4 ms·

If the future German Chancellor is here, here's my proposal for your new campaign: "We choose to build one million affordable apartments in four years, not beca

If the future German Chancellor is here, here's my proposal for your new campaign: "We choose to build one million affordable apartments in four years, not because it's easy but because it's hard". It may not solve all of Germany's problems but at least you'll energize the construction sector, alleviate the housing crisis, learn how to finish a construction project on time and you'll have to remove some bureaucracy to reach the deadline. Build them with EV chargers outside and you'll help VW too.

Phelinofist 2y ago
Haha, yeah, forget it. Too much bureaucracy. But I agree, doing something like this would address quite a few issues people have. Which party would tackle that though? I can't think of any.
trhway 2y ago
Interesting that 2 similar problems - water rise and population increase - are treated that differently, i.e. it is considered normal that the government would build levies/etc. while the government building housing is an abomination.
- illiac786 2y ago
  Well, it has been a race to the bottom to be fair, any infra is just becoming derelict, railways, levies are a very good example of infra in very bad state btw.
go13 2y ago
[dead]
baybal2 2y ago
[dead]
0x000xca0xfe 2y ago
That was essentially the slogan of the current coalition and they failed completely.
- atoav 2y ago
  I have a deep dislike for Scholz (SPD), but this is for the biggest part the fault of Lindner/finance minister (FDP) who was an absolute disgrace and unable to make a compromise. You can't tell me he didn't negotiate before with the other two parties about what the compromises would be. Leave it or stick with it.
- qwertox 2y ago
  "Schuldenbremse". "Debt"+"brake", brake as in what forces a car to stop. Keep in mind that Russian's attack on the Ukraine, which lead to the destruction of the Nord Stream pipeline, didn't happen until after the election. I don't understand how people blend this out so easily. Let's assume your important car breaks down because of a strange, non-technical reason, which isn't covered by any insurance. If you don't have enough money, you will have to borrow some, you will have to go into debt, unless you are able to reduce your expenses otherwise. During the entire time of this coalition you had the finance minister saying that the debt brake is holy, therefore restricting in cash those in the coalition which his party disliked the most, always saying: "But the debt brake." - well knowing that those affected by the constrained cash flow would get bad publicity because they can't do their job, corrected: because they're personally unfit to do what they should do, because "they are losers". All this, while not proposing a real solution to the problem. They suggested to decrease government spending, which is - of course - something every government should strive for, but this is something which cannot be done in a few years if it means to reduce bureaucracy. This requires modification of laws, which always is a slow process, and firing officials, which is a no-go for absolutely every party. Their reasonable expectation of lowering financial support for those who are too lazy to work or are illegal immigrants, which are able to live without working because of it's better for them to just cash-in from the government, isn't something which would free up a significant amount of cash. Nevertheless it's something which should be done to send a signal. Cheap gas had become the foundation of Germany's economy, which is why the USA and other European countries rightly always pointed out that Germany is too reliant on Russian gas. So it's kind odd if now the opposition blames the current government for all the problems. There are also enough videos which show the finance minister saying that the automotive industry has no problems in competitiveness. This was pre-pandemic, post Dieselgate. Because that was what the automotive industry paid him for to say. And now they are surprised that they are collapsing.
jalapenos 2y ago
It's unbelievably bad government behaviour. Allow mass immigration, to enjoy the boost in tax revenues and GDP, while dumping all the costs and fallout on the people. Rents skyrocketed, utility bills getting more expensive, waiting twice as long for a doctor? Well that's not my problem, is it pleb? It'd be one thing if they were actively clearing the path for it to minimise impact. Preemptively clearing land and building hospitals etc. But that would imply something about these people that they definitely are not. Ruled by the worst among us.
- greenavocado 2y ago
  I invite anybody to show me any credible evidence the immigration has a positive Net Present Value (NPV). The purpose was the destruction of the status quo, not improved tax revenues and GDP, but rather its replacement with a compliant, desperate, and above all else, an obedient population.
  - andsoitis 2y ago
    Research by Cato Institute: https://www.cato.org/blog/fiscal-impact-immigration-united-states https://www.cato.org/blog/fiscal-impact-immigration-united-s... “To put their impact in perspective, in 2018, the average per capita fiscal contribution of first-generation immigrants was $16,207. In contrast, the average drain was $11,361, resulting in a net positive fiscal impact of $4,846 per immigrant in 2012 dollars. Multiplied by the number of immigrants present in 2018 (45.4 million), this amount results in a cumulative net fiscal impact of +$220 billion. Adjusted for inflation, that number is 1.2 percent of U.S. GDP in 2018 ($18.7 trillion in 2012 dollars) and 3.7 percent of all 2018 government spending ($6.031 trillion in 2012 dollars). The former number is roughly in line with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s 2006–2018 estimates, which are 1 percent for the United States and between plus or minus 1 percent for most OECD countries” And ”The Cato Model finds that immigrant individuals who arrive at age 25 and who are high school dropouts have a net fiscal impact of +$216,000 in net present value terms over the next 30 years, which does not include their descendants. Including the fiscal impact of those immigrants’ descendants reduces those immigrants’ net fiscal impact to +$57,000. By comparison, native-born American high school dropouts of the same age have a net fiscal impact of −$32,000 that drops to −$177,000 when their descendants are included (Table 31).”
octacat 2y ago
People who already have property would not be happy because the government would spend huge money on a program they are not interested. And it could make the houses prices lower (which could be not popular for people, who already paying a loan). Would attract people who are renting though.
- atoav 2y ago
  As a home owner in Germany: it is important to me that my fellow citizens have a place to live than whether I earn 15% more or less with rent. Also: If there is too much pressure, my risk of even harsher messures will rise, e.g. expropriation has happened before.
  - octacat 2y ago
    Right, the high percent of people owning the houses gives extra stability to the country. It keeps prices reasonable and gives overall more options (wanna change a city for a new job? wanna start a family? need some space for your extra hobby, which could give you some money potentially?). Sadly, not many people connect all the dots.
- cedws 2y ago
  A sign of bureaucratic death spiral is when nothing gets done because someone would be upset.
  - octacat 2y ago
    It is pretty simple, parties estimated how many votes and influence they could get. And decided it is too little. The only way is to be more noisy (protests, pressing politicians to do it).

Phelinofist 2y ago

Haha, yeah, forget it. Too much bureaucracy. But I agree, doing something like this would address quite a few issues people have. Which party would tackle that though? I can't think of any.

trhway 2y ago

Interesting that 2 similar problems - water rise and population increase - are treated that differently, i.e. it is considered normal that the government would build levies/etc. while the government building housing is an abomination.

illiac786 2y ago
Well, it has been a race to the bottom to be fair, any infra is just becoming derelict, railways, levies are a very good example of infra in very bad state btw.

go13 2y ago

[dead]

baybal2 2y ago

[dead]

0x000xca0xfe 2y ago

That was essentially the slogan of the current coalition and they failed completely.

atoav 2y ago
I have a deep dislike for Scholz (SPD), but this is for the biggest part the fault of Lindner/finance minister (FDP) who was an absolute disgrace and unable to make a compromise. You can't tell me he didn't negotiate before with the other two parties about what the compromises would be. Leave it or stick with it.
qwertox 2y ago
"Schuldenbremse". "Debt"+"brake", brake as in what forces a car to stop. Keep in mind that Russian's attack on the Ukraine, which lead to the destruction of the Nord Stream pipeline, didn't happen until after the election. I don't understand how people blend this out so easily. Let's assume your important car breaks down because of a strange, non-technical reason, which isn't covered by any insurance. If you don't have enough money, you will have to borrow some, you will have to go into debt, unless you are able to reduce your expenses otherwise. During the entire time of this coalition you had the finance minister saying that the debt brake is holy, therefore restricting in cash those in the coalition which his party disliked the most, always saying: "But the debt brake." - well knowing that those affected by the constrained cash flow would get bad publicity because they can't do their job, corrected: because they're personally unfit to do what they should do, because "they are losers". All this, while not proposing a real solution to the problem. They suggested to decrease government spending, which is - of course - something every government should strive for, but this is something which cannot be done in a few years if it means to reduce bureaucracy. This requires modification of laws, which always is a slow process, and firing officials, which is a no-go for absolutely every party. Their reasonable expectation of lowering financial support for those who are too lazy to work or are illegal immigrants, which are able to live without working because of it's better for them to just cash-in from the government, isn't something which would free up a significant amount of cash. Nevertheless it's something which should be done to send a signal. Cheap gas had become the foundation of Germany's economy, which is why the USA and other European countries rightly always pointed out that Germany is too reliant on Russian gas. So it's kind odd if now the opposition blames the current government for all the problems. There are also enough videos which show the finance minister saying that the automotive industry has no problems in competitiveness. This was pre-pandemic, post Dieselgate. Because that was what the automotive industry paid him for to say. And now they are surprised that they are collapsing.

jalapenos 2y ago

It's unbelievably bad government behaviour. Allow mass immigration, to enjoy the boost in tax revenues and GDP, while dumping all the costs and fallout on the people. Rents skyrocketed, utility bills getting more expensive, waiting twice as long for a doctor? Well that's not my problem, is it pleb? It'd be one thing if they were actively clearing the path for it to minimise impact. Preemptively clearing land and building hospitals etc. But that would imply something about these people that they definitely are not. Ruled by the worst among us.

greenavocado 2y ago
I invite anybody to show me any credible evidence the immigration has a positive Net Present Value (NPV). The purpose was the destruction of the status quo, not improved tax revenues and GDP, but rather its replacement with a compliant, desperate, and above all else, an obedient population.
- andsoitis 2y ago
  Research by Cato Institute: https://www.cato.org/blog/fiscal-impact-immigration-united-states https://www.cato.org/blog/fiscal-impact-immigration-united-s... “To put their impact in perspective, in 2018, the average per capita fiscal contribution of first-generation immigrants was $16,207. In contrast, the average drain was $11,361, resulting in a net positive fiscal impact of $4,846 per immigrant in 2012 dollars. Multiplied by the number of immigrants present in 2018 (45.4 million), this amount results in a cumulative net fiscal impact of +$220 billion. Adjusted for inflation, that number is 1.2 percent of U.S. GDP in 2018 ($18.7 trillion in 2012 dollars) and 3.7 percent of all 2018 government spending ($6.031 trillion in 2012 dollars). The former number is roughly in line with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s 2006–2018 estimates, which are 1 percent for the United States and between plus or minus 1 percent for most OECD countries” And ”The Cato Model finds that immigrant individuals who arrive at age 25 and who are high school dropouts have a net fiscal impact of +$216,000 in net present value terms over the next 30 years, which does not include their descendants. Including the fiscal impact of those immigrants’ descendants reduces those immigrants’ net fiscal impact to +$57,000. By comparison, native-born American high school dropouts of the same age have a net fiscal impact of −$32,000 that drops to −$177,000 when their descendants are included (Table 31).”

octacat 2y ago

People who already have property would not be happy because the government would spend huge money on a program they are not interested. And it could make the houses prices lower (which could be not popular for people, who already paying a loan). Would attract people who are renting though.

atoav 2y ago
As a home owner in Germany: it is important to me that my fellow citizens have a place to live than whether I earn 15% more or less with rent. Also: If there is too much pressure, my risk of even harsher messures will rise, e.g. expropriation has happened before.
- octacat 2y ago
  Right, the high percent of people owning the houses gives extra stability to the country. It keeps prices reasonable and gives overall more options (wanna change a city for a new job? wanna start a family? need some space for your extra hobby, which could give you some money potentially?). Sadly, not many people connect all the dots.
cedws 2y ago
A sign of bureaucratic death spiral is when nothing gets done because someone would be upset.
- octacat 2y ago
  It is pretty simple, parties estimated how many votes and influence they could get. And decided it is too little. The only way is to be more noisy (protests, pressing politicians to do it).