Housing Crisis - a novel idea

[Mike Hill]

13 minutes ago, sime42 said:

 

 

Coming back to housing - I wonder how the house building industry and housing market is set up in the Nordic countries. I don't know, but I'm guessing they don't have a monopoly of just three big, bloated private companies like we have here. Pretty sure new developments will be more people/community/planet friendly as well in terms of green space, flood mitigation measures, not car centric, (cycle and pedestrian infrastructure), easily accessible community amenities, shops and all that good stuff.

 

Speaking for Norway,there are a plethora of home builders,they all cost about the same however.

 

An exception are the kit set builds from the Baltics,they arrive in containers and the Baltic  lads knock them up rapidly. You save a bit,especially if you have done the groundwork yourself.

 

Rental properties are taxed as income,you also need 40% down to buy one. You can still leverage it against an existing dwelling.

 

Permitting builds is a nightmare, the government wants to build up not out. Here in Bergen you can't build a stand alone house that doesn't include rental in it,the rent is tax free so it just drives up the host house value.

 

The government wants everyone to walk or cycle,somehow still arrive on time whilst collecting the kids too.

 

There are one hell of alit less people here though,outside the cities you can get a house for £50.No hospitals shops or jobs in those areas though.

[AHPP]

On 02/12/2023 at 13:46, doobin said:

a free market will never exist. As one group grows more powerful their vested interests take over, as we see now with the dominance of developers.

 

 

An alternative way of looking at it is that we sort of have a free market; that's to say the world's a blank canvas and what we have is what we have. It certainly tallies with the fictional (but not fictional) nature of statehood. Since humans enjoy various delusions of constructs like socialism though, there's nothing stopping us having a go at the construct of minarchism or anarchy.

 

7 hours ago, doobin said:

 

 Council housing built en mass in the 50s (a lot of it for returning veterans- home fit for here’s etc) set the stage for one of the longest periods of stability this country has known. 
 

Like it or not, we live in a society. @AHPPlikes to espouse anarchy as a suitable soloution, but let’s be realistic. The government dissolves- unless you band together with other like minded folk then you are toast. So you team up with others, and agree to their rules. Walking Dead, anyone? Hey presto, you’re in a society again. So that argument is just as utopian bullshit as the idea of socialist utopia. As a nod to this though, I could get on board with the idea of extreme devolution, and free movement for those originally in the union between devolved states to find one that best fits their ideals. I don’t see the United States lasting in its current form, the Southern states are just too different and will secede. 
 

Unbridled capitalism doesn’t work either. Vested interest always start to take over and subjugate the weaker- and by weaker, that can just be those who were born a few years too late (see housing crisis. If you are living in a council house now, what chance do you think your children have?) This model of passing down ‘housing wealth’ to help your children buy their first house isn’t good for society as a whole, it leads to a schism between the haves and have nots. That’s not ‘socialist bullshit’- it’s reality. Take it to its logical conclusion and in the absence of alternative governance (most likely, we are at a tipping point now in terms of voters with/without housing), you’re either at French Revolution or more likely a dystopian sci fi scenario. 

I think the only way this can work is with the whole country pulling in the national interest. Obviously some hard choices have to be made, immigration is the obvious one for me. Cut it totally. You’ll never hear a ‘stereotypical’ socialist say that- in their utopia this country can support everyone. Well, it can’t. We should be looking to maximise quality of life for those already here. 
 

 

Stability is obviously very pleasant at the time if you have a job and a house etc but the comfort in that that period allowed all these problems we're talking about now to grow. The socialist policies that gave that stability kicked the can down the road. Socialist policy now would kick it further down the road. It doesn't work forever. Partially thermodynamics, mainly peasants with pitchforks when pushed too far.

 

Where are you on monetary policy? I say that's the first thing to fix. I assume you put it lower on the list?

 

 

 

 

Edited December 3, 2023 by AHPP

[AHPP]

7 hours ago, Stere said:

Council house building leading to  gas chambers is  abit of a leap.

 

Also socialism definition means different things to different people  -the  nordic model etc as an example but it often seems to taken as no different from communism.

 

It's not. It sounds bombastic but people voted for socialism based on the election pledges of the German socialist party, among them that everybody should have a job, food, housing etc. Then they gassed a load of jews. A hard thing to grasp because we live in a pretty friendly world on a day-to-day basis but the evil is real and present.

 

Socialism, communism, collectivism etc etc etc. I use the words fairly interchangeably. It's just authoritarianism (as opposed to libertarianism). It's a scale, not discrete ideological identities 

[AHPP]

Right. I'm opening a box of wine. Let's fkking have it.

[Mick Dempsey]

 

[Dan]

12 minutes ago, AHPP said:

 

It's not. It sounds bombastic but people voted for socialism based on the election pledges of the German socialist party, among them that everybody should have a job, food, housing etc. Then they gassed a load of jews. A hard thing to grasp because we live in a pretty friendly world on a day-to-day basis but the evil is real and present.

 

Socialism, communism, collectivism etc etc etc. I use the words fairly interchangeably. It's just authoritarianism (as opposed to libertarianism). It's a scale, not discrete ideological identities 

I think you'll find that the nazis weren't socialist. Hiltler took over a group with socialists, but as soon as he gained control he used the money from some big industrialists to take control and then sent the socialists and communist faction of the group to the concentration camps. He also outlawed the trade unions. 

[AHPP]

I don't care what you call what flavour of authoritarianism.It's authoritarianism, centralisation of power.

[Dan]

2 minutes ago, AHPP said:

I don't care what you call what flavour of authoritarianism.It's authoritarianism, centralisation of power.

Surely if the people democratically choose centralisation of power, then its OK?

Some countries have a great record of organising themselves for the benefit of their population. 

[Steven P]

... absolute power corrupts absolutely.... Totalitarian regimes, left, right, centre, with not opposition have never come out right.

 

However when I rule the world it will be different

[AHPP]

2 minutes ago, Dan said:

Surely if the people democratically choose centralisation of power, then its OK?

Some countries have a great record of organising themselves for the benefit of their population. 

 

As long as they choose it for themselves only, that's fine. The problem is that democracy is 51 people telling 49 people what to do (far worse with the various voting systems we actually have). Plus there's always mission creep. You think you need a state to do something you perceive as lofty/complicated. The next minute, they're banging people up for an expired dog license.

 

Where are these countries and why don't I know about them already?