The American and European auto, agriculture and aerospace sectors are all so dependent on subsidies that the same could be said for them as well, and yet those industries remain the bedrock of global capitalism.
To add to my reply, it appears that - rather than "plummeting" since 2011 - homeownership went up even more recently and actually peaked in 2019:
> About two in three Canadians lived in an owner-occupied home in 2022. Since 2017, the home ownership rate in Canada has fluctuated and in 2019, it peaked at approximately 68.6 percent. In 2022, this figure was slightly lower, at 66.5 percent.
2/3 of Canadians living in a home their family owns is still far from a situation where a critical mass of voters are demanding pro-renter housing policies.
Even those living at home with parents will be benefiting from the status quo when they eventually inherit their parent's property.
Your chart shows home ownership recently peaked at 69% in 2011.
The current 66% is (a) not that big a change and (b) still high compared to historical averages so it's not so much "plummeting" as it is "reverting to the mean".
(which means we'll just continue to uphold the status quo like we always have)
Another part of the problem is that those who down own but rent have seen rents increase (in many but perhaps not all of the major cities) to the highest proportion of income in history and often are as high as a mortgage payment. So now there’s no real savings to be had by renting, and no ability to save to get into the housing market later (prices in some markets were increasing on average by tens of thousands of dollars per month through COVID - galloping away from even the most diligently saving renter trying to get to a down payment. So it seems there’s an owner class and a renter class, and both are financially strapped, and it is near impossible to move from renter to owner.
This is a direct result of insufficient supply and skyrocketing values (thanks to interest rates being too low for too long).
I'm not sure how it is a good deal for the insurer who will have to pay for loss of craft.
It's only a good deal if somebody else ends up footing these bills. I don't believe that England's insurers were so stupid that they would bear such losses for decades without doing something about these.
you are correct in that the Wikipedia page specifically states that legislative change came after about three decades of this (and suggests it was at the behest of insurers):
> They were generally eliminated in the 1870s with the success of reforms championed by British MP Samuel Plimsoll. [...] Plimsoll stated in the British Parliament, "The Secretary of Lloyd's [Insurance] tells a friend of mine that he does not know a single ship which has been broken up voluntarily by the owners in the course of 30 years on account of its being worn out".[5]
> A courageous member of the British parliament named Samuel Plimsoll tried for years to get legislation passed to improve safety and maintenance on ships, and to regulate the overloading of cargo encouraged by greedy owners to maximize profits at the expense of safety. He was stymied at every turn because many ship owners were MPs themselves and loathed passing new laws that would be to their disadvantage; they were making fortunes in the shipping business.
Looks like another example where the idea that private interests would ever be adequate for regulating safety is provably false.
every concept will eventually have been expressed or referenced somewhere, so we have a system where every single possible scenario becomes a "trope" with a tidy label.
what - aside from gibberish or nonsense - isn't a trope at that point?
"No! It has to be just barely fun. If the game was TOO FUN then there would be no reason to MICROPAY in order to make it MORE FUN!"