this post was submitted on 30 Apr 2025
122 points (98.4% liked)

Canada

9598 readers
1886 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] toastmeister 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

we got in this morass because the neoliberal state and its accompanying economy financialized every damn thing

The problem is monetary policy, not deregulation. Deregulation of zoning and housing policy would actually prevent monetary policy from creating such a large housing bubble.

Our Bank of Canada targets a 2% inflation, which means prices need to continuously rise as technology actively reduces goods prices, and we then exclude investments and housing appreciation entirely, and we do hedonic adjustments to discount goods inflation. Then there's likely an element of shrinkflation, as company find tricks to cheapen products or degrade services, which lead to no inflation in the CPI but higher profits and then lower prices.

So the money supply needs to grow via low interest rates, in order to provide a windfall to boomers to encourage them sell their real estate holdings, to create new bank loans, to increase the money supply, which turns into aggregate demand, in order to create inflation in the CPI.

But we can't build enough houses due to reverse neo-liberalism, so housing acts as liquidity sponges for cheap debt, and people hold them as investments in perpetuity since they think prices are always going to go up. Also as interest rates fall inflation falls, as interest expense is included in the CPI while housing appreciation is not, its a feedback loop due to its poorly constructed nature. The Bank of Canada now also buys half of all mortgage bonds to attempt to reverse this, so they're actually printing money in order to cause deflation funnily enough, again due to the absurd way the CPI is constructed.

[–] cyberpunk007 11 points 8 hours ago (4 children)

All this would be solved if the left leaders would actually fix affordability. This is the only real reason I see so many voting right. Nobody can afford shit and they blame the left.

[–] Auli 18 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Problem is it's not the left's fault. The world is blaming the leaders but it's happening globally. The real problem is a few have all the wealth.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Our left leaning leaders should update tax laws to address the growing wealth gap. And start building homes so average Canadians can afford a decent home in a decent location.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 hours ago

Agree completely. Carney is a neoliberal and will not address this problem - I fear the next election people will be unhappy that their life still sucks due to late stage capitalism and vote in Cons out of some desire for change, and they will destroy our institutions like the Americans.

NDP need to step up with a real candidate that will challenge these systems of wealth extraction.

[–] corsicanguppy 7 points 7 hours ago

if the left leaders would actually fix affordability

I'm sorry; it's the sole responsibility of the left? Is their "we'll raise the tide a little and float all the boats" not as glamorous as the right's "first we'll cut taxes, bankrupt medical and transit, and then let someone else take it from there" plan?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 7 hours ago

That's the key here - the Liberals under Trudeau waited too long to move on affordability, and then they didn't do enough. I hope Carney & co can show quick improvements in housing so the CPC is less attractive.

[–] Revan343 2 points 7 hours ago

It would help if we had some left leaders in the first place

[–] Showroom7561 34 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

If we don't do something about social media, disinformation, and voting reform, we will not have a Canada to protect after the next election.

It will be difficult to impossible to hold onto a country that nearly half the population would freely give away without a fight.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Unfortunately, the call to "do something" about social media will only result in renewed efforts to do the wrong thing, as the previous government attempted. Facebook will be made to behave slightly better at the cost of creating a new regulatory system that reinforces its power and makes Canada legally dangerous for fedi instances or other alternatives.

Go on Mr. Carney, please prove me wrong.

[–] Showroom7561 3 points 11 hours ago

I do agree. Efforts to make things better usually bring out the worst possible defenders of what's wrong with society.

It's so incredibly frustrating.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (1 children)

Unfortunately, due to the piss-poor human condition, Canada - and every country on Earth that allows free speech - will go whatever direction the bots run by the nations that do NOT allow free speech want them to go. Anything else is a temporary reprieve.

Boy, I sure didn't see that coming. It's going to be very interesting seeing where such a path ends. Uncomfortable, likely, but interesting.

[–] avidamoeba 12 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (2 children)

Totally. I was thinking about China the other day, how crazy they seemed for building the Great Firewall fifteen years ago. I felt sad for their citizens being cutoff from the internet. Now I'm sitting here looking in and I'm all like - fuck, this has been a major contributor to their sovereignty. Both in that this allowed their own strong digital economy to develop instead of getting hooked on American Big Tech, and in that it keeps the propaganda that's threatening us at bay. I'm not saying that censorship is amazing all around but just like you said, had they gone with free speech online, they'd be subject to whatever Big Social makes money from that day. It's crazy how the tables have turned from this perspective. I'm not optimistic that there's a solution that both keeps speech free and protects us from this problem.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 hours ago

Newspapers aren't allowed to print whatever they want, news networks can't straight up lie on TV, why are we obsessed with the idea that tech platforms need to be able to wash their hands of everything on their platform.

Maybe we don't need the web to be full of user submitted content. I remember the early Internet, it was way better than what we have today.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 hours ago

The Great Firewall of China serves the discussion about American social media media platforms only by providing an example of how things could be even worse.

[–] Sunshine 31 points 13 hours ago (10 children)

We have 4 years to get canadians away from Twitter and Facebook to Mastodon and Friendica to reduce the amount of influence the oligarchs have on our comms.

Lets bring back the vote subsidy, limit the contribution limits to $100 a year, lower the voting age to 16 and pass proportional representation!

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Its a minority government. Four years is optimistic.

[–] Sunshine 1 points 5 hours ago

The last one lasted pretty long.

[–] Showroom7561 12 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

lower the voting age to 16

I don't agree with this, mostly because that age range is perhaps the most influenced by social media and "misogynist male influencers".

They are too young to know better at that age, and to throw away their future because Joe Rogan or Andrew "The Rapist" Tate manipulated them is just not what this country needs.

But an overhaul of our election system is needed, and laws need to be made that protect people from the barrage of misinformation we are seeing more of every day.

[–] Nils 7 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Is this really your experience with +16 years old? If so, you should get your province to invest more in education.

They(16yo) can drive, they can enlist.

In most provinces, they are choosing their career, trade, university, and with fresh knowledge of history and geopolitics they get from schools.

And there is no magical switch that flips when you turn 18. The sooner they start thinking about their future, the better.

Many countries already allowed 16 years old people to vote, for more than 20 years, and they did not become a misogynist hell-hole.

[–] Showroom7561 5 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Is this really your experience with +16 years old? If so, you should get your province to invest more in education.

That's the problem, though. Young males voters are swaying heavily to right-wing parties, and it's thought that this is because of the online influence of bad actors.

Of course, any age can be manipulated, but far fewer are being swayed by these “influencers” as age increases.

And a lack of education ties in with voting Conservative, so there's no incentive for the Cons to change this. They benefit from young, naive, undereducated voters.

They(16yo) can drive, they can enlist.

I'm against that, too. Young drivers are notoriously bad at driving, and have poor judgment on the road.

In most provinces, they are choosing their career, trade, university, and with fresh knowledge of history and geopolitics they get from schools.

Yes, of course. It's a transition age.

Many countries already allowed 16 years old people to vote, for more than 20 years, and they did not become a misogynist hell-hole.

Other countries may not (at least, not now) have a problem with social media influencing their young voters. So, it may "work" for them, but not for North Americans.

I'm not trying to throw this age group under the bus. It's THEIR future that we vote for, and they really should be playing a role in shaping that future.

But I'd want them to be making an informed vote, without the voice of right-wing extremists in their heads. At this present time, I don't think that could happen, because these influencers run unchecked, and it DOES impact how our youth think and act.

[–] Nils 1 points 2 hours ago

Young males voters are swaying...

No rights for a whole group because you do not agree with the political leaning of ~1/4 of them (poor young folks that vote centre and left). Add to this that younger men have a lower turnout voting, than any other age group.

A while we are at it

Young drivers are notoriously bad at driving,

With this logic, I imagine you also want to remove the license from people +50yo. Maybe their voter card as well.
Given their turnout and right-wing tendencies. Also, how bad they drive, given the number of accidents.

Hey, I all for a walkable city, possibly you are right with this license takeover.

but not for North Americans

Oh, yes, we are different because we live on this arbitrary piece of land.
Other countries have internet (better than here) and right-wing pundits as well.

I don't think irrational fear of what others might do should be the gatekeeper of their rights.

I also do not agree with them paying taxes with no representation.

It’s THEIR future that we vote for

Given that you want to reduce the rights of a group that are active members of the society, can join the workforce and pay taxes, and studied for most of their lives. Just because you do not agree with what a fraction might do. I don't think you have their best interest in mind.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] cyborganism 17 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

If people didn't get their butts out to vote, we'd have a conservative government right now.

There's been a huge increase in U.S. influenced right-wing extremism in Canada and it contributed to the increase in conservative seats in gouvernent.

Don't kid yourselves. Just because P.P. didn't get elected or the Conservatives didn't get a majority, it doesn't mean there isn't a rise of right-wing extremism in Canada.

[–] avidamoeba 7 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

They would have swept the election if they ran without a leader.

[–] cyborganism 2 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

If who ran without a leader?

[–] avidamoeba 4 points 10 hours ago (1 children)
[–] cyborganism 2 points 8 hours ago

Hmm. That's an interesting scenario. I don't know if they would've been elected without a leader. Typically people perceive this as being disorganized and without any clear path forward.

[–] Dearche 19 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

I think even worse than voting for fear and resentment, they voted for actual fascism. The guy openly stated that he was going to try to ignore Canadian rights and freedoms without any ambiguity. It's not like him twisting turning Canada into a 3rd world resource economy as a great boost to the economy, or that saving the 1% billions in taxes as a way for the average Canadian to save their money.

One of PP's mandates was to use the notwithstanding clause to bypass Canadian rights and freedoms to jail people without a trial. It was one of his platforms, and there was zero ambiguity that he intended to do it exactly as he stated.

The fact that this wasn't a red flag for over 40% of Canadians and an immediate reason to distance themselves from him, it honestly scares me. Because this is how Hitler and Mussolini came into power, along with many other of history's worst leaders. They sounded reasonable at first, with only one or two shady bits to their mandates, only for those shady bits to be the core that started the greatest evils in the world.

[–] LostWon 6 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

Before the election, I was able to see this multiple poll breakdown that was kind of surprising. If you were under 35 and male, you were more likely to have voted CPC. Every other group (esp. women under 35 and everyone over 65) was more likely to vote LPC. This tells me Poilievre's social media campaign, which you may recall was highly "manosphere"-coded was effective with the target group. The good news then is that (while not making the same mistake as the CPC and forgetting other demographics exist), we can reach these people with a smart approach online.

I think Rational National has a good point in that video I linked that maybe these folks who were taken in by the Conservatives were under the impression because the Liberals were in charge as long as they can remember, everything is solely their fault. They're likely missing the overall historical context that we can't afford to keep the tax burden on poor people (especially as wages stagnate) instead of the rich (whose incomes have been exploding up until Trump's market crashes) as we've been doing increasingly for decades upon decades.

load more comments
view more: next ›