3 ms·

That feels to me like a straw man. Poverty rate in Sweden is, like in most of Western Europe, low. [1] whilst the cost of living is lower than in the USA as an

That feels to me like a straw man. Poverty rate in Sweden is, like in most of Western Europe, low. [1] whilst the cost of living is lower than in the USA as an example. [2] At the same time schools, university, healthcare, social services, is accessible to everyone. There is a shortage of housing, only 0.8% of rental properties are availbe for rent[3] but it isn’t necessarily only a failure of government as the housing market is largely commercial, only 19% of housing is owned by the government [4]. [1] https://data.oecd.org/inequality/poverty-rate.htm https://data.oecd.org/inequality/poverty-rate.htm [2] https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/rankings_by_country.jsp https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/rankings_by_country.js... [3] https://www.scb.se/en/finding-statistics/statistics-by-subject-area/housing-construction-and-building/income-costs-and-unlet-dwellings-in-multi-dwelling-buildings/unlet-dwellings-in-multi-dwelling-buildings/ https://www.scb.se/en/finding-statistics/statistics-by-subje... [4] https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/US_and_Sweden_Comparison_Overview.pdf https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/11...

klipt 4y ago
No I mention housing supply because it is an issue that cuts orthogonally across the popular left-right dimension. Japan is very capitalist but builds lots of housing because landowners can build up with little zoning restrictions. The USSR was very communist and they also built a lot of housing because the government just went in and did it. But the USA and Europe seem to easily get stuck in NIMBY traps where nothing gets built, and then when prices go up due to lack of supply people will reach for solutions like rent control, which almost 100% of economists will tell you is bad for longterm housing supply because it discourages new construction. I've heard Stockholm's rent control is especially stupid because while the landlord is forced to rent to the primary tenant at a low, below market rate, that primary tenant can turn around and sublet their entire unit at a much higher, market rate to a secondary tenant. So the primary lease is basically a capital asset with perpetual returns. The unit ends up renting for market rate anyway to the secondary tenant, while the primary tenant collects free money.

klipt 4y ago

No I mention housing supply because it is an issue that cuts orthogonally across the popular left-right dimension. Japan is very capitalist but builds lots of housing because landowners can build up with little zoning restrictions. The USSR was very communist and they also built a lot of housing because the government just went in and did it. But the USA and Europe seem to easily get stuck in NIMBY traps where nothing gets built, and then when prices go up due to lack of supply people will reach for solutions like rent control, which almost 100% of economists will tell you is bad for longterm housing supply because it discourages new construction. I've heard Stockholm's rent control is especially stupid because while the landlord is forced to rent to the primary tenant at a low, below market rate, that primary tenant can turn around and sublet their entire unit at a much higher, market rate to a secondary tenant. So the primary lease is basically a capital asset with perpetual returns. The unit ends up renting for market rate anyway to the secondary tenant, while the primary tenant collects free money.