7 ms·

I agree. I am big supporter of some form of UBI but there needs to be some thinking along the lines of what services can or should be privatized. For example, I

• mikepurvis 6y ago
  > I would prefer to give people rent checks than to provide public housing in food-desserts and bad school districts. It maybe doesn't always work out great in practice, but at least in theory, municipal governments do have tools for addressing these problems in a deeper, longer-view way than the market and private developers can. Left to its own devices, "the market" will just abandon those food desserts and bad school districts and you end up with the same hollowed-out inner city that was such an issue in the late 20th century. Anyway, whether you bring poor people to a rich neighbourhood (with subsidies, density bonusing), or you bring rich people to a poor neighbourhood (revitalization, gentrification), there are going to be issues, but housing policy is something that requires long term, active stewardship, I think.
• tasogare 6y ago
  > I would prefer to give people rent checks And then rents will augment by that exact amount, screwing up those who don’t get the check and nullifying its benefit for those who do. I know from experience as this is implemented in France (it’s called the APL). Lot of rents are higher than they should for students under the pretext this social aid exists.
  • asdfman123 6y ago
    For a "free market" to work, you also need elastic supply which we unfortunately don't in many larger cities.
  • Ghjklov 6y ago
    Okay, the government could say if landlords increase their rent, then we'll increase their property tax by 5-10x the amount. If they want to play that game, we'll do the same, but much worse. Let's see what they do then.
  • chillacy 6y ago
    A similar relationship exists in the US between ease of getting loans for college and houses and the price of colleges and houses. I don't know if causation is fully established but they do tend to go up together.
• mattmanser 6y ago
  None should be? We've experimented with privatization in the UK. No field has been a success, every one has been a failure afaik. Trains - Worse, terrible in fact Housing - Went from 300k houses p/y being built by councils, to 30k by their privatized replacement. Now severe housing shortage 30 years later Medicine - Terrible, caused deaths in covid crisis, privately managed PPE stocks were a disaster Water - Terrible, all profits have been used to pay shareholders, taken on huge debt. little investment in infrastructure, ticking time bomb before bailout needed Energy - Crazy price increases Prices go up, services worsen, and debts pile up. Tell me again why you think they should be privatized? All that happens is a bunch of privileged shareholders get to mooch off the public purse.
  • michaelt 6y ago
    > Energy - Crazy price increases I certainly agree that a lot of privatisations were messed up, but but in the late 1970s the UK's nationalised industry literally only managed to produce enough electricity to keep the lights on three days a week. It was pretty easy for Thatcher and Blair to sell the concept of privatisation when that was in widespread living memory.
    • mattmanser 6y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Day_Week https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Day_Week Does that look like a failing of the public sector or a oil crisis that targeted the UK specifically?
      • michaelt 6y ago
        Given that the miners who were on strike all worked for the National Coal Board, and that coal was converted into electricity by the Central Electricity Generating Board, it seems like a pretty major failing of nationalised industry to me, yes.
        • mattmanser 6y ago
          Perhaps you failed to read the link, an oil crisis because Capitalism is fucking you over is not a strike.