this post was submitted on 13 May 2025
42 points (80.9% liked)

Canada

9779 readers
415 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
[email protected]
[email protected]
42
Carney wants big government to get into housing – a major risk to taxpayers (archive.is)
submitted 3 weeks ago by sbv to c/[email protected]
20 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

As always, the Fraser Institute is shitting on ideas that could help the 99%, and saying government should rEmOvE ReD tApE.

I really want this to work. But the announcements I've seen for the building plan only address the supply side and ignore the problems on the demand side: people who own houses are able to pump up the cost of new houses; tax law encourages Canadians to treat their primary residence as an investment; real estate is used for money laundering (at least in some jurisdictions); mortgage fraud is a thing (at least in some jurisdictions); renovictions are used to pump the cost of rentals; and rent caps aren't available in many jurisdictions.

Anyhow, here's hoping the investing in modular housing succeeds, rezoning somehow lowers prices, and the feds are able to push housing starts to the moon.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 29 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

The bias in this is just revolting. I get that it's "opinion", but they've made no attempt at having a terribly balanced one.

Canada's housing sector has been following the Fraser Institute's advice for decades now, and the result has been exactly as many predicted. Carney's right: it's time for the state to get back into building because the private sector has failed to do the job.

Unfortunately, this reads more like a financial instrument rather than what I would argue Canada needs: a housing agency that actually builds the houses rather than simply funds and directs construction. Regardless, in the wreckage that free market capitalism has wrought on housing, this is the sort of thing that takes a lot of time and money get up to speed. You needs skilled labour, industry connections, reputation, and experience building in various climates, and you just can't create that out of the blue. I'm pleased to hear that they're moving in the right direction.

[–] sbv -5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I agree with all of your statements, but

The bias in this is just revolting. I get that it's "opinion", but they've made no attempt at having a terribly balanced one.

They have a point of view. I don't agree with it, and it ignores the pain that the housing crisis is inflicting on Canadians, but it makes no sense to expect them to parrot talking points they don't agree with.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I'm not asking them to parrot talking points, but ignoring reality doesn't do anyone any favours. It's like writing from a perspective that the world is flat and talking like only fools would think that a spherical planet worldview is rational. Their perspective is demonstrably flawed, but rather than approaching the issue on the facts, they've just blasted this project from a ideological perspective. It's a bad article and the Globe & Mail should feel bad about publishing it.

[–] sbv -1 points 3 weeks ago

It's an op-ed, not an article. It explains the Fraser Institute's point of view (perhaps that of their donors). They raise a couple of good points (notably the one about the infrastructure bank), but it's their chance to get their ideas out. It shouldn't be balanced.

If all op-eds need to be balanced, then we'd see indigenous land defenders having to explain why a company is allowed to despoil that land. Similarly, if a doctor is writing an op-ed explaining why think you should get vaccinated, they shouldn't need to reiterate the talking points of whackos saying it isn't. That's fine for articles, but this isn't an article.

The point of op-eds is to get an idea out. This one is probably a counterpoint to Paul Kershaw's delicious trolling in yesterday's Globe.