But privatization makes things better and cheaper! 🙄

We should be nationalizing infrastructure where having a single vendor (ie. monopoly) makes sense.

Cafés are a great example where many small businesses are ideal.

Let Tim Horton’s fail and let small independent cafés flood the space.

Same! This is really unfortunate.

Nope. This is just an attempt to muddy the waters and redirect the conversation to something else. The article is about market concentration in housing.

What is “the problem”? Do immigrants own the largest 25 financial landlords in Canada holding nearly 20 per cent of the country’s private, purpose-built rental stock?

Increasing market concentration is because immigrants. Got it. 🙄

I assume by “them” you mean the government?

The government doesn’t manage housing or food. That’s all the work of the free market baby! If there was a government run food store, for example, it would be able to operate at cost since it doesn’t necessarily need to turn a profit. Heck, it could even run at a loss if we as a society agreed it has value beyond dollars. In other words, we could offset the loss with tax dollars if we agreed it was of benefit to society.

I agree that monopolies are a problem though and that the government needs to actually start enforcing some anti trust. But taking an active role with crown corporations will also help reduce monopoly power, so its a tool to use along with enforcement.

As for health care, that’s a provincial concern but I also agree. Where I come from, the people around me keep voting in the very party who for over 40 years has proven to be incapable of managing health care. And yet there are functional public health care systems out there. So it’s not a matter of a government being incapable of managing health care. Rather, we have strong evidence that a conservative government is incapable of managing health care.

Of course there are lots of examples of governments managing things poorly, but there are also countless examples of private companies managing things poorly. The difference I think is that with the government you at least have some say. I don’t think the government should run everything, but certain key industries (mostly infrastructure type things) I think would be better off in public hands.

What if the government just started running crown corporations again? They could price things a lot lower and take business away from the private entities. It’ll take some initial investment, but that’s money well spent I think.

Maybe start with insurance and undercut that entire industry. Then use the profit to fund the establishment of other crown corps. Since they don’t have to appease shareholders, all of the profit can go towards this.

He behaves like a Nazi so he’s a Nazi. And clearly calling him that is getting under his skin, so it’s working. I don’t think using a different word will have the same effect. Heck, he might even latch onto neo-feudalist thinking it’s cool or something.

Poilievre is weak and cowardly. Not someone who will rise to a challenge, but someone who is lazy and just wants the easy path. Basically, everyone the cons complain about. The opposite of the so called business “thought leaders” or manosphere “alphas”. But they vote for him anyway I guess.

I’ll even help pay for their airfare!

They keep telling people to “move back to their own country” so why don’t these assholes just move to Florida. Heck, we can probably even crowd source some funding to pay for their damn tickets.

Sadly I doubt many are seeing this considering how many of my neighbours still voted for PP. I’m happy to see a Liberal minority, but disgusted by how much support the cons still have.

Smith is quoted here as saying:

“Have you not looked at the headlines about how Pierre Poilievre is described as dangerous?” the premier said. “How the leader of the Opposition in Alberta has described me as dangerous? When you start using that kind of rhetoric, that ends up creating an elevated risk for all of us.”

She’s complaining about being called “dangerous”. That’s hardly violent rhetoric and certainly no worse than the language they use to describe their opponents.

Sure, there are some individuals on the internet spreading violence, but you cannot equate the non-conservative media rhetoric with the violent and dishonest rhetoric coming out of conservative sources.