23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
I didn't say it was "so far" disconnected. As a major component of the CPI, housing inflation substantially influences the total inflation figure.
That said, there's nothing stopping you from looking up inflation figures for housing specifically if you think those figures are more informative. Those figures are tracked and published, and you can find them with a modicum of detective work. However, that won't tell you what the overall inflation figure tells you, i.e., the depreciation of money.
Keep in mind though that even this figure might not correspond to your personal experience, as it's a figure for Canada as a whole, and not specifically for any particular rapidly growing urban centre.
The problem with the housing market (not just in Canada) is that there is a lot of upwards pressure on prices from 9%-ers who can easily afford anything. This is a taxation, not inflation problem.
Well okay, if the inflation is X it doesn't mean that every single commodity became X more expensive. It's an average.
Real estate typically appreciates at a rate higher than inflation, partially because land is finite, and partially because taxes haven't increased at the rate productivity has (so there is more money available to spend on housing).
Good enough for what? The official inflation numbers say prices have doubled in the past 30 years or so, which fits decently with my subjective assessment. Any small discrepancies between the "true" inflation numbers and the official figures are irrelevant to consumers, and any large discrepancies are paranoid conspiracy thinking.
GDP most assuredly does not measure "all" goods and services in an economy. I gave you an example that isn't measured by GDP in the very post you responded to.
GDP is a rough estimate of the market value of a certain part of the goods and services produced in an economy. Those aspects that are not directly traded for money, or have indirect effects, are disregarded. This includes but is not limited to leisure time, child-rearing in families, and pollution, among many other examples.
The official inflation figure is strongly affected by the B2B sector. The cost of B2B transactions is passed onto the consumer in the final price. For example, an oil refinery (a business) buys oil from another business. The petrol that is sold to consumers will be more expensive if this oil is also more expensive.
I'm not sure what you mean. There's plenty of the economy that isn't factored into GDP, but that's particularly those aspects that don't have a market price and thus aren't directly relevant to inflation.
If, for example, the quality of teachers is reduced by 50%, then the price of the same amount of teaching has effectively doubled. But unless their salary is also affected (which is not obvious), how would you actually notice this in the inflation or GDP figures?
Inflation in Germany is at 2.8%, which is not far from the 2% ECB target. Doesn't seem bad at all, especially considering a significant chunk of it is due to temporary fluctuations in the oil market, and the prevalence of collective labour agreements makes sure few workers are significantly affected.
The employment rate stands at 77.2%, among the highest in the world, albeit slightly down from 2025. For example, in the US it's 72% (Q2 2024) and in France 70% (Q3 2025). Only three countries for which OECD data was measured recorded a rate of over 80%: Iceland, Netherlands and Malta.
There are some issues in the German economy, especially undertaxation of top earners, and the associated lack of investment in infrastructure and education, but inflation and the job market are currently fairly healthy and not a cause for immediate concern.
Why not simply have a corporate tax rate that has a progressively higher rate for higher profits, just like income taxes? Then corporations have additional incentives to reinvest profits and they can better plan ahead, instead of having populist one-off measures at random intervals.
While they're at it, why not simply levy corporate taxes at the EU level and use them to (partially) fund the EU budget? Then this whole race to the bottom is no issue, and (intra-EU) tax havens like Ireland, Netherlands and Luxembourg can no longer exist.
Definitely not the lowest in history - Nixon hit far lower ratings, despite doing a far better job and being hit by far fewer and far less severe scandals.
Does it? He's been around the 40%-mark throughout most of his first term and the current term so far. I don't think there is a reason to expect his approval rating to suddenly crater, unless a sex tape with him and Hilary Clinton were to be uncovered.
Obviously, a different electoral system will affect the approval rating of politicians. Nevertheless, I think it illustrates the deeply servile attitude of Americans towards their politicians, especially considering none of the other examples have had scandals anything like the 100th-worst scandal of Trump, and while I don't agree with the politics of any of the others, one could at least make the case they were trying to run the country.
For context Germany (Merz) isnt a 2 Party-System. (sic)
Sure, that's true. Angela Merkel's approval rating, however, reached as high as 77%.
Imo this 5% barrier and ignoring 20% of votes is a problem.
I am also not a fan of the 5% threshold. If, as opinion polls now suggest could be a real possibility, the AfD manages to gain an absolute majority with less than 50% of the vote in Saxony-Anhalt, it will be more than a problem but a full-fledged constitutional crisis.
Never had to register to vote in my life. Even without the brazen purging of voter rolls, the requirement is a means of voter suppression.
Quitting gambling would be a good start.
Aside from that, just finish your studies and take it from there.
The guy learning python:
People who own real estate are automatically hedged against housing inflation since their property increases in value.
What they choose to do with that increase in value is up to them.
Somehow I doubt any increase in the homeless population is due to home-owners not being able to afford their housing.
Fixing homelessness is trivial and, once again, a fiscal problem and not a monetary one.
Wilson might have had this verse in mind:
Matthew 19
...probably.
Housing is part of the CPI in Canada, not sure where you got the idea that it isn't.
Insofar as there is an "affordability crisis" in Canada, its cause is fiscal, not monetary.
I didn't say it was "so far" disconnected. As a major component of the CPI, housing inflation substantially influences the total inflation figure.
That said, there's nothing stopping you from looking up inflation figures for housing specifically if you think those figures are more informative. Those figures are tracked and published, and you can find them with a modicum of detective work. However, that won't tell you what the overall inflation figure tells you, i.e., the depreciation of money.
Keep in mind though that even this figure might not correspond to your personal experience, as it's a figure for Canada as a whole, and not specifically for any particular rapidly growing urban centre.
The problem with the housing market (not just in Canada) is that there is a lot of upwards pressure on prices from 9%-ers who can easily afford anything. This is a taxation, not inflation problem.
Well okay, if the inflation is X it doesn't mean that every single commodity became X more expensive. It's an average.
Real estate typically appreciates at a rate higher than inflation, partially because land is finite, and partially because taxes haven't increased at the rate productivity has (so there is more money available to spend on housing).
Good enough for what? The official inflation numbers say prices have doubled in the past 30 years or so, which fits decently with my subjective assessment. Any small discrepancies between the "true" inflation numbers and the official figures are irrelevant to consumers, and any large discrepancies are paranoid conspiracy thinking.
GDP most assuredly does not measure "all" goods and services in an economy. I gave you an example that isn't measured by GDP in the very post you responded to.
GDP is a rough estimate of the market value of a certain part of the goods and services produced in an economy. Those aspects that are not directly traded for money, or have indirect effects, are disregarded. This includes but is not limited to leisure time, child-rearing in families, and pollution, among many other examples.
The official inflation figure is strongly affected by the B2B sector. The cost of B2B transactions is passed onto the consumer in the final price. For example, an oil refinery (a business) buys oil from another business. The petrol that is sold to consumers will be more expensive if this oil is also more expensive.
I'm not sure what you mean. There's plenty of the economy that isn't factored into GDP, but that's particularly those aspects that don't have a market price and thus aren't directly relevant to inflation.
If, for example, the quality of teachers is reduced by 50%, then the price of the same amount of teaching has effectively doubled. But unless their salary is also affected (which is not obvious), how would you actually notice this in the inflation or GDP figures?
GDP growth is generally corrected for inflation (but not for population growth).
Inflation in Germany is at 2.8%, which is not far from the 2% ECB target. Doesn't seem bad at all, especially considering a significant chunk of it is due to temporary fluctuations in the oil market, and the prevalence of collective labour agreements makes sure few workers are significantly affected.
The employment rate stands at 77.2%, among the highest in the world, albeit slightly down from 2025. For example, in the US it's 72% (Q2 2024) and in France 70% (Q3 2025). Only three countries for which OECD data was measured recorded a rate of over 80%: Iceland, Netherlands and Malta.
There are some issues in the German economy, especially undertaxation of top earners, and the associated lack of investment in infrastructure and education, but inflation and the job market are currently fairly healthy and not a cause for immediate concern.
Carney harshly condemned Trump in a speech in January at Davos - though he didn't use kindergarten language, so I think it mostly went by him.
The transcript of the speech is here.
"I open up my wallet, and it's full of blood."
Why not simply have a corporate tax rate that has a progressively higher rate for higher profits, just like income taxes? Then corporations have additional incentives to reinvest profits and they can better plan ahead, instead of having populist one-off measures at random intervals.
While they're at it, why not simply levy corporate taxes at the EU level and use them to (partially) fund the EU budget? Then this whole race to the bottom is no issue, and (intra-EU) tax havens like Ireland, Netherlands and Luxembourg can no longer exist.
Definitely not the lowest in history - Nixon hit far lower ratings, despite doing a far better job and being hit by far fewer and far less severe scandals.
Does it? He's been around the 40%-mark throughout most of his first term and the current term so far. I don't think there is a reason to expect his approval rating to suddenly crater, unless a sex tape with him and Hilary Clinton were to be uncovered.
They mean whatever you want them to mean.
Obviously, a different electoral system will affect the approval rating of politicians. Nevertheless, I think it illustrates the deeply servile attitude of Americans towards their politicians, especially considering none of the other examples have had scandals anything like the 100th-worst scandal of Trump, and while I don't agree with the politics of any of the others, one could at least make the case they were trying to run the country.
Sure, that's true. Angela Merkel's approval rating, however, reached as high as 77%.
I am also not a fan of the 5% threshold. If, as opinion polls now suggest could be a real possibility, the AfD manages to gain an absolute majority with less than 50% of the vote in Saxony-Anhalt, it will be more than a problem but a full-fledged constitutional crisis.