I absolutely hate talking politics.

Oh, it might not seem like it, since I do it so often.  But that’s actually me, holding back.

Politics are really, really depressing when they’re not going your way…

Municipal, provincial, and federal politics haven’t really gone my way in a long time.

Every day, I feel like the entire Western world has lost its mind, and yet if “everybody was jumping off a bridge,” I would clearly be in the minority and be wrong if I didn’t want to join.

But we’re not alone.

Our friends in the U.K. are about to have their seventh Prime Minister in the last ten years, so perhaps it could be worse?

I can’t read the papers anymore.

I feel as though the National Post is the only one that tells me what’s actually happening, but it’s too depressing to read.

So, no, I don’t enjoy talking about politics.  But today, I have no choice…

Last week, as most of you know by now, Prime Minister Mark Carney and B.C. Premier David Eby announced that the federal government would pay $3.2 Billion to developers to purchase unsold condominiums.

Mr. Carney used an amazing word to describe what he was going to do for and with these condos that developers can’t sell:

“Unfreeze.”

Is that what he’s doing?  He’s simply “unfreezing” the market?

Mr. Carney said that he hoped the subsidy would unfreeze a “stuck” condo sector, “where prices are too low for developers, and still too high for consumers to afford.”

And this is exactly where this becomes problematic.

Condo prices are:

1) Too low for developers to sell, or they risk losing money.
2) Too high for consumers to afford.

That’s how a free market works, right?  We all learned this back in economics!  A property is worth “what a buyer is willing to pay when a seller is willing to sell,” and that has not ever changed.

So apparently, this creates a problem where condos are “stuck.”

And apparently, it is the job of the federal government, on the backs of Canadian taxpayers, to “unfreeze” this inventory.

Mr. Carney, who was lauded as an economic God by those who were praying that the Liberals could fight off the Conservatives after a decade of Justin Trudeau running the country into the ground, should know better than to mess with a free market.

If prices are too high, then the market provides options:

1) Developers sell at a loss.
2) Buyers overpay.
3) Nothing sells.

Option #3 is what’s happening.

Option #2 is what was happening.

Option #1 is what should happen if developers want to move on from projects.

But, no.  Mark Carney has decided to interfere with the free market, BAIL OUT the developers, and do so on the backs of the Canadian taxpayers who didn’t speculate in the real estate market, didn’t buy land and build condos in an adventure in the nature of trade, and didn’t do anything but abide by the law, pay taxes, support their families, and hope that the government would reward them for their financial responsiblilty.

I simply cannot believe this is where we are.

This is 2008 all over again.

The irony is: Canada came out of the 2008 Financial Crisis relatively unscathed!  We had one of the safest banking systems in the world and had very little exposure to subprime loans and mortgage-backed securities.

Leham Brothers, Washington Mutual, and Bear Stearns went under.

Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac went into conservatorship and were nationalized.

But other banks were bailed out!

Citigroup recevied $20 Billion.

Bank of America recieved $45 Billion and acquired Merrill Lynch.

JP Morgan Chase received $25 Billion.

And American International Group (AIG) received a whopping $85 Billion through a federal takeover.

Now, I’m curious, what did Mark Carney think of all this?

Here’s a quote from Mark Carney, from 2012, talking about the 2008 Financial Crisis and the fallout that resulted:

“It is not clear yet that too-big-to-fail has been ended. For example, credit-rating agencies continue to boost their ratings of major banks by a factor that recognizes implied government support.”

This was Mr. Carney arguing, as the Governor of the Bank of Canada, that no bank should be considered “too big to fail,” and that bailouts were a mistake.

So how in the world did we get to a place where Mark Carney, as the Prime Minister of Canada, is bailing out failing real estate developers in British Columbia?

Other than the CBC, I haven’t seen a single media outlet offering a positive spin on this.

Yes, the Liberal voicepiece that is the CBC had this to offer:

“Mark Carney’s Plan To Bulk-Buy Unsold Vancouver Condos Might Be A Bailout But It Doesn’t Have To Be”
CBC News
June 25, 2025

From the article:

People need affordable homes, and thousands of empty condos in British Columbia are waiting to be sold.

The federal government has an idea to help with both: Prime Minister Mark Carney is partnering with the B.C. government to convert vacant condos into affordable housing units.

“Convert,” eh?

That’s so cute!

They used the word “convert” to suggest that it’s the flick of a switch, or a whisper in an ear, or moving an item from column-A to column-B.

But the government isn’t converting these over-priced, unsold condos to affordable housing units.

They are buying them with taxpayer money.

And the worst part is, they’re overpaying!

I can’t tell you what a specific condo in Vancouver is worth, but I can tell you, with absolute certainty, that the government is overpaying for these condos just on the basis of entry-level economics.

Follow these points:

a) developers have priced units as they see fit

b) nobody is buying them

c) the government is buying them at the developer prices

By definition, the government is overpaying.

If the free market determines value via the intersection (literally in the market and figuratively on an X-Y axis) of buyer demand and seller supply.

The two lines on our chart are not intersecting because sellers won’t sell for what buyers are willing to pay.

So in steps the federal government to pay the price that nobody else will?

There’s a term for this.

A very important one.  It’s called:

Socializing losses

Thank you to the National Post for leading the charge on this:

“Socializing Losses: Critics Pan Federal Plan To Acquire Unsold Condos From Developers In B.C.”
National Post
June 25, 2026

From the article:

Criticism is mounting for a proposed federal-provincial program that would acquire unsold condo units in British Columbia and convert them into affordable housing.

It’s moral hazard, it’s socializing losses while the profits flow to developers, so developers can only win, the government will come and bail them out, which is crazy,” said Ron Butler, principal broker at Butler Mortgage Inc. and host of the Angry Mortgage Podcast.

Exactly.

We’re privatizing the profits while socializing the losses, and if you want to argue that a capitalist real estate agent and investor would be in favour of this, then you’re completely missing the point.

But let’s go back to that line from the CBC propaganda piece:

People need affordable homes, and thousands of empty condos in British Columbia are waiting to be sold.

Oh, it’s that simple!

It’s like saying, “People need alcohol, and the LCBO has lots of it, so let’s just turn a blind eye to people filling duffel bags with high-end scotch and walking out, untouched.”

You don’t like that analogy?  Is it too political?

First of all, when did “right and wrong” get turned backwards and become political?

But secondly, how about this:

People need savings, and there are thousands of untouched bank accounts that have lots of it.

The quote from the CBC is ignoring something really, really important:

Affordable homes are the responsibility of the public sector.  Empty condos in B.C. belong to individuals in the private sector.

Yes, I am aware that there are public-private partnerships in many industries, but that’s not what we’re talking about here.  We’re talking about a segment of society that believes that “affordable housing” is represented by stainless steel appliances, quartz counters, gas ranges, city views, fitness centres, twenty-four-hour concierges, and it’s paid for at 150% of fair market value by taxpayers.

Call me an ass.  Tell me I lack empathy.

But “affordable housing” shouldn’t look like this:

I know, I know, people are going to put words in my mouth.  “David, you think people should be crammed into barrack-style buildings in purpose-built ghettos?”

People on the other side of my politics, and I’d hate to use directional language here, always resort to extremes to prove their points.

But I would absolutely love to hear the affordable housing advocates explain why the federal government should buy $1,100,000 condos to house the poor(er).

Critics are absolutely slamming this move by Mark Carney, and for good reason.

I’ve seen some incredible quotes online, but I want to share my favourite:

“I think that the most grievous and hellacious error here is that the natural evolution of these unsold, unsaleable, nobody-wants-them condos is receivership for some developers.  Is an environment where these remaining properties are more or less auctioned off by a receiver, at the very lowest achievable price.  The concept becomes, ‘Oh no, we don’t want these developers to go into receivership, because nobody will ever build a building in British Columbia ever again,’ which is completely nuts.  Hundreds of developers went into receivership in 1990 and 1991, and guess what?  Stuff kept getting built!  Some condos went into receivership, but that’s actually the free enterprise system, as it was designed.”

Incredible stuff.

And who said it?

Some of you nailed this on Friday.  Our guy, Ron Butler.

Here’s an incredible 15-minute interview with Ron Butler on The Hub Canada:

Mr. Butler further explains that with the Canadian taxpayers buying these condos at above market rates, we’re avoiding “true price discovery” in the free market.

Isn’t that what so many people have wanted, all along?

True price discovery?

That’s what prices oughta be, should be, could be, or can be without any government interference.

Maybe then we can see more “affordability” in the market, right?

There’s more irony.

The government has spent years talking about “restoring affordability” or simply “making homes more affordable” for the middle-class, or future generations, but bailing out developers and ensuring that thousands of properties do not get sold at lower prices is the complete opposite of what the government has talked so passionately about.

It’s almost like the government has no idea what they’re doing.

Or, they do, but they just lie about it.

More great commentary from another friend of TRB, Mr. Ben Rabidoux of Edge Realty Analytics:

“It’s clearly a bailout. I don’t care what they say.  They could be allocating those funds towards construction of new purpose-built rentals that would be geared towards lower income, and they could do it at considerably less than the outlays for this proposed measure.

There’s not a solvency issue, but all else equal, if you’re a bank, you would rather not have to disclose major impairments with some of these very chunky development deals.

You’re going to buy these units at $800,000 to provide low-income housing in what can be relatively luxury-type units, and you’re just going to be massively negative carry on these, subsidized by taxpayers in perpetuity. Just none of this makes any sense.

They should let these developments go insolvent, let the banks take the write-downs, let the developers go bust, and then the government can come in and buy the entire building out of the insolvency proceedings—they would be getting rock-bottom pricing.”

Credit to the folks at www.thehub.ca for the commentary.

Mr. Rabidoux is echoing what Mr. Butler says in terms of “letting these developments go insolvent,” but equally as important, he’s echoing me when he talks about spending $800,000 on a luxury condo to house low-income individuals, which is subsidized by the taxpayers.

Indeed, none of it makes any sense.

Another quote from Ron Butler:

“The Prime Minister said, word for word, ‘Developers do not wish to take a loss.’  So what is private enterprise and capitalism all about at that point?

And now, when the market’s turned against them because of their own bad decisions and overpricing, the government is intervening.”

How are more people not furious about this?

How is everybody in the country not furious about this?

Did you lose money trading shares of SpaceX?  Where’s your bailout?

Did you lose money betting on the Stanley Cup?  Where’s your bailout?

Who’s going to reimburse you for your lottery tickets that didn’t hit paydirt?

And the bailout isn’t the worst part of it, nor is the fact that this is actually going to keep prices from “becoming more affordable.”

The worst part is that the government is trying to sell this to you as the complete opposite.  Because this move is, according to Premier David Eby, going to “bring down buying costs.”

How exactly?

They’re selling us this idea that by purchasing unsold inventory, at inflated prices, on the backs of taxpayers, we’re going to “stimulate supply”

They believe, apparently, that once this inventory is “unfrozen” and absorbed by the market, then developers will start to build again, as there will be an open door to demand.

But this couldn’t be further from the truth.

If anything, this will disincentivize developers.

Why?

Because now developers are far less likely to take risks unless they’re certain that their governments are going to backstop any potential losses.

“You did it for them, now do it for me,” developers will argue, and as they watch the government lament the collapse of the construction industry and the economic fallout that resulted, they’ll believe that they can wait out the government and force it to provide favourable terms.

You can’t feed your puppy at the table every night and then, one night, just expect it to stop begging for food.

Mark my words, this is just the beginning of this saga.

And I can’t wait to see all the people on the left, who should be diametrically opposed to this, line up to defend Mark Carney.

It’s like those folks who blamed Doug Ford for not letting Olivia Chow scalp soccer tickets, but that’s a topic for another day…