You need to know what right-half-plane zeros are
I think this article is trying to make a political statement, "Our leaders have just done something that is going to cause a future problem, a crash".<p>I have only read the linked article, I think the followup might be available, but I'm not going to read it before posting this -- because this article was meant to be clickbait, to get you hooked and possibly mis-informed.<p>The article as it stands (incomplete) contains some classic argument fallacies.<p>It is an "appeal to authority", by attempting to explain control theory. This person knows something.<p>The examples all result in bad things, airplanes crashing, hard drives (crashing - perhaps a stretch). Bicycle at the edge of a cliff. Eating too much ice cream. Chernobyl. This is a possible "appeal to emotion".<p>The final issue is an "incomplete comparison". The graph at the bottom of the article shows housing prices -- all of the previous examples have mathematical models which can explain the behavior. For the last graph no model (the equations) is presented. Without a model you cannot  use control theory to analyze the zeros and poles.<p>The last graph wants you to believe in a continuing upward trend, the fallacious argument, implies that whatever the Canadian political change that has been made is going to make this trend to zero, despite the intention to keep it trending upwards.<p>Background: A long time ago, as a mathematics undergraduate, I did take a course in control theory, it was run out of the engineering department. It was somewhat awkward as quite a few mathematical terms were not-quite-the-same. I get the same unease when reading this for poles, zeros and right-half-planes. Any engineering textbooks that use j for sqrt(-1) instead of i (because that is taken) is an indicator. Yup, this could be construed as an "appeal to authority".