Jump to content

I’ve never seen so many vagrants on the street


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

1. People get into business to make profit. Are you saying making a profit should be made illegal??

2. If you think it was just "speculators" or foreign buyer that drove up housing prices, you better shake your head and get that stupidity out .  It was the common person that over bid on houses and drove the panic buying,

1. We don't allow profit if the common good isn't served.  That's just not how it works.

2. They're right.  Speculation and profiteering has increased 'demand' above and beyond what is needed for housing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Why do you think that?

Because most middle-class/upper middle class people work at jobs which already pay most of their prescription and dental costs. And upper class people certainly don't need the government's help. Even Wal-Mart covers most of your prescription costs. I know they cover some dental but not sure how much.

The only people who don't already have prescription and dental coverage are those working for very small businesses, like independent restaurants or very cheap ones. Even MacDonalds does for full-timers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, I am Groot said:

1. Because most middle-class/upper middle class people work at jobs which already pay most of their prescription and dental costs.

2. The only people who don't already have prescription and dental coverage are those working for very small businesses, like independent restaurants or very cheap ones. Even MacDonalds does for full-timers.

1. This is less and less true in the gig economy.  Also, the assumption is that people only support ideas that directly benefit them.

2. You're leaving out the self-employed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

Sadly, I get the feeling liberal, left, (Lib party, NDP) have no use whatsoever for people that believe in less government control and micro-managing everything in life.  They prefer the globalist U.N., WEF, etc. that are expanding their control of countries and depriving people of basic freedoms.   The reality is freedom comes with a price.  Not everyone will be rich and there will always be some poor people for various reasons.  But people have to decide what they want.  Do they want to blindly trust politicians and government with every part of their lives, taxes, etc. in exchange for promised security and social services.  All these things come with the price of the people losing their freedoms and becoming just puppets of the state.  That is what is happening now. 

This is not wrong. Extremes rarely work well, that is, reliably and sustainably in this world. And all for nothing is obviously, a big extreme. Of course it comes not for nothing but at the cost of enormous, inefficient, lazy, entitled and way over privileged bureaucracy as the only possibility to access, like a gateway, doorkeeper those "something" services. And at some point you're stuck. You cannot change it because it has no connection to the reality, no feedback no need or slightest incentive to do so. And it cannot be replaced because you would loose everything, instantly, like when teacher etc unions go on strike. Stuck. Pay ever more for predictably less or pray for a miracle that just isn't going to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. This is less and less true in the gig economy.  Also, the assumption is that people only support ideas that directly benefit them.

The problem is not the services. They can be highly beneficial for the economy if provided efficiently reducing the cost of business and so on. The problem is how they are provided. We here do not know how to provide pretty much any public service effectively and efficiently. It always ends up in another crisis, budget crunch quality issues, queues expanding bureaucracy and everlasting quest for more public money. No we don't need replicate and expand clearly failing model. At some point it would break the budget no matter how much of the country you sell out.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. We don't allow profit if the common good isn't served.  That's just not how it works.

2. They're right.  Speculation and profiteering has increased 'demand' above and beyond what is needed for housing.

If there is such a big demand for lower cost housing, one would think the building industry would be booming and building thousands and hundreds of thousands of homes.  But the involvement of government red tape, regulations, etc. has put the damper on the construction industry.  Government thinks they know better than everyone else.  That is the problem in a nutshell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, blackbird said:

If there is such a big demand for lower cost housing, one would think the building industry would be booming and building thousands and hundreds of thousands of homes.  But the involvement of government red tape, regulations, etc. has put the damper on the construction industry.  Government thinks they know better than everyone else.  That is the problem in a nutshell.

Do you think government should ensure houses are safe to live in when they’re built? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. This is less and less true in the gig economy.  Also, the assumption is that people only support ideas that directly benefit them.

2. You're leaving out the self-employed.

1. Considering the costs of each program, why would anyone not receiving the benefit 

Dental care 4.5 bil the first year.

pharma care 40 to 50 bil a year.

guaranteed income 131 to 464 bil a year.

not counting any other program that was listed. Add this to an already inflated deficit, then yes i would say that the program would not be a popular one due to massive increase in income taxes. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Do you think government should ensure houses are safe to live in when they’re built? 

Of course, but how far do you carry that?  Vancouver required a certain kind of door knob and forbade certain kinds.  Once bureaucrats are in control, there is no limit to how far they will go.

A building inspector once told me when I was building my shed that he could not approve the windows in it because there were no drain holes on the bottom to drain the water out.  So I took the drill and drilled a few holes through the aluminum frame at the bottom of windows and he had to approve it, which he did.  Needless to say there has never been any water inside the window frame to drain out.  There is a overhanging roof over the windows.

I would hate to see the regulations and red tape required to build a house in Vancouver or many other places.  Not to mention the fact property is tied up around the towns and cities.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Vancouver required a certain kind of door knob and forbade certain kinds.  Once bureaucrats are in control, there is no limit to how far they will go.

If the code specifies levers, rather than knobs, for accessibility by those with physical impairments, is that a really large issue for you?

You want to save the knobs?

 

Quote

Needless to say there has never been any water inside the window frame to drain out.  There is a overhanging roof over the windows.

You don’t know about condensation?

Edited by TreeBeard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. We don't allow profit if the common good isn't served.  That's just not how it works.

2. They're right.  Speculation and profiteering has increased 'demand' above and beyond what is needed for housing.

We allow profit in all businesses. How can you limit profit?? Force companies not to sell or manufacture??

Speculation and profiteering only works if there is a market and buyers. Demand is totally on the shoulders of the buyers.

Like some here whine about Amazon making record profits and blaming Bezos. Fact is, what made Amazon record profits is us, the buying public.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:

If the code specifies levers, rather than knobs, for accessibility by those with physical impairments, is that a really large issue for you?

You want to save the knobs?

 

You don’t know about condensation?

Whether it is levers or knobs should be up to the owner/builder to decide what he wants, not some government bureaucracy.  

What we have is extreme red tape and regulations with bureaucracy dictating endless rules of how everything shall be built.  Now it will be driven by climate change as well.  They are banning natural gas in the large city of Vancouver, which could cost homeowners thousands of dollars to install alternative heating systems that could cost more to heat as well.  All these things drive up the price of real estate and rent making it more difficult for everyone.

This government dictatorial bureaucracy is also making it more expensive to drive gas powered vehicles because they want to force everything to buy electric vehicles.  This issue of climate change will now also be adding increasing regulations and costs to everything thanks to the climate change liberal extremists.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Another dumb comment.

People get into business to make profit. Are you saying making a profit should be made illegal??

Businesses should be taxed so much they cannot pay shareholders?

Why get into or stay in business?

If you think it was just "speculators" or foreign buyer that drove up housing prices, you better shake your head and get that stupidity out .  It was the common person that over bid on houses and drove the panic buying,

Now, when the reality hammer came down, they are all crying and, I think may will default... deja vu early 80's.

Insults aren't an argument and so I will ignore these tantrums.  They say a lot more about you then me.

Homes aren't for speculators to buy in order to make profit.  Homes are for living in.  If you want to allow a ton of investors and foreign investors to park their money in our real estate and drive up the price you're not helping the problem.

I never said this is the only cause of the housing price crisis.  Also, people have always been bidding on homes.  Bidding in itself isn't causing the prices to skyrocket.  Price is largely determined by supply and demand.  If speculators are jumping in en masse they're driving up the demand and therefore price.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

1. We allow profit in all businesses. How can you limit profit?? Force companies not to sell or manufacture??

2. Speculation and profiteering only works if there is a market and buyers. Demand is totally on the shoulders of the buyers.

3. Like some here whine about Amazon making record profits and blaming Bezos. Fact is, what made Amazon record profits is us, the buying public.

1. That's one way.  Banking profits are subject to review, as are other monopolies and oligopolies like telecom.  The government has also put limits on energy prices, as well as limiting the types of products one can sell and how much can be charged.

That's not mentioning the tax structure which ultimately decides what the end profit shall be.

2. Certain products have markets that require strong regulation like housing, energy, pharmaceuticals.

3.; Amazon benefits from a tax exemption for internet companies.  Not sure if it's still in place but it was for a long time.

---+

We can get into the weeds with the details, but the point is that government has, for a long time, weighed the benefits of commercialism with the public good.

I doubt you'd disagree.

Even the corporation itself is a special construct of government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, blackbird said:

You think government has to provide all the solutions.  That is Socialism and Marxism and is a failure.  That is why our housing situation is disaster and homelessness is rampant.  Only private enterprise can build homes and provide the massive amount of housing that is needed.  But government interferes with that in every way possible and makes private investors look elsewhere or blocks builders from building.  Socialism also destroys individual incentive or motivation to improve one's self and get a job.  Why work when government will take care of you and give you a cheque which you can use to buy a fix?  Liberal Socialism closed the mental institutions as well and put them all out on the street.  Socialism is the cause of our problems.

Oh be quiet.  You have no idea what you're taking about.  Government regulation isn't socialism you fool.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, myata said:

This is not wrong. Extremes rarely work well, that is, reliably and sustainably in this world. And all for nothing is obviously, a big extreme. Of course it comes not for nothing but at the cost of enormous, inefficient, lazy, entitled and way over privileged bureaucracy as the only possibility to access, like a gateway, doorkeeper those "something" services. And at some point you're stuck. You cannot change it because it has no connection to the reality, no feedback no need or slightest incentive to do so. And it cannot be replaced because you would loose everything, instantly, like when teacher etc unions go on strike. Stuck. Pay ever more for predictably less or pray for a miracle that just isn't going to happen.

The 33,000 government employees just trying to negotiate a contract with the BC government will be the ones who benefit from the Socialist government in Victoria.  They have already been offered several percent a year plus a signing bonus etc.  But they want far more.  So they are going on strike.  You can be sure the NDP government will look after them because that is a large part of the NDP base.  The government union and NDP are in close cahoots.  That is Socialism for you.  Everyone else must struggle to make ends meet but the government unions will be taken care of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Insults aren't an argument and so I will ignore these tantrums.  They say a lot more about you then me.

Homes aren't for speculators to buy in order to make profit.  Homes are for living in.  If you want to allow a ton of investors and foreign investors to park their money in our real estate and drive up the price you're not helping the problem.

I never said this is the only cause of the housing price crisis.  Also, people have always been bidding on homes.  Bidding in itself isn't causing the prices to skyrocket.  Price is largely determined by supply and demand.  If speculators are jumping in en masse they're driving up the demand and therefore price.

Why do you consider it an insult? I made a valid statement. You make uninformed statements.

Homes or any products are for anyone to buy. Speculators and investors buy them  to provide them rental units.... to make a profit. Who do you think owns the 1,912,290 units rental units in this country? Other home owners??

Yes you did, you insinuated government, developers  and speculators, and still do blame "speculators"  "in February 2021 that investors made up 20% of the country's home purchases"

Fact is buyers, regardless of who they are, are driving the prices up. Bidding and out bidding is what drives the price of anything up.

It only takes two people wanting the same thing to drive up the price. Auctions are prime examples of that and in today environment (actually the environment  6 months ago) housing was an auction scenario.

 

Edited by ExFlyer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, blackbird said:

1.  They have already been offered several percent a year plus a signing bonus etc.  But they want far more.  So they are going on strike. 

2.  Everyone else must struggle to make ends meet but the government unions will be taken care of.

1. Well that's how it works right?  The dollar is losing weight because of inflation so a few percent isn't going to be good enough.

2. And private sector.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. That's one way.  Banking profits are subject to review, as are other monopolies and oligopolies like telecom.  The government has also put limits on energy prices, as well as limiting the types of products one can sell and how much can be charged.

That's not mentioning the tax structure which ultimately decides what the end profit shall be.

2. Certain products have markets that require strong regulation like housing, energy, pharmaceuticals.

3.; Amazon benefits from a tax exemption for internet companies.  Not sure if it's still in place but it was for a long time.

---+

We can get into the weeds with the details, but the point is that government has, for a long time, weighed the benefits of commercialism with the public good.

I doubt you'd disagree.

Even the corporation itself is a special construct of government.

A whole different debate but I get you and you should get me too.

Bank profits have set a record every year for the past 50+ years. Review?? I think not LOL

Telecoms are just now getting static from government but, I will assure you, it will pass.

Regulating profits in housing will kill development and building of housing. No government (except maybe communistic ones) would even consider such a thing.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

1. Bank profits have set a record every year for the past 50+ years. Review?? I think not LOL

2. Telecoms are just now getting static from government but, I will assure you, it will pass.

3. Regulating profits in housing will kill development and building of housing.

4. No government (except maybe communistic ones) would even consider such a thing.

 

1. You think that your bank fees can't be raised higher? 😳 Think again.

2. In the days of Bell Canada it was a highly regulated monopoly.

3. Regulate profits for: flipping, owning empty homes, air bNb, rent increases.  

4. A generation ago, the argument was that of we had a different framework (the one we have now) renters would be better off.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Michael Hardner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, blackbird said:

The 33,000 government employees just trying to negotiate a contract with the BC government will be the ones who benefit from the Socialist government in Victoria.  They have already been offered several percent a year plus a signing bonus etc.  But they want far more.  So they are going on strike.  You can be sure the NDP government will look after them because that is a large part of the NDP base.  The government union and NDP are in close cahoots.  That is Socialism for you.  Everyone else must struggle to make ends meet but the government unions will be taken care of.

 

I think the Union would have been more accepting of 'the deal' had the MLAs not a voted themselves a fat raise with COLA clause.

Edited by DogOnPorch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Well that's how it works right?  The dollar is losing weight because of inflation so a few percent isn't going to be good enough.

2. And private sector.

It works that way because government unions are in bed with the NDP.  They take care of each other.  You're right though;  that's how it works.   Private sector must work harder to keep up with inflation.  They don't have the inside connection to the government that government unions have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, myata said:

The day I see the first and only employee-representative"" saying no that's too much (or outrageous, etc) can't take it in good conscience I may think here, there may still be hope for this system. But, random materialization of a last model BMW out of thin air seems more probable in this state of MP affairs.

I propose a new democracy criterium: MP (average salary) to median single income in the country. Canada: 5. Norway: just under 2. Any questions?

You will never see this day!  

First you have a system based on greed and fostering and rewarding greed; then you have the individuals' culture, where many/most have not elevated themselves above the primitivism of the medieval ages.

This is why laws need to be put in place to limit greed, population growth and gradually change the culture for the better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...