this post was submitted on 31 Mar 2025
64 points (98.5% liked)

Canada

9369 readers
1838 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

Aw dang, I was all set to upvote and let lie. But I feel compelled to clarify I do not blame the speculators nor the wealthy (really, I don't), nor do I think the apparent prosperity of the 90s belies there being consistent problems going back even further than that and even just in terms of housing. A poorly engineered structure does not become flawed only as it collapses, and it was never going to end any other way. I see no reason to expect the moment it actually starts to be particularly special or interesting. If it were, I might have believed I could predict it. If I really could, there's be good money in that.

Ok so my rant continues for a while and it sounds like I might be preaching to the choir anyway. I'm pretty much doing it for my own benefit of getting these thoughts out at this point -- so no hard feelings if you're done. 😛

TLDR takeaway: I concur. Hooray for building more housing -- even if it's an imperfect solution, and even if a deeper problem remains.


the deeper problemSome of the debt-nervous measures I mentioned were enacted during the 80s and 90s. The averted y2k and dot-com bust that really wasn't didn't stop plenty of people (like practically everyone around me from about 1997 onward through the rest of high school and all of university) from accurately predicting with some detail the next two decades of downturn. Housing squeeze was already rising in the discourse then, as was the middle class marginalization via wealth drain. Maybe it runs earlier than that, but I was too young to pay attention. The only key element that to my memory was absent back then, was the use of housing as an investment vehicle being inherently problematic. Also I should acknowledge that for a lot of people the general malaise and pessimism only truly started as a fairly direct reaction to 9/11, which got rolled into their economic views.

I don't even blame (most of) our politicians (much). They were never in a position to dictate the world order, yet were subject to the rise of globalism and the advent of nations having to compete (sacrifice both monetarily and ecologically) for corporate participation. It was that or follow the various hard-left states that become impoverished pariahs if not outright overthrown. A major upside to potential U.S. collapse now is the possibility that the rest of the western world can collectively agree to stop doing that. It could then instead make capitalism pay-to-play with public cartels (collaborating nations) setting progressive prices that keep wealth distributed and fund kickstarting every new generation.

What I blame is laissez faire capitalism for rewarding and thus encouraging speculation and hoarding, neoliberalism for rebranding learned collective helplessness as a virtue, and most especially the economists and capitalists whose motivated reasoning laid this system's foundation. We (as a nation) should have forcibly maintained a balanced housing supply indefinitely, and should never have promoted homes as an investment vehicle. Middle class wealth should have been as much as possible invested into our own productivity and continued influence as shareholders. Those are maybe our own national-scale unforced errors.

I really don't know how it became the prevailing wisdom that we should all pour our wealth into the only physical asset that magically appreciates as it deteriorates -- like that was a perfectly reasonable thing to expect.

When I hear Carney praise the power of markets, it makes me sweat even as I know he's still clearly the best option. It is a tremendous relief seeing this housing initiative because it rewards my hope that he'll actually deign to put his hand on the tiller. I'm still worried this could go poorly in terms of positive effect vs reduction of public resources and future recourse, but I was/am way more worried about the consequences of not even trying.

Even if it delivers fantastically, it won't be enough. The natural forces that make power (of every kind, but most especially wealth) converge into few hands can only be slowed without the active management that's impossible when neoliberalism is the world order. But who know? Maybe we can at least add a layer of financialization and abstraction that shifts the next looming collapse away from people's homes.

Props for finding some actually pretty good long-term data on Stats Canada, BTW. It is kind of nuts seeing all the numbers stay around roughly the same ballpark, all the way back to when we had half today's population. Despite no major fluctuations or spikes, literally fewer housing starts in 2010 than 1970.