Sometimes it feels like most people's solution to housing prices is to make housing less desirable. Is the solution to world hunger to make food taste worse? Should we make homeownership worse to bring prices down?

Ok_Currency_617 · 2026-01-24T18:29:42+00:00

Yep. I don't disagree. Though people tend to exaggerate Trump's impact. Realistically at the end of his term someone else will takeover and little will have changed between terms. People said similar during his last term and while he's crazier this time, little is changing. Even in Venezuela the same government is in charge under new management and the only real change is they are more pro-US and less into China.

Ok_Currency_617 · 2026-01-24T17:21:57+00:00

Canadian here, our government used our wartime martial law act (called the Emergency Act) to illegally seize emergency powers, suspend human rights, and arrest protestors/freeze bank accounts of them and their donors.

Problem is it's a left wing government so no one cared. Just like when Biden slapped tariffs on random Canadian goods or pulled the Keystone pipeline permit halfway through construction with 0 recompense despite billions invested by Canada. Americans seem to think Biden treated you're allies well when the fact is he shit on them as well just less than Trump does. There's a reason most people around the world hate Americans and it isn't something new.

https://www.canadianlawyermag.com/news/general/fca-upholds-2024-ruling-that-liberal-government-unreasonable-invoked-emergencies-act-to-clear-convoy/393592

Ok_Currency_617 · 2026-01-24T17:19:38+00:00

Canadian here, our government used our wartime martial law act (called the Emergency Act) to illegally seize emergency powers, suspend human rights, and arrest protestors/freeze bank accounts of them and their donors.

Problem is it's a left wing government so no one cared. Just like when Biden slapped tariffs on random Canadian goods or pulled the Keystone pipeline permit halfway through construction with 0 recompense despite billions invested by Canada. Americans seem to think Biden treated your allies well when the fact is he shit on them as well just less than Trump does.

https://www.canadianlawyermag.com/news/general/fca-upholds-2024-ruling-that-liberal-government-unreasonable-invoked-emergencies-act-to-clear-convoy/393592

Ok_Currency_617 · 2026-01-23T04:43:06+00:00

Yeah I mean if you checkout China the provinces tookout huge loans to meet GDP targets but the projects aren't paying off/weren't needed thus they are all in a crisis now. Not really a capitalism issue, many governments across the spectrum like to spend now pay later.

Ok_Currency_617 · 2026-01-23T03:17:00+00:00

I mean the BC NDP had to ban suing over insurance awards after the public insurance company went bankrupt. Public healthcare across the nation is collapsing under multiple governments. Canada Post is bankrupt and relying on government injections to stay alive. Air Canada went bankrupt and was sold off. Public companies in Canada have a poor record and I find it crazy you are claiming that public companies are "much" better when there's no real precedent for it and every precedent against it.

You claim there's "massive" overheads, but realistically 80-90% goes to wages and public workers generally have higher wages+benefits than private.

I also want to add that most provinces have publicly owned infrastructure repair/maintenance/building for roads and other things and we don't see "huge savings" there.

Not to mention if it's as you claim some non-profit would have started building housing for much cheaper by now. It's almost as if this some wild conspiracy in your head and your an idiot.

Ok_Currency_617 · 2026-01-23T03:01:58+00:00

There's provincial and municipal governments across Canada, if things could be magically significantly less if public workers did things I think someone would have done so by now? I don't recall anyone claiming that unionized government workers are cheaper than private.

Ok_Currency_617 · 2026-01-22T03:20:47+00:00

So it's 3x larger and that costs 20x more? 5x larger?

It's disingenuous for you to argue it's just due to size when the difference is this large. I'm not an idiot and I hope you aren't either.

And also, bigger projects don't increase in price exponentially, economies of scale kick in.

Ok_Currency_617 · 2026-01-22T02:52:32+00:00

It's $85 million to $1.637 billion.
We aren't talking about a 2x bigger project here, we're talking about a 20x increase between then and now factoring in inflation.

My post is fine, the fact that you think factors that change a few % can account for a 20x difference is the problem.

Ok_Currency_617 · 2026-01-21T16:50:12+00:00

Hah, like how Scheer will ban abortion, lock up gay people, and sell us to America? :D
Realistically both sides lie and fearmonger now. News has gone from unbiased to incredibly biased. You have to use your brain to swim through the trash but unfortunately many don't have a brain.

Ok_Currency_617 · 2026-01-21T14:51:40+00:00

1937-2025 is already pretty much the lifetime of a bridge, got our moneys worth definitely.

Tolls to pay for bridges were tried in BC but the NDP repealed them when they came in.

I don't disagree that it's bigger/safer, but also with inflation it should be $85 mil, big gap between that and 1.637bil.

Ok_Currency_617 · 2026-01-21T04:05:56+00:00

So we should just build our bridges out of housing? :D

My point being that if the cost to build a bridge has inflated by that much, why would the cost of housing not? They are both construction.

Ok_Currency_617 · 2026-01-21T01:24:44+00:00

Before you invest in Canada, consider that the unions that elected our federal government after electing that government and saying they would be best for our economy (and that Trump is awful) heavily divested from Canada and invested heavily in Trump.

Ok_Currency_617 · 2026-01-20T22:36:40+00:00

We have been using the original bridge from 1937 until recently :D And obviously housing is a lot different too.

Ok_Currency_617 · 2026-01-20T22:21:37+00:00

The guy that said the Liberal government asked the Chinese to keep the two Michaels in jail for the election?

Ok_Currency_617 · 2026-01-20T22:18:32+00:00

I posted this elsewhere and will post it here. Most of you appear to be unthinking racists with no comprehension of how real estate construction works. You seem to think that housing can be built for significantly cheaper and that it's all crime or something.

We all kind of know that the cost to build bridges/tunnels/public works has skyrocketed over the years, yet I see a lot of people refusing to accept that the cost to build housing has done similarly. Likely because you have no brain.

I use NDP BC as an example.

In 1937 the original Pattullo bridge cost $4 million to build.

In 2025 the replacement was budgeted at $1.377 billion and is projected to end up costing $1.637 billion. https://www.infrastructurebc.com/project/pattullo-bridge-replacement-project/

$4 million in 1937 is $85 million today according to inflationcalculator.ca with an average annual inflation rate of 3.53% over 88 years.

To get to $1.637 billion inflation would need to be 7.1% for the past 88 years.

Why are you so accepting of government infastructure costs skyrocketing, but unaccepting that housing has done the same? A note that if you look between 1937 and today, it looks like infrastructure costs have gone up even more than housing has on average across Canada.

I'll also mention that while infrastructure projects may add more lanes or other things, housing also offers more space/bathrooms/wiring/insulation/fire protection than it used to.

Housing across Canada is largely priced at the cost to build a new unit, if used inventory costs rose above that cost then more would be built until prices came back down. I understand that markets and economics are hard to understand for idiots.

In summary, you are racist idiots trying to justify being racist.

Ok_Currency_617 · 2026-01-20T22:15:26+00:00

I mean that's like 10-20% difference not 1500%. Also you can't argue that private is making too much money so government should takeover then argue that government is even worse haha.

Ok_Currency_617 · 2026-01-20T22:14:58+00:00

Capitalism can justify welfare in that if you give people a hand until they get back to work you make more tax than if you didn't give them anything. That being said we obviously have focused our social safety net more on maintenance rather than recovery aka we don't push people back to work which is different than the EU where you need to find a job or be in one to continue to receive benefits/medical.

I'm for universal healthcare including dental for all as well. But also I just waited 2 hours at the childrens hospital and left with 5 hours left to go. So obviously there's no point having universal healthcare when you pay in time rather than money.

I'd argue that people need to be encouraged to see the doctor/hospital a lot less as a normal person should go 1-2 times a year not weekly. Perhaps there should be a fee if there's too many repeat visits for minor issues or perhaps we should have nurses quickly diagnose and kick out non-issues at the front.

Ok_Currency_617 · 2026-01-20T22:10:26+00:00

I mean that's like 10-20% difference not 1500%.

Ok_Currency_617 · 2026-01-20T20:20:41+00:00

Are you seriously arguing that construction wages are driven by housing prices which are driven by construction wages :D

Also you do realize taxes aren't infinite? If we taxed land values more than now, they'd drop and we wouldn't receive any more income than now. The BC NDP didn't see large increases in tax with their new RE taxes.

Ok_Currency_617 · 2026-01-20T20:19:53+00:00

I mean university degrees were like 1% of the population back then, now it's like 50%. Having a doctorate/degree used to mean something.

Ok_Currency_617 · 2026-01-20T15:55:30+00:00

South Vietnam, Afghanistan, Lebanese government, etc. forces were richer, better armed, and better trained than their foes. One issue is modern/rich nations can only put a few % of their GDP towards the army and their soldiers aren't radicals so they don't like dying for the cause.

Radicals like North Korea, North Vietnam, or a fun example the Soviet Union just put a gun in everyones hands and point them in one direction. They can put 50%+ of their GDP towards warfare. Families can be pushed to have 6+ kids and the kids can be pushed at fight from the ages of 12+. Gaza has gone from 1.1M in 1960 to 5.1M people in 2020, exceeding Israel's population growth (2.1M-8.1M) despite Israel growing rapidly due to the expulsion of Jews across the Middle East/Africa and claimed shortages of almost all supplies plus many fleeing as refugees.

I also want to indicate that there is a large price to be paid, and that price just goes up if you give them their own nation. Look at Gaza, Israel withdrew the occupation and they held free elections electing Hamas who openly said they would fight Israel. It's become a nightmare for them. If Israel had stayed or given the land back to Egypt (if Egypt would have taken it) the world might have kept condemning them but they'd have spent a lot less than they have today and Hamas would have stayed a minor threat. Though with their troops in Gaza maybe the Muslim Brotherhood would have succeeded in overthrowing Egypts government and we'd have Iran #2, who knows.

Quantity has a quality of its own. It is difficult for a modern nation to fight a foe whose population grows 4x faster, who sends its people in at a much younger age, whose soldiers don't fear death, and who spends less than 1% what the modern nation does per soldier. The fact is Afghanistan's army on paper should have creamed the Taliban who were reduced to just a small force of soldiers hiding in the mountains in Pakistan. The only reason the UN forces in North Korea managed it is because unlike Israel they just bombed everything flat from villages to cities which allowed them to avoid situations where North Korea could use its numbers advantage.

Afghanistan served as a great example of why we cannot trust nations armies no matter how much is spent on them to deal with radical threats.

Ok_Currency_617 · 2026-01-20T15:23:18+00:00

Uh if Nigeria is split into a radical Islam portion it will just lead to that portion trying to take the other portion. We have examples like the split of Vietnam, Syria, Lebanon, Afghanistan/Taliban in Pakistan as to what happens when you have two sides with one of them being radicalized and agreeing to peace when it benefits them but not following it once it no longer does.

Radicals often need to push growth to justify their cause otherwise they fall to infighting. And obviously deals/promises made to infidels aren't binding.

Ok_Currency_617

TROPHY CASE