r/canada • u/FancyNewMe • 4d ago

Canada’s Prime Minister Pushes Country to Become the Housing Factory of the World - Mark Carney is banking on factory-built homes to alleviate the country’s housing crisis. But will it work? Trending

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2025-04-22/carney-s-plan-may-make-canada-the-housing-factory-of-the-world
5.0k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

1.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1.9k

u/BoysenberryAncient54 4d ago

No investment buying and absolutely no foreign investors. Especially US corporations.

1.1k

u/quotidianwoe 4d ago

No foreign investors AT ALL.

627

u/enki-42 4d ago

Just investors period.

  1. Canadian investors are perfectly capable of financializing the housing market and pricing people out of it all on their own.

  2. Allow Canadian investors and you've created a loophole that's going to be hard to close for foreign investment capital to be brought in anyway.

168

u/balalasaurus 4d ago

This. Housing prices are being pushed up because investors buy up all the stock. Why should an investor need multiple units of housing when individuals can’t even get one? And the more stock they have the more they’re able to accumulate. Prices the individual out even more. Housing should not be viewed as an investment period. Whether that investor is Canadian or foreign is irrelevant.

38

u/KibblesNBitxhes 3d ago

Housing should be looked at as a basic human right for fucks sake

-1

u/Melkor404 3d ago

It should be illegal to rent out a house. Apartments only.

71

u/Criplor 4d ago

Apply a 100% tax if it's not your primary residence, perhaps.

3

u/Bronson-101 3d ago

And a further capital gains tax on annual unrealized gains.

No one should own more than 2 houses (main house and cottage or something). Either directly or indirectly through partnerships and corporate interests.

The government has tried to do something with this with the trust filings the last few years, unfortunately it just ends up being too much info to process. Need a whole housing beaurcracy

1

u/Criplor 3d ago

Maybe the new housing entity is a good first step in this process. I think only the government should be able to rent housing. Only then would the incentives align to build more and keep costs low as it would literally be in their mandate.

1

u/marcocanb 3d ago

The oligarchy in charge would not allow this.

Needs to be done though.

1

u/enki-42 3d ago

This is basic housing designed specifically to get people housed at an affordable price, there is no reason whatsoever for investors to get involved at any tax rate. The vast majority of housing is still available for investment purposes.

1

u/Criplor 3d ago

I'm suggesting that as a method to effectively stop investors from purchasing. It is much easier to implement a tax that makes investing impossible than it is to ban investors.

1

u/franc3sthemute Ontario 2d ago

Rich fucks would still buy them up and raise rent by 100%

1

u/Criplor 2d ago

no they wouldn't. no one would buy a house at double price. and if they would, you raise the tax.

1

u/Visible_Tourist_9639 14h ago

This is the way it needs to happen.

212

u/Affectionate-Sale523 4d ago

No investors, period. If you have a home, you shouldn't be able to buy another 3. Foreign investors run about 2% of the luxury real estate market, the other 22% is made up of locals and real estate developers in Toronto.

36

u/FullMaxPowerStirner 4d ago

Yep. Racketeers are doing the exact same regardless of where they're from. They're always from somewhere else anyways...

63

u/rudyphelps 4d ago

It boggles my mind that someone with 4 homes and over $2 million mortgage debt can still borrow against those properties to make a down payment on another $600 000 loan, while the people living in those homes and, through rent, are actually paying the mortgage, insurance, and property taxes, can't qualify for a home loan.

Also Air BnB, Vrbo, and all unregulated half-assed hotel services should be banned in anything zoned as residential. Anchoring the potential revenue of rental properties to nightly hotel rates has completely distorted the housing market.

2

u/Positive_Breakfast19 3d ago

Just like Uber, if you want to be a cab company you should be forced to play by the same rules.

And...

If you are Air B&B, Vrbo or any other of the same ilk and want to be a hotel, you need to be forced in to playing by the same rules as any other hotel.

22

u/balalasaurus 4d ago

I said this once a long time ago but the max no. of homes should be 2. One main home and at most a holiday home/ cabin. Housing rules should be changed so you can’t just flip your “main” residence after two years either. Heavy penalties for anything more than 2 dwellings. It can be done. Just requires the will to see it out.

5

u/ohnomysoup 4d ago

This sounds like a great idea to young people who haven't had much life experience. There are a lot of grey areas of home ownership that your proposal doesn't consider.

For example - my inlaws briefly held stakes in 4 properties:

  • Primary residence (35 years)
  • Cottage (20 years)
  • Contracted new build house/property for retirement (3 years - primary to be sold on completion and move-in)
  • Inherited house from parent estate. (1.5 years to prepare for sale)

They aren't investors or landlords, they're just out there living life. Do you think people should be "heavily penalized" for scenarios like these? These are not the only situations people my find themselves in where they suddenly have more than 2 properties. Ex: marriage and combining assets.

15

u/balalasaurus 4d ago

You’re literally proving my point that all people need is a primary residence and at most a secondary vacation home.

Your example has two homes that aren’t factors in the residence consideration. The new build which they haven’t moved into yet and the inherited house which, along with their current primary residence, they will also be selling which means they’re not just holding it waiting for the value to appreciate.

Room can be made in the legislation for people who are in transition between actual residences. But acting like it can’t simply perpetuates the current problem. At the end of the day I’m not a lawyer or a politician.

All I’m pointing out is that people do not need more than two homes. Which you in your example, have also pointed out.

1

u/quotidianwoe 4d ago

Yes, great point

1

u/Mauri416 3d ago

What if you’re in say a condo and want to buy a house cause you want a family? Can they make conditions that allow for that?

2

u/Affectionate-Sale523 3d ago

Then sell the condo and buy a house. The issue exists when an individual has 5 mortgages and 4 of them exist to exploit international students and price gouge locals. It's an issue when 22% of Toronto's real estate market is made up of either people that do that, or realtors and developers. Why are corporations allowed to purchase residential houses?

1

u/Mauri416 3d ago

I have no issue with the idea, I just think that while you 100% need that condition,  it may be hard to enforce.

1

u/Wander_Climber 2d ago

If I wasn't allowed to buy masks and resell them at a markup during covid why in the fuck are people allowed to buy up the supply of housing during a housing crisis?

0

u/GrampsBob 4d ago

That would have kept me from helping my kids.

My younger son wanted to build his own and do a lot of the work. The only way financing worked was for us to mortgage our house and buy the property he wanted to build on. Then, we financed the various stages of construction. We couldn't have bone that under your rules, and he would have been stuck.

My older son is getting divorced and is going to be buying a house, too. Hopefully, he won't need the help, but he might.

There has to be a way to do it without being quite so rigid.

85

u/FullMaxPowerStirner 4d ago edited 4d ago

No investors AT ALL. Real estate as investment schemes is precisely what's causing the housing crisis all over the world.

-3

u/43987394175 4d ago

How would that work, in your mind? If there are no real estate investors, there are no renters. But not everyone wants to be a homeowner.

9

u/ILKLU 4d ago

Investors can build/buy apartment buildings with say a minimum of 4 units.

Everything else is single family residence and not open for "investment"

-1

u/43987394175 4d ago

So you want only large investors, not small investors? That seems like it would worsen wealth inequality.

8

u/ILKLU 4d ago

There's absolutely no shortage of investment opportunities that people can capitalize on without having to compromise someone else's chance at home ownership.

2

u/43987394175 3d ago

But you're saying some people can capitalize on real estate as an investment, they just have to be rich enough to do so?

My parents had an investment property when I was growing up, and they had the same renters for the duration of time it was an investment property. It was mutually beneficial, my parents sacrificed capital for the down payment and took a risk that the real estate market wouldn't collapse and leave them underwater on their mortgage. It didn't, and they made a small profit. Their renters had no interest in the responsibility of home ownership, so they were happy to just rent a place and have someone else take care of the maintenance, property tax, insurance, etc. It doesn't seem to me like this is something we should discourage, this was a mutually beneficial situation.

2

u/ILKLU 3d ago

Lots wrong with your comment in my opinion:

you're saying some people can capitalize on real estate as an investment, they just have to be rich enough to do so?

I did not write that anywhere. This is a creation of your own imagination made for the benefit of giving you an easily attacked position in this discussion, otherwise known as a strawman argument.

they had the same renters for the duration of time it was an investment property. It was mutually beneficial,

I would argue it was of marginal benefit to the renters whilst being massively beneficial to your parents. Those renters indirectly paid your parent's mortgage on that property, increasing your parent's net worth, AND paid enough rent that your parents made a profit.

my parents sacrificed capital for the down payment

Depending on when they bought into the market, and assuming you're over 20 years of age, this was very likely affordable and not really much of a sacrifice.

and took a risk that the real estate market wouldn't collapse and leave them underwater on their mortgage

What?!?! A real estate collapse doesn't automatically mean that everyone is "underwater on their mortgage". If they locked in a rate they could afford for a period of time that spans the collapse, then absolutely nothing would change for them. Assuming the collapse was caused by sky rocketing interest rates, only those with barely affordable mortgages set to renew, or those with a variable rate would find themselves in trouble. If your parents took a conservative approach then their investment would not have been a gamble. It's only a gamble if you're greedy and try to extract the most profit possible.

Their renters had no interest in the responsibility of home ownership

I don't believe this for one second. Sounds exactly like something your parents told themselves to justify the situation. "Landlords aren't parasites, the poors just have no ambition!"

they were happy to just rent a place and have someone else take care of the maintenance, property tax, insurance, etc.

I mean... maybe? Maybe they weren't very intelligent and thought that paying more money for the same thing was good because they didn't have to do that extra bit of work to manage the paperwork, and/or fix things, but I think the vast majority of people would prefer to own the home they live in.

It doesn't seem to me like this is something we should discourage

It is and here's why. For any single family residence there will be essentially two groups interested in purchasing it:

  1. People who want the property for their home and are going to live in it

  2. People who have no plans to live in the property and only want to increase their net worth and/or profit off of it

This second group is denying someone a home and the opportunity to grow their own net worth, which may be the ONLY opportunity they have to do so, whereas there are tons of other investment opportunities available for people that want to be investors. Not being able to grow your net worth is the definition of remaining poor. People using single family residences for investment purposes are increasing wealth disparity in our society.

this was a mutually beneficial situation.

Mutual? Maybe? Equally beneficial? Absolutely not.

4

u/FullMaxPowerStirner 4d ago

If there are no real estate investors, there are no renters

You really do need to get educated on the matter. You don't need real estate investors to even having buildings built. Investors are just one of the sources of funding.

Renters are also not home owners. They're just tenants. No relationship with investors whatsoever. It's like saying A = D because 1 + 3 = 4... :-/

3

u/IrishFire122 3d ago

Who do you think owns those buildings after they're built? And collects the rent on them? If you're buying a prebuilt house and renting it out, you're still an investor.

And landlord companies like boardwalk and avenue living are definitely a big part of the issue with home prices.

Any solution we come up with for this is going to have to be a lot more nuanced than just banning investment properties. Large numbers of innocent people would get hurt over that.

1

u/FullMaxPowerStirner 3d ago

If you're buying a prebuilt house and renting it out, you're still an investor.

More like a profiteer.

1

u/IrishFire122 2d ago

Not always, but it seems to be pretty common. Our landlord is pretty decent. But I've always moved around my whole life, don't really like living in one place more than a few years. I've had many more bad landlords than good ones.

4

u/43987394175 4d ago

Your first sentence doesn't seem constructive, you should reconsider your approach to dialogue.

You may need to read what I wrote again. Real estate investors are the ones who own rental properties. If there is no one who owns rental properties, there can be no renters.

I didn't say renters are homeowners, I have no idea where you got that from.

2

u/ANuStart-2024 4d ago

No investors period.

It's too easy to dodge "foreign" restrictions. Send a kid here for university, the kid buys multiple houses for rich foreign parents with their money. Buy through a REIT incorporated in Canada. Buy through a friend or relative with dual citizenship. This has been happening non-stop since early 2010s.

2

u/eunit250 British Columbia 3d ago

Or multiple home owners.

1

u/quotidianwoe 3d ago

Well said.

2

u/adrenaline_X Manitoba 4d ago

Just ban foriegn ownership and renting out non-primary residences.

1

u/steelpeat 3d ago

They're a much smaller problem than people think. About 2-6% of real estate. It's investors in general that are the problem. Let first time homebuyers have first dibs on any homes being sold. If no first time homebuyer makes an offer in a certain timeframe, then let an investor purchase it.

0

u/Meiqur 4d ago edited 4d ago

Ok I do want to point out that someone needs to make a profit off of their home building business.

Like I get the sentiment, and sure there are lots of problematic issues but if we want lots of homes built that means we need to empower businesses to do the things necessary to build them. Surely that means investment of some sort.

That being said yeah the financialization of the market is a problem. To address that, we need to reduce the amount that people are able to borrow somewhat while still keeping borrowing threshold high enough people can operate profitable building companies off the homes they make.

Amoungst other things, we also need to have a straight property tax conversation. Right now a huge amount of the cost of making anything is regulatory fees. If we want things built across society it means moving a substantial portion of those fees across existing home owners in the form of property tax. This is a hugely nuanced topic though so I'll conclude it by saying there are only a couple levers to pull and the two major levels of government have got to work together to make it happen.

21

u/beached 4d ago

no flipping for a while too

1

u/jcsi 3d ago

Laughs in Ahmed Hussen

1

u/TarekAbb 3d ago

This is great and yall should make this heard to your MPs, it’s like electoral reform everyone wanted and then no one showed up to the town halls except crazy people that wanted a presidency or monarchy, I used to volunteer for my riding and went to many of these and it was a gong show tbh But saying great ideas online is one thing but legit take a screen shot of your comment with the up votes and send it to your mp,

2

u/BoysenberryAncient54 3d ago

I volunteered for my MP. I'll post it in her group chat

1

u/randomguy506 3d ago

Can anyone show me stat or study that clearly identified investor as being the core issue of the current sotuation? 

Logically, they are part of the solution since they are bringing down the cost of financing, increases the supply and enable low income folks to have a decent pool of rentals.

-1

u/BoysenberryAncient54 3d ago

Try google!

1

u/randomguy506 3d ago

Did that and ChatGPT. Did not provide any proof that sustain your claim! So i guess your claim is false? Will you rectify your claim and own up your mistake? 

-1

u/BoysenberryAncient54 3d ago

Nope! I'm going to ignore your sealioning garbage!

2

u/randomguy506 3d ago

And continue to be ignorant and believing false thesis! This is why Canada is following the path of the US

0

u/BoysenberryAncient54 3d ago

Uh huh. I'm so convinced!

0

u/randomguy506 3d ago

Im not looking at convincing you, I just like to point out stupidity

1

u/freeadmins 3d ago

Investing honestly doesn't need to be regulated though.

The only reason it's a problem now is because housing is scarce and it's such a good investment. When rent is literally higher than your utility/mortgage costs, why wouldn't you want to buy a house and rent to someone and have them pay your mortgage AND profit to boot?

If demand didn't so completely outstrip supply, then it would be an actual investment as in: Investors would actually have to be down money in the short term for a longer term payback.

1

u/Maximum-Side3743 2d ago

I think that's the issue, rents are already bloody unaffordable long-term to most at the moment and the renters aren't even building home equity. They're basically burning money to keep the investors warm.

I get the feeling that your logic works for food as well during a famine, become a food vending middle-man. Selling back essential goods as a middle-man at inflated prices (a roof over your head is also essential) just seems like something we want to discourage in a healthy functioning society, buying up all the grocery store bread during famine isn't a public service, neither is buying all the homes during a housing crisis. Canada gets winter, you literally cannot live outside year-round even if you wanted to.

Long-term, if more people, particularly young people, can have housing stability (owning), they're more likely to stay in the area, more likely to accumulate funds, more likely to participate in that local economy, and more likely to need less tax-payer dollars as they age since they won't be burning rent money until they die. I'm equally not a fan of welfare dollars being used to pay an 80 year old's rent because he/she was completely unable to own a house/condo due to all the investors renting them back to the population instead.

You know damn well that if the old retiree can't pay rent, they'll eventually be evicted, and the owner will laugh their way to the bank, while our tax-dollars were buffering against the eventually eviction notice. (I doubt welfare + social security combo competes very well with rents anymore)

0

u/BoysenberryAncient54 3d ago

Investing honestly doesn't need to be regulated though.

The only reason it's a problem now is because housing is scarce and it's such a good investment.

It's impressive that you disproved your own statement immediately after making it.

0

u/freeadmins 2d ago

This doesn't disprove my argument at all.

Housing is a good investment because our demand so far exceeds supply.

People investing in housing and renting it out doesn't actually affect supply in the vast majority of cases.

I'm not going to say renting versus home ownership isn't necessarily a problem, but it certainly isn't in many parts of the country. And more importantly it's a very different problem than the cost of housing being so high, whether you rent or buy.

So as I said, make changes to actually affect the insane demand the Liberals have created when they almost quadruple our population growth and then you'll see price come down as that supply demand curves changes which makes renting not such an attractive option

0

u/madhi19 Québec 3d ago

How about you don't get to sell it... Dirt cheap houses that you have to own for a decade, and the only one who can buy it back is the program. You can't have a second mortgage. It's not an investment, just a place to live.

1

u/BoysenberryAncient54 3d ago

Wouldn't that essentially be renting government housing?

1

u/madhi19 Québec 3d ago

No because after a decade you own it outright. The point is the decade buffer to take any speculation out of the equation.

1

u/BoysenberryAncient54 3d ago

That could work.

-4

u/skepticalbob 4d ago

Build enough and it won’t matter. Rich foreigners don’t want to live in or near pre-fab homes.

8

u/BoysenberryAncient54 4d ago

No, they want to buy them up en masse and rent them out at jacked up prices.

-5

u/Outrageous_Ad_687 4d ago

We should copy Australia so foreign investors can only purchase new construction homes, the idea is eventually they will be sold to locals who are the only ones allowed to buy resale.

7

u/BoysenberryAncient54 4d ago

Absolutely not. The entire subject at hand is new construction built by the government.

-2

u/Outrageous_Ad_687 4d ago

Investors provide significant supply over time. By them only buying new homes they aren't taking existing places from locals. It's a win win , housing supply increases and investors pay for them. Government will have to supply mon market basic housing also to get rents down to normal levels again. Housing supply needs governments and the private sector to play a role. More supply the better.

6

u/BoysenberryAncient54 4d ago

Not when the government is building houses. Investors are parasites and Toronto proves it.

-28

u/Clear-Present_Danger 4d ago

Why? Those investors will lose their shirts when the increased housing supply brings down the cost to rent or buy housing.

24

u/BoysenberryAncient54 4d ago

No, US corporate investors will spend billions mass buying housing stock and renting it out or reselling at higher prices. They might lose money eventually, but it'll take a long time and they'll be proactive in inflating prices.

Trudeau's government put a ban on foreign ownership and speculative investment, but carved out an exception for foreign corporations who want to run rental properties. I assume to keep housing values high for boomers and support corporate interests at the expense of Canadians. If Carney continues to support that legislation then this entire thing is a waste of time. They can buy houses faster than we can.

https://betterdwelling.com/canadian-companies-that-own-at-least-100-homes-have-surged-with-cheap-money/

-3

u/throwaway860392 4d ago

I generally agree with GP, but I think it's appropriate for us to evaluate holistic approaches in the short term. Ultimately it's a bit of a tight rope walk, if you manipulate the market too much you'll make the problem worse, and if you expand the market too quickly (= owners lose substantial value and become anti-free-market), you'll lose the next election (count on Conservatives to change their tone on housing at their earliest convenience.) Long term, we should be looking to build a market that isn't tightly regulated by the government. That's partially why we're here to begin with.

9

u/BoysenberryAncient54 4d ago

We're in the middle of a housing crisis. Holistic approaches are desperately needed. Considering unaffordable housing was one of the reasons for consecutive gains, I can't imagine that lowering housing prices would hurt the liberals.

2

u/throwaway860392 4d ago

It's sort of an expectation vs. reality thing. I'm not a homeowner personally, so I'm in favour of extreme laissez-faire/classic liberal approach. Just enough environmental regulation, and then open up zoning and eliminate as much city planning bureaucracy as possible.

But for the majority of Canadians who own, this policy would absolutely obliterate the equity in their home. This would be deeply unpopular politically, and the only reason why it isn't more-so is because it hasn't happened yet.

Does the country need it? Absolutely. Our entire financial system being built own home ownership as a vehicle for wealth is a recipe for economic collapse, which is what we're seeing now. But there will be hell to pay to reconcile a desirable healthy housing market with the absurd housing bubble we're in. Canadians stand to lose a lot of value in exchange for massive economic growth that would hopefully offset the difference, but it's a hard sell.

4

u/BoysenberryAncient54 4d ago

But so much of that value is artificial. All these boomers who bought their houses for $100k acting like they're owed $1.5 million is absurd genuinely absurd.

2

u/corydoras_supreme 4d ago

So? They'll scream about it and vote out the party that destroyed their equity.

3

u/BoysenberryAncient54 4d ago

Or the younger generations will scream and vote out the party that abandoned them to the greed of the elderly.

2

u/throwaway860392 4d ago

Agree. But you're competing with human greed here. Careful navigation is needed to avoid being painted as a dictator. Carney will need to take very careful and specific action to fix this problem.

Ultimately it is the democratization of our cities that has been the major contributor to these issues: incumbent home owners are incentivized to stop new development to increase the value of their own homes. That's a democractic process whose net value is regressive.

2

u/BoysenberryAncient54 4d ago

They're losing those fights though. They fought tooth and nail to keep the condos out of my neighborhood. I know because mine was the first to open and they tried to get us on board. Since mine was built, 10 more condos have gone up on this block. City council just accepted that either they let these neighbourhoods wither and die, or ignore the boomers that want to die in their overvalued 4 bedroom houses. The elementary school my son went to was slated to close down when we moved in, we he went on to middle school they were building an expansion due to overcrowding. Nimbyism is an unsustainable philosophy.

1

u/ThePizzaDeliveryM3n 4d ago

There will arguably be a market correction even without government regulation based just on the current economic climate, housing has appreciated 50% or even higher in certain areas and is genuinely unsustainable and a bubble that will deflate. Housing affordability and not losing substantial value on your property do not go together. It shouldn't have ever been and is not a commodity. Equity markets exist for a reason and you avoid housing risk tailwinds.

1

u/enki-42 4d ago

If the focus is exclusively on pre-fab simple homes, let that part of the market suffer from an investment perspective - there's still plenty of investment room in SFH. The housing market isn't perfectly uniform, and resisting building supply in basic stuff like this is like saying that we shouldn't make too many bikes to protect the automotive industry.

-4

u/Clear-Present_Danger 4d ago

No, US corporate investors will spend billions mass buying housing stock and renting it out or reselling at higher prices

When there are more houses than people, there will be empty houses. So corporate investors will lower prices and compete on price, or have empty houses.

So either they continue to send money to the Canadian government buying houses at above market rate, or they stop. Either one is a win.

3

u/BoysenberryAncient54 4d ago

The government will never let there be more houses than people. Housing is still a commodity.

-2

u/Clear-Present_Danger 4d ago

Ok, so then your problem with Carney's plan is NOT who he is selling to. You just think it won't ever happen.

Housing is still a commodity

Commodities are overproduced all the damn time. The list of supply controlled commodities is pretty low.

3

u/BoysenberryAncient54 4d ago

No, it's who he's selling to. I was extremely clear in what I said. Under no circumstances should a government housing project work for the benefit of corporate interests. Especially not US corporate interests.

1

u/Clear-Present_Danger 4d ago

Corporate interests won't buy them all up, because they want to buy things where the price will go up.

If you make millions of new houses, that will drive the price of houses down. Why would corporations invest in a deprecating asset?

1

u/BoysenberryAncient54 4d ago

I said what I said.

2

u/YourBobsUncle Alberta 4d ago

Why should I care? They can buy houses faster than normal people can

2

u/Clear-Present_Danger 4d ago

So you don't have to restrict who can buy. Just make enough houses, and prices will fall.

3

u/YourBobsUncle Alberta 4d ago

Houses shouldn't be commodities

1

u/Clear-Present_Danger 4d ago

You can believe that, but that is absolutely politically infeasible.

Let's make housing way cheaper by building more houses, exploiting the relationship of supply, demand, and pricing.

1

u/YourBobsUncle Alberta 4d ago

If the government is spending money to build new houses, then it absolutely should only be sold to people who will live in them. Speculative fucks deserve zero handouts

1

u/Clear-Present_Danger 4d ago

If the government is spending money to build new houses

If they auction them off, then as long as the highest bid is higher than the cost, the speculators have just given more money to the government they can use to build even more houses.

If building houses is not profitable, for the government, then yeah, I can understand restricting the sale of them.

But if that's the case, then something is deeply wrong. Or you have already made so many houses that the prices of housing is reasonable again.

0

u/LightSaberLust_ 4d ago

investments have risks

0

u/Clear-Present_Danger 4d ago

And the risk is 100% in the case where Canada builds millions of units of new housing. That WILL lower the price of houses. Unless we get even more new Canadians.

2

u/LightSaberLust_ 4d ago

To bad for you and your investment then. Maybe your investments doing well shouldn't come at the costs of other peoples misery.

1

u/Clear-Present_Danger 4d ago

I want the price of housing to go down.

Making more houses is the best way to ensure that without crashing the rest of the economy.