> The word crisis suggests something that is infrequent, surprising, and widely undesirable—something that leads to dire consequences unless it is brought under

> The word crisis suggests something that is infrequent, surprising, and widely undesirable—something that leads to dire consequences unless it is brought under control. ... In contrast, Canada’s “housing crisis” is a permanent state of affairs that harms people in, or in need of, rental housing That sounds like a high school debate method - "Webster's Dictionary defines 'crisis' as ... This does not meet that definition. Therefore this is not a crisis." As a counter-example, people have been using the term "climate crisis" since at least the 1980s. Does decades of use make the underlying situation a permanent state of affairs that we should accept? Furthermore, the idea of "crisis" used in this structural fashion has been around for even longer. A quick Google Scholar search found Holton (1987) "The Idea of Crisis in Modern Society" in The British Journal of Sociology: ] In the contemporary world we are told that 'crisis' threatens us on all sides ... I want to examine the analytical utility of the crisis metaphor for an understanding of the contemporary western world. ... ] The metaphoricality of the language of social crisis draws of course on older aesthetic and medical usages. In the aesthetic structure of drama, for example, crisis is manifest through a key moment or moments in a narrative wherein the dilemmas of human life and the fate of human actors are dramatised. This structure presupposes that crisis is an abnormal and discontinuous feature of narrative rather than a permanent fixture. ... ] The crisis metaphor has of course been translated into social enquiry as a means of dramatising perceptions of social pathology, social breakdown and disorganisation, and to give full vent to feelings as to the intolerability of the present. Its use is thus embedded in discourses about social change and debates about appropriate forms of political action. The assumption is that crises are unacceptable, and that they can and ought, sooner or later, to be resolved. The phrase "housing crisis" is based in this latter, metaphorical use. Tranjan appears to require it only fit the former and older definition. Holton goes on to write: ] While the use of the crisis metaphor in social criticism is not without pronounced disadvantages, it does retain a considerable degree of utility. In the first place it underscores the refusal to accept all features of social life as necessarily 'given' and 'unproblematic'. In so doing any notion of 'normality' is itself brought into question. The social pathologies identified by crisis theory pre-empt the 'normal' functioning of social life, while yet leaving space for successful recovery, if the appropriate social changes eventuate. The term "housing crisis" is used for exactly that purpose - to refuse to accept the current situation as necessarily given and unproblematic. Ricardo Tranjan's essay rejects the term "crisis" precisely to normalize the long-term structural issues which the crisis-ist consider unacceptable and "ought, sooner or later, to be resolved." > Rents are determined by “what the market will bear,” as economists say. No? I mean, they can be that way, but the author clearly knows about rent controls, which determine rates in a different way than simply what the market will bear. > The purpose of the rental market is not to ensure the highest possible number of families is securely housed. The purpose of the rental market is to extract income from tenants, and as far as this goal is concerned, it works like a charm! The purpose of a produce market is to extract money from selling produce, not to ensure the highest quality of nutrition. That doesn't mean the government can't regulate produce sales to set minimum quality levels. Nor does it mean that the government can't regulate the rental market, even if doing so reduces profits. The government could also build its own housing projects, without financial incentives to outside developers, with the goal of providing secure housing to many people, and without the goal of extracting profit (or even break-even) from the tenant. Just like it builds streets and parks which aren't funded by user fees.