this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2023
55 points (98.2% liked)

Canada

10278 readers
302 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

How a pipeline project, purchased by the Trudeau government, went from an initial estimate of $5.4 billion to $30.9 billion, potentially leaving Canadian taxpayers on the hook.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] EhForumUser@lemmy.ca -4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

If you throw money at an industry, it grows.

Of course. Money brings out the people.

But then you've compounded the cost of constructing homes, which will also drive up the cost of used homes. That's how we got here in the first place.

Not really solving the problem.

[–] wahming@monyet.cc 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

You really need to stop making assumptions about economics, you're pretty bad at it.

At no point did we mention raising the prices of houses. Rather, if you're using the money to offer multiple contracts to build houses, there's more opportunity for people to enter the industry since there's more income available.

[–] EhForumUser@lemmy.ca -4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Rather, if you’re using the money to offer multiple contracts to build houses, there’s more opportunity for people to enter the industry since there’s more income available.

Exactly. More offers competing for vendors means price will rise to attract vendors, either to win over existing vendors who will otherwise build a house for the next guy instead, or to compel new vendors into the marketplace who find the current rate not sufficient enough to bother with the industry. The going rate today is not enough to see more housing construction than what is already happening. Again, anyone who works on building houses today is booked up for years to come. Price has to rise to see something change.

At every point we mentioned raising the price of housing as it is fundamentally baked into the discussion. I don't know, maybe you just forgot to read the discussion taking place?