perfect resource allocation by perfectly rational actors acting on perfect information) you have to enact regulations
The market doesn't achive that. There need to be inefficiencies like the surplus for the market to work. Regulations can improve the efficiency, but too many regulations kill the market. Then it's better to change to government services, with their own inefficiencies.
Forbidding luxery apartments is a bad regulation. Who is judging that? But introducing a tax on unrented apartments is good. People will rent out their luxery apartments to regular people to still be profitable.
The issue that noone wants to, or can, pay the rents that those people demand.
Because there is no surplus. Empty apartments already cost money because the renovation has to be refinanced. If prices don't go up, it would be foolish to not offer them for less rent to minimize losses.
The bottleneck is not greedy investores. It's the approval process and lack of plots. If the snow safe roof is needed, then allow it everywhere. Every regulation has its use, but the approval process must be fast.
Um der Entwicklung entgegenzuwirken, schlagen die Experten eine Reihe von Maßnahmen vor. Dazu gehören die Beschleunigung von Genehmigungsprozessen durch digitale Verfahren, der Abbau bürokratischer Hürden sowie eine bessere Ausstattung der Behörden mit Personal. Zusätzlich sollten Städte und Gemeinden gezielter Bauland ausweisen und aktivieren.
This is just a random link from searching for the bottleneck in construction.
Getting rid of regulations that ensure that the city looks nice, is liveable, is walkable, that housing is healthy to live in, the whole shebang, would have untold macroeconomic costs down the line.
That's a different, even more important issue. There can be costs but there are also many opportunities. That debate will never happen because it is stuck here, at single housing problems, between believers in regulation and free markets.
To bring us back to appliances, there are also many opportunities like unified standards for their network connections or solid lifetime statistics. Ultimately citizens themselves have to organize and demand it. Letting the EU regulate the market prevents the citizens from organizing. Likewise, if the housing market would deteriorate more, those syndicates would be common and not the exception. I would expect a much better housing situation and a platform to discuss better city development.
Companies could restructure and hire everybody as independend contractors, paying for work and not time.
If companies play along, work would move to the most productive areas. Workers would be fired and leave low productive areas and move to where the work is.
Ultimately this should lead to some highly populated areas in the world while the rest is empty.
Angeblich werden ja alle Posten nach Parteizugehörigkeit vergeben, damit keine Partei zu viel Einfluss hat. Die Parteizugehörigkeit wird also gecheckt.
Wie garantiert man das Gegenteil, dass alle Führungskräfte objektiv und unabhängig sind? Der Einfluss ist zu gross als dass die Parteien dann nicht Mitarbeiter ohne Parteibuch positionieren würden.
For me, the context was surplus to drive prices down. If you want to avoid surplus, you need other ways to regulate prices. Do you just want to fix prices for many things and otherwise let companies figure out how to supply the things for the given price?
“Manipulation” implies intent to achieve that state of affairs, and, no, that wasn’t the goal of capital. Capital wanted ROI and looked for it in the wrong place.
It is a political decision to keep the housing market stable. If the market goes down, many people lose their retirement provisions.
There are not enough plots, in Germany the rent is capped but the building requirements don't allow to reduce costs. Change those, and capital will build more housing. But capital doesn't matter. Those syndicates could build all housing, but they can't, because the housing market is politically manipulated.
In the US, yes. Europe by and large doesn’t have such inane laws.
There are enough laws in Germany that you cannot have a prefabricated house and build it everywhere without ajustments. Low tech high risers should bring rent down to a fraction but they are not allowed to be built.
The middle class would be paying the taxes for public UBI, too. The problem is that the huge part of social insurance money would be paid twice if it is a club, once as taxes for the general population and once as membership fees to the club for unemployed members.
A UBI club is an investment in social change. It does not have to fully make economic sense but needs members who want the change and are willing to pay for it.
If UBI is on top of social insurance money for members, instead of diminishing it, and if money given to the club is tax deductable, the economics should make sense. So it may need some political change.
Like you say, UBI is sharing income with lower income people. If that is not acceptable for a huge part of the population it would not be possible to introduce it.
why such stuff should be allowed in the first place,
Because we have a market economy. We can switch to planning, but that has its own disadvantages
why should ordinary folks have trouble getting apartments just so that some rich fucks can try to make profit.
They should not. It's market manipulation that we don't have enough apartments. With different zoning laws or more plots to built, there would be enough apartments.
speculators throwing money around, artificially increasing property, land, and construction prices.
Tax empty housing, or housing in general, and speculation will disappear.
Still the rent prices you can achieve with that are nothing like you see on the open market.
In which way? Why are those apartments not on the open market?
It is irrational to expect rational behaviour from people.
That's also why people shouldn't be forced to be rational. The Sovjet Union was forcing people to be rational but people weren't happy.
Who would join a club to do UBI in a private way? Pay a fraction of one's income into a pool that is distributed among all members.
The disadvantage would be that everybody would expect each member to work at first. In the long run, the club could try to have capital to reduce the need for work.
If that gets big enough, UBI for everybody would be possible without having to create a political change.
Bismark turned private health insurance of the unions into a service by the state to weaken the unions, as well as introducted retirement pensions.
It's funny that the unions and regular citizens keep that power in the hand of the state instead of organizing it themselves, independend of whatever party is in power.
A surplus in supply would threaten them with an infinite time to wait for their target ROI.
the solution is regulation in the form of taxing vacant property
fully agree
If you don’t want all the power to end up with whoever happens to have money you gotta stomp people with money at some point or the other
Fiat currency. Public banks can hand out credits to whomever wants to build with a solid calculation.
If you don’t want all the power to end up with whoever happens to have money you gotta stomp people with money at some point or the other
You tax them. Of course only possible if the masses are not manipulated. Drones and AI, stomping would only be possible for something like 5 more years. Afterwards there is not much more power left.
120 Euro fridges turning into 150 Euros fridges
More like 120 Euro fridges leave the market and 150 Euro fridges cost 200 Euros.
Building things in a solid way is a different thing than blinging it out: Don’t push designers to get rid of the fourth bolt for the attachment plate, don’t save fifty cents by buying cheap lubricant
I want to live in a society where people choose the solid products on their own. Everything else calls for trouble down the line.
May increase GDP in the broken window way but who the hell wants that.
Oder es ist anders rum. Die AfD verspricht, die Korruption in der Politik zu durchbrechen. Die Wut über die Korruption ist inzwischen so groß, dass die Wähler bereit sind, die braune Gefahr ähnlich einer Atombombe ins Spiel zu bringen, da alles andere ausgereizt ist. D.h. die Leute checken die Gefahr und wollen die Drohung.
Konkret hier, die AfD könnte nicht die Abschaffung des ÖRR fordern, wenn dieser gut wäre.
The main bottleneck for the housing market is land in areas where people want to live. People have to pay whatever they can to live close to their work. If demand is so big, of course only housing with the highest margins is developed, which is the luxery market.
The speculative capital is flowing because the high demand keeps prices stable. If there would be a surplus to the point that the speculative capital doesn't find a buyer when selling, prices would be much lower.
The backing for the high prices are the real tenants though who want to live where they work.
Appliances don't need the speculative capital to become expensive. It is enough if there is less competition. Then customers can't 'move' to other products and have to pay whatever is demanded.
If the requirements stay limited to an extended warranty then things can remain competitive but I doubt that the regulations will end there. This should take cheap Chinese brands off the market that don't have a support network in Europe. That's good for nature, but it removes the cheap options off the market which will allow the market to rise the prices for the cheapest durable goods.
It's not so much that you become a fascist but that third parties see you body shaming and it stops being possible to argue that fascists are bad because they do body shaming or make fun of other minorities.
The market doesn't achive that. There need to be inefficiencies like the surplus for the market to work. Regulations can improve the efficiency, but too many regulations kill the market. Then it's better to change to government services, with their own inefficiencies.
Forbidding luxery apartments is a bad regulation. Who is judging that? But introducing a tax on unrented apartments is good. People will rent out their luxery apartments to regular people to still be profitable.
Because there is no surplus. Empty apartments already cost money because the renovation has to be refinanced. If prices don't go up, it would be foolish to not offer them for less rent to minimize losses.
The bottleneck is not greedy investores. It's the approval process and lack of plots. If the snow safe roof is needed, then allow it everywhere. Every regulation has its use, but the approval process must be fast.
https://tageswirtschaft.org/warnung-vor-zunehmendem-engpass-auf-dem-wohnungsmarkt
This is just a random link from searching for the bottleneck in construction.
That's a different, even more important issue. There can be costs but there are also many opportunities. That debate will never happen because it is stuck here, at single housing problems, between believers in regulation and free markets.
To bring us back to appliances, there are also many opportunities like unified standards for their network connections or solid lifetime statistics. Ultimately citizens themselves have to organize and demand it. Letting the EU regulate the market prevents the citizens from organizing. Likewise, if the housing market would deteriorate more, those syndicates would be common and not the exception. I would expect a much better housing situation and a platform to discuss better city development.