Even if he’s being technically correct, only a fool doesn’t understand the context and subtext of what he’s saying.

Even his dumb supporters get it.

The strawman is taking “supply is an issue” to mean that “dwellings per capita is going down”. Or to assume that stating the former means stating the latter. Or to assume that the former implies the latter. Whatever framing you prefer.

If you disagree this is strawman, that’s fine. Maybe there’s a bette name and we can call it something else, sorry for the confusion. The main point is that “dwellings per capita is going down“ is not representative of the view that supply is a factor in housing affordability.

Your first quote conveniently leaves out the last sentence which says “historical data shows otherwise.”

What difference does it make? It's still a straw man. Historical data will showing otherwise is what makes it a great straw man.

Now, a strawman argument is where you create a fake thing to attack.

Yes, I know but thank you. It's exactly what the "If the argument is correct, then we should expect to see..." line is doing.

You seem to be on the side which knows that supply is not the problem, rather it’s greed.

No, I'm not. I don't think there's a single cause that can easily summarize the housing affordability problem. Specially not a vague one such as "greed". Saying that greed is the problem is the kind of thing that people who confuse BlackRock with Blackstone say.

The “supply-shortage argument” is encapsulated by the CMHC’s claim that “increasing housing supply is the key to restoring affordability.” If the argument is correct, then we should expect to see evidence that increases in dwellings per capita lower prices over time.

A great straw man argument 👍

It is difficult to find clear evidence that increased supply pushes price down, because in private markets, new supply only emerges when prices rise and developers feel reassured they can earn a profit on their investment. Price and supply both move up together over time, with increased supply not necessarily pushing prices down.

But when setting out to demonstrate supply’s downward impact on price, they instead use abstract models that presume what they are trying to explain.

Oh the irony. These economists with shady premises... btw you will never find evidence that supply pushes prices down, because in private markets that's impossible.

It's kind of funny that the same group that eats this kind of narrative like hot cake is also the group of people with a tendency to blame demand (as in immigration), like if by magic the supply vs demand relationship only works one way. Even though the last paragraph of the article tries to state this exact point (if supply is not the solution, demand is not the problem) - the only thing that this kind of article accomplishes is to undermine the efforts to build housing.

This is usually “enforced” through fines, since unions are institutions that can be held liable for these decisions. Ultimately unlawful job action might end up leading to lawful termination though, so it takes a lot of courage to do what they're doing.

It's provinces run by people who cater to rightwing nut jobs so there's no conspiracy to uncover. The pattern is pretty clear.

All the people that thought Poilievre would not continue as the opposition leader need a wake up call. You still don't understand what you're fighting against. Cult of personality is a major pillar of fascism, and loyalty (to the leader, not to the country) is the most valuable trait. Poilievre had a few humiliating defeats but he's still gaining grounds for the CPC, and the conservative wave is still on it sway, bolder and with lots of resentments piled up.

Take this seriously. The enemy doesn't have to be smart or competent, they just need to amass power. https://www.antihate.ca/40ways

I will shortly be declaring a National Emergency on Electricity within the threatened area. This will allow the U.S to quickly do what has to be done to alleviate this abusive threat from Canada.

This shit is ominous. This demon is ready to invade and take control of the Québec-Windsor corridor.

Cool story but that is what Americans chose, yes. It’s your representative. Americans might not hate Canadians, but Americans only love themselves and will eventually learn that this leads you to behave selfishly and be hated.

Decent article but senseless headline. Nobody ever positioned mandatory service as a method to make Canadians love their country...

The phaseout is now years ahead of schedule, in large part due to natural gas taking over much of the generation. Many coal plants were either replaced by gas plants or converted to burn natural gas instead. Electricity generated from natural gas puts out roughly half the amount of greenhouse gas emissions as compared with coal.

Ok, so fossil fuel is still the primary driver. But well, incremental improvements do matter. Zeroing out coal this year is a great milestone.

The share from renewables is growing too, even if a bit slowly.

Re: the title... Yeah no, owners of an expensive property are not only not in the "rich" class, they're likely working class as much as gig drivers and cashiers. Unless they liquidate this asset and actually go live somewhere LCOL where they can live off of the labour of others, they're still working class.