If you're trying to work a regular job 40-50 hours a week in Canada and live a decent life you'll never own a home. Canada has a problem with monopolies using any reason to increase prices, banks over lending, the government dramatically increasing immigration but not having the facilities for said immigrants, criminal organizations laundering money... I could go all day. All of these things contributing to inflation ultimately bringing us to the current housing and cost of living crises we find ourselves in today.
@JSRTales I don't believe there is a solution in the traditional sense nor do I believe we can go back to the golden days. I think a good question to ask is "can we implement better business practices and legislation that encourages better business practices?". Sorry for being vague but if I had the answers I'd be the PM😂😂😂
Please keep trashing Canada. The weather is terrible, housing unaffordable, and politicians too stupid to quit when their position is hopeless. Please continue to tell the world to stay away for their own good. Don't even visit. We Canadians will continue to white knuckle it, knowing full well nothing will change. Pray for us!
I guarantee you that 20 years from now, Canadians will be voting in Alexandre Trudeau, Justin Trudeau's son. Just like they voted for Justin, Fidel Castro's son.
@@okayyes2429 Canadians are stupid when it come to voting! Never allow a P M to be in power for more than 4 years, otherwise, he is able to make friends with all his crooked buddies or as we call them now - oligarchs! In that respect, we are no different from Russia.
I don't even notice "bad times" only because I am 81, on pensions, have no debts, have no need to buy anything except food and paid my house off 48 years ago. Other wise, I'd be living in a tent!
Yup you and all the other boomers should thank the lord that you were able to have everything Canada has to offer for dirt cheap while the most educated and hard working generation like us can’t even afford groceries
@@gtajustice7613 Don't even think of blaming us!!! It's you guys who voted for Trudeau, and his namby-pamby attitudes, allowed our statues of Mc Donald to be torn down, allowed legalized marijuana, allowed gambling casinos everywhere and brought in globalization which gave all of our manufacturing jobs to China. Besides, I am not even a baby boomer but a war child that experienced the aftermath of the great depression. I grew up poor and realized early on the importance of sacrifice and holding onto every dime!!!!
Now as a Canadian I got a couple things to add in 1. The cause of our problems started in the late 80s and 90s when the federal and provincial governments stopped investing in public housing. 2. Municipalities overly control of zoning policy became beholden to NIMBY's and land owners. 3. Healthcare was ruined by provincial governments during the time reduced funding for healthcare per capita or privatizing the system or both. 4. Trudeau came in and with all underlying conditions to add 3% per year population growth making all of this worse. I am more happy in BC because I like the new zoning reform the BC government has passed lately and the new family doctor payment model is amazing. However the results will take a decade to realize. However the BC government and most governments used foreign buyers as a scapegoat to high property prices for the past decade. While there is some truth to it the real reason is zoning lack of public housing and unplanned migration.
As a fellow BCer.. i mostly agree with everything you said.. and 100% I'd rather live here with all it's issues but free health care than anywhere that has a privatized health care system.... But I think it should be recognized that much of our problems are the result of neoliberal economic policies that dominated (and continue to dominate) our governments over the last few decades, starting back with good old Reganomics...
@@michaelransom5841 Yup to add I got ulcerative colitis and the treatment cost the govt $40,000 and had my appendix taken out. Our healthcare has flaws I experienced 5hr waits multiple time but I would die for this over the gong show they have south of the border.
Why should the tax payer invest in public housing? We should give pieces of substandard land to the poor and have them learn to build their own houses like wartime houses. Get rid of land severance laws in many cases and all the rest of the legal paraphernalia regarding housing. Make it a law as it is in NZ that any useable building material from any demolition be stockpiled for free use for the poor . Re-draw the map of the greenbelt to only include good arable land. That excludes clay soil which does not grow our fruits and vegetables. Get rid of all these inspectors. If a home is not up to so-called standards so be it. At least it provides a shelter for the time being. If it's poorly built, then it will last probably one generation but that is enough. The next generation will probably have the money to replace it with a better structure!
@@DavidWootton-yd5ws Ah, the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" approach to housing policy. Admirable in its simplicity, but let’s unpack some of the challenges here. First, your plan leans heavily on the idea that the poor have both the time and resources to learn construction skills, gather materials, and build homes that might barely pass as habitable. It's a bit like handing someone a pile of LEGO bricks and saying, “Here’s your starter mansion.” While creative, it ignores the reality that housing isn't just about walls and a roof; it's about access to jobs, schools, healthcare, and transportation... all things that tend to cluster around, well, not substandard land. Now, about those land severance laws and building codes. Sure, inspectors and regulations can feel like red tape, but they’re also the reason people aren’t getting electrocuted in their own homes or watching them collapse during a stiff breeze. Lowering standards sounds pragmatic until you realize the costs of unsafe housing... fires, injuries, and illnesses... would shift back onto taxpayers in the form of emergency services and healthcare. Basically, you're cutting one type of red tape only to drown in another kind. Finally, the assumption that poorly built homes are a temporary fix misses the cyclical nature of poverty. If you saddle one generation with subpar housing and no safety nets, they’ll struggle to build the stability needed to ensure the next generation can afford something better. That’s not a ladder out of poverty-it’s more like a wobbly stepstool. Public investment in housing isn’t charity; it’s an economic multiplier. Stable housing improves health outcomes, education, and workforce participation, creating long-term benefits that far outweigh the upfront costs. So, while DIY housing sounds romantic, it’s the kind of romance that ends with a tetanus shot.
@DavidWootton-yd5ws Ah, the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" approach to housing policy. Admirable in its simplicity, but let’s unpack some of the challenges here. First, your plan leans heavily on the idea that the poor have both the time and resources to learn construction skills, gather materials, and build homes that might barely pass as habitable. It's a bit like handing someone a pile of LEGO bricks and saying, “Here’s your starter mansion.” While creative, it ignores the reality that housing isn't just about walls and a roof; it's about access to jobs, schools, healthcare, and transportation.... all things that tend to cluster around, well, not substandard land. Now, about those land severance laws and building codes. Sure, inspectors and regulations can feel like red tape, but they’re also the reason people aren’t getting electrocuted in their own homes or watching them collapse during a stiff breeze. Lowering standards sounds pragmatic until you realize the costs of unsafe housing... fires, injuries, and illnesses... would shift back onto taxpayers in the form of emergency services and healthcare. Basically, you're cutting one type of red tape only to drown in another kind. Finally, the assumption that poorly built homes are a fix misses the cyclical nature of poverty. If you saddle one generation with subpar housing and no safety nets, they’ll struggle to build the stability needed to ensure the next generation can afford something better. That’s not a ladder out of poverty... it’s more like a wobbly stepstool. Public investment in housing isn’t charity; it’s an economic multiplier. Stable housing improves health outcomes, education, and workforce participation, creating long-term benefits that far outweigh the upfront costs. So, while DIY housing sounds good on the surface, it’s the kind of good idea that ends with a tetanus shot.
The promise of opportunity freedom and equality are not being met. I feel sorry for legitimate newcomers that come here with a dream of a better life only to wake up and realize that they have been lied to and the dream of a better life is just a dream. The authorities want a higher population but will not build housing and certainly will not improve said infrastructure for that housing.
America has reasonably higher income inequality than Canada yet its housing is far more affordable in most places in America. Don't blame the issues on inequality. The problem isn't a lack of planning either as Canada's housing market is far more planned than in America. Canada has massively restrictive zoning regulations and on top of that, imposes rent control in many of the major cities. No one wants to build a house over there and Canada will get ever increasing home prices as a result.
Rent control is not the problem, but zoning is. And changing zoning rules is hard because of NIMBYism by home-owners. When people say "affordable housing", it falls on the ears of homeowners as "lower property values" and they go ballistic. It's going to take a government with courage to overrule the NIMBYs. And none of our leaders---not a single one, including Poilievre---has that courage.
@@dfs-comedy David Eby has been making some good changes quite hopeful however its gonna take minimum 8-12 years. Kinda why we lost a lot of seats in the 2024 election the Tories and Greens were appealing to the nimbies.
@@dfs-comedy Rent control deincentivizes the construction of new homes. You see this this pronounced in St Paul that imposes rent controls whereas Minneapolis, a city without rent control builds far more. I'm sure Alberta builds more than British Columbia for example, but I'm sure it's also because of looser zoning laws. Either way, rent control does not help home owners...and it doesn't help home buyers either. The freshest example I can point to is Argentina that recently removed rent control and saw a massive increase in housing over night. This increase flooded Argentines with supply, lowering the demand. They saw a reduction in housing prices by over 30%, so at least to my understanding, removing rent control reduces prices.
@@bobberflobber1954 Rent controls were removed in Ontario a while back and the housing crisis is much, much worse now than before. So it's not clear there's much correlation.
@@dfs-comedy I can understand how one can come to the conclusion that rent control would not make much of a difference when the prices of homes cost close to a million bucks. You're right that removing rent control would probably not net the same overnight benefits that Argentina's economy had faced without first addressing the huge regulatory hurdles and lengthy approval processes just to build homes. That's how you make affordable housing easy to sell or create while fixing Canada's housing crisis overnight.
It completely depends. I live in Canada and for me it's fine, but I had a long and rewarding career and am retired. For people just starting out, it's tough. Of course Poilievre will with the election... that's a given. Will things in Canada actually improve under him? Absolutely not. He's too interested in culture wars and partisan sniping than actually addressing the real problems.
if you're retired, no offense, you will never know this struggle. its not your generations struggle. you already have a home and will likely never experience the financial insecurity of wondering if you'll be sleeping in a bed one night, and a tent the next. so please try not to be so dismissive as "its fine for me" cuz its really NOT FINE here in Canada for the younger generations in some province cant even get a job bc they are all full.
The facts: very different than the story Here's some information about homeownership rates in Canada from 1950 to 2024: 1951: The average cost of a home in Canada was $12,179, and the average family income was $22,401. 1971-1991: The homeownership rate rose from 60.3% to 62.6%. 1996-2006: The homeownership rate rose from 63.6% to 68.4%. 2011: The homeownership rate rose to 69%. 2019: The homeownership rate peaked at 68.6%. 2021: The homeownership rate declined to 66.5%. 2022: The homeownership rate was 66.5%.
That’s the opposite of the truth. Capitalism has continued to innovate and improve technology over time which is why we have an incredibly high standard of living today. Would you rather live in precapitalist times lol
@jeffgifkins7684 The overwhelming majority of technologies in post 1970s were made by publicly owned companies. The golden age of capitalism was more prosperous than today as people could afford housing, afford their rent and basic needs. Today's capitalist systems is significantly less efficient when it comes to international free trade, manufacturing and financing ; we have the collapse of bank, the process of deindustrialization and protectionism. Which is a warning sign that the system overall is expiring. The richs are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. I'd move towards a post capitalist economy, which is socialism.
Yet you cannot name any socialist societies that have not crumbled. USSR? Failed. Venezuela? Failed. Cuba? Failed. East Germany? Failed. All you have to remember is when the Berlin wall fell, which direction did everyone go? Look at the state of North and South Korea, which one would you like to live in? Socialism only works in theory. The reason why it failed is because Socialism concentrates power in the hands of a few individuals who become corrupt. You want a Canadian example? Justin Trudeau. How many times has him or his government been found guilty of corruption and ethics violation? Capitalism also has to deal with corruption, but it never reaches to the extent of Socialism's corruption because the leaders have less power overall. Less government is always better, because government is never efficient. Socialism balloons government up like crazy, Trudeau increased public sector by 33%. Did you know that UK postal services was running deficits year after year when it was run by the government? When they sold it and made it into a company instead, it started turning a profit. A society thrives when everyone earns enough to pay for their own stuff. A society shrinks when everyone is taxed to pay for other people's stuff. The reason is because the taxed money is not actually going to the poor, it is going to the government, and Trudeau is using said tax money to get luxurious airplane food worth $226k for a 3 day trip.
What went wrong? One word.. Greed... For decades now, corporate and institutional interests have prioritized profit maximization over social responsibility. Like frogs in a pot of of water on the stove, we didn't even notice until the water was already boiling. This is the result of letting neoliberal economic policies run wild. Housing markets are dominated by investors who drive up prices and rents to increase returns, often leaving average Canadians unable to afford homes or secure stable housing. Similarly, large corporations exploit inflationary pressures as a pretext to raise prices, generating record profits while wages stagnate, leaving consumers struggling to make ends meet. Governments, influenced by corporate lobbying, have often failed to implement effective policies to address these inequities, such as building sufficient affordable housing or regulating exploitative practices. The result is a system where wealth accumulation for a few comes at the expense of basic affordability for the many, exacerbating inequality and eroding social cohesion. All that said.. I would take our high housing costs and free health care over cheap housing, and privatized health care any day.
It might help to limit political campaigns to debates between leaders on the CBC and a single page of policy published for free in all newspapers for other candidates. No money raised or spent might make for an honest result.
If you're trying to work a regular job 40-50 hours a week in Canada and live a decent life you'll never own a home. Canada has a problem with monopolies using any reason to increase prices, banks over lending, the government dramatically increasing immigration but not having the facilities for said immigrants, criminal organizations laundering money... I could go all day. All of these things contributing to inflation ultimately bringing us to the current housing and cost of living crises we find ourselves in today.
whats the solution and will it ever go back to golden days?
@JSRTales I don't believe there is a solution in the traditional sense nor do I believe we can go back to the golden days. I think a good question to ask is "can we implement better business practices and legislation that encourages better business practices?". Sorry for being vague but if I had the answers I'd be the PM😂😂😂
Please keep trashing Canada. The weather is terrible, housing unaffordable, and politicians too stupid to quit when their position is hopeless. Please continue to tell the world to stay away for their own good. Don't even visit. We Canadians will continue to white knuckle it, knowing full well nothing will change. Pray for us!
@@davidswift5687 you either have shitty weather or poisonous wildlife. It's just a matter of which you'd prefer😂😂😂
Sending prayers and warm wishes from America
Never elect anyone named Trudeau.
I guarantee you that 20 years from now, Canadians will be voting in Alexandre Trudeau, Justin Trudeau's son. Just like they voted for Justin, Fidel Castro's son.
@@okayyes2429 Canadians are stupid when it come to voting! Never allow a P M to be in power for more than 4 years, otherwise, he is able to make friends with all his crooked buddies or as we call them now - oligarchs! In that respect, we are no different from Russia.
my granddad told me never trudeau, my dad told me never trudeau
I don't even notice "bad times" only because I am 81, on pensions, have no debts, have no need to buy anything except food and paid my house off 48 years ago. Other wise, I'd be living in a tent!
Yup you and all the other boomers should thank the lord that you were able to have everything Canada has to offer for dirt cheap while the most educated and hard working generation like us can’t even afford groceries
@@gtajustice7613and the wealth from the boomers will be passed down on to there kids
@@gtajustice7613 Don't even think of blaming us!!! It's you guys who voted for Trudeau, and his namby-pamby attitudes, allowed our statues of Mc Donald to be torn down, allowed legalized marijuana, allowed gambling casinos everywhere and brought in globalization which gave all of our manufacturing jobs to China. Besides, I am not even a baby boomer but a war child that experienced the aftermath of the great depression. I grew up poor and realized early on the importance of sacrifice and holding onto every dime!!!!
Housing is NOT the only problem in Canada!
Justin Trudeau has been a disaster. Time for some serious soul searching and change for Canada.
Ladies love him...still
@5831a old ladies maybe. Because he changed their 205k home to 905k in 9 years
Another day, another "Why Canada is doomed" video
Doesn't mean it isn't true. It is. Canada is cooked
Now as a Canadian I got a couple things to add in
1. The cause of our problems started in the late 80s and 90s when the federal and provincial governments stopped investing in public housing.
2. Municipalities overly control of zoning policy became beholden to NIMBY's and land owners.
3. Healthcare was ruined by provincial governments during the time reduced funding for healthcare per capita or privatizing the system or both.
4. Trudeau came in and with all underlying conditions to add 3% per year population growth making all of this worse.
I am more happy in BC because I like the new zoning reform the BC government has passed lately and the new family doctor payment model is amazing. However the results will take a decade to realize. However the BC government and most governments used foreign buyers as a scapegoat to high property prices for the past decade. While there is some truth to it the real reason is zoning lack of public housing and unplanned migration.
As a fellow BCer.. i mostly agree with everything you said.. and 100% I'd rather live here with all it's issues but free health care than anywhere that has a privatized health care system.... But I think it should be recognized that much of our problems are the result of neoliberal economic policies that dominated (and continue to dominate) our governments over the last few decades, starting back with good old Reganomics...
@@michaelransom5841 Yup to add I got ulcerative colitis and the treatment cost the govt $40,000 and had my appendix taken out. Our healthcare has flaws I experienced 5hr waits multiple time but I would die for this over the gong show they have south of the border.
Why should the tax payer invest in public housing? We should give pieces of substandard land to the poor and have them learn to build their own houses like wartime houses. Get rid of land severance laws in many cases and all the rest of the legal paraphernalia regarding housing. Make it a law as it is in NZ that any useable building material from any demolition be stockpiled for free use for the poor . Re-draw the map of the greenbelt to only include good arable land. That excludes clay soil which does not grow our fruits and vegetables. Get rid of all these inspectors. If a home is not up to so-called standards so be it. At least it provides a shelter for the time being. If it's poorly built, then it will last probably one generation but that is enough. The next generation will probably have the money to replace it with a better structure!
@@DavidWootton-yd5ws Ah, the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" approach to housing policy. Admirable in its simplicity, but let’s unpack some of the challenges here. First, your plan leans heavily on the idea that the poor have both the time and resources to learn construction skills, gather materials, and build homes that might barely pass as habitable. It's a bit like handing someone a pile of LEGO bricks and saying, “Here’s your starter mansion.” While creative, it ignores the reality that housing isn't just about walls and a roof; it's about access to jobs, schools, healthcare, and transportation... all things that tend to cluster around, well, not substandard land.
Now, about those land severance laws and building codes. Sure, inspectors and regulations can feel like red tape, but they’re also the reason people aren’t getting electrocuted in their own homes or watching them collapse during a stiff breeze. Lowering standards sounds pragmatic until you realize the costs of unsafe housing... fires, injuries, and illnesses... would shift back onto taxpayers in the form of emergency services and healthcare. Basically, you're cutting one type of red tape only to drown in another kind.
Finally, the assumption that poorly built homes are a temporary fix misses the cyclical nature of poverty. If you saddle one generation with subpar housing and no safety nets, they’ll struggle to build the stability needed to ensure the next generation can afford something better. That’s not a ladder out of poverty-it’s more like a wobbly stepstool.
Public investment in housing isn’t charity; it’s an economic multiplier. Stable housing improves health outcomes, education, and workforce participation, creating long-term benefits that far outweigh the upfront costs. So, while DIY housing sounds romantic, it’s the kind of romance that ends with a tetanus shot.
@DavidWootton-yd5ws Ah, the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" approach to housing policy. Admirable in its simplicity, but let’s unpack some of the challenges here. First, your plan leans heavily on the idea that the poor have both the time and resources to learn construction skills, gather materials, and build homes that might barely pass as habitable. It's a bit like handing someone a pile of LEGO bricks and saying, “Here’s your starter mansion.” While creative, it ignores the reality that housing isn't just about walls and a roof; it's about access to jobs, schools, healthcare, and transportation.... all things that tend to cluster around, well, not substandard land.
Now, about those land severance laws and building codes. Sure, inspectors and regulations can feel like red tape, but they’re also the reason people aren’t getting electrocuted in their own homes or watching them collapse during a stiff breeze. Lowering standards sounds pragmatic until you realize the costs of unsafe housing... fires, injuries, and illnesses... would shift back onto taxpayers in the form of emergency services and healthcare. Basically, you're cutting one type of red tape only to drown in another kind.
Finally, the assumption that poorly built homes are a fix misses the cyclical nature of poverty. If you saddle one generation with subpar housing and no safety nets, they’ll struggle to build the stability needed to ensure the next generation can afford something better. That’s not a ladder out of poverty... it’s more like a wobbly stepstool.
Public investment in housing isn’t charity; it’s an economic multiplier. Stable housing improves health outcomes, education, and workforce participation, creating long-term benefits that far outweigh the upfront costs. So, while DIY housing sounds good on the surface, it’s the kind of good idea that ends with a tetanus shot.
The promise of opportunity freedom and equality are not being met. I feel sorry for legitimate newcomers that come here with a dream of a better life only to wake up and realize that they have been lied to and the dream of a better life is just a dream. The authorities want a higher population but will not build housing and certainly will not improve said infrastructure for that housing.
It's kalhistan, not canada get it right. The new india
@@RadPitt lmao you'd have a blast in bramladesh
Call it Canastan!
Its really not. Most people just live far beyond their means and are unwilling to make the changes to bring their lifestyle within their means.
❤ Canada !
America has reasonably higher income inequality than Canada yet its housing is far more affordable in most places in America. Don't blame the issues on inequality. The problem isn't a lack of planning either as Canada's housing market is far more planned than in America. Canada has massively restrictive zoning regulations and on top of that, imposes rent control in many of the major cities. No one wants to build a house over there and Canada will get ever increasing home prices as a result.
Rent control is not the problem, but zoning is. And changing zoning rules is hard because of NIMBYism by home-owners. When people say "affordable housing", it falls on the ears of homeowners as "lower property values" and they go ballistic. It's going to take a government with courage to overrule the NIMBYs. And none of our leaders---not a single one, including Poilievre---has that courage.
@@dfs-comedy David Eby has been making some good changes quite hopeful however its gonna take minimum 8-12 years. Kinda why we lost a lot of seats in the 2024 election the Tories and Greens were appealing to the nimbies.
@@dfs-comedy Rent control deincentivizes the construction of new homes. You see this this pronounced in St Paul that imposes rent controls whereas Minneapolis, a city without rent control builds far more. I'm sure Alberta builds more than British Columbia for example, but I'm sure it's also because of looser zoning laws. Either way, rent control does not help home owners...and it doesn't help home buyers either.
The freshest example I can point to is Argentina that recently removed rent control and saw a massive increase in housing over night. This increase flooded Argentines with supply, lowering the demand. They saw a reduction in housing prices by over 30%, so at least to my understanding, removing rent control reduces prices.
@@bobberflobber1954 Rent controls were removed in Ontario a while back and the housing crisis is much, much worse now than before. So it's not clear there's much correlation.
@@dfs-comedy I can understand how one can come to the conclusion that rent control would not make much of a difference when the prices of homes cost close to a million bucks. You're right that removing rent control would probably not net the same overnight benefits that Argentina's economy had faced without first addressing the huge regulatory hurdles and lengthy approval processes just to build homes. That's how you make affordable housing easy to sell or create while fixing Canada's housing crisis overnight.
It completely depends. I live in Canada and for me it's fine, but I had a long and rewarding career and am retired. For people just starting out, it's tough.
Of course Poilievre will with the election... that's a given. Will things in Canada actually improve under him? Absolutely not. He's too interested in culture wars and partisan sniping than actually addressing the real problems.
if you're retired, no offense, you will never know this struggle. its not your generations struggle. you already have a home and will likely never experience the financial insecurity of wondering if you'll be sleeping in a bed one night, and a tent the next. so please try not to be so dismissive as "its fine for me" cuz its really NOT FINE here in Canada for the younger generations in some province cant even get a job bc they are all full.
@@tempertenchi You are right, and I think I alluded to it.
All I'm saying is this: Don't count on Poilievre to improve anything.
@@dfs-comedy he might make it worse tbh.
The facts: very different than the story
Here's some information about homeownership rates in Canada from 1950 to 2024:
1951: The average cost of a home in Canada was $12,179, and the average family income was $22,401.
1971-1991: The homeownership rate rose from 60.3% to 62.6%.
1996-2006: The homeownership rate rose from 63.6% to 68.4%.
2011: The homeownership rate rose to 69%.
2019: The homeownership rate peaked at 68.6%.
2021: The homeownership rate declined to 66.5%.
2022: The homeownership rate was 66.5%.
yes
It's because capitalism has a tendency to get worse over time, it leads to crisis every 4 to 7 years and each recoveries are weaker.
That’s the opposite of the truth. Capitalism has continued to innovate and improve technology over time which is why we have an incredibly high standard of living today. Would you rather live in precapitalist times lol
@jeffgifkins7684
The overwhelming majority of technologies in post 1970s were made by publicly owned companies. The golden age of capitalism was more prosperous than today as people could afford housing, afford their rent and basic needs. Today's capitalist systems is significantly less efficient when it comes to international free trade, manufacturing and financing ; we have the collapse of bank, the process of deindustrialization and protectionism. Which is a warning sign that the system overall is expiring. The richs are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.
I'd move towards a post capitalist economy, which is socialism.
Yet you cannot name any socialist societies that have not crumbled. USSR? Failed. Venezuela? Failed. Cuba? Failed. East Germany? Failed.
All you have to remember is when the Berlin wall fell, which direction did everyone go?
Look at the state of North and South Korea, which one would you like to live in?
Socialism only works in theory. The reason why it failed is because Socialism concentrates power in the hands of a few individuals who become corrupt.
You want a Canadian example? Justin Trudeau. How many times has him or his government been found guilty of corruption and ethics violation?
Capitalism also has to deal with corruption, but it never reaches to the extent of Socialism's corruption because the leaders have less power overall.
Less government is always better, because government is never efficient. Socialism balloons government up like crazy, Trudeau increased public sector by 33%.
Did you know that UK postal services was running deficits year after year when it was run by the government? When they sold it and made it into a company instead, it started turning a profit.
A society thrives when everyone earns enough to pay for their own stuff. A society shrinks when everyone is taxed to pay for other people's stuff. The reason is because the taxed money is not actually going to the poor, it is going to the government, and Trudeau is using said tax money to get luxurious airplane food worth $226k for a 3 day trip.
You think Canada is expensive? Where I live in America mortgage is 20 to 30 times the price of minimum wage?
Everything in Canada is more expensive
yes. yes it is.
Quebec city is one of the last Canadian cities that is still affordable
The truth that Canada doesn’t want to admit. A spoiled and entitled country that needs a harsh wake up call.
What went wrong? One word.. Greed...
For decades now, corporate and institutional interests have prioritized profit maximization over social responsibility.
Like frogs in a pot of of water on the stove, we didn't even notice until the water was already boiling. This is the result of letting neoliberal economic policies run wild.
Housing markets are dominated by investors who drive up prices and rents to increase returns, often leaving average Canadians unable to afford homes or secure stable housing. Similarly, large corporations exploit inflationary pressures as a pretext to raise prices, generating record profits while wages stagnate, leaving consumers struggling to make ends meet. Governments, influenced by corporate lobbying, have often failed to implement effective policies to address these inequities, such as building sufficient affordable housing or regulating exploitative practices. The result is a system where wealth accumulation for a few comes at the expense of basic affordability for the many, exacerbating inequality and eroding social cohesion.
All that said.. I would take our high housing costs and free health care over cheap housing, and privatized health care any day.
It might help to limit political campaigns to debates between leaders on the CBC and a single page of policy published for free in all newspapers for other candidates. No money raised or spent might make for an honest result.
Nope.
Yes. Next question
It’s okay to be poor in poor countries cause atleast things are cheap. In Canada you can be poor and still have to pay astronomical prices.
No.
on god
Justin Trudeau
Elect Trump only
Blame a pos realtor for this disaster not the government.
Wtf does that even mean?