We could say that liberal economy is a system, based on liberal political contract, where people have nearly limitless license to produce with their work negative externalities to other people, to the larger community, and where people in power try to hide these negative externalities, and forbid people talking about them, and distort peoples perception of them with modern subtle propaganda.

also notice that those communities, which cooperate and preserve important things, withstand change better, and can be, paradoxically, more open to change, more striving towards change, and of course, more capable of changing in the other areas of life. Partly governed change is better than fully chaotic, destructive and haphazard change. Fully governed change would mean stagnation or comparative regression. Partly governed change is the ideal middle.

What is pure economy? What kind of society is a society, where economy is the most important concern and motivation? Economy is constant revolution and subversion. Economy is permanent war of society against itself. There are no lasting arrengements, ideal states or common goals in economy. Ultimately nothing can be preserved, whether good or bad, moral or immoral, perfect or decadent, energetic or lazy, in economic society. The more you compete single-mindedly and with only one eye economically, the more you talk about economy and the more everything is analysed, decided, arranged and motivated through economy, the more liberal society you become. Only thing that is preserved is that somebody has temporarily, until he is displaced, more power and is richer than most of the others. For example, we could say that well paid professionals, who make voluntary contracts with employers is the opposite of slaves, who get only minimum food and shelter for their compulsory work. Lets say that all the people in society are slaves. Then it becomes profitable to subvert that arrangement with well paid, highly motivated, free, creative and mobile professionals. If on the other hand all the people in society are well paid professionals, it then becomes profitable to subvert that arrangement with all kinds of cheap labor; with slaves, with tax-evading labor, with lower paid immigrant professionals, etc. If half of the people in society are well paid professionals and half are slaves, it becomes profitable to make the situation more extreme to either direction, to undermine the “balance”, so that society then strives e.g. more towards slave like society. This same principle can be applied to any situation. Lets say you have European-Canadian neighborhood, and you want to preserve it like that. But real estate agents and their clients want to increase competition between buyers, and so welcomes buyers from any race (even if the law doesnt oblige him to do that). Slowly the ethnic composition changes; slowly conflicts, cultural and religious problems increases; slowly language related incomprehensions and crime increases; slowly the area decays; etc. Whites start to move away. As it decays, it becomes the target of social housing, on the one hand because these kinds of areas are suitable for such housing, and on the other hand because public authorities want to prop up the decaying areas economy and bureaucratic service demand with more customers, even if many of them live on social support. The entrepreneurs in the area demand this from the politicians, so politicians and entrepreneurs views reinforce each other. The businesses profits are declining, and even welfare recipients mean more customers, they buy food, clothes, electronics, etc. So the negative spiral becomes stronger. Etc. This same process could happen with many different details and stages. The same economic principles apply to immigration into the country; natural area preservation near cities; comfortable and livable city ideals; ethnic, cultural and religious preservation; etc, you name it. You cannot e.g . oppose immigration in practice, if economy is your main motivation and political goal. The White nationalist thinks that state can do the essential preservations for him, after all state has a large capacity to shape, arrange and modify society according to its collective will and power. But the White nationalist doesnt understand that the state follows the same subversive principles than economy, and many of the other economic principles of economy too. So if the perfect White nationalist state was established, it woud sooner or later start to subvert itself. Metaphorically economy and state are cannibals, who eat themselves and construct themselves constantly on the macro level, and doesnt care much about quality in the macro level as long as the process remains operational.

What could be done? Traditional conservatives could become conservative radicals, because in the radical liberal context normal and reasonable conservatism is radical. Conservatives could say collectively politically “We want less to ourselves, so that we can preserve that which we have and appreciate, ethnicity, culture, religion, neighborhoods, cities, country, natural areas, etc., in so high level that our capacities allow. Everyone of us is committed to this individually. We dont want such profits, jobs, services, things, wealth, state and municipal support, etc., which endanger our communities, our culture and our country, our natural areas, etc. We preserve the goods that we have, and compete with those goods and from that starting point with others. We strive to be advanced, highly educated and high tech communities, country and culture, and with our properties and goods it is possible. We defend what we have with every possible peaceful means. Our political goal is not to strenghten the economy or provide more jobs or provide more state and municipal services or some such singular or preponderant thing. Our political goal is always to create a living balance between economy – jobs – services – ethnicity – culture – neighborhood – cities – country, etc. and to restrict, guide and teach ourselves with Aristotelian virtues (see Nicomachean ethics and Eudemian ethics), and thus ensure that political balance. We restrict ourselves and make sacrifices to gain particular collective gains and goods. We enforce this moral and ethical consensus among ourselves. If others want to live differently, it is their choice, however we separate ourselves from such persons to some extent, and impose borders around our valued goods and communities. This is the political manifesto we live by.” Of course this kind of manifesto could also beinternal among traditional conservatives, not public and political, or partly internal partly public.

Quoting a youtuber with insight:

”Authoritarianism requires a light touch. Lao Tse say: The best rulers are scarcely known by their subjects;
The next best are loved and praised;
The next are feared;
The next despised:

They have no faith in their people, And their people become unfaithful to them. When the best rulers achieve their purpose Their subjects claim the achievement as their own”

There is more to life than economics. Look at what the focus on economics has done. Chinese people buying (and pushing up real estate values irrationally) just so that they have a safe-haven for their family (or cash) when the dominoes topple over in whatever hellhole they come from.

In order to have social trust, Vancouver must become a White city once again. It is the only way.

As for low fertility – the only solution is to end feminism and democracy. High cost of living is only a part of the problem. As I get older, it is becoming more and more obvious that most people need to be lead and told what to do. An authoritarian government is necessary. Otherwise you get 20 year old girls partying and spending whatever money they have (or, more likely, credit) on $8.00 “coffee” instead of getting married and spending that money on housing and children.

Problems:
1) Zipf’s law: I believe Toronto will always be the #1 Canadian city because its well-integrated into thr Great Lakes and New England area of the US. This is a problem for Vancouver because it means we’ll get sparesly manned regional offices where Toronto gets headquarters. Not much we can do about this. I believe Vancouver’s demographic destiny is to pass Montreal as #2 in the next 50-100 years. Montreal has too many weaknesses and is being cannibalized by Toronto. Its instructive to look south. Toronto is NY. Montreal is Chicago at #3. And Vancouver is LA on the west coast at #2.
2) Geographic constraints: Only where we can expand is east, as you mentioned.
3) Left wing related politics: Vancouver identifies itself as a nice city. It doesn’t act as a serious city. If it was serious it would bulldoze all these fertile grounds. Regional food independence is really dumb (sorry OP). It would also have allowed the pipeline. And it would start building extremely high density buildings. Vancouver’s high cost of living is because Vancouver is unwilling to grant the zoning laws to build cheaper, ugly, intruding buildings. We’re too worried about having an open-space city, being environmentally friendly, etc. Basically we need to adopt a more aggressive industrial approach to growing our city.

As you said, there is a brain drain of smart young people. That’s because if we look at the strengths of Vancouver, they are all low-level minimum wage service oriented (restaurants for tourists and retirees) or for niche skills (shipping and mining).

Opportunities:
1) Start linking up with the Portland and Seattle areas. Both areas have big industries in tech and aeronautics (Boeing). Make Vancouver the centre of Canadian aeronautics industry. This is one of Canada’s few manufactured exports and will bring massive amounts of jobs. Also brand better Vancouver as the silicon valley of Canada.
2) Make Vancouver the headquarters of companies wanting to sell into Asia, and of Asian companies that want to sell into Canada. We have the ethnic populations, lets take advantage of it.

Vancouver can be what LA (California), Silicon Valley, and Seattle are, all rolled up into one, because Vancouver is the only major city on Canada’s west coast. We can be a monster powerhouse if we do things right.

If we don’t get more business oriented, Vancouver will become a Florida. A place to visit. A place to retire. And a second home for immigrants. But nothing for young people.