this post was submitted on 07 Feb 2026
111 points (93.7% liked)

Canada

11469 readers
555 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 5 years ago
MODERATORS
otter@lemmy.ca
mp3@lemmy.ca
otter@piefed.ca
mp3@piefed.ca
111
The numbers don’t lie: The housing crisis is not caused by a supply shortage (www.policyalternatives.ca)
submitted 1 day ago by sbv@sh.itjust.works to c/canada@lemmy.ca
44 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

the housing crisis has been created by banking practices that have directed excessive amounts of credit into the property market, and especially residential mortgages. As a result, buyers can bid prices up to ever-higher levels, resulting in a market where people must pay more for the same type of housing. Hence financialization can be defined as an inflationary tendency in the housing market that is induced jointly by banks’ desire to expand mortgage lending and buyers’ confidence that the value of their properties will rise.

...

However, the image of a bubble bursting and prices returning to a more rational “equilibrium” level does not seem to apply to the housing market. Because housing is a necessity, people are willing to pay high prices for it. Bidding wars can therefore persist even when relative supply grows, so long as credit markets enable them.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] sugarfoot00@lemmy.ca 2 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

I agree with letting air out of the balloon slowly. That's what rezoning and densification shoots to do. It is slow because development is slow. But limiting available capital (ie: competing for mortgages)? In what world does that make sense? And if primary residence cap gains aren't exempt, then anybody that had to move for work would get screwed. That's a corporate friendly policy, not a people friendly policy. The goal here is for people to own houses, and for there to be penalties for owning more than one. But that's exactly where policy is right now.

[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 1 points 7 hours ago

I agree with letting air out of the balloon slowly. That's what rezoning and densification shoots to do.

My experience with densification was seeing 600k houses (that I could almost afford) be replaced with 2-4 1.1m houses (that I could not afford).

We should pursue densification and rezoning are positive for many reasons, but price isn't one of them.

But limiting available capital (ie: competing for mortgages)? In what world does that make sense?

A world where prices are increasing faster than wages. We've had historically low interest rates since 2008, which has made borrowing large sums easier, meaning people can afford to pay more for houses.

That was great for people who got in early: they could get cheap money that wouldn't reduce their quality of life. But it means they could bid up the price of houses. Folks coming after had to pay higher and higher prices, until they did start to see a quality of life hit.