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.
Actual nationalisation would be handled by a government that gives a shit about it. So far we have seen this happen in the early Soviet union and in China.
The projects you saw were not nationalised housing. They were a minority of state owned housing, geared towards a neoliberal privatised housing sector.
The fact you call them shit is exactly what what they want. So they can pivot to fully private with no pushback, since their intentional bungling of a tiny stock of state housing went so badly.
I’m not sure what argument you’re trying to make, but I’m pretty happy with my fully “private” housing situation. There’s no way in hell I’d want anyone, government or otherwise, controlling where I sleep.
Maybe I misunderstood what you meant, but I’m pretty sure that means you want a strong central government to take control of the entire housing stock, thus controlling where everyone calls home?
Actual nationalisation would be handled by a government that gives a shit about it. So far we have seen this happen in the early Soviet union and in China.
Those are examples of strong central governments. “Nationalise” means taking control on a national scale, necessarily requiring a central government.
Why are they choosing where people live?
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.
only a paranoid mind assumes nationalisation would lead to either.
This might be true, but my experience with government run housing bears it out.
you are defending landlords. Why? They don’t benefit you.
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.
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.
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?
I will not attempt to defend large corporations and hedge funds owning housing stock.
So why parrot their talking points?
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.
So why resist the only remaining option for seizing the homes out of the hands of aforementioned hedge funds and corporations?
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.
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.
As I stated in my first comment, we can certainly improve how we manage housing stock and make it available.
By taking them out of the hands of landlords.
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
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.
Nationalizing the whole of our housing stock? Nah, I’ll pass.
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.
Quality housing can’t be free. If there’s a cost, then someone is profiting. Whether that’s a corrupt government or whoever the landlord boogyman is you’re targeting, it doesn’t matter.
I’m not parroting any “talking points” for corporate giants, you need to get out more. Popular culture and echo chambers like this one might have you beaten down and convinced there’s no way up, but that’s what they want you to believe. Hopeless drones are easier to control than thinking humans. If you take control of your life at least you can be responsible for the outcome.
Personally even if I don’t succeed, I find the prospect of self determinism preferable to waiting for a benevolent government to miracle my way to a better life. Large government does not exist to serve the regular person, it will grind you beneath its feet as assuredly as any corporate entity.
Quality housing can’t be free. If there’s a cost, then someone is profiting
In a capitalist market yes. Not a nationalised one. Nationalised industries do not need to profit, only break even at most, and they can even run at a loss. No matter what thr cost is, it will be less than under private landlords who definitrly need to profit, and at an absurd rate, to cover their lifestyles.
whoever the landlord boogyman is you’re targeti
Are you… really gonna pretend you’ve never heard of landlords and don’t know what they are? How weird of you.
I’m not parroting any “talking points” for corporate giants, you need to get out more.
So, it’s just a coincidence you’re using the same arguments as them, eh?
Popular culture and echo chambers like this one might have you beaten down and convinced there’s no way up, but that’s what they want you to believe.
?
Question for you.
When did I say there’s “no way up”?
You are the one saying it’s impossible, not me. You are the one saying there’s no hope for change.
Hopeless drones are easier to control than thinking humans.
Yep, and that’s what I’m trying to change. When all you care about is getting enough money to survive, to pay off rent and bills, you’re right, you’re nothing but a hopeless drone. I’m trying to tell people there is hope - and you’re denying that, in fact, you’re even denying there’s a problem that needs to be fixed.
If you take control of your life at least you can be responsible for the outcome.
Yes, and as long as we’re under the thumb of landlords, we will never be fully in control.
Personally even if I don’t succeed, I find the prospect of self determinism preferable to waiting for a benevolent government to miracle my way to a better life.
This is exactly the type of propaganda i hear from landlords with 10 units. Strawmen paired with misleaning bootstrap rhetoric. “Even if i don’t succeed” 99 out of 100 times. The self determination to end up on the street. The implication that it would take a miracle.
You self serving liar.
You’re a fucking landlord, aren’t you?
Large government does not exist to serve the regular person, it will grind you beneath its feet as assuredly as any corporate entity.
No matter what else changes, one thing remains the same.
Corporations need to make a profit. It is literally their only purpose. And they have all the power right now to dictate how they profit, whether it’s by helping us or fucking us over. The fiction of needing ro provide a decent product or a helpful service to profit well is far in the past.
No government that didn’t give a shit would nationalise housing. It would cost too much and be only in the people’s benefit. The government would get absolutely nothing from it, other that pissing off all the billionaires and losing all their money.
Oh wait. That’s losing something.
That’s why they haven’t done it. That’s why it could only happen under a government that genuinely wants to and can work for the people.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !canada@lemmy.ca
Actual nationalisation would be handled by a government that gives a shit about it. So far we have seen this happen in the early Soviet union and in China.
The projects you saw were not nationalised housing. They were a minority of state owned housing, geared towards a neoliberal privatised housing sector.
The fact you call them shit is exactly what what they want. So they can pivot to fully private with no pushback, since their intentional bungling of a tiny stock of state housing went so badly.
I’m not sure what argument you’re trying to make, but I’m pretty happy with my fully “private” housing situation. There’s no way in hell I’d want anyone, government or otherwise, controlling where I sleep.
So I guess we agree?
I’m not sure why you think I’m advocating for anyone to control where you sleep.
This entire thread is in response to you posting
Maybe I misunderstood what you meant, but I’m pretty sure that means you want a strong central government to take control of the entire housing stock, thus controlling where everyone calls home?
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.
Quality housing can’t be free. If there’s a cost, then someone is profiting. Whether that’s a corrupt government or whoever the landlord boogyman is you’re targeting, it doesn’t matter.
I’m not parroting any “talking points” for corporate giants, you need to get out more. Popular culture and echo chambers like this one might have you beaten down and convinced there’s no way up, but that’s what they want you to believe. Hopeless drones are easier to control than thinking humans. If you take control of your life at least you can be responsible for the outcome.
Personally even if I don’t succeed, I find the prospect of self determinism preferable to waiting for a benevolent government to miracle my way to a better life. Large government does not exist to serve the regular person, it will grind you beneath its feet as assuredly as any corporate entity.
In a capitalist market yes. Not a nationalised one. Nationalised industries do not need to profit, only break even at most, and they can even run at a loss. No matter what thr cost is, it will be less than under private landlords who definitrly need to profit, and at an absurd rate, to cover their lifestyles.
Are you… really gonna pretend you’ve never heard of landlords and don’t know what they are? How weird of you.
So, it’s just a coincidence you’re using the same arguments as them, eh?
?
Question for you.
When did I say there’s “no way up”?
You are the one saying it’s impossible, not me. You are the one saying there’s no hope for change.
Yep, and that’s what I’m trying to change. When all you care about is getting enough money to survive, to pay off rent and bills, you’re right, you’re nothing but a hopeless drone. I’m trying to tell people there is hope - and you’re denying that, in fact, you’re even denying there’s a problem that needs to be fixed.
Yes, and as long as we’re under the thumb of landlords, we will never be fully in control.
This is exactly the type of propaganda i hear from landlords with 10 units. Strawmen paired with misleaning bootstrap rhetoric. “Even if i don’t succeed” 99 out of 100 times. The self determination to end up on the street. The implication that it would take a miracle.
You self serving liar.
You’re a fucking landlord, aren’t you?
No matter what else changes, one thing remains the same.
Corporations need to make a profit. It is literally their only purpose. And they have all the power right now to dictate how they profit, whether it’s by helping us or fucking us over. The fiction of needing ro provide a decent product or a helpful service to profit well is far in the past.
No government that didn’t give a shit would nationalise housing. It would cost too much and be only in the people’s benefit. The government would get absolutely nothing from it, other that pissing off all the billionaires and losing all their money.
Oh wait. That’s losing something.
That’s why they haven’t done it. That’s why it could only happen under a government that genuinely wants to and can work for the people.