I think they mean First Nations People. In another quote in the article, he says that the British we’re seeing to not effect complete genocide on “Indians” 200 years ago, so they need to finish it. (Paraphrasing).
It’s hard to track their taking points, since the conspiracy theories they follow have limited basis in reality, but I don’t think he means immigrants from India.
It was about a 45/50 split, with most of the rest going NDP in Edmonton Riverbend, so about half of his constituents voted “left” anyway. Cons won, but, in a sane system, the area would have had some sort of Liberal/“left” representation, too.
Eh… There was like a 5% vote difference in Edmonton Riverbend, with an almost exact 50/50 left-right vote split.
In a sane electoral system, like STV, the area would have something like 2 Liberal MPs, 0-1 NDP MPs, and 2-3 Con MPs.
This isn’t a great shift against local political preferences.
The stock of dwellings per capita has risen considerably over that time, from about 290 per thousand people in 1971 to 403 in 2023. Even housing stock relative to the adult population alone (which has remained at a flatter and higher level due to the declining share of children in Canada’s population) has grown, from 477 dwellings per thousand adults in 1971 to 510 in 2023.
Some analysts prefer to take households as the key demographic unit, but this approach also reveals no clear evidence for the supply-shortage argument. Census data show that there have consistently been more dwellings than households since 1971. In the intense period of housing inflation since 2001, that ratio has actually risen slightly, from 1,011 dwellings per thousand households to 1,017 in 2021.
They address all three metrics explicitly.
Did you read the article? Household size is accounted for.
And yes, I have a minor in Economics with a Math major. FWIW.
Housing size is specifically addressed:
On top of that, the square footage of housing units in Canada has on average been growing across all housing types, which should in theory provide more flexibility for people to live with roommates.
Housing units are bigger and there are more of them per capita any way you slice it: by population, by number of adults, or by number of households.
They make a very compelling argument that the big change is not anything to do with supply, it’s entirely a result of easing burrowing standards and increased access to credit. It’s not as simple a story, but it actually offers a reasonable explanation for the observed data, while ECON101 Supply & Demand arguments don’t match the data. Doesn’t matter if it makes sense if it’s wrong.
When the top 10% of wealth holders account for 50% of consumer spending, that’s actually logical of them. Most of us aren’t their target customers.
We need to go back to the way income taxes were for most of the 20th century. Using US numbers out of laziness:
By 1918, the top rate of the income tax was increased to 77% (on income over $1,000,000, equivalent of $16,717,815 in 2018 dollars[24]). The average rate for the (unspecified) “very rich” however, was 15%. The rate was increased in 1917 during World War I.[25] The top marginal tax rate was reduced to 58% in 1922, to 25% in 1925 and finally to 24% in 1929. In 1932 the top marginal tax rate was increased to 63% during the Great Depression and steadily increased, reaching 94% in 1944[26] (on income over $200,000, equivalent of $2,868,625 in 2018 dollars[27]). During World War II, Congress introduced payroll withholding and quarterly tax payments.[28]
Following World War II tax increases, top marginal individual tax rates stayed near or above 90%, and the effective tax rate at 70% for the highest incomes (few paid the top rate), until 1964 when the top marginal tax rate was lowered to 70%.
But 144 is better than 100, for the exact same reason that 12 is better than 10?
There’s a reason measured angles go to 360ths, then subdivided by 60 or even by 60 again.
100 is as terrible a base as 10, and you run into it all the time if you’re designing something in metric; you can’t divide by 3 evenly.
Not being American is one of the deepest, most consistently held parts of Canadian identity. It’s why we are so insistent on spelling colour correctly.
What a dumbass.
The article, thankfully, is much more detailed and nuanced in its analysis.
I agree that a space laser satellite defense network is beyond current technology and politically fraught, but agree with the article’s conclusions that Canada already is emerged in the currently practical land-based defense systems, and should continue to contribute in that more limited project.
The article also goes into the diplomatic party Canada can play in this, building off the Middle Powers Davos speech, and I agree with that points, too.
Anyway, I suggest you RTFA (so to speak). It’s a good one.