Live data from Hacker News

Why Canada Should Join the EU

economist.com

561–570 of 823 posts

Re: Why Canada Should Join the EU

#561
post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The number of houses isn't fixed, nor are almost any other resource. The way economics works, each average person produces significantly more than they consume. Someone living alone in a cabin is (economically) poor. Someone in a small town may have customers, but not many, and it's going to be hard to expand. What you need is more people - more people buying, more people to work for you.

Housing supply is inelastic, in part because of zoning (but it's not the only reason). Know what doesn't change very quickly? Policy and law at the municipal level. Know what changes quickly because it's done at the very top level? Immigration rate.

> Know what doesn't change very quickly? Policy and law at the municipal level. Know what changes quickly because it's done at the very top level? Immigration rate.

In my experience, local policy and law changes much faster than federal, especially with GOP opposing everything on the federal level. The GOP shot down the immigration deal they negotiated last summer. Locally is where I see solutions happen (and then state GOP parties, where they have power, will sometimes undermine that).

> Know what changes quickly because it's done at the very top level? Immigration rate.

How is immigration rate "done" at the federal level? With federal inaction, it's mostly an organic outcome of economics and politics in other countries.

Re: Why Canada Should Join the EU

#562

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Germany has no domestic military power to speak of, military is comically underfunded. No nuclear deterrence. Not sure what kind of protection you're thinking of. We can send beer to your enemy in hopes they opt for boozing rather than shooting.

They need the economies of Germany and France.

And the international political and economic influence. Really of the whole EU - those countries together, including their currency, have global weight. Together, they are on the scale of the US and China.

Also, they would like to sell things to and buy things from Germany and France, and the rest of the EU.

Economics determines military power. If Germany wants to build a military, they can and now they are, to a significant extent.

Re: Why Canada Should Join the EU

#563

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Housing supply is inelastic, in part because of zoning (but it's not the only reason). Know what doesn't change very quickly? Policy and law at the municipal level. Know what changes quickly because it's done at the very top level? Immigration rate.

The speed is the problem. Nobody is willing to go “long” on housing when the government can go “short” on supply at any time. So you have to normalize that somehow, and since the government controls immigration levels, it should subsidize housing construction to match, somehow.

> government controls immigration levels

In what sense is the government controlling immigration levels? If they could, it would be much different.

> Nobody is willing to go “long” on housing when the government can go “short” on supply at any time.

How does the government go short on supply?

Re: Why Canada Should Join the EU

#564
post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tell me more about this Indian 'subgroup', this 'low-skill-low-virtue underclass' that's built into your very fabric of society, ingrained in religion, that you don't like.

I think you're extrapolating further than I intended. I used the phrases 'low-skill-low-virtue underclass', 'slice' &'subgroup' for reasons of being precise, not as dog-whistles. 'Subgroup and slice' because Canada definitely imports some elite human capital from India. Those numbers haven't changed over the last decade. It's the 2nd type of immigration that's exploded and is worth talking about. As for your implicat…

Canada traded superficial (harmful) diversity for a degraded identity.

Re: Why Canada Should Join the EU

#565
post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The number of houses isn't fixed, nor are almost any other resource. The way economics works, each average person produces significantly more than they consume. Someone living alone in a cabin is (economically) poor. Someone in a small town may have customers, but not many, and it's going to be hard to expand. What you need is more people - more people buying, more people to work for you.

Housing supply is inelastic, in part because of zoning (but it's not the only reason). Know what doesn't change very quickly? Policy and law at the municipal level. Know what changes quickly because it's done at the very top level? Immigration rate.

[deleted]

Re: Why Canada Should Join the EU

#566

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think we have that much of demographic crisis. First of all, the aging population is the one with all the wealth. And secondly, as Boomers, they are a very large generation but will soon be dying off. But more to point, this is nothing new. We have always had immigration to offset low birth rate. I'm more inclined to believe that the recent importing people en masse has benefited a few large employers of low…

>First of all, the aging population is the one with all the wealth. The working age population is the wealth. For example, you can have a country with 90 retired people and 10 working people. The 90 retired people can have $1M or $1B or $1T in their accounts, but it isn't going to matter if they have insufficient products/services to buy. The money just provides a relative ranking of what proportion of product/servic…

Canadian wealth is dominated by real estate, mostly land, which isn't directly a product of labor.

Re: Why Canada Should Join the EU

#567
post #207
post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Canada has a population of 40 million in a land area larger than the USA. That's hardly "too many people". Too many people in a handful of dense urban centers maybe, but overall the country is basically empty.

Our land sucks. I live in Vancouver and can't grow decent: tomatoes, raspberries.

We live north of you and grow enough raspberries and tomatoes to last almost until the following season. It’s a skill issue.

Re: Why Canada Should Join the EU

#568
post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The number of houses isn't fixed, nor are almost any other resource. The way economics works, each average person produces significantly more than they consume. Someone living alone in a cabin is (economically) poor. Someone in a small town may have customers, but not many, and it's going to be hard to expand. What you need is more people - more people buying, more people to work for you.

Housing supply is inelastic, in part because of zoning (but it's not the only reason). Know what doesn't change very quickly? Policy and law at the municipal level. Know what changes quickly because it's done at the very top level? Immigration rate.

> Housing supply is inelastic, in part because of zoning (but it’s not the only reason). Know what doesn’t change very quickly? Policy and law at the municipal level.

Assuming policy and law at higher levels are more responsive, if there is a broader problem due to common and inflexible municipal policy, this can be resolved by changing the policy at the higher level to change the scope of municipal options and/or the applicable process so as to either steer it in the desired direction or make it more responsive.

Re: Why Canada Should Join the EU

#569

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_single_market The four freedoms of the single market you get in return are incredible.

Only the free movement of labor is really unusual. As in ... really, really, really unusual. Lots of trade deals include variations of the first 3 ... free movement of labor is basically unheard of between nation states as part of trade deals.

Mercosur, Australia-New Zealand, and the Gulf Cooperation Council all have a similar agreement on movement of labour. It is not particularly rare.

Re: Why Canada Should Join the EU

#570
post #66

Canada will do much better joining US (and distancing itself from declining EU and its disastrous policies). The US is much better managed; the results speak for themselves.

Reconciling the constitutions and laws would mean you'd basically be creating a new country.

The Republican party seems to view any new possible states as free congressional seats for the Democrats, so I can't see enough votes for such a thing regardless.

Post reply on HN