On one hand, you’re proposing that - “maintaining home prices is a matter of national security.”
And so instead, we’ll rest the future of our country on “ Housing affordability will ultimately be achieved through some form of an exogenous shock outside of the governments control”
And the ambiguous and worsening-until-it-occurs latter is preferred over even exploring policies that would lower home prices? You can appreciate that it’s easy to conflate politicians looking for votes from big voting blocs like seniors and others that typically own their homes; but to call it “national security”? You outlined some mechanisms of revenue for the govt, but if there’s some “exogenous shock outside of govt control” that will eventually help to correct housing prices, isn’t that also going to do the exact thing to govt revenues?
This screams like an approach to set up a reliable schedule for wealthy people to profiteer off of our housing crisis until they inevitably abscond from the country with their wealth when the system can’t be bled anymore.
I think it would be incredibly great for Canadians if someone could walk through what would happen if housing prices were cut (by any mechanism; significantly deterring ownership of multiple homes could be one). If it is an option worse than others for all Canadians, then it would benefit people to know they should not demand it. Unfortunately, Trudeau’s comments about housing prices staying high (especially because he ONLY gave it in context of preserving the wealth of retirees) and generalizing it as “national security” are not convincing, and sound like arguments from people that have more to gain from keeping the status quo in housing.
No doubt there would be negative consequences, but just like you say there’s no panacea for housing, there is NO way we move forward without incredible pain. Do we take control to use the opportunity of inevitable pain to make the fundamental reforms we need to bring housing under control and pivot to a country with actual productivity? Or do we keep tying off and getting high on housing until we OD (our exogenous shock) and pick up the pieces?
I don’t want to leave Canada, and I’d rather start trying to get the ship righted now, so my kids aren’t left with it. I also don’t think my kids (and the vast majority of others) will be able to insulate themselves from the terrible economic effects of not changing the course. Do you?
I’m dubious, Steve!
On one hand, you’re proposing that - “maintaining home prices is a matter of national security.”
And so instead, we’ll rest the future of our country on “ Housing affordability will ultimately be achieved through some form of an exogenous shock outside of the governments control”
And the ambiguous and worsening-until-it-occurs latter is preferred over even exploring policies that would lower home prices? You can appreciate that it’s easy to conflate politicians looking for votes from big voting blocs like seniors and others that typically own their homes; but to call it “national security”? You outlined some mechanisms of revenue for the govt, but if there’s some “exogenous shock outside of govt control” that will eventually help to correct housing prices, isn’t that also going to do the exact thing to govt revenues?
This screams like an approach to set up a reliable schedule for wealthy people to profiteer off of our housing crisis until they inevitably abscond from the country with their wealth when the system can’t be bled anymore.
I think it would be incredibly great for Canadians if someone could walk through what would happen if housing prices were cut (by any mechanism; significantly deterring ownership of multiple homes could be one). If it is an option worse than others for all Canadians, then it would benefit people to know they should not demand it. Unfortunately, Trudeau’s comments about housing prices staying high (especially because he ONLY gave it in context of preserving the wealth of retirees) and generalizing it as “national security” are not convincing, and sound like arguments from people that have more to gain from keeping the status quo in housing.
No doubt there would be negative consequences, but just like you say there’s no panacea for housing, there is NO way we move forward without incredible pain. Do we take control to use the opportunity of inevitable pain to make the fundamental reforms we need to bring housing under control and pivot to a country with actual productivity? Or do we keep tying off and getting high on housing until we OD (our exogenous shock) and pick up the pieces?
I don’t want to leave Canada, and I’d rather start trying to get the ship righted now, so my kids aren’t left with it. I also don’t think my kids (and the vast majority of others) will be able to insulate themselves from the terrible economic effects of not changing the course. Do you?
Thanks as always for your writing.