67 replies to this topic

[arjan]

A bond is still participating in the economy, if you purchase a $10,000 municipal bond, for example, that's $10,000 that that municipality has to spend on projects and payroll.

That's how they're meant to work, yeah, but as this point I'm pretty much convinced the stock market is so corrupt that only a fraction of the money actually does recycle.


So, what, apartments would become rent controlled, ancestral housing? What happens when parents have two or more children? Who gets their home and where does the other one live? Or what happens when people with a nice home die without any heirs? Or what happens when the studio apartment that suited you just fine as a struggling single guy is a bit small for a highly successful father of three? Or what happens when a perfectly serviceable building suffers damage or natural decay that renders it unlivable? There need to be plenty of methods for mobility.

You will get to own your apartment, you just won't be able to sell it. Sure, it will be a challenge, but you seem to forget that there is now a massive amount of money that will be put to good use solving all those problems. Housing is often very limited now because the people who have a say in the business will not build new real estate because the prices have to stay up. Lord knows what would happen if people discover housing doesn't actually have to be a scarcity! Cal me crazy, but I believe it will be alright if houses will actually be built according to the needs of the public.

It's been done before, kind of a communist idea. You'd have to come up with an enormous regulatory body to assign housing privileges, which would be prone to corruption.You'd probably end up with everybody living in something like Soviet style apartment blocks. When people don't have some sense of ownership of the houses, it's also very likely they'll fall into disrepair.

It's definitely not an all new idea, but like everything done right or bad it will eventually come to good planning and proper execution. In my view there definitely won't be an enormous regulatory body, cause you're right, that will breed corruption. There are other options like small local comittees to prevent this, which you will get to serve on pretty much like in the jury system, Or maybe accredition of new houses can even be done 100% democratically via higly secure polls on the internet. As I said there will be financial transparancy and ofcourse there will be much legal planning.


Most of the public housing in the Netherlands is owned by woningbouwverenigingen. I think that's what my namesake means by housing corporation.

Yes. My bad. I assumed this was a common phenomenon, but apparently it isn't quite that widespread. Corporations that own houses that they rent for profit.

[arjan]

Yeah, which was kind of my point, You could certainly set up such a thing, even come up with some really snazzy rules for how it's meant to operate, but in practice it just sounds like something where human nature would ruin the whole thing.

According to the latest research even the rich will eventually be better off with a more egalitarian society, seeing that they won't have to be afraid anymore of losing it all.

Only for those speaking Dutch, I'm afraid.

http://www.uitzendin...eringen/1249200

Edited by arjan, 05 May 2012 - 01:58 AM.

[Ogul]

That's how they're meant to work, yeah, but as this point I'm pretty much convinced the stock market is so corrupt that only a fraction of the money actually does recycle.

Ok, but you're wrong, so now we can move forward knowing that.

You will get to own your apartment, you just won't be able to sell it. Sure, it will be a challenge, but you seem to forget that there is now a massive amount of money that will be put to good use solving all those problems. Housing is often very limited now because the people who have a say in the business will not build new real estate because the prices have to stay up. Lord knows what would happen if people discover housing doesn't actually have to be a scarcity! Cal me crazy, but I believe it will be alright if houses will actually be built according to the needs of the public.

We have a massive surplus of housing in the US, thousands of perfectly nice homes are lying unused because the banks are unwilling to sell them for any less than they feel they're worth. The real estate industry really doesn't have any need for scarcity.

. There are other options like small local comittees to prevent this, which you will get to serve on pretty much like in the jury system,

That seems even more prone to corruption.

According to a three part Dutch documentary revistiting the values of the French Revolution in modern society (which had a whole host of experts from all kinds of fields) we're basically nice if treated nice and everyone is better off with a more equal society, even the rich (since they don't have to be scared anymore of losing it all).

Sure, that all makes sense, except for the part where it involves people.

[arjan]

I didn't know there was a surplus of housing in the US. Nice! Well, that only just makes the plan work better, now doesn't it?

And I'm not wrong about the stock market (as Surviving Progress undoubtedly will show once more).

[Ogul]

I didn't know there was a surplus of housing in the US. Nice! Well, that only just makes the plan work better, now doesn't it?

As I've said, something should be done about the vacant homes out there, but that doesn't mean that the housing market should be dismantled completely.

[Christian U]

I find it difficult to imagine a working system that works where money is entirely removed from the housing situation. For one thing, who decides who gets the nice appartments?

On the other hand, it's always interesting to think about other models, considering the one we have doesn't really convince me. Because, well...

Yeah, which was kind of my point, You could certainly set up such a thing, even come up with some really snazzy rules for how it's meant to operate, but in practice it just sounds like something where human nature would ruin the whole thing.

The thing is that the system we currently have, the one that runs the entire world, sort of goes against human nature, as well. Money is supposed and expected to be our primary motivation, but that's not really how we work. For example:

[Ogul]

I find it difficult to imagine a working system that works where money is entirely removed from the housing situation. For one thing, who decides who gets the nice appartments?

Accounts differ, but apparently a small collection of random individuals and/or a democratic vote amongst the entire community would determine who gets to live where. And of course such a system would in no way be limited by personal biases ("Well I'm not going to let those people live near me"), fear of the unknown ("since you're new to the neighborhood, you and your three kids can live in this lovely two-room place on the edge of town"), or corruption ("so you run the car dealership, I was just thinking of getting a new car. I'm sure it would look lovely in the driveway of that four bedroom house that recently opened up on Cherry St").

[jamon g]

Arjan's solution is a unit for everyone that you can't sell, so you'd better decide how many kids you're going to have when you leave home. Heaven forbid you get a job far away from home, you'll have to fly to work each day. It'll also be great when they put a train track on one side of you and an airport on the other side! I think what I'll do is get one for me, one for my wife next door, my friend his gf, one each for my kids, my mum, step dad grandad will need one and grandma. I'm pretty sure I could arrange an entire apartment complex for myself and extended family. Unless the communist states going to monitor sleeping arrangements they're going to have to build for each individual.
Don't know why we're focusing on houses though, why should we pay for energy use, food, clothes, petrol and cars? Seems a bit unfair!

[Johnny Henning]

The thing is that the system we currently have, the one that runs the entire world, sort of goes against human nature, as well. Money is supposed and expected to be our primary motivation, but that's not really how we work. For example:

Love that.

That's the thing - humans are still basically animals that are aware of reason but at the same time, and fortunately in many cases, we don't really use it that often or as effectively as we could. Reason can also be "machine thinking" and somewhat inhuman in itself.

You can pretty much criticize any economic system as unrealistic, but we live in a "real" world where you can give someone a piece of paper and receive a car. Or give them a piece of plastic that they will give you back and only pay for part of the car just with your promise that you will have paid them more than the asking price over a few years.

And, obviously, that's not the strangest arrangement in our current system.

I think rather than reason or emotion, human beings are creatures of imagination. We all live in worlds that are more what we imagine they are than what they "really" are. A deer in the woods or even a chimp in a zoo - they live in worlds that are far more real than ours.

So, in the end, any system that "makes sense" -- like pure capitalism or pure Marxism - probably is too reasonable for human nature. We are social animals and there is a natural inclination to share, play fair and help others in our natures. Also, we are animals, so fear and hatred (the primary components of greed) are in our nature as well.

But I think our imagination, if anything can, is what will save us. Unlike other animals we have the capacity to envision things in our minds and make them happen in our environment. I think we first need to recognize that we already live in an unrealistic, invented world before we criticize new or contrary ideas as unrealistic.

[Christian U]

God, I hope so, Jonny. The recent decades have been frustratingly poor in imagination where our societies are concerned.

[Johnny Henning]

And, there again, I think the lack of imagination - and humanity - has been more on the "capitalist" side of the equation than the social or "socialist." As we are seeing, the ideas of the free market and these "austerity" programs and the concept of the "balanced budget" are not beneficial to the markets or the majority of people participating in the system.

[garjones]

I do want to know what will happen to my houses though. I don't get a company pension so my retirement rests in some part on those properties. Not every landlord is a faceless corporation or a evil slum keeper. I charge my tenant in Swansea about 30% below the going rate (and pay his TV license fee as it's a point of principle for me as a supporter of the BBC) as he's a good guy and I'm looking at long term investment rather than fleecing for easy cash.

For all parties if you change a rule midstream, and I'm not against rethinking large parts of the way we work property, then it has to be seen to be fair.

[Johnny Henning]

Not every landlord is a faceless corporation or a evil slum keeper.

Link?

[Ogul]

You can pretty much criticize any economic system as unrealistic, but we live in a "real" world where you can give someone a piece of paper and receive a car. Or give them a piece of plastic that they will give you back and only pay for part of the car just with your promise that you will have paid them more than the asking price over a few years.

Have you ever read the Terry Pratchett book "Making Money?" You should.

For all parties if you change a rule midstream, and I'm not against rethinking large parts of the way we work property, then it has to be seen to be fair.

Oh, certainly. Any major reorganization of the sort Arjan proposed would pretty much have to include some level of bailout for all or most of the people involved. They couldn't just say "you can't sell property anymore" without giving people the opportunity to cash out.

[Christian U]

Not every landlord is a faceless corporation or a evil slum keeper.

I refuse to believe that. So which one are you, "Mr." Gareth Jones?!

Also, I'll be spending a bit of time in Swansea this summer, so if you want me to inconspiciously check on your tenant...

Edited by Christian U, 05 May 2012 - 05:44 PM.

[garjones]

Link?

Link to me. I'm lovely.

Jokes aside it actually goes back to Jamon's rather ambiguous thread on morals but in the two properties I let out I take lower than the best rate I can get. The reasons are both self serving and altruistic. I want those guys to stay as they are reliable and dependable and I'm a remote owner that doesn't need any headaches.

I also want them to get a good deal and a certain principle means I will pay things like that BBC license fee even though a landlord normally wouldn't. He doesn't want the specifics which is why everyone selects "it depends" because for most of us our decisions are based on a list of pros and cons. My wife was offered a doubling of her salary last year to move to Dalian in China. My company has a centre there too which means I could move on the same terms I have now, quids in. We decided against after weighing up a huge number of factors including education for the kids, family contact and her office politics.

Money alone lost on that decision, maybe next time it won't.

[Arjan Dirkse]

And, there again, I think the lack of imagination - and humanity - has been more on the "capitalist" side of the equation than the social or "socialist." As we are seeing, the ideas of the free market and these "austerity" programs and the concept of the "balanced budget" are not beneficial to the markets or the majority of people participating in the system.

But what is your example of socialist? The Soviet Union thought itself socialist, and they were as wrong as two left shoes. China may have some economic success, but I stilll wouldn't trade my life for that of the average Chinese citizen.

If you're thinking social democracy, they've been fairly succesful, but every system has problems.

Every single country has to balance their budget to some degree, it's a simple matter of the imperfections of our reality. Luxury, wealth and ease of living are difficult to come by anywhere.

[Ogul]

But what is your example of socialist? The Soviet Union thought itself socialist, and they were as wrong as two left shoes. China may have some economic success, but I stilll wouldn't trade my life for that of the average Chinese citizen.

It's tough to use them as examples though. I think governments don't fall properly on a left-right single axis, but rather on a grid, of Darwinism/Socialism on one axis, and Fascism/Democratic on the other. The former is the axis of economies, the latter the axis of society, and while they do interact, you can have a fascist and socialist state, or a fascist and Darwinist state, and they would have very similar social burdens, but very different ways of supporting people. Both China and Russia would fall into the Fascist/Socialist state model, while someplace like Sweden would be more of a Socialist/Democratic country, and the US would be near the center on the economic axis, leaning towards Darwinist, and nearer to the edge of the Democratic axis.

[garjones]

But what is your example of socialist?

That's an eternal argument of definition.

Most often in the US that is directly equated with Communism, in France they have a socialist branded party that will support the status quo in healthcare of private medicine and government insurance. The UK which has a right wing party in charge says (although they are trying to sneak more private interest in) they would never stop doctors being mainly government employees. The doctors, as said by Mike here and all their unions don't want to be privately employed. They like 'socialised' medicine.

That's one example in one area but it shows the complexity involved. All of our countries employ a mix of socialist and capitalist models. Libraries are socialist and stock markets are capitalist. All of us have both.

[Christian U]

Bit like the political compass we've done a few times then, isn't it?

It's tough to use them as examples though. I think governments don't fall properly on a left-right single axis, but rather on a grid, of Darwinism/Socialism on one axis, and Fascism/Democratic on the other. The former is the axis of economies, the latter the axis of society, and while they do interact, you can have a fascist and socialist state, or a fascist and Darwinist state, and they would have very similar social burdens, but very different ways of supporting people. Both China and Russia would fall into the Fascist/Socialist state model, while someplace like Sweden would be more of a Socialist/Democratic country, and the US would be near the center on the economic axis, leaning towards Darwinist, and nearer to the edge of the Democratic axis.

Edited by Christian U, 05 May 2012 - 06:10 PM.