Canada

It's currently political suicide to actually implement policies that would reduce house prices by 50%+ so the parties are just putting in those vague statements and making token gestures trying to stabilize house prices.

Unfortunately the majority of voters still own a home (older people more likely to own and more likely to vote) and it's going to be a hard time convincing those people to vote for losing hundreds of thousands of dollars in equity.

It's going to keep getting worse until that balance shifts, I'd estimate another 20-40 years, then we can start voting in policies to reduce housing prices.

That's not true at all.

The government could crash the house prices overnight if they wanted, for example they could implement a 20% yearly tax on home value. Prices would plummet instantly because owning a house would cost a lot more, the increase in yearly cost needs to then be offset by a drop in the fixed cost (selling price) to bring back equilibrium at the current supply level.

It also increases supply massively without building a single new house, because the bigger your home, the more tax you're going to pay and if you aren't using it you're likely going to sell and downsize immediately to save money.

The best way to do this would be then to take all that massive tax influx, and remove income taxes entirely or provide a UBI to everyone.

There are other ways to achieve similar price reductions overnight too. The problem is that it's political suicide to crash the housing prices, since home owners would be absolutely pissed if you just kill 50-75% of their home value overnight. That's hundreds of thousands of dollars for most owners, and 65% of residential properties in Canada are owned by the family that lives in them.

It's a fallacy that there isn't enough housing, there are already way more bedrooms in Canada than people, and on top of that a large portion of people share a bedroom with their significant other. The problem is the distribution of housing (both in terms of who owns it, and where it's located) not the total.

The federal Conservatives are in bed with all sorts of hateful people, Mr. PP sat down for a 2 hour interview with Jordan Peterson just a month ago for fuck sake. The man who resigned from the University of Toronto complaining about DEI practices (and calling them DIE in his letter) and who actively campaigned against a government bill that banned discrimination for gender identity.

Peterson was literally stupid enough he started a meat only diet to be more Masculine and reduce his depression, a diet which he had such a bad reaction to that he ended up on Benzos, and got addicted for which he sought treatment in Russia because no western doctor would put him in an induced coma long enough to ride out the withdrawal symptoms.

When a leader of a party is setting up 2 hour interviews with "SMRT" people like that... I don't want them as my Prime Minister at all.

The Conservatives even had better choices in the leadership race, but no, they had to go with the guy who likes hate.

I'm interested in learning whether that's even legal considering that discriminating based on gender identity is explicitly against the Charter.