposition to validate it and respond to it.
I am completely opposed to U.S. imperialism, but it’s important to note that Puerto Rican’s are U.S. citizens.
The person you are replying to is an anti immigration advocate. It’s all they talk about and they’re only point in any issue.
Uh… do you know what contribution he made to 2008? Or are you just free associating “banks” and “2008”?
Carney’s actions as Governor of the Bank of Canada are said to have played a major role in helping Canada avoid the worst impacts of the 2008 financial crisis.
The epoch-making feature of Carney’s tenure as governor remains the decision to cut the overnight rate by 50 basis points in March 2008, one month after his appointment. While the European Central Bank delivered a rate increase in July 2008, Carney anticipated the leveraged-loan crisis would trigger global contagion. When policy rates in Canada hit the effective lower bound, the central bank combated the crisis with the non-standard monetary tool “conditional commitment” in April 2009 to hold the policy rate for at least one year, in a boost to domestic credit conditions and market confidence. Output and employment began to recover from mid-2009, in part thanks to monetary stimulus. The Canadian economy outperformed those of its G7 peers during the crisis, and Canada was the first G7 nation to have both its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and employment recover to pre-crisis levels.
How legal is this kind of activity? Do we not have regulations against CPAC-like activity?
Ah, true. Reading https://liberal.ca/cstrong/build/ I don’t see anything that says these affordable units will be kept off the market, or that ensures they will be rented at affordable rates.
I also think land taxes seem promising, and taxes on uninhabited excess square footage, that are earmarked exclusively for building high quality public housing.
I agree that such tax reform (and other regulatory measures) is really needed.
But, if the units are purpose built for affordable housing (as proposed federally in https://liberal.ca/housing-plan/ , for instance), this should at least not fall into the investor problem, no?
IMO one of the really critical takeaways of this historical survey given the current climate is this: The claim that immigration has caused the crises is completely B.S. With the dynamics in place to drive the crises, increasing population can exacerbate the problem on the margins, but population growth didn’t cause the problem and deportations won’t fix it.
We need systemic fixes, like public development of purpose built affordable housing and regulation to prevent finalization of the human right to housing.
Worth noting that https://smartvoting.ca/ projects a better outcome for greens, NDP, and libs using strategic voting. But I respect your view, and in general I agree that a minority lib government in coalition with the NDP would be preferable. But with what is at stake, it just seems like too big a risk IMO to not be really clearly working the levers of power that are available to progressives.
I would also really encourage us to not spread complacency and an assumption that the polling will foretell outcomes. Polling in the current climate has proven to be really iffy (see https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-polls-were-mostly-wrong/). Demographic shifts, new media and habits, and generally instability make this stuff really unpredictable. We should vote like our country depends on it.
We all know that immigration needs sensible reforms. And we all know that there is a housing crises. The question is whether immigration “created the housing crises”. But the cost of housing has outpaced incomes globally. If it were just created by immigration, then shouldn’t the prices balance out globally as countries that lose population get more housing availability?
Surely the pressure from immigration aggravated the housing crises, but it did not create it. The crises has been building for at least 50 years. It is created by the financialization of housing and the withdraw of public investment in affordable housing.
Housing is a human right, because it is a basic necessity for living a decent and secure life. When you let core needs be met entirely by the market, without any social support to guarantee access, the profit motive will inevitably squeeze the population to extract more and more upside.
In any market, maximum profits can be made when there is high demand with a restricted supply. By surrendering housing entirely to increasingly unregulated markets, the production of housing becomes prioritized based on return on investment, and that means in order to attract capital housing production and sales have to be more profitable (for some segment of available investment) than other investments, such as mining, oil, finance, etc. If not, any capital would just flow to those more profitable avenues. As a result, we get luxury housing when we need affordable housing and we get unproductive sprawling, overly large single family homes when we need medium density housing near urban centers.
So then, is it any surprise that think tanks and corporate interests that want to drive forward market deregulation to maximize profit potentials will try to tell us to blame immigration for “creating” the crises that is actually due to the very deregulation they want to advance?
Caveat Emptor:
You don’t have to be a “fan of the established order of capitalism” to see that moving towards authoritarian hyper-nationalism, destroying international trade relations, and tanking the economy to consolidate power for oligarchs is bad.
1.5 million immigrants in a year isn’t a “little too far”. The UN called it modern slavery.
This is misleading and arguably just a lie. AFAICT, the UN did not infer anything from the amount of immigration, only from the conditions and treatment of the immigrants: https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/09/1140437 – those two things may have some connection, but it is obviously mediated.
If you want to help the poor then reducing demand is the first step
According to what economic or social theory? Why isn’t progressive taxation, redistribution, improved social welfare, stimulating industry, or improving education the first step?
Why do you assume that the problem is caused by the poor people seeking opportunity rather than caused by the landlords and corporate oligarchs extracting profit?
This is wrong! Unless you are OK with letting the country become a reactionary vassal state of the US empire, we need to vote strategically. First check whether your riding needs strategic voting (or via https://smartvoting.ca/ or https://www.strategicvoting.ca/, and you can cross check with your preferred polling reports – e.g. https://338canada.com/). If it does not, only then vote for whoever without throwing your vote away.
We need a progressive coalition.
Avoiding detergent packs is better: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffkart/2021/08/08/study-says-up-to-75-of-plastics-from-detergent-pods-enter-the-environment-industry-says-they-safely-biodegrade/