Money is just an IOU. The only thing it introduces is the ability for trades to take place over longer periods of time.
If, for example, we agree that you will fix my sink and I will feed you lunch for your efforts, but you're not hungry while you're at my place, I can give you an IOU – money – to redeem for food at a later point in time when you are hungry. Without money, I would have to feed you when you are full in order to satisfy our deal, which is less than ideal.
Why is that beneficial deferral at the root of of all problems?
remove the need for money and power and government will act a lot differently than it does now.
The Communist Manifesto suggests that once we enter a state of post-scarcity, government will no longer be needed. Why do you think it got it wrong?
Except my concrete asset is worth negative hundreds of thousands
Did your house burn down and you didn't have insurance to rebuild or how the hell did you manage that? The market has softened a little, but not that much. Well, maybe if it was a $30,000,000 home?
Well, I should hope I am doing the opposite of changing minds. That would be fucking weird to change someone's mind. The mind they already have is what makes being around them worthwhile.
But, yeah, I agree to your second point. Computing is one of the largest greenhouse gas emitters going, so we are, indeed, destroying humanity by being here. Worse, unlike food, it provides nothing of actual value. But, at least I'm in good company.
To be fair, St. Catherines has lower unemployment than Montreal. It may not be as fun, but people will also pay to be able to access work.
Oshawa, though... Yeah, that doesn't make sense. Toronto and area has the highest unemployment rate in the entire country, save Cape Breton and Newfoundland. You aren't going there for jobs... or fun.
No, market failures exist. It’s not all supply and demand.
Huh? Supply and demand is an observation of human behaviour. Market failure is equally observable through the supply and demand lens. It too is ultimately human behaviour.
And, no, there is nothing that I need to say. Nor you, for that matter. Everything that needs to be said was said even before your first comment, and especially before mine. Which is no doubt why you keep saying complete nonsense, and why I make fun of it.
While I agree, one has to question why there is so much speculation in the first place.
The banks these days will give you 5% returns just sticking your money in a savings account – backed by a government guarantee in case the bank fails. That means housing needs to return something humongous to justify the greater risk.
Speculators can be wrong, but they are never random. There is something out there that makes them legitimately think that those humongous returns are quite possible. While a tax may serve as a bandaid to keep the infection away, what it is that is cutting us?
It’s in equilibrium in the same way that a market with only food available for half the people, finds a price for food, and still allows the poorer half to starve.
Yup. It is necessary for demand to recognize some kind of dividing line between those who have the desire and willingness to shoulder a cost for something and those who do not. "I'm hungry" isn't sufficient to be counted as demand. Everyone gets hungry. The term demand would be completely meaningless if it referred to everyone. It wants to determine what you will give up in order to satisfy your hunger pangs.
My original point was meant to illustrate how this isn’t being caused by simple supply and demand.
Well, duh. Supply and demand is a tool for observing events. Of course it cannot cause anything. This is like saying a kid running away from home wasn’t caused by a neighbour who happened to see the kid exit the door. Of course. If this is your point... Why?
If two families need a home, but one is so much richer that they can buy two homes, why would the seller sell a home to each family, when they can net more by selling both to the richer one?
Right, which is why there was originally a call to see an increase in demand. With enough of a rise in demand, the poor families will naturally get included as able participants in the market. But there needs to be something to stimulate that. And expansion of the supply is one suggested way to broach that.
If my property value went down, not much. It is paid for and I don't plan on going anywhere, so whatever paper value it has is inconsequential. If anything, it would improve my operating finances as my tax burden would decrease.
If everyone's property values went down, things would look grim. A large segment of property owners are in debt up to their eyeballs and a decline in value can soon see them underwater, putting them on the verge of bankruptcy. Once they feel the trouble they are going to stop buying the goods and services I sell them.
By definition lying is stating something that the speaker knows to be untrue
No. It is true that a lie is something one knows to be untrue. And lying is defined as the present participle of lie. But lying is additionally defined as "not telling the truth". It turns out words can have multiple meanings, and the latter definition is not dependent on the speaker being aware of its untruthfulness.
If we were talking about speakers telling lies, there would be merit to what you say, but since we are talking about lying, that is not a necessary precondition. By definition, not telling the truth, even if erroneously, is, in fact, lying – although it is not telling a lie.
No. Capital gains isn't a tax on homes. It is a tax on income.
We're talking about taxes on homes, and homes in Canada are taxed, including your primary residence.
But if you want to randomly start talking about income tax for some reason, yes, income generated by housing is also taxed. This is Canada – we tax everything.
I’m worried that the only way to actually make positive change is to put one of the minor parties in charge.
We tried that. The, once minor, Reform Party was given chance for the first time in 2006 and we gave them a second try in 2011. I'm not sure anything changed.
Trouble is, once a party takes charge, they are fundamentally no longer minor and naturally become just like all the rest. You haven't accomplished anything.
What you really want to do is elect a representative who works for you, not for his labour union (i.e. the party). As the employer, choosing your employee based on their union affiliation is, quite frankly, strange.
We are currently in a state of equilibrium. The supply of houses is quite well matched to the demand for houses.
But you must remember that the call at the beginning of this thread was to see an increase in demand. Many are unsatisfied with the lack of demand found out there and see an increase in supply as a way to attract more buyers into the mix.
This. Nobody is actually paying $3,000, but the landlord needs to charge that much in order to welcome any new tenants to protect them 10 years down the line when they are forced to still charge a rent-controlled $3,000 even though a loaf of bread is now $100.
Homes became an investment when living near your workplace became a necessity. Any tool which facilities an income is going to naturally become an investment. That's what investment is.
The COVID thing decoupling some jobs from location has helped marginally – seeing a small decline in home values (although perhaps moving it to places where jobs were previously less commonly found) – but that can only get you so far. The vast majority of income sources are still location dependent.
Interesting use of the /s[erious] qualifier here.