Canada will change how it counts non-permanent residents, the main statistics agency said on Thursday, after an economist said the current methodology may have overlooked about a million foreign students, workers and others.
Canada will change how it counts non-permanent residents, the main statistics agency said on Thursday, after an economist said the current methodology may have overlooked about a million foreign students, workers and others.
You’ve rolled quite a few extras into what I said there, seemingly out of nowhere
Why a “strong central government”?
Why are they choosing where people live?
I’m not advocating for either of those, and only a paranoid mind assumes nationalisation would lead to either.
Whether you know it or not, you are defending landlords. Why? They don’t benefit you.
You posted:
Those are examples of strong central governments. “Nationalise” means taking control on a national scale, necessarily requiring a central government.
If the government has a monopoly on the housing stock, then individuals cannot choose what to build or how to permanently modify it since they cannot own their domicile. I was talking less about the geography of where people would live under a nationalized scheme, and more about what the effect on individual choice non-ownership would have.
This might be true, but my experience with government run housing bears it out.
I will not attempt to defend large corporations and hedge funds owning housing stock. I’m an individual homeowner, so I’m looking out for those who, through some mix of hard work and/or luck, have chosen to own their homes.
I benefit from choosing how I live, where I live, what my home is like, and from accumulating equity. I want to preserve that opportunity for other hard working free people.
As I stated in my first comment, we can certainly improve how we manage housing stock and make it available. Foreign corporations and shadowy hedge funds driving up pricing, and governments manipulating values through tampering with interest rates are places I think we should start looking.
Nationalizing the whole of our housing stock? Nah, I’ll pass.
Of course they can. If a government has gone as far as nationalisation, they’ve also inevitably also undergone a democratic revolution in the favour of the people, with the people’s will leading the construction of new housing. When a person gets a home, it is theirs to have and use or modify as they wish. Why should it be any other way - what would the benefit of that be?
So why parrot their talking points?
So why resist the only remaining option for seizing the homes out of the hands of aforementioned hedge funds and corporations?
Because you had enough money to buy a house. Most don’t, however hard they work. Because of corporate monopoly and the very existence of landlords removing homes from the hands of hard working people.
By taking them out of the hands of landlords.
You know why they’d drive up pricing and manipulate interest, right?
Because they’re fucking landlords.
Abolish landlording - remove that entire incentive. Of course that couldn’t happen with the type of government we have now, so what I’m saying is either a pipe dream or a potential historical document to ponder after some future revolution.
The only people who’d potentially suffer such a thing would be landlords. I’m sorry, but you’re just defending those who are keeping housing away from those who need it.