Housing hell and how Pierre Poilievre would fix explained in this 15 minute video

[blackbird]

Pierre Poilievre explains what the problem is causing the housing crisis and how the Conservatives would deal with it.  Quite an informative video.  Reportedly approaching 4 million views already.   To view, scroll down the screen to the X Video showing Trudeau on a red background and click on that screen.

HOUSING HELL: Poilievre lays blame on Trudeau for housing crisis in short doc (msn.com)

Edited December 5, 2023 by blackbird

[Michael Hardner]

Hmmm ? Wonder if he's right?

 

Pretty convincing, but I'd like to see the cross examination..

 

 

[blackbird]

Sorry, I didn't notice CdnFox already posted this.  

[CdnFox]

34 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Hmmm ? Wonder if he's right?

 

Pretty convincing, but I'd like to see the cross examination..

 

 

Short answer - yes and no.  He's oversimplifying some things, and there's still missing components.  The items he mentioned are ones the libs are likely to try, he's mentioning them so he can say they're stealing our ideas if they try them.

But - it's along the right track. The stuff that's wrong isn't wrong enough to matter, and people will accept it.

However - he's missing some key elements.  Any solution has ot look at a temp reduction in immigration, That will only help for about 3 years but it buys time for other longer term measures to start to pay off IF they're started right away.

In addition right now our collective system punishes developers for finishing a home without having sold it first. That is a MAJOR problem and guarantees that no matter how many people we have or how many immigrants we bring in, home construction wil always be slightly less than what we need if there is any population growth at all, That needs to be fixed. If builders are not incentiveized to build homes BEFORE they're needed we'll always lag.

But the video is more about giving the impression he really understands the issue. If you understand something, you can generally fix it. People don't believe justin understands any of this.  If they think PP does, they will elect him hoping that as someone who understands how it all works he can come up with a solution.

 

[Michael Hardner]

On 12/5/2023 at 7:13 PM, CdnFox said:

 

But the video is more about giving the impression he really understands the issue. If you understand something, you can generally fix it. People don't believe justin understands any of this.  If they think PP does, they will elect him hoping that as someone who understands how it all works he can come up with a solution.

 

I think that you nailed it here.

And for me you focused on the most significant thing here: the format.   A long form oratory is actually a throwback to what Western politics were at their inception.  To me, the graphs and cites enhance that aspect.

If we adopted a format where there were "reaction videos" we would have a really promising new platform for political dialogue imo 

[CdnFox]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

And for me you focused on the most significant thing here: the format.   A long form oratory is actually a throwback to what Western politics were at their inception.  To me, the graphs and cites enhance that aspect.

I really believe this is the most underrated part of the issue.  I believe we're watching a bit of an evolution in the political campaign process that both moves forward with something new and yet references the past in an effective way.

Obviously social media has been a part of electioneering for some time now But I have been watching how he has been using new methods and techniques to achieve some old school results. And it is working like hell. I think moving forward successful political parties will have to master this kind of presentation.

You wouldn't even really call it an "attack" ad .  Sure  he makes it clear that he blames the liberals and makes a case for that but it's not really all about 'liberals bad'.   So it's not an 'attack dog' video which people don't like but it's going to have much the same effect.  But its popular and people are watching it all over the world, not just in canada.  It's got millions of views. Like, forget the partisanship and who's doing it for a momet - this is a new blueprint for success in politics in general.

He's been working on perfecting this concept since his first youtube videos and i think he's really nailed it, other political parties around the world should be watching and learning from this.

 

[eyeball]

On 12/5/2023 at 4:13 PM, CdnFox said:

Short answer - yes and no.

But the video is more about giving the impression he really understands the issue.

So vote for Poilievre because he's not Trudeau - it doesn't matter if he's wrong too. I'm betting decades and decades of that sort of short-term partisan thinking is the bigger reason we live in housing hell compared to 50 years ago.

Meanwhile...

Fact Checking Poilievre’s ‘Housing Hell’ Video

Experts say the Conservative leader understands young people’s anger but isn’t offering any fixes.

The video’s time frames all coincide with the Liberals’ time in power. And that’s where the video presents a very truncated version of why Canadian home prices have become so high: Poilievre wants to pin all the blame on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau...

...

While many of the charts Poilievre uses throughout his video are accurate and clearly sourced, others are questionable. For instance, a chart that attempts to show how much mortgage payments have increased since the Liberals took power in 2015 compares 2015-23 with 1867-2014. Of course the average mortgage payments for 2015-23 are substantially higher than a period that spans 147 years.

https://thetyee.ca/News/2023/12/08/Poilievre-Housing-Hell-Video/

[eyeball]

What we really need are slick 15 min videos that explain how the top 0.5 - 1% of the wealthiest people in North America have pocketed $47 trillion in capital gains since our grandfathers days instead of sharing those gains more equitably like they used too. (Probably a lot more than $47 trillion given the study only covers the US) 

Back when most families with just one income earner could afford a home and a college education for their kids while saving up for the parent's retirement.

This is what today's younger generations need to have explained to them.

The three decades following the Second World War saw a period of economic growth that was shared across the income distribution, but inequality in taxable income has increased substantially over the last four decades.

https://www.rand.org/pubs/working_papers/WRA516-1.html 

Edited December 8, 2023 by eyeball

[Michael Hardner]

13 minutes ago, eyeball said:

1. So vote for Poilievre because he's not Trudeau - it doesn't matter if he's wrong too. I'm betting decades and decades of that sort of short-term partisan thinking is the bigger reason we live in housing hell compared to 50 years ago.

 

Yeah, I saw the Tyee part already.  It could have been beefier but to speak to your point to CdnFox

It actually might not matter that Poilievre is wrong because he has brilliantly invoked a new format that might actually take - the political documentary created by the party itself.  It might not matter because this new form invests in fact-quoting (graphs !) argument-giving and conclusion-making... almost like some kind of system I remember from when I was a baby... 

It's not a political ad, which are short and aim to convince the stupid, it's an actual policy ... uh ... film.  

It might not matter because if this new form takes, then - like 2-girls-one-cup (porn video Graham sent me), or maybe two honourable party leaders, one cup - it will provoke the 'reaction video'... which will rebut the original.  And then a reaction-reaction and lo-and-behold the public will have two sides presenting facts, criticizing each other and challenging people to make up their minds... 

If we start doing that then it might be a good thing...

-----

For eyeball only.  Please don't respond if you're on my ignore list and, sadly, you all know who you are.

There was a better takedown of the video, if that's what you want, on this week's Canadaland Short Cuts which points out that the Federal Government really isn't involved in this sort of thing now, but since everything is Trudeau's fault then housing certainly is (not Doug Ford, no) and that the answer is a NEW government program to force cities to do what the federal government wants and cut red tape.... 

?

A new program and government process to reduce programs and process....

[CdnFox]

42 minutes ago, eyeball said:

So vote for Poilievre because he's not Trudeau

Uhhh no,  vote for polievre because he understands this crap and can do something about it, while trudeau has proven he doesn't and can't.

I know - you love your guy and you're bitter about justin getting Powned by PP but that's the message here.

Quote

- it doesn't matter if he's wrong too

Well it might, except he's not.

Quote

 I'm betting decades and decades of that sort of short-term partisan thinking is the bigger reason we live in housing hell compared to 50 years ago.

It isn't.  Please send in your bet.

Meanwhile...

Fact Checking Poilievre’s ‘Housing Hell’ Video

Experts say the Conservative leader understands young people’s anger but isn’t offering any fixes.

You mean 'liberals'.  THey're wrong of course.  But it's true he doesn't offer a lot of details, but why would he 2 years before an election?

Quote

While many of the charts Poilievre uses throughout his video are accurate and clearly sourced, others are questionable. For instance, a chart that attempts to show how much mortgage payments have increased since the Liberals took power in 2015 compares 2015-23 with 1867-2014. Of course the average mortgage payments for 2015-23 are substantially higher than a period that spans 147 years.

Ummm - that's still accurate and clear   They're just saying there's a reason why it happened that way.  

LOL  even when they try to claim it's not true they have to admit it's true  

Sorry kiddo, your boy justin has screwed the housing file up insanely.  And it is entirely his fault.

 

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

It might not matter because if this new form takes, then - like 2-girls-one-cup (porn video Graham sent me), or maybe two honourable party leaders, one cup - it will provoke the 'reaction video'... which will rebut the original.  And then a reaction-reaction and lo-and-behold the public will have two sides presenting facts, criticizing each other and challenging people to make up their minds... 

I suspect it will just be seen as the same old right vs left vs capitalism vs socialism blah blah blah battle. I'm convinced we're back in that place before the 1% realized how grotesque income and political inequality (via lobbying) lead to war. It was only after millions died that the egregious income disparity of the 19th and early 20th century waned and gave rise to an expanding wealthier middle class.

I fear it will be billions of dead next time around.

CO2 emissions, not withstanding those caused by the fighting, will fall so there is that to look forward to I suppose.

Constructive destruction is nature's way.

[suds]

I'm sure you've all heard of China's 'ghost cities'. How is it that China 1) has 65 million empty modern homes (apartments actually), 2) is a country where 90% of households are home owners, 3) and 20% of these homeowners own more than one home?? All i know is that China leases out land to developers who do the building, while China creates the atmosphere that attracts business (and job opportunities) which attracts future buyers. So they build a vast number of these 'ghost cities' of maybe a million people each and figure it might take 10, 20, 30 years to fill. Now I realize this has created problems, but better to have too many homes than not enough homes, no? I just don't get it. In Canada we have no shortage of land and no shortage of building supplies. I mean nobody saw this coming?

[Michael Hardner]

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

1. I suspect it will just be seen as the same old right vs left vs capitalism vs socialism blah blah blah battle.

2. It was only after millions died that the egregious income disparity of the 19th and early 20th century waned and gave rise to an expanding wealthier middle class.

3. Constructive destruction is nature's way.

1. Yes but the Nixon JFK debate was left/right.  56 years later there was an all Republican debate that should have been mir civil since it didn't cross party lines. One of the candidates talked about his penis size.  I won't mention his name, but he soon after became President.

Facts, criticism, without time limits.  Good things.

 

2. You seem to that the actions of labour weren't as significant as the emergence of the 1% wisdom.  No, one of my relatives was shot at by hired goons during those times.

 

3. Are humans part of Earth's nature?  Or maybe a universal force of distribution.

[CdnFox]

6 hours ago, eyeball said:

What we really need are slick 15 min videos that explain how the top 0.5 - 1% of the wealthiest people in North America have pocketed $47 trillion in capital gains since our grandfathers days instead of sharing those gains more equitably like they used too. (Probably a lot more than $47 trillion given the study only covers the US) 

 

Whine whine whine - that's all the left does.

And tell lies about how you WAAAERRRNNNNEEEEEEDDDD  everyone about (issue of the day)  40 years ago!!!!! Then voted for trudeau anyway.
 

Quote

 

Back when most families with just one income earner could afford a home and a college education for their kids while saving up for the parent's retirement.

This is what today's younger generations need to have explained to them.

 

And the reason for that is that in the 60's women won the right to have their income counted for mortgages.  Rightfully so but that suddenly meant going into the 70's that people could pay more for houses. And housing prices went up. And so women worked more so that the couple could have nicer houses.  And housing prices went up.

as a result, since the early 2000's you pretty much needed 2 incomes just to get by. And now that's been absorbed, good luck buying a place on your own for the average person.

When you add the shortage of homes becasue asswipes like YOU demand unreasonable barriers on development then  you get where we are today.   It's got nothing to do with rich people.

This is so simple it's a joke that it even needs to be explained. When  you over regulate beause 'muh feels" as the left loves to do, you drive prices up.   When you add more money to the equasion you drive prices up. And when that money is chasing less product, you drive the price up.   It's got ZERO to do with weathy people.

And thats the lesson kids today need to hear.

 

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Yes but the Nixon JFK debate was left/right.  56 years later there was an all Republican debate that should have been mir civil since it didn't cross party lines. One of the candidates talked about his penis size.  I won't mention his name, but he soon after became President.

Facts, criticism, without time limits.  Good things.

I think it's more like William F. Buckley, Jr. vs Gore Vidal on crack. Things are way more personal. These good things only work if they matter and if they don't that contradiction is irreconcilable i.e.  2+2=4 or 22.

I think time is increasingly less abundant.

Quote

2. You seem to that the actions of labour weren't as significant as the emergence of the 1% wisdom.  No, one of my relatives was shot at by hired goons during those times.

I've lived long enough to have met plenty of old-timers who had it pretty rough when they had to fight for a better deal. 1st nations friends of course. Japanese fishermen and families who lost everything to internment and started from scratch after being freed.  Old union guys from fishing and logging industry who spent time in jail for their activism.

Quote

3. Are humans part of Earth's nature?  Or maybe a universal force of distribution.

We're still quite subject to the forces of nature despite having gained a lot of mastery over much of Earth's. Nothing lasts forever though.  The biggest difference between now and the days of the modern oldtimers we knew that fought for change is that they had much more of planet that was easier for the taking than we do.  We're not just running out of time these days and I think it's taking a little too long for patience to follow. 

Edited December 9, 2023 by eyeball

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

When you add the shortage of homes becasue asswipes like YOU demand unreasonable barriers on development then  you get where we are today.

As I've told you before I've spent the better part of 30 years on a local area planning commission going against the flow of opinion to keep density as low as possible.

But I might as well have been trying to tell you 2+2=4.   

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

As I've told you before I've spent the better part of 30 years on a local area planning commission going against the flow of opinion to keep density as low as possible.

 

Nobody believes that.  Your lack of knowledge and experience says otherwise.  For example - it raises 2 questions:

1 - why would you want to keep density low? You have previously said higher density is a good thing now you say you've been struggling to keep density as low as possible.

2 - what difference does it make. As i demonstrated to you previously density is nothing special in the housing fight and can cause more harm than good depending on the circumstances.

3 - I'm sure they built homes during this supposed time you were "On A Council' -  which means the problem wasnt' that there was no where to build homes, the problem was they weren't being built fast enough which ALSO means  if you WERE on some council you comp;letely blew it fighting the wrong fight.

Which means even when you makes stuff up you're still wrong some how.  Well done.

Density is not our big problem.  Density is more expensive for example, so when we're looking at affordabilty and building as many homes as quickly as possible it's often a hinderance.  Vancouver has one of the higher densities in the world and is one of the most expensive places in canada.

So what you should have done if you cared about housing prices is a) worry more about incentivising developers to build what they were going to build anyway faster.

 

[Michael Hardner]

10 hours ago, eyeball said:

1. I think it's more like William F. Buckley, Jr. vs Gore Vidal on crack. Things are way more personal. These good things only work if they matter and if they don't that contradiction is irreconcilable i.e.  2+2=4 or 22.

2. I've lived long enough to have met plenty of old-timers who had it pretty rough when they had to fight for a better deal. 1st nations friends of course. Japanese fishermen and families who lost everything to internment and started from scratch after being freed.  Old union guys from fishing and logging industry who spent time in jail for their activism.

3. We're still quite subject to the forces of nature despite having gained a lot of mastery over much of Earth's. Nothing lasts forever though.  The biggest difference between now and the days of the modern oldtimers we knew that fought for change is that they had much more of planet that was easier for the taking than we do.  We're not just running out of time these days and I think it's taking a little too long for patience to follow. 

1. Sure, but you're looking at how things are, not looking at the landscape ahead.  And by landscape, I mean the media infrastructure.  In this case, long form with cites and on an open forum where responses can be made directly.  That's far more empirical a foundation for discussion than a 30-second ad for example.

2. Yes, and shot at and jailed too. The point being that, unfortunately, the good life resulted from bad fights.

3. So the theme seems to be that nature, as a force, will not relent and will defeat us. Defeat us. I'm not disagreeing with that idea, just wondering out loud if humans capacity for collaboration and social adaptation might win out in the end. For sure there will be far fewer of us than 100 years and that's going to result in some big social changes.

[eyeball]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Sure, but you're looking at how things are, not looking at the landscape ahead.  And by landscape, I mean the media infrastructure.  In this case, long form with cites and on an open forum where responses can be made directly.  That's far more empirical a foundation for discussion than a 30-second ad for example.

I suppose something constructive will emerge out of the destructive phase media is presently going through, but constructed by who or what?

I don't see the open forum model working much better than a typically rancorous Parliament or website but I can see how a moderated forum might. The trick is getting people to engage and who can cram a lot more information into a short time frame (30 sec - 15 min is nowhere long enough) for people who can process and respond in a similar frame.

Quote

2. Yes, and shot at and jailed too. The point being that, unfortunately, the good life resulted from bad fights. 

The unfortunate part is that there doesn't seem to be any easy way around the fighting.

Quote

3. So the theme seems to be that nature, as a force, will not relent and will defeat us. Defeat us. I'm not disagreeing with that idea, just wondering out loud if humans capacity for collaboration and social adaptation might win out in the end. For sure there will be far fewer of us than 100 years and that's going to result in some big social changes.

I think our institutions and technology have gotten ahead of us and it's our own nature tripping us up. We've got some evolving to do to catch up with changing times and that's where the cooperation gets tough.

So will media evolve towards becoming a thing that people can appreciate by which I mean, trust?  IMO maybe if people and institutions collaborate by doing the same - becoming more trusting would help.

Edited December 9, 2023 by eyeball

[eyeball]

13 hours ago, CdnFox said:

...now you say you've been struggling to keep density as low as possible.

Nope. Struggling against NIMBY's who want to keep it low.

I won BTW. Density has increased.

[Michael Hardner]

8 minutes ago, eyeball said:

1. I suppose something constructive will emerge out of the destructive phase media is presently going through, but constructed by who or what?

2. I don't see the open forum model working much better than a typically rancorous Parliament or website but I can see how a moderated forum might.

3. The trick is getting people to engage and who can cram a lot more information into a short time frame (30 sec - 15 min is nowhere long enough) for people who can process and respond in a similar frame.

4 .The unfortunate part is that there doesn't seem to be any easy way around the fighting.

5. I think our institutions and technology have gotten ahead of us and it's our own nature tripping us up. We've got some evolving to do to catch up with changing times and that's where the cooperation gets tough.

6. So will media evolve towards becoming a thing that people can appreciate by which I mean, trust?  IMO maybe if people and institutions collaborate by doing the same - becoming more trusting would help.

1. Another good question.  I am guessing that when the building gets washed away by tornado or just erosion, the foundation remains.  What will emerge will be based on what we need as well as what we want.  Both are subject to whims and culture and technology change but what we 'need' is more permanent.  Perpetual anger and trolling isn't part of that but neither is constantly portraying a society that is perfectly happy.  And you can look at media chanages over the centuries too. (we don't really do that, but I am constantly reading on the topic).

2. You're right and I didn't meant to situate these things as opposite.

3. Well the defacto standard for political dialogue is shorter than 15 minutes.  You have the debate opening remarks, which is just a few minutes as I recall, and then the 30-second TV or maybe radio ad.  This is more bandwidth and Poilievre makes use of it.

4.  Change is likely to be slow in coming, but it should arrive if we retrieve a public pension for, as CBC's The House called this, POLICY-BASED DISCUSSION.

5. Not sure I understand.  Big Tech satisfies our lizard-brain tendencies to click on delicious looking images, scary fighting, or anything that makes us feel good.  If we need to evolve, it will be to learn to reject that instinct and actually listen to people like the proverbial tribal elders.

6. Yes and new media has often been a way that political newcomers separate themselves from the status quo and start to engender said trust.  Hitler spoke plain language, on the radio, in the living rooms of Germany. That is how he gained trust as an outsider with odd ideas.  But radio is a one-way medium, and it gave way to television (Kennedy) and cable which are the same.  

Culture and technology are the foundation.  

[CdnFox]

19 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Nope. Struggling against NIMBY's who want to keep it low.

I won BTW. Density has increased.

Boy you change your tune a lot.  I guess it's easy to win if you just keep changing your position often enough  

And you haven't explained why our areas of highest density are also our most expensive in this country

But at any rate, at the end of the day density isn't our problem. We've been building homes - it's not like there's no where to build homes.  We just need to build in 5 years what we've been building in 7 years.  If we don't, all the 'density' in the world won't help.

[eyeball]

55 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Another good question.  I am guessing that when the building gets washed away by tornado or just erosion, the foundation remains.  What will emerge will be based on what we need as well as what we want.  Both are subject to whims and culture and technology change but what we 'need' is more permanent.  Perpetual anger and trolling isn't part of that but neither is constantly portraying a society that is perfectly happy.  And you can look at media chanages over the centuries too. (we don't really do that, but I am constantly reading on the topic).

2. You're right and I didn't meant to situate these things as opposite.

3. Well the defacto standard for political dialogue is shorter than 15 minutes.  You have the debate opening remarks, which is just a few minutes as I recall, and then the 30-second TV or maybe radio ad.  This is more bandwidth and Poilievre makes use of it.

4.  Change is likely to be slow in coming, but it should arrive if we retrieve a public pension for, as CBC's The House called this, POLICY-BASED DISCUSSION.

5. Not sure I understand.  Big Tech satisfies our lizard-brain tendencies to click on delicious looking images, scary fighting, or anything that makes us feel good.  If we need to evolve, it will be to learn to reject that instinct and actually listen to people like the proverbial tribal elders.

6. Yes and new media has often been a way that political newcomers separate themselves from the status quo and start to engender said trust.  Hitler spoke plain language, on the radio, in the living rooms of Germany. That is how he gained trust as an outsider with odd ideas.  But radio is a one-way medium, and it gave way to television (Kennedy) and cable which are the same.  

Culture and technology are the foundation.  

1. If we need something more permanent it sounds like we need a new foundation that can hang onto the building so it doesn't get washed away.

2. Perhap a forum that somehow moderates itself.

3. I just can't help but think about how closely matched the breathing cycle of a wandering whale is (about 5 min) and the wandering attention span of most humans are and how often the whale wins.

4. Change that we have little to no control over can occur rapidly - the transition between a long period of boredom and a moment of terror can be nearly instantaneous - that's just the nature of nature.

5. Or we could perhaps restore an instinct like the practice of listening to our elders more often.  Sometimes a step back is a good thing.  This might provide the better foundation discussed in point one. When everyone's sitting around a village of foundations that the storm washed all the buildings off who do you think people looked to for advice?

Move to higher ground is probably what I'd advise. But perhaps there are other adaptations to be considered. In any case you can be sure there's another storm over the horizon moving this way.

6. I certainly acknowledge that technology affects culture but I do think culture comes first. Technology is a thing that culture employs not the other way around. Notwithstanding someone deliberately using technology to change culture, that happens too.

Edited December 9, 2023 by eyeball

[eyeball]

46 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Boy you change your tune a lot.

Nope. Consider yourself standing corrected. 

[Michael Hardner]

3 minutes ago, eyeball said:

1. If we need something more permanent it sounds like we need a new foundation that can hang onto the building so it doesn't get washed away.

2. Change that we have little to no control over can occur rapidly - the transition between a long period of boredom and a moment of terror can be nearly instantaneous - that's just the nature of nature.

3. Or we could perhaps restore an instinct like the practice of listening to our elders more often.  Sometimes a step back is a good thing.  This might provide the better foundation discussed in point one. When everyone's sitting around a village of foundations that the storm washed all the buildings off who do you think people looked to for advice?

4. There's a process here and I think culture comes first. Technology is a thing that culture employs not the other way around.

1. The true foundation is our humanity.  Our needs as humans as per Maslow, our needs to be social etc.   That's the real foundation, the bedrock.

2. The scariest events of the past generation were, for the west, the NYC attack in 2001 and a global pandemic.  Neither of those had discernible slowing effect on the adoption of new technologies and probably just accelerated the paranoid culture trends that was already underway. But honestly I haven't thought about that before, I just came up with this idea now and responds to your thought. 

3. Yes, and I see this 15 minute documentary as exactly that kind of step back. It may not be the rediscovery of elder wisdom but it does seem to value wisdom on the whole.  And I'm not commenting on the value of the content itself, just the overall assumption that using figures and arguments are a good thing.

4. McLuhan would disagree.  Imagine giving adjoining pre industrial villages different media including weapons, transportation... then visiting decades later.  The theory is that their cultures would move apart.