5 ms·

I think it's too simple. Housing is but one symptom of our dysfunctional societies. That said, I'm all for decommodified housing. As long as capital allocation

I think it's too simple. Housing is but one symptom of our dysfunctional societies. That said, I'm all for decommodified housing. As long as capital allocation is decided undemocratically, there won't be enough housing, food or medicine for everyone.

CooCooCaCha 1y ago
It would make a huge difference though. Cheaper housing would mean more people could walk away from shitty jobs with low risk of ending up homeless. This increases the power of the labor class and would hopefully lead to better working conditions. My pet theory is many of societies problems would significantly improve if we gave more people the ability to walk away.
Nasrudith 1y ago
Decommodification of housing is the exact last thing that you want if your goal is to make housing more affordable. How did that particular buzzword get off the ground?
- thrance 1y ago
  How so? If housing was a right instead of a commodity, it wouldn't be a burden on anyone.
RhysU 1y ago
> there won't be enough housing, food or medicine for everyone. This scarcity of resources is true and it has nothing to do with capital allocation methodology. It's just economics. Human beings collectively have unlimited wants. You can't solve it by changing the allocation method.
- thrance 1y ago
  The want for food, medicine and housing is not unlimited.
  - RhysU 1y ago
    When there's a stable supply of food, medicine, and housing people reproduce. More aggregate people implies more aggregate demand. Suppose only 5% of the population breeds like rabbits in the presence of food, medicine, and housing. It won't take long for that cultural subpopulation to dominate. Humans are not unlike microorganisms in a petri dish when one adds nutrients. All life is.
    - thrance 1y ago
      Wtf are you even talking about. Do you feel like some people should be starved, homeless and sick because else they would "breed like rabbits"? What a deranged view to hold. If you really believe this shit, read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition Humans are very much unlike microorganisms. Populations don't explode when their needs are met, quite the contrary.
      - RhysU 1y ago
        I said human wants are limitless. You said no they're not. I said yes they are, giving the example of population growth as a way that aggregate demand increases even if some people are completely satisfied. This is ECON 101 and a small amount of biology. That's what I am talking about. Notice "need" and "want" are 2 distinct words and you are reading past the difference. Demographic transition in one culture does not imply universal demographic transition across the species. Because those who haven't yet transitioned will control population growth rates. Now why did I say this? Because you opened by presuming that socialism would solve human wants. Which is nonsense. Nothing solves human wants.
        thrance 1y ago
        Demographic transition is absolutely a universal phenomenon, no country has ever been observed taking another path. I reiterate, the need for food, housing and medicine is not unlimited. The population is not infinite and humans have a limited need of these things. Do the math: finite×finite=finite "Nothing solves human wants": what about prices? It seems like it does. It's a flawed solution that leaves some with nothing, but it does solve it. Now, what if we distributed the basic utilities on an as-needed basis. That too would solve "human wants" on those things, and would ideally leave none lacking. Please don't quote "econ 101 and basic biology" at me without actually engaging with what I'm saying. You're ignoring material reality and using abstract nonsense to deter from the subject.
selfmodruntime 1y ago
The scarcity of ground to build on is the only artificial supply limiting factor in these examples.

CooCooCaCha 1y ago

It would make a huge difference though. Cheaper housing would mean more people could walk away from shitty jobs with low risk of ending up homeless. This increases the power of the labor class and would hopefully lead to better working conditions. My pet theory is many of societies problems would significantly improve if we gave more people the ability to walk away.

Nasrudith 1y ago

Decommodification of housing is the exact last thing that you want if your goal is to make housing more affordable. How did that particular buzzword get off the ground?

thrance 1y ago
How so? If housing was a right instead of a commodity, it wouldn't be a burden on anyone.

RhysU 1y ago

> there won't be enough housing, food or medicine for everyone. This scarcity of resources is true and it has nothing to do with capital allocation methodology. It's just economics. Human beings collectively have unlimited wants. You can't solve it by changing the allocation method.

thrance 1y ago
The want for food, medicine and housing is not unlimited.
- RhysU 1y ago
  When there's a stable supply of food, medicine, and housing people reproduce. More aggregate people implies more aggregate demand. Suppose only 5% of the population breeds like rabbits in the presence of food, medicine, and housing. It won't take long for that cultural subpopulation to dominate. Humans are not unlike microorganisms in a petri dish when one adds nutrients. All life is.
  - thrance 1y ago
    Wtf are you even talking about. Do you feel like some people should be starved, homeless and sick because else they would "breed like rabbits"? What a deranged view to hold. If you really believe this shit, read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition Humans are very much unlike microorganisms. Populations don't explode when their needs are met, quite the contrary.
    - RhysU 1y ago
      I said human wants are limitless. You said no they're not. I said yes they are, giving the example of population growth as a way that aggregate demand increases even if some people are completely satisfied. This is ECON 101 and a small amount of biology. That's what I am talking about. Notice "need" and "want" are 2 distinct words and you are reading past the difference. Demographic transition in one culture does not imply universal demographic transition across the species. Because those who haven't yet transitioned will control population growth rates. Now why did I say this? Because you opened by presuming that socialism would solve human wants. Which is nonsense. Nothing solves human wants.
      - thrance 1y ago
        Demographic transition is absolutely a universal phenomenon, no country has ever been observed taking another path. I reiterate, the need for food, housing and medicine is not unlimited. The population is not infinite and humans have a limited need of these things. Do the math: finite×finite=finite "Nothing solves human wants": what about prices? It seems like it does. It's a flawed solution that leaves some with nothing, but it does solve it. Now, what if we distributed the basic utilities on an as-needed basis. That too would solve "human wants" on those things, and would ideally leave none lacking. Please don't quote "econ 101 and basic biology" at me without actually engaging with what I'm saying. You're ignoring material reality and using abstract nonsense to deter from the subject.

selfmodruntime 1y ago

The scarcity of ground to build on is the only artificial supply limiting factor in these examples.