The "LOLCANADA" thread...again

100% yes

No it would not as Trudeau has often cited that Pierre does not care about climate change and rather let forests burn and not have a white Christmas . The carbon tax is the biggest part of his climate change battle .

Will see if JT uses this tragedy to push his climate agenda more . Climate Change is real but nothing he is doing or can do will reduce wildfires or bring back JT's white Christmases

Lozen, stop being silly. Trudeau doesn’t say Canada - single-handedly - can fix global warming which is indeed global. Stop pretending he is making at nonsensical mistake. Or provide the quote you keep failing to provide.

Be better.

China literally increases its carbon pollution every year by about 1/3 of Canada's carbon output, but the Drama Teacher thinks carbon taxing Canadians will make a difference.

No it won't.

Oh please he infers it every time he talks climate change . Has he ever said Yes what we are doing will have no effect on climate change but we have a moral responsibility to do our part? Nope never

I am benefiting richly from Trudeau's immigration policies. And at the same time admit it is destroying an entire generation of young Canadians.

I just want liberals to admit that Trudeau letting in 1M immigrants per year (he has direct control over this) when housing is only producing 200K units is having a massive supply / demand imbalance.

Do I think Pierre Polievre will make Canada better? Not really, maybe only slightly, I think he's a dunce, but will do less damage to Canada than Trudeau or Singh will.

Lol, your infer vs imply slip is particularly funny because YOU infer a totally false thing Trudeau has never once implied. If you could have found some quote where Trudeau oversteps and implies Canada alone can solve a global problem then quote it. But form what I’ve ever seen you are just making **** up.

Shameful.

lol. You are such a saint. Except - not for the first time - you took the disgusting political approach where you pretend your political opponents couldn’t possibly have empathy for something not directly affecting them while you in your saintly behaviour do.

It’s, uh, sad.

I don’t think anyone has denied, as I stated earlier ITT, the the recent immigration spike (already new rules clamping it down in place) was one of several contributing factors on housing. I usually don’t try to conflate people and “units of housing” as more than one person typically lives in each house, but ya the general point is fine. Stop pretending people think otherwise.

No, you're inferring it, and I've never seen him imply it.

Why would he say that?

Again, it makes no sense to use absolute values when comparing and contrasting different countries. What matters is the rate of change. Is the economy growing or contracting? Using absolute values to evaluate policies is useless. All that will tell you is what country is richest, not which economy is booming and which economy is contracting.

It's not some random year. This is the latest data we have for how the economy is doing. You are the one who is claiming our economy is great TODAY. THIS YEAR. This is the only relevant year to address that claim. How the economy was doing 5 years ago is irrelevant to the claim that we are doing great this year.

ah the fangs show again. I just assumed Italy has similar numbers to France because eu but I guess their country WAS going broke for other reasons so no one wants to move there. but the point was the only country worth comparing to is country's without mass immigration and not italy a country coming out of a "great recession"

Really, if I recall correctly last election cycle anyone who brought up cutting immigration was a racist.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/...

Well people said bernier bros were being racist because they regularly do racist dog whistles (and sometimes more than that). Multiple things can true at once. Immigration can be really beneficial to Canada, anti-immigrant record can be racist, and the most recent spike can be a contributing factor to the bottom end of the rental market. Some of us can hold multiple idea in our heads at the same time.

I dunno, you brought up France and Italy (which Canada is doing better than both of them on GDP per capita) and I don't really know wtf your argument actually is at this point. That we can't talk about how Canada is #2 in the G7 because you reject every other comparison except for the one country that is #1? Like what even is your point?

I just quoted your metric. and disproved your statements about it. Previously we were talking about how Canada has second best GDP growth in the g7. You got mad and said no no no we have to look at GDP per capita. Turns out that Canada also has second best on that metric. That obviously is a completely valid and useful metric of comparison, just lol at saying it makes no sense to consider the thing you told us to consider.

You know Magnus Carlsen? He is #1 at a chess. He also dipped in rating a bit this year. I actually increased my chess rating this year. Which do you think is the more relevant metric, that Magnus is world #1, or that me, as world like number 10 million, has a better "rate of change"?

Do you see how ridiculous you are being?

So you admit it is growth we should be looking, i.e. relative change, not absolute values?

lol, stop being inept. Your previous post suggesting absolute values were unimportant is obviously terrible. That doesn’t mean that ONLY absolute values are to be considered, no metric captures everything. The point is it is both. Canada is #2 on BOTH gdp growth and gdp per capita - great!! The reason I focused on one is because I was quoting your metric where your own source disproved your quoted metric, badly. Maybe admit that first then play these silly new games?

That's true, Canada is #2 in the G7 for GDP per capita. #2 from the bottom that is, the worst except for Japan. When GDP per capita is shrinking, that means the economy is doing badly. What you want is for GDP per capita to be growing. Up is good, down is bad. Every other country in the G7 has a growing GDP per capita, meaning their economies are all doing better than us. This is an extremely simple point, you must be willfully blind at this point not to get it. We've got high unemployment, rents are out of control, there is massive public sector growth, a $40 billion deficit, and debt servicing charges that are 10% of budget. The provinces are heavily in debt as well. And because of high minimum wage laws there is now fierce competition for every new minimum wage job. Teenage unemployment is particularly high. Canada, once a land of opportunity, is well on the way to becoming a third world country, because of the policies of the Trudeau government. I shudder to think what would happen if Singh got his wish and started imposing price controls.

Why that 2023 year must of been pretty bad for a result like that .
What was the trudeau policies again that bring us to a 3rd world economy ?

Ps: btw we did bad by trying to slowing down inflation right ?

This has top be a bad troll at this point. No, your own link (https://www.visualcapitalist.com/charted...) graphs it right there and Canada is #2 from the top. You can be made at the rate of change of GDP per capita, but that isn't what you said at the beginning and what you are saying now. You are just objectively wrong. Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.

Lmao.

While obviously high growth in GDP per capita would be great, no, the fact that Canada had high immigration in 2023 (which gives growing GDP but shrinking GDP per capita as lots of low wage earners enter the economy) doesn't magically mean the economy is doing badly. We are still #2 in the g7 on GDP per capita. You can't just ignore one. Most countries in the world would kill to have Canada's vibrant rich 1st world economy. Including those far beneath us who are growing faster than us.

I think they have a fair view except for the bolded part .
Economic cycle works like that .
When majority feel they will never get a home due to prices it means we are probably at a peak in pricing.
Prices go up and down in every market , it’s just how business works .
I remember when I bought my first property early 2000s, prices were so cheap it basically cost less per month to buy instead of renting !
No one wanted to buy , seem home prices would never rises in prices and even was lower end 90s compare to end 80s !
Why buy a house that will lose value over time right ?

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/QCAR6...

But I bought :p
It was kinda the bottom low in early 2000s and boy did it went parabolic afterwards …
Nothing is for ever .

Ps: what you think will happen when baby-boomers drop like flies with so many homes own by them ?
But I agree with everything else they think.

I hope you are right that we are just at the top of the hype cycle. I think in a world with moderate immigration levels that housing prices will indeed fall, but with mass immigration that won't happen.

I don't think either of you quite states it correctly. When you look at a 20 year graph of housing prices (and ignore the covid blip) it is basically a straight line upwards. So the whole "cycles" thing in housing isn't really a good explainer in my view. Like sure there are times where things are more a buyers market and times it is more a sellers market and the like, but the bigger trend is just consistent housing price growth over decades.

But Metod's view is also largely incorrect. Theses larger trends are there regardless of what you think about the 2023-2024 immigration spike (whose largest effect is on rental prices at the bottom of the market not necessarily average selling price as much) and no a 50k home to a 900k home is an exaggeration of what has actually happened in the last 20 years. One can certainly complain "too little too late", or similar, but the Liberals (and more importantly the provinces which have the main jursidiction) have been doing a LOT on housing in the recent budget spending billions, I don't think there is any worry they are out of touch on this issue, it more that this is not even remotely an easy issue for federal politicians to actually solve. Poilievre will only be able to accomplish similar drop in the buckets against the massive multi-decade multi-factor economic forces going on here. I think what is mostly going on here is that the inflation spike has made the outrageously high prices that have been there for a while just much less affordable and this is causing the sentiment shift.

Well yes that called inflation .
Money supply will always increase because government always do debt in the long run and with immigration always higher , banks can loan in always higher numbers, injecting even more liquidity in the market .