4 ms·

The prices are what people on mass are agreeing to pay. There isn't a land lord conspiracy raising the rent. Should some third party decide this instead? Shoul

The prices are what people on mass are agreeing to pay. There isn't a land lord conspiracy raising the rent. Should some third party decide this instead? Should this apply to to every transaction, not just rents? Instead, in a free market people make decisions on their own, do they want to live close to town where it's expensive or would they prefer out of town where it's cheaper etc. Having some third party decide prices sounds reasonable at first but the freedom it removes is huge. Also price fixing always has the same impact. Reduced supply.

southerntofu 5y ago
It's not exactly a worldwide conspiracy of landlords, because there's not a single table gathering them all to drive this plan. But there is a great amount of coordination between landlords and local politicians in the process of gentrification. Gentrification is something a single owner can't achieve, and that a disorganized group of owners can't achieve. It requires a strong coordination with public authority to deploy efforts to "clean the neighborhood", "evict squats and replace them with nice-looking artistic venues" or "setup new transport connections". See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentrification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentrification > Reduced supply I'd like to see evidence of that. Despite their glaring architectural issues, many public housing programs in Europe after WWII have led to cheap housing for many people. Here in France public housing in big cities, my approximation is that public housing rents are 10-40% the private market rents. Also, the waiting lists are long nowadays (was not already the case) because our governments are dismantling public housing programs and slowly privatizing anything. Finally, why would "reduced supply" matter when there's already an abundance of empty apartments/houses? Without even mentioning vacant office space which is a scandal on its own, there's millions of empty living spaces in the global north. According to official french gov. statistics it's 2.6M empty apartments.
- bennysomething 5y ago
  You think there is an abundance of empty apartments? Based on what?
  - southerntofu 5y ago
    It's a well-known and studied fact in the global north, keyword "gentrification". For example french government's statistical body INSEE has detailed statistics on that, which claim 2.6M empty dwellings france-wide (not counting secondary housing, and not counting industrial/office space). The "housing crisis" is a scam organized by landowners and public authorities to further land-based speculation. Back when there was last a real housing crisis in Europe after WWII's destructions, governments setup public/social housing programs see for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HLM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HLM When the people with power and privilege actually want to fix something, they can actually do it. There's just no incentive for them to solve the housing problem when they or their friends directly benefit from driving prices upwards. Of course, in the 1940-50s the incentive was the risk of "communism", and most capitalist economies (even the USA under Roosevelt) adopted strong social measures. To give context on that for example, France's communist party had 20-30% of votes in legislative elections at that time. I'm definitely no supporter of the communist party, but i would understand how a third of the country's electorate voting for communists would put pressure on the right-wing to develop social measures and fast.
    - bennysomething 5y ago
      Sorry, not being a pedant for the sake of it, where can I actually see some statistics showing confiscating empty dwellings would significantly reduce the prices of houses? I don't buy it. Instead look at Japan and new Zealand, their planning policy acknowledged the simple fact of supply and demand and adapted, taller building with smaller apartments allowed in sought after areas.
      - southerntofu 5y ago
        > where can I actually see some statistics showing confiscating empty dwellings would significantly reduce the prices of houses? I don't know of statistics on that question, however an anecdote: after WII across Europe it became very common for governments and city councils to "requisition" buildings/houses and for people to squat empty dwellings, and that is part of how the housing crisis was faced (alongside public plans for more public housing). There's even a law in France (and to my knowledge in other countries) which says if you've squatted land/house for 20 or more years and paid your local taxes duly, you automatically become owner of that piece of land. > taller building with smaller apartments allowed in sought after areas And then you have a strongly degrading quality of life (everyone living in a small rabbit cage) and suddenly you need to invest billions more in infrastructure. For example, for cities built on ancient mines/swamps, building higher/heavier means you need to reinforce the underground and are always at risk of collapsing buildings/streets. Why try to centralize everything? Why push the agenda of the construction sector/mafia by pretending building anew is the only solution to all our problems? Why pretend they do it to fight homelessness, when the proportion of empty buildings keeps rising alongside the number of homeless folks and new constructions? For the rise of empty buildings, see for example: - https://en.squat.net/2016/05/27/netherlands-housing-crisis/ https://en.squat.net/2016/05/27/netherlands-housing-crisis/ : Netherlands, about empty office space rising in proportion after the squatting ban, and the criminalization of poverty - https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/3572856 https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/3572856 : France, only about housing space ; over 25 years every year, population grew by 0.4%, number of housing units by 1.0%, and number of abandoned housing units by 2.8% ; abandoned housing units is 10% globally, which does not include 6% additional percent of secondary/professional residence Both these stats are official government statistics. Also worth considering, the environmental cost of building new stuff when there's no need. When do we stop? Where do all the materials come from (eg. sand for the concrete)? Infinite growth is madness.
jevgeni 5y ago
Living location is not a type of good that can be chosen freely, it's a necessity. Hence free markets don't really apply here.
- bennysomething 5y ago
  So what's the alternative? Edit: food is also a necessity, should that be government controlled too?
  - candiodari 5y ago
    I think you'll find most European nations have in fact communist-style central price setting for basic food. Nothing comfortable, it's like (one type of) bread and one basic jam that's regulated. Stores have to offer it, they have to ask a specific (very low) price. I hear in france you get cheese too. Which means as long as you're happy with very basic food, you can eat for, I believe in the Netherlands it's 37 euro per month. And yes, you can buy it in any supermarket (I believe the exact rule is that if they sell bread, they have to have this option available at the government mandated price). Of course, in practice there are mostly cheaper options available, so we even have all the parts of communist/government intervention: it mostly misses the point.
  - jevgeni 5y ago
    What I’m saying, is that free market is a bad model for the reality of renting or owning a home.

southerntofu 5y ago

It's not exactly a worldwide conspiracy of landlords, because there's not a single table gathering them all to drive this plan. But there is a great amount of coordination between landlords and local politicians in the process of gentrification. Gentrification is something a single owner can't achieve, and that a disorganized group of owners can't achieve. It requires a strong coordination with public authority to deploy efforts to "clean the neighborhood", "evict squats and replace them with nice-looking artistic venues" or "setup new transport connections". See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentrification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentrification > Reduced supply I'd like to see evidence of that. Despite their glaring architectural issues, many public housing programs in Europe after WWII have led to cheap housing for many people. Here in France public housing in big cities, my approximation is that public housing rents are 10-40% the private market rents. Also, the waiting lists are long nowadays (was not already the case) because our governments are dismantling public housing programs and slowly privatizing anything. Finally, why would "reduced supply" matter when there's already an abundance of empty apartments/houses? Without even mentioning vacant office space which is a scandal on its own, there's millions of empty living spaces in the global north. According to official french gov. statistics it's 2.6M empty apartments.

bennysomething 5y ago
You think there is an abundance of empty apartments? Based on what?
- southerntofu 5y ago
  It's a well-known and studied fact in the global north, keyword "gentrification". For example french government's statistical body INSEE has detailed statistics on that, which claim 2.6M empty dwellings france-wide (not counting secondary housing, and not counting industrial/office space). The "housing crisis" is a scam organized by landowners and public authorities to further land-based speculation. Back when there was last a real housing crisis in Europe after WWII's destructions, governments setup public/social housing programs see for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HLM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HLM When the people with power and privilege actually want to fix something, they can actually do it. There's just no incentive for them to solve the housing problem when they or their friends directly benefit from driving prices upwards. Of course, in the 1940-50s the incentive was the risk of "communism", and most capitalist economies (even the USA under Roosevelt) adopted strong social measures. To give context on that for example, France's communist party had 20-30% of votes in legislative elections at that time. I'm definitely no supporter of the communist party, but i would understand how a third of the country's electorate voting for communists would put pressure on the right-wing to develop social measures and fast.
  - bennysomething 5y ago
    Sorry, not being a pedant for the sake of it, where can I actually see some statistics showing confiscating empty dwellings would significantly reduce the prices of houses? I don't buy it. Instead look at Japan and new Zealand, their planning policy acknowledged the simple fact of supply and demand and adapted, taller building with smaller apartments allowed in sought after areas.
    - southerntofu 5y ago
      > where can I actually see some statistics showing confiscating empty dwellings would significantly reduce the prices of houses? I don't know of statistics on that question, however an anecdote: after WII across Europe it became very common for governments and city councils to "requisition" buildings/houses and for people to squat empty dwellings, and that is part of how the housing crisis was faced (alongside public plans for more public housing). There's even a law in France (and to my knowledge in other countries) which says if you've squatted land/house for 20 or more years and paid your local taxes duly, you automatically become owner of that piece of land. > taller building with smaller apartments allowed in sought after areas And then you have a strongly degrading quality of life (everyone living in a small rabbit cage) and suddenly you need to invest billions more in infrastructure. For example, for cities built on ancient mines/swamps, building higher/heavier means you need to reinforce the underground and are always at risk of collapsing buildings/streets. Why try to centralize everything? Why push the agenda of the construction sector/mafia by pretending building anew is the only solution to all our problems? Why pretend they do it to fight homelessness, when the proportion of empty buildings keeps rising alongside the number of homeless folks and new constructions? For the rise of empty buildings, see for example: - https://en.squat.net/2016/05/27/netherlands-housing-crisis/ https://en.squat.net/2016/05/27/netherlands-housing-crisis/ : Netherlands, about empty office space rising in proportion after the squatting ban, and the criminalization of poverty - https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/3572856 https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/3572856 : France, only about housing space ; over 25 years every year, population grew by 0.4%, number of housing units by 1.0%, and number of abandoned housing units by 2.8% ; abandoned housing units is 10% globally, which does not include 6% additional percent of secondary/professional residence Both these stats are official government statistics. Also worth considering, the environmental cost of building new stuff when there's no need. When do we stop? Where do all the materials come from (eg. sand for the concrete)? Infinite growth is madness.

jevgeni 5y ago

Living location is not a type of good that can be chosen freely, it's a necessity. Hence free markets don't really apply here.

bennysomething 5y ago
So what's the alternative? Edit: food is also a necessity, should that be government controlled too?
- candiodari 5y ago
  I think you'll find most European nations have in fact communist-style central price setting for basic food. Nothing comfortable, it's like (one type of) bread and one basic jam that's regulated. Stores have to offer it, they have to ask a specific (very low) price. I hear in france you get cheese too. Which means as long as you're happy with very basic food, you can eat for, I believe in the Netherlands it's 37 euro per month. And yes, you can buy it in any supermarket (I believe the exact rule is that if they sell bread, they have to have this option available at the government mandated price). Of course, in practice there are mostly cheaper options available, so we even have all the parts of communist/government intervention: it mostly misses the point.
- jevgeni 5y ago
  What I’m saying, is that free market is a bad model for the reality of renting or owning a home.