It’s both.

If you just look at supply and demand graphs.

Where S is supply, D is demand, N is number of people, I is number of investors, and P is price you’d have:

1. S[=N+0]=D[=N+0], P-
2. S[=N+0]<D[=N+I], P▲
3. S[<N+0]<D[=N+0], P▲
4. S[<N+0]<D[=N+I], P▲
5. S[>N+0]>D[=N+0], P▼
6. S[<N+I]<D[=N+I], P▲
7. S[>N+0]>D[=N+0], P▼
8. S[>N+I]>D[=N+I], P▼

It is not an analogy. That’s just math.

I’d like you to show the math as to what the ratio and relation between landlords and renters are.

I’ll wait.

Some more scenarios:

If there are more houses than people, then investors would loose money and housing won’t be a good “investment”.

If there are fewer houses than people, then the same situation would unfold now just there would be homeless people.

I’d like to see this demonstrated as false.

Also this fits perfectly fits within supply demand curves.

If you have people who want to own homes + an investment property, you’d’ve increased demand compared to everyone just wanting one home. D*2 > D. Hence the mere act of desiring investment properties and acting on that desire causes prices to increase. Prices only decreases when supply increases. As S ▲, then prices fall, P ▼. However the set amount of humans stay the same. So the following scenarios are possible: [N+0], Everyone wants one home [N+I], At least one person wants an investment property

1. S[=N+0]=D[=N+0], P-
2. S[=N+0]<D[=N+I], P▲
3. S[<N+0]<D[=N+0], P▲
4. S[<N+0]<D[=N+I], P▲
5. S[>N+0]>D[=N+0], P▼
6. S[<N+I]<D[=N+I], P▲
7. S[>N+0]>D[=N+0], P▼
8. S[>N+I]>D[=N+I], P▼

There are two solutions.

1. Housing Cooperatives: https://chfcanada.coop/about-co-op-housing/
2. Community Land Trusts: https://www.communityland.ca/

Both provide people the ability to have homes without direct ownership nor dealing with the hassle of ownership nor the uncertainty of renting.

It has the benefits of owning. Control over rent prices, ability of modifying living space (including putting up pictures) and benefits of renting (allowing easy relocation, delegate maintenance responsibility).

Housing cooperatives and CLTs have the benefits of both without the drawbacks of either. It also treats housing as a human right as opposed to an “investment”.

There are housing cooperatives for students, the most temporary population and the least wanting to maintain a property.

https://www.nasco.coop/

You can be a part of this movement too by donating or investing in such projects. I urge you to do so.

They work, and work well. There just needs be mass injection of funds into them.

I absolutely agree. I’ll repeat a comment I made separately.

I’ll repost a comment I made before again here:

If you have half the population each have 1 investment property. You must have the other half renters. You literally want to create two classes. Those with investment properties and those with no property. One class above another. You’re just using billionaires as a shield. You want to put yourself in a class above other people.

We should all work so that each person has one home.

And the “I don’t want to work until I die” should be covered by social insurance/social security instead of making someone else a renter.

context: https://lemmy.ca/comment/4927203

I’ll repost a comment I made before again here:

If you have half the population each have 1 investment property. You must have the other half renters. You literally want to create two classes. Those with investment properties and those with no property. One class above another. You’re just using billionaires as a shield. You want to put yourself in a class above other people.

We should all work so that each person has one home.

And the “I don’t want to work until I die” should be covered by social insurance/social security instead of making someone else a renter.

context: https://lemmy.ca/comment/4927203

Bro, really. You’ve got to learn how to take an ‘L’

We both know you edited that.

You originally wrote: Hong Kong Shanghai Bank of China Then when I called you out on it you changed it to Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation

The general history is not disputed.

Well .NET is dead now so I guess .COM and .ORG are dead too?

Same. Was legit surprised lol.

Why are blaming the actions of a London based multinational company on China?! Really?!

They were definitely more smooth and more silent when they started replacing them last year. It’s gotten worse since then, unfortunately. But not as bad as before the last derailment. I expect them to get worse as time goes until they actually get proper custom wheels and axles has been promised.

That’s too bad. I’m only old enough to only remember McGuinty, Wyne, and Ford.

As said by other users, percent is the same as per cent. per 1000 is per mille as in per one thousand(mille) see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_mille

Nice. Finally some action. But I bet the provinces would still complain and continue to under fund education.

Bars

I watched the debate from 1979. I wish Broadbend could have presented his vision better. He was a too aggressive and I can see why people voted for Joe Clark. Just on behaviour and delivery alone.

The biggest issue at the time was oil production. The NDP proposed nationization while the PCs privatization. The PCs presented the choice between Canadian ownership vs government ownership and Clark stressed that. While Braodbend focused on domestic vs foreign interference. The PCs promising “direct ownership” as opposed to “nebulus government” ownership was delivered better.

I wish the NDP embrace more demsoc principles. This will lead to focusing on distribution of power. Instead of setting up crown corporations with the board of directors being responsible to parliament, they should have proposed elected boards of directors of crown corporations be directly elected by the people on election day (maybe even sit/replace the senate) and also pitch it as alternative public revenue source.

The PCs used the NDP talking point, about domestic ownership/control and direction and flipped it against them by tying it and subverting it into direct private shareholders.

The NDP should do the same but reverse. Tie patriotism/civic duty of one vote per person to the concept of voting and controlling of natural resources through giving votes to each citizen to crown corporations and charging the PCs of removing the concept of one person one, vote. Also use fiscal conservatism against itself. Crown corporations diversify revenues. Charge the PCs of raising taxes due to reduced “income streams” for government. Lastly, tie charity to social welfare as it is the same thing.

I think voting for ministers directly would have to a part of electoral reform. A lot of people who don’t vote for the only party that safeguards and advances public health care, the NDP, would vote for Health Ministers that are for universal health care.

Got mine in October, along with the regular flu shot. I haven’t gotten anything yet.

Can you include a link for gst rebate for coops? Would like to read it.

Simple. Just make the board of directors be made of people who are pro nationalization then direct them to sell the company to the citizenry for pennies on the dollar.

Just like what Royal Mail did. The tory government sold it during a strike thereby selling it at a much lower value.

So as follows:

1. Make the board of directors of a corporation out of people that are pro nationalization (rig shareholder elections if you need to)
2. Create a crisis in the company (strike or slow down or loss of an important government contract)
3. Have the hand picked board of directors sell the company to the government for pennies on the dollar
4. Give the hand picked directors healthy public pensions and an Order of Canada
5. Rinse and repeat

We should not be in favour of theft but in favour of “fair market value” and “market efficiencies by cutting the extra fat off of private ownership” ;)

The conservatives/liberals did it one way it’s equally valid the other way.

If it’s theft if done by our government then it’s theft if privative investors do it to us.

I get that. But I actually do save the difference.

Plus I’m planing on going with a housing cooperative eventually anyway. I think focusing on building “real estate portfolios” is what got us into this housing crisis mess in the first place. Treating housing like infrastructure, like what housing coops do, removes that incentive and allows us to direct capital to actual productive sectors of the economy through investing into actual business producing companies.