Well, you kind of accept that you don't have options for anything when living in the extreme north of Canada.
The remaining ~99% of Canadians live amongst farmers, though. We've built our largest cities on literally the best farmland in the country to ensure that the food is right there. They have thousands of options.
And a tale that has been told throughout the ages, yet, despite that, Canadians still somehow think they need to go to university and get a job instead of using that capital to become the CEO of their own company. It is a real head scratcher, indeed.
Wheat today is only worth half of what it was last year.
I expect the prices to still be up only because it takes a while to work through the system. Similarly, it took a while after farm gate prices started climbing over the past several years before prices at the store started going up. Give it another year and things will look quite different, even if the Ukraine conflict persists.
There are some exceptions, but the vast majority of farms in Canada, and around the world, operate under a socialist model – they are owned by the workers.
What you describe isn't a feature of capitalism, it is a feature of human nature. Someone giving up their life to grow food wants something in return. People don't like having to give up their life, so if you have nothing to offer in return, people don't take too kindly to that.
Well, the market is acting rationally given the circumstances. The trouble is that the market is heavily encumbered by regulation, so the cure for high prices being high prices isn't able to exercised.
Is that a market failure, or is it that it is not truly a market, but rather a government program?
I can’t think of the last time I saw a price decrease go through
Somewhere in the mid-2010s, I'd imagine. Prices have been relatively stable or increasing since, save recently. It's still a little early for the rest of the chain to start to feel it, but it will come. It always does.
In fact, with respect to the economy at large, only once in history has a period of high inflation not been quickly followed by deflation – and that period was unique in that, unlike the usual supply shocks, the driving force – a sudden, sharp rise in the number of consumers (i.e. the boomers coming onto the scene) – never really went away.
It all takes time, though. Nothing happens in a day.
But, to be fair, they are going down. The price I can get as the farmer is 30-50% of what it was last year.
You're still paying more at the grocery store because what you are eating now, I sold you last year (maybe even the year before). Turns out people don't like surprises when it comes to food, and want to ensure that we grow enough to feed them, so they generally buy it years in advance.
Other countries are doing things at the federal level.
Of course, other counties often have it easier there. For instance, looking to our neighbours to the south, their federal government reigns supreme. It can push policy down on the states. That is not the case in Canada. The provinces are of the highest power.
For some reason our Feda only institute programs that actively make things worse.
Well, yes, trying to make the provinces look bad is kind of the federal government's thing. Presumably it is because it wants to convince the public that it needs that supremacy, so that one day it can take it.
Wait. You mean to tell me that a plastic bag of milk, bagged with other plastic bags of milk, bagged in yet another plastic bag at checkout isn't a good idea?
Yes, there is something to be said about only opening stores in high density, high income neighbourhoods. With only 855 stores worldwide (and only 107 in Canada), they are able to generate well over a billion dollars in net income by doing so.
But there is only so many high density, high income neighbourhoods, and they can only handle so many stores. It is not really a duplicatable model. Instead, Loblaw and the like go where Costco refuses to. You can actually find their stores in small towns and other poduck places.
Sure, it's not nearly as profitable serving the poor. Loblaw has over 2,400 stores, yet only sees a measly 500 million dollars in net income, but ultimately someone needs to service those markets. And, really, it's still a pretty good gig. Old Galen there isn't exactly hurting.
It seems this is more about Meta not wanting to be subject to laws or courts of other countries.
Clearly they're not, as you tell at the end. But at the same time they have to pay some lip service to the wants of Canadians, else they risk seeing them flee the platform.
The primary cause is that we've put a lot of focus on making life, in large cities in particular, around those houses much more livable.
We like to talk about how cheap those city homes were 50+ years ago, allowing you to buy them for a song, but do you remember how awful cities were back then? They were industrial, crime-ridden nightmares. Homes were cheap because nobody wanted them.
Things have changed dramatically over the past 10-20 years. The messy industry has mostly left, often replaced with businesses which provide enjoyable actives (restaurants, shopping, entertainment, etc.). We've made great strides in reducing car dependance, improving mass transit and cycling options. Crime has plummeted. The list goes on and on.
AirBNBs, etc. have come into existence for the same reason: People today actually want to be there. That is your primary cause. Desirable things are more expensive than undesirable things. That's the way it goes.
Ontario family law is written around the idea that women are helpless. Nonsensical by today's standards, but in a historical context, where things like job options for women were limited to non-existent, it becomes a little more understandable.
Given that, the idea is that a year of separation allows demonstration that a woman is able to separate from her husband. The state wants to ensure that she isn't going to be discarded to the streets where she will be left to be burden on society. If that test fails, she remains the "man's problem."
Why are we in Ontario intent to hang on to such sexist views? Well, it's Ontario, land of conservatism. It took until the year 2000 for Toronto to finally give up being dry (in the prohibition sense)! We're the Arab state of the west.