SkepticalButOpenMinded

Why do you say that? We destroy plenty of nature and it almost always ends up single family home suburban sprawl.

I agree that subsidizing mortgages is a bad solution. The other two parties are even worse in this regard. Conservatives have proposed massively extending mortgage terms, and removing or lowering stress test requirements. Conservatives implemented many of the existing subsidies for homeowners. The Liberals introduced a brand new tax free account for housing (FHSA), which only helps those who have already maxed out their TFSA (less than 20% of the population). A tax break for the already wealthy to increase demand for housing. Idiocy. These are all way worse. So are Liberals/Conservatives even bigger idiots?

The idea that Canada can build housing top-down instead of empowering the market to do it bottom-up is ridiculous since our governments’ capacity to get anything done top-down has absolutely cratered.

The NDP obviously endorses a private housing market, so I don't know who that criticism is supposed to apply to? Do you mean there should be no public housing at all? It's not "market vs. government". It's simply delusional to think you don't need both. Every other functioning rich country, from Japan to France, Singapore to Switzerland, has public and co-op housing, including Canada. And yes, we used to build a lot more of it.

Here's the thing: like healthcare, minimal shelter isn't a choice. It's a necessity. (i.e. Demand is relatively inelastic.) So when you make it so that people cannot live without entering the housing market, it makes prices soar. Imagine if buying a house was a choice, because there's always high quality public housing if necessary. That's how it is in most Scandinavian countries. Literally no country has affordable housing provided purely by the private sector. No housing expert or major economist endorses a pure market based solution this extreme.

Alas, the sensible moderate solution of the NDP, the thing done everywhere else in the world, endorsed by experts and evidence, is seen as "unrealistic" in Canada. We are thoroughly brainwashed.

You're clearly a smart knowledgeable person, and we probably don't disagree as much as this discussion makes it seem. But allow me to respond.

What is the evidence that the BC NDP are a special case? Just look around the world, especially countries with similarly car-centric NIMBY housing problems. At every level, only (not to say "all") progressive governments, like BC, California, Massachusetts, New Zealand, Portland, Edmonton, etc. have enacted serious reforms. Supposedly "free market" conservatives have been failures on housing regulation reform everywhere. I have zero hope for housing reform under PP, despite his promises. His wealthy older voting base is pure NIMBY.

The national NDP are the only major party proposing massively increasing public and co-op housing, like we used to do when housing was affordable. Like healthcare or education, relying solely on privatization to solve housing is just magical thinking. And yet, that free market dogmatism is the failed direction under decades of Liberals and Conservatives.

So why does "idiocy" describe the NDP, and not the other two parties?

Right, I understand that point of view. Canada has fewer banks compared to the US which has both big and many smaller banks. Whereas the US has had over 500 bank failures in the last 20 years, Canada has had zero.

There is actually a split in interpretation as to why Canada has fewer bank failures. The more economically conservative interpretation is that it’s because Canada has fewer more powerful more concentrated banks. These people say it has little to do with good regulation (regulation bad!). We should just continue to give more power to the most powerful players. The more economically progressive interpretation is that it’s because Canada has stricter banking regulation that doesn’t allow for as much reckless risk taking. And this is empirically true. Canadian banks are more diversified and well capitalized due to regulations.

For my part, the conservative interpretation seems obviously false. Many very large banks have failed in the US, including SVB and Signature recently, and, famously, Washington Mutual in 2008, which was a huge bank. in fact, the conservative interpretation is kind of hilarious to me given that US bank failures lead to the creation of the expression “too big to fail“.

Those criticisms of housing simply aren’t true. Take BC, the only NDP provincial government (until MB very recently) are the most aggressively YIMBY and pro supply: municipal supply minimums, cuts to regulation, standardized housing plan approvals, etc. Meanwhile, the conservative housing solution is hyper NIMBY and anti-market: more suburban sprawl and expensive highways like Ford’s plan in ON.

It’s a myth that conservatives are champions of a well functioning market. That’s why they use terms like “free market”, as if cutting taxes and deregulation is enough to magically create wealth. That’s not how the economy works. Externalities exist. Market failures exist.

The NDP are not socialists, but democratic socialists, which is a middle way approach similar to Scandinavian countries. These countries are considered the most competitive and successful in the world, not despite, but because they have strong regulations and high taxes. They are pro-market, but not pro-capital. In fact, often, mindlessly protecting capital is anti-competitive, which is why conservatives favor oligopolies and oppose functioning labor markets. e.g. All the poorest unhappiest US states are conservative, and the only exceptions are petro-states.

Given that there is such a perpetual shortage of drivers, I would say the pay is too low. They currently make about $22-32/hr, and working conditions have only gotten more demanding.

Whenever I hear someone compliment Vancouver as a model of urbanism, it always astounds me. We are so car centric, with free parking everywhere and huge 6 lane roads cutting through many parts of the city. It goes to show how much worse the rest of the continent is. Vancouver would very mediocre in most of Europe or Asia. We can definitely aim to do better.

I reject this “both/all sides!” thinking.

The NDP have the best policy proposals overall. It’s amazing that we have been so thoroughly brainwashed into believing the narrative that the NDP are incompetent or unrealistic. Meanwhile, their policies are similar to those of centre left parties in Scandinavian countries, which are some of the happiest, healthiest and most economically competitive countries in the world.

Surprising that, even having gone through Covid, now is the most hospitalizations the province has ever seen.

Canadian banks definitely could use the competition. But I wish we nurtured markets with many smaller competitors in this country instead of big oligopolies.

Happening in Canada too. For the last decade, virtually every province has been led by Conservative governments (except BC and that was just half a decade ago). Healthcare and housing has been slowly falling apart.

Looking at the polls, what’s amazing is that most Canadian voters seem to think the problem is insufficient conservatism!

Public transport is clean and safe when everyone uses it. In the US, the social expectation is that public transportation is for the poor. Like white flight out of US urban centers in the 60s, it’s a class thing, and owning a car becomes a self perpetuating class signifier. In most of the rest of the developed world, like London, Paris, Tokyo, etc. public transportation is for everyone, rich and poor. It’s just a question of investing in and valuing public transportation over cars.