Close Menu
    Politik

    Kanadas Wohnungsdebatte beginnt zuzugeben, was der Neoliberalismus geschaffen hat


    Kanadas Wohnungsdebatte beginnt zuzugeben, was der Neoliberalismus geschaffen hat

    https://open.substack.com/pub/jamesdwyer2/p/canadas-housing-debate-is-starting?r=1lthlp&utm_medium=ios

    View 7 Comments

    7 Kommentare

    2. Lol-I-Wear-Hats on

      “Neoliberalism” explains fairly little about housing conditions itself

      There is a common sort of origin in the 1970s as a reaction to High Modernism that lead to both senior government neoliberalism and local government nimbyism, both coming out of a suspicion against doing Big Things together, but they are not the same

      There is a certain sort of person who would like the decline in the relatively modest share of the housing stock but it by the government to tell the story but it mostly doesn’t.

    3. that_tealoving_nerd on

      That being a house as a vehicle for retirement? Great, France has been doing it since 1890s. France is now the of neolib.

    4. carnotbicycle on

      I wish the author contended with the idea that heavy regulation and precisely NOT allowing the free market to solve for housing is what most economists think caused this whole mess. NIMBYism is not neoliberalism, precisely the opposite. A government approach to housing is not a binary where if there is a national housing program it is automatically „not neoliberalism“ and not having one means „neoliberalism in its purest form“ full stop.

      A real neoliberal would despise NIMBY policies, not just be satisfied that houses are a commodity and investment vehicle.

    5. S185 on

      People who write articles like this should just stop and read what actual housing economists have to say. This is nonsense.

      The only part of Anglo housing policies that’s neoliberal is that we don’t build public housing anymore. Everything else is the opposite of neoliberal. We literally centrally plan zoning like a communist society.

      But we got the worst of both worlds. We say “you can only build housing like this in this area” and private developers obviously don’t like it because it’s not that profitable. But then we don’t use the government to build in unprofitable places either…

      Either you spend the billions on public housing, or you loosen zoning laws. You can’t do neither and sustain population growth. And you can’t sustain pensions and other social benefits with a shrinking population.

    6. scottb84 on

      Outside of narrow technical settings, I’d like to see us shed the business-page language we so often use to discuss housing in this country.

      We don’t have „housing markets,“ we have *homes* that are situated in *communities*.

      We are not experiencing a „downturn“ much less a „slump.“ *Affordability* is increasing.

      Having rid ourselves of gross terms like „master“ and „servant“ in the employment context eons ago, we certainly shouldn’t still have „landlords“ and „tenants.“

      And we should stop calling them „investors“ and start calling them the *overhoused*.

    7. Gk786 on

      Neoconservatism had just as big of a big as neoliberalism in creating this mess. You think the policies of Harper and the conservatives would have decreased housing prices? When a big portion of the Canadian public has been conditioned over decades to believe that housing is a great investment vehicle that’ll always go up by every politician, it creates disasters like the one we are in right now.

    Leave A Reply