You’re honestly tiresome. I’m blocking you and your weird-ass rhetoric.
Okay, and? Is there some reason you want us to know this?
but you honestly need to learn what the words “supply and demand” mean.
Your definition was fine. Is there some reason you don’t like it anymore?
That control isn’t “supply and demand”. It’s just price regulation.
Did you not even read your own comment? Like you suggested, supply and demand is a reaction to (although more accurately, observance of) the state of the market. What is all this nonsense? Do you not understand that regulation helps shape the market?
Also why did you immediately take me in bad faith?
Because there is no reasonable explanation for how you gave a fairly decent description of supply and demand, but then go off to crazy town as if you don’t even know what you said immediately after other than you looking for a ridiculous fight.
But falsely claiming that it’s a response to the supply being less than what’s demanded when there’s literally no indication of that
Claimed what now? I said it was to keep interest in anglo schools in check. That is not the same as “supply being less than what is demanded”, whatever that is supposed to mean.
I’m afraid I don’t get this fake argument you are having. At least it is hilarious. I’ll give you that.
How do you imagine that the government is not a participant in the market – all while recognizing that they have control over prices?
Fake argument confirmed.
This isn’t an economic matter.
Of course it is.
is ignorant of the fact that supply and demand is a reaction to the state of the market
Yes, exactly, these price changes are a reaction to the state of the market, just as explained in the previous comment.
It’s curious that you understand the concept of supply and demand well, but at the same time cannot comprehend it. Which means that you must comprehend it just fine and are merely spewing the other nonsense because you’re looking for a fake argument?
Good for them?
Just basic supply and demand. More people looking for anglo universities necessitates a higher price to keep the number of students vying for positions in check. Less competition for French placements means they don’t have the same need to scare away applicants with a high price.
I have been to weddings that served some of the finest food imaginable. Construction workers should be pushing for the seven course meal every lunch while they are at it. If a small wedding can afford it, I’m sure a job site can.
Opportunity cost is the cost you have forgotten to account for. Having the building paid off does not reduce the cost.
Obviously they have committed to price freezes. That was no doubt their idea. The world price of food is falling rapidly, so they will lock in to not suffer from lower prices later. But they want to lock in at the market peak, so it may take a little bit longer. We’re getting real close, but not quite there yet on the retail side.
Again, I’m not saying anything about those services or anything about what the teacher will actually do.
They are not separable concepts. The are intrinsically linked. Again, we do not exist in a vacuum. You cannot talk about one without the other coming along for the ride.
I get that you like having a neat and orderly space where you can focus on one individual idea and forget that everything else exists. Who doesn’t? But this poll is conducted in the real world, where people look at the entire world when considering things. They have no reason to be concerned about a parent inflicting harm based on revealing name information because they understand that the child raising concern about their safety around the parents will also trigger additional supports to address that issue.
Again, you may be trying to imply (since you won’t speak to it directly) that those supports are not effective. That very well may be true, but if that is the case, then that needs to be made known. Most people have faith in government services and are making decisions based on that understanding.
In summary: Your original comment doesn’t address the comment it is in reply to. It fails on faulty logic.
Since the heyday of the United Farmers of Canada there are 75% fewer farms in Canada
While true, Ontario farms declined only by 1% from 1990 – when these rural areas by and large voted NDP – and 1995 – when they changed their ways. The declines were more like 10-15% every five years prior to that, as well as for a time after that, so this change happened during an anomalous period when there was effectively no decline in farms.
Living in a “rural” area no longer means you’re all that likely to own a farm
Essentially nobody in rural Northern Ontario owns a farm, but they have remained hardcore to the left. It is not that non-farming rural residents strictly hold different views either. What is interesting is that the same shift is observable at the exact same time in the rural southern prairies (like Ontario, the rural northern prairies also remained to the left), so it does seem that there is something, whatever it is, that targeted agricultural areas – although not necessarily farmers, as you point out – to bring on this change.
The comment, while reasonable, only served to point out issues with the comment. Which doesn’t explain why so many pressed the “this is correct” button.
That’s not rooted in masculinity, though, but rather “American exceptionalism”.
It’s a nice idea, but tough to keep going as hands change. The people who were involved in the aforementioned agreement still talk about it to this day, but they are not involved in the organization anymore, so you have a disconnect.
and now the leopards are eating the faces of the rurals that voted for them.
Prior to 1995, the (southern) rural areas almost never voted Conservative, typically favouring the Liberals and sometimes the NDP (northern rural Ontario has maintained strong NDP support all along). To add, the NDP was born out of the former United Farmers party, so there was once a close association between them. The rural areas have been traditionally very left leaning.
The question is: What changed? It is unlikely that the people magically changed from one year to the next. Perhaps the Liberals and NDP figured rural areas were dying and thus not worth worrying about?
deleted by creator
they’ll have to explain this over and over again to the rest of the world, but that’s not a bad thing either.
Will they remember? Years ago a local team received the same kind of grant when there was question of its branding being an inappropriate appropriation. As time marched forward people came and went, and the people involved in attaining the original grant were no longer around so the same question inevitably surfaced again. At that time they decided to change the branding rather than seek approval (again).
Exactly. The child not feeling safe does not equate to there being endangerment, at least in theory, because the parents the child has raised concern about will become under the watchful eye of child protective services when the teacher raises that concern as well. We don’t exist in a vacuum. You would not have one without the other.
Again, maybe you’re trying to imply that those services are not effective. That very well may be true, but if that is the case, then that needs to be made known. Most people have faith in government services and are making decisions based on that understanding.
That doesn’t imply there is danger. If the child tells you that they are not safe around their parents, you’re not going to exactly take that lightly. It’s not “Oh, hi Mr. and Mrs. Smith. Given that you are such wonderful, upstanding people, contrary to your child’s claims, we’d like to inform you that your child, formally known as Fred, has decided to change their name to Sue.” You’re going to be rolling in with child protective services and the full force the law behind you to investigate.
Perhaps you are suggesting that child protection doesn’t work, but if that’s the case, that needs to be publicized more as most people are under the impression that these services provided by the government are effective.
I think it’s reasonable to be frustrated when the place you lived your whole life becomes unaffordable to those with history there
As long as you are talking about some place in Africa, sure. I’m not sure how reasonable it is to talk about Canada that way as the only reason people came here in the first place is because it wasn’t affordable to stay where they were before.
You are entering personal opinion territory with that remark, which has no place in a discussion, but I will stricken the opinion part and work with what information remains. Given that, I take it to mean that a business seeking profit does not necessarily need to find profit by way of cashflow, but rather asset appreciation. Is that a fair assessment?
That is technically true. Agriculture in particular loves that model – and it has burned many, many, many farmers before. Remember the 1980s? They had to go as far as to have concerts to try and bail farmers out because it got so bad. It is super high risk. Farmers will often put up with that insane risk because they have a passion for farming and will take the risk just so that they can do what they love.
Does anyone have a passion for being a residential landlord? To the best of my knowledge, the answer is no. Landlords are in it purely as a business. And a business is going to focus on income fundamentals to not go down the road of needing concerts to save them when the promise of asset inflation fails.
Of course, with big risk comes the potential for big reward, but it seems there is no reason for residential landlords to take that gamble. It is not a passion project.