villasv

Makes sense. I’ll be rooting for that vision. Time for a new Vancouver Special :-)

Yes. Just like they already kind of are in a bunch of ways. At the very least they should be opt-out instead of opt-in, with immunization campaigns deployed in the spirit of increasingly making opt-out more exceptional

I guess the difference in outlook is that I don’t really see a realistic increase in purchasing power that won’t also get immediately scooped up by a similar increase in price. All the measures you mentioned also affect prices too. The reason I say “purchasing power” explicitly is to not be misleading in that I’m referring to a hypothetical salary keeping up with inflation - something that also really isn’t the case for a lot of people. Someone whose salary is stagnant will also not see the affordability increase in the scenario I’m describing.

Regardless of how smart Carney is, they couldn't tank the housing market even if they tried. I don't know why people keep mentioning this as if it was even a possibility. This is the same as people who think someone can just happen to work out too much and end up looking like a monstrous bodybuilder. This is not a thing that is achieved easily enough to consider.

All of these actions will help improve housing affordability and make homeownership more accessible, but not all of them will lower prices, some of them cause price inflation.

To be honest I don't really get what's the scenario you're envisioning here. Making homeownership more accessible is lowering prices relative to purchasing power. This is what lowering prices means, and this is what making it affordable means. You can't say the intent is to make it affordable while not decreasing prices, these are at odds.

One trick here is using inflation to alter the context of "increase" and "decrease" means. Prices have to decrease in real value (net of inflation), slowly and steadily. In order to keep homeowners in line in their illusion of preserved wealth, prices have to increasing nominally (not counting inflation). So the formula is this: make sure that housing prices climb steadily below inflation for a very, very long time.

your opinion is that the government should just force marginalized folks to do what we think is the right thing regardless of their feelings or experiences?

No

you could literally just google Canada First Nations vaccine hesitancy and learn a whole boatload

Indeed, TIL

This was a pretty interesting read: https://afn.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Dr.-Valerie-Gideon-Presentation_EN.pdf

That’s not really a tricky balance, there is a clear right direction to pick

I am curious, though. Did First Nation consultation result in any voiced resistance against vaccination?

Why even do this?

Beyond funding the military Industrial complex, there is no reason for this.

What do you mean? There's no need for more reasons.

Republicans will never lose vote for increasing military funding. Trump family gets gifts and favours, doles out some taxpayer money in a way that their languishing and impoverished voter base approves. It's the art of the deal.

We're in for AT LEAST three more contiguous years and a half of this madness. Stalling every bit of the way can make a big difference.

Probably, but I don’t know enough about economics to check.

It is, because the increase is below inflation. Judging by other responses it’s clear that others don’t know much economics either, looks like your intuition already puts you above average.

Hint: I’m talking about a provincial election instead of a federal election

You mean red = Liberals and blue = CPC/Bloc? How about orange provinces?

And that’s why [conservatives govts] build and [progressive govts] don’t.

It really isn't, but nice try.

Isn’t this social credit thing mostly a hoax? They said they would do it but I’ve never met a Chinese person that confirmed they had this up and running

Edit: yeah mostly not a thing, Wiki got receipts https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit_System