4 ms·

No i'm literally talking about eliminating the free market from the equation for the bare necessities. No vouchers, you give people the minimum required nutrit

by runT1ME 10y ago

No i'm literally talking about eliminating the free market from the equation for the bare necessities. No vouchers, you give people the minimum required nutrition, whoever wants it. Soylent or whatnot. Not vouchers for housing, you build specific housing for this purpose. Basically communism for the bottom rung of society, though anyone is free to participate in the capitalistic parts of society anytime they wish. High wealth individuals coudl just as easily decide to reap the benefits of free housing and/or nutrition. Just a thought.

monknomo 10y ago
That's even harder to do than vouchers. Instead of centrally managing certificates you have an entire country's worth of logistic problems. I can't even begin to imagine the government structure needed to buy store and cart Soylent from Puerto Rico to Alaska. Let alone government built housing keeping up with population distribution changes. I like how your proposal doesn't imply a big public -> private wealth transfer, but I think what you are suggesting is much, much harder than making it rain on everybody
- monknomo 10y ago
  Hold up on my last line ^ Where do you get the soylent/electricity/housing/phone/internet from? Are you proposing that the government fire up soylent plants, buy power plants, build, own and maintain housing and become a telecom provider? Or is the government going to buy from private companies?
  - Grishnakh 10y ago
    Yep, this is a very bad idea for the most part; these things already exist with private industry, so it's much easier for government to just allocate and distribute money, and let people buy things from existing providers instead of getting the government into the distribution of goods business. There's definitely room for more government regulation, especially with housing (that one's a mess, with all the foreign investors pumping up the realty prices; some simple laws should fix that), and also telecom (basically we need to copy whatever Europe's doing there).
    - monknomo 10y ago
      Euro-style telecoms do seem to be kicking US style telecom ass, from a consumer perspective. I know I'm jealous. I think it's hard to untangle foreign investment from local real estate prices without running into some of the US's fundamental "freedom" tenets, but I haven't looked very closely into what we might do. I feel like it is more of a NIMBY problem, most places
      - Grishnakh 10y ago
        It shouldn't be that hard to enact some laws which make it really hard or unprofitable to be an absentee landlord. Perhaps rules requiring property owners to personally show up for annual property inspections? An easy one would be rules preventing corporations from purchasing residential property (after it's been constructed and on the market; it's normal for corporations to own it initially during construction and first-sale). There should be some other sneaky ways that localities could throw up roadblocks to foreign investors and other absentee landlords, and use them to seize the property.
        monknomo 10y ago
        I read about a Seattle law where non-code compliant rentals are forbidden from raising their rent. That might help

by runT1ME 10y ago

monknomo 10y ago

That's even harder to do than vouchers. Instead of centrally managing certificates you have an entire country's worth of logistic problems. I can't even begin to imagine the government structure needed to buy store and cart Soylent from Puerto Rico to Alaska. Let alone government built housing keeping up with population distribution changes. I like how your proposal doesn't imply a big public -> private wealth transfer, but I think what you are suggesting is much, much harder than making it rain on everybody

monknomo 10y ago
Hold up on my last line ^ Where do you get the soylent/electricity/housing/phone/internet from? Are you proposing that the government fire up soylent plants, buy power plants, build, own and maintain housing and become a telecom provider? Or is the government going to buy from private companies?
- Grishnakh 10y ago
  Yep, this is a very bad idea for the most part; these things already exist with private industry, so it's much easier for government to just allocate and distribute money, and let people buy things from existing providers instead of getting the government into the distribution of goods business. There's definitely room for more government regulation, especially with housing (that one's a mess, with all the foreign investors pumping up the realty prices; some simple laws should fix that), and also telecom (basically we need to copy whatever Europe's doing there).
  - monknomo 10y ago
    Euro-style telecoms do seem to be kicking US style telecom ass, from a consumer perspective. I know I'm jealous. I think it's hard to untangle foreign investment from local real estate prices without running into some of the US's fundamental "freedom" tenets, but I haven't looked very closely into what we might do. I feel like it is more of a NIMBY problem, most places
    - Grishnakh 10y ago
      It shouldn't be that hard to enact some laws which make it really hard or unprofitable to be an absentee landlord. Perhaps rules requiring property owners to personally show up for annual property inspections? An easy one would be rules preventing corporations from purchasing residential property (after it's been constructed and on the market; it's normal for corporations to own it initially during construction and first-sale). There should be some other sneaky ways that localities could throw up roadblocks to foreign investors and other absentee landlords, and use them to seize the property.
      - monknomo 10y ago
        I read about a Seattle law where non-code compliant rentals are forbidden from raising their rent. That might help