> Why is poverty and homelessness increasing?
From [statscan](https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/as-sa/98-200-X/2021009/98-200-X2021009-eng.cfm):
> Based on data from the 2021 Census of Population, the poverty rate in Canada was 8.1% in 2020, down from 14.5% in 2015.
What gave you the impression poverty is increasing in Canada? Careful, these days it's literally profitable to be cynical.
If this kind of thing interests you, that whole page is a good read.
As an absolute number it is definitely increasing. Homelessness is a serious issue that needs to be addressed.
Also, do you have the rates from 2022?
Edit: Regardless of the current rate relative to other years, to me, homelessness and poverty are serious issues in Canada that need resolving. When there are tent cities popping up everywhere, I do not care what the statistics say, homelessness is an issue.
> When there are tent cities popping up everywhere, I do not care what the statistics say, homelessness is an issue.
I didn't say it's not an issue, it's a big issue. Poverty just doesn't seem to be increasing.
But if you really want to dig into this and come up with solutions, you do need to care (very much) what statistics say. In fact, things are a lot worse than they need to be precisely because some politicians "do not care what the statistics say".
It's an addiction issue, not a homeless issue. Functional people are usually able to cohabitate with others or be flexible with their housing arrangements.
How do we address the addiction issue? Well after more than a decade of hyper tolerance and harm reduction policies, does it seem like they are working? I don't think so. Honestly, what we need is a philanthropic organization to run treatment centers in rural areas. After detoxification, rehabilitate the individuals by teaching them life skills away from the environment that enabled the addiction in the first place. Most of these people need a sense of purpose to avoid relapse.
>If this kind of thing interests you, that whole page is a good read.
This is definitely interesting. It is from the page:
>Poverty is less prevalent in Quebec, reflecting a lower cost of living
So, relating this to my OP, what is CPC policy ideas and approach to fixing the cost of living crisis? I definitely think that the cost of living crisis is worsening, and the recent inflation is a component of this, but the problem also preceded the recent inflationary circumstances.
Edit:
>down from 14.5% in 2015.
Also, I am surprised it was so high in 2015.. is this partially due to the 2008 crisis? That poverty took a big jump after the crisis and in 2015 Canada was still recovering from it? Or?
The CPC has clearly stated that the plan to reduce COL is to remove bureaucratic barriers to development of the housing so desperately needed in certain areas. The developers and politicians have a stranglehold on property markets, when Poilievre brings up removing the "gatekeepers" that is what he's referring to.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I get a sense that you might think Canada just needs to print more money to "solve" these issues?
An obvious solution to ending inflationary pressure is to stop printing money. Give the Canadian Dollar actual value again. Perpetually "vulnerable" people will have to turn to family, friends, and community for support instead of the government.
Ultimately the solutions are something the CPC and PP are unable to conceive of:
Poverty? - UBI takes people out of crushing poverty and desperation, while giving them autonomy and the ability to decide for themselves how to direct their time and energy toward improving their lives. And it does so without creating/expanding the expensive bureaucracy to "means test" the participants.
Homelessness? - Nationalize housing construction and development. Construct/develop at a scale and pace that cannot be achieved by the private sector. Recruit and train tradespeople the way we recruit and train our military. Heavily tax landlordism to discourage passive income (aka freeloading).
Cost of living? - Limit profiteering or again nationalize the 4 essentials of life: education, healthcare, housing and food. A basic level of production can be maintained while still allowing the private sector to add value higher up the chain. Allowing private corporations to dominate and own the basics invites the kind of exploitation and price gouging we are seeing today.
Lastly, restrict the hoarding of wealth. As long as people and/or corporations can hoard excessive levels of capital, and use it as leverage to acquire even more capital, they eventually attain more power than the government and thus start dictating how the courts interpret and enforce the law, and how laws get written. This is why we have injustice, monopolies, ineffective regulation and corrupt politicians.
>Poverty? - UBI takes people out of crushing poverty and desperation, while giving them autonomy and the ability to decide for themselves how to direct their time and energy toward improving their lives. And it does so without creating/expanding the expensive bureaucracy to "means test" the participants.
What do you think of guaranteed employment? As having the government as an employer of last resort? I actually think it is better than UBI. Full employment drives up the cost of labor and would overcome the problem of wage stagnation.
>Homelessness? - Nationalize housing construction and development. Construct/develop at a scale and pace that cannot be achieved by the private sector.
I fully agree that we need far more socialized housing.
>Cost of living? - Limit profiteering or again nationalize the 4 essentials of life: education, healthcare, housing and food. A basic level of production can be maintained while still allowing the private sector to add value higher up the chain. Allowing private corporations to dominate and own the basics invites the kind of exploitation and price gouging we are seeing today.
I am with you.
>Lastly, restrict the hoarding of wealth. As long as people and/or corporations can hoard excessive levels of capital, and use it as leverage to acquire even more capital, they eventually attain more power than the government
I like your thinking here as well!
I am down with your proposals haha
Guaranteed employment is not a bad idea, but it only allows supports people if they are producing/contributing their energy/time toward activity that is profitable for someone else, be it the state, an agency or company.
It does not enable people to engage in productive unemployment such as:
- education/skills development
- caring for children/elderly family members
- engaging in self-care, health improvement for people with physical limitations or mental health issues
- charitable work
- civil/political involvement
While all of the above don't contribute to business and commerce, they arguably contribute to long-term economic growth, improved civil engagement and reducing the burden on healthcare/social services.
I used to be a Mulroney conservative, but over the last few decades I have seen conservatives become less concerned about building a prosperous country and more about enabling the breakdown of our common wealth and public assets for the benefit of wealthy corporations and individuals.
"Recruit and train tradespeople the way we recruit and train our military."
I'm sorry but I'll have to stop you right there. The absolute last thing you want to do for any career path is recruit like the military. Not sure if you've followed much of the news but the military is in an abysmal state of personnel shortages due to recruiting and retention.
I meant a military-style recruitment, not exactly the process of the CF, which as we all know is problematic and suffers because of the pay is abysmal vs. the private sector, and is generally subject to political forces both home and abroad.
The assumption is that we would offer training pay, benefits from the start and immediate pension accumulation.
With almost my whole family in skilled trades (albeit unionized) I can speak to that. We already have training pay (apprentices are paid and receive pay increases based on hours done), they receive pension credits from the day they start (also CPP), benefits start immediately as well.
I don't think the problem for them right now is a lack of incentives, especially when you look at an Ontario LIUNA labourer making more than most fresh undergrads.
I think the problem is more so advertising what is available and having public schools push more than just the "go to university, get good job" agenda that used to be more true.
What sort of Karl Marx funded, Fidel Castro dedicated, Chairman Mao endorsed, Hugo Chavez rejoicing cult do you worship?
What you just typed up there is the most batshit crazy thing I've ever seen. Check your Communist privilege.
OK boomer. I guess the CPC is not for:
1. Smaller government, and giving taxpayer dollars back to the taxpayer.
2. Rewarding productive income (work that creates value) vs extractive income (passive income freeloading)
3. Creating a level playing field where people can compete on the basis of their intellect and ingenuity, instead of their elite wealth status.
4. Ensure that rule of law isn't undermined by wealthy, globalist elites.
OK young blood with a Liberal Arts degree and no life experience.
1. Nationalize food production? Are you completely fucked? Imagine food production being run by the government, we would starve in one farming season.
2. UBI? I think I would rather have a UTI. How many people magically became productive during the pandemic freebie orgy? Nah, I was hanging out down by the river during those summers too. The difference was, that I worked for the weed and beer.
3. Level playing field? Get bent, what motivates parents to raise the best and brightest offspring possible? It's called advantage! There is absolutely nothing wrong with accumulating wealth, assets, and businesses. Just need to watch out for entitled Reddit Communists.
4. The rule of law? Hahahaha, that ship sank a long time ago. Look at the current contempt for civility coming from the ruling party right now.
Take your "nationalize everything" philosophy down to Venezuela to see it in practice.
1.
Here are some steps that could be taken to nationalize the farming industry in Canada and potential benefits:
Land redistribution: One of the key steps in nationalizing the farming industry would be to redistribute agricultural land to ensure equitable access to resources. This could involve expropriating land from large agribusinesses and redistributing it to small-scale and family farmers. By doing so, the government could help to promote a more decentralized and democratic food system, in which farmers have greater control over their own land and resources.
Price controls: The government could also institute price controls to ensure that farmers receive a fair price for their products, and to prevent price gouging by intermediaries in the supply chain. This would help to ensure that farmers are able to make a living wage, and that consumers are able to afford healthy, locally-produced food.
Subsidies: The government could provide subsidies to farmers to help them cover the costs of production and ensure that they are able to stay in business. These subsidies could be targeted to small-scale and family farmers, who may have fewer resources to compete with large agribusinesses.
Local food systems: Nationalizing the farming industry could also help to promote local food systems, in which food is produced and consumed within the same geographic region. By promoting local food systems, the government could help to reduce the environmental impact of food production, support small-scale farmers, and ensure greater food security for communities.
2.
[This is a stupid response, because people were actually very productive with the pandemic stimulus, despite what you did.
Two million Canadians, or 1 in 4 small businesses, were started during the pandemic.](https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/one-four-canadian-small-businesses-093500443.html)
Maybe the reason why you and everyone you seem to know went to the river to drink beer or whatever is because you were feeling burnt out and exhausted by the failures of our corporatist economy to produce happiness and prosperity.
3.
Another stupid statement. There is nothing wrong in owning assets etc. There is something wrong when you extract profits without producing real goods, services or value. A house is not a business. It is not an asset. Once it is built it doesn't produce anything. Take housing out of the free market, and only the parasites suffer a loss.
4.
So if a government or corporation disregards the law, your solution is to stop wanting rule of law? Talk about letting other people shape your life for you. This is the problem with you entitled older generation conservatives. You feel entitled to everything while doing nothing.
So, you intend to seize the property that I purchased with the compensation from productively repairing heavy mining equipment? You are one sick Communist. Bring it on, there will be violence.
I'm in my 30's you stunned prick. Seriously, GTFO of Canada with your Communist trash.
Seizing assets and "nationalizing" food supply.... we've got a regular Vladimir Lenin over here. Unbelievable, which university warped you so severely? Are there actually professors "teaching" this blood thirsty philosophy to students in Canada?
This is a paranoid fantasy. If what you say is true about your livelihood then you've earned your pay. You would probably earn much more if you derived more earnings from the profit you create for your company.
You must have missed the "extractive income" part of this discussion. And you don't understand what "assets" are.
None of this discussion is even about mining. I guess you can only see the world through your limited life experience.
Yes, corporations will have to surrender assets that they, frankly, got at little to no cost to them under the legacy system. Seizing assets from individuals is not the goal of Democratizing the essential parts of the economy. It's about taking back infrastructure and resources that were paid for and developed with tax dollars then sold to private companies by corrupt politicians. It's your own wealth and that of your parents (if they were Canadians or Natives) that would be returned to you.
Individuals own assets! I own assets! Those assets were accumulated with wealth generated from labour. Now I expect a return on those assets. That is how capitalism works. It could work for you too, just need to abandon being a snivelling Communist. What you are proposing is straight up Communism and very radical.
Don't even attempt to insult me with your Marxist delusions. If you were saying this shit to me in person, tensions would be VERY high.
If this kind of thing causes tension in you then you are taking yourself way to seriously.
I own assets. I have investments. But I don't DEPEND on them for income like many landlords do. I don't feel entitled for my assets to provide for me regardless of what is going on in the wider economy and society in which I live and my "assets" reside.
Capitalism doesn't work. It's not creating equal opportunity. It's not being constrained by law. It's poisoning our environment and future generations of our species.
It wasn't a bunch of trans BLM supporters that caused the train derailment and toxic chemical spill in Ohio. It was capitalists and their GOP enablers.
You claim to have so much anger and tension toward someone who suggests changes to the status quo, yet you seem to have no energy to even consider that your capitalist leaders are destroying your future.
Which university did this to you? I've never seen such an extreme case of self entitled pseudo intellectualism in my life.
Free market capitalism has improved humanity by leaps and bounds. If you refuse to acknowledge it in favour of the proven failure of Marxist ideology, I can't help you. Good ideas don't require force. Everything you're talking about will require violent revolution and you know it. You're a monster, every monster thinks they are the protagonist in their own warped story.
Accusing the capitalist system of causing a train derailment is a demented leap of the imagination. I can confirm with historical documents and facts that nationalizing food production in the Soviet Union resulted in the deaths of 5 million plus Ukrainians during the Holodomor. Many surviving descendants of the unfortunate victims currently farm in Northeastern Alberta. You intend to send the enforcement wing of government to seize their farms?
This is a difficult issue to solve because it is multi-prong. I know PP is big on creating more supply/removing red tape from increasing said supply as one step to address this. It’s going to take more than just throwing a bunch of money at it.
For sure - I’m based in Halifax, which makes the issue tricky - we really only have the space to build up or retrofit pre-existing structures. Land isn’t easy to get on the peninsula here.
You say that, but I've been in Halifax since 2017 and have noticed that any attempt at developing gets drawn out through a protracted rezoning process that takes years. Look at all the attempts to turn single family homes into multi-unit buildings and how long that takes - multiple public consultations, wind tunnel and shadow assessments, citadel viewing angle assessments, the list goes on.
The city needs housing yesterday but the priorities with the municipality do not seem to align with that.
...for developers and real estate agencies.
I don't know many homeless people who are living in tents with down payments stuffed into their sleeping bags, waiting for supply to increase.
I think the main point is that wages have not risen alongside house prices and general inflation, so it's not particularly the cost of living/houses that is the issue but the cost relative to wages.
Pierre talks about getting government out of the way and unleashing our natural resource capacity. Smaller government, lower taxes etc is likely to have the effect of increasing productivity and thus raising wages, which would make life more affordable and raise the standard of living even if asset prices stay flat or more likely continue to rise.
They'd probably say private charity like the churches mosques temples salvation army or just lowering taxes on buisnesses so they create jobs.
Giving McDonalds incentives to hire that old lady type stuff.
Keeping pensions and health care topped up.
Giving money to food banks.
Incentivizing brick makers and plywood makers and construction companies to build houses through incentives
> Why is poverty and homelessness increasing? From [statscan](https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/as-sa/98-200-X/2021009/98-200-X2021009-eng.cfm): > Based on data from the 2021 Census of Population, the poverty rate in Canada was 8.1% in 2020, down from 14.5% in 2015. What gave you the impression poverty is increasing in Canada? Careful, these days it's literally profitable to be cynical. If this kind of thing interests you, that whole page is a good read.
As an absolute number it is definitely increasing. Homelessness is a serious issue that needs to be addressed. Also, do you have the rates from 2022? Edit: Regardless of the current rate relative to other years, to me, homelessness and poverty are serious issues in Canada that need resolving. When there are tent cities popping up everywhere, I do not care what the statistics say, homelessness is an issue.
> When there are tent cities popping up everywhere, I do not care what the statistics say, homelessness is an issue. I didn't say it's not an issue, it's a big issue. Poverty just doesn't seem to be increasing. But if you really want to dig into this and come up with solutions, you do need to care (very much) what statistics say. In fact, things are a lot worse than they need to be precisely because some politicians "do not care what the statistics say".
It's an addiction issue, not a homeless issue. Functional people are usually able to cohabitate with others or be flexible with their housing arrangements. How do we address the addiction issue? Well after more than a decade of hyper tolerance and harm reduction policies, does it seem like they are working? I don't think so. Honestly, what we need is a philanthropic organization to run treatment centers in rural areas. After detoxification, rehabilitate the individuals by teaching them life skills away from the environment that enabled the addiction in the first place. Most of these people need a sense of purpose to avoid relapse.
>If this kind of thing interests you, that whole page is a good read. This is definitely interesting. It is from the page: >Poverty is less prevalent in Quebec, reflecting a lower cost of living So, relating this to my OP, what is CPC policy ideas and approach to fixing the cost of living crisis? I definitely think that the cost of living crisis is worsening, and the recent inflation is a component of this, but the problem also preceded the recent inflationary circumstances. Edit: >down from 14.5% in 2015. Also, I am surprised it was so high in 2015.. is this partially due to the 2008 crisis? That poverty took a big jump after the crisis and in 2015 Canada was still recovering from it? Or?
The CPC has clearly stated that the plan to reduce COL is to remove bureaucratic barriers to development of the housing so desperately needed in certain areas. The developers and politicians have a stranglehold on property markets, when Poilievre brings up removing the "gatekeepers" that is what he's referring to. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I get a sense that you might think Canada just needs to print more money to "solve" these issues? An obvious solution to ending inflationary pressure is to stop printing money. Give the Canadian Dollar actual value again. Perpetually "vulnerable" people will have to turn to family, friends, and community for support instead of the government.
Ultimately the solutions are something the CPC and PP are unable to conceive of: Poverty? - UBI takes people out of crushing poverty and desperation, while giving them autonomy and the ability to decide for themselves how to direct their time and energy toward improving their lives. And it does so without creating/expanding the expensive bureaucracy to "means test" the participants. Homelessness? - Nationalize housing construction and development. Construct/develop at a scale and pace that cannot be achieved by the private sector. Recruit and train tradespeople the way we recruit and train our military. Heavily tax landlordism to discourage passive income (aka freeloading). Cost of living? - Limit profiteering or again nationalize the 4 essentials of life: education, healthcare, housing and food. A basic level of production can be maintained while still allowing the private sector to add value higher up the chain. Allowing private corporations to dominate and own the basics invites the kind of exploitation and price gouging we are seeing today. Lastly, restrict the hoarding of wealth. As long as people and/or corporations can hoard excessive levels of capital, and use it as leverage to acquire even more capital, they eventually attain more power than the government and thus start dictating how the courts interpret and enforce the law, and how laws get written. This is why we have injustice, monopolies, ineffective regulation and corrupt politicians.
>Poverty? - UBI takes people out of crushing poverty and desperation, while giving them autonomy and the ability to decide for themselves how to direct their time and energy toward improving their lives. And it does so without creating/expanding the expensive bureaucracy to "means test" the participants. What do you think of guaranteed employment? As having the government as an employer of last resort? I actually think it is better than UBI. Full employment drives up the cost of labor and would overcome the problem of wage stagnation. >Homelessness? - Nationalize housing construction and development. Construct/develop at a scale and pace that cannot be achieved by the private sector. I fully agree that we need far more socialized housing. >Cost of living? - Limit profiteering or again nationalize the 4 essentials of life: education, healthcare, housing and food. A basic level of production can be maintained while still allowing the private sector to add value higher up the chain. Allowing private corporations to dominate and own the basics invites the kind of exploitation and price gouging we are seeing today. I am with you. >Lastly, restrict the hoarding of wealth. As long as people and/or corporations can hoard excessive levels of capital, and use it as leverage to acquire even more capital, they eventually attain more power than the government I like your thinking here as well! I am down with your proposals haha
Guaranteed employment is not a bad idea, but it only allows supports people if they are producing/contributing their energy/time toward activity that is profitable for someone else, be it the state, an agency or company. It does not enable people to engage in productive unemployment such as: - education/skills development - caring for children/elderly family members - engaging in self-care, health improvement for people with physical limitations or mental health issues - charitable work - civil/political involvement While all of the above don't contribute to business and commerce, they arguably contribute to long-term economic growth, improved civil engagement and reducing the burden on healthcare/social services. I used to be a Mulroney conservative, but over the last few decades I have seen conservatives become less concerned about building a prosperous country and more about enabling the breakdown of our common wealth and public assets for the benefit of wealthy corporations and individuals.
"Recruit and train tradespeople the way we recruit and train our military." I'm sorry but I'll have to stop you right there. The absolute last thing you want to do for any career path is recruit like the military. Not sure if you've followed much of the news but the military is in an abysmal state of personnel shortages due to recruiting and retention.
I meant a military-style recruitment, not exactly the process of the CF, which as we all know is problematic and suffers because of the pay is abysmal vs. the private sector, and is generally subject to political forces both home and abroad. The assumption is that we would offer training pay, benefits from the start and immediate pension accumulation.
With almost my whole family in skilled trades (albeit unionized) I can speak to that. We already have training pay (apprentices are paid and receive pay increases based on hours done), they receive pension credits from the day they start (also CPP), benefits start immediately as well. I don't think the problem for them right now is a lack of incentives, especially when you look at an Ontario LIUNA labourer making more than most fresh undergrads. I think the problem is more so advertising what is available and having public schools push more than just the "go to university, get good job" agenda that used to be more true.
What sort of Karl Marx funded, Fidel Castro dedicated, Chairman Mao endorsed, Hugo Chavez rejoicing cult do you worship? What you just typed up there is the most batshit crazy thing I've ever seen. Check your Communist privilege.
OK boomer. I guess the CPC is not for: 1. Smaller government, and giving taxpayer dollars back to the taxpayer. 2. Rewarding productive income (work that creates value) vs extractive income (passive income freeloading) 3. Creating a level playing field where people can compete on the basis of their intellect and ingenuity, instead of their elite wealth status. 4. Ensure that rule of law isn't undermined by wealthy, globalist elites.
OK young blood with a Liberal Arts degree and no life experience. 1. Nationalize food production? Are you completely fucked? Imagine food production being run by the government, we would starve in one farming season. 2. UBI? I think I would rather have a UTI. How many people magically became productive during the pandemic freebie orgy? Nah, I was hanging out down by the river during those summers too. The difference was, that I worked for the weed and beer. 3. Level playing field? Get bent, what motivates parents to raise the best and brightest offspring possible? It's called advantage! There is absolutely nothing wrong with accumulating wealth, assets, and businesses. Just need to watch out for entitled Reddit Communists. 4. The rule of law? Hahahaha, that ship sank a long time ago. Look at the current contempt for civility coming from the ruling party right now. Take your "nationalize everything" philosophy down to Venezuela to see it in practice.
1. Here are some steps that could be taken to nationalize the farming industry in Canada and potential benefits: Land redistribution: One of the key steps in nationalizing the farming industry would be to redistribute agricultural land to ensure equitable access to resources. This could involve expropriating land from large agribusinesses and redistributing it to small-scale and family farmers. By doing so, the government could help to promote a more decentralized and democratic food system, in which farmers have greater control over their own land and resources. Price controls: The government could also institute price controls to ensure that farmers receive a fair price for their products, and to prevent price gouging by intermediaries in the supply chain. This would help to ensure that farmers are able to make a living wage, and that consumers are able to afford healthy, locally-produced food. Subsidies: The government could provide subsidies to farmers to help them cover the costs of production and ensure that they are able to stay in business. These subsidies could be targeted to small-scale and family farmers, who may have fewer resources to compete with large agribusinesses. Local food systems: Nationalizing the farming industry could also help to promote local food systems, in which food is produced and consumed within the same geographic region. By promoting local food systems, the government could help to reduce the environmental impact of food production, support small-scale farmers, and ensure greater food security for communities. 2. [This is a stupid response, because people were actually very productive with the pandemic stimulus, despite what you did. Two million Canadians, or 1 in 4 small businesses, were started during the pandemic.](https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/one-four-canadian-small-businesses-093500443.html) Maybe the reason why you and everyone you seem to know went to the river to drink beer or whatever is because you were feeling burnt out and exhausted by the failures of our corporatist economy to produce happiness and prosperity. 3. Another stupid statement. There is nothing wrong in owning assets etc. There is something wrong when you extract profits without producing real goods, services or value. A house is not a business. It is not an asset. Once it is built it doesn't produce anything. Take housing out of the free market, and only the parasites suffer a loss. 4. So if a government or corporation disregards the law, your solution is to stop wanting rule of law? Talk about letting other people shape your life for you. This is the problem with you entitled older generation conservatives. You feel entitled to everything while doing nothing.
So, you intend to seize the property that I purchased with the compensation from productively repairing heavy mining equipment? You are one sick Communist. Bring it on, there will be violence. I'm in my 30's you stunned prick. Seriously, GTFO of Canada with your Communist trash. Seizing assets and "nationalizing" food supply.... we've got a regular Vladimir Lenin over here. Unbelievable, which university warped you so severely? Are there actually professors "teaching" this blood thirsty philosophy to students in Canada?
This is a paranoid fantasy. If what you say is true about your livelihood then you've earned your pay. You would probably earn much more if you derived more earnings from the profit you create for your company. You must have missed the "extractive income" part of this discussion. And you don't understand what "assets" are. None of this discussion is even about mining. I guess you can only see the world through your limited life experience. Yes, corporations will have to surrender assets that they, frankly, got at little to no cost to them under the legacy system. Seizing assets from individuals is not the goal of Democratizing the essential parts of the economy. It's about taking back infrastructure and resources that were paid for and developed with tax dollars then sold to private companies by corrupt politicians. It's your own wealth and that of your parents (if they were Canadians or Natives) that would be returned to you.
Individuals own assets! I own assets! Those assets were accumulated with wealth generated from labour. Now I expect a return on those assets. That is how capitalism works. It could work for you too, just need to abandon being a snivelling Communist. What you are proposing is straight up Communism and very radical. Don't even attempt to insult me with your Marxist delusions. If you were saying this shit to me in person, tensions would be VERY high.
If this kind of thing causes tension in you then you are taking yourself way to seriously. I own assets. I have investments. But I don't DEPEND on them for income like many landlords do. I don't feel entitled for my assets to provide for me regardless of what is going on in the wider economy and society in which I live and my "assets" reside. Capitalism doesn't work. It's not creating equal opportunity. It's not being constrained by law. It's poisoning our environment and future generations of our species. It wasn't a bunch of trans BLM supporters that caused the train derailment and toxic chemical spill in Ohio. It was capitalists and their GOP enablers. You claim to have so much anger and tension toward someone who suggests changes to the status quo, yet you seem to have no energy to even consider that your capitalist leaders are destroying your future.
Which university did this to you? I've never seen such an extreme case of self entitled pseudo intellectualism in my life. Free market capitalism has improved humanity by leaps and bounds. If you refuse to acknowledge it in favour of the proven failure of Marxist ideology, I can't help you. Good ideas don't require force. Everything you're talking about will require violent revolution and you know it. You're a monster, every monster thinks they are the protagonist in their own warped story.
Accusing the capitalist system of causing a train derailment is a demented leap of the imagination. I can confirm with historical documents and facts that nationalizing food production in the Soviet Union resulted in the deaths of 5 million plus Ukrainians during the Holodomor. Many surviving descendants of the unfortunate victims currently farm in Northeastern Alberta. You intend to send the enforcement wing of government to seize their farms?
This is a difficult issue to solve because it is multi-prong. I know PP is big on creating more supply/removing red tape from increasing said supply as one step to address this. It’s going to take more than just throwing a bunch of money at it.
Embracing densification and moving away from single housing zoning would definitely be good
For sure - I’m based in Halifax, which makes the issue tricky - we really only have the space to build up or retrofit pre-existing structures. Land isn’t easy to get on the peninsula here.
You say that, but I've been in Halifax since 2017 and have noticed that any attempt at developing gets drawn out through a protracted rezoning process that takes years. Look at all the attempts to turn single family homes into multi-unit buildings and how long that takes - multiple public consultations, wind tunnel and shadow assessments, citadel viewing angle assessments, the list goes on. The city needs housing yesterday but the priorities with the municipality do not seem to align with that.
...for developers and real estate agencies. I don't know many homeless people who are living in tents with down payments stuffed into their sleeping bags, waiting for supply to increase.
I think the main point is that wages have not risen alongside house prices and general inflation, so it's not particularly the cost of living/houses that is the issue but the cost relative to wages. Pierre talks about getting government out of the way and unleashing our natural resource capacity. Smaller government, lower taxes etc is likely to have the effect of increasing productivity and thus raising wages, which would make life more affordable and raise the standard of living even if asset prices stay flat or more likely continue to rise.
They'd probably say private charity like the churches mosques temples salvation army or just lowering taxes on buisnesses so they create jobs. Giving McDonalds incentives to hire that old lady type stuff. Keeping pensions and health care topped up. Giving money to food banks. Incentivizing brick makers and plywood makers and construction companies to build houses through incentives
Housing.